while i can appreciate your opinion AC - everyone here has one and you, like everyone else, is certainly entitled...however, you might consider tempering your comments with a bit less "jack-ass-ism", next time...you're points can be made just as strongly without coming across sounding as biting or as snide...
claiming that someone's ideas are "preposterous" or "absurd" is very strong verbage, in contrast to calling them a moron or insane....i'm paraphrasing here of course, but your "You seem to fall into..." comment added nothing to the discussion outside of being a catalyst for pushing the OP's buttons...srry - but that isn't a productive way to stimulate intelligent discussion...
p.s. -1 Off-Topic...i'll just go ahead and save everyone the trouble;)
wrong...MS was judged at the time to have a monopolistic position in the market (think for a moment beyond the consumer marketspace and consider all the MS software runs - servers, dbases, IE, etc.), and they abused that power...that is what they were charged and convicted of...
it's not illegal to BE a monopoly, even if you don't think they are...it's illegal to abuse that power...which is what court(s) of law found Microsoft to be guilty of...
we're all welcome to our opinions - it doesn't change the fact that MS has been convicted of abusing monopolistic power...the facts may not be fun to look at, but that doesn't change them
If you for one second think that Microsoft (let that name rattle in your head for a second before you continue reading), is being altrustic here and has non-DRM consumers' best interests in mind, then you've been under the desk for a bit too long. MS has their own set of plans for DRM; if you haven't been keeping up take a quick look at any recent iteration of Windows Media Player.
I guarantee the only reason that MS isn't backing Blu-Ray, if it has anything to do with DRM, is because Sony or whomever isn't letting them in on the back-end of their technology.
If Redmond is supporting it, HD-DVD will have DRM to some degree just as Blu-Ray does.
Microsoft pulled the same support B.S. with firewire versus USB 2.0 specifications for Windows XP. But does that mean that Windows XP doesn't support USB 2.0 now?
No.
This is simply Redmond looking for cheap PR. Plain and simple - albeit moronic considering anti-trust implications.
Regardless of the standard they say they will be adopting with their vapor-ware OS, MS will ultimately support whatever standard is the most widely used and requested by their users and their vendors.
"Whether Michael Moore would or not, that's his problem..."
and
"Yeah, I'm not surprised at what he's done either. But, we shouldn't let that vindicate him. The guy's a kook."
The same could be (and probably has been), said about Michael Moore as well. Free speech still affords both Michael Moore, and Eric Raymond, the right to burn as many bridges as they see fit.
This thread is a bit old - but I went ahead and stuck with it all the way down to your little comment...so I'll go ahead and bite.
I'd appreciate it if you'd mention your experience being first-hand or merely an opinion with no real basis of fact? If all you have is conjecture and haven't actually shelled out money or spent any time playing World of Warcraft, then you've got no valid opinion in the matter. When exactly did you become the arbiter for what is considered fun for everyone?
I can appreciate your view of a challenge, however your description of current MMORPGs appears baseless and snide. I'll go ahead and quote you for emphasis:
"MMORPGs are for addicts and no one else."
Most of the people I know play for the social endeavor - to be able to spend time with people that they know in what they consider to be a fun and interesting world. We're adults and many times, real life responsibility gets in the way of us getting together for a drink or dinner - this still allows us to 'hang out' while remaining convenient. Some of these people might still consider the game a challenge despite your definition.
So piss off captain solo if that's all you see in such a game. The fact of the matter is that WoW is quite rich aside from any 'grinding', 'farming', 'insert mundane activity here', that you might assume exists in the game. The story line exists through SEVERAL previous titles and continues throughout World of Warcraft. The history and storylines are a work of art in and of themselves.
Concurrently - if you have played the game and just didn't care for it, good luck to you outside of it. I don't play games according to your definition as it stands and appreciate you not being around in WoW to fuck up the experience for the rest of us.
...then I'll move completely over to a console. I spend the majority of my gaming time in that environment and it simply would not work on a console.
Blizz is pushing on Starcraft Ghost and I'll buy that when it's done. But the game experience just isn't the same from console to PC - despite the USB ports sitting on current/nextgen consoles.
