No OS options other than VISTA were available. I did a site search for "Linux" and got a bunch of Linux compatible peripherals, but no systems.
If they want to keep their customers happy, they should at LEAST give customers the option to buy WinXP until VISTA SP1 comes out.
Personally, I refuse to buy VISTA or a VISTA-encumbered machine until the DRM crap is removed, either by MS or by a third party. Even then, I'll probably switch to Linux. It's MY computer, not Microsoft's, and NOT Hollywood's.
it does not prevent ANY of your existing or any new non DRM'ed content from working exactly as it works now.
Actually, IF YOU ACTUALLY READ TFA, you will discover that if DRM content appears on your system at the same time as your non-DRM content it causes Vista approved drivers to disable certain audio/video paths. This forces your non-DRM content to play/display using inferior data paths, losing detail in the process.
Sounds to me like it prevents my non-DRM content from working exactly as it does now.
From the description of the system, the plant will only produce power when the sky is clear during daylight hours. Has anyone seen information regarding how much time the solar plant will be online and how much time it will spend offline due to night or cloud?
Is the only backup to this system the electric grid as a whole, or will the solar plant include some kind of heat sink or other way to store energy which can be drawn on when the sun isn't shining?
My bank (actually, it's not a bank, it's a credit union) has a web site to pay bills online. I log in, select who I'm going to pay and how much and voila! Bills are paid!
The only reason I would even think of using Quicken, or GNUCash, is for the budgeting features. I certainly don't need them for bill payments.
I have avoided WinXP for years because my Win98 system was rock solid. Unfortunately, software is beginning to require XP and so I was finally forced to get a copy.
I performed a clean install and so far have experienced several problems with software installations bringing the whole system crashing down in ruins - requiring yet another wipe and reinstall. Pardon me, but wasn't XP's resistance to this sort of thing one of its main selling points?
I really think there is an untapped demand out there for problem-free OSes. All it would take is a few big-name companies, particularly business software developers such as Intuit and big-name game developers to start providing Linux-native versions of their software and MS would REALLY start to see some erosion of their installed base.
we slide our assumptions toward their optimistic limits, inching good numbers up and bad numbers down until we get the result we want--failing to admit that the result is based on multiplying a series of less-than-even chances.
How is this the fault of the spreadsheet? If a manager has unrealistic expectations he (or she) will spin the facts to fit. Whether he (or she) does so with a spreadsheet or some other tool, such as pen and paper. is irrelevant
As an example, I used to be a partner in a small business. Every year at budget time my partner would come up with projections saying we would make $50,000.00 to $80,000.00 profit. Every year I would have to rework those figures based on previous years' performance revising profits to about half his projection. I was ALWAYS right. Guess what? I used a spreadsheet!
And if I wrote a program that exactly duplicated the functionality of Warcraft III (even if all the code was my own) do you think I wouldn't get sued by Blizzard?
Blizzard actually did something like this. Remember bnetd? Totally legal reverse engineering of the battlenet communications protocol, but it died because the authors couldn't afford to fight Blizzard's lawyers
While technically this is true, hydrogen is actually less dangerous than gasoline because it disperses so quickly if it leaks that dangerous concentrations never accumulate.
If someone can answer this for me I'll give em a cookie.
Sigh. He lost me right there. I thought our objective was to maximize joy and minimize suffering. (I guess I'm either a utilitarian or a Buddhist.) Almost everyone seems to believe that the society with the fastest-growing economy is the best society for its members, but I've never seen a coherent argument to that effect.
And there is the problem in a nutshell. It seems to be an article of faith in modern society that Economic Growth == Happiness. While I would agree that it helps to minimize physical suffering, a strong economy (or materialism, if you prefer the term) does not automatically translate into happiness. This is an eternal truth embraced by all the major religions of the world (and frequently exploited by them for the material benefit of the elite, but that's another topic) but you don't have to be religious to recognize it as truth. The down-side of materialism is the abuses perpetrated on the world by the wealthy to preserve their wealth. Does their wealth really make them happy? Or is it just the illusion of happiness? Is happiness ever anything but an illusion? Man, I would really like some answers, wouldn't you?
Sorry. That came pretty close to trolling. Still, I think a lot of the problems in our world from war to global warming can be laid at the feet of the materialistic ideal. I don't have an alternative (poverty sucks!) but I can't help feeling that one exists, and that the world really needs it.
