Home▸
Forums▸
Favorite Software Developers/Least Favorites?▸
Favorite Software Developers/Least Favorites?
Thread
Favorite Software Developers/Least Favorites?
dude Office 2004 on a macbook pro runs as good as it does on my pismo with 512MB of ram.
You're running on a MacBook Pro? When it came out it was running on G4 and G5 PowerPCs. It ran well on some machines but it's still overkill for a word processor that had no real advantages over Office X.
Besides, it takes 15 minutes to load up on our Intel C2D iMacs, all 33 of them in the R37 Computer Lab.
Besides, it takes 15 minutes to load up on our Intel C2D iMacs, all 33 of them in the R37 Computer Lab.
Office 2004 takes forever to load on an Intel-based Mac because it's a rosetta app. in one photoshop test I ran, my G3/500 PowerBook "demolished" a 1.83GHz MBP, both systems had 512mb of ram. (The G3 got like 27 mins 30 seconds, the MBP got 29 minutes 30 seconds. Not the biggest difference ever, but the MBP was one year old, the G3 was six or seven.)
I use Bean on my iMac for text processing, and for anything really heavy, Office 2007 on my ThinkPad, it runs really fast.
[An actual post about software developers will come later tonight.]
I use Bean on my iMac for text processing, and for anything really heavy, Office 2007 on my ThinkPad, it runs really fast.
[An actual post about software developers will come later tonight.]
It's kinda silly to say that new word processors have nothing on their predecessors. After all, Microsoft and Corel and Apple do have to convince people to buy the new product. And they do have to convince people, since Office is rather expensive.
I think that it is fair to say that most new word processors have few new features that many people will use. The few new features that will see heavy use will be things that the user has no choice in, like the user interface cleanup of Office 2007 or the Intel code of the latest Mac version. Or worst, people will be roped into upgrading for interoperability: the reason why people use Word over WordPerfect is much the same reason why people will end up using Word 2007 over Word 2003. Of course there will be specialist features that some people will use a lot. For example: I would imagine that the new equation editor is better than the stripped down version of MathType that Microsoft shipped with Word in the past (how can it be worse). There will also be a bunch of features that people will use once or twice, either for genuine labour saving or just to justify their purchase of the upgrade.
Over all though, I'm left wondering: why can't we have different products targetted at different needs. A student doesn't need mail-merge, unless there is a major case of plagiarism going on; a novelist is unlikely to embed images; a secretary doesn't have time to play around with word art or borders; a child would probably be confused by by VBScripting (that, or program the most successful macro virus ever).
Meanwhile these "you have to own this end all and be all product because someone is going to send you a Word or Excel attachment that won't work properly in a competitor's product" products suck for some users. The last version of Office I used (2003) was more painful to use than LaTeX+awk+gnuplot (masochistic Unix applications) for scientific applications. Researchers are still stuck buying a third party bibliographic manager to compliment a product that includes the kitchen sink, but apparently lacks some fundamental writing tools. And screen-writing software seem to be a popular category, so I suppose Word fails there too.
So why can't people give up on bloatware and just get specialized and lean applications. (After all, consumers are a large part of the drive in the market.) That way you can save all of that RAM and all of those CPU cycles for the important things in life. Like watching YouTube (or, in my case, Annenberg videos).
I think that it is fair to say that most new word processors have few new features that many people will use. The few new features that will see heavy use will be things that the user has no choice in, like the user interface cleanup of Office 2007 or the Intel code of the latest Mac version. Or worst, people will be roped into upgrading for interoperability: the reason why people use Word over WordPerfect is much the same reason why people will end up using Word 2007 over Word 2003. Of course there will be specialist features that some people will use a lot. For example: I would imagine that the new equation editor is better than the stripped down version of MathType that Microsoft shipped with Word in the past (how can it be worse). There will also be a bunch of features that people will use once or twice, either for genuine labour saving or just to justify their purchase of the upgrade.
Over all though, I'm left wondering: why can't we have different products targetted at different needs. A student doesn't need mail-merge, unless there is a major case of plagiarism going on; a novelist is unlikely to embed images; a secretary doesn't have time to play around with word art or borders; a child would probably be confused by by VBScripting (that, or program the most successful macro virus ever).
Meanwhile these "you have to own this end all and be all product because someone is going to send you a Word or Excel attachment that won't work properly in a competitor's product" products suck for some users. The last version of Office I used (2003) was more painful to use than LaTeX+awk+gnuplot (masochistic Unix applications) for scientific applications. Researchers are still stuck buying a third party bibliographic manager to compliment a product that includes the kitchen sink, but apparently lacks some fundamental writing tools. And screen-writing software seem to be a popular category, so I suppose Word fails there too.
So why can't people give up on bloatware and just get specialized and lean applications. (After all, consumers are a large part of the drive in the market.) That way you can save all of that RAM and all of those CPU cycles for the important things in life. Like watching YouTube (or, in my case, Annenberg videos).
On the specific note of fundamental writing tools, Word 2007 now features (rather prominently, I discovered it within about an hour of non-directed playing with Word 2007) citation and bibliography management tools.
Right now, I've got to admit that I'm pretty happy with Microsoft. They offer really deep discounts for Students. Office 2007 is about $60 right now from theultimatesteal.com, and students can get Microsoft's developer tools and a copy of Server 2003 for free, which is pretty awesome. Plus, I've got to admit, Windows Vista kind of rocks. I've had it on the ThinkPad since September and it's been just about rock solid. I really don't need to (but probably will) reformat it. Even then, I'm waiting until summer, just so I can back everything up and do a proper job of it all.
Unfortunately, I really dislike to add dislike to threads like this, but I've got to admit, I'm really unhappy with Adobe right now. I've recently discovered that Bridge CS3 works almost infinitely better on Windows than it does on my Mac.
The Adobe thing is more of a personal complaint than anything else -- It's mainly the fact that I've now got no Mac-only apps, and the one app I expected to be awesome on my Mac, runs better on my cheap impulse-buy PC laptop than it does on my relatively high-spec iMac, and the nice iMacs at the School of Comm.
Right now, I've got to admit that I'm pretty happy with Microsoft. They offer really deep discounts for Students. Office 2007 is about $60 right now from theultimatesteal.com, and students can get Microsoft's developer tools and a copy of Server 2003 for free, which is pretty awesome. Plus, I've got to admit, Windows Vista kind of rocks. I've had it on the ThinkPad since September and it's been just about rock solid. I really don't need to (but probably will) reformat it. Even then, I'm waiting until summer, just so I can back everything up and do a proper job of it all.
Unfortunately, I really dislike to add dislike to threads like this, but I've got to admit, I'm really unhappy with Adobe right now. I've recently discovered that Bridge CS3 works almost infinitely better on Windows than it does on my Mac.
The Adobe thing is more of a personal complaint than anything else -- It's mainly the fact that I've now got no Mac-only apps, and the one app I expected to be awesome on my Mac, runs better on my cheap impulse-buy PC laptop than it does on my relatively high-spec iMac, and the nice iMacs at the School of Comm.