Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google "Office" Released

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the you-got-web-all-over-my-desktop dept.

394

pumpknhd writes "Looks like Google has finally integrated Writely and spreadsheets into Google "Docs & Spreadsheets". Writely.com now redirects to this new location. The design has also changed to match the look of other Google services." The more "applications" I try forcing into a tabbed web MDI model under a Mac, the more clumsy it gets. They aren't in my Dock, they can't be apple-tabbed through. Issues like this really frustrate me as I find myself wanting to use more web2.0 ajaxy fancy pants programs.

cancel ×

394 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Goffice? (3, Insightful)

P(0)(!P(k)+P(k+1)) (1012109) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391273)

The name, at least, is sufficiently benign; though I rooted for “Goffice.”

I'll stick with LaTeX, thanks; but Goffice's real-time collaboration-feature [google.com] may make concurrent editing easier than under SVN.

Re:Goffice? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391585)

LaTeX and Office (any office; google, open, microsoft...) are for completely different things. LaTeX is an unnecessary pain in the ass for non-mathematical writing where a WYSIWYG editor will suffice, and such editors are useless for mathematics.

I do my math homework in LaTeX, and my english homework in whatever office program is installed on the computer I'm using. I'd never think to use either one for the other purpose.

Re:Goffice? (5, Insightful)

P(0)(!P(k)+P(k+1)) (1012109) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391825)

I'd never think to use either one for the other purpose.

But you may not be doing serious work, then.

Let's say you have a five-hundred-fold bibliography: how are you going to port it between publishable papers if not in BibTeX [csuchico.edu] ?

Re:Goffice? (4, Insightful)

cyclop (780354) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391919)

LaTeX is an unnecessary pain in the ass for non-mathematical writing where a WYSIWYG editor will suffice

Biting the flamebait here... you are (bzzt!) wrong. I wrote my graduation molecular biology thesis (almost no math involved) in LaTeX. I learned LaTeX for that purpose, and looking at my collegues struggling with word processors compared with the damn ease and elegance of LaTeX, I'd never turn back.

I wish my boss let me write research papers with LaTeX too *sigh*.

Re:Goffice? (4, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391619)

As possible names go, I think "Goofice" would be more gallant.

Re:Goffice? (1, Offtopic)

hcob$ (766699) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391747)

As possible names go, I think "Goofice" would be more gallant.
You should have heard the Bill Clinton version's name: G-orifice.

Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391277)

So while I was fooling around with this, I couldn't help but notice that it has the option of saving to a Portable Document Format (PDF) which, according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] is:
a file format proprietary to Adobe Systems for representing two-dimensional documents in a device independent and resolution independent fixed-layout document format.
I bolded the word that has caused Adobe to sue Microsoft [slashdot.org] . My question is simple, doesn't Google face the same kind of lawsuit?

If I may comment more generally on this, releasing the Acrobat reader a long time ago for free use to anyone was ingenious of Adobe. Because the Writer/Creator for those files once cost tons of money (back then). Today, it's a bit cheaper [adobe.com] but I still love and cherish the PDFCreator project [sourceforge.net] under the GPL.

Really causes one to wonder how 'free' something is when it comes to standards. Now we'll just have to wait and see if Adobe begins to sue everyone who wants this functionality in their application. A lot of people I talk to regard PDF as an 'open' standard when the only part that's free is the ability to decode it--not encode it.

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (5, Insightful)

mccalli (323026) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391327)

A lot of people I talk to regard PDF as an 'open' standard when the only part that's free is the ability to decode it--not encode it.

Not so - witness OS X. It encodes PDFs with wild abandon without paying anything to Adobe. The PDF standard is published and can be implemented by anyone.

I've honestly no idea why Microsoft backed down against Adobe. Perhaps it's because of the monopoly status or something, but what they wanted to include in Office seemed perfectly reasonable to me. after all, I'm used to doing the same thing with NeoOffice/OpenOffice and also with any application that prints on a Mac. Linux uses could say the same thing, and I'm sure I remember a freebie printer driver on Windows that creates PDFs as well.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391417)

Ahhh, but NeXT was a license-holder for Display PostScript, which PDF is a descendent of.

