Thursday, March 14, 2013
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
The next great PC advance.....
Computers are boring. People only buy PCs because they (a) have to because of a malfunction or (b) have to because of a game or operating system. When people only buy a product because they "have to" the product line is in trouble. In fact, PCs are taking a back seat to things like mobile phones in countries like Japan.
What is missing is the "wow factor". We need a new PC that engages us in ways never seen before. Heck, we WANT a new PC that engages us in ways never seen before.
Case in point....talking PCs. Why can't we talk to our PCs and have them talk back to us?
The software for such things has been around for years. It's included in XP. And, I'm sure you've heard of Dragon Naturally Speaking (by Nuance). It's a neat product, but it has its limitations.
For example, DNS seems to always type "cocaine" whenever I say "ok". It also becomes worse and worse at detecting my voice properly as the day wears on and my voice becomes strained due to dictating a large manuscript.
Now, I know that voice processing takes a lot of processing power. Just try out the voice processing that comes built in to XP and you'll see what I mean.
But, why has it stopped there? Long ago we realized the fun and functionality of high resolution graphics. Unfortunately, the processing of high resolution graphics was a burden on the PCs processor and ate up large amounts of RAM, slowing the machine and degrading the performance.
The answer? A GPU (graphics processing unit) on it's own card, with its own RAM. We even designed special slots on the motherboard to accommodate the massive flow of data to and from these graphics cards, and we developed special chips and programming devoted to the processing of graphics to speed the response time of these cards and of the applications that they would spawn.
Now we can play games like Crysis (some say its the most visually stunning game ever produced) and even make movies and 3D animations right on our PCs. None of this would have ever been possible without the graphics card, with its special CPU, RAM and programming languages and tools.
So, why don't we have a Voice Processing Unit? Why hasn't someone created a Voice Processing Card that has a chip dedicated to processing the human voice, with its own RAM, programming language and tools? And why don't I have it in my PC already?
The same question goes for the AI that would make the Voice Processing Card such a treat. Both voice processsing and artificial intelligence are very CPU and RAM intensive (AI even more than vice processing). So, move them to their own cards and let's start making PCs that we can use as virtual assistants.
So, that was the idea behind this letter that I sent to AMD President and CEO Dirk Mayer's assistant, Jan Boswell, on 9/09/2007....
Well, a couple of days went by and I emailed Jan again to find out what Dirk thought of the idea. Jan did not respond to my email.
I emailed her again. Again, no response. In fact, I emailed her for a solid week, every day, only to be ignored.
Now, I don't think that I am so important that she *must* return my emails, but it would be nice to know that something that we suggested was given some actual thought. (Especially seeing as how it is nearly impossible to offer suggestions on the websites of AMD and Intel and it took hours just to locate Jan to send her these suggestions.)
Well, not being one to give up easily, I sent a similar letter (after 2-3 hours on the phone to find someone to send it to - failing to find a simple "wish list" or "suggestion box" link on their website) to Intel's Sue Colla.
True to form, I could get no emailed response from Intel either. But, I did receive a letter from Intel's attorney's that stated that they did not wish to license my idea at this time.
WHAT?! Where did I mention licensing or patents or any such thing? I didn't. So, I called the attorney at Intel to tell him that I wasn't selling a license, I was simply offering a suggestion and expressing a wish for a better PC that would offer a more personalized experience.
He then told me that Intel may be working on that already. I asked if he could find out and let me know and he said that, due to the size of the company, that would be impossible.
So...just how do we get the next great leap in PC technology to happen?
When can I speak to my PC? When will it speak back? When will it's fledgling AI recognize my voice (or face via the web cam) and greet me with "Good morning, Jim" and automatically tell me the day's weather, stock reports and other info that I ask it for on a daily basis - because it has learned what I ask for each day and now gets that info in real time over my broadband connection?
Why hasn't this happened already? Surely I am not alone in seeing that this technology can be realized now. Surely the great minds at Intel and AMD have not thought of this before.
So, when will my PC be more than just a box and become an integral part of my day - like a peronalized virtual assistant?
And, why doesn't AMD or Intel see the benefit in making this happen?
I'm just sayin'......
What is missing is the "wow factor". We need a new PC that engages us in ways never seen before. Heck, we WANT a new PC that engages us in ways never seen before.
Case in point....talking PCs. Why can't we talk to our PCs and have them talk back to us?
The software for such things has been around for years. It's included in XP. And, I'm sure you've heard of Dragon Naturally Speaking (by Nuance). It's a neat product, but it has its limitations.
For example, DNS seems to always type "cocaine" whenever I say "ok". It also becomes worse and worse at detecting my voice properly as the day wears on and my voice becomes strained due to dictating a large manuscript.
Now, I know that voice processing takes a lot of processing power. Just try out the voice processing that comes built in to XP and you'll see what I mean.
But, why has it stopped there? Long ago we realized the fun and functionality of high resolution graphics. Unfortunately, the processing of high resolution graphics was a burden on the PCs processor and ate up large amounts of RAM, slowing the machine and degrading the performance.
The answer? A GPU (graphics processing unit) on it's own card, with its own RAM. We even designed special slots on the motherboard to accommodate the massive flow of data to and from these graphics cards, and we developed special chips and programming devoted to the processing of graphics to speed the response time of these cards and of the applications that they would spawn.
Now we can play games like Crysis (some say its the most visually stunning game ever produced) and even make movies and 3D animations right on our PCs. None of this would have ever been possible without the graphics card, with its special CPU, RAM and programming languages and tools.
So, why don't we have a Voice Processing Unit? Why hasn't someone created a Voice Processing Card that has a chip dedicated to processing the human voice, with its own RAM, programming language and tools? And why don't I have it in my PC already?
The same question goes for the AI that would make the Voice Processing Card such a treat. Both voice processsing and artificial intelligence are very CPU and RAM intensive (AI even more than vice processing). So, move them to their own cards and let's start making PCs that we can use as virtual assistants.
So, that was the idea behind this letter that I sent to AMD President and CEO Dirk Mayer's assistant, Jan Boswell, on 9/09/2007....
Jan,
A group of us (software engineers and business networking consultants) were
tossing around some ideas of what would make the next great leap in PCs.
One long-promised idea that has simply never been realized was the idea of
actually being able to speak to your PC (like Dragon Naturally Speaking software
products allow now – in a limited fashion). While touching a PC (like the
HP touch screens) is neat, talking to it would be fantastic.
Imagine a PC screen over your workspace in the kitchen that you could speak to
for instructions, images and video on how to make a new dish for supper (without
having to touch anything but the food) – or a screen mounted on a mechanic’s
toolbox that could talk him/her through a car’s diagnostic test or repair – or
even an in-car PC that a driver could talk to for directions or emails without
having to take her hands off the wheel or eyes off the road (like OnStar for
every vehicle – not just GM) – or a surgeon being able to call up info on a
screen (like patient x-rays, MRIs, etc.) via voice alone that may help
save a life. The advantages of touch-free (or voice) computing over
traditional touch-computing are far too many to list here.
