____/ BearItAll on Thursday 13 September 2007 09:15 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>
>> Microsoft Retaliates With 10 Reasons Not To Use Google Apps
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | This, of course, brought Google even closer to rivaling Microsoft's
>> | Office suite, which has now spurred a reaction from the Redmond software
>> | giant.
>> |
>> | No, its not new software or updates for the popular productivity suite,
>> | but rather Microsoft's own reasoning on why businesses should NOT use
>> | Google Apps.
>> `----
>>
>>
>
http://www.profy.com/2007/09/11/microsoft-retaliates-with-10-reasons-not-to-use-google-apps/
>>
>> This isn't the behaviour of an abusive monopoly. It's vandalism. It's like
>> crashing the PS3 parties Sony organised. It's all orchestrated up high at
>> management level.
>>
>
> Ten reasons for not using MS remote apps.
>
> 1. They are so f'ing slow (sorry, but sometimes f'ing is the only word that
> works) that users choose to avoid them, instead users pull the data local
> and then put it back. That may seem alright, but in an area of shared
> documents it isn't so kewl. Who would have believed that a bog standard
> user would rather learn how to ftp than waste time waiting for a remote
> application to come up!!! This is a new phernomenummum, erm, fur nom ee
> num, something like that.
>
> 2. Badly implemented, they seem to load an entire Word/Excell/Outlook
> application onto the local machines. I sort of find it funny, it's like a
> poor man's idea of what a remote application should be like. UNIX/Linux
> were very much ahead of this in terms of remote applications many many
> years ago. Linux has got it right, MS have made a dogs bollocks out of it.
> (sorry, sometimes dog's bollocks is the only word that works).
>
> 3. You think after the app has gone through the long long long
> slowwwwww download process that it will never happen ever again. It's local
> now so no need right? Wrong. It will go through this long long long
> download every day. Oh yes, I just heard a WinTroll's gears twitch, you
> were going to say that you can stop this by weakening the security level
> aren't you, and you can, but we are talking of company private data sitting
> on remote servers reaching you via an unsecure medium, only a WinDunce
> would weaken security. (Sorry, sometimes WinDunce is the only word that
> works). Particularly as we in the UNIX/Linux world know that you do not
> have to have weak security levels in order to have fast remote
> applications, all you need to do is implement it correctly.
>
> I've ran out of time, can someone fill out some of the other seven reasons
> please.
I can't recall the last time I produced something with Microsoft Office, but I
think that the last time I used Word it was only to dump lots of source code
(C+OpenGPL) into a single file and then print it. That was back in 2003. It
wasn't even my computer. There was also a time in 2002 when I prepared some
figure with Word because LaTeX could not put some objects together very fast.
Of course, I could have used other tools, but didn't.
A year and a half ago, just before I left one of my jobs, about half a dozen
Dell boxes were dumped in my Office. They were Pentium IIIs, IIRC, which could
no longer handle Microsoft Office at the students' clusters (that's their main
use of PCs there). They needed to be replaced. An 'upgrade'. 2006. Pentium 3.
Not good enough for XP+Office 2003.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Microsof(fshore)t Window(ntime)s Vista(gnating)
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 108 total, 1 running, 107 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