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (5, Insightful)

RevMike (632002) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391615)

I've honestly no idea why Microsoft backed down against Adobe. Perhaps it's because of the monopoly status or something....

Exactly. One of the restrictions placed on a monopoly is that they can't use their monopoly status in one area to help them create a monopoly in another area. By adding PDF capability to Office, they would be expanding their near-total monopoly in "Office" to create a second monopoly in "PDF authoring tools".

Apple, not having a monopoly - at least in the personal computer space - has more flexibility to add a feature like this.

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391973)

And now Google is using their monopoly in the web platform market to gain entry to the word processing, spread sheet, and PDF authoring markets, after they have conquered web search, Usenet, email, sattelite image viewing, online video, and whatever I forgot. All the while collecting more information about everyone and using it for advertising purposes.

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391997)

``By adding PDF capability to Office, they would be expanding their near-total monopoly in "Office" to create a second monopoly in "PDF authoring tools"'' ...and offering their customers a service, which now they are denied from doing just because everybody uses their products. I still have difficulty with this "you can't do that, because you're a monopoly" thinking.

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (3, Informative)

dan.hunt (613949) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392061)

... a freebie printer driver on Windows that creates PDFs as well. It works fantastic, the PDF Creator [theopencd.org] conveniently distributed on the fantastic OpenCD.

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (2, Informative)

raffe (28595) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391341)

PDF is open and adobe threaten to sue because if you could read and write pdf in office who would buy stuff from adobe? It was about competion not about owning pdf.

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391505)

more importantly, it was about unfair competition because MS is a monopoly* in the office suite market

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (2, Insightful)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391787)

No, that's not how it works. Let's say GM is the dominant automobile seller (jokes aside, it's an analogy), and Ford invents airbags. That's like telling GM they can't install airbags in their cars.

No, the problem here, as I understand it, is MS was trying to, once again, extend a format they didn't own to lock people into using MS products.

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391877)

Bad analogy continues. It was not merely "dominant seller" like GM. It is a de-facto monopoly. A monopoly convicted of using its monopoly power unfairly in competition against Netscape. The rules are different for monopolies. Otherwiser competition will be stifled.

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (4, Informative)

thebdj (768618) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391345)

I bolded the word that has caused Adobe to sue Microsoft. My question is simple, doesn't Google face the same kind of lawsuit?

Adobe is suing because Microsoft is trying to create a new format that is embedded as part of the system. This was discussed many times in the previous discussion of the lawsuit. Both this app and OpenOffice have PDF exporting support. As you pointed out, there are PDF creators that are freely available.

Remember, Adobe opened the PDF standard so people could do this. (At least, I do believe that has how it went.) Like I said, it is not PDF creation that has Adobe pissed at Microsoft, it is their new, PDF-esque format.

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (4, Informative)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391365)

If you'd care to continue your research beyond the first paragraph:
Anyone may create applications that read and write PDF files without having to pay royalties to Adobe Systems; Adobe holds a number of patents relating to the PDF format and claims that it is an open standard, licensing them on a royalty-free basis for use in developing software that complies with its PDF specification.
I bolded the sentences that clear this matter up.

Adobe holds the patents, but they'll license without royalties as long as you conform to the standard... and as long as they can't find a good reason not to. Of course, the minute they try to, the world will move to a free open format pretty quickly.

I don't know the details of the MS case - did MS do it without permission, maybe?

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (2, Insightful)

ElleyKitten (715519) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391461)

Of course, the minute they try to, the world will move to a free open format pretty quickly.

Bullshit. Many people already call PDF "Adobe format" because they don't know you can read it without Adobe. If PDF became completely proprietary tomorrow, few people would notice.

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (1)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391643)

I think a lot of people would notice, because quite a few middleware, reporting tools and websites use iText [lowagie.com] to generate PDF's. Some examples are Adobe's (formerly Macromedia's) Coldfusion, Google Calendar and JasperReports. End users may not know it, but it wouldn't surprise me if most PDF's out there are generated with tools not sold by Adobe (not only iText, but also e.g. pdflatex and things like that).

