It's curious how bandwidth and storage space are costly when talking about something reviled like spam (which is generally just text), yet bandwidth and storage space are absolutely free (or nearly so) when talking about online music or movie publishing.
There is at least one month a year when my mail server gets DDoSed offline from the insane amount of spam coming through. It would cost me too much to get a better setup. Additionally I'd say about 40% of spam the mail server receives has image attachments embedded in the message.
Can you name 100 different consumer electronic products that are selling well in markets today and have "Indian" code in them?
If I thought about it, likely far more.
We write code that goes in BIOS, firmware and the finnish linux kernel in thousands of american products that are selling making your fukn economy survive.
I am honestly sceptical that if Indians were removed from the equation that the economy would collapse some how.
You know what i truly cant find good American code.
That doesn't surprise me that you can't find any. Off the top of my head, three Americans who have written good freely available sourcecode for download online - Steve Gibson, Mark Rissinovich and Dave Cutler come to mind.
WTF? First post here and my paragraph breaks are gone? Sorry for the mega-paragraph, folks! I'll read and see what I needed to do to cause the breaks... br's or p's?
Post in plain old text mode instead of HTML formated.
First and foremost you need to realize that "getting a boy/girlfriend" is not like getting a pizza. It's not like an achievement in WoW. It's not a goal. If you treat it as such, you will be all uptight, needy and hopeless. It is simply choosing to spend time with someone and having them choose to spend time with you. It's simple, natural and normal.
When you break compatibility with everything that currently exists just for the sake of being new and different, that isn't innovation. Unfortunately many times when this happens it ends up getting called innovation because nobody has the guts to call it what it really is. Oh, but we have to scrap the old design because it wasn't forward thinking enough. Then in two years time, scrap the new one for the same reasons.
And yet my KDE3 applications run fine in KDE4. I'm pretty sure I could compile KDE2+KDE2 applications and run KDE2 applications in KDE4.
However, when you are looking for something that you know the author was adressing somewhere in Chapter 3, but you don't know the exact wording anymore, nothing beats opening a book and browsing quickly through the chapter. Something which is still rather hard to do in electronic form, due to its sequential nature.
*click chapter 3 on index and scroll as you read?*
And this guy writes science fiction? Geez - how short sighted of him. Libraries are neat. I have fond memories of them from my youth. But the Internet is awesome.
Important word here being "fiction". He's not writing science facts.
I think its funny when people talk about books being outdated. Yet they will spend 40 grand or more to go to college and what do they do there? Read books.
What are you talking about? College is for parties, not reading books.
But if you only read on the internet, then you are dependent on your ISP or other providers for access; you are effectively controlled by corporations and the government.
Aren't libraries ran by the government and corporations?
So, they know what you read. They know what you think of them. And if they do not like it, you will become part of the national suicide or car accident statistics pretty quickly.
You're trying to pass off something that could only have been taken as insulting by saying "only kidding".
Fine, I apologize that you don't get my humour.
Yet you're plenty interested in telling me what my needs in an office suite are.
To be honest, not really interested. I'm more interested in correcting a certain sentence that I have quoted four times.
Now that your personal issues are resolved, let's get back to the topic:
Well except for the fact that the ribbon reorganises itself so you can't ever find anything.
So far the best to prove this point is quote an article that isn't about the Ribbon interface and claim that the contextual tab that appears for only displaying tools is some how equal to "the ribbon reorganises itself so you can't ever find anything", despite the fact that everything else is still in the exact same place.
I don't see "reorganising" occurring here. I see a additional tab appearing for the context of the operation the exact same way a additional toolbar that would appear when editing a object in previous versions of office. Additionally, unlike the previous versions of office, it won't rearrange the buttons by rearranging the toolbars in certain instances.
I don't see how that can possibly make it even the slightest bit harder to find the tools that... Are still in the same place and haven't moved and haven't even been "reorganized".
On another note:
I was already convinced that MS zealots were by definition irrational
You would think if I was a MS zealot I would be running MS office on Windows right? Heh...
I suppose what I find amusing about the fact you think I'm a Linux zealot is the fact I spend a considerable amount of time working on helping people in my spare time with Linux distros and various FOSS projects (like Wine, Crossover, Freenet project etc).
I don't actually like Microsoft for many things, but I don't have a hatred for Microsoft to the point where anything they do is 'bad'. You probably won't take this suggestion since it's coming from me, but consider looking at yourself in a mirror. I know my failings, I know I am quite the asshole on Slashdot (just because I'm nice and patient when helping people on a support chat does not mean I will give the same courtesies on a tech forum where techies roam).
