Paula,
On Tuesday, October 26, 1999, at 3:22 you wrote:
PF> On Saturday, October 23, 1999, Leif Gregory wrote:
PF> I think that the list members as a whole are probably not very
PF> representative of the general user community and those who post
PF> even less so. People who participate on mailing lists about
PF> software tend to be more computer-oriented than most people.
I agree completely, but I'm of the strong conviction that to have a
voice, you must vote. If you just sit back and watch the world go by,
then you have no right to object when things don't go your way. Kind
of like being irritated with the outcome of an election when you
didn't even vote.
I realize that not everybody has the inclination or time to sit in on
UDLs, but I'm sure the majority of the users on TBUDL have just as
little time as anyone else.
PF> People who express a desire for integrated functionality are
PF> routinely hooted down on mailing lists and newsgroups, so that I
PF> suspect that even among those who might be participating, they
PF> might not be inclined to express their views.
This is true also, however I have to admit that there is some logic to
this. Most "wishes" are items that only benefit a very few people
(such as my wish to have mailing list manager functions (as a plugin
of course)). This isn't to say that if you have an idea that you
shouldn't post it. In fact I wholeheartedly support just the opposite.
There have been quite a few "wishes" that I hadn't thought of that
make perfect sense.
I do have to say that I wish more people were tolerant of "unpopular
wishes". I want everyone to feel comfortable enough on this list that
they can post without fear of getting slammed, although I also hope
that these same people realize that not every rejection is a personal
attack.
You've been on this UDL since I started it way back when, and I think
that you would have to agree that TB wouldn't be the great piece of
software it is without us speaking up and presenting our ideas. My
father once told me that "The answer is always *no* unless you ask.
Things are always being improved by those who sought a better way of
doing it."
If you think it might be a better way, then ask! You might catch some
flack, but hey, life goes on.
PF> The other side of this argument is that the vast majority of users
PF> use, will use, and probably need only a fraction of the capability
PF> of a program. They don't need nor care about their software being
PF> master of anything. They also don't think or care about "bloat".
Exactly!!!!! That's why I say leave the bloatware pigs like IE and NN
for those who don't know any better, or don't want to know better, and
leave at least some applications as "masters" for those of us who do
know better. The world is a big enough place that software can be
written to support both factions. My point being (and I do have one)
is that the savvy users shouldn't be forced to use crippled software
just because *everybody* wants to cater to the non-savvy market.
Computers are not going away, they will continue to become a more and
more integral part of our daily lives. Computers aren't intuitive, and
like the great majority of other skills in the world, they must be
learned and practiced.
PF> That's 15 programs with 15 different interfaces to learn and
PF> remember, often for tasks that are not performed that frequently.
PF> The commonality of interfaces and basic functions has benefits
PF> that can't be totally dismissed out of hand. In an office
PF> environment, this means less training costs, less support costs. I
PF> believe it was the desire for this intergration in a corporate
PF> setting that primarily motivated MS and Netscape to add and expand
PF> the news reader capabilities of their mailers. For home users,
PF> it's been my experience that many, maybe most, prefer integrated
PF> applications, because they don't want to have to deal with
PF> learning and maintaining many different applications. Plus there
PF> is the cost. When I got tired of NS crashing on me all the time
PF> and patched together my own suite of internet applications, it
PF> ended up costing me a couple hundred dollars total.
Oh, I agree with you, but what I stated before that not all software
should be crippled just to serve the masses, still holds true.
Personally, I have no problem with using 15 different applications,
because it is a personal choice I have made to support only the best
software. I'm not saying that the masses have to follow our lead and
learn all these apps, they can stay with software that suits them (IE
and NN etc...) and leave my applications alone.
PF> Exactly. It is a niche market that appreciates and wants these
PF> small, fast, highly specialized products. I don't know how RIT
PF> Labs envisions the market for TB, but they seem to wish it to be
PF> used by businesses. If so, then a companion news reader might be a
PF> good idea, even if it does not have all the power of Agent or
PF> Gravity. I wouldn't use it myself, but I see where it would add to
PF> TB's competitiveness in a larger market.
This is the only argument I can't refute. In a business aspect, it
would most likely behoove RIT Labs to cater to the larger and less
savvy market. I love TB, but wouldn't hesitate to look elsewhere if it
became bloatware.
A 3.5" hard is better than a 5.25" floppy.
Leif Gregory
--
TBUDL/TBBT List Moderator
ICQ 216395 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Web Site <http://www.pcwize.com>
TBUDL FAQ <http://www.pcwize.com/thebat>
Using The Bat! 1.36 under Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998
on a Pentium 266 with 64MB.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