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (1)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391719)

Every Apple user would notice immediately: Quartz, the 2D rendering engine for OS X, uses PDF: , and

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (1)

Morphine007 (207082) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391785)

bullshit, "ah doh bee for mat" has more syllables than "pee dee eff" so laziness wins....

Also, I work with some pretty goddamned computer-illiterate people and I have never, ever, heard anyone call a .pdf file an adobe file or an adobe format file...

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391779)

I don't know the details of the MS case - did MS do it without permission, maybe?

I'm wondering if it's another case of "embrace and extend" so the final PDF wasn't compatible with anything Adobe made.

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (1)

kylner (639495) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391377)

The opening of Adobe's own site [adobe.com] discussing the PDF reference makes it clear that it is intended for individual's looking to develop applications that create as well as modify PDF documents.

"The PDF Reference provides a description of the Portable Document Format and is intended for application developers wishing to develop applications that create PDF files directly, as well as read or modify PDF document content."

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (2, Informative)

jrumney (197329) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391425)

No Google does not face any lawsuit, since the patents surrounding the PDF format are licensed royalty free by Adobe to anyone implementing a PDF writer or reader. The potential lawsuit your link refers to concerned antitrust issues, not IP issues.

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (1)

qurk (87195) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391447)

Well for one thing Microsoft may have had the capability, but do you really believe they didn't intend to bury it, like they did a million other "embrace and extinguish" examples? Sounds really fair to Adobe, including their standard along with their .doc format which most people would save to given a choice. To be fair I don't see why Adobe wouldn't have welcomed the opportunity to have their format in the #1 word processing program, but only thing I can think of is that perhaps Microsoft wasn't paying them royalties for use in their commercial program. Don't get me wrong I don't see Google not making money in some way by making this program, but then again I can't see you going to Wal-mart and buying it, or it being Google's #2 money maker. Who knows. There are a few other great programs in Linux that save to .pdf as well, you may as well ask why isn't Adobe suing them as well.

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391497)

That article was stupid. MS was speculating that Adobe might file a suit against them for antitrust violations. It was just MS FUD.

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (1)

OlivierB (709839) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391513)

The PDF export is disgusting, it's a hack that takes the PostScript image of your print and sticks it in a PDF.
It looks like ass and you cannot copy and paste from the PDF.

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391525)

Adobe hasn't sued anyone over putting PDF writing in Office. MS said they thought Adobe might sue.

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (1)

gutnor (872759) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391541)

You just highlighted a problem of the proprietary formats ... the owner can deside who can and cannot use its format.

In this case as it is for Apple, Adobe will probably make no problem. Only Microsoft is forbidden to include PDF in Office.
Even more funny, as MaxOS export everything in PDF, the new Vista has the same capacity, but instead of using PDF, they push their own format( proprietary, off course ). Microsoft would probably not be authorised by Adobe to use PDF, but anyway Adobe is still complaining when they use another format...

Well that should make me happy to see Microsoft hurt, but at the end of the day, who will be the next Adobe target ? Proprietary format are a plague, when they reach a status of monopol they should automatically fall in public domain, as trademark.

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (1)

gkhan1 (886823) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391705)

Office 2007 exports to PDF just fine. Check your facts

Re:Neat Tool, What About Adobe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391991)

Oh please, mods. Please don't mod up someone so ignorant.

PDF and Mac (1)

peter Payne (947429) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392121)

One of the little things that's nice about Macs are, they can make PDFs out of the box, have been able to since version 10.0 (which was really a dawg). This is nice though, free PDF-age for anyone who wants it.

frusterate (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391299)

Issues like this really frusterate me as I find myself wanting to use more web20 ajaxy fancy pants programs.

Like a spell checker?

Open individual browser windows (1)

linuxgurugamer (917289) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391307)

Well, instead of complaining about it, you have choices: 1. Instead of opening up additional tabs in a browser window, just open a new browser window for each app. 2. Use something else.

Re:Open individual browser windows (1)

ElleyKitten (715519) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391519)

You can also ctrl+tab through the tabs, at least if you use firefox.

