"Deman" ISS by sending up a crew of hot-looking Russkie and American women. Install webcams everywhere, and charge by the hour. Boom! Instant solvency. I bet even Lance Bass will subscribe.
So I loaded up the new NS 7.1 on Mac OS X. It feels a lot like Mozilla now. Not as quick as Chimera/Navigator, but quite pleasant.
The popup filter sounds a system alert when it blocks something. Takes some getting used to, since it's the same noise by default as the new mail sound.
I was amused to see that popup blocking didn't work on Netscape's portal. The popup preferences warn that blocking might be defeated by sites using "other methods" to raise windows. Guess Netscape is using those Black Arts to do just that.
With the mail spellcheck and all the default plugins, this is a great mom-and-pop browser. Will probably load it on the family's machines. Nice to see decent Netscape product again.
That was my first thought. OS/2 is EVERYWHERE. Either they're planning a Linux replacement, or they'll roll out an OS/2 variant under another name for all those ATM and point of purchase appliances.
There's really no "best" browser. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.
I use Chimera/Navigator almost exclusively now. The Flash instability problems seem to be a thing of the past, and even the nightly builds are useable. It's damn fast, and renders better than IE or OmniWeb. Preferences are still a bit spartan from the UI, but you can always edit the preference file by hand if you want tweaks. I've enabled HTTP pipelining and some other things in that manner. There are also pointy clicky utility programs like Chimerchanga that will do this for you if a text editor is inconvenient.
Mozilla for OS X handles certain Javascript better than Chimera. It's more mature, but it's slower and doesn't feel like an OS X app. It's a good choice for those who prefer suites to standalone browsers. The mail program is quite serviceable.
Netscape 7 is a bit clunky and cluttered. It's great if you access Netscape webmail, or if you need a spellchecker within your mail program.
OmniWeb is a very respectable browser: fast and pretty, and quite stable. Like Chimera, it has a support community around it. I recently loaded OmniWeb and spent a few hours seeing how it has come along. A very nice ride, but I miss tabbed browsing. I understand tabs will make it to OmniWeb soon.
IE for OS X is a much better browser than its Windows counterpart. I keep it on my drive to access our company's internal websites, which all require IE. It handles tables poorly. Don't bring it to Slashdot.
Opera has a huge following: it feels light and was the first with tabbed browsing. You can set it to identify as pretty much any browser right from the toolbar. I've never liked its rendering, but a lot of folks think it's great.
iCab does nothing to my satisfaction, but has its own faction of supporters.
In my view, it's a great time to be an OS X user. We have a ton of great browsers. My top 3, in this order: Chimera, OmniWeb, and IE.
All bets are off if Apple delivers a branded browser. It would almost certainly be based on Chimera/Navigator. Would be nice to see a commercial distribution of an already terrific product.
I agree: MS would have to really do some tweaking. If I were Redmond and going after Mac users, I'd redesign the XP GUI for Apple folk. It would behave like a Mac. Dunno how you'd adapt it to run Windows software, but I'm a user, not a developer.
The MS Mac-Magnet unit would be allowed to develop its own design culture. The only stipulation would be that the OS and apps must be fully compatible with their regular Windows counterparts.
I'm a Mac OS X guy. Took me a long time to get used to the way a Mac works. Now I find it more efficient than Windows (or Linux, for that matter). It's more than just developing proficiency in keyboard shortcuts. I think Mac has better thought out how windows behave and applications are laid out. It's an interface MS has so far not come anywhere near to duplicating.
I wonder if this psychologist actually got around to making any recommendations beyond his gushing "Wow...they really like their Macs!"
If MS really wants to switch Mac users--something I really doubt is in their interest, given that Apple is their only real defense against monopoly charges--they'll need to sell hardware.
Hardware is the core of the Mac experience. I love OS X, but the real Apple hook is that Mac software runs GREAT on Macs.
MS could perhaps woo Mac users with a new house brand. It would need to feature hardware as pretty and innovative as Apple's, specially tuned for a customized OS uncluttered by butterflies and Windows logos, with distinct performance advantages over current Mac hardware. MS would need to think hard about Apple users with legacy software. They have deep enough pockets to offer some sort of an exchange program for equivalent software, or they could build-in some sort of emulation.
