AOPA Flight Planner - Microsoft only?

In article ine.com, Andrew
Gideon wrote:
snip

The inevitable comments about how non-MS Windows users are in the
minority is going to now erupt, with the usual insensitive clods [0]
going on about how those who don't use an MS platform are in a minority
and don't matter (when it would be so easy to make it multi-platform -
say, by making it web-based).

Anyone who goes on about non Microsoft users being a minority, therefore
justifying not going to the extra effort (in this case, there would
probably be no extra effort had they started off with a multiplatform
system in the first place by, say, making it web based) are exceedingly
short sighted.

Why are they short sighted? Is Microsoft's monopoly going to collapse in
the next year or two? Well, probably not. MS will still have 90% of the
desktop probably in 5 years time. However, the desktop is going to get
less and less important for this kind of thing. Handheld devices are
going to get more and more important *especially for an activity that is
as inherently mobile as flying and the need to flight plan*.

The handheld world has seen what Microsoft did to the desktop world, and
are determined not to let it happen to them. Microsoft themselves are a
minority player in the mobile phone world. Symbian and J2ME are much
bigger, and the majority of mobile phones and devices of their ilk run
one or the other or both.
The prices of GPRS and EGRPS phones are dropping all the time.
Even on the few Windows-based handheld devices, they can't actually run
applications compiled for desktop Windows. The instruction set for the
CPU is different, and bloated desktop applications don't sit well on a
low powered handheld device (where web applications run fine, so long as
they aren't bloated out with needless Javascript and graphics)
With this kind of application, more and more people are going to want to
do it on their mobile phone/PDA especially for something that is
inherently mobile like travelling by plane! Travelling by light plane
especially is something we do 'travelling light'. I'd (and I'm sure many
others - certainly all my pilot friends over here) would rather carry a
capable cell phone to get our weather radar rather than a bulky laptop.
On my Nokia 6820 phone, I have web short cuts to METARS, TAFs, weather
radar, synoptic charts etc. and it's ideal for on the move (like GA,
there's compromises like the small screen). A flight planner on the web
would be excellent especially if it was designed such as not to exclude
mobile users. Making it a Windows desktop only application
excludes mobile users.

By making their flight planner Windows-only, they have excluded the vast
majority of mobile users. I predict that certainly in Britain, the
number of non-Wintel (E)GPRS phones will rival the number of desktop PCs
within the next couple of years. It'll probably happen in the US too -
for everyone going on about how basic cellphone service is in the US -
guess where I just bought a tri-band GPRS phone (there are plenty of
GSM/GPRS providers now in the US, T-Mobile is one, I think Cingular
might be GSM, BICBW).

And Jay Honeck, this means you, you'd do well to have a version of your
website that's accessable for mobile users :-) Because guess what -
people will want to search for a hotel on their cell phone sooner than
you think!

[0] Just kidding.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

The funny part is that we have one minority (pilots) bashing another
minority (users of a non-MS OS). I wonder if the minority still doesn't
matter when it's pilots?

mark

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ine.com,
Andrew
Gideon wrote:
snip

The inevitable comments about how non-MS Windows users are in the
minority is going to now erupt, with the usual insensitive clods [0]
going on about how those who don't use an MS platform are in a minority
and don't matter (when it would be so easy to make it multi-platform -
say, by making it web-based).

snip

[0] Just kidding.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Andrew,

Has this issue been raised to AOPA and ignored? Is something in the works
for the rest of us? Anyone here know what's going on?

I think the reason for the windows-only Flight Planner is, that the just use
a scaled down version of Jeppesen FliteStar for rendering/showing the maps.

Regards

Kai

Kai Glaesner wrote:

I think the reason for the windows-only Flight Planner is, that the just use
a scaled down version of Jeppesen FliteStar for rendering/showing the maps.

You've got it.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

Andrew,

Has this issue been raised to AOPA and ignored?


Yes, IIRC. They mentioned upon introduction that this is a very costly
thing to start with and that they'd rather deliver the service "only"
to the 92 or so percent of AOPA members using Windows than not have it
at all.