But I really think the reasons to port software are more subtle. First off, it really does help you spot bugs. Getting something running on multiple platforms really stresses code, and forces you to fix sloppy things.
One of the best reasons for porting to alternate platforms I've ever heard. More Linux ports == Fewer bugs
I saw this on the discovery channnel I think they showed how all the cop did was enhance the image with photoshop. All he did was apply a custum filter to enhance the image he didn't add anything to it or change it just brought out what was there by filtering out the background. I was very obvious if you saw the show that it should be perfectly legal.
So it should, as an investigative technique. But to be admissable in court it needs to be shown that no other changes were made. To do this would require an in court demonstration. Something like:
"Here's the original fingerprint. We will now scan the fingerprint."
"As you can see (shows jury), the scan matches the original."
"I will now open and install this original copy of Photoshop. (Installs). I have a representative from Adobe here to verify that this is, in fact, an unaltered copy of Photoshop. (Adobe rep verifies installation.)"
"Now you may observe as I use the following standard technique to clarify the scanned image. (Uses big screen so entire jury can observe.) As you can see, the enhanced image matches the accused's fingerprint."
Using this method, the fingerprint can be entered into evidence, and the jury can be reasonably certain that no underhanded alterations were made during the process. However, the defense can also attack the evidence in a number of ways: arranging expert witnesses to attack the reliability of the method, demonstrating an alternative clarification technique that provides a different but equally convincing result, and so on. In this way, the prosecution can present their real evidence, but the jury is given proper opportunity to weigh its reliability and relevance.
The biggest problem with ethanol as a fuel is that you need to grow crops to produce it. If you are growing crops for ethanol, you aren't growing food. That may be OK here in North America, but how do you think the rest of the world would feel if our food exports dried up so we could keep driving?
The main (99.44%) reason a person would make a copy of a disk, is not for archival, or any other such purpose, but to give/sell to a friend.
Not So. I bought Baldur's Gate when it was released. It came on 5 CDs. Disk 2 went bad on me on day 2 of playing the game. It took me an entire day of failed attempts before my burner succeeded in reading an image of the bad disk so I could burn a copy. I then copied all the other disks in case they went bad.
Since that day the FIRST thing I do when I get a game home is make copies of the CDs. I then install and play from the copies while keeping my originals in a safe place.
1. Someone owns a copyright.
2. You make use of that copyrighted item outside of fair use. 3. You are stealing.
Crap! And more crap!
Even you say "make use of" rather than "take". Therefore, it is not "stealing". It is "illegal copying" and is wrong, but it is not the same thing.
Copyright (and patent) law exists because we recognize that no-one can really "own" an idea. That is why we have created the fiction (and it is a fiction) of "intellectual property". The constitution grants the creator of a work or idea the exclusive right for a limited time to benefit from that work. This is clearly different from the concept of physical property. By couching the debate using the terms "theft" and "stealing" the public is being conned into equating the two concepts. By responding with correct definitions I am attempting to place the debate in its proper context so we can focus on how the BSA, RIAA and MPAA are eroding our fair use rights and breaking the "contract" that copyright law originally provided:
The public, recognising that it benefits from progress in the arts and sciences, and wishing to encourage such progress, agrees to provide a creator with exclusive rights to benefit from his work provided that such right is for a limited time. In return, the copyright holder agrees that after that limited time he will relinquish his rights and let the work enter the public domain so that the public at large can enjoy the benefit of that work, and so that the work can be used in the creation of new works.
The Sonny Bozo^H^H^H^HBono law (and other similar but more limited laws previous) deprives the public of new public domain works and breaks this "contract". This is not at all the same as our view of physical property and the ownership rights for it, and if we want to preserve our rights we must not let the two views become confused.
"Stealing" and "theft" are generic terms that apply to anything that deprives someone of something that is rightfully theres, directly or indirectly.
Wrong. Using a specific term generically does not make it less specific. "Theft" implies the removal of a physical object (or pseudo-physical, such as money in a bank account) depriving the owner of its use. Illegal copying, while it deprives the owner of the copied work of compensation for the use of his work, does not deprive him of the work itself. That is why it is not theft. It is illegal copying, and is wrong, but it is not theft.