Really, all this should be done under a new brand name. Apple users resist all things Windows. Even if the core of a new Mac-magnet OS were Windows XP, it should be called something else and look completely different. It would run Windows applications, of course.
Then it all becomes a marketing game: co-opting Apple's traditional creative class, Job #1.
MS could do this if it really wanted to. Apple could be so badly cored that it would go away. I'm not sure Microsoft should go there, however.
I'm waiting for Americans to decide which technologies give them more or better personal time, and which technologies invade and destroy it.
Cellphones can be a blessing. They can also be a way for our employers to extend office hours through dinner and bedtime.
Instant messaging has become a burden to me. Being available all the time for any priority of message is like moving your office desk or living room couch to the mall.
I want nothing to do with people-tracking technology. The folks I care to know where I am during my day do. I don't want strangers, the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness program, or the Bush Administration tracking my movements as if I'm some sort of migratory animal, thank you.
Let's make toolks for the workers, rather than turning the workers into tools.
> Banks get audited, and I beleive (at least in the US) if the government finds out that a bank is risking its servers through the internet they will make them pass a really bad time (and still the public wouldn't know about it).
Brasil is in a LOT more trouble for having the impertinence to elect a Socialist president. Methinks a switch to Linux is pretty low on the radar in comparison.;-)
The nature of Open Source security issues is rather different. First, the Open Source community is more forthcoming in its report of security vulnerabilities. Second, all the vulnerabilities in the report so fairly reported by a Windows advocacy site have been fixed. Third, most of the security vulnerabilities reported by CERT are less disasterous than their Windows counterparts.
Any OS has security vulnerabilities, including UNIX based systems. The difference between Open Source and MS issues is that MS users are at Microsoft's mercy when it comes to fixing them. Open Source problems are there for anyone to see and patch. Better the devil you know than the devil hidden away behind Redmod's closed source.
The problem with the old Internet business plan--get lots of eyeballs and turn a profit showing them ads--is that traditional online advertising is not effective (at least in the minds of many advertisers).Not even mighty Yahoo was able to make the portal model work. They had to move towards pay services, and seem glad they did.
Exclusive TW content will help AOL. THEIR business model as a dialup ISP is coming to an end, and they must find content people will pay for.
Would someone subscribe to AOL just for a TW read? Really, that depends on how good the content might be. Salon demonstrated--too little, too late--that people will pony up bucks for compelling online subscriptions. The onus is on TW to produce great product.
What TW will do for AOL is improve the overall value of the service. If AOL is to survive, they'll need LOTS of great reasons for people to subscribe--exclusive stuff you can't find elsewhere. This is a step in that direction.
You know, I actually like AOL these days. They've underwritten Mozilla. They developed a top-shelf client for Mac OS X. They irritate Microsoft. And I can always find someone to chat with if I'm sleepless at 2am.
You know, with Der Department auf Homeland Sekurity and the Pentagon sniffing around the Net, maybe it's time to revive the dialup BBS. Not that dialups are inherently more secure, but they're not so much on the radar.
I remember reading an article some years ago--maybe it was in the book MEGATRENDS--speculating that the time would come when the Internet would be too crowded or too dangerous in the future. I sorta brushed-off the idea. The author went on to say he thought like-minded folks would form stand-alone network "guilds" to afford a more secure computing environment.
Maybe privacy will push some of us in that direction. It would be funny to see a new generation of BBS operators springing up here and there.
I wonder what new hardware and programs might come of it?
Slashdot Mirror
..."fast, free" website registration. Like the one Forbes used to run me off before reading the article.
Bet it didn't list microwave popcorn, did it? Now THAT is progress we can all get behind!
"What...people want AFFORDABLE air travel, not super-cool concept planes? Who do they think we are--Airbus?"
...they have a deeply principled development program of little use to anyone. Great: another flavor of Unix. Next?
...for old Raquel Welch movies, not crap rendering. ;-)
"Deman" ISS by sending up a crew of hot-looking Russkie and American women. Install webcams everywhere, and charge by the hour. Boom! Instant solvency. I bet even Lance Bass will subscribe.
It would produce some unique science...
Metric plural or English measures plural?
Justin Raimondo is bright enough to know the difference between totalitarianism and socialism.
That, or he's ready to "out" the Republican party as some crypto-Marxist fifth column. "Comrade Poindexter! Front and center!"