Re:Open individual browser windows (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391651)

There's another option, besides the already mentioned Ctrl-Tab and Shift-Ctrl-Tab options in Firefox.

For Macs, if you have multiple windows for a single app, Cmd-` through the windows for a single app. (that's the reverse slanting apostrophe/tilde key just above the tab key)

Between those suggestions, all your keyboard tabbing needs should be covered. Mouse not required.

Firefox tabs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391313)

I've run into the same problem with multiple Web 2.0 apps open in the same browser window.

In Windows you can cycle through open Firefox tabs by hitting CTRL + TAB. Not perfect, but it's the best thing I've found so far.

Firefox extension, anyone?

Re:Firefox tabs (2, Informative)

grimwell (141031) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391471)

CTRL + Page Up and CTRL + Page Down will move you left & right thru the tabs in Firefox; just like gnome terminal. The one snag with firefox is if there is a text entry box that grabs your cusor.

Re:Firefox tabs (2, Informative)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391655)

CTRL-Tab and CTRL-SHIFT-Tab do the same thing. Or you could use CTRL-[1-9] to switch directly to tabs 1 through 9.

Re:Firefox tabs (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391671)

To remove the snags, check (Shift) Ctrl-Tab [slashdot.org] options.

Re:Firefox tabs (1)

Dan East (318230) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392105)

In the Windows environment I prefer CTRL + TAB and CTRL + SHIFT + TAB, because those correlate with basically all other Document / View paradigm apps (all MS Office apps, Visual Studio, Crimson Editor, PSP and Photoshop, Firefox, SmartFTP, Dreamweaver, any MFC-based Doc / View app - you name it).

Also, using your method simply steps across the tabs linearly (which may be desirable in some cases), whereas CTRL + TAB honors the history in which you've accessed the tabs. That makes it great to switch back and forth between two specific documents that are not "side by side" in the tab order.

Dan East

For Taco (1)

NoTheory (580275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391331)

Can't you just apple ` through your browser windows? Or, use witch [petermaurer.de] ? That still doesn't get you to a particular tab in a tabbed browser, but at least will get you to the window you want. Maybe there's a quicksilver widget out there to bring focus to a particular tab in a browser (or if there isn't one, maybe someone will write one!)

500k? (4, Insightful)

jbreckman (917963) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391339)

Why the 500k limit? I have 2.5gb in my gmail, but I can only upload a small word document.

Anyone know why this is there?

I would start recommending this to people if they could actually use it in the real world, but word documents get pretty big. It happens. They should be able to deal with it.

Re:500k? (1)

Bandman (86149) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391405)

I would hazard that much beyond that and it sucks to load into memory, edit, swap, and so forth live via AJAX.

It's probably limited by AJAX. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391683)

That sounds like a limitation of AJAX.

AJAX-based applications really start to suffer from performance problems (when used on typical American broadband connections) when the amount of data involved exceeds about 650 KB. For an application like a word processor or a spreadsheet, where the data must be continually be updated between the client and the server on each change, even 500 KB is pushing it.

Don't forget that some overhead comes from AJAX itself. It takes bandwidth transmit the XML data that encapsulates the XML-RPC AJAX request. So while 650 KB is the practical limit of a request, it's plausible that 150 KB of that is being used to cover the XML overhead, thus reducing the amount available for actual data down to about 500 KB.

Re:It's probably limited by AJAX. (3, Interesting)

Lauritz (146326) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392023)

Well, then only load the part of the document being edited to the client.

Problems with AJAX (1)

miyako (632510) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391357)

While it's neat that this sort of thing can be done, there is just something about all of these AJAX applications that does not sit well with me. I think that part of it has to do with the issues that the submitter mentioned. That would actually be a fairly simple thing to fix though, I imagine it would be trivial to write a sort of ajax launcher that was basically a web browser with a slightly modified UI that added bookmark links to your dock/taskbar/etc.
I know a lot of my issues at one time were related to the whole "storing documents on someone else's server" thing, and I'm still not a fan of that idea, but even if I could just get the source code and run the apps over my own network or something, there is just something that doesn't sit well with me about it.
I think that a lot of what irritates me is that the sort of things that are being made are largely things that already exist. I have Abiword and OpenOffice and KOffice installed, and they are better. AJAX is a neat thing, but it seems like it might be better to focus on doing new things, or at least more web-specific things, instead of trying to shoehorn all of our desktop applications into the browser.

