Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

AjaxWrite to "Compete" with MS Word 390

prostoalex writes "Michael Robertson (of MP3.com, Linspire, SIPPhone, GizmoProject and MP3Tunes.com fame) is launching a Web-only competitor to Microsoft Office by creating a suite of applications replicating Microsoft Office look and feel. From the posting: "But ajaxWrite is just the start. We have a library of applications we have been working on to replace most of the standard PC software titles. Every week we will launch a new sophisticated program on Wednesday at 12:00 PST on ajaxlaunch.com. These programs will push the boundaries of what people believe is possible today with web-delivered software. These programs look and operate much like their traditional software cousins, but are cross-platform, loaded dynamically, and are available to users at no charge. I'm convinced if you try a few of these products you will understand how the software business will fundamentally change." ajaxWrite is the first launched product."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AjaxWrite to "Compete" with MS Word

Comments Filter:
  • Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman@gmaYEATSil.com minus poet> on Thursday March 23, 2006 @05:01PM (#14983264) Homepage Journal
    AjaxWrite to "Compete" with MS Word

    Not if he doesn't learn a lot more about the DOM, and fast.

    I was all ready to complement the AjaxWrite team on having finally delivered the first online wordprocessor with full font-sizing abilities. Then I realized something: There are only 7 font sizes. The same 7 that are supported by every rich text editor in existance. Why only seven? Because those seven are built into the rich text editing component that's included with Mozilla and IE. If you want to allow arbitray font sizes, you have to delve down into the DOM and start some complex tweaking.

    All AjaxWrite has done is hide these facts by assigning standard font sizes. Anyone with the right info [mozilla.org] could replicate this "feat" pretty easily.

    Sorry, nothing to see here.

    The bright side is that his app supports the Microsoft DOC format. How well it supports it is an open question, but he probably is using a library like POI [apache.org] to do the heavy lifting. Nothing wrong with that, but also nothing ground-breaking. I imagine that many users will drop this tool as soon as they realize they can't properly match font sizes.

    Let's check back next week and see if his next attempt is more interesting.
  • by trazom28 ( 134909 ) on Thursday March 23, 2006 @05:03PM (#14983288)
    People, in my experience, don't necessarily want to be on the web to use a word processor/similar application. Takes the whole portability factor out of laptops as well. I don't see this being a popular option in the home market. Business market, possibly..
  • Speechless. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Thursday March 23, 2006 @05:03PM (#14983294) Homepage Journal
    I always have something to say but loading up this app left me speechless. For years I've been researching a better interface to remote applications. In the BBS days we had ASCII and then ANSI and then a variety of ANSI knockoffs which all sucked. Then RipTerm came along and I thought it was amazing, until the net came by and destroyed all that hard work (and no more cool ANSI animated files).

    Yet the web has always been lacking in the interface. This application is an amazing glimpse of things to come.

    The bigger news is what can Microsoft do to control the desktop now? A basic computer running Firefox with the most limited operating system could likely dominate when AJAX applications start being released. Very scary for those in the IT field if someone finds a way to encapsulate a very solid browser into a very solid mini-OS. Why worry about the end user when everything runs on the server?
  • Man, I dunno. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23, 2006 @05:03PM (#14983298)
    My web browsers crash all the time and I'm always closing the windows by accident. And I'm supposed to use this as a host for my *word processor*? Is this really a good idea? Unless all storage is on the server and it has a VERY smart autosaving strategy, I don't really see this as being the tiniest bit useful.
  • by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Thursday March 23, 2006 @05:05PM (#14983314) Homepage Journal
    "Click on the ajaxWrite icon to launch an MS Word-compatible word processor in seconds".

    Many seconds. Many, many seconds.

    "Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at 207.67.194.7."

    I want a web-based word processor so that my letter to Mom can get slashdotted?
  • Really (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lebski ( 931360 ) on Thursday March 23, 2006 @05:07PM (#14983336)
    I just don't see how a web app using AJAX is going to compare to MS Word. Let's be honest AJAX techniques hardly compete with traditional development languages and MS have a 15 (or so) year advantage. I'm sure you can make something nice, maybe even something useful, but not something to rival Microsoft's dominance. Oh and it's not like this is the first web app to try this...
  • by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Thursday March 23, 2006 @05:12PM (#14983386) Homepage Journal
    is raising VC money because it has "ajax" in the name.