We chatted about why this has never been actualized and feel that a huge problem
is the amount of system resources needed (CPU mostly) has been a limiting factor
in the actualization of real-time voice control of your PC. But, with the
advent of multi-core chips (and specifically the integration of graphics
processing on AMD’s chips) we were wondering if voice processing integration (by
utilizing a core optimized for voice processing) might be the answer.
A processor built into the core that was optimized for voice recognition (much
the same way a gpu is optimized for graphics) would provide much better
voice recognition capabilities than are currently possible, would not slow other
processes on other cores and just might make talking to your PC (and it talking
back) a reality. The AI that would be needed for true conversation with
your PC may also need its own optimized core, but that could come after the core
ability to speak to your PC and have it carry out your commands in real
time.
Imagine a PC that you could talk to, and it could talk back. Then imagine
that the PC’s main voice is the same as that of the Star Trek series’
computer. Selling this feature would be like shooting fish in a barrel (us
geeks are suckers for anything Star Trek). The usefulness and novelty
would catapult AMD to the forefront of chip sales without even breaking a
sweat. Add to that the multitude of areas that touch-free computing can
help to advance – like the OnStar-like capabilities of a car PC, the voice
control and integration of the home and the life-saving abilities of an
operating room voice PC and we think you’d have a winner that Intel would have a
hard time matching.
And, making it easily programmable by hobbyist programmers (as well as
professional programmers) would ensure that the voice technology found its way
into applications of all types.
Patenting the integrated voice processing may even give you a lead that Intel
would find it hard to overcome.
From what we have seen, Dirk is definitely an innovative person that is highly
motivated to place AMD in a position to dominate the chip marketplace.
And, although not a particularly technical observation, we feel that he could
see the value in such a technology – both from marketing and technical
advancement points of view.
Thanks for getting this to the proper people! Have a great day!
Jim Hubbard
Well, a couple of days went by and I emailed Jan again to find out what Dirk thought of the idea. Jan did not respond to my email.
I emailed her again. Again, no response. In fact, I emailed her for a solid week, every day, only to be ignored.
Now, I don't think that I am so important that she *must* return my emails, but it would be nice to know that something that we suggested was given some actual thought. (Especially seeing as how it is nearly impossible to offer suggestions on the websites of AMD and Intel and it took hours just to locate Jan to send her these suggestions.)
Well, not being one to give up easily, I sent a similar letter (after 2-3 hours on the phone to find someone to send it to - failing to find a simple "wish list" or "suggestion box" link on their website) to Intel's Sue Colla.
Sue,
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me about my ideas for a new multi-core
chip. The following is basically the same letter that was sent to AMD
about this subject. I really don’t care who does it first, I just would
like to see the idea enacted if it is practical to do so.
“A group of us (software engineers and business networking consultants) were
tossing around some ideas of what would make the next great leap in PCs.
One long-promised idea that has simply never been realized was the idea of
actually being able to speak to your PC (like Dragon Naturally Speaking software
products allow now – in a limited fashion). While touching a PC (like the
HP touch screens) is neat, talking to it would be fantastic.
Imagine a PC screen over your workspace in the kitchen that you could speak to
for instructions, images and video on how to make a new dish for supper (without
having to touch anything but the food) – or a screen mounted on a mechanic’s
toolbox that could talk him/her through a car’s diagnostic test or repair – or
even an in-car PC that a driver could talk to for directions or emails without
having to take her hands off the wheel or eyes off the road (like OnStar for
every vehicle – not just GM) – or a surgeon being able to call up info on a
screen (like patient x-rays, MRIs, etc.) via voice alone that may help
save a life. The advantages of touch-free (or voice) computing over
traditional touch-computing are far too many to list here.
We chatted about why this has never been actualized and feel that a huge problem
is the amount of system resources needed (CPU mostly) has been a limiting factor
in the actualization of real-time voice control of your PC. But, with the
advent of multi-core chips (and specifically the integration of graphics
processing on AMD’s chips) we were wondering if voice processing integration (by
utilizing a core optimized for voice processing) might be the answer.
A processor built into the core that was optimized for voice recognition (much
the same way a gpu is optimized for graphics) would provide much better
voice recognition capabilities than are currently possible, would not slow other
processes on other cores and just might make talking to your PC (and it talking
back) a reality. The AI that would be needed for true conversation with
your PC may also need its own optimized core, but that could come after the core
ability to speak to your PC and have it carry out your commands in real
time.
Imagine a PC that you could talk to, and it could talk back. Then imagine
that the PC’s main voice is the same as that of the Star Trek series’
computer. Selling this feature would be like shooting fish in a barrel (us
geeks are suckers for anything Star Trek). The usefulness and novelty
would catapult the developing chip company to the forefront of chip sales
without even breaking a sweat. Add to that the multitude of areas that
touch-free computing can help to advance – like the OnStar-like capabilities of
a car PC, the voice control and integration of the home and the
life-saving abilities of an operating room voice PC and we think you’d have a
winner that anyone would have a hard time matching.
And, making it easily programmable by hobbyist programmers (as well as
professional programmers) would ensure that the voice technology found its way
into applications of all types. Hobbyist programmers are the key to any
new PC technology as it Is they who put out the most programs – incorporate the
newest technologies first and who recommend technologies to those that look at
them as ‘geeks.’”
That’s about it. The concept of talking to your PC is certainly not new but,
with the advances made possible by multi-core chips, it may now be within our
grasp. A dedicated Voice Processor may make voice command of your PC and
the many life changing (and life saving) benefits that it would bestow upon
society a reality.
Thanks so much for your time. If there is anything that I can do or
explain further (like more examples that I have thought of for its use) please
do not hesitate to call.
Jim Hubbard
True to form, I could get no emailed response from Intel either. But, I did receive a letter from Intel's attorney's that stated that they did not wish to license my idea at this time.
WHAT?! Where did I mention licensing or patents or any such thing? I didn't. So, I called the attorney at Intel to tell him that I wasn't selling a license, I was simply offering a suggestion and expressing a wish for a better PC that would offer a more personalized experience.
He then told me that Intel may be working on that already. I asked if he could find out and let me know and he said that, due to the size of the company, that would be impossible.
So...just how do we get the next great leap in PC technology to happen?
When can I speak to my PC? When will it speak back? When will it's fledgling AI recognize my voice (or face via the web cam) and greet me with "Good morning, Jim" and automatically tell me the day's weather, stock reports and other info that I ask it for on a daily basis - because it has learned what I ask for each day and now gets that info in real time over my broadband connection?
Why hasn't this happened already? Surely I am not alone in seeing that this technology can be realized now. Surely the great minds at Intel and AMD have not thought of this before.
So, when will my PC be more than just a box and become an integral part of my day - like a peronalized virtual assistant?
And, why doesn't AMD or Intel see the benefit in making this happen?
I'm just sayin'......
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Microsoft Censorship? You tell me....
Well, I seriously doubt it. I mean, what can I say about Microsoft that hasn't already been said in a thousand other places? Then again, I am trying to post these through the Microsoft Community newsgroup servers.....
Perhaps it is a bug in Vista Ultimat 32 bit edition, or the Microsoft Community Newsgroup servers or Windows Mail. In any event, I can reply to a thread about Vista and VS2005 as long as I DON'T reply with the following (which never shows up in the threads)...
