Jack SchofieldOpinion
Yet again, reality is failing to live up to the hype, which for
the past five years has been promising a brave new Web-centric
world.
When the hucksters were people like Sun's Scott McNealy and
Oracle's Larry Ellison, this did not bother me much. But Microsoft
has been moving the same way with .Net, and is spending billions of
dollars to implement it.
I have no argument with the idea. I regularly use a desktop PC,
a Mac, a notebook PC, two handhelds and two palmtops. I would love
to have the same address book, calendar and to-do list on all of
them, preferably in Outlook 2000 format.
I would also love to have all my data on the Web, for two
reasons. First, I should be able to access it from any computer
with a browser. Second, having "master copies" on the Web should
make it easier to synchronise all the separate devices.
If you have tried, you will know that it is impossible. Even if
you junk the Mac, the Psion Series 5 and the Palm-compatible
Handspring Visor, and stick to synchronising Outlook 2000 to Pocket
Outlook (on my PocketPC devices) or Microsoft Hotmail, it does not
work quite well enough. Yet.
Even if it is due to rival companies failing to deliver, moving
to an all-Microsoft universe was definitely not the original
idea.
Still, this is not what has shattered my illusions. Having BT's
new broadband ADSL at home, delivering 512kbps through a four-port
router to an Ethernet card, has done that, because the high-speed,
always-on Internet connection means I can no longer blame dial-up
modems for the clunky design and mediocre performance of Web-hosted
applications.
As a professional "early adopter" I am willing to suffer more -
and pay more - than most people. If Web-centric systems don't work
well enough for me, what chance do they stand in the mass
market?
Jack Schofield is computer editor of The Guardian