Posts by David Jackson 1 24 posts • joined 25 Aug 2009
If this is the way things are going, it's definitely time to give up Office. I'll stick with Office 2016 for now, but for the future no thanks.
I've no intention of going down the subscription route, or the cloud route,
Of course a lot of people will unfortunately.
Technical knowledge is absolutely essential I would say. "Never manage anyone whose job you couldn't do" would be an excellent motto for a manager. That's not to say the manager actually needs to do the work, but he can't manage effectively if he or she couldn't do so if required.
,, people might use it. IE beats it easily in usability and user interface. If I don't use IE, I use Chrome (at work for example). Personally, I never seen the point in anything added to browsers in the last 10 or 15 years, but I realise that some people do. Whatever flaws IE has (and there are more than a few), it has pretty much the best UI of any current browser (Edge holds the record for the worst). I would love to be able to uninstall Edge, but sadly I can't.
True, but if I work through my lunch hour and doing so is authorised, I get paid overtime.
Obviously, if I work through my lunch break and I'm neither going to be paid overtime, nor get time back in lieu, then I'm an idiot (and my employer would not expect me to do either of those anyway).
<quote> Pling was common in the 1980s ISTR. I think I first came across it when Acorn-types needed a quicker way to pronounce the indirection operator ("?" was used for bytes, "!" for 16 bits IIRC) and started using "query" for "question mark"." </quote>
Pling was 32bits on the BBC Micro and later on Risc OS. Since integers were 32 bits you could do things like
DIM fred 16
!fred = 100
fred!4 = 200
fred!8 = !fred + fred!4
B% = fred!8
PRINT B%
etc as I recall.
Like many people, I have the misfortune to work with Office 2013 and SharePoint. Office 2013 is a load of rubbish compared to earlier versions and I'd never willingly use it. SharePoint is largely pointless and a waste of time. I hope there is better software around (Office 2000 isn't bad), but even if there isn't, Office 2013 and SharePoint are truly dreadful tools to work with.
But why would anyone want to upgrade (if that's the word) to Windows 7 or later? I have the misfortune to have to use Windows 7 at work. Fortunately, there are still some proper machines with XP around. It's much nicer to work with than Windows 7. If we must have a newer version of Windows, why can't we have one that looks like XP but with the bugs fixed?
"Actually, that makes me wonder. Maybe it's because the work of journalists and analysts CAN be done on fondleslabs"
Oh dear! Don't they do any real work then? I do sometimes have to work on machines with touch screens, but fortunately, they can and do have a keyboard and mouse attached to make them actually usable.
I do not want to buy from any company which relies on 'data' and not on 'listening'. If I know a company works that way, I will avoid it if at all possible. Almost invariably, the so called 'data' is not so much wrong as misleading. Any company which does not have good, trained managers actually on site and listening and observing what it going on and passing that information upwards in a way which actually get the information to the top (and people at the top who actually get out and find out what actually happens 'on the shop floor', does not deserve to succeed. Of course 'data' is not to be ignored completely, but it is human interaction and real knowledge of a business at the human level, not just data which leads to success.
The Archimedes and the RISC PC were and are suberb machines to use and to write software for. RISC OS in particular has a user interface way ahead of Windows. I worked on software running under RISC OS (and Arthur) until 2002 and now have to use Windows in my job. It's amazing how often I find myself frustrated when using Windows, because it lacks the features and quality of user interface which RISC OS has.
That's a pity. Generally, the really important changes between Windows version have been invisible; i.e. they are not inprovements to the GUI, although there may be some, but improvements in the performance, robustness and security of the system, plus support for new types of peripheral. Without these, there is no real point in having a new version.
The best thing Microsoft could do would be to remove Metro from Windows 8 completely. If they want something for the tablet market, while that lasts; produce something specifically for that. It they won't remove it, allow it to be completely disabled. I have the misfortune to have to work on a Windows 7 machine, but at least most of the irritating features can be switched off and it can be made to work almost as well as XP. Why not allow the same for Windows 8?
While there obviously are people who use toys like the iPad and the like, there is no substitute for a real PC for most people. Trying to get people to abandon real computing is not a sensible option. Moving to tablets etc is very much a move backwards and not something to be encouraged, although for some people having a tablet in addition to a real computer may be a sensible option.
I, like most people, have no interest whatever in smartphones, or tablets. I've no intention of ever using either. Why then should Windows inflict 'features' meant for that market on people using real PCs? If Metro were something which could be entirely switched off, then 95% of users would simply do just that, and there would be no complaints.
Yes, I've just found that. Since I have no intention of ever 'upgrading' to IE9 (I have the misfortune to have to use it at work, so know never to install it at home), I'll not bother with this site. I could use an alternative to IE8, but a site which cares which browser I'm using is probably not run by sensible people and so is probably not worth visiting.
The real problem with this legislation is that it makes it virtually impossible to be an employer, while retaining any sense of what the relationship between employer and employee is supposed to be.
When you employ someone, you are in effect taking them on as almost a dependant; not quite a master - servant, lord - vassal or patron - client relationship, but certainly the employer has solemn obligations to the employee and vice versa. It is hard to maintain this if the employer can't decline to enter into such a relationship with someone who holds views with which he fundamentally disagrees, or who he doesn't really think is suitable for the job, as can easily happen under this legislation.
At least from the employee's point of view, we can still refuse to accept employment without any such restrictions, but for how long?
I can't remember a time when the BBC weren't a very left wing liberal organisation. I suppose the reason some people don't notice this is the regrettable success of the BBC mission to move the country ever leftwards.
However, there is little doubt that the McCoy era saw some of the weakest stories in the history of Dr Who. It was so awful towards the end that it was no surprise at all that it was cancelled.
Why should the UK (or France, or Germany, or Poland or.....etc) have to notify the EU commission of laws which are absolutely no business of anyone outside that country? Consistency? Why do we need consistency? It often makes sense, but deciding whether it does or not is a matter for the UK (or France, or Germany, or Poland or.....etc) .
The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022
