|By Black_Rabbit on Monday, January 29, 2001 - 07:56 am: Edit|
It is true that Microsoft has created a kind of bottleneck- what is on your computer, what it can and can't do, and how much things cost are all directly affected (negatively) by their big bloated market share. Whether it's fair, ethical, or whether Bill deserves to profit from all that hard work are irrelevant to me. My computer would be better if they weren't doing what they are. Even if their products are not the best they could be, people use em anyway. Just like so many other technologies that are based on marketing and political pull rather than effectiveness (like we use trucks more than trains in the US. Much worse fuel/mass moved ratio, and more pollution, and much less safe. Better lobby.)
I hope the open source movement puts a stake in Microsofts black little heart. We need us a software VanHelsing.
|By Lowlight on Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 09:08 am: Edit|
*snotty tone* "I guess he didn't understand my philosophical puns..."
snot snot snot!
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 04:15 am: Edit|
As a very unsophisticated user, I've never noticed any big differences in quality between Internet Explorer or Netscape Communicator,(techies and computer-nerds may be able to spot differences). However I do find it more convenient to pick up e-mail from Netscape Messenger which is built into Netscape Communicator. My main reason for using Netscape is, to make my own tiny little protest against Bill Gate's monopoly. The monopoly of Microsoft, (or any other mega-corporation) is not in the public's interest.
(A few people on the thread were slagging off Yahoo as if they were an undesirable bunch. What's the problem with Yahoo? I regularly use a Yahoo e-mail, if there's something undesirable about them then I'd appreciate someone letting me know what so that I can decide for myself.)
|By Malhomme on Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 12:10 am: Edit|
*whiney tone* "Here's your medal"
Snot... snot... snot!!!
|By Lowlight on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 05:00 pm: Edit|
"I think Lowlight may still be angry because he didn't understand my philosophical puns earlier, and thought I was insulting him."
No, I'm not angry.
You're right though, I guess I didn't pick up on your philosophical puns. Here's your medal.
No, I don't think you're insulting me. That's why I didn't respond to your silly statement (oops, here we go again, or did you pick up on that?)
|By Anatomist1 on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 04:37 pm: Edit|
I think Lowlight may still be angry because he didn't understand my philosophical puns earlier, and thought I was insulting him.
I don't think that there is any question that Microsoft has done everything they could to gain monopoly power, and misuse it. Bill Gates doesn't just want to be rich, he wants to be "the architect of the future". It seems like unprecedented megalomania because he is more or less doing it. The courts made a big mistake in ordering a bogus split up of MS. They should have ordered them to make all of their OS source codes public info. The government wouldn't even have to do any enforcement, as competing software makers would do it for them... Netscape would be a lot better than Explorer in about two months. Likewise, all kinds of software would be better and cheaper. Allowing the imagination of one man to guide the course of evolution for the internet and consumer software is ridiculous. The world is teeming with smarter, more creative people that could apply thousands of times the ingenuity if the bottleneck was eliminated.
Government investment created the concept and the basic infrastructure of the internet, so we the public (the investors) have a legitimate interest in seeing to it that one guy doesn't hijack it and use it to become de facto emperor of the world.
PS. Kallisti: Nice spellchecker. I hope everyone will do other forum members the courtesy of using it.
|By Admin on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 03:13 pm: Edit|
As your your anti-Microsoft anti-Bill Gates bullshit, I won't even respond.
|By Lowlight on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 02:31 pm: Edit|
"I've never had a problem with Netscape except when I get impatient and try switching back and forth between different sites on multiple windows while something is loading. Under the circumstances, such a crash seems understandable. What exactly would I gain by using Explorer?"