    Without rehashing everything that's been said so far abotu the comparison to MS Word, let's just say, it has a long, long way to go before it's gogin to put any serious dent in the MS Office revenu stream.

  • by RunFatBoy.net ( 960072 ) on Thursday March 23, 2006 @05:12PM (#14983390)
    I'm not sure that a full-fledged word processor "begs" to be an online app. Do I really want to risk having to have a net connection if I am going to get shit done?

    I've been in hotels with crappy net connections. It's 4am, and I can't reach my word processor, now what?

    Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ [runfatboy.net] -- Exercise, web 2.0 style.
  • by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Thursday March 23, 2006 @05:21PM (#14983467)

    I knew I was dealing with Microsoft-quality software when I tried to open the screenshot in a new tab, only to be told off for not enabling Javascript, despite having it switched on. You'd think people building a word processor in Javascript would know better.

    For all you newbie web developers out there - assuming that somebody who follows a link without executing the onclick handler has Javascript disabled is wrong.

    In my case, I right-clicked and hit 't' to open in a new tab. This resulted in a page opening in a new tab telling me to enable Javascript. This is not what I wanted. Then I tried holding down Ctrl and clicking the link. This resulted in a new window with the screenshot in and a new tab telling me to enable Javascript. This is not what I wanted twice over.

    When I finally got what I wanted (open a blank tab, open the history sidebar, select the address of the popup window), I realised something. There was absolutely no need whatsoever to have this pop up in a new window. It's one of those annoying firms that likes popping things up for no good reason. In my experience, organisations that do things like that have incredibly annoying websites run by PHBs who don't have a clue what they are doing. If the rest of their code is like that, consider me underwhelmed.

  • by rdeadman ( 675487 ) on Thursday March 23, 2006 @05:21PM (#14983468) Homepage
    We should coin a name for it. How about "applets"? Hmmm. Wait a second...

    Strange that we on Slashdot go gaga for anything AJAX while deriding Java as a slow, bloated pig. Seriously, AJAX is great for making web pages more responsive but is ill-suited as an applet replacement. Give me ThinkFree [thinkfree.com] anytime.

    Flame shields up...

  • Re:Not likely (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Frymaster ( 171343 ) on Thursday March 23, 2006 @05:22PM (#14983477) Homepage Journal
    we left out some obscure advanced features

    i'll say... like a privacy policy perhaps? does boddy who runs this thing own my content?

    microsoft may have all sorts of draconian licensing policies, but at least i know what they are. with this thing i can just type up all sorts of private content that can be read easily and, apparently, legally by who knows who.

  • by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) * <bruce@perens.com> on Thursday March 23, 2006 @05:23PM (#14983485) Homepage Journal
    Java was designed to do just this task. Next to it, AJAX is a kludge that gives us more interactive widgets on web sites simply, and is best for smaller jobs. If you're writing an entire client-side browser-delivered application, Java makes sense. Wedging your entire application into the browser DOM doesn't.

    In contrast, Java was not designed to do server-side code, and is making less sense in that application as platforms that offer better time-to-market for server-side development become accepted.

    Bruce

  • by Professor_UNIX ( 867045 ) on Thursday March 23, 2006 @05:27PM (#14983512)
    Why not just build a word processor into a Firefox extension if you're going to require it? Why not just write the word processor using Java and remove the requirement to be online at all?
  • Wiki Online WP (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jettoki ( 894493 ) on Thursday March 23, 2006 @05:37PM (#14983602)
    When I want to do word processing online, I use PBWiki [pbwiki.com] on a private page. You have a complete history of changes made to the page available to download as backup versions, etc. And the wiki is available to you from any computer with an internet connection.

    These are the only possible advantages I can see to word processing online, outside of cost benefit. I'd much rather use MS Word or Open Office for most tasks.
  • Re:Really (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fireboy1919 ( 257783 ) <rustyp AT freeshell DOT org> on Thursday March 23, 2006 @05:44PM (#14983670) Homepage Journal
    Spoken like a non-developer.