(Please forgive any formatting errors. :) )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4th try at posting)
"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in messagenews:dfCdnRY2F7MEQV7YnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@comcast.com...>> "Jim Hubbard" <jim@privateaddress.net> wrote in message > news:CBAD44AC-5138-406D-931A-83833D193046@microsoft.com...
>> The Mac situation really does suck - thats why there are so few Mac users >> (<3% of all computer users).
>> MS does what they want because they're the only game in town.
>> Microsoft basically has no boundaries. There is nobody ready to eat
>> their lunch if they screw up. So there is a tendency (which is also
>> human nature btw) to get away with as much as you can.
>> I think the quote is "It's easier to beg forgiveness than it is to ask
>> permission.
"Since when have you heard Microsoft beg anyone's forgiveness? It's morelike "Here, we did this. Now shut up and use it."
>>> Scrap Vista and start from scratch
>> There's no way they could afford to do that. And there's a lot with XP
> that worked just fine. Mine only BSOD'd on me once in 3 years. It's always
> better to fix what you have than it is to scrap it and start over. Joel
> Spolsky (http://joelonsoftware.com) talks about this in his book, how
> doing that was the end of Netscape. It took too long to start from
> scratch, and in the ensuing years, MS took over the browser market. (Great
> book, by the way, very very entertaining, and *not* a pro-MS book,
> although he used to work for MS.)
I love Joel's work....got the book on my shelf and have actually read it (areal feat with my schedule).The problem with Netscape's rewrite is that they didn't have a competingbrowser in the market while they did the rewrite, they tried to SELL thiers(while Microsoft gave IE away) and they had real competition. Microsoftwould still have XP (which many people in businesses will run for the next2-3 years at least) and they have no competition.
>>> instead of putting out a warmed over UI change like Vista.
>> I think Vista looks pretty cool, and it's not just the UI that changed,
> but that is what sells things to many customers. Do you think Apple would
> sell as many iPod Nanos if they weren't so cute? I mean, for another $50
> you can have a 30GB iPod, what's the point?
Businesses don't buy cute - at least not the ones that I service. And homeusers usually have crappy PCs (like the cheapo Dell special of the week)that barely run as is - they can forget running Vista unless they buy a newPC, and most of them won't fork over the cash for that.
For the most part, when I mention Vista to anyone, they kinda shrug and sayXP is working just fine for them. I agree with them too. If it ain't brokedon't fix it.(BTW, if anyone reading this wants to make their XP look and feel likeVista - I've heard this is good -http://www.jcxp.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=7006 - but I haven't tried itmyself. You can also look at the tweaks onhttp://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/the-poor-mans-windows-vista-no-upgrading-necessary-182597.phporhttp://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/1089/make_xp_look_like_vista_longhorn_free.)
>>> they would be giving people ample warning that a major OS shift was >> coming that would require new applications (or at least a virtual PC app
>> to run XP and thier old apps).
>> They did give people ample time. Apparently anything that was refactored
> to be "Windows XP Certified" works under Vista without any major changes.
> Some people did not want to spend the money to upgrade their apps to work
> with XP if they could get their software to work within the confines, and
> now their software won't work with Vista. (Example A: Intuit's
> QuickBooks). It took MS 5 years to develop Vista, and they've been working
> with customers on compatability for a couple of years now. How much
> frickin' notice do people need?
That brings up the original question in this thread.....if Microsoft knewaout the upcoming changes AND they were even writing the OS, why the heckisn't VS2005 compatible? It's incredible...
>>> Microsoft's goal is to maximize revenue, not serve its customers.
>> Duh. Welcome to the corporate world. The purpose of any public corporation
> is to make money for its shareholders. Period. Usually serving the
> customers better aids them in that process. I think Vista and Office 2007
> will do that. They are fairly impressive-looking, and after people get
> over the shock, they will like it better than any version they have used
> before.
People *are* suckers for "shiny" stuff - even if there is no other benefit (sometimes even if there is less).But, I have always found it more profitable to treat customers like friends and family. The old golden rule thing. It's been around a lot longer thanMicrosoft because it works. It works in business and personal life.
For instance, all it would really take to shake Microsoft is a Linux distrowilling to take a fresh look at how they are blowing things and make acouple of key corrections. Heck, I'd help 'em do it. Not because I hateMicrosoft, but because competition is good for consumers - it even makescompanies stronger and spurs innovation.
>> I would point out that the developers are not MS's customers, the large
> corporations are. However, they will not succeed as well w/o our
> cooperation, and they know it, because developers help drive the business.
You are right. Although big corporations are the main targets, the developers influence the big corporations' IT decisions. So, you'd thinktheir flagship development studio would work on their flagship OS, wouldn'tyou?
>>> I would encourage you to dscard McAfee and try NOD32 (www.eset.com). It
>> has a smaller footprint, scans faster and scored better than any other
>> protection application (including Norton, McAfee and Trend Micro) in
>> independent testing by Virus Bulletin (http://www.virusbtn.com/index).
>> I'll check it out; I definitely need to do something different. I want
> something that will scan my e-mail, and let me scan my drives when I want
> to. I don't want something (McAfee and Norton) that scans every single
> document every time I open it. I turned ActiveScanning off, and McAfee
> puts up messages about how my system isn't protected every time I reboot,
> or standby and come back. It's really, really annoying. But when I open a
> solution with 80 classes and a bunch of forms, I don't need all of them
> to be virus-scanned. I *know* where they've been. ;-)
>> So will this product you've recommended plug into Outlook and scan my
> e-mails? Does it do active scanning? I appreciate the information. I've
> about had it with the big ones.
NOD32 does scan your email (in and out). It does do active scanning (which canbe disabled without annoying messages resulting from that decision), but itis so fast that I haven't even noticed it at work (except when it finds avirus in the incoming email and alerts me).
The big ones (especially Norton) fell for the whole .Net thing and screwed up their products. They are bloated and slow.Even Microsoft doesn't use .Net to do most of its internal coding (if they did - it would probably be compatible with Vista).
So, why do we?
Jim Hubbard
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, you tell me why Microsoft failed to post this through the Microsoft Community newsgroup servers.........
Perhaps it is a bug in Vista Ultimat 32 bit edition, or the Microsoft Community Newsgroup servers or Windows Mail. In any event, I can reply to a thread about Vista and VS2005 as long as I DON'T reply with the following (which never shows up in the threads)...
(Please forgive any formatting errors. :) )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4th try at posting)
"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in messagenews:dfCdnRY2F7MEQV7YnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@comcast.com...>> "Jim Hubbard" <jim@privateaddress.net> wrote in message > news:CBAD44AC-5138-406D-931A-83833D193046@microsoft.com...
>> The Mac situation really does suck - thats why there are so few Mac users >> (<3% of all computer users).
>> MS does what they want because they're the only game in town.
>> Microsoft basically has no boundaries. There is nobody ready to eat
>> their lunch if they screw up. So there is a tendency (which is also
>> human nature btw) to get away with as much as you can.
>> I think the quote is "It's easier to beg forgiveness than it is to ask
>> permission.
"Since when have you heard Microsoft beg anyone's forgiveness? It's morelike "Here, we did this. Now shut up and use it."