For one thing, you wouldn't have the problem with switching windows
That is just one of the many crash problems Netscape "features"
As your your anti-Microsoft anti-Bill Gates bullshit, I won't even respond.
|By Gadfly on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 02:17 pm: Edit|
Netscape and IE both suck. I'm on a Mac so I use iCab and am waiting for Opera to arrive so I can check it out, too.
|By Anatomist1 on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 02:07 pm: Edit|
I've never had a problem with Netscape except when I get impatient and try switching back and forth between different sites on multiple windows while something is loading. Under the circumstances, such a crash seems understandable. What exactly would I gain by using Explorer?
I can tell you two things I don't like about explorer:
Going along with another Bill Gates attempt to crush a company whose software I use and like (i.e., you can't delete it).
The way the File Manager has also been named "Explorer" to try and fool people into thinking that manipulating files on your computer and browsing on the internet are the same thing.
|By Artemis on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 11:50 am: Edit|
"On top of that, it is clunky"
I like it.
I like it.
"and crashes often"
It has NEVER crashed on me.
"Hmm lack of Java support comes to mind"
That's a plus, not a minus. I would disable Java regardless of what browser I was using.
SECURITY is my first concern with any Internet software. Java is not consistent with maximum security.
|By Lowlight on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 11:41 am: Edit|
"...can't imagine why the average person would avoid it (Netscape)."
-For about the same reasons Opera should be avoided... I'll get to the main one in a bit. On top of that, it is clunky, poorly designed, and crashes often.
"...connections to ad sites are blocked by my firewall in any case..."
-I won't comment, for I'm afraid you'll be offended, and I'm not here to offend people.
"Why the hell NOT Opera?"
-Hmm lack of Java support comes to mind. Also, it doesn't load pages properly, particularly those built on tables. Sure it's small, but everyone has a totally capable (actually probably the BEST browser) already built into their OS.
"...but since Windows is my operating system, choosing a browser based upon anti-MS sentiment would seem sort of, well, stupid."
-That is a very good point, unfortunately, about 90% of the people who prefer not to use IE are, I guess, stupid, because that is usually their reason. There are no other good reasons I can see for NOT using a browser that is built into your OS AND is likely the best one of them all...
|By Artemis on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 11:15 am: Edit|
Send them money.
When Opera became "free" it was at the cost of being bothered by advertising. I assume that's the banner you're talking about. When you pay for the program, they tell you how to disable the ads.
The latest version is 5x. The one I'm using is an older version, 3x, which was never free, but is easily hacked. No banners in that one.
|By Anatomist1 on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 10:31 am: Edit|
I just downloaded Opera here at work. Is there any way to get rid of that permanent flashing banner in the upper right corner? To me it is absolutely intolerable.
|By Admin on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 08:35 am: Edit|
I've seen netscape hang on the site too. I think it's chewing the stylesheets. But other people tell me it doesn't do that on their platforms (except for you and myself), so I left it as is. Well, I wouldn't can the stylesheets anyways.
Opera is great, exeeeept that it still renders tables and other bits uh, not to the designers specifications. But I applaud Opera! Hear! Hear!
|By Artemis on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 08:23 am: Edit|
I have very few problems with Netscape and can't imagine why the average person would avoid it. But it tends to open connections on as many as a dozen ports when visiting this website, while Opera opens only one (connections to ad sites are blocked by my firewall in any case) - in addition, some of said connections, tend to "hang" being apparently still active even after I've shut Netscape down. Opera behaves more cleanly, using minimum ports and interacting better with the firewall. That's why I switched.
For "Why Opera?" visit their website (or anywhere else on the Net) for the gushing testimonials. Why the hell NOT Opera?
As far as Microsoft, I've never used Internet Explorer in my life, but since Windows is my operating system, choosing a browser based upon anti-MS sentiment would seem sort of, well, stupid.
|By Tavis on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 11:55 pm: Edit|
Will all new threads be ordered by the 'most recent post at the top' system? I just ask because the older threads aren't ordered this way at the moment.....
|By Lowlight on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 04:46 pm: Edit|
No, don't answer. I don't want to hear the anti-Microsoft tripe.
I do know why you would avoid Netscape though.
|By Artemis on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 04:36 pm: Edit|
Where? I don't see it.