I've played console ports on the PC (sent my Halo PC back to MS ffor their 30-day $$ back guarantee it ran/looked so bad), Star WarsBattlefront. You can just tell that the game was built for input from a controller versus key/mouse.
Vice versus - Starcraft Nintendo 64? Or Command and Conquer on console? They were laughable at best. They just don't work - they were built from the ground up for a particular experience that is difficult (not impossible) to acheive moving from one platform to another.
P.S. I don't want a similar TYPE of game to WoW, I want THAT game. That is why i will have a dedicated PC for gaming, as well as my consoles.
i can't imagine that anyone would consider this to be a substitute/competitor for PDF, considering that this technology is SPECIFIC to longhorn...which is still vapor-ware...
anyone check on adoption rates for XP with enterprise customers?..not exactly a shining star...in the meantime, adobe is free to make PDF an even MORE ubiquitous format than it is now...
This is a typical response coming from a Photoshop 'old-hat' who couldn't actually take the time to figure out why Fireworks shines over Photoshop for web graphic creation.
Photoshop is total bloatware for web graphics design. Outside of some slick filters for raster images and admittedly better processing capabilities, Fireworks just owns PS for low-res, faster image creation. Adding insult to serious injury, Fireworks can export its native vector files into half a dozen other formats and maintain editability.
Adobe needs to deep-six Image Ready and replace it with Fireworks. They've been trying to 'shoe-horn' Fireworks' feature set into that piece of junk for years - so far unsuccessfully.
actually - booted up on win xp pro sp1 disc with my new athlon 64 system yesterday and recognized the SATA drive without issue....
for what it's worth i was using an asus k8n-e deluxe mobo and this isn't the norm...when i installed the SATA on my abit ic7-g max, the mobo actually came with the SATA drivers on a dedicated floppy...but it does look like mobo manufacturers are starting to get the hint...
it usually takes 1/15th of the time to slave the old HD into a known good disc for backup - then install XP pro...slave the "virus-ridden" disk into a flameable, yet virus protected system and let the scanning begin...clean files on the other end....
win xp (home or pro), is around $70 US for a student to buy...and these people obviosuly knew a student...either the intern who suggested zone alarm, or the actual kid who's computer it was...and slap a bit more ram into the machine so that it can run win xp....256 will do the job for most casual users' needs...
while the tech is at it - they're on broadband already, so why not actually do some real computer consulting and advise them on a $60 router with a built-in hardware firewall to do most of the protection heavy-lifting...
this entire fiasco should have taken approx 1.5-2 hours....as many other people have said...and the aforementioned solution wouldn't have cost $800 bones....
tha's brilliant bumpkin....answer me this: why is it that those opposed to the war in iraq are having to pay for that?...your argument doesn't sound so thorogh from that angle does it...according to your original line of reasoning, what about the people who "don't want or have no use for" running water? "why should the be forced to pay for a service they don't need?"...
imagine the people who could benefit from top-shelf broadband...doctors, biologist, teachers, colleges, etc. - just to name a a few...point here is, there is tons of fiber running through the US....we just don't get it b/c of the super-weak telecos...
i am currently paying for 3Mb download with a paltry 128kbps upload, while my cable modem taps out at 10Mbps and i have Gb on my mobo...tell me why they telecos can't keep up with that...i know they have the bandwidth...even over their existing lines...but why should they open their pipes up any wider when peeps in the US are happy paying for the crumbs they're already getting...
maybe you should check with your personal assistant before you talk in the future...don't be a moron...
aight dude - you can blow me....i can design standards-based all day long and make sites that look phenomenal on any platform and any browser....completely tableless...
the reason i have a "best viewed using firefox" is b/c that's the kind of shit that got IE a dominant position in the first place...even before MS started bundling....
the only reason that i've got that on my site is so that my users will know there is an alternative...i spoke with a user the other day who asked me a question about IE and outlook express...i told him i wasn't sure b/c i didn't use those programs...his response? "I thought that you had to use those for the internet."