>>> Scrap Vista and start from scratch
>> There's no way they could afford to do that. And there's a lot with XP
> that worked just fine. Mine only BSOD'd on me once in 3 years. It's always
> better to fix what you have than it is to scrap it and start over. Joel
> Spolsky (http://joelonsoftware.com) talks about this in his book, how
> doing that was the end of Netscape. It took too long to start from
> scratch, and in the ensuing years, MS took over the browser market. (Great
> book, by the way, very very entertaining, and *not* a pro-MS book,
> although he used to work for MS.)
I love Joel's work....got the book on my shelf and have actually read it (areal feat with my schedule).The problem with Netscape's rewrite is that they didn't have a competingbrowser in the market while they did the rewrite, they tried to SELL thiers(while Microsoft gave IE away) and they had real competition. Microsoftwould still have XP (which many people in businesses will run for the next2-3 years at least) and they have no competition.
>>> instead of putting out a warmed over UI change like Vista.
>> I think Vista looks pretty cool, and it's not just the UI that changed,
> but that is what sells things to many customers. Do you think Apple would
> sell as many iPod Nanos if they weren't so cute? I mean, for another $50
> you can have a 30GB iPod, what's the point?
Businesses don't buy cute - at least not the ones that I service. And homeusers usually have crappy PCs (like the cheapo Dell special of the week)that barely run as is - they can forget running Vista unless they buy a newPC, and most of them won't fork over the cash for that.
For the most part, when I mention Vista to anyone, they kinda shrug and sayXP is working just fine for them. I agree with them too. If it ain't brokedon't fix it.(BTW, if anyone reading this wants to make their XP look and feel likeVista - I've heard this is good -http://www.jcxp.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=7006 - but I haven't tried itmyself. You can also look at the tweaks onhttp://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/the-poor-mans-windows-vista-no-upgrading-necessary-182597.phporhttp://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/1089/make_xp_look_like_vista_longhorn_free.)
>>> they would be giving people ample warning that a major OS shift was >> coming that would require new applications (or at least a virtual PC app
>> to run XP and thier old apps).
>> They did give people ample time. Apparently anything that was refactored
> to be "Windows XP Certified" works under Vista without any major changes.
> Some people did not want to spend the money to upgrade their apps to work
> with XP if they could get their software to work within the confines, and
> now their software won't work with Vista. (Example A: Intuit's
> QuickBooks). It took MS 5 years to develop Vista, and they've been working
> with customers on compatability for a couple of years now. How much
> frickin' notice do people need?
That brings up the original question in this thread.....if Microsoft knewaout the upcoming changes AND they were even writing the OS, why the heckisn't VS2005 compatible? It's incredible...
>>> Microsoft's goal is to maximize revenue, not serve its customers.
>> Duh. Welcome to the corporate world. The purpose of any public corporation
> is to make money for its shareholders. Period. Usually serving the
> customers better aids them in that process. I think Vista and Office 2007
> will do that. They are fairly impressive-looking, and after people get
> over the shock, they will like it better than any version they have used
> before.
People *are* suckers for "shiny" stuff - even if there is no other benefit (sometimes even if there is less).But, I have always found it more profitable to treat customers like friends and family. The old golden rule thing. It's been around a lot longer thanMicrosoft because it works. It works in business and personal life.
For instance, all it would really take to shake Microsoft is a Linux distrowilling to take a fresh look at how they are blowing things and make acouple of key corrections. Heck, I'd help 'em do it. Not because I hateMicrosoft, but because competition is good for consumers - it even makescompanies stronger and spurs innovation.
>> I would point out that the developers are not MS's customers, the large
> corporations are. However, they will not succeed as well w/o our
> cooperation, and they know it, because developers help drive the business.
You are right. Although big corporations are the main targets, the developers influence the big corporations' IT decisions. So, you'd thinktheir flagship development studio would work on their flagship OS, wouldn'tyou?
>>> I would encourage you to dscard McAfee and try NOD32 (www.eset.com). It
>> has a smaller footprint, scans faster and scored better than any other
>> protection application (including Norton, McAfee and Trend Micro) in
>> independent testing by Virus Bulletin (http://www.virusbtn.com/index).
>> I'll check it out; I definitely need to do something different. I want
> something that will scan my e-mail, and let me scan my drives when I want
> to. I don't want something (McAfee and Norton) that scans every single
> document every time I open it. I turned ActiveScanning off, and McAfee
> puts up messages about how my system isn't protected every time I reboot,
> or standby and come back. It's really, really annoying. But when I open a
> solution with 80 classes and a bunch of forms, I don't need all of them
> to be virus-scanned. I *know* where they've been. ;-)
>> So will this product you've recommended plug into Outlook and scan my
> e-mails? Does it do active scanning? I appreciate the information. I've
> about had it with the big ones.
NOD32 does scan your email (in and out). It does do active scanning (which canbe disabled without annoying messages resulting from that decision), but itis so fast that I haven't even noticed it at work (except when it finds avirus in the incoming email and alerts me).
The big ones (especially Norton) fell for the whole .Net thing and screwed up their products. They are bloated and slow.Even Microsoft doesn't use .Net to do most of its internal coding (if they did - it would probably be compatible with Vista).
So, why do we?
Jim Hubbard
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, you tell me why Microsoft failed to post this through the Microsoft Community newsgroup servers.........
Thursday, December 21, 2006
I Just Want a PHONE.....
Ok.....I've officially had it!
I've had it with ringtones and cameras and MP3 players and a thousand other things that just shouldn't be in my damned phone!
I just want a phone! Instead of wasting memory with MP3s on a device that sounds more tinny than a transistor radio, how about we devote that memory to the ability to record phone calls? WOW! The ability to actually record the list of things my boss is reading off to me while I drive instead of juggling driving, the cell phone and writing. What a novel concept!
I want tons of memory devoted to managing phone calls. Screw ringtones. After you hear it a couple of times it becomes annoying. Instead of ringtones, let's devote more of that memory to actually logging more than just the past 10 calls.
Oh!!! And, can we please have a PC interface that we can use to backup our phonelist or voice notes (via bluetooth would be nice). Why the hell these hybrid phones STILL can't talk to my PC I can't even begin to imagine - my iPod manages it just fine.
Toss taking pictures and movies too. They really suck for the most part. The only people that may like playing with such miserable image quality would be kids and teens that don't know any better. So, give them the worthless features and get that picture crap off my business phone. It eats up memory and space for features you should be giving me.
Games? Please people... Just give me a phone dedicated to making, logging and recording calls. Who EVER plays those cheezy games anyway? I have personally NEVER seen anyone playing a game on a phone.
My idea of the perfect phone is one that has TONS of memory dedicated to the following features.....
1) EXCELLENT call quality. Make it sound like we're sitting side by side simply having a conversation. Spare no expense on the MIC and speakers - especially the speakerphone quality. I wnat Bose to be jealous of my phone's sound quality.
2) The ability to record every conversation by having the phone ask me if I want to save the conversation I just ended - to which I could simply reply "yes" or "no". And, yes, 2 recordings should be made if I take another call and place the first ome on hold - WITHOUT losing the recording of the first call - an option to pause or continue the first recording would be nice.
3) I should also be able to make voice notes about the call that I just finished - with the ability to download the voice notes to my PC.