Re:Problems with AJAX (5, Insightful)

nblender (741424) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391437)

Of course it doesn't sit well with you, Mr. Computer Professional. But we're getting to the point where Grandma just needs a kernel with a browser in a ramdisk. She doesn't even really need a 'disk'. She doesn't need a grandchild sysadmin to de-worm her computer every 6 months. Everything she wants to do can practically be done online now.

Re:Problems with AJAX (1)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391457)

I appreciate what you're saying, but isn't "shoehorn all of our desktop applications into the browser" actually a new thing in itself? It offers portability, thin-clientiness and all sorts of other advantages that I'm sure Google et al will be happy to mention.

People like to innovate; it's what we do. Sometimes that means making something new entirely, sometimes it just means improving or adding functionality to something that already exists. That's not something worthy of negative criticism in itself.

Re:Problems with AJAX (4, Insightful)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391499)

I think that a lot of what irritates me is that the sort of things that are being made are largely things that already exist. I have Abiword and OpenOffice and KOffice installed, and they are better

Keyword: "installed"

No argument that there exists plenty of standalone, purpose-made applications that do a better job, but they need to be downloaded and installed.

If you happen to use a computer that isn't yours you can still access your documents in "native format" with a consistent interface as long as the computer has a javascript capable browser installed... and any computer with internet access is practically guaranteed to have a web browser installed. Consider things like editing your documents at a library if you're out of town, or any other public web access kiosk you might find. Borrow someone's laptop for a few minutes, etc.

Of course, if you don't encounter those situations you may as well use a dedicated application - it's all about the right tool to suit your particular needs.
=Smidge=

Re:Problems with AJAX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391815)

G*d, how hard! You have to download and install them once (instead of quasi-downloading the code (unless cached) on every access via HTTP), and then they're a native part of your environment, survive browser crashes, can be manipulated with your window manager's features, can have independent menus, windows, or palettes anywhere on your screen(s), can have multiple windows open, and all that without any further network traffic.

Oh, and you don't need a complex browser that might or might not have problems dealing with all that complex cross-platform JavaScript.

Re:Problems with AJAX (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16392137)

a) good luck downloading and installing anything on a properly locked down public terminal
b) If someone (friend/relative) wanted to use my computer to go online and check out something, that's fine with me (as long as they don't use IE). If they wanted to install an application, I'd tend to say no.

Re:Problems with AJAX (1)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391913)

You make a good point. But unless import/export is perfect, doesn't the disadvantage of using a limited web-based tool all the time to edit outweigh the advantage of occasionally being able to work on another computer?

Also, the internet connection is the single least reliable part of most people's computer setup.

Re:Problems with AJAX (1)

ArikTheRed (865776) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392027)

You make a good point. But unless import/export is perfect, doesn't the disadvantage of using a limited web-based tool all the time to edit outweigh the advantage of occasionally being able to work on another computer?

Have you used the import/export unction on Writely? It's damn near perfect (exen my funky formatting looks good). I'm using it to collaborate writing a book with another guy - we are never in the same place at once. It has been invaluable.

Also, the internet connection is the single least reliable part of most people's computer setup.

Perhaps yours. But for those of use who travel around alot, using weird and strange computers on a daily basis, connection to the internet has actually become the most constant thing in out lives. Hence, the appeal of tools like del.icio.us.

Opening/importing Excel (2, Informative)

MECC (8478) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391385)

I tried importing a simple excel spreadsheet, and it didn't work :-(

Re:Opening/importing Excel (1)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391449)

Funny, I tried and it worked just fine. Mine was pretty simple, though.

Re:Opening/importing Excel (4, Informative)

value_added (719364) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391481)

I tried importing a simple excel spreadsheet, and it didn't work :-(

That happens to me, too. What version of Office were you using to import the Excel spreadsheet?

Oh wait ...

