Dotnaught writes "As Microsoft moves to offer software-as-a-service with Windows Live, online companies are moving to challenge Microsoft on the desktop. In a decision that would have been seen as foolish a few years ago, file sharing and social networking company TransMedia plans to release desktop productivity apps (in conjunction with online ones) as lightweight Microsoft Office alternatives. Google, meanwhile, through its deal with Intuit, is colonizing desktop apps as it has done with browsers and search toolbars. Microsoft used to have a home field advantage on the desktop, thanks to Windows. Lately, operating system ownership is looking a lot less valuable."
I really fail to see how this is a new advancement. The only real news that I see here is that some of these programs (OoO, Linux) are finally mature enough mature enough to challenge Microsoft. Haven't there always been other providers of desktop applications?
I don't see how this is unique threat to M$ either. From TFA's first sentence (underlining mine): A year after the release of its suite of online integrated media-sharing and social networking applications, Glide Effortless, TransMedia is redoubling its effort to challenge Apple, Microsoft, MySpace, and Google.
It's not about "advancement", it's about balance coming back to a market that Microsoft is seem to dominate (inevitably).
I would really love to see some other office suite take a majority share. I've been using Office97 since, well, 1997, mostly because I don't care enough about my office suite to purchase an upgrade. I _could_ use OpenOffice, but really, most of my use for an office suite is to open my colleagues' files, and OpenOffice doesn't open.doc files perfectly. It's close, but it's really not
I've never had any problems opening documents from newer versions of Word. To the best of my knowledge, they haven't changed the file spec at all since 97.
The reason its a threat to microsoft is that the applications are becomming web based(or multiplatform) and less OS dependent. Where 3 years ago you had to have the OS that the software was made for its now run on a server where the software is run on. So say word was web based you would be able to use word in OSX, Linux, Unix, Windows. This means big problems for Windows as an operating system if it caught on. I really doubt it would change the industry over night, but I can see why someone would be say
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday September 14 2006, @02:14PM (#16107508)
Because every now and then vendors decide it's time to try and make desktop systems into dumb clients again and they need another kick in the ass to remind them of why it's a stupid idea.
Fear not. This too shall pass. Just like it did the last three times somebody tried it.
Actually, to be fair, online applications do make sense in a controlled environment such as a workplace where you can deliver a basic windows system and apps on-demand from any platform of your choosing (read: Citrix) to a group of people who don't need any control over their systems (the typical office worker). It's just that sometimes vendors get it into their heads that EVERYTHING should be like that and they try to push it, fail, and get fired, leaving the next batch of marketroids and accountants to come in, eventually develop this "novel" idea, and repeat the entire process again.
Because it's so much faster and more responsive, and the interface is so much easier without being able to use that fiddly secondary click function to use menus, and because it integrates so smoothly with all your other applications, you can just drag and drop stuff between.. No really, because you can work it from *anywhere* yes work or home, providing it has internet access to google where your documents will remain forever property and copyright of. Can you change to competing service? Isn't that why w
There is not a chance in hell I would use an online app for something that runs fine on my local pc. Why add an unneeded security risk?
There are four main advantages:
Free and free upgrades - You don't have to worry about paying for this or keeping it up to date especially if you use multiple different computers.
Accessible anywhere - you can work on the same files at home, work, the library, your cousin's house, school, or anywhere else without bringing a laptop or constantly transferring it to a disk.
Reliability - Network services have real redundancy. If your hard drive dies, you might lose all or some of your work, depending how good your backups are (most people have none at all). If your house burns down, you might lose it all. Having it stored remotely in multiple physical locations is safer.
Collaboration - With an online service you and a friend can both work on the same documents easily. With the right software, you can both even edit the same word processing doc simultaneously, with multiple insertion points/cursors. It is fun and useful.
For the most part, I agree that I won't be using these services and my company sure doesn't want me collaborating on work projects that get stored by a third party. My backups are good enough and I already host my own server on my workstation when I collaborate on documents (SubEthaEdit). This might, however, make sense for others I know who like to casually collaborate or who know how to use a Web browser and Web mail and don't want to be confused by anything else. To some people, the Web browser is the only application they really run. This might be fine for them and they don't care if someone else steals the Senior Citizen Arts and Crafts schedule, or the erotic sci-fi short story they are co-editing with their old college buddy.