4) Let me decide how many calls I keep in my calls made and calls recieved logs (by number or max memory use). Ten just doesn't cut it.
5) ALL phone functions should work via voice commands that I can program. This would save time and lives when you absolutely MUST make a call while driving. (Yes, I know you shouldn't - but let's deal with reality here.)
6) Help me deal with those damnable menus that companies that hate their customers put up to block us from getting to an actual human being. When it says "Press 7 to continue" I should be able to "press 7" with a voice command that the phone understands. Hands free, total voice control of the phone - almost like a personal telephone assistant.
7) When I get a call from (or make a call to) a number that is not in my list of contacts, ask me if I want to save it. Then let me choose a VOICE command to dial the number as well as letting me type in the name using my voice.
8) You can keep the voice recorder function as it can help me make notes about the phone call that I just made or recieved. Just make it accessible via voice commands.
9) If I get a text message, read it to me! I should be able to check text messages via voice commands too.
We should be able to use our phones completely hands free!
With all of this functionality that COULD be in my phone, just who the hell asked for a low quality camera or an MP3 player or those cheezy, moronic games anyway?
GIVE ME A PHONE DEDICATED TO MAKING, RECEIVING, LOGGING AND MANAGING PHONE CALLS!
Keep the rest of that crap in your MP3 player.
Do you feel the same? If so, I'd love to hear from you.
I've had it with ringtones and cameras and MP3 players and a thousand other things that just shouldn't be in my damned phone!
I just want a phone! Instead of wasting memory with MP3s on a device that sounds more tinny than a transistor radio, how about we devote that memory to the ability to record phone calls? WOW! The ability to actually record the list of things my boss is reading off to me while I drive instead of juggling driving, the cell phone and writing. What a novel concept!
I want tons of memory devoted to managing phone calls. Screw ringtones. After you hear it a couple of times it becomes annoying. Instead of ringtones, let's devote more of that memory to actually logging more than just the past 10 calls.
Oh!!! And, can we please have a PC interface that we can use to backup our phonelist or voice notes (via bluetooth would be nice). Why the hell these hybrid phones STILL can't talk to my PC I can't even begin to imagine - my iPod manages it just fine.
Toss taking pictures and movies too. They really suck for the most part. The only people that may like playing with such miserable image quality would be kids and teens that don't know any better. So, give them the worthless features and get that picture crap off my business phone. It eats up memory and space for features you should be giving me.
Games? Please people... Just give me a phone dedicated to making, logging and recording calls. Who EVER plays those cheezy games anyway? I have personally NEVER seen anyone playing a game on a phone.
My idea of the perfect phone is one that has TONS of memory dedicated to the following features.....
1) EXCELLENT call quality. Make it sound like we're sitting side by side simply having a conversation. Spare no expense on the MIC and speakers - especially the speakerphone quality. I wnat Bose to be jealous of my phone's sound quality.
2) The ability to record every conversation by having the phone ask me if I want to save the conversation I just ended - to which I could simply reply "yes" or "no". And, yes, 2 recordings should be made if I take another call and place the first ome on hold - WITHOUT losing the recording of the first call - an option to pause or continue the first recording would be nice.
3) I should also be able to make voice notes about the call that I just finished - with the ability to download the voice notes to my PC.
4) Let me decide how many calls I keep in my calls made and calls recieved logs (by number or max memory use). Ten just doesn't cut it.
5) ALL phone functions should work via voice commands that I can program. This would save time and lives when you absolutely MUST make a call while driving. (Yes, I know you shouldn't - but let's deal with reality here.)
6) Help me deal with those damnable menus that companies that hate their customers put up to block us from getting to an actual human being. When it says "Press 7 to continue" I should be able to "press 7" with a voice command that the phone understands. Hands free, total voice control of the phone - almost like a personal telephone assistant.
7) When I get a call from (or make a call to) a number that is not in my list of contacts, ask me if I want to save it. Then let me choose a VOICE command to dial the number as well as letting me type in the name using my voice.
8) You can keep the voice recorder function as it can help me make notes about the phone call that I just made or recieved. Just make it accessible via voice commands.
9) If I get a text message, read it to me! I should be able to check text messages via voice commands too.
We should be able to use our phones completely hands free!
With all of this functionality that COULD be in my phone, just who the hell asked for a low quality camera or an MP3 player or those cheezy, moronic games anyway?
GIVE ME A PHONE DEDICATED TO MAKING, RECEIVING, LOGGING AND MANAGING PHONE CALLS!
Keep the rest of that crap in your MP3 player.
Do you feel the same? If so, I'd love to hear from you.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Diapers aren't the only things that need changing...
It is increasingly obvious to me (as it should be to you) that "we the people" are caught between two political playground bullies and we need to do something (ANYTHING) to allow real change.
Although there are many problems that we need to solve, there is one in particular that would help in the solving of all of the others. That problem is the existence of "good ol' boy" networks in both political parties.
You've seen it, just like I have. The Republican and Democratic parties are like children. They blame one another for all of our woes, with neither having the intestinal fortitude to say "we screwed up" and fix their own mistakes.
They point fingers, leak memos, try and impeach the other teams quarterback and play political football with us - the people they are supposedly elected to help.
Not counting election seasons, how many times do you see the big 2 parties attacking each other and how many times do you see them attacking social problems? The only time you see a politician addressing real issues is during campaign season - and even then attack ads outnumber issues 100:1 it seems.
Didn't we vote these people in to look out after our best interests? Sure we did! So, what's the problem?
In my humble opinion, the problem lies with career politicians. I don't believe that the founding fathers ever intended for there to be such a beast. Most of our founding fathers had real jobs, real businesses that they ran while doing service for their country. But, not today's illustrious wunderkinds of the political realm.
No, whether they admit it or not, the job that they actually work on is staying in office...not curing social ills. Let's face it - they have no incentive to cure social ills. If they did actually fix the broken down tax system, fully funded healthcare, repaired social security and got really tough on crime, what platform would they run on next time?
You've seen and heard the same tired promises of tax reform and health care reform and "contracts with America" just like I have. Have they fixed any of them? Have they remedied our failing school system? Have they even done anything real about any one of them?
No. And they won't.
Instead of actually fixing problems, they maintain the "Us VS Them" mentality that has made the Republicans and Democrats COMPLETELY ineffectual at helping the American people. They are so concerned with politics that they have forgotten (or ignored) the real job of a politician - to solve problems for the people...to SERVE the people.
It's not that there aren't bright, hopeful, intelligent people that are being elected. It's that they are stopped dead in their tracks by the left and right "good ol' boy" networks that run this nation's political machinery.
The newly elected first-timers are quickly told to tow the party line. They are virtually threatened with censorship by their own party if they dare step out of line. And, they are baited with promises of office chairmanships, money for their constituents and pork barrel projects for their districts if they "just play along."
Truth be told, there is damned little difference in what the Democrats and Republicans do and what the mob has traditionally done. In fact, I think they hate the mob so much because they are afraid of the competition. The only real difference between the mob and the major political parties of our time is that the political parties fool people into electing them and the mob bosses simply take charge.
