I agree with open sourcing or making cheap the Lotus suite as a basis for OpenOffice or something like that... but to say it's in the same league as Office is kind of reaching I think.
When WordPerfect and Lotus ruled supreme, Microsoft kept releasing builds that progressively got more features and smarter. Lotus may not have "bells and whistles", but a lot of simple things like mail merges and formatting was atrocious, where Microsoft made it easier and smarter to do.
I think that's an issue with a LOT of Open Source products... it's hard to manage a project like that though. Firefox however, is one of the projects that has a clear development focus and team at the high level, so the inputs on the CVS side are meaningful and bugfixes are great.
I guess time will tell... I wouldn't trade Office 2007 for anything else right now though:)
I think OO is a pretty good product, but given the choice of using Office 2007 or OpenOffice, I chose the former. My work pays for it and it's better anyway. Free is free, right?:)
But OpenOffice has a long, long way to go. The fit and finish, polish and performance of Microsoft Office to this point, is unparalleled. I'm not a Microsoft fanboy, but I'm not a Microsoft hater either. I'm just a realist.
When OpenOffice can step up its interface, design, compatibility, and market share, then we might have something to talk about. But as we sit right now, Microsoft Office is the only game in town that does what it does.
It only helps Microsoft to build products on top of Office, like Sharepoint, Project, etc... because they leverage an already existing knowledge of the UI and functionality. Office 2007 is a drastic departure from prior versions, but as I have been using it since the RTM date, it's been rock solid and I'm exceptionally pleased at how much more intelligent it has gotten, in particular with Excel and figuring out what I want to do, or in Word with how I'm formatting a document.
I still am hoping for a kickass version of OpenOffice though, just so that Microsoft doesn't rest on its laurels. Office 2007 indicates that they did anything but, and the polish of that product is something that I'm very surprised by, especially by Microsoft. Kudos to them for this round.
Taking that out of the equation, there ARE games that EA has that are great titles, new IP...
But they continue the same work environment and make it horrendous to work on a game that you may take great pride in. And after all is said and done, unlike id Software who rewards their programmers and staffers after a launch, EA just expects the team to get back to work on "part 2" of the game.
It's a shame EA is one of the biggest publishing houses.
Their franchise games like Madden, NBA, NHL, etc.. they are the cash cows. They change slightly and the amount of development that goes into the games is slight compared to games like Spore -- games that rethink the way players should be playing.
I have had friends leave EA (one a DBA, another a C# engine developer) because of their work environment. It might be cool to work for a video game company, but if they insist on slavish hours in order to meet product timelines, release dates, etc... they take that out on the employees and value little after the title has shipped.
The point initially made is correct -- we need new types of games, new IP that is innovative and fun. But we won't get it from EA. We need to watch the independent studios get investment dollars from the likes of Microsoft, EA, etc... in order to create and produce those titles. It's why I've always been a fan of id Software, Valve Software, and Bungie Studios. And of course, Blizzard. They invented the motto of the game being "done when it's done". EA should take a line from them and stop promising deadlines and overworking their employees in order to meet a hypothetical goal that some idiot cooked up based on some strange logic. When the game is ready, then it's ready. Not before, not after.
It's why all the new IP that comes out of EA is inherently buggy and requires patch after patch to play. Blizzard games work 100%, right out of the box. Some EA games can't even be finished until they are patched.
The benefit the iPhone provides most of us (in geekdom), is that it is a revolutionary way to surf the web on a mobile device. All the mobile devices until today cannot surf with even a modicum of the pleasure you get with the iPhone.
That said, it's overpriced for what it is. And the people buying it up right now are only paving the way for Microsoft and others to fix up their mobile OSes to deliver cheaper devices capable of much of the same things as the iPhone. Only they will have replaceable batteries, cheaper cost (subsidized by the carrier), and 3G.