Personally, I have to agree with both AOPA and Peter. The vast majority
of AOPA members would have to consider a Mac/Linux-or-whatever version
a colossal waste of their money. And the "security by minority" scheme
doesn't work.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Personally, I have to agree with both AOPA and Peter. The vast majority
of AOPA members would have to consider a Mac/Linux-or-whatever version
a colossal waste of their money. And the "security by minority" scheme
doesn't work.

Um, I'm seeing a huge demand for offices to switch to Linux due to security
concerns. If you think "security by minority" is why Linux is more secure
then your words are extended beyond your knowledge. I am also baffled by
your opinion that Linux is a "collosal waste" of money. Price Windows XP
Pro and Office XP and compare to any of the commercially supported Linux
distributions with StarOffice or OpenOffice. Large corporations and
governments are indeed making the switch based on cost savings alone (e.g.,
Israel). Or pay the same price and instead of the product you get some
serious support, training and customization (e.g., Germany). Studies by
large corporations have shown that Linux is now easier to install than
Windows and is just as easy for end users to operate (e.g., Siemens).

But, you're entitled to your opinion.

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

Um, I'm seeing a huge demand for offices to switch to Linux due to security
concerns.

That's encouraging. My former employer was a Unix shop until about 1990. At that
time, the company converted to Windows over the strident objections of the engineers
and developers because the programs which management wanted to use (Lotus, Word,
Excel, etc.) all ran only on Windows. It would be nice to see a system such as
Linux be able to handle the needs of all levels of corporations.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:19:17 GMT, G.R. Patterson III wrote:

It would be nice to see a system such as
Linux be able to handle the needs of all levels of corporations.

I'd say that many (esp. small) companies might have the need for a win OS.
Let'S assume a small company of 5 to 10 people working with a computer.
What is their need? Most of their business related work is done with a
solution software, mostly only available for windows, therefore this OS,
with this software they manage their clients, write their bills, etc.

and then there is the need for email and browsing. you can choose Outlook
Express and Internet Explorer or any other freely available program. As
there are many security concerns with OE and IE I'd suggest anything else
to use.

Now: this company sometimes has the need to do a small calculation or write
some letters that can't be written with their solution software. This is
the time to make the decision for buying a Microsoft Office suite for about
200 or 300 bucks or you can have the same features for 0,- bucks
(OpenOffice). I can't understand companies with the above structure and
situation still buying a MS office suite, needing to register with MS,
never versions bringing DRM, closed source, etc.

#m

NB: Agent released version 2 of their newsreader. Time to upgrade!

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

Martin Hotze wrote:

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:19:17 GMT, G.R. Patterson III wrote:

It would be nice to see a system such as
Linux be able to handle the needs of all levels of corporations.

I'd say that many (esp. small) companies might have the need for a win OS.

My former employer topped out at over 8,000 employees in 2001. Hardly small.
Company policy was that every employee had a Windows desktop services login.
Coders would also have Unix and/or MVS logins. These would be accessed by using
something like telnet on the Windows box. As of 2002, all this was on NT with
no plans to change.

I can't understand companies with the above structure and
situation still buying a MS office suite, needing to register with MS,
never versions bringing DRM, closed source, etc.

The company also had a policy against using any sort of freeware. I don't know
why, but they felt they had excellent legal reasons to do so. Many other programs
(such as Word) were used because customers insisted on it.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

Peter,

Um, I'm seeing a huge demand for offices to switch to Linux due to security
concerns. If you think "security by minority" is why Linux is more secure
then your words are extended beyond your knowledge.

I think we can both agree that currently, the vast majority of "bad guys" is
trying their wares on Windows and Windows only. The major reason is that
their chance of hitting someone is so big. The claim that "Macs are so much
more secure" is, in that context, dubious since the Ma's security isn't
really tested.

As for Linux (and, subsequently, the latest Mac OS), the security
architecture might be better - and we might see.

I am also baffled by
your opinion that Linux is a "collosal waste" of money. Price Windows XP
Pro and Office XP and compare to any of the comme


That wasn't my opinion. Read back, please. My opinion was that AOPA would
have wasted money from the viewpoint of their Windows using members if they
had developed a Linux version.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)