Apparently you can't accept that for me and for others this interface is rubbish.
Oh, I can accept that you don't like it and you don't want to use it. I just don't believe the majority of your arguments hold water.
Instead one of your first messages was to label me as some childish fool who'd hold a grudge against the company because they discontinued a game I like.
It's called a joke, you should try making one some time.
Well, you've demonstrated, repeatedly and in great detail that you don't know a thing about me.
Don't flatter yourself, but I was never really interested in knowing your person to begin with.
Apparently you can't accept that for me and for others this interface is rubbish.
Okay fine, you're right. I'm not really interested so much in talking about that on this thread because that is really just arguing something that neither of us are really capable of proving properly. Let's get back to the point I was really replying to.
No the original point I made was that the ribbon re-organises itself.
Sorry for the confusion, but I will repeat it a third time. now The point I was replying to:
Well except for the fact that the ribbon reorganises itself so you can't ever find anything.
I completely and utterly disagree with this statement and so far, you haven't provided really any real evidence to support this, you're strongest argument so far is:
It's additional buttons that appear and disappear as well as tabs.
And even that is pushing it, considering that it's just a new tab that appears and disappears that does not reorganize the previous buttons (they are exactly in the same place as before) and is completely useless in other situations.
I honestly fail to see how that equals to "the ribbon reorganises itself so you can't ever find anything."
if it's there one minute and not there the next.
Alright, you have a tiny point about the picture editing tab. Let's think about this logically - Let's say we force office to keep the picture toolbar like you could in 2003 (default setting is to hide it). The user clicks on the toolbar buttons, but the buttons do nothing, the user doesn't understand why it isn't working. Some how, in some way that is easier for the user to understand what is going on... What?
Considering that in office 2003, the appearance and disapearance of certain toolbars will cause other toolbars to reorganize themselves and considering it is a default setting, I am not really convinced the previous interface was that much superior for new users, power users and hamsters.
A power user doesn't get to see all of the buttons at a glance the way they can with a static bar.
I consider myself a power user in Word (Definition - A power user is a user of a personal computer who can use advanced features of programs which are outside the expertise of normal users). I don't even have the Ribbon showing when I'm working on Word (In other office applications I do because I am not as proficient in them), majority of my work in word is done just off keyboard shortcuts, nothing else. I fail to see how this prevents any real power user.
If I don't recall a shortcut to something specific (very rare), the most clicks I'll take is three with this new interface, most of the time, it's two. Compared to the older Office interface where it could require seven because some features were just not available as buttons in the toolbar and not directly accessible.
A power user doesn't even need to glance at the static bar now because all the items are in the same locations, it doesn't matter which computer he is using. There might be a slight difference with the sizes of
3. Automatic customisation based on "most used" stats could be turned off
Does not exist in Ribbon.
2. Determines what's on your toolbar for you, and as a user you don't get to customise it.
Not quite. It isn't customizable but it's always the same. Certain features tabs will only appear for very specific elements, but that doesn't really change the behaviour of Office, since it did that with certain toolbars.
Doesn't allow you to revert to the old interface without 3rd party addons
A learning curve to old users is the only problem I see here.
Which means that if you use several functions in a workflow you have to click wildly between ribbon tabs
A proficient user would use the keyboard short cuts. This was done intentionally because users have difficulty using office on different workstations because toolbars are moved etc.
"Contextual Tabs
Certain sets of commands are only relevant when objects of a particular type are being edited. For example, the commands for editing a chart are not relevant until a chart appears in a spreadsheet and the user is focusing on modifying it. Contextual tabs only appear when they are needed and make it much easier to find and use the commands needed for the operation at hand."
It doesn't change anything, it just appears as an extra tab for specific items. Like the picture toolbar that only appears when you're poking with a picture's internals, because it's absolutely useless without a picture being selected.
Have you even used Office 2007?
I'm going to stop finding evidence that it does because you seem incapable of admitting any kind of mistake.
There is no mistake. The original issue you brought up only effected the non-Ribbon interface. You make an issue about the interface changing and crap. I don't see how a additional tab appearing to handle a very specific task for what you're editing is relevant as you mention now - This is not shifting the previous menu items at all as claimed, they are EXACTLY in the same place still.
In other words, your argument, which I will quote again and the only thing I have been disputing so far:
Well except for the fact that the ribbon reorganises itself so you can't ever find anything.
is completely utterly wrong and a attempt at misinformation.
That is your argument and I don't see how it is correct, even when I go back through all the stuff you've quoted, I still don't see the evidence.
