"If they want separate pricing, they should have to use separate names."
If you knew anything about economics, you'd know that the cost of living, running a store, etc. in different areas is drastically different, so pricing reflects this. In addition, the cost of shipping from a warehouse is substantially cheaper than running a brick-and-mortar store with retail employees, lawsuits ("My little girl hit her head on the counter!") and so on. As such, online purchases eliminate much of that overhead, allowing the company to offer items for less.
In-store pricing is based on supply and demand in the surrounding market, just like locally-owned stores are.
Sure, they need to be more clear about it, but the reasoning for charging different prices in different markets is justified provided you know a little about economics and aren't all "ZOMG CORPORATE ENTITY! BASH BASH BASH!"
The Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix project was started with the intention of being a lean browser based on the Gecko engine because the Mozilla Suite (now Seamonkey) was so massively bloated that it was easier to essentially start over than it would've been to attempt to slim down the main codebase. Firefox absolutely did not start out being more bloated than Seamonkey, otherwise it would've betrayed the entire purpose of its existence.
It's not about customization so much as modifying art to create something different. Sure, most remixes are annoying and immeasurably worse than the original song, but anything that gets someone in "creation mode" rather than "consumption mode" is a good thing, in my opinion. This brings to mind Mill's Utilitarianism.
Some of us don't want to simply go to work, go home, consume, sleep, and repeat. At some point, all of those people you consider more knowledgeable about their respective arts started by knowing nothing about it. It was the drive to create (... or make money) and a bit of good fortune that brought them to where they are today.
I agree that usability improvements are somewhat difficult to find in Beryl. I've been running it for a while now, and I have very few options on because anything more is clutter and distracts me.
The biggest improvement I've found is that I can bind the option key (sadly aka. the Windows key) and my left mouse button to window resize, which completely eliminates the need to find the edges or corners of the windows to resize them. This is a very basic, yet huge improvement for me. When I first turned it on I thought it would be just as useless as the fire burning up the windows; fun to look at while providing no real benefit in terms of usability.
Actually, the reason it uses ActiveX is because the XMLHTTP request is an ActiveX function in IE. Something like this: http://www.w3schools.com/ajax/ajax_browsers.asp sorts through that specific issue. Well-developed AJAX applications are cross-platform and work in IE, Firefox, Opera, and Konqueror. Just because "Web 2.0" site developers don't know how to code properly doesn't mean AJAX isn't cross-platform.
I'm not privy to what exactly "IE-only functionality" is in your case, but perhaps you should rethink your application design if you can't find a way to create a cross-platform solution. With AJAX, Java, and various other technologies with excellent cross-platform support, the only justifications for creating an IE-only site seem to be either DRM systems or laziness.
Then again, we could also be dealing with the difference between a developer and an engineer. If you're hitting a point where IE-only functionality is appearing to be a good option, try rethinking what you need the application to do, and how it can do it, from the ground up. You'll probably find a much more future-proof and robust solution without sacrificing end-user functionality.
You're right in stating that the audience is what matters, but platform lock-in also requires you to be absolutely certain that your audience doesn't change, the platform you're on won't drastically change, and that you can live with absolutely no assurance of future-proofing by avoiding standards.
"One member of a geek squad was insulted when I said that the person who does a diagnostic should be qualified to do one -- not someone who just came in from the parking lot from collecting carriages."
I work in the warehouse for an electronics retail store, and I'm the one who "collects carriages." I consider myself a geek and do quite well with repairing computers; I simply prefer not to deal with people who have no respect for other human beings. I'd rather push carts than walk in circles trying to convince a customer I know what I'm talking about. I've turned down numerous sales position offers for precisely this reason.
Secondly, if you know so much about computers, why are you visiting the Geek Squad to begin with?
Retail/sales positions are terrible. Not because of management or low pay, but because of rude, inconsiderate and impatient customers. Each day, countless customers approach me--a non-sales employee--asking questions about products in whichever department I happen to be working in at the time (or even walking through while carrying a large, heavy box of some sort.) Nine times out of ten they immediately become visibly irritated when I politely explain that I'm going to find a sales associate to assist them. Sometimes I help them, such as with headphones, CD-Rs, etc. but when someone says "I want to buy a computer" I find the appropriate employee to help them because I have other tasks at hand... and it's not my job to begin with.
Sure, some (arguably many) sales associates are incompetent morons, but I still find it difficult to grasp that customers don't realize it's nearly impossible to know everything about every product in a large department store such as Best Buy. It's difficult enough knowing everything about a single department, much less the entire store. Go ahead and try learning everything there is to know about the 75+ different televisions sold at a given Best Buy location, including remembering the subtle differences between models of the same size and brand. Keep in mind that many of the televisions sold are not on display and you'll probably never see anything but the nearly generic brown boxes they are in, so visual cues are almost useless. There are no cheat-sheets or sales manuals listing the products in a department, and there are few brochures, if any. The same method applies to computers, car audio, etc. I don't envy anyone in a sales position at a retail electronics store.
To Microsoft, the core of the question really is about giving away Windows licenses for free; to install and run IE you're required to have a Windows license per the EULA. You're not allowed to use it how you want to because they say you can't. It's similar to a friend giving you a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup under the condition that you must eat it in the manner they explicitly describe. It's just not right, because there's no wrong way to browse teh intarwebs... unless you visit MySpace.
PLEASE NOTE: Microsoft Corporation (or based on where you live, one of its affiliates) licenses this supplement to you. You may use a copy of this supplement with each validly licensed copy of Microsoft Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1 software (the "software"). You may not use the supplement if you do not have a license for the software. The license terms for the software apply to your use of this supplement. Microsoft provides support services for the supplement as described at www.support.microsoft.com/common/international.asp x.