Reliability - Network services have real redundancy. If your hard drive dies, you might lose all or some of your work, depending how good your backups are (most people have none at all). If your house burns down, you might lose it all. Having it stored remotely in multiple physical locations is safer.
Reliability - until your network connection goes down. Then it's pack up your computer and track down another connection.
Reliability - until your network connection goes down. Then it's pack up your computer and track down another connection.
True enough, though those are different kinds of reliability. One is the whether your document will be accidentally destroyed and the other is whether you will be able to view/edit it at any given point. There are a lot of drawbacks to office applications as services as well, although in truth I hope all office suites or operating systems begin offering a remote server mode so that I c
Reliability - until your network connection goes down. Then it's pack up your computer and track down another connection.
True, but for more and more people, if their Internet connection is down, you might as well throw the machine away. Other than typing papers for school, what non-Net things do people do anymore other than play games (which are now network-dependent such as WoW)? There are still the Quicken hold-outs, but now that all banks offer online service and everyone takes debit cards, what's the
Free and free upgrades - You don't have to worry about paying for this or keeping it up to date especially if you use multiple different computers.
What prevents these services from cutting you off from your data and requiring you to start paying monthly charges to use it plus an $400 "sign up fee", effectively holding all of your data for ransom?
I keep my car service schedule in Google Spreadsheets so my mechanic can log in and see when core parts were last changed or maintained. I use Writely to compose blog posts and note down useful information for later retrieval. I use Google Calendar so I can add events whenever I get a message rather than just at home.
Thats what Onlline apps are for. use-anywhere.
Online apps are being developed with a lot of advantages over locally running applications, however only one of them can't be duplicated in a conventional application--network file storage of your files. The only advantage to online applications is being able to access your files from wherever you are, from any computer that you choose. This is not however a feature that everybody needs, or that we need for every file. If you do use multiple computers however, it can quickly become frustrating maintaining
Online apps are being developed with a lot of advantages over locally running applications, however only one of them can't be duplicated in a conventional application--network file storage of your files.
Assuming you have access to a network location to do the storage, its fairly trivial to have network storage of files from a desktop application. What you lack, typically, is guaranteed software with which to access that store from just about any standard browser, which ias the real advantage of online applications.
If you're logging into anything remote at my boss's financial institution (bank included), um, well, we have 4 big security guards that wanna talk to you...
>>Lately, operating system ownership is looking a lot less valuable.
This could not have been true-er. First, I substituted MS Office with OpenOffice*. After Google came out with spreadsheet and document solutions of its own, I do not even use OpenOffice anymore. What more, it does not matter anymore if I am on Windows XP or Ubuntu or Suse - as long as I have a relatively mainsteam browser with me, I am good to go.
*I am talking about my home environment where I do not user "Office" applications that heavily, and online solutions available to me satisfy ALL my needs.
I would never discount the value of the operating system. M$ has shown in the past their willingness to push through fixes and updates that mysteriously cause other apps not to function properly, to at least attempt to make apps part of the OS so they can not be removed and you end up with 2 apps that do the same thing. That's why only free apps can really continue to compete with M$ products.
True. But with M$ itself trying to set a foothold in the webbased applications, it changes some - if not all - rules of the game. And this is just a beginning. Earlier, due to unavaillibity of a lot of applications on non-M$ (read Linux) OS, I had practially no way of getting myself rid of XP. Now, there is only one application (Creative soundblaster music reciever driver, and sadly, I dont see them doing anything for Linux users.*). So, at least the ball has been set to roll, and appear to gather the critic
Most Windows users don't understand what an operating system is or where the boundaries between the operating system, its desk top, and its application might be. Even the ones who know they run "Windows XP" as opposed to some other version don't know what that means. They do know and use Outlook, Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Visio, and Access. Why do they know ? Because they start those applications frequently and a splash screen tells them what they are running. The equivalent to the splash screen for the o
My assertion is that a corporate IT department could substitute any operating system and users would barely notice as long as they could continue to use Outlook, Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Visio, and Access.
Many vendors could easily out-do MSFT in application space. MSFT did not get its marketshare and lead by simple technical superiority of its product or coding skills. It got it by better business tactics.