Apple makes a habit of ensuring that you as a consumer are 'locked in' to their platform. In every way, shape and form. They are turning into yet another Microsoft, from another angle. I am rather alarmed that people don't realize that Apple is no different than Microsoft in that they want market share for their devices, and they want money. There are no lofty goals with Apple, just cute looking devices that have a cult following. I will give them, that their OS is better than Vista. But they had the luxury of being able to dump support for older applications, where MS does not. Their presentation is better than Microsoft but again, Microsoft delivers software with an API that can be written against. Apple is a closed architecture, especially with the iPhone.
When people realize that Apple is no different than Microsoft, they will choose devices and software based upon need and usage requirements, rather than a religious belief to either company. I run a Mac laptop as my only laptop, but my home PC is a dual boot of Ubuntu and Vista. I'm mostly on Vista, admittedly -- but it's for gaming and I love my games:)
Me personally? I'll be waiting for the next generation iPhone to be released before I make a choice in buying anything. My iPod works fine and I enjoy the 3G speed of my Samsung Blackjack. And hopefully by then, Microsoft has made an answering shot to the iPhone and I'll have the ability to choose the device suited best for me. Slow, deliberate choices are the ones I make after taking time to think about it. If I see another moron carrying the iPhone and using it in a way just to show it off, I am going to smack them.
Is a huge reason we dread getting Vista here. Compatibility isn't too much of an issue, we have been doing preliminary testing and found a reasonable expectation with it to work with our software.
However, having to set up an activation server, have users log back in every 180 days... is just idiotic.
If we get audited, we get screwed anyway. So why make it so difficult?
Paid training 2 times a year for more or less anything I want (job related), and new technologies always coming to our door nearly for free, due to the size of our organization.
I weighed my options carefully when I took the job, and I wasn't aware of the working hours honestly -- it just seemed that this was a place that understood a work/life balance. Of course, start-ups understand that too, they just think it's more 80% work, 20% life. I got a different vibe when I interviewed and asked questions, and like anything... took a gamble.
Totally. But there are two sides to the coin on this...
Understand, that not every industry works on innovation. Lots of industries have a simple product to offer, and require hard sales numbers to grow. So the company offers huge incentives to sales people to get numbers through based on commissions. Does that mean your IT department doesn't run as well as it should? Probably.
The smaller companies that make a dent into the big corporations get bought out. The ones that innovate and create new and exciting products, new technologies, they are almost entirely startups. Google changes that slightly since they are more innovative in their day-to-day operations, and the 20% initiative that gets converted into real products is well... a great thing. But Google will stagnate internally, and as Microsoft has in the past, will acquire technology and people in order to have them re-innovate. Mark Rusinovich (of Sysinternals fame) was adopted into Microsoft to help build out Vista. And looking at the 'under the hood' improvements to Windows, it's been pretty amazing. Sure, on the surface it's not there as many plainly point out, but the innovation is still working its machinery. But give Rusinovich some time, and he too will stagnate. And there will be the next big thing.
Until then, I am happy in my secure, well paying job with good upward mobility and good work/life balance. The people who are more motivated than me to develop technology and cutting edge stuff for the next generation, they will be the millionaires and billionaires. I can live without the money I think, because I still do pretty decent. Maybe when I've had and raised my kids, will I get the motivation to restart getting out of my life to do 'something' else.
There are plenty of older people who made their first million later in life. I don't mind being one of them:)
I spent time working up my resume to get noticed at Google or Microsoft to get a job. I really wanted to work in a field that was 'techie' and that I was working for a company I believed in.
Then I got a job at a video game company. It was a smaller firm, but a lot of fun to work at. People were all young (I'm only 26), they had free food and lots of perks. You could go to work in shorts and a tshirt.
But then I started to see the down sides of it all. I worked long hours, and often worked from home. My health insurance wasn't anything special. Being on email till the wee hours of the night was an annoyance.
And then I found another job, and left.
Now I work for a place I have no real feeling of accomplishment, nor is it a place I yearned to work for. But I get in at 10am, I am out the door at the latest by 6pm. I don't work from home. I don't get on email after I leave work. Emergencies come up and then I take care of them, but I am able to separate my work life from my personal life with great distinction. My co-workers are in their 30s and 40s and 50s, all of them have families and leave on time to make sure that they are home to pick up their kids, play with them, and be at their soccer games. They encourage me to leave work and go out on a date, watch a movie, read a book, and do something constructive. They know that working isn't the point of life, but merely a part of it.