The "Best viewed with..." on my site is viral marketing....most users don't even realize there is alternative...
something as simple as the OS prompting for an account password (ala just about any flavor of *nix comes to mind), would do wonders for windows pathetic security...i looked around all the new features that are said to be included with win xp sp2...this wasn't among them....
why is it that the second that i have logged in, anyone could sit down and my system and if i happen to not have a password on the screen saver or have the system set to automatically log me out after x minutes of activity, ANYONE could install ANYTHING on my system...and just extend that a brief moment to any perpetrator online installing malware and any other executable trojan to turn a windows box into a spam zombie....
i just don't buy that MS is serious about security...this is a pretty easy solution that shouldn't take months of ripping apart the OS for implementation....
i don't get it...?
PS - i'm not trolling, i'm serious...this seems like a pretty simplistic fix that wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out...
Did you ever stop to think that your closed-source, proprietary business model doesn't give a rat's ass about you as a developer? Your employer doesn't give half a shit about your need to eat. They care about their bottom line, and the lineage of products that you've developed that they can commodotize and sell for years after you've gone to work for somone else. You are expendable...so far as they are concerned.
I tend to dedicate my time to OSS for this exact reason. It's not a group hug thing. It's generally to scratch an itch. My knowledge and skills are the point of value. Not the product that I create or the bottom line - b/c there may not be one. Hopefully a respective employer can appreciate those skills and knowledge, and that might have something fresh to contribute to their organization.
Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.
Halo = only a shadow of what it could have been. See the original movie promos from Macworld, etc. The Halo dev team destroyed that game by moving it to FPS. Now it's just another shooter, and via gamepad, it's super weak.
Halo PC = just another shooter, and a poor one at that. It ran so poorly on my PC that I returned it to MS' for their 30-day $$-back guarantee.
The second that I can use a standard USB keyboard and mouse combo, I will consider halo on the Xbox as an alternative.
It's not that I'm an old-school, PC-hardcore, moreover, it's a physical limitation; the amount of flexibility and mobilty that exists in your fingers are far less than what is comparably possible via keyboard and mouse. FPS' suck on consoles. Again, just MHO, but there are a grand chunk of gamers who agree with me on this point.
Gamepads are great for console-style games. Anyone remember the debacles that were Command and Conquer or Starcraft on the N64?
PC games are a different type of animal - still best suited for key/mouse input. Until then, Halo will be a shadow of what it could have been - as will Halo2. The dev team killed it when they made it an FPS. Now it's just another shooter.
I host a local LAN event and even if/when I've seen consoles at said events, there was only one. No one that I know wants to lug a 32"+ television around. 17" LCD, oh yeah. Shuttle (or comparable mini-) PC - you bet. I can appreciate where console gaming is headed - it's needed to step up to the level of the PC experience for a while. At the same time, console gaming still, INHO, pales in comparison to gaming on a personal computer.
The types of games that I, and most of our LAN attendees, play on a PC are dramatically different than a comparable console title. The Battlefield and UT2k series are beautiful examples. I have friends with Xboxes that hated UT Championship and I can't even fathom trying to play BF on a game pad. These games still harbor mass followings on the PC platform. At the same time, Splinter Cell is amazing on a console, and marginal at best on my PC.
P.S. - Halo PC ran SO horribly on my system (Athlon 2500+, 1GB ram, 256MB Radeon Pro video), that I invoked MS' 30-day money-back guarantee. They were prompt with the refund so, apparently they are good for something.:-P
I disagree - if only because in more than a couple of instances I've seen first-hand, the gains of a rewrite were worth the tradeoffs of the aging, legacy items that suffer.
Don't get me wrong, a rewrite for rewrites sake is foolhardy, but Netscape 4.x is widely acknowledged to be one of - if not the worst browser on the planet. Regardless of the bloat, Mozilla is still a standards-compliant browser, and I'd be curious if the original author has tried Firebird. I am a Web designer, so a CSS/XHTML-based design is a bit more troublesome on the front-end. At the same time, it's far easier to change the entire layout of my site(s) and it's far easier to maintain accessibility with a CSS-based design.