Want proof? How about Newt Gingrich? The Republican party had just signed a "Contract with America". Things were going to be different. There was going to be a new standard of ethics that the Republicans held themselves and the Democrats to...until Newt signed his own little piece of paper admitting to 22 different ethics violations.
When this happened, what did the Republicans do? Did they turn their backs on Newt and kick his ass to the curb? Nope, they actaully applauded him as he left, raised money to pay his $300,000+ fines and still seek after him for public speaking engagements as if he were the returning Messiah. It made me sick.
That's when I turned away from the Republican party.
The Democrats are no better. Instead of publicly chastising their own President (Clinton) for actions not fit for a man in his position, they defended him to the utmost. The same thing has happened with Bush Jr., Iraq and the Republican party now. Bush screwed this up - they should admit it and hold him accountable.
But, that's something that a politician concerned with you and this nation would do. It's not something you are likely to see come out of either of the two major parties - holding their own accountable. You see, they see admitting guilt or finding fault with someone in their own pary as weakness. And, weakness could cost them elections and power.
In fact, cleaning your own house publicly is one of the most difficult tasks that any of us could undertake. And, that takes men and women of uncharacteristic strength and moral fiber. Men and women that aren't afraid to stand up for what's right. Men and womemen that will stand up for the people - even when that means going against their own party. Something you rarely see in politics these days.
No, the old guards are more concerned with towing the political line...with elections and seats and blaming the other guy than they are with compromise and real change that helps real people.
They trash the dreams of change that young, newly elected politicians bring to Washington. They wreck any chance that we have for real social change through threats and intimidation of the bright young lawmakers that we send to Washington all for the sake of the party...not the people.
I beleieve that the only way to stop the "good ol' boys" on both sides from using us as political pawns in their bids for a career in politics is to place 2 term limits on EVERY elected office in the nation.
We currently limit any person from being elected President of the United States more than twice in his or her life. If this rule is good enough for our nation's president, this rule is certainly good enough for senators and congressmen - not to mention sheriffs, govenors, mayors and any other elected office.
Without such a law, we will continue to be ruled by politicians that have adopted politics as a way of life - not as a service to a nation.
By adopting such a law, we could ensure that new ideas, new partnerships and new ways of thinking would continually be brought to Washington. That's something that would benefit us all - no matter what party we may identify with.
Limiting every politician to 2 term limits would ensure that no one politician (or group of politicians) would hold power long enough to establish a "good ol' boy" network and stifle the newly elected polititcian's goals for real change. The people would actually hold more power than the politicians for a change.
There are other things that we need to change. But, in a time where our polititicians can vote themselves a raise during a recession, give themselves $26,000 in raises while not raising the minimum wage one red cent and attach riders of $20,000,000 Alaskan highways to nowhere that nobody wants to bills that we actually need to pass, we need new people with new ideas and the freedom to pursue those ideas in an effort to bring real change and real help to the American people.
We need 2 term limits for all elected officials and we need them now.
Question is...how do you get politicians to vote to end their own gravy train?
Although there are many problems that we need to solve, there is one in particular that would help in the solving of all of the others. That problem is the existence of "good ol' boy" networks in both political parties.
You've seen it, just like I have. The Republican and Democratic parties are like children. They blame one another for all of our woes, with neither having the intestinal fortitude to say "we screwed up" and fix their own mistakes.
They point fingers, leak memos, try and impeach the other teams quarterback and play political football with us - the people they are supposedly elected to help.
Not counting election seasons, how many times do you see the big 2 parties attacking each other and how many times do you see them attacking social problems? The only time you see a politician addressing real issues is during campaign season - and even then attack ads outnumber issues 100:1 it seems.
Didn't we vote these people in to look out after our best interests? Sure we did! So, what's the problem?
In my humble opinion, the problem lies with career politicians. I don't believe that the founding fathers ever intended for there to be such a beast. Most of our founding fathers had real jobs, real businesses that they ran while doing service for their country. But, not today's illustrious wunderkinds of the political realm.
No, whether they admit it or not, the job that they actually work on is staying in office...not curing social ills. Let's face it - they have no incentive to cure social ills. If they did actually fix the broken down tax system, fully funded healthcare, repaired social security and got really tough on crime, what platform would they run on next time?
You've seen and heard the same tired promises of tax reform and health care reform and "contracts with America" just like I have. Have they fixed any of them? Have they remedied our failing school system? Have they even done anything real about any one of them?
No. And they won't.
Instead of actually fixing problems, they maintain the "Us VS Them" mentality that has made the Republicans and Democrats COMPLETELY ineffectual at helping the American people. They are so concerned with politics that they have forgotten (or ignored) the real job of a politician - to solve problems for the people...to SERVE the people.
It's not that there aren't bright, hopeful, intelligent people that are being elected. It's that they are stopped dead in their tracks by the left and right "good ol' boy" networks that run this nation's political machinery.
The newly elected first-timers are quickly told to tow the party line. They are virtually threatened with censorship by their own party if they dare step out of line. And, they are baited with promises of office chairmanships, money for their constituents and pork barrel projects for their districts if they "just play along."
Truth be told, there is damned little difference in what the Democrats and Republicans do and what the mob has traditionally done. In fact, I think they hate the mob so much because they are afraid of the competition. The only real difference between the mob and the major political parties of our time is that the political parties fool people into electing them and the mob bosses simply take charge.
Want proof? How about Newt Gingrich? The Republican party had just signed a "Contract with America". Things were going to be different. There was going to be a new standard of ethics that the Republicans held themselves and the Democrats to...until Newt signed his own little piece of paper admitting to 22 different ethics violations.
When this happened, what did the Republicans do? Did they turn their backs on Newt and kick his ass to the curb? Nope, they actaully applauded him as he left, raised money to pay his $300,000+ fines and still seek after him for public speaking engagements as if he were the returning Messiah. It made me sick.
That's when I turned away from the Republican party.
The Democrats are no better. Instead of publicly chastising their own President (Clinton) for actions not fit for a man in his position, they defended him to the utmost. The same thing has happened with Bush Jr., Iraq and the Republican party now. Bush screwed this up - they should admit it and hold him accountable.
But, that's something that a politician concerned with you and this nation would do. It's not something you are likely to see come out of either of the two major parties - holding their own accountable. You see, they see admitting guilt or finding fault with someone in their own pary as weakness. And, weakness could cost them elections and power.
In fact, cleaning your own house publicly is one of the most difficult tasks that any of us could undertake. And, that takes men and women of uncharacteristic strength and moral fiber. Men and women that aren't afraid to stand up for what's right. Men and womemen that will stand up for the people - even when that means going against their own party. Something you rarely see in politics these days.
No, the old guards are more concerned with towing the political line...with elections and seats and blaming the other guy than they are with compromise and real change that helps real people.
They trash the dreams of change that young, newly elected politicians bring to Washington. They wreck any chance that we have for real social change through threats and intimidation of the bright young lawmakers that we send to Washington all for the sake of the party...not the people.
I beleieve that the only way to stop the "good ol' boys" on both sides from using us as political pawns in their bids for a career in politics is to place 2 term limits on EVERY elected office in the nation.
We currently limit any person from being elected President of the United States more than twice in his or her life. If this rule is good enough for our nation's president, this rule is certainly good enough for senators and congressmen - not to mention sheriffs, govenors, mayors and any other elected office.