Never mind. There it is.
This is a double learning curve for me, as I just changed my browser from Netscape to Opera. I'm not sure about the new forum, but I like Opera.
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 01:17 pm: Edit|
Kallisti, you rock!
|By Admin on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 12:48 pm: Edit|
a step ahead of ya! I just found the feature buried in my options section.
but ya know, new messages, & last day work just as well.
|By Admin on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 12:46 pm: Edit|
yay! the subtopic with the most recent post will now move to the top o' the list.
|By Admin on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 12:45 pm: Edit|
testing subtopic order feature
|By Lowlight on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 12:42 pm: Edit|
I like the new look Admin. Would you consider allowing a feature to display threads with the latest updates on top?
|By Admin on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 12:31 pm: Edit|
well, hopefully the upgrade will fix most of the issues mentioned.
|By Anatomist1 on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 12:03 pm: Edit|
You're all invalid, and none too sound either. In fact, I can't hear any of you. I know this is true, although I can't prove it.
|By Bob_chong on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 10:08 am: Edit|
The way it scrolls now, with new mssgs at the top, favors active participants and frequent readers.
|By Lowlight on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 10:02 am: Edit|
I still prefer the UBB method.. Many forums copied it, and there's a reason for that :)
I use UBB on all three of my sites, and I never have any significant problems with it.
|By Gadfly on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 06:57 am: Edit|
This is one of the better forums I've participated in. I'm
talking form here - not content, although that's pretty
I agree that the Topics page would be enhanced by a
sort order that includes the most recently modified
topics at the top. That would make browsing the forum
a bit easier.
However, I don't usually browse the forum - I much
prefer the most-awesome kick-ass search-for-new
messages-since-my last-visit feature!
As for the top-to-bottom vs. bottom-to-top format
within the topics, I don't care one way or the other.
Half the sites I visit do it one way, half do it the other
way. I can either scroll up to read messages or I can
scroll down. No bother either way.
Kallisti, you rock and this forum is frikkin' fabulous!
Many thanks for it.
|By Martin on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 03:28 am: Edit|
Please don't change the format. I just got used to it. It works fine for me. I always know where to find something, and I know whether it's been updated or not by looking at the time/date (and the color!).
|By Marc on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 03:02 am: Edit|
lowlight has made some valid points. In my opinion, he is not invalid.
|By Lowlight on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 12:34 am: Edit|
I'm not invalid.
And I am not trying to insult anyone.
I was just saying that the forum is designed poorly.
IE. If a thread is updated, I think it should be sent to the top.. There could be a thread that is on page 3 that has been updated recently, but only one person will know! Also, good threads get pushed down as new ones are created.. It's a flawed design that is done right on so many other forums.
Also, this is just a matter of preference, but I prefer to have new posts on a thread added to the bottom.. That way you don't have to scroll all the way to the bottom to start reading a thread, and end up reading 'backwards' (bottom to top).
Nothing against whoever did program it, I just don't like it. I do like (some of) the people here though, so I remain.
|By Bob_chong on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 08:57 pm: Edit|
It's not like Kallisti wrote the software.
|By Admin on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 08:43 pm: Edit|
Well, if it didn't suck before, it sure sucks now.
|By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 08:27 pm: Edit|
Where do you get off dissing Kalisti's software? This forum has the best layout of any internet forum I've ever seen. Maybe you really are invalid. Are you, or have you ever been a member of any party of invalids?
|By Lowlight on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 05:13 pm: Edit|
Hmm disregard this thread, this forum is screwing up on us.. it is working now for some reason.
|By Lowlight on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 05:12 pm: Edit|
When I tried to reply to the iMac thread, I got this error:
"Your username/password combination was invalid, or you do not have permission to post to this topic. You may revise your username and password using the form at the bottom of this page."
Did someone close the thread? I know this forum software is pretty crappy, but there should at least be a way to see if the thread is closed!
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation