Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Subscribe to our e-mail newsletters
For more info on a specific newsletter, click the title. Details will be displayed in a new window.
Computerworld Daily News (First Look and Wrap-Up)
Computerworld Blogs Newsletter
The Weekly Top 10
More E-Mail Newsletters 

Frugal times call for frugal apps

Last week I lamented the poor performance of my Lotus Notes client when run side by side with Gmail.

Some readers thought it was an unfair comparison, noting that there is a Web client for Notes. Others offered suggestions for improving performance.

To be clear, it's not so much that Notes is terribly slow. I am sure that an upgrade or a tweak or two could make it somewhat faster.

What I am getting at is that fast and streamlined is the way of the future. Using a fat e-mail client is like going on a trip and packing everything in your closet, just in case. It's a lot to carry around. The reality is that I don't need to lug all of that stuff with me. I never use 99% of it and it just slows me down.

Vendors encourage the gluttonous consumption of features that 99% of us never need by always adding more and more to the baseline product. Almost nothing gets removed.

The classic case is Microsoft Office. Microsoft recognized the problem of feature-itis. But rather than offer a streamlined version of the product and allow people to add on what they wanted, it completely redesigned the user interface in the current version to "expose the features" that it was sure users would want if only they could find them in the endless complex of drop down menus and button bars.

It's not that I hate Office. I just want to empty the satchel onto the floor, let all of the bells and whistles fall out and start with a clean, fast, basic build that does what I need. If I need more I'll add it later, thanks.

I spoke with the folks at Microsoft about this back when the current version was launched. My idea was not realistic, they argued. Microsoft felt that it needed to have all of the whiz-bang features available in each core product so that people would be more apt to use them. It felt that if only it could just "expose" them more people would start using those features.

While adding endless new features may sell more products, I would argue that it is not always better for the user. Give me sleek, streamlined and fast any day.

Beyond that, let me decide what else I need. Alas, that approach is anathema to most vendors of boxed software.

My fear is that the same busines model will affect Web 2.0 apps.

 

What People Are Saying

How IT Workers really feel about Tech Recruiters

The applications are not the problem:

Enterprise SQL Server expert wanted, must program in C#, Analysis Server, SSRS, SSIS, designer, 5 years experience. (The list goes on, and on, and on…)

The company needing this position filled only uses one single recruiter (technical placement agency).
After a short investigation, the company is paying the recruiter agency $130 an hour for the senior person.

The recruiter will not even pay a proven senior applicant $50.00 an hour on a B2B (no benefits or services). The company needing the tech won’t hire anyone directly; they only use their one preferred recruiter.

That is well over a 100% markup! It is common place.

Why do companies complain about the shortage of IT workers, the high cost, and enable recruiters for taking huge profits?

Video of how professional IT staff feels about the recruiter agencies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd0kDxP04eI&NR=1

Rate Overhead

If it were only 100%! I have been asked for a special rate for a non-profit organization just to find out later that my rate was trippled by the agency.
At the same time, I found hiring managers being courted with free stuff that would make me embarrassed for taking it.