Infact every flag ship product that is minting money for MSFT started out as a pale copy of some other better program. WordPerfect, QuattroPro/Lotus, Harvard Presentation Graphics, Dbase/Foxbase etc. Then the marketing muscle, clever tricks to prevent interoperability, agreements with vendors to throttle competition and naivity of its user base that confused interoperability with PC-compatibility got MSFT the market share and lead. If the OS advantage is removed and the playing field is leveled by demanding true interoperability and compatibility to standards, (standards not wholly owned and manipulated by MSFT) you will see what other vendors are truly capable of.
The key is Open STANDARDS. Do not confuse it with Linux/Mac/Unix or Open Source or Free Software or Gnu or GPL. If the users demand true portability of their data and their applications the playing field will be leveled. My docment, my macros, my scripts are mine. I want them to work whether I choose to run MSOffice or OpenOffice. Only when owners of the data assert their ownership and refuse to be locked into a particular vendor's format the playing field will be level.
As someone who sets up / builds PCs, I've found that if you change the icon on Firefox to use the iexplore icon, and rename the shortcut to OpenOffice Calc to say "Excel", people will use it, and they won't even notice most of the time that its a different application.
Yes there was time more people knew WordStar commands than the entire population of Pakistan, but when WordPerfect out did WordStar, it did it with a better product. When Lotus outdid Visicalc it did it with a better product.
When Word out did WordPerfect, it was through bundling it with OS, getting steep discounts on the price of OS to the OEM installers if they DONT install or sell WordPerfectb by throttling the revenue stream of WordPerfect by leveraging MSFT's monopoly in the OS space. That is how it w
But why should Microsoft care? There aren't enough OOo or WordPerfect users out there for their voices to add up to anything more than a fringe. What is needed first is for people to become less fearful of using non-Microsoft software...but every time something fails to render properly, people run back to what they were using for years.
I know it sounds strange applied to MS, but the market responds to customers. A lot of customers want the advantages of open standards and are tired of promises to bring t
My assertion is that a corporate IT department could substitute any operating system and users would barely notice as long as they could continue to use Outlook, Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Visio, and Access.
To tone it down a little, I'd say that surely they'd notice that there was a difference insofar as the UI was different. However, it is true that:
They wouldn't care so long as they could figure out how to launch the apps they need within 30 seconds
Even though they could tell the difference, they would
I find it hard to consider this seriously when the CEO's bio reads:
"Mr. Leka established strategic partnerships with industry leaders including Apple Computer and Microsoft and throughout the HealthSCOUT Syndicated Network of over 3,000 sites (e.g. Yahoo, USA Today, NBCi, iWon, Juno, AT&T, Prodigy). Previously, Mr. Leka was a co-founder and Executive Director of The Fultz Foundation in Washington, DC where he was instrumental in securing funding from the George Soros Foundation and USAID among others. Mr. Leka developed and directed various international projects focused on business development and management training including telecommunications and the internet." http://www.transmediacorp.com/about/board.htm [transmediacorp.com]
Sounds like he's successful at shaking money out of wealthy people's pocket because http://www.fultzfoundation.org/ [fultzfoundation.org] is little more than a placeholder and the dot-bomb marketing speak is so 1998.
As long as the premiere system for this software is MS, all the companies will loss to MS over the long haul. For example, Intuit owned the personal desktop money management. Now, MS Money is the current winner. The only thing that keeps Intuit alive is their tax software. Once they lose dominance on it, the company will be gone. The best thing for all these companies is to move to Apple and OSS (particularly Linux).
The only thing that keeps Intuit alive is their tax software.
As much as I despise the program, Quickbooks has a pretty huge installed base. Not to mention all the obnoxious nickle-and-diming they like to do for "added value" (payroll, merchant accounts, etc.)
Why I'm sticking with MS Office (97):
- It still works with people using Office 2003
- It doesn't take a registration key
- The CD is quite easy to copy for friends and family
- The built-in VB stuff is completely (safely) broken when you just run it off a file share
- It never phones home (and there's no Internet component)
- It installs in under 100MB
- If any new features have been introduced since 1997, I don't need them
- It doesn't try to figure out my advertising profile from the documents I work with
Tried - can't do it. OpenOffice is a relative resource pig. (Office 97, designed for Windows 95, if nice and fast on a modern Windows OS.)
Also, I stopped sending relatives to OpenOffice once they started working with multiple docs with images. The webpage-ish "save all files NEXT to the doc" was cute as long as they didn't want to transfer files or navigate folders, but you know how people are...