Re:Opening/importing Excel (1)

MECC (8478) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391537)

I know what you mean. It was an Office 2003 Excel spreadsheet. Actually has nothing but text fields, and is about 5Kb in size. Doesn't import - I actually get the message that it can't be imported. If I try from the File -> Open dialog box, it just grinds endlessly.

its sad when (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391413)

Both OpenOffice and Microsoft Office open on my laptop in less time than this suite to load, and are far more responsive (ie dont have annoying lags between when you type things and and stuff actually happens on the spreadsheet).

PicasaWeb? (2, Interesting)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391439)

Has anyone else noticed up in the corner of Docs that there is also a new "Photos" option that points to "Picasa Web Albums?"

*look of shock* (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391443)

a Mac user complaining about something not made by Apple?!!? I'm ..... shocked

"Frusterate"? (5, Funny)

adavies42 (746183) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391455)

Are you even trying anymore?

Re:"Frusterate"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391521)

You're the one who will be frusterated when you get modded off-topic.

Re:"Frusterate"? (1)

adavies42 (746183) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391937)

Three funnies and counting....

Re:"Frusterate"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16392039)

Hey, mods are whimsical. Just so you know, I wasn't hoping you'd get modded down, it's just what I expected from some of the more anal mods around here.

tabbed web MDI model (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391463)

While Taco's complaint may be valid, its this sort of techno-elitism which often impedes progress, or at least consumer take-up of a product. While people are bickering about the intricacies of a tabbed web MDI model, Joe Public will stay away.

MDI browser model (2, Interesting)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391465)

As someone who spends most of his day logged into a web application, I have to say that I'm not too fond of the whole MDI model for them either. This is mainly due to crashes. If the app crashes, all of my other browser tabs/windows go down with it. Due to this, I've taken to using different browsers for different tasks. For my all-day web app, I use IE. For website administration, I use Opera (the guy who does our web coding sucks and changes to the site will routinely take down the browser). And for general browsing, I use Firefox.

Cute but no thanks. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391473)

It's great until you dont have internet access and have to get something done.

call me when there is an OFFLINE version for download.

Nobody called it "Office" so why is it in quotes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391495)

Nobody called it "Office" so why is it in quotes?

A moniker given by the submitter. (1)

Jerk City Troll (661616) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392025)

Nobody called it "Office", so it is in quotes.

API? (3, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391531)

I have a client whose website is utilizing FCKEditor for in-browser html editing. We haven't been too pleased with it for a number of reasons. I checked Google's site but couldn't find any information, so maybe someone here knows - can their word processor be embedded into 3rd party sites and used stand-alone? Similar to Google Maps? From the little testing I've done it seems to generate good clean html.

Dan East

Simple tab solution (0, Troll)

karrde (853) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391539)

I couldn't reply to Taco when he bitched in his Journal, but I can here.

See, before web browsers came out with these great things called tabs, you could open pages in seperate windows, and the seperate windows have the title of the page. And amazingly, browsers still have this feature.

So web apps get thier own window and all the web browsing goes in seperate tabs in it's own window. Easy seperation for alt/apple-tabing between applications.

Re:Simple tab solution (1)

the packrat (721656) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391639)

What windows folk clearly don't get is that on a mac, all the windows aren't mashed together on the task bar, instead only running applications appear in the dock (or on the command-tab switchy thing). So you move between applications with cmd-tab and cycle through the windows of a single application using cmd-`. It's really helpful.

Unfortunately, when you have different applications embedded into another (like a webbrowser) this distinction breaks down. Crashiness aside, it would indeed be interesting to see if someone uses apple's webtoolkit to come up with an ajax-host application that can address these problems.

B>

Re:Simple tab solution (1)

lisaparratt (752068) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391647)

Except, of course, if you knew the first thing about Macs, you'd know that Command-Tab switches between applications, and not windows. Thus your "sage wisdom" is completely useless.

Re:Simple tab solution (1)

Old Man Kensey (5209) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392021)

Can you cycle through an app's windows using a keyboard shortcut on a Mac? Why yes... yes, you can. So far from being useless, his advice is spot-on, whether he knows the keyboard shortcut in question or not. Way to be pointlessly, repellently elitist.