So I loaded up the new NS 7.1 on Mac OS X. It feels a lot like Mozilla now. Not as quick as Chimera/Navigator, but quite pleasant.
The popup filter sounds a system alert when it blocks something. Takes some getting used to, since it's the same noise by default as the new mail sound.
I was amused to see that popup blocking didn't work on Netscape's portal. The popup preferences warn that blocking might be defeated by sites using "other methods" to raise windows. Guess Netscape is using those Black Arts to do just that.
With the mail spellcheck and all the default plugins, this is a great mom-and-pop browser. Will probably load it on the family's machines. Nice to see decent Netscape product again.
That was my first thought. OS/2 is EVERYWHERE. Either they're planning a Linux replacement, or they'll roll out an OS/2 variant under another name for all those ATM and point of purchase appliances.
WinLin. It's only fair.
Glaxo, Inc, announced today it will soon begin shipping sealed bags of M&Ms with its blood sugar testing kits...
There's really no "best" browser. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.
I use Chimera/Navigator almost exclusively now. The Flash instability problems seem to be a thing of the past, and even the nightly builds are useable. It's damn fast, and renders better than IE or OmniWeb. Preferences are still a bit spartan from the UI, but you can always edit the preference file by hand if you want tweaks. I've enabled HTTP pipelining and some other things in that manner. There are also pointy clicky utility programs like Chimerchanga that will do this for you if a text editor is inconvenient.
Mozilla for OS X handles certain Javascript better than Chimera. It's more mature, but it's slower and doesn't feel like an OS X app. It's a good choice for those who prefer suites to standalone browsers. The mail program is quite serviceable.
Netscape 7 is a bit clunky and cluttered. It's great if you access Netscape webmail, or if you need a spellchecker within your mail program.
OmniWeb is a very respectable browser: fast and pretty, and quite stable. Like Chimera, it has a support community around it. I recently loaded OmniWeb and spent a few hours seeing how it has come along. A very nice ride, but I miss tabbed browsing. I understand tabs will make it to OmniWeb soon.
IE for OS X is a much better browser than its Windows counterpart. I keep it on my drive to access our company's internal websites, which all require IE. It handles tables poorly. Don't bring it to Slashdot.
Opera has a huge following: it feels light and was the first with tabbed browsing. You can set it to identify as pretty much any browser right from the toolbar. I've never liked its rendering, but a lot of folks think it's great.
iCab does nothing to my satisfaction, but has its own faction of supporters.
In my view, it's a great time to be an OS X user. We have a ton of great browsers. My top 3, in this order: Chimera, OmniWeb, and IE.
All bets are off if Apple delivers a branded browser. It would almost certainly be based on Chimera/Navigator. Would be nice to see a commercial distribution of an already terrific product.
> Need I say more...
Some supporting comments might help.
I agree: MS would have to really do some tweaking. If I were Redmond and going after Mac users, I'd redesign the XP GUI for Apple folk. It would behave like a Mac. Dunno how you'd adapt it to run Windows software, but I'm a user, not a developer.
The MS Mac-Magnet unit would be allowed to develop its own design culture. The only stipulation would be that the OS and apps must be fully compatible with their regular Windows counterparts.
I'm a Mac OS X guy. Took me a long time to get used to the way a Mac works. Now I find it more efficient than Windows (or Linux, for that matter). It's more than just developing proficiency in keyboard shortcuts. I think Mac has better thought out how windows behave and applications are laid out. It's an interface MS has so far not come anywhere near to duplicating.
I wonder if this psychologist actually got around to making any recommendations beyond his gushing "Wow...they really like their Macs!"
If MS really wants to switch Mac users--something I really doubt is in their interest, given that Apple is their only real defense against monopoly charges--they'll need to sell hardware.
Hardware is the core of the Mac experience. I love OS X, but the real Apple hook is that Mac software runs GREAT on Macs.
MS could perhaps woo Mac users with a new house brand. It would need to feature hardware as pretty and innovative as Apple's, specially tuned for a customized OS uncluttered by butterflies and Windows logos, with distinct performance advantages over current Mac hardware. MS would need to think hard about Apple users with legacy software. They have deep enough pockets to offer some sort of an exchange program for equivalent software, or they could build-in some sort of emulation.