    AJAX techniques hardly compete with traditional development languages

    AJAX is for communication. It's not a development language. You still use traditional development languages on the server side. That's the point: thanks to AJAX we can do that and just use the browser as a GUI.

    But lets assume that you meant "web applications can hardly compete with desktop applications."

    Doesn't it seem amazing to you that with so very little manpower (by comparison to the traditional approach), people have been able to make such apps at all? It seems clear to me that such development techniques rival, and might be superior to the traditional approaches to GUI development.

    MS have a 15 (or so) year advantage ...the pinnacle of which is their webbrowser. Making a GUI is arguably the hardest part of these kind of apps. Thanks to the VERY developer friendly languages associated with web development, GUI development is suddenly much, much easier. Its also more bug-free, as the webbrowsers have many, many more hours spent in bugfixes than probably any other GUI toolkit. The only real limitation is that its extremely difficult to create your own kinds of form widgets, but that difficulty is rapidly vanishing.
  • by CAPSLOCK2000 ( 27149 ) on Thursday March 23, 2006 @05:50PM (#14983725) Homepage
    Some people don't like Michael Robertson, but I do. He's not your typical open source hero, but in a way he is one of the pioneers.
    Free and Open Source software needs all kinds of people. Besides programmers you need documentation writers, artists, interface designers, lawyers, activists, and marketeers. Michael Robertson is good at marketing. He is good at promoting software solutions. He uses a lot of open source software for that, including some rebranded and extended applications.
    Some people claims he steals and abuses that software, without giving back. I do not agree with that, his companies play by the rules and release source when necessary.
    But sourcecode is not his important contribution, marketing is. Allthough you might not like his products, the bottomline is that he is promoting free/open software, and people are using it who might not have done so otherwise.
  • Re:Not likely (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23, 2006 @05:53PM (#14983747)
    "Your browser does not support this application.

    Please download the latest version of Mozilla Firefox from http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ [mozilla.org]."

    oh great, so we've replaced OS-specific software with browser-specific software.
  • Opposite (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gruneun ( 261463 ) on Thursday March 23, 2006 @06:09PM (#14983856)
    I don't see this being a popular option in the home market. Business market, possibly.

    My first thought was "Maybe for the home, but not my business." There's no way in hell I'm composing a proposal for a competitive contract on an open-source, web-based tool.

    Maybe, when they release their version of Quicken, I can throw my finances up there, too.
  • Re:Not likely (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman@gmaYEATSil.com minus poet> on Thursday March 23, 2006 @06:19PM (#14983944) Homepage Journal
    That is because Ajax, which the Word Processor is based on, has to be "tweaked" for each web browser in order to work.

    No it doesn't. If you code to W3C standards, the only browser that usually requires significant tweaking is Internet Explorer. The reason why IE has to be tweaked is because it doesn't support the standards. (Hello? Microsoft? I'm still waiting on DOM2 Events! *sigh*)

    Thankfully, the design of Javascript means that you can patch the webbrowser for your session. It's a little tricky, but it's quite doable to add DOM2 Events support to IE on the fly. And if Microsoft ever fixes their browser, your extensions will automatically deactive. It's actually a pretty cool way of doing things. Especially when compared to the User String checking that we web programmers used to have to do.

    As someone else noted, this is basically a Wordpad type replacement.

    Yeah. That would be me.

    only after writing a modified version for those browsers and have the web site detect the browser type and load the correct Ajax script

    In this case, Michael is going to have to rewrite nearly his entire application to make it work on other browsers. His choice of XUL [wikipedia.org] over HTML/XHTML has sealed that fate. On the other hand, XUL means that he was able to write this app within a few weeks, then invent a story about "smokey bar rooms" and "mystery technologies" that took two years to develop. Sure Michael, sure.
  • by OverDrive33 ( 468610 ) * on Thursday March 23, 2006 @06:24PM (#14983973) Homepage Journal
    Is it just me or does Michael Robertson have a knack for WAY over hyping everything he does. Lindows/Linspire was supposed to change the Linux desktop world - and frankly Ubuntu has done a better job. SIPPhone doesn't seem to stand up to Skype [extremetech.com]. And Mp3.com got sold and redone by Cnet. Now this 'ajaxWrite' doesn't seem to be any different than the many other WYSIWYG editors available today.