It's not good for new learners
I disagree, actions are in better contextual areas and not hidden anymore like before.
it's not good for power users
Why? Power users can still use keyboard short cuts like they always would and it's at most, three clicks to get to any action. Compared to before where it was possible you could be seven clicks at most (documented in Microsoft's own documentation on advantages over the old UI).
and it is less efficient and wastes time compared to the old.
Considering it's three clicks at most to begin/do any action, short cuts to every item too now -- I just don't see how it's less efficient.
It is nothing to do with Ribbon. Ribbon does not have personalized menus. Hell, look at the effected products in your article link, it doesn't have any of the applications that use the Ribbon listed from Microsot Office 2007.
If you had even used Office 2007 for a period of time on different machines, you would know this. Hell, if you knew the previous versions of Office well, you would know this. It has nothing to do with Ribbon, and it's part of the older Microsoft office interface which you seem to imply is superior to the Ribbon because the Ribbon changes when it infact, does not.
Even in Microsoft's documentation on how to build a Ribbon application are numerous references to not changing the layout of the ribbon - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc872782.aspx (See interaction - there is more information in their PDF files about it, which you need to agree to a license to before you can download them - but I can't be bothered to spend more than a minute looking on Google for it).
Slashdot Mirror
I can't find the advertising clause in the GPL license, so what exactly did he violate in the GPL license?
What you linked is not a jail, it is a rehabilitation centre. Check out the rehabilitation centres in the USA, some of them are quite comparable.
There is at least one month a year when my mail server gets DDoSed offline from the insane amount of spam coming through. It would cost me too much to get a better setup. Additionally I'd say about 40% of spam the mail server receives has image attachments embedded in the message.
If I thought about it, likely far more.
I am honestly sceptical that if Indians were removed from the equation that the economy would collapse some how.
That doesn't surprise me that you can't find any. Off the top of my head, three Americans who have written good freely available sourcecode for download online - Steve Gibson, Mark Rissinovich and Dave Cutler come to mind.
Post in plain old text mode instead of HTML formated.
I beg to differ.
Why you can't even make the effort to type 'you', I am sceptical of your claims.
And yet my KDE3 applications run fine in KDE4. I'm pretty sure I could compile KDE2+KDE2 applications and run KDE2 applications in KDE4.
*click chapter 3 on index and scroll as you read?*
Sorry, I don't see how that is any harder.
I could write a program to make the computer do a "shhhh" sound if I'm too noisy?
I would rather get a digital book off the web on the subject. It's easier to search and locate the exact information I want.
Important word here being "fiction". He's not writing science facts.
What are you talking about? College is for parties, not reading books.
Aren't libraries ran by the government and corporations?
Why are you posting as AC? They know who you are.
"Hi, Mom. Please set up a public key or we cannot communicate any more."
The only problem with that idea is that you won't really have anyone to talk to.
Firefox is derived from Netscape's sourcecode, which happens to be quite old.
Bizzaro vision!
Always mistakes, even though I preview the damn thing.
Oh dear, I said you said "Linux zealot" instead of "Windows zealot", well. Usually people call me a Linux zealot.
That was a stupid on my part, I meant "Windows zealot".
Fine, I have "presumptuous arrogance".
Fine, I apologize that you don't get my humour.
To be honest, not really interested. I'm more interested in correcting a certain sentence that I have quoted four times.
Now that your personal issues are resolved, let's get back to the topic:
So far the best to prove this point is quote an article that isn't about the Ribbon interface and claim that the contextual tab that appears for only displaying tools is some how equal to "the ribbon reorganises itself so you can't ever find anything", despite the fact that everything else is still in the exact same place.
I don't see "reorganising" occurring here. I see a additional tab appearing for the context of the operation the exact same way a additional toolbar that would appear when editing a object in previous versions of office. Additionally, unlike the previous versions of office, it won't rearrange the buttons by rearranging the toolbars in certain instances.
I don't see how that can possibly make it even the slightest bit harder to find the tools that... Are still in the same place and haven't moved and haven't even been "reorganized".
On another note:
You would think if I was a MS zealot I would be running MS office on Windows right? Heh...
I suppose what I find amusing about the fact you think I'm a Linux zealot is the fact I spend a considerable amount of time working on helping people in my spare time with Linux distros and various FOSS projects (like Wine, Crossover, Freenet project etc).
I don't actually like Microsoft for many things, but I don't have a hatred for Microsoft to the point where anything they do is 'bad'. You probably won't take this suggestion since it's coming from me, but consider looking at yourself in a mirror. I know my failings, I know I am quite the asshole on Slashdot (just because I'm nice and patient when helping people on a support chat does not mean I will give the same courtesies on a tech forum where techies roam).