Personally I like the behavior of the XP Alt-Tab Power Toy better than either the Mac behavior or the default Windows behavior.

Web20? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391553)

Damn, we skipped 18 versions there... last time I checked it was Web2.0!!!

Spreadsheet Wrecker (4, Informative)

gothzilla (676407) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391569)

I believe spreadsheet wrecker would be a better name. I imported a very simple spreadsheet that I use to track my ink and toner for the company I work for and then exported it back out as an .xls.
It has columns for printer brand, model, location, ink or toner type, ink/toner model number, price, and how many I need to order the next time I do. Very simple spreadsheet.

It stripped the price column of it's "currency" setting and changed it to "general".
It broke the simple "price times quantity" formulas.
It resized the columns and made them too small to display the numbers.

This app is nowhere near ready to be considered an actual spreadsheet. Proof of concept maybe, but I can't see myself ever using it for anything useful. I can't imagine how much damage it would do to a more complex spreadsheet.

Import / export != Useage (3, Insightful)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391777)

Have you ever tried to do that same type of import/export sequence with a WordPerfect spreadsheet inside Excel? Or even an older Excel version? You will have simmilar issues.

How long (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391573)

The more "applications" I try forcing into a tabbed web MDI model under a mac, the more clumsy it gets. They aren't in my dock, they can't be apple-tabbed through. Issues like this really frusterate me as I find myself wanting to use more web20 ajaxy fancy pants programs.
How long do you think it will take companies to realize that users are starting to see browser tabs and AJAX sites as basically their own "programs" and will want to manage them like they do all of their programs, not just within the confines of a browser window. That is the next step I feel in making things seamless. Removing the browser barrier.

File Storage (5, Interesting)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391601)

My big 3 questions:

1. How do I easily upload and organize all my locally saved Word and Excel files?
2. How do I maintain a local copy of all my changes and new files?
3. How safe should I feel about uploading files with sensitive personal info?

Answer these questions, Google, and I'm on board. And, I suspect many other people will be too.

Dashboard Web Clip (4, Interesting)

chr1sl0ng (687978) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391633)

When 10.5 Leopard comes out (or using available widget authoring tools possibly) you should be able to create a Dashboard widget that could serve as home for your "Goffice" app, or any other AJAX app that works in Safari.

Picasa Web (1)

broothal (186066) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391675)

Ok, maybe I'm slow (it happens ;) but I noticed that along side the "Docs and spreadsheets" link there's now a "Photos" link which gives you 250 Mb space for uploading images.

User Interface (1)

Mahler (171064) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391685)

I think I like it better with the old Writely GUI

Works for Me (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391699)

As long as the webpage is sufficiently standalone encapsulated, I can drag its URL into my Ubuntu Panel, where it makes a button I can click like any other app.

If I wanted, I could write an HTML wrapper I keep on my local machine or my own webserver that pops up Javascript UIs to populate the URL with parameters for opening the remote webpage.

The only real problem is IPC between the webpage app, but that's always been a terrible problem with webpages since the beginning that practically no one has addressed. Maybe as these remote apps are opened in suites with each other (and with local apps) the demand will force a better IPC, probably according to some FreeDesktop.org [freedesktop.org] standard.

Your turn.

Ultimate Conspiracy Theory 2006 (4, Interesting)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391707)

Firefox's JS advancementas and SQL engine are features requested by Google for their web application platform.

Late 2007, Vista adoption is still beginning to happen, WGA eats at Microsoft share of OS. People looking for alternatives.

Google buys Ubuntu and rebrands it as a powerfull "plug and play" web platform that interfaces with Google apps and Firefox. Google Box is born.

Google buys Mozilla. Firefox keeps it's brand and keep on expanding its web platform features in FF 3.0 and 4.0 as it adds 3D and OpenGL acceleration.

Late 2009: Microsoft share is dropping quickly at the same time increasing their revenue as pirates are slpit between those paying up, and those going for Google Box.

Late 2011, Google purchases Adobe and makes Flash and a light version of PDF part of their web platform. Google announced mobile web platform: Google Boxmobile.