The BSA (also MPAA & RIAA) deliberately use the inaccurate terms "stealing" and "theft" because peoples' gut reaction (such as yours) is based on their experience of the true nature of those crimes. If they correctly used the terms "illegal copying" and "copyright ingringement" their case would arouse much less public sympathy. Their arguments are misleading in other ways, as well. It has been pointed out in other posts that they assume everyone who obtained an illegal copy would have paid for the software if the copy was not available. This is obviously misleading, and it is not the only example.
I presume that every single person who yaps about software theft not being theft has no problem with Microsoft taking GPL code and copy out with Microsoft Winux?
Of course I have problems with anyone who illegally copies someone else's work. But it is not theft. Software theft would be me shoplifting a copy of Windows from a store. This would deprive the store of a physical item (which they paid for) which they can no longer exchange for money (or something else of value). If, however, I work at that store and make a copy of the Windows CD, putting the original retail box back on the shelf, the store still has the copy for sale. My action in that case is illegal copying, not theft. The only thing the store (and MS) are out is the possibility of a sale. It is not certain that I would have bought a copy of Windows if I hadn't copied it. Thus, while making an illegal copy is wrong, it is not theft and does not have the same impact on the victim. It has some impact, but not the same. That is why equating "illegal copying" with "theft" is misleading and should be avoided.
I mean, where's the victim if you print off $100?
There isn't one. There is only a victim if I then represent the fake $100 as real and use it to purchase something. In that case I am guilty of fraud, but it is still not theft (though it is closer to it than copying is).
dictionary distinctions ring a little ridiculous
No. Dictionary distinctions are what keep us from talking about everything as if it is the same thing. Rape != Murder, though both are violent. Blue != Purple, though they can be close. Theft != Copyright Infringement, though both are wrong. Talking about things using the correct terms is important if we are to properly understand them and their consequences. Without proper understanding we can not create a proper response. It will likely be either excessive or inadequate. Right now I think it is excessive, and will remain so until the discussion is couched in the proper terms.
Nobody has argued that the labels have been deprived of tangible goods. We are discussing the moral and ethical ramifications of music traders illegally obtaining something that they do not have a right to, not whether the labels are losing physical assets. In this context, I believe that it is useful and fair to refer to the trader's activity as stealing, even though it is not precisely accurate.
First you agree with the previous poster, then you say that it is useful to discuss it using inaccurate terms. WTF?
The term "stealing" implies transfer of physical goods, depriving the owner of their use. You agreed that this was correct. The moral and ethical ramifications of this are different, and more serious, than the ethical and moral issues inherent in making unauthorised copies which do not deprive you of the use of your copy. Both are wrong, but one is stealing, the other is illegal copying.
The **AA wants to cast the discussion in terms of "stealing", knowing it is inaccurate, because the gut reaction is based on the assumption that the owner no longer posesses the stolen object(s). Their arguments would (rightly) carry much less weight if they were properly couched in terms of "illegal copying" or "copyright infringement."
Yes, both are wrong, but using accurate terms is important in putting the debate in its proper perspective. IMHO, "stealing" is a far graver offense than "illegal copying."
The "People" have shown that they want content, without paying for it.
I disagree. People want convenience and quality at a reasonable price. Downloading provides digital quality from a reasonably convenient source. If it was reasonably priced (around $0.25 per song or so) and more convenient (no failed searches and no partial downloads, no low-quality rips and no fake files etc.) I believe people would pay the price gladly. I know I would - especially to get good quality copies of obscure out of print stuff.
the record companies are paying money to the artist
Actually, they don't. As a percentage of the profits, the artist gets almost nothing. In addition, the artist doesn't even get to keep the rights to his own art. The artist is getting screwed.
If you take that content, without paying the dough, you are a thief.
While this is technically true, the evidence seems to show that music sales grew as more people downloaded from Napster, and shrank when Napster was shut down. There are a multitude of articles available from artists and others verifying that downloads actually benefit the artists. (e.g. by Janis Ian) So my position is that while technically illegal, downloading music is an activity that does no real harm and actually benefits the so-called "victims." It should therefore be legalised in some form, perhaps as described by me above.
I'm a Canadian Small Business Owner. I have run my business using MYOB for the last several years. The lack of a Linux version is the main reason I have not converted my business to Linux.
Open Office is good enough now, and there are MSAccess-like database systems now, so the lack of a good small business accounting system has been the only thing keeping me in the Windows world.