Oh, I can accept that you don't like it and you don't want to use it. I just don't believe the majority of your arguments hold water.
It's called a joke, you should try making one some time.
Don't flatter yourself, but I was never really interested in knowing your person to begin with.
Okay fine, you're right. I'm not really interested so much in talking about that on this thread because that is really just arguing something that neither of us are really capable of proving properly. Let's get back to the point I was really replying to.
Sorry for the confusion, but I will repeat it a third time. now The point I was replying to:
I completely and utterly disagree with this statement and so far, you haven't provided really any real evidence to support this, you're strongest argument so far is:
And even that is pushing it, considering that it's just a new tab that appears and disappears that does not reorganize the previous buttons (they are exactly in the same place as before) and is completely useless in other situations.
I honestly fail to see how that equals to "the ribbon reorganises itself so you can't ever find anything."
Alright, you have a tiny point about the picture editing tab. Let's think about this logically - Let's say we force office to keep the picture toolbar like you could in 2003 (default setting is to hide it). The user clicks on the toolbar buttons, but the buttons do nothing, the user doesn't understand why it isn't working. Some how, in some way that is easier for the user to understand what is going on... What?
Considering that in office 2003, the appearance and disapearance of certain toolbars will cause other toolbars to reorganize themselves and considering it is a default setting, I am not really convinced the previous interface was that much superior for new users, power users and hamsters.
I consider myself a power user in Word (Definition - A power user is a user of a personal computer who can use advanced features of programs which are outside the expertise of normal users). I don't even have the Ribbon showing when I'm working on Word (In other office applications I do because I am not as proficient in them), majority of my work in word is done just off keyboard shortcuts, nothing else. I fail to see how this prevents any real power user.
If I don't recall a shortcut to something specific (very rare), the most clicks I'll take is three with this new interface, most of the time, it's two. Compared to the older Office interface where it could require seven because some features were just not available as buttons in the toolbar and not directly accessible.
A power user doesn't even need to glance at the static bar now because all the items are in the same locations, it doesn't matter which computer he is using. There might be a slight difference with the sizes of
Does not exist in Ribbon.
Not quite. It isn't customizable but it's always the same. Certain features tabs will only appear for very specific elements, but that doesn't really change the behaviour of Office, since it did that with certain toolbars.
A learning curve to old users is the only problem I see here.
A proficient user would use the keyboard short cuts. This was done intentionally because users have difficulty using office on different workstations because toolbars are moved etc.
It doesn't change anything, it just appears as an extra tab for specific items. Like the picture toolbar that only appears when you're poking with a picture's internals, because it's absolutely useless without a picture being selected.
Have you even used Office 2007?
There is no mistake. The original issue you brought up only effected the non-Ribbon interface. You make an issue about the interface changing and crap. I don't see how a additional tab appearing to handle a very specific task for what you're editing is relevant as you mention now - This is not shifting the previous menu items at all as claimed, they are EXACTLY in the same place still.
In other words, your argument, which I will quote again and the only thing I have been disputing so far:
is completely utterly wrong and a attempt at misinformation.
That is your argument and I don't see how it is correct, even when I go back through all the stuff you've quoted, I still don't see the evidence.
I disagree, actions are in better contextual areas and not hidden anymore like before.
Why? Power users can still use keyboard short cuts like they always would and it's at most, three clicks to get to any action. Compared to before where it was possible you could be seven clicks at most (documented in Microsoft's own documentation on advantages over the old UI).
Considering it's three clicks at most to begin/do any action, short cuts to every item too now -- I just don't see how it's less efficient.
Sounds like the same censorship used in most corporations to me.
No point having something written that the government is supposed to obide by when they won't. For examples of this, see USA.
Here is the same article for older versions of Office:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/193006
It is nothing to do with Ribbon. Ribbon does not have personalized menus. Hell, look at the effected products in your article link, it doesn't have any of the applications that use the Ribbon listed from Microsot Office 2007.
If you had even used Office 2007 for a period of time on different machines, you would know this. Hell, if you knew the previous versions of Office well, you would know this. It has nothing to do with Ribbon, and it's part of the older Microsoft office interface which you seem to imply is superior to the Ribbon because the Ribbon changes when it infact, does not.
Even in Microsoft's documentation on how to build a Ribbon application are numerous references to not changing the layout of the ribbon - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc872782.aspx (See interaction - there is more information in their PDF files about it, which you need to agree to a license to before you can download them - but I can't be bothered to spend more than a minute looking on Google for it).