You have a copy of Office97 and it works. So continue to use it as long as you could. OO version 2 is much more stable and less of a resource hog. Just be glad then if Vista or a future version loses backward compatibility and makes your Office97 CD worthless, there is OO.org for you as a fallback position.
Yeah...no way am I going to Vista. I'm using Windows 2000 server as my primary Windows desktop OS (I collect somewhat legal castoffs from customers who dump their "obsolete" systems); it seems to be the last Windows OS that doesn't phone home.
Cause lord knows if you add the instability of web interfaces to MS's track record, you're in for lots and lots of "save now" or risk losing your document.
The best part about going web-based is that burried in the ToS, I bet there's something about "can't assure constant connection". This leaves MS plenty of room to sa, "not our problem" and take your money anyway.
There will be no more operating systems on users machines...
You will boot flash memory Your machine will go to MS Your machine will then run what MS thinks you need Your machine will tell MS where you went and what you downloaded Your machine will tell the NSA where you went and what you downloaded Your machine will stop error when your isp has a hickup
I agree with some of the previous comments that many users are running MSFT Office because they're familiar with the products and, right now, they have to be running Windows to use those products (okay, WINE users aside). Where I see the blurring between desktop and internet apps having the most impact is at the low end of the PC market. A $125.00 laptop...or whatever the $100.00 laptop is up to now...would stand to benefit greatly from the availability of online applications.
1) There are more desktop apps than just office. A lot more. It only takes one must-have windows-only app to kill the deal for any alternative OS.
2) Aside from running apps that most desktop users want, windows also works with the hardware that most users want: multi-function printer/scanner/copier things, win-modems, ipods, etc.
3) Lots of popular web site will not work correctly on anything except msie.
4) DRM & multi-media.
As much as I dislike msft, I prefer to be realistic and admit that linux has no chance of being popular on the desktop for the forseeable future.
I dunno, I hold more faith in OpenOffice than Google for wordprocessing, they've been at it for quite a while and have a really good product.
As for web browser, I'll probably stick to FireFox.
Problem is, google is not unknown for somewhat shady practices on occasion, and with them being in an excellent position to bias things (they are a search engine after all - ever search with "web", "internet", "net", and "browser" could have the first result become GoogleUseItOrDieWebBrowser or someting).
OO is a nice proof of concept, but its moving anywhere. Its not even comparable with MSWorks or Office97, sure it has a lot of dense high tech bling here and there, but its also bloated and suffered greatly from being too much too soon.
I'd prefer FCKEditor on a simple web page than OO Writer. OO Writer tries to do everything on all platforms, and it became heavily bloated.
I don't mind OO writer, but I can see where others might. One thing I'd like to see that might help mitigate that kind of bloat is something like the system services on OS X. They've added spell checking and a dictionary/thesaurus that can be accessed by any application and a grammar checker is supposed to be built into Leopard. I also use a more comprehensive collec
Right. Developers have an incentive to write their apps to the API that has the most installations. Users have an incentive to purchase and install the OS that has the best applications.
Is this new? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see how this is unique threat to M$ either. From TFA's first sentence (underlining mine): A year after the release of its suite of online integrated media-sharing and social networking applications, Glide Effortless, TransMedia is redoubling its effort to challenge Apple, Microsoft, MySpace, and Google.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I would really love to see some other office suite take a majority share. I've been using Office97 since, well, 1997, mostly because I don't care enough about my office suite to purchase an upgrade. I _could_ use OpenOffice, but really, most of my use for an office suite is to open my colleagues' files, and OpenOffice doesn't open
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Online apps (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Online apps (Score:5, Insightful)
Fear not. This too shall pass. Just like it did the last three times somebody tried it.
Actually, to be fair, online applications do make sense in a controlled environment such as a workplace where you can deliver a basic windows system and apps on-demand from any platform of your choosing (read: Citrix) to a group of people who don't need any control over their systems (the typical office worker). It's just that sometimes vendors get it into their heads that EVERYTHING should be like that and they try to push it, fail, and get fired, leaving the next batch of marketroids and accountants to come in, eventually develop this "novel" idea, and repeat the entire process again.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Online apps (Score:5, Insightful)
There is not a chance in hell I would use an online app for something that runs fine on my local pc. Why add an unneeded security risk?