I will be sending that e-mail as soon as I post this.
Any objective person will see that IE was the better browser then "Netscape Communicator" and it was gaining incredible popularity well before IE was "integrated" into the OS.
Pure Crap. The first usable IE was 3.02 - bundled with Win95. It had poor performance and problems with frequent crashes. At that time, I also used Netscap 3.x which was far more stable and performed better as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I checked out the Dell Web Site yesterday.
No OS options other than VISTA were available. I did a site search for "Linux" and got a bunch of Linux compatible peripherals, but no systems.
If they want to keep their customers happy, they should at LEAST give customers the option to buy WinXP until VISTA SP1 comes out.
Personally, I refuse to buy VISTA or a VISTA-encumbered machine until the DRM crap is removed, either by MS or by a third party. Even then, I'll probably switch to Linux. It's MY computer, not Microsoft's, and NOT Hollywood's.
Actually, IF YOU ACTUALLY READ TFA, you will discover that if DRM content appears on your system at the same time as your non-DRM content it causes Vista approved drivers to disable certain audio/video paths. This forces your non-DRM content to play/display using inferior data paths, losing detail in the process.
Sounds to me like it prevents my non-DRM content from working exactly as it does now.
I didn't see these in the theatre, I didn't rent them when they came out on DVD, and I CERTAINLY don't want them in my permanent collection.
What makes Hollywood think I'm going to want them now, just because they are high def?
From the description of the system, the plant will only produce power when the sky is clear during daylight hours. Has anyone seen information regarding how much time the solar plant will be online and how much time it will spend offline due to night or cloud?
Is the only backup to this system the electric grid as a whole, or will the solar plant include some kind of heat sink or other way to store energy which can be drawn on when the sun isn't shining?
My bank (actually, it's not a bank, it's a credit union) has a web site to pay bills online. I log in, select who I'm going to pay and how much and voila! Bills are paid!
The only reason I would even think of using Quicken, or GNUCash, is for the budgeting features. I certainly don't need them for bill payments.
Bull****!!
I have avoided WinXP for years because my Win98 system was rock solid. Unfortunately, software is beginning to require XP and so I was finally forced to get a copy.
I performed a clean install and so far have experienced several problems with software installations bringing the whole system crashing down in ruins - requiring yet another wipe and reinstall. Pardon me, but wasn't XP's resistance to this sort of thing one of its main selling points?
I really think there is an untapped demand out there for problem-free OSes. All it would take is a few big-name companies, particularly business software developers such as Intuit and big-name game developers to start providing Linux-native versions of their software and MS would REALLY start to see some erosion of their installed base.
IceDiver.
Politically Incorrect and Proud!
How is this the fault of the spreadsheet? If a manager has unrealistic expectations he (or she) will spin the facts to fit. Whether he (or she) does so with a spreadsheet or some other tool, such as pen and paper. is irrelevant
As an example, I used to be a partner in a small business. Every year at budget time my partner would come up with projections saying we would make $50,000.00 to $80,000.00 profit. Every year I would have to rework those figures based on previous years' performance revising profits to about half his projection. I was ALWAYS right. Guess what? I used a spreadsheet!
Moral? Don't blame the tool.
I would donate if the game was Master of Magic 2
Blizzard actually did something like this. Remember bnetd? Totally legal reverse engineering of the battlenet communications protocol, but it died because the authors couldn't afford to fight Blizzard's lawyers
While technically this is true, hydrogen is actually less dangerous than gasoline because it disperses so quickly if it leaks that dangerous concentrations never accumulate.
So, where's my cookie?
Or is Microsoft making another contribution to the anti-Linux warchest.
Politically Incorrect - and Proud!
And there is the problem in a nutshell. It seems to be an article of faith in modern society that Economic Growth == Happiness. While I would agree that it helps to minimize physical suffering, a strong economy (or materialism, if you prefer the term) does not automatically translate into happiness. This is an eternal truth embraced by all the major religions of the world (and frequently exploited by them for the material benefit of the elite, but that's another topic) but you don't have to be religious to recognize it as truth. The down-side of materialism is the abuses perpetrated on the world by the wealthy to preserve their wealth. Does their wealth really make them happy? Or is it just the illusion of happiness? Is happiness ever anything but an illusion? Man, I would really like some answers, wouldn't you?