There are many rumors flying around about "trusted computing," ranging from it merely being an encryption system, to intrusive DRM to please the media outlets, to Microsoft not allowing "unsigned code" to run on Windows. Can you clarify the purpose and abilities of the system and why it is good for the security, rights, wants and needs of general consumers?
Slashdot Mirror
If you knew anything about economics, you'd know that the cost of living, running a store, etc. in different areas is drastically different, so pricing reflects this. In addition, the cost of shipping from a warehouse is substantially cheaper than running a brick-and-mortar store with retail employees, lawsuits ("My little girl hit her head on the counter!") and so on. As such, online purchases eliminate much of that overhead, allowing the company to offer items for less.
In-store pricing is based on supply and demand in the surrounding market, just like locally-owned stores are.
Sure, they need to be more clear about it, but the reasoning for charging different prices in different markets is justified provided you know a little about economics and aren't all "ZOMG CORPORATE ENTITY! BASH BASH BASH!"
The Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix project was started with the intention of being a lean browser based on the Gecko engine because the Mozilla Suite (now Seamonkey) was so massively bloated that it was easier to essentially start over than it would've been to attempt to slim down the main codebase. Firefox absolutely did not start out being more bloated than Seamonkey, otherwise it would've betrayed the entire purpose of its existence.
It's not about customization so much as modifying art to create something different. Sure, most remixes are annoying and immeasurably worse than the original song, but anything that gets someone in "creation mode" rather than "consumption mode" is a good thing, in my opinion. This brings to mind Mill's Utilitarianism. Some of us don't want to simply go to work, go home, consume, sleep, and repeat. At some point, all of those people you consider more knowledgeable about their respective arts started by knowing nothing about it. It was the drive to create (... or make money) and a bit of good fortune that brought them to where they are today.
I agree that usability improvements are somewhat difficult to find in Beryl. I've been running it for a while now, and I have very few options on because anything more is clutter and distracts me.
The biggest improvement I've found is that I can bind the option key (sadly aka. the Windows key) and my left mouse button to window resize, which completely eliminates the need to find the edges or corners of the windows to resize them. This is a very basic, yet huge improvement for me. When I first turned it on I thought it would be just as useless as the fire burning up the windows; fun to look at while providing no real benefit in terms of usability.
Actually, the reason it uses ActiveX is because the XMLHTTP request is an ActiveX function in IE. Something like this: http://www.w3schools.com/ajax/ajax_browsers.asp sorts through that specific issue. Well-developed AJAX applications are cross-platform and work in IE, Firefox, Opera, and Konqueror. Just because "Web 2.0" site developers don't know how to code properly doesn't mean AJAX isn't cross-platform.
I'm not privy to what exactly "IE-only functionality" is in your case, but perhaps you should rethink your application design if you can't find a way to create a cross-platform solution. With AJAX, Java, and various other technologies with excellent cross-platform support, the only justifications for creating an IE-only site seem to be either DRM systems or laziness. Then again, we could also be dealing with the difference between a developer and an engineer. If you're hitting a point where IE-only functionality is appearing to be a good option, try rethinking what you need the application to do, and how it can do it, from the ground up. You'll probably find a much more future-proof and robust solution without sacrificing end-user functionality. You're right in stating that the audience is what matters, but platform lock-in also requires you to be absolutely certain that your audience doesn't change, the platform you're on won't drastically change, and that you can live with absolutely no assurance of future-proofing by avoiding standards.
"One member of a geek squad was insulted when I said that the person who does a diagnostic should be qualified to do one -- not someone who just came in from the parking lot from collecting carriages."
I work in the warehouse for an electronics retail store, and I'm the one who "collects carriages." I consider myself a geek and do quite well with repairing computers; I simply prefer not to deal with people who have no respect for other human beings. I'd rather push carts than walk in circles trying to convince a customer I know what I'm talking about. I've turned down numerous sales position offers for precisely this reason.
Secondly, if you know so much about computers, why are you visiting the Geek Squad to begin with?
Retail/sales positions are terrible. Not because of management or low pay, but because of rude, inconsiderate and impatient customers. Each day, countless customers approach me--a non-sales employee--asking questions about products in whichever department I happen to be working in at the time (or even walking through while carrying a large, heavy box of some sort.) Nine times out of ten they immediately become visibly irritated when I politely explain that I'm going to find a sales associate to assist them. Sometimes I help them, such as with headphones, CD-Rs, etc. but when someone says "I want to buy a computer" I find the appropriate employee to help them because I have other tasks at hand... and it's not my job to begin with.
Sure, some (arguably many) sales associates are incompetent morons, but I still find it difficult to grasp that customers don't realize it's nearly impossible to know everything about every product in a large department store such as Best Buy. It's difficult enough knowing everything about a single department, much less the entire store. Go ahead and try learning everything there is to know about the 75+ different televisions sold at a given Best Buy location, including remembering the subtle differences between models of the same size and brand. Keep in mind that many of the televisions sold are not on display and you'll probably never see anything but the nearly generic brown boxes they are in, so visual cues are almost useless. There are no cheat-sheets or sales manuals listing the products in a department, and there are few brochures, if any. The same method applies to computers, car audio, etc. I don't envy anyone in a sales position at a retail electronics store.
There are many rumors flying around about "trusted computing," ranging from it merely being an encryption system, to intrusive DRM to please the media outlets, to Microsoft not allowing "unsigned code" to run on Windows. Can you clarify the purpose and abilities of the system and why it is good for the security, rights, wants and needs of general consumers?