There are four main advantages:
For the most part, I agree that I won't be using these services and my company sure doesn't want me collaborating on work projects that get stored by a third party. My backups are good enough and I already host my own server on my workstation when I collaborate on documents (SubEthaEdit). This might, however, make sense for others I know who like to casually collaborate or who know how to use a Web browser and Web mail and don't want to be confused by anything else. To some people, the Web browser is the only application they really run. This might be fine for them and they don't care if someone else steals the Senior Citizen Arts and Crafts schedule, or the erotic sci-fi short story they are co-editing with their old college buddy.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Reliability - until your network connection goes down. Then it's pack up your computer and track down another connection.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Reliability - until your network connection goes down. Then it's pack up your computer and track down another connection.
True enough, though those are different kinds of reliability. One is the whether your document will be accidentally destroyed and the other is whether you will be able to view/edit it at any given point. There are a lot of drawbacks to office applications as services as well, although in truth I hope all office suites or operating systems begin offering a remote server mode so that I c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but for more and more people, if their Internet connection is down, you might as well throw the machine away. Other than typing papers for school, what non-Net things do people do anymore other than play games (which are now network-dependent such as WoW)? There are still the Quicken hold-outs, but now that all banks offer online service and everyone takes debit cards, what's the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The market. (Score:3, Insightful)
And lets not even mention lawsuits.
Well, what the heck, lets do it: lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me tell you.... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only advantage to online applications is being able to access your files from wherever you are, from any computer that you choose. This is not however a feature that everybody needs, or that we need for every file. If you do use multiple computers however, it can quickly become frustrating maintaining
Re:Online apps (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
secure remote login? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OS owneship (Score:5, Insightful)
This could not have been true-er. First, I substituted MS Office with OpenOffice*. After Google came out with spreadsheet and document solutions of its own, I do not even use OpenOffice anymore. What more, it does not matter anymore if I am on Windows XP or Ubuntu or Suse - as long as I have a relatively mainsteam browser with me, I am good to go.
*I am talking about my home environment where I do not user "Office" applications that heavily, and online solutions available to me satisfy ALL my needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And this is just a beginning. Earlier, due to unavaillibity of a lot of applications on non-M$ (read Linux) OS, I had practially no way of getting myself rid of XP. Now, there is only one application (Creative soundblaster music reciever driver, and sadly, I dont see them doing anything for Linux users.*). So, at least the ball has been set to roll, and appear to gather the critic
It has been MS office more than Windows for years (Score:2, Interesting)
Even the ones who know they run "Windows XP" as opposed to some other version don't know what that means. They do know and use Outlook, Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Visio, and Access. Why do they know ? Because they start those applications frequently and a splash screen tells them what they are running. The equivalent to the splash screen for the o
Re:It has been MS office more than Windows for yea (Score:5, Insightful)
Many vendors could easily out-do MSFT in application space. MSFT did not get its marketshare and lead by simple technical superiority of its product or coding skills. It got it by better business tactics. Infact every flag ship product that is minting money for MSFT started out as a pale copy of some other better program. WordPerfect, QuattroPro/Lotus, Harvard Presentation Graphics, Dbase/Foxbase etc. Then the marketing muscle, clever tricks to prevent interoperability, agreements with vendors to throttle competition and naivity of its user base that confused interoperability with PC-compatibility got MSFT the market share and lead. If the OS advantage is removed and the playing field is leveled by demanding true interoperability and compatibility to standards, (standards not wholly owned and manipulated by MSFT) you will see what other vendors are truly capable of.
The key is Open STANDARDS. Do not confuse it with Linux/Mac/Unix or Open Source or Free Software or Gnu or GPL. If the users demand true portability of their data and their applications the playing field will be leveled. My docment, my macros, my scripts are mine. I want them to work whether I choose to run MSOffice or OpenOffice. Only when owners of the data assert their ownership and refuse to be locked into a particular vendor's format the playing field will be level.
Parent
Not strictly correct (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
When Word out did WordPerfect, it was through bundling it with OS, getting steep discounts on the price of OS to the OEM installers if they DONT install or sell WordPerfectb by throttling the revenue stream of WordPerfect by leveraging MSFT's monopoly in the OS space. That is how it w
Re: (Score:2)
But why should Microsoft care? There aren't enough OOo or WordPerfect users out there for their voices to add up to anything more than a fringe. What is needed first is for people to become less fearful of using non-Microsoft software...but every time something fails to render properly, people run back to what they were using for years.