Windows share has dropped below 50%. This allows Microsoft to innovate and integrate applications in their OS without threats from antitrust and anti-monopoly lawsuits. Spectacularly, with nearly half the share it had before, Microsoft's revenue is higher than ever. Microsoft releases Windows Vienna, amazing advancement in the world of desktop OS and computer-interface technologies.

Microsoft positions Windows Vienna as the desktop os for power users, business users and IT professionals, and phases out Vista and XP.

Google Box positions itself as the casual computer platform for people looking for entertainment, photo management, word/spreadsheet functionality, light games etc.

Re:Ultimate Conspiracy Theory 2006 (1)

teh_chrizzle (963897) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392009)

that's awesome.

Re:Ultimate Conspiracy Theory 2006 (1, Redundant)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392095)

Woah, wildly speculative, I really *really* like the name "Windows Vienna" though.

Not support Safari browser (1)

yaohua2000 (1011091) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391737)

Google is not friendly to Mac users.

Re:Not support Safari browser (3, Funny)

rozz (766975) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391925)

Google is not friendly to Mac users.

i just sensed a sudden disturbance in TheForce ... sounded like 98% of the computer users got together in sayin "so what"? ;)

Err... (3, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391753)

``The more "applications" I try forcing into a tabbed web MDI model under a mac, the more clumsy it gets. They aren't in my dock, they can't be apple-tabbed through.''

Then why are you not opening the apps in separate windows? IIRC, that will put them in your dock, and you can navigate to them with Exposé. I guess you can't Apple-tab to them, but you could Apple-tilde (right?) to them when you already have your browser selected.

Safari Shortcuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391811)

Besides the Apple-~ mentioned to switch windows, Apple-} and Apple-{ will navigate tabs in the foremost window.

Web versions of desktop apps == Bad Idea (1)

TheWoozle (984500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391881)

Web apps should conform to the UNIX ideal: do *one* thing and do it well.

Desktop apps are the kinds of things people open once and work with for long stretches. I think of desktop apps as being like separate workspaces...my IDE is my workbench, Photoshop is my darkroom, etc. I go into these "places" to work on something where I need a vareity of tools that are centered around one type of activity and complement each other. I can use all of my desktop space (two monitors), and I have the speed and responsiveness I want.

Typically when I use a web app, it's because I'm on a computer that is not my laptop (library, friend's house, Internet cafe) and I want to do *one thing*, quickly; and I don't have access (or may not *want* access) to my usual suite of apps.

I see web applications as being all about the access from anywhere and being "good enough." They save me the hassle of taking my laptop with me everywhere I go.

Web Apps (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391907)

``The more "applications" I try forcing into a tabbed web MDI model under a mac, the more clumsy it gets.''

Ah, good, another person has figured out that web apps are kludgy. My hopes that the API exposed by browsers will eventually grow up to give us a cross-platform API to creating native interfaces just went up a notch. That's something I've been hoping for for about ten years now, but so far, it hasn't happened. Perhaps XUL...

Don't Forget about Google Photos (1)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391909)

I don't know how new this is, but I havent seen it till now. Picasa [google.com] now allows users to upload pics to Google. I've been looking for a second place to backup my photos.

What java could have been... (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391929)

The better model is portable apps on a thumb drive. Mine is set up for M$ stuff, since that is what most machines I encounter when I don't have my own on hand are.

Now just imagine if there were a standard virtual machine interpreter that was available by default on every end-user OS in existence. Imagine that it worked the same on all platforms and was quick and responsive.

Now imagine having that little suite of programs on your thumb drive written to that VM.

Oh well.

presentation, please (1)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391995)

Please, Google, make us a presentation editor that could save the presentations in S5 (http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/s5/ [meyerweb.com] ). This would rock really hard.
 

Lookout Microsoft (1)

AugustZephyr (989775) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392015)

Lookout microsoft the googleopoly is going to take over the world.

The best part... (3, Interesting)

Bytal (594494) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392057)

is that if you browse the css and js source you can see that internally they're calling this version "leftly". Witty :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>