Re: PHYS_L COURTESY

[Derek Chirnside <DCandPC@NETACCESS.CO.NZ>]

One posting:
> If the purpose of the list is to communicate (all interpretations of the
> term) with others who have a strong interest in physics, physics education,
> etc., then why make it difficult for those who might not have the latest
> software and gee-whiz-bang technology.
Another:
> The gee-whiz-bang technology we're talking about is already 5 years old!
Of
> all people, physicists are arguing that the old and obsolete is acceptable?
> I know I won't win this argument very soon, but at some point
> newsgroup/listserve protocol will change.

> > I to have puzzled over this.  I think it is that Physicists were among the
first to get into the WWW.  Using Unix or old systems with command line
interfaces.  What do you do when there is a huge investment of skills (and
stuff - articles, data, applications etc) in a field - eg atmospheric
physics?  LaTex - and it's derivatives - is the main application of choice
that I have seen and it's derivatives.  It's a fully specified page layout
system, is free and well supported.  The early Windows could not match it
(until adobe came along)
You put off shifting to something new as long as possible.  So there are
many physics departments still focused on command line driven systems.
There are many scientific mags that requite stuff in LaTex.
The shift to Windows is too great for some.


------------------------------------------------
Leigh Palmer from here on, with my comments starting with >>:

Anyone who thinks newer to be synonymous with better has the Gates
disease.
> > I agree with this comment.  However this is not the point.

Anybody else here still using Word 5.1 for the Mac instead
of later versions (e.g. Word 98)?
> > Not me.  See below.

Many Macpersons have an older
form of the disease, compulsive updating syndrome. There are even
Mac applications that have no other purpose than to go out to the
internet to find out if a later version of every application on
the machine exists! Does that happen to the Windows crowd as well?
It is pretty silly, in my opinion, to upgrade for no good reason.
> > Agreed.  But again, not the point.

> > I work generally in the PC environment.  I shifted to from Wordperfect to
WORD 5.1 to Word 98 to WORD in Office 2000 for various specific reasons of
productivity.  Features had been added that suited my way of working and
translated to efficiency, time saving and in some cases access to useful
facilities which benefit my work.  It was easy to shift.  The fee was paid
for me whather I liked it or not.  machine issues of speed etc were not an
issue for me, this is actually a good reason to Upgrade with care.  (Upgrade
and find it is slower!!)

> > I shifted to Windows Media Player 7 due to flexibility, less clicking,
ease of use.  I keep up with Dreamwaever's new version since NOTHING I learn
for an old version is obselete, and with minor learning of new skills once
again I can get increased productivity.

> > It is not through blind "newer is better" thinking.  There are a range of
other programs that I use which are *not* the latest version.  I also wait a
little to see if new stuff is stable.  I then make the cost/time saving
benefit (or otherwise) decision.  For example, I will not upgrade internet
exporer.

I have managed to get along without emoticons. I believe their use
is waning (for which I am grateful).
> > Personal preference here Leigh.  There are no absolutes here.  I like
them - and use them sparingly - because it means if I am saying something
which <could> be misconstrued I can flavour it.

html email may also pass from
use. I know that straight ASCII is a limited medium of expression.
I particularly miss the ability to write mathematical expressions
in this group, but when they are mecessary .pdf seems to suffice.
In any event, I find html and its later versions to be ugly.
> > This is an interesting comment.  I decided in the early days I would not
get involved in hand code writing for HTML.  All my pages done in hand
coding were done by students of mine for wages in carbohydrates.  But well
written code - it's as good looking as nice C code.  :)
HTML Ugly??  I rarely *see* it.  I know it's there of course.  I understand
what I need to know about it.  I have WYSIWYG (or pretty close to it)
editors to produce results that have colour, style, variety - very quickly,
at word processing speed. The latest ones also manage sites for me.

> > In many situations using HTML to send a web page helps achieve the aim:
efficient communication, in some cases persuation, in others image creation.
(For example if I I want to sell my services)

I'll wait for something better before I "upgrade".
> > If by 'better' you mean more efficient for accurate, clear quick and
effective communication - stable, user friendly, time saving (over total
lifetime) - it's already here.  And both for the MAC and the PC (and
probably UNIX).  One of your problems Leigh is that MACS last too long and
they may not need replacing when it's then convenient to upgrade software.
(A god time for a vertain emoticon maybe?)

-Derek