And now at the age of 26, I finally have a job that I yearned for, but didn't know I wanted.
Do yourselves a favor -- find a job that will let you live your life reasonably. You will be better at your job because you appreciate it, not because you are dying for it.
To open up Windows to have a different default Kernel.
It is obviously an anti-trust matter when the OS in question doesn't allow for choice of kernel.
Sarcasm aside.... if they can prove the fact the search API is shitty and slows them down compared to Microsoft's internal search, then I say fine -- make Microsoft fix it. But to change the default search in an OS? Give me a break.
Searching and finding files and folders on a computer is something that is necessary to have in an operating system. If Google thinks they can do better, they have the option to make a version of Linux or a separate OS, and compete with Microsoft. But right now, to the victor go the spoils, and this is hardly a spoil of any war I've seen.
It's tailored more to finding local stories that impact you and report on them as an amateur, but has also been lent in the same way the ACLU is working now.
I am a big fan of the police, but dirty cops make me sick to my stomach. If they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't worry about the cameras.
I did RTFA... I would concede that MS make available the API to build a better search, and if they are writing code to slow down the other desktop searches, to stop that. You didn't read my comment -- it was the point of setting MS's search to default. It SHOULD be the default. If somebody comes along and makes a better desktop search, I have no qualms with it working, and MS should enable their OS to allow for that fact.
The only issue I take is that they are allowing to change the default search for their OS. That's like making Apple change it so that a Google Desktop comes standard, and Spotlight is disabled. It's idiotic, and not necessary.
If anybody needs to RTFA, it's you. I didn't write what you are suggesting.
I mean, they have Spotlight and that's Apple-only and bundled, right?
To have an embedded search utility on an OS just seems logical. Microsoft may be hated around here, but for an OS maker to change the default search to something else just seems stupid. They are bundling it because it's an OS and it needs a desktop search.
Well not really, but more of an anti Sony fanboy, so my hopes is that HD-DVD wins the battle. It has all the underpinnings to win -- price, distribution, and factories already set to create the media.
That said... If we look at Blockbuster's history, we know that they will choose the wrong format and just further their competitors. A business whose model used to be that late fees would produce the majority of revenue, has such brilliant leadership that obviously, Blu-Ray is going to win.
Vista has a better under-the-hood structure than did XP. But by keeping support of XP applications, Vista was limited in the strides it could make forward, because it needed to keep backwards compatibility.
Now the next OS past Vista is going to need to be backwards compatible to Vista, but not to XP necessarily. The benefit of this is that they can really make some strides on that one, versus what Vista has to offer.
I'm not terribly impressed with Vista, but I know Microsoft has some very bright engineers. I know the Slashdot crowd will always boo and jeer at Microsoft, but in the end, their programmers are just as good if not better (in many cases) than anybody in the Linux, Mac, or Unix worlds. The brilliance of their programmers isn't really the question here, it's a limitation on what they can and cannot do. Apple has had it easy, since they just dumped their prior OS entirely and built one anew. If Microsoft did that, they'd lose billions -- but I'm quite certain that they would have a very nice OS after the fact.
Either way... lessons will be learned as time goes by by all software companies, and that only benefits us in the end. Although with the pricing of Vista, and the number of editions... it worries me about the future and what the "business" thinks how it should be marketed.
Slashdot Mirror
I said it was a departure from the old.... if you can't figure it out in less than a minute you shouldn't be near a computer, period.
I agree with open sourcing or making cheap the Lotus suite as a basis for OpenOffice or something like that... but to say it's in the same league as Office is kind of reaching I think.
When WordPerfect and Lotus ruled supreme, Microsoft kept releasing builds that progressively got more features and smarter. Lotus may not have "bells and whistles", but a lot of simple things like mail merges and formatting was atrocious, where Microsoft made it easier and smarter to do.
