New Grant System Excludes Mac Users

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Feb 13, 2006.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    #1

    [​IMG]

    Category: News and Press Releases
    Link: New Grant System Excludes Mac Users
    Description:: What if the federal government were about to give away more than $400 billion in grants, but only people whose computers ran on Microsoft software could apply?

    Posted on MacBytes.com
    Approved by Mudbug
     
  2. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    #2
    ? Pdf

    Why would this even be an issue? Surely a PDF based form would work, no?

    The government is so frustrating on so many levels. This is just icing on the cake.

    -alywa
     
  3. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    CA
    #3
    For $22 billion?! Wow. Our money is being used oh-so-well.
     
  4. macrumors 601

    eva01

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Location:
    Gah! Plymouth
  5. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Location:
    On an island in Maine
    #5
    Or Java... It's so annoying that these companies (our government included) will claim that their Web apps are not Mac compatible when all that really means in most cases is that they just don't want to take the time to make sure their software works on a Mac. I rarely see a site that either Safari or Firefox can't display regardless of whether they say that they support Macs.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Location:
    mi
    #6
    that was my first thought - I mean surely, someone must have looked at that budget and though it was as weee bit too much for a website for filling out forms...

    <edit>

    maybe one of the available grants is getting 22 billion for creating a non-standards compliant website?
     
  7. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #7
    Northrupp Grumann needs money because they overspend. Of course, they're not paying nearly that much for the sub-contractor but, if it's typical of defence contractors, they're also charging too much.

    I'm sure this logic works for government employees, but what is the context of "use" since it doesn't run on anything but Windows machines?
     
  8. macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #8
    Leave Northrop Grumman alone! Blame Lockheed Martin. :p Yeah though the Gov't is stupid.
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    Chacala_Nayarit

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Location:
    Lakewood, Washington
    #9
    What IF the federal government were about to give away more than $400 billion in grants, but only people whose computers ran on Microsoft software could apply?

    THEN go find a PC

    I use government Web sites frequently that not to support anything but IE/Windows in Mac and Linux. I love emailing the Webmaster with screenshots. :p
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    #10
    Chalk it up to an incompetent/lazy web developer.

    On a positive note, Gap.com and Bananarepublic.com, which I check whenever I hear about these sort of incompatibilities, now loads in Safari. Though it does seem to be missing some functionality.

    Congrats to Gap for fixing this. And I hope they fired the idiot that decided to put in a browser check and default to locking out Safari users even though it works fine if you set Safari to spoof as IE6.
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    #11
    Do I smell class-action??
     
  12. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #12
    Isn't this old news? And I seem to recall the lack of Mac support was planned to be temporary until the next version anyway?
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Some_Big_Spoon

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #13
  14. macrumors 6502a

    Some_Big_Spoon

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #14
    Well, might very well not have been the developer's decision. The more dynamic a site is, the more likely that there will be cross-platform tweaking that needs to be done to varying degrees. I have clients that don't care. I tell them that it doesn't render or work correctly in safari, or FF, and they don't want to pay for the time it would take to fix that. Sometimes I fix it on my own time because I care about the Mac users, sometimes I can't invest all that time, so it stays broken.

    It sucks, yes, but when a client's paying, then you do what the client wants. What's weird is that Steve-O was on Gap's board until a couple years ago. Would have thought they'd do a better job :)

     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    thegreatluke

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Location:
    Earth
    #15
    Yeah, it's quite upsetting ... but a couple-trillion dollar tax break will take our minds off of it.

    Even if it does screw our country for the next couple decades, who cares? I want my "thanks-for-voting-for-me" money now! :D
     
  16. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #16
    clarification on contract value

    A clarification on that portion of the story. Northrop was not paid $22B to develop the website, it was done as one small part of a much bigger federal services contract.

    That's not to say that they didn't waste plenty of money on the web services...
     
  17. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    #17

    True. But in this case they spent 22 billion. I'm guessing getting the client to pay for development time wasn't the issue here. I would think the government mandate is to provide access for everyone. And from what I can tell Northrup Grumman and HHS made the moronic decision to use a windows only solution. Especially considering the marketshare Mac has among the scientific and academic communities. Who tend to apply for these grants.

    And in Gap's case it really was an issue of a browser check put in by the developers. It would seem they didn't bother testing for Safari, so they put the browser check in to lock out Safari users. If they had checked, they would have realized that Safari worked pretty well. Like I said if you went into the Safari debug menu and simply set it to spoof IE6, the old site loaded fine. But hey, at least they fixed it. Credit where credit is due :)
     
  18. macrumors 6502

    dvdh

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2004
    #18
    Note the correction in the article. Isn't slipping a 'billion' in where a 'million' would be suffice a rather large journalistic oversight? :eek:
     

    Attached Files:

    • 22m.jpg
      22m.jpg
      File size:
      39.6 KB
      Views:
      25
  19. macrumors 6502a

    Jerry Spoon

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Location:
    Historic St. Charles
    #19
    Good to know that Gap and Old Navy are now working in Safari. This was the main reason I switched to Firefox. Now I might try to go back and see how I like working in Safari again, although I really do like the ability to choose which sites I block pop up windows for.
     
  20. macrumors 68030

    Analog Kid

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2003
    #20
    Here's where I really support what Europe is doing-- moving everything to open standards. If whatever protocols and forms were being used were fully described in a specification you could build a client for anything you wanted to and it wouldn't be gated by Washington or their contractors. Get it running on your cell phone if you cared to.

    $22b is freakin' ridiculous for something like this. It's a database. A big, stinkin' database. Yes, maybe there's some scripting around it for document tracking and what-not, and yes, I read the comment that said only a fraction of $22b went into this but I still have to ask: how small a fraction that it could possibly make this look sensible.

    And what's with saying the small Canadian firm made the right decision to cut Mac support because they were on a tight schedule? Did anyone think that maybe, if there was a really tight schedule, they should subcontract to a *large* Canadian firm?

    Northrup Grumman is a defense contractor, and they know the game. You do what the spec says, not what's required for a workable solution. Then, you make your money on follow on contracts to fix all the stuff they left out of the original spec. My guess is there was no mention of cross-platform support in the spec, or if there was it was written in a way that could be interpreted to mean that Win95 and Win2k are different platforms.
     
  21. sjk
    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Location:
    Eugene
    #21
    You can configure site-specific pop-up window (un)blocking with Safari's PithHelmet plugin.

    Am I actually missing any useful pop-up windows on sites running Safari with the global "Block Pop-up Windows? set?
     

Share This Page