Sorry. That came pretty close to trolling. Still, I think a lot of the problems in our world from war to global warming can be laid at the feet of the materialistic ideal. I don't have an alternative (poverty sucks!) but I can't help feeling that one exists, and that the world really needs it.
This one gets my vote.
Humour in the same vein as Grosse Point Blank (if a little more bizarre) but even less well known. Shawn Wallace is great!
One of the best reasons for porting to alternate platforms I've ever heard. More Linux ports == Fewer bugs
So it should, as an investigative technique. But to be admissable in court it needs to be shown that no other changes were made. To do this would require an in court demonstration. Something like:
"Here's the original fingerprint. We will now scan the fingerprint."
"As you can see (shows jury), the scan matches the original."
"I will now open and install this original copy of Photoshop. (Installs). I have a representative from Adobe here to verify that this is, in fact, an unaltered copy of Photoshop. (Adobe rep verifies installation.)"
"Now you may observe as I use the following standard technique to clarify the scanned image. (Uses big screen so entire jury can observe.) As you can see, the enhanced image matches the accused's fingerprint."
Using this method, the fingerprint can be entered into evidence, and the jury can be reasonably certain that no underhanded alterations were made during the process. However, the defense can also attack the evidence in a number of ways: arranging expert witnesses to attack the reliability of the method, demonstrating an alternative clarification technique that provides a different but equally convincing result, and so on. In this way, the prosecution can present their real evidence, but the jury is given proper opportunity to weigh its reliability and relevance.
IceDiver.
Politically Incorrect - and Proud!
Actually, I have found that my Radeon card worked better and had fewer problems with its drivers than the GeForce4 that replaced it. YMMV
Politically Incorrect - and Proud!
The biggest problem with ethanol as a fuel is that you need to grow crops to produce it. If you are growing crops for ethanol, you aren't growing food. That may be OK here in North America, but how do you think the rest of the world would feel if our food exports dried up so we could keep driving?
This assumes you are given the right to print the document by the system. Even if you can, I can see the scenario now.
Cop: This is pretty incriminating stuff. Unfortunately, we have no record of such an e-mail existing in the system.
Employee: That's because company policy is to expire all rights after 14 days.
Cop: Uh-huh. Your Boss is claiming that it's a forgery because you heard you were about to be laid off. That's a pretty serious offense.
Employee: That's ridiculous! I was never told about any layoff!
Cop: Right. Hold out your hands please. (Cuffs employee).
Employee: What are you doing? Hey! They're the crooks! Not me!
(Cops bundle employee into waiting van.)
Not So. I bought Baldur's Gate when it was released. It came on 5 CDs. Disk 2 went bad on me on day 2 of playing the game. It took me an entire day of failed attempts before my burner succeeded in reading an image of the bad disk so I could burn a copy. I then copied all the other disks in case they went bad.
Since that day the FIRST thing I do when I get a game home is make copies of the CDs. I then install and play from the copies while keeping my originals in a safe place.
Crap! And more crap!
Even you say "make use of" rather than "take". Therefore, it is not "stealing". It is "illegal copying" and is wrong, but it is not the same thing.
Copyright (and patent) law exists because we recognize that no-one can really "own" an idea. That is why we have created the fiction (and it is a fiction) of "intellectual property". The constitution grants the creator of a work or idea the exclusive right for a limited time to benefit from that work. This is clearly different from the concept of physical property. By couching the debate using the terms "theft" and "stealing" the public is being conned into equating the two concepts. By responding with correct definitions I am attempting to place the debate in its proper context so we can focus on how the BSA, RIAA and MPAA are eroding our fair use rights and breaking the "contract" that copyright law originally provided:
The public, recognising that it benefits from progress in the arts and sciences, and wishing to encourage such progress, agrees to provide a creator with exclusive rights to benefit from his work provided that such right is for a limited time. In return, the copyright holder agrees that after that limited time he will relinquish his rights and let the work enter the public domain so that the public at large can enjoy the benefit of that work, and so that the work can be used in the creation of new works.
The Sonny Bozo^H^H^H^HBono law (and other similar but more limited laws previous) deprives the public of new public domain works and breaks this "contract". This is not at all the same as our view of physical property and the ownership rights for it, and if we want to preserve our rights we must not let the two views become confused.
This is my .sig! Get your own!