Without such a law, we will continue to be ruled by politicians that have adopted politics as a way of life - not as a service to a nation.
By adopting such a law, we could ensure that new ideas, new partnerships and new ways of thinking would continually be brought to Washington. That's something that would benefit us all - no matter what party we may identify with.
Limiting every politician to 2 term limits would ensure that no one politician (or group of politicians) would hold power long enough to establish a "good ol' boy" network and stifle the newly elected polititcian's goals for real change. The people would actually hold more power than the politicians for a change.
There are other things that we need to change. But, in a time where our polititicians can vote themselves a raise during a recession, give themselves $26,000 in raises while not raising the minimum wage one red cent and attach riders of $20,000,000 Alaskan highways to nowhere that nobody wants to bills that we actually need to pass, we need new people with new ideas and the freedom to pursue those ideas in an effort to bring real change and real help to the American people.
We need 2 term limits for all elected officials and we need them now.
Question is...how do you get politicians to vote to end their own gravy train?
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Re-arm the Iraqi People
It's time we realized that a democracy is not something you can give to a nation or a people. A democracy is something that has to be desired more than life itself. It has to be paid for (in lives most of the time) by the people who desire it.
We cannot give Iraq a democracy. We can stand by them. We can support them. We can even fight alongside them. But, we cannot fight against tyranny for them.
Terroristic warfare is a different beast than the wars our soldiers have been classically trained for. Terrorists don't have a "front line". They don't wear easily identifiable uniforms. They hide in homes, mosques and hospitals. They surround themselves and hide behind civilians (mostly women and children) because they know we will not kill the innocent indiscriminently.
This is a very different war than we have trained for, but not so different than a war that we have seen before. This is a very personal war for the people of Iraq.
This is a war that must be fought in every alley, every mosque, every home and every street. An army cannot do that. Only a people can do that. Only a nation's people can erradicate this type of enemy to peace and the will of the people.
The terrorists and fanatical religious leaders that are ravaging Iraq and killing its people can only be irradicated by an Iraqi civil war in which the people fight for the democracy that they desire.
Nobody wants to say that - but it's true.
We have made the situation worse by confiscating the weapons of law-abiding citizens while the terrorists and fanatical Muslims continue to carry weapons, purchase more weapons and use them against the law-abiding Iraqis that trusted us enough to disarm.
It seems that we would have learned what taking guns away from law-abiding citizens does when we made all handgun ownership illegal in Washington D.C. and created the greatest concentration of handgun violence in the entire country. But, I am afraid that we haven't learned that lesson yet.
You see, evil triumphs when good people are disarmed. And evil hides, runs and (hopefully) dies when good people are armed. It has always been that way throughout history. To make believe otherwise is simply putting one's head in the sand.
In order to free the Iraqi people from the daily hell of bombings of innocent civillians and mistreatment and murder of women and people of differing faiths, you will have to have people on every street, searching every mosque, and looking in every home, business and hole in the ground for the enemies of Iraq.
Do we have enough soldiers to do that? No. No army does.
Only the Iraqi people are up to this task. Re-arm the Iraqi people and let them fight for the democracy that we long to give them - but cannot.
We have recognized, in our nation's most sacred political documents, that freedom and self-government are the birthrights of all of humanity. What we have not learned is that freedom can only be reclaimed by the people from whom it has been stolen. We cannot give the people of Iraq something that they must take back for themselves.
As much as I wish it were different, the simple, hard fact is that the Iraqi democracy must be bought with the blood and sacrafice of the majority of that nation's people - just like ours was.
Re-arm the good people of Iraq and stand with them as they fight for thier own country - their own freedom.
We cannot give Iraq a democracy. We can stand by them. We can support them. We can even fight alongside them. But, we cannot fight against tyranny for them.
Terroristic warfare is a different beast than the wars our soldiers have been classically trained for. Terrorists don't have a "front line". They don't wear easily identifiable uniforms. They hide in homes, mosques and hospitals. They surround themselves and hide behind civilians (mostly women and children) because they know we will not kill the innocent indiscriminently.
This is a very different war than we have trained for, but not so different than a war that we have seen before. This is a very personal war for the people of Iraq.
This is a war that must be fought in every alley, every mosque, every home and every street. An army cannot do that. Only a people can do that. Only a nation's people can erradicate this type of enemy to peace and the will of the people.
The terrorists and fanatical religious leaders that are ravaging Iraq and killing its people can only be irradicated by an Iraqi civil war in which the people fight for the democracy that they desire.
Nobody wants to say that - but it's true.
We have made the situation worse by confiscating the weapons of law-abiding citizens while the terrorists and fanatical Muslims continue to carry weapons, purchase more weapons and use them against the law-abiding Iraqis that trusted us enough to disarm.
It seems that we would have learned what taking guns away from law-abiding citizens does when we made all handgun ownership illegal in Washington D.C. and created the greatest concentration of handgun violence in the entire country. But, I am afraid that we haven't learned that lesson yet.
You see, evil triumphs when good people are disarmed. And evil hides, runs and (hopefully) dies when good people are armed. It has always been that way throughout history. To make believe otherwise is simply putting one's head in the sand.
In order to free the Iraqi people from the daily hell of bombings of innocent civillians and mistreatment and murder of women and people of differing faiths, you will have to have people on every street, searching every mosque, and looking in every home, business and hole in the ground for the enemies of Iraq.
Do we have enough soldiers to do that? No. No army does.
Only the Iraqi people are up to this task. Re-arm the Iraqi people and let them fight for the democracy that we long to give them - but cannot.
We have recognized, in our nation's most sacred political documents, that freedom and self-government are the birthrights of all of humanity. What we have not learned is that freedom can only be reclaimed by the people from whom it has been stolen. We cannot give the people of Iraq something that they must take back for themselves.
As much as I wish it were different, the simple, hard fact is that the Iraqi democracy must be bought with the blood and sacrafice of the majority of that nation's people - just like ours was.
Re-arm the good people of Iraq and stand with them as they fight for thier own country - their own freedom.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Hey Infragistics......RAD might not be a bad idea.
In the wee hours of this morning, I find myself testing out Infragistics' NetAdvantage for ASP.Net.
The examples they show in their Samples Browser look fantastic. The whole design of the Infragistics website gives one (that's be me) the impression that this wonderful suite of tools is a RAD development toolbox for the web. Drag and drop your way to internet success (or so I thought).
Maybe it was when they stated "Using NetAdvantage for ASP.NET you can deliver AJAX-enabled Web applications quickly and easily, providing the functionality and speed comparable to a desktop application." that I got to thinking that I could easily develop great looking applications (you know, like the UIs they show in their Samples Browser).
But, as with most things that touch on programming (since the advent of .Net anyway) Infragistics NetAdvantage for ASP.Net would also be a great disappointment.
Why? Simply because it does not deliver on the RAD promises ("...you can deliver AJAX-enabled Web applications quickly and easily...") with interfaces that even remotely resemble anything in their Samples Browser.
There's a hell of a lot more to do here than just drag and drop some controls on a web page. And I am just talking about getting the controls to look as professional as the samples in the Samples Browser. I'm not talking about writing any code that actually makes the components functional.