I think that's an issue with a LOT of Open Source products... it's hard to manage a project like that though. Firefox however, is one of the projects that has a clear development focus and team at the high level, so the inputs on the CVS side are meaningful and bugfixes are great.
:)
I guess time will tell... I wouldn't trade Office 2007 for anything else right now though
I think OO is a pretty good product, but given the choice of using Office 2007 or OpenOffice, I chose the former. My work pays for it and it's better anyway. Free is free, right? :)
But OpenOffice has a long, long way to go. The fit and finish, polish and performance of Microsoft Office to this point, is unparalleled. I'm not a Microsoft fanboy, but I'm not a Microsoft hater either. I'm just a realist.
When OpenOffice can step up its interface, design, compatibility, and market share, then we might have something to talk about. But as we sit right now, Microsoft Office is the only game in town that does what it does.
It only helps Microsoft to build products on top of Office, like Sharepoint, Project, etc... because they leverage an already existing knowledge of the UI and functionality. Office 2007 is a drastic departure from prior versions, but as I have been using it since the RTM date, it's been rock solid and I'm exceptionally pleased at how much more intelligent it has gotten, in particular with Excel and figuring out what I want to do, or in Word with how I'm formatting a document.
I still am hoping for a kickass version of OpenOffice though, just so that Microsoft doesn't rest on its laurels. Office 2007 indicates that they did anything but, and the polish of that product is something that I'm very surprised by, especially by Microsoft. Kudos to them for this round.
of somebody wearing spandex and a helmet.
Make sure you pirate MP3s.
Taking that out of the equation, there ARE games that EA has that are great titles, new IP...
But they continue the same work environment and make it horrendous to work on a game that you may take great pride in. And after all is said and done, unlike id Software who rewards their programmers and staffers after a launch, EA just expects the team to get back to work on "part 2" of the game.
It's a shame EA is one of the biggest publishing houses.
But I thought that the iPhone as it is now, is too "nano" for my storage needs.
I was waiting for Generation 2.
EA isn't willing to pay for it.
Their franchise games like Madden, NBA, NHL, etc.. they are the cash cows. They change slightly and the amount of development that goes into the games is slight compared to games like Spore -- games that rethink the way players should be playing.
I have had friends leave EA (one a DBA, another a C# engine developer) because of their work environment. It might be cool to work for a video game company, but if they insist on slavish hours in order to meet product timelines, release dates, etc... they take that out on the employees and value little after the title has shipped.
The point initially made is correct -- we need new types of games, new IP that is innovative and fun. But we won't get it from EA. We need to watch the independent studios get investment dollars from the likes of Microsoft, EA, etc... in order to create and produce those titles. It's why I've always been a fan of id Software, Valve Software, and Bungie Studios. And of course, Blizzard. They invented the motto of the game being "done when it's done". EA should take a line from them and stop promising deadlines and overworking their employees in order to meet a hypothetical goal that some idiot cooked up based on some strange logic. When the game is ready, then it's ready. Not before, not after.
It's why all the new IP that comes out of EA is inherently buggy and requires patch after patch to play. Blizzard games work 100%, right out of the box. Some EA games can't even be finished until they are patched.
Haha, touche to that :)
:)
But needless to say, I don't really carry my laptop in my pocket so I can't say it's a totally fair comparison
Interestingly enough, while I may be a "deluded idiot", you lack the reading comprehension to keep up with my comment.
I just said exactly the same thing you posted. Read slowly next time and maybe you'll get it.
The benefit the iPhone provides most of us (in geekdom), is that it is a revolutionary way to surf the web on a mobile device. All the mobile devices until today cannot surf with even a modicum of the pleasure you get with the iPhone.
:)
That said, it's overpriced for what it is. And the people buying it up right now are only paving the way for Microsoft and others to fix up their mobile OSes to deliver cheaper devices capable of much of the same things as the iPhone. Only they will have replaceable batteries, cheaper cost (subsidized by the carrier), and 3G.