At the same time, we've recently upgraded to Apache 2 and the performance improvements are far and away worth any amount of legacy support - IMHO. I admit I'm a bit biased as I'm not programming, I am seeing the fruits of the labor as an end-result. But if those fruits come at the cost of legacy support that appears to be "good enough" - that's not enough for me to justify....go ahead and rebuild...
You should suggest Opera as an alternative for your users' aging systems. It's standards compliant ( albeit with it's own oddities), but will run on a good chunk of older spec hardware.
NOTE: We are on the verge of a standards-based redesign project and we are moving our entire style sheet into an @import statement. We are including the following in a "display: none;" marked class:
<!-- begin HTML copy --> <p class="none">This site makes use of modern Web technologies for the best possible experience for all our users. Please consider upgrading your browser for the best possible experience. Click here to upgrade to the latest version of
<a href="http://www.mozilla.org/">Mozilla</a>, <a href="http://www.opera.com/download/">Opera</a> , <a href="http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/def ault.jsp">Netscape</a>, or <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.a spx?FamilyID=1e1550cb-5e5d-48f5-b02b-20b602228de6& displaylang=en">Internet
Explorer</a>.</p> <!-- end copy -->
It's a simple derivative to the WASP upgrade initiative (referenced in Zeldman's text), but our users really should be moving forward with their online experience. By using a structural mark-up design, the page will degrade for users of older browsers, it just doesn't have the same visual design elements. Plus, there's no need for a separate design for multiple browsers, platforms, mobile devices, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
while i can appreciate your opinion AC - everyone here has one and you, like everyone else, is certainly entitled...however, you might consider tempering your comments with a bit less "jack-ass-ism", next time...you're points can be made just as strongly without coming across sounding as biting or as snide...
claiming that someone's ideas are "preposterous" or "absurd" is very strong verbage, in contrast to calling them a moron or insane....i'm paraphrasing here of course, but your "You seem to fall into..." comment added nothing to the discussion outside of being a catalyst for pushing the OP's buttons...srry - but that isn't a productive way to stimulate intelligent discussion...
p.s. -1 Off-Topic...i'll just go ahead and save everyone the trouble ;)
wrong...MS was judged at the time to have a monopolistic position in the market (think for a moment beyond the consumer marketspace and consider all the MS software runs - servers, dbases, IE, etc.), and they abused that power...that is what they were charged and convicted of...
it's not illegal to BE a monopoly, even if you don't think they are...it's illegal to abuse that power...which is what court(s) of law found Microsoft to be guilty of...
we're all welcome to our opinions - it doesn't change the fact that MS has been convicted of abusing monopolistic power...the facts may not be fun to look at, but that doesn't change them
If you for one second think that Microsoft (let that name rattle in your head for a second before you continue reading), is being altrustic here and has non-DRM consumers' best interests in mind, then you've been under the desk for a bit too long. MS has their own set of plans for DRM; if you haven't been keeping up take a quick look at any recent iteration of Windows Media Player.
I guarantee the only reason that MS isn't backing Blu-Ray, if it has anything to do with DRM, is because Sony or whomever isn't letting them in on the back-end of their technology.
If Redmond is supporting it, HD-DVD will have DRM to some degree just as Blu-Ray does.
Microsoft pulled the same support B.S. with firewire versus USB 2.0 specifications for Windows XP. But does that mean that Windows XP doesn't support USB 2.0 now?
No.
This is simply Redmond looking for cheap PR. Plain and simple - albeit moronic considering anti-trust implications.
Regardless of the standard they say they will be adopting with their vapor-ware OS, MS will ultimately support whatever standard is the most widely used and requested by their users and their vendors.
as will the buddy list... /friend cmdrtaco would tell you if the name's been taken
Quoth AC:
and
The same could be (and probably has been), said about Michael Moore as well. Free speech still affords both Michael Moore, and Eric Raymond, the right to burn as many bridges as they see fit.
LOL - nicely done...appreciate the reply :)
This thread is a bit old - but I went ahead and stuck with it all the way down to your little comment...so I'll go ahead and bite.
