Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

11 Top New Web Apps of 2007 - from lifehack.org

<< < (3/3)

J-Mac:
I mean, I don't understand why desktop application replacements are all over the place, and most web 2.0 applications are just that.

Who uses those? they are always inferior to the desktop counterpart... and you cannot do nice GUI things like assign keyboard shortcuts, no matter how much AJAX you did.

I love the idea of doing webpages that actually do things for you other than just present information, but mimicking a desktop application is not really the best thing a web application can do!
-urlwolf (December 22, 2007, 10:39 AM)
--- End quote ---

urlwolf:

For some folks, Web 2.0 apps are the only versions they can "afford"!  E.g., for those who can't afford MS Office but just don't like or don't "get" Open Office, Google Docs -- with their very compatible array of Word-like Documents, Excel-like spreadsheets, and PowerPoint-like presentations -- is a dream come true. Or the Zoho suite of similar tools - these give them a suite that is functionally compatible with the most complete version of MS Office at no cost. I am certain that's a big factor.  Even some professionals I know like Google Docs for the collaboration aspects and the fact that they might not need to bring their notebook with them everywhere.  If they can have access to any PC and the Internet they can work on all their Office docs without having MS Office with them.

Me?  I like some of the other Web 2.0 programs that are not actually desktop replacements of any particular programs. Like Vitalist, Toodledo, Todoist, etc. for GTD-style ToDo lists.  Or Google Calendar, 30 Boxes, Airset, or Spongecell for "calendar with reminders" Outlook replacements. OK, they don't "replace" Outlook nor all of its functionality, but they can certainly handle all of its calendar tasks.

Jim

J-Mac:
The one thing I hate about LifeHacker is how their apparent direct links actually link to Lifehacker itself. In this article, for example, their "links" to these apps only link to the png files! IDIOTS. I agree with housetier on the overwhelming choice of flash apps. Seems the author, Dustin Wax, likes eye candy more than function. I see that a lot these days. With pretty, it often brings bloat, and the last thing I need on my computer is another slow app, no matter its location.
-zridling (December 24, 2007, 11:37 PM)
--- End quote ---

I couldn't agree more!  Drives me even crazier than usual!!

Jim

zridling:
two quick things:
1) this is lifehack.org not lifehacker.com
-mouser (December 25, 2007, 02:34 AM)
--- End quote ---
Thanks for the correction. I should really start reading things before ranting. Still, LifeHacker pisses me off half the time. Their tips mix in too much fluff a lot of the time.

zridling:
I mean, I don't understand why desktop application replacements are all over the place, and most web 2.0 applications are just that.... Who uses those? they are always inferior to the desktop counterpart... and you cannot do nice GUI things like assign keyboard shortcuts, no matter how much AJAX you did.
-urlwolf (December 22, 2007, 10:39 AM)
--- End quote ---

Great points, urlwolf, as these apps are limited by what you can do inside a browser. Though J-Mac pointed to cost savings, let me go further with the advantage of Web 2.0 apps for some:

* it's a great idea for small businesses whose employees are out of the office each week for some time (travel days, trips, etc.)

* saves HD space, although the best Web 2.0 apps come with local versions that sync automatically, like Zoho

* you never have to upgrade, download an update, or even buy another version — ever (no muss, no fuss)

* all data is backed up online, on top of being synched on your HD, even versions of your data are backed up, thus

* if your local computer crashes, your data is safe, and there's no reinstalling and customizing (except for your browser perhaps)

* of course, Web 2.0 is great for file sharing. Getting everyone on the same agenda, calendar, project, and so on saves a lot of "splainin."
The qualifier "for some" fits for light or ordinary users of those apps. For example, in any given office, there's only a handful of people who need and use the power of MS Word 2007. Many others are stuck in PeopleSoft, Oracle, or whatever database the company runs, and communication is tied to customer accounts. The rest could use a local version of a Web 2.0 suite and be happy. For example, students can now write full Univ. of Chicago Style papers with Zoho Writer now.

iphigenie:
I'd say if you use a particular app hours per day you need a desktop app.

If you fire the word processor (or presentation tool etc.) a few times a week to read a document or whip up a quick short memo, then it makes a lot of sense to use an online app. It will never be worth it to install/learn a desktop app for occasional use, and in that case you will never miss keyboard shortcuts etc.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page