Apple makes a habit of ensuring that you as a consumer are 'locked in' to their platform. In every way, shape and form. They are turning into yet another Microsoft, from another angle. I am rather alarmed that people don't realize that Apple is no different than Microsoft in that they want market share for their devices, and they want money. There are no lofty goals with Apple, just cute looking devices that have a cult following. I will give them, that their OS is better than Vista. But they had the luxury of being able to dump support for older applications, where MS does not. Their presentation is better than Microsoft but again, Microsoft delivers software with an API that can be written against. Apple is a closed architecture, especially with the iPhone.
When people realize that Apple is no different than Microsoft, they will choose devices and software based upon need and usage requirements, rather than a religious belief to either company. I run a Mac laptop as my only laptop, but my home PC is a dual boot of Ubuntu and Vista. I'm mostly on Vista, admittedly -- but it's for gaming and I love my games
Me personally? I'll be waiting for the next generation iPhone to be released before I make a choice in buying anything. My iPod works fine and I enjoy the 3G speed of my Samsung Blackjack. And hopefully by then, Microsoft has made an answering shot to the iPhone and I'll have the ability to choose the device suited best for me. Slow, deliberate choices are the ones I make after taking time to think about it. If I see another moron carrying the iPhone and using it in a way just to show it off, I am going to smack them.
Is a huge reason we dread getting Vista here. Compatibility isn't too much of an issue, we have been doing preliminary testing and found a reasonable expectation with it to work with our software.
However, having to set up an activation server, have users log back in every 180 days... is just idiotic.
If we get audited, we get screwed anyway. So why make it so difficult?
Paid training 2 times a year for more or less anything I want (job related), and new technologies always coming to our door nearly for free, due to the size of our organization.
:)
I weighed my options carefully when I took the job, and I wasn't aware of the working hours honestly -- it just seemed that this was a place that understood a work/life balance. Of course, start-ups understand that too, they just think it's more 80% work, 20% life. I got a different vibe when I interviewed and asked questions, and like anything... took a gamble.
My gamble paid off thus far
Totally. But there are two sides to the coin on this...
:)
Understand, that not every industry works on innovation. Lots of industries have a simple product to offer, and require hard sales numbers to grow. So the company offers huge incentives to sales people to get numbers through based on commissions. Does that mean your IT department doesn't run as well as it should? Probably.
The smaller companies that make a dent into the big corporations get bought out. The ones that innovate and create new and exciting products, new technologies, they are almost entirely startups. Google changes that slightly since they are more innovative in their day-to-day operations, and the 20% initiative that gets converted into real products is well... a great thing. But Google will stagnate internally, and as Microsoft has in the past, will acquire technology and people in order to have them re-innovate. Mark Rusinovich (of Sysinternals fame) was adopted into Microsoft to help build out Vista. And looking at the 'under the hood' improvements to Windows, it's been pretty amazing. Sure, on the surface it's not there as many plainly point out, but the innovation is still working its machinery. But give Rusinovich some time, and he too will stagnate. And there will be the next big thing.
Until then, I am happy in my secure, well paying job with good upward mobility and good work/life balance. The people who are more motivated than me to develop technology and cutting edge stuff for the next generation, they will be the millionaires and billionaires. I can live without the money I think, because I still do pretty decent. Maybe when I've had and raised my kids, will I get the motivation to restart getting out of my life to do 'something' else.
There are plenty of older people who made their first million later in life. I don't mind being one of them
Oh, I'm not doing too bad at all here :)
I spent time working up my resume to get noticed at Google or Microsoft to get a job. I really wanted to work in a field that was 'techie' and that I was working for a company I believed in.
Then I got a job at a video game company. It was a smaller firm, but a lot of fun to work at. People were all young (I'm only 26), they had free food and lots of perks. You could go to work in shorts and a tshirt.
But then I started to see the down sides of it all. I worked long hours, and often worked from home. My health insurance wasn't anything special. Being on email till the wee hours of the night was an annoyance.
And then I found another job, and left.