I know it sounds strange applied to MS, but the market responds to customers. A lot of customers want the advantages of open standards and are tired of promises to bring t
Re: (Score:2)
My assertion is that a corporate IT department could substitute any operating system and users would barely notice as long as they could continue to use Outlook, Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Visio, and Access.
To tone it down a little, I'd say that surely they'd notice that there was a difference insofar as the UI was different. However, it is true that:
I Smell a Dot-Bomb 2.0 (Score:5, Informative)
"Mr. Leka established strategic partnerships with industry leaders including Apple Computer and Microsoft and throughout the HealthSCOUT Syndicated Network of over 3,000 sites (e.g. Yahoo, USA Today, NBCi, iWon, Juno, AT&T, Prodigy). Previously, Mr. Leka was a co-founder and Executive Director of The Fultz Foundation in Washington, DC where he was instrumental in securing funding from the George Soros Foundation and USAID among others. Mr. Leka developed and directed various international projects focused on business development and management training including telecommunications and the internet." http://www.transmediacorp.com/about/board.htm [transmediacorp.com]
Sounds like he's successful at shaking money out of wealthy people's pocket because http://www.fultzfoundation.org/ [fultzfoundation.org] is little more than a placeholder and the dot-bomb marketing speak is so 1998.
What? A deal with Eskimos? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They will lose because they are in MS's backyard (Score:2)
Re:They will lose because they are in MS's backyar (Score:2)
The only thing that keeps Intuit alive is their tax software.
As much as I despise the program, Quickbooks has a pretty huge installed base. Not to mention all the obnoxious nickle-and-diming they like to do for "added value" (payroll, merchant accounts, etc.)
Finally! (Score:3, Funny)
Lately, operating system ownership is looking a lot less valuable.
Yay, Netscape!!!
Oh. Wait...
MjM
Why I'm sticking with my MS Office (97)... (Score:5, Interesting)
- It still works with people using Office 2003
- It doesn't take a registration key
- The CD is quite easy to copy for friends and family
- The built-in VB stuff is completely (safely) broken when you just run it off a file share
- It never phones home (and there's no Internet component)
- It installs in under 100MB
- If any new features have been introduced since 1997, I don't need them
- It doesn't try to figure out my advertising profile from the documents I work with
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, MS better have good auto-save (Score:2)
They just admited it... (Score:2, Informative)
You will boot flash memory
Your machine will go to MS
Your machine will then run what MS thinks you need
Your machine will tell MS where you went and what you downloaded
Your machine will tell the NSA where you went and what you downloaded
Your machine will stop error when your isp has a hickup
Your machine has MS
--
Stupid people should not breed
Opens up many possibilities (Score:2)
I agree with some of the previous comments that many users are running MSFT Office because they're familiar with the products and, right now, they have to be running Windows to use those products (okay, WINE users aside). Where I see the blurring between desktop and internet apps having the most impact is at the low end of the PC market. A $125.00 laptop...or whatever the $100.00 laptop is up to now...would stand to benefit greatly from the availability of online applications.
It may not make a big dent
Article is meaningless, msft has same stranglehold (Score:3, Interesting)
2) Aside from running apps that most desktop users want, windows also works with the hardware that most users want: multi-function printer/scanner/copier things, win-modems, ipods, etc.
3) Lots of popular web site will not work correctly on anything except msie.
4) DRM & multi-media.
As much as I dislike msft, I prefer to be realistic and admit that linux has no chance of being popular on the desktop for the forseeable future.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As for web browser, I'll probably stick to FireFox.
Problem is, google is not unknown for somewhat shady practices on occasion, and with them being in an excellent position to bias things (they are a search engine after all - ever search with "web", "internet", "net", and "browser" could have the first result become GoogleUseItOrDieWebBrowser or someting).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It reminds me of Mozilla before Firefox
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about Abiword [abisource.com]?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd prefer FCKEditor on a simple web page than OO Writer. OO Writer tries to do everything on all platforms, and it became heavily bloated.
I don't mind OO writer, but I can see where others might. One thing I'd like to see that might help mitigate that kind of bloat is something like the system services on OS X. They've added spell checking and a dictionary/thesaurus that can be accessed by any application and a grammar checker is supposed to be built into Leopard. I also use a more comprehensive collec
Re: (Score:3)