Wrong. Using a specific term generically does not make it less specific. "Theft" implies the removal of a physical object (or pseudo-physical, such as money in a bank account) depriving the owner of its use. Illegal copying, while it deprives the owner of the copied work of compensation for the use of his work, does not deprive him of the work itself. That is why it is not theft. It is illegal copying, and is wrong, but it is not theft.
The BSA (also MPAA & RIAA) deliberately use the inaccurate terms "stealing" and "theft" because peoples' gut reaction (such as yours) is based on their experience of the true nature of those crimes. If they correctly used the terms "illegal copying" and "copyright ingringement" their case would arouse much less public sympathy. Their arguments are misleading in other ways, as well. It has been pointed out in other posts that they assume everyone who obtained an illegal copy would have paid for the software if the copy was not available. This is obviously misleading, and it is not the only example.
Of course I have problems with anyone who illegally copies someone else's work. But it is not theft. Software theft would be me shoplifting a copy of Windows from a store. This would deprive the store of a physical item (which they paid for) which they can no longer exchange for money (or something else of value). If, however, I work at that store and make a copy of the Windows CD, putting the original retail box back on the shelf, the store still has the copy for sale. My action in that case is illegal copying, not theft. The only thing the store (and MS) are out is the possibility of a sale. It is not certain that I would have bought a copy of Windows if I hadn't copied it. Thus, while making an illegal copy is wrong, it is not theft and does not have the same impact on the victim. It has some impact, but not the same. That is why equating "illegal copying" with "theft" is misleading and should be avoided.
There isn't one. There is only a victim if I then represent the fake $100 as real and use it to purchase something. In that case I am guilty of fraud, but it is still not theft (though it is closer to it than copying is).
No. Dictionary distinctions are what keep us from talking about everything as if it is the same thing. Rape != Murder, though both are violent. Blue != Purple, though they can be close. Theft != Copyright Infringement, though both are wrong. Talking about things using the correct terms is important if we are to properly understand them and their consequences. Without proper understanding we can not create a proper response. It will likely be either excessive or inadequate. Right now I think it is excessive, and will remain so until the discussion is couched in the proper terms.
This is my .sig! Get your own!
First you agree with the previous poster, then you say that it is useful to discuss it using inaccurate terms. WTF?
The term "stealing" implies transfer of physical goods, depriving the owner of their use. You agreed that this was correct. The moral and ethical ramifications of this are different, and more serious, than the ethical and moral issues inherent in making unauthorised copies which do not deprive you of the use of your copy. Both are wrong, but one is stealing, the other is illegal copying.
The **AA wants to cast the discussion in terms of "stealing", knowing it is inaccurate, because the gut reaction is based on the assumption that the owner no longer posesses the stolen object(s). Their arguments would (rightly) carry much less weight if they were properly couched in terms of "illegal copying" or "copyright infringement."
Yes, both are wrong, but using accurate terms is important in putting the debate in its proper perspective. IMHO, "stealing" is a far graver offense than "illegal copying."
This is my
I disagree. People want convenience and quality at a reasonable price. Downloading provides digital quality from a reasonably convenient source. If it was reasonably priced (around $0.25 per song or so) and more convenient (no failed searches and no partial downloads, no low-quality rips and no fake files etc.) I believe people would pay the price gladly. I know I would - especially to get good quality copies of obscure out of print stuff.
Actually, they don't. As a percentage of the profits, the artist gets almost nothing. In addition, the artist doesn't even get to keep the rights to his own art. The artist is getting screwed.
While this is technically true, the evidence seems to show that music sales grew as more people downloaded from Napster, and shrank when Napster was shut down. There are a multitude of articles available from artists and others verifying that downloads actually benefit the artists. (e.g. by Janis Ian) So my position is that while technically illegal, downloading music is an activity that does no real harm and actually benefits the so-called "victims." It should therefore be legalised in some form, perhaps as described by me above.
This is my .sig! Get your own!
Open Office is good enough now, and there are MSAccess-like database systems now, so the lack of a good small business accounting system has been the only thing keeping me in the Windows world.
I will be sending that e-mail as soon as I post this.
Pure Crap. The first usable IE was 3.02 - bundled with Win95. It had poor performance and problems with frequent crashes. At that time, I also used Netscap 3.x which was far more stable and performed better as well.