Now I work for a place I have no real feeling of accomplishment, nor is it a place I yearned to work for. But I get in at 10am, I am out the door at the latest by 6pm. I don't work from home. I don't get on email after I leave work. Emergencies come up and then I take care of them, but I am able to separate my work life from my personal life with great distinction. My co-workers are in their 30s and 40s and 50s, all of them have families and leave on time to make sure that they are home to pick up their kids, play with them, and be at their soccer games. They encourage me to leave work and go out on a date, watch a movie, read a book, and do something constructive. They know that working isn't the point of life, but merely a part of it.
And now at the age of 26, I finally have a job that I yearned for, but didn't know I wanted.
Do yourselves a favor -- find a job that will let you live your life reasonably. You will be better at your job because you appreciate it, not because you are dying for it.
To open up Windows to have a different default Kernel.
It is obviously an anti-trust matter when the OS in question doesn't allow for choice of kernel.
Sarcasm aside.... if they can prove the fact the search API is shitty and slows them down compared to Microsoft's internal search, then I say fine -- make Microsoft fix it. But to change the default search in an OS? Give me a break.
Searching and finding files and folders on a computer is something that is necessary to have in an operating system. If Google thinks they can do better, they have the option to make a version of Linux or a separate OS, and compete with Microsoft. But right now, to the victor go the spoils, and this is hardly a spoil of any war I've seen.
http://witness.org/
It's tailored more to finding local stories that impact you and report on them as an amateur, but has also been lent in the same way the ACLU is working now.
I am a big fan of the police, but dirty cops make me sick to my stomach. If they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't worry about the cameras.
I did RTFA... I would concede that MS make available the API to build a better search, and if they are writing code to slow down the other desktop searches, to stop that. You didn't read my comment -- it was the point of setting MS's search to default. It SHOULD be the default. If somebody comes along and makes a better desktop search, I have no qualms with it working, and MS should enable their OS to allow for that fact.
The only issue I take is that they are allowing to change the default search for their OS. That's like making Apple change it so that a Google Desktop comes standard, and Spotlight is disabled. It's idiotic, and not necessary.
If anybody needs to RTFA, it's you. I didn't write what you are suggesting.
I mean, they have Spotlight and that's Apple-only and bundled, right?
To have an embedded search utility on an OS just seems logical. Microsoft may be hated around here, but for an OS maker to change the default search to something else just seems stupid. They are bundling it because it's an OS and it needs a desktop search.
Well not really, but more of an anti Sony fanboy, so my hopes is that HD-DVD wins the battle. It has all the underpinnings to win -- price, distribution, and factories already set to create the media.
That said... If we look at Blockbuster's history, we know that they will choose the wrong format and just further their competitors. A business whose model used to be that late fees would produce the majority of revenue, has such brilliant leadership that obviously, Blu-Ray is going to win.
Oh... I forgot that tag.
Who has the highest emissions of anybody in the country.
I'm sure recycling computer parts will help out a LOT.
Vista has a better under-the-hood structure than did XP. But by keeping support of XP applications, Vista was limited in the strides it could make forward, because it needed to keep backwards compatibility.
Now the next OS past Vista is going to need to be backwards compatible to Vista, but not to XP necessarily. The benefit of this is that they can really make some strides on that one, versus what Vista has to offer.
I'm not terribly impressed with Vista, but I know Microsoft has some very bright engineers. I know the Slashdot crowd will always boo and jeer at Microsoft, but in the end, their programmers are just as good if not better (in many cases) than anybody in the Linux, Mac, or Unix worlds. The brilliance of their programmers isn't really the question here, it's a limitation on what they can and cannot do. Apple has had it easy, since they just dumped their prior OS entirely and built one anew. If Microsoft did that, they'd lose billions -- but I'm quite certain that they would have a very nice OS after the fact.
Either way... lessons will be learned as time goes by by all software companies, and that only benefits us in the end. Although with the pricing of Vista, and the number of editions... it worries me about the future and what the "business" thinks how it should be marketed.