I'm just trying to get the controls to look as good as they do on the Infragistics Samples Browser pages. Looks are a big deal in everything...people, cars, homes, and software even. People have more confidence in (and want to be associated with) things that look good. So, that is where I started testing the NetAdvantage for ASP.Net components - strictly testing the UI capabilities of the components.
While I downloaded the trial version, I had assumed (wrong as I know assuming can be) that the controls would have simple styles that you could set to get the same look and feel as in the samples on the site and maybe even templates that allowed you to take the samples shown and adjust them for your needs. At the very least I expected a plethora of sample code that showed exactly how to achieve the same stunning UI in my own applications.
Boy was I about to be disappointed.
Now, why wouldn't a company with a record of winning multiple awards for their products actually show you how to accomplish the same things in your apps as what they show you in their Samples Browser? Better yet, why wouldn't they include the samples as templates for your applications? After all, the better you look - the better they look, right?
Well, getting the UI tools in Infragistics NetAdvantage for ASP.Net to look as professional as the samples on the Infragistics website is not RAD in the least. You know...there used to be suites of tools that were truly RAD. You may have heard of an old language called Visual Basic 6. Well, it had those. In fact, Infragistics wrote some of the best RAD tools for VB6. So what happened?
Where did RAD go? Not only did creating applications get more complex and less secure (from a coder trying to protect his/her intellectual property standpoint) with the advent of .Net, the applications and toolsets being created have completely lost sight of what made toolsets and applications raging successes in the first place.
No more do you see wizards that walk new users (and even very tired old users) through a few simple steps to set application preferences. No...It seems that you should "just know" how things work - as if the information wafted through the ether and settled in your brain the moment you bought your new software.
Why have the very intelligent people that give us such powerful software become so utterly clueless when it comes to UI development of software and tools and how to teach someone totally new to their product or application how to get productive quickly?
Didn't anybody pay attention to why Windows was/is such a hit? There are 2 main reasons. The one I will hit on here is simplicity. Bill Gates used Windows to dumb down the PC, and created the best known, best selling software of all time.
All great selling software programs have had one thing in common. They all made a task easier for the end user. The only application that could dethrone one of these great-selling, simple apps was an application that simplified the process even more.
Simple software = lots of users = big $$$. The concept is neither novel nor that difficult to grasp.
So, why don't we get it? Why does it take hours and hours of playing and testing and tweaking to emulate the samples shown in the Infragistics Samples Browser? Why should a customer have to guess at how to achieve the same look and feel at all? It'd be a damned shame if the point of those beautiful samples was simply to sell NetAdvantage....once.
In case the guys at Infragistics didn't know it already, the main selling point of their software is the perception that you can create great-looking, simple internet applications in less time. Second to that is the back-end functionality that includes cross-browser compatibility.
Maybe I'm getting old. But, it seems to me that people are getting dumber. They don't pay attention to the lessons that we have been taught in just the past 20 years - nevermind the past 100 years or 1,000 years.
Simple sells. Simple sells over and over. Simple makes kings of paupers. Simple is what people want more of....especially programmers.
So, just why don't people get it?
The examples they show in their Samples Browser look fantastic. The whole design of the Infragistics website gives one (that's be me) the impression that this wonderful suite of tools is a RAD development toolbox for the web. Drag and drop your way to internet success (or so I thought).
Maybe it was when they stated "Using NetAdvantage for ASP.NET you can deliver AJAX-enabled Web applications quickly and easily, providing the functionality and speed comparable to a desktop application." that I got to thinking that I could easily develop great looking applications (you know, like the UIs they show in their Samples Browser).
But, as with most things that touch on programming (since the advent of .Net anyway) Infragistics NetAdvantage for ASP.Net would also be a great disappointment.
Why? Simply because it does not deliver on the RAD promises ("...you can deliver AJAX-enabled Web applications quickly and easily...") with interfaces that even remotely resemble anything in their Samples Browser.
There's a hell of a lot more to do here than just drag and drop some controls on a web page. And I am just talking about getting the controls to look as professional as the samples in the Samples Browser. I'm not talking about writing any code that actually makes the components functional.
I'm just trying to get the controls to look as good as they do on the Infragistics Samples Browser pages. Looks are a big deal in everything...people, cars, homes, and software even. People have more confidence in (and want to be associated with) things that look good. So, that is where I started testing the NetAdvantage for ASP.Net components - strictly testing the UI capabilities of the components.
While I downloaded the trial version, I had assumed (wrong as I know assuming can be) that the controls would have simple styles that you could set to get the same look and feel as in the samples on the site and maybe even templates that allowed you to take the samples shown and adjust them for your needs. At the very least I expected a plethora of sample code that showed exactly how to achieve the same stunning UI in my own applications.
Boy was I about to be disappointed.
Now, why wouldn't a company with a record of winning multiple awards for their products actually show you how to accomplish the same things in your apps as what they show you in their Samples Browser? Better yet, why wouldn't they include the samples as templates for your applications? After all, the better you look - the better they look, right?
Well, getting the UI tools in Infragistics NetAdvantage for ASP.Net to look as professional as the samples on the Infragistics website is not RAD in the least. You know...there used to be suites of tools that were truly RAD. You may have heard of an old language called Visual Basic 6. Well, it had those. In fact, Infragistics wrote some of the best RAD tools for VB6. So what happened?
Where did RAD go? Not only did creating applications get more complex and less secure (from a coder trying to protect his/her intellectual property standpoint) with the advent of .Net, the applications and toolsets being created have completely lost sight of what made toolsets and applications raging successes in the first place.
No more do you see wizards that walk new users (and even very tired old users) through a few simple steps to set application preferences. No...It seems that you should "just know" how things work - as if the information wafted through the ether and settled in your brain the moment you bought your new software.
Why have the very intelligent people that give us such powerful software become so utterly clueless when it comes to UI development of software and tools and how to teach someone totally new to their product or application how to get productive quickly?
Didn't anybody pay attention to why Windows was/is such a hit? There are 2 main reasons. The one I will hit on here is simplicity. Bill Gates used Windows to dumb down the PC, and created the best known, best selling software of all time.
All great selling software programs have had one thing in common. They all made a task easier for the end user. The only application that could dethrone one of these great-selling, simple apps was an application that simplified the process even more.
Simple software = lots of users = big $$$. The concept is neither novel nor that difficult to grasp.
So, why don't we get it? Why does it take hours and hours of playing and testing and tweaking to emulate the samples shown in the Infragistics Samples Browser? Why should a customer have to guess at how to achieve the same look and feel at all? It'd be a damned shame if the point of those beautiful samples was simply to sell NetAdvantage....once.
In case the guys at Infragistics didn't know it already, the main selling point of their software is the perception that you can create great-looking, simple internet applications in less time. Second to that is the back-end functionality that includes cross-browser compatibility.
Maybe I'm getting old. But, it seems to me that people are getting dumber. They don't pay attention to the lessons that we have been taught in just the past 20 years - nevermind the past 100 years or 1,000 years.
Simple sells. Simple sells over and over. Simple makes kings of paupers. Simple is what people want more of....especially programmers.
So, just why don't people get it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