    I think Mr. Robertson should wait until his products/ideas are actually able to do what he says. But then again who does that anymore anyways?
  • by jinushaun ( 397145 ) on Thursday March 23, 2006 @06:39PM (#14984084)
    Wish I had mod points...

    Very true. These new AJAX 'applications' are basically reinventing Java applets using the (unreliable) DOM. Applets were always derided because of abuses by developers (remember the 'lake' applet? or the applet rollover menues?) and because it was too slow for computers at the time. Sun's battle with MS didn't help its adoption either. Plus the Java runtime client was ginormous, relative to a Flash plugin. Applets were eventually replaced by Javascript and Flash.

    ThinkFree's Office is very impressive, btw.
  • Office icons (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23, 2006 @06:56PM (#14984183)
    They are going to get in trouble, those toolbar icons are copyrighted. I researched once when I thought about using them in my project and Microsoft is quite strict with the usage of them
  • Waste (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Cisco Kid ( 31490 ) * on Thursday March 23, 2006 @07:16PM (#14984288)
    I dont want my software as a 'service' (unless I'M providing the service).

    I dont want to store my data on someone else's server.

    I'd like a copy of the Gmail interface, that I could run on my own server, and access my privately stored email.

    There was a recent article on Writely, which is apparently similar to this. I went to the site, hoping to download it, and put it on my server, but it too is a 'we store your files on our server' scenario. This might cut it for meaninless drivel teens want to exchange, but not for anything important.
  • Re:Not likely (Score:2, Insightful)

    by CemeteryWall ( 587346 ) on Thursday March 23, 2006 @07:27PM (#14984338)
    FCKEditor? I won't remember that tomorrow or even in a few minutes time.

    ajaxWrite! I'll remember that for years.

  • by musselm ( 209468 ) on Thursday March 23, 2006 @07:58PM (#14984533)
    All complaints about the 'functionality' of this 'web app' aside, that is one UGLY looking website.
  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Thursday March 23, 2006 @09:22PM (#14984941) Journal
    The biggest problem with Java applets is that they seem difficult to modularize so that one gets JIT client-side loading. Usually bunches of classes have to be loaded on the client before anything happens, perhaps the entire app. It would be nice if it only loaded what was used. A form-based approach, for example, would only have to load forms that the user actually goes to instead of all *potential* forms.

    Perhaps Java applets *can* be partitioned such a way, I don't know, but almost no writer seems to do it. They are all a big ball of all-or-nothing.
         
  • by eMartin ( 210973 ) on Thursday March 23, 2006 @09:52PM (#14985100)
    Would you be using it ONLY for non-commercial stuff?

    If not, then you might as well download/steal it, because why pay someone when you don't get a valid license to use it either way?
  • Re:Not likely (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jp10558 ( 748604 ) on Thursday March 23, 2006 @10:12PM (#14985206)
    Well, true, but I'm not about to change from Opera to do something that still seems better done on my PC in Lotus Word Pro or Adobe InDesign depending on what I want to accomplish. If there is one thing that seems to me to be the absolutely worst suited to online delivery, it is wordprocessing.
  • by Dominic_Mazzoni ( 125164 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @12:10AM (#14985698) Homepage
    If Java had a fast, totally cross-platform and bug-free GUI toolkit, with full accessibility support for the visually impaired, and it was embedded into all web browsers, then I'd agree, in many ways Java applets would be superior. But the fact is that Java applets have none of those things. Great idea, no execution.

    AJAX is at its best when it takes a concept that fits very well into the web paradigm, and adds desktop-application-like interactivity. Google Maps is a perfect example of this. Unlike a Java applet, you get a nice resizable window, almost instantaneous startup, and working back/forward buttons.

    A desktop application like Word is a bad match for either a Java applet or an AJAX application.
  • by hotarugari ( 525375 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @12:13AM (#14985714)
    It doesn't even work on IE 6. How is that cross platform?

Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?

Working...