Really, all this should be done under a new brand name. Apple users resist all things Windows. Even if the core of a new Mac-magnet OS were Windows XP, it should be called something else and look completely different. It would run Windows applications, of course.
Then it all becomes a marketing game: co-opting Apple's traditional creative class, Job #1.
MS could do this if it really wanted to. Apple could be so badly cored that it would go away. I'm not sure Microsoft should go there, however.
--A picture of your wife contains video of your wedding.
--Blind people "see" data encoded on their surroundings.
--Bullets are encoded with their manufacturer, who sold it, and who bought it. Even if it's in fragments.
--Sentient coatings (sort of). Smart liquids.
--Something else for Microsoft to claim they invented.
...going to be over their choice of domain name: iGreen.com.au. These guys must enjoy being in court.
Internet copyright lawyers are generally iTools about stuff like this.
You have a great point here.
I'm waiting for Americans to decide which technologies give them more or better personal time, and which technologies invade and destroy it.
Cellphones can be a blessing. They can also be a way for our employers to extend office hours through dinner and bedtime.
Instant messaging has become a burden to me. Being available all the time for any priority of message is like moving your office desk or living room couch to the mall.
I want nothing to do with people-tracking technology. The folks I care to know where I am during my day do. I don't want strangers, the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness program, or the Bush Administration tracking my movements as if I'm some sort of migratory animal, thank you.
Let's make toolks for the workers, rather than turning the workers into tools.
> Banks get audited, and I beleive (at least in the US) if the government finds out that a bank is risking its servers through the internet they will make them pass a really bad time (and still the public wouldn't know about it).
;-)
Brasil is in a LOT more trouble for having the impertinence to elect a Socialist president. Methinks a switch to Linux is pretty low on the radar in comparison.
The nature of Open Source security issues is rather different. First, the Open Source community is more forthcoming in its report of security vulnerabilities. Second, all the vulnerabilities in the report so fairly reported by a Windows advocacy site have been fixed. Third, most of the security vulnerabilities reported by CERT are less disasterous than their Windows counterparts.
Any OS has security vulnerabilities, including UNIX based systems. The difference between Open Source and MS issues is that MS users are at Microsoft's mercy when it comes to fixing them. Open Source problems are there for anyone to see and patch. Better the devil you know than the devil hidden away behind Redmod's closed source.
"Broadband doesn't do what it says on the tin"
--James Crabtree, i-Society
Well, there's your problem, James. You've attached your computer to a soup can. You want to be hooked up to some sort of a modem. RTFM.
...more Tang for the rest of us.
Eyeballs are meaningless if you can't sell them.
The problem with the old Internet business plan--get lots of eyeballs and turn a profit showing them ads--is that traditional online advertising is not effective (at least in the minds of many advertisers).Not even mighty Yahoo was able to make the portal model work. They had to move towards pay services, and seem glad they did.
Exclusive TW content will help AOL. THEIR business model as a dialup ISP is coming to an end, and they must find content people will pay for.
Would someone subscribe to AOL just for a TW read? Really, that depends on how good the content might be. Salon demonstrated--too little, too late--that people will pony up bucks for compelling online subscriptions. The onus is on TW to produce great product.
What TW will do for AOL is improve the overall value of the service. If AOL is to survive, they'll need LOTS of great reasons for people to subscribe--exclusive stuff you can't find elsewhere. This is a step in that direction.
You know, I actually like AOL these days. They've underwritten Mozilla. They developed a top-shelf client for Mac OS X. They irritate Microsoft. And I can always find someone to chat with if I'm sleepless at 2am.
Good luck to 'em.
The "Two Towers." Now a software program called "Massive." No trend here.
My Vorpal Sword is bigger than yours.
You know, with Der Department auf Homeland Sekurity and the Pentagon sniffing around the Net, maybe it's time to revive the dialup BBS. Not that dialups are inherently more secure, but they're not so much on the radar.
I remember reading an article some years ago--maybe it was in the book MEGATRENDS--speculating that the time would come when the Internet would be too crowded or too dangerous in the future. I sorta brushed-off the idea. The author went on to say he thought like-minded folks would form stand-alone network "guilds" to afford a more secure computing environment.
Maybe privacy will push some of us in that direction. It would be funny to see a new generation of BBS operators springing up here and there.
I wonder what new hardware and programs might come of it?