I'd appreciate it if you'd mention your experience being first-hand or merely an opinion with no real basis of fact? If all you have is conjecture and haven't actually shelled out money or spent any time playing World of Warcraft, then you've got no valid opinion in the matter. When exactly did you become the arbiter for what is considered fun for everyone?
I can appreciate your view of a challenge, however your description of current MMORPGs appears baseless and snide. I'll go ahead and quote you for emphasis:
Most of the people I know play for the social endeavor - to be able to spend time with people that they know in what they consider to be a fun and interesting world. We're adults and many times, real life responsibility gets in the way of us getting together for a drink or dinner - this still allows us to 'hang out' while remaining convenient. Some of these people might still consider the game a challenge despite your definition.
So piss off captain solo if that's all you see in such a game. The fact of the matter is that WoW is quite rich aside from any 'grinding', 'farming', 'insert mundane activity here', that you might assume exists in the game. The story line exists through SEVERAL previous titles and continues throughout World of Warcraft. The history and storylines are a work of art in and of themselves.
Concurrently - if you have played the game and just didn't care for it, good luck to you outside of it. I don't play games according to your definition as it stands and appreciate you not being around in WoW to fuck up the experience for the rest of us.
...then I'll move completely over to a console. I spend the majority of my gaming time in that environment and it simply would not work on a console.
Blizz is pushing on Starcraft Ghost and I'll buy that when it's done. But the game experience just isn't the same from console to PC - despite the USB ports sitting on current/nextgen consoles.
I've played console ports on the PC (sent my Halo PC back to MS ffor their 30-day $$ back guarantee it ran/looked so bad), Star WarsBattlefront. You can just tell that the game was built for input from a controller versus key/mouse.
Vice versus - Starcraft Nintendo 64? Or Command and Conquer on console? They were laughable at best. They just don't work - they were built from the ground up for a particular experience that is difficult (not impossible) to acheive moving from one platform to another.
P.S. I don't want a similar TYPE of game to WoW, I want THAT game. That is why i will have a dedicated PC for gaming, as well as my consoles.
i can't imagine that anyone would consider this to be a substitute/competitor for PDF, considering that this technology is SPECIFIC to longhorn...which is still vapor-ware...
anyone check on adoption rates for XP with enterprise customers?..not exactly a shining star...in the meantime, adobe is free to make PDF an even MORE ubiquitous format than it is now...
- bliSS
This is a typical response coming from a Photoshop 'old-hat' who couldn't actually take the time to figure out why Fireworks shines over Photoshop for web graphic creation.
Photoshop is total bloatware for web graphics design. Outside of some slick filters for raster images and admittedly better processing capabilities, Fireworks just owns PS for low-res, faster image creation. Adding insult to serious injury, Fireworks can export its native vector files into half a dozen other formats and maintain editability.
Adobe needs to deep-six Image Ready and replace it with Fireworks. They've been trying to 'shoe-horn' Fireworks' feature set into that piece of junk for years - so far unsuccessfully.
actually - booted up on win xp pro sp1 disc with my new athlon 64 system yesterday and recognized the SATA drive without issue....
for what it's worth i was using an asus k8n-e deluxe mobo and this isn't the norm...when i installed the SATA on my abit ic7-g max, the mobo actually came with the SATA drivers on a dedicated floppy...but it does look like mobo manufacturers are starting to get the hint...
- bliSS
it usually takes 1/15th of the time to slave the old HD into a known good disc for backup - then install XP pro...slave the "virus-ridden" disk into a flameable, yet virus protected system and let the scanning begin...clean files on the other end....
win xp (home or pro), is around $70 US for a student to buy...and these people obviosuly knew a student...either the intern who suggested zone alarm, or the actual kid who's computer it was...and slap a bit more ram into the machine so that it can run win xp....256 will do the job for most casual users' needs...
while the tech is at it - they're on broadband already, so why not actually do some real computer consulting and advise them on a $60 router with a built-in hardware firewall to do most of the protection heavy-lifting...
this entire fiasco should have taken approx 1.5-2 hours....as many other people have said...and the aforementioned solution wouldn't have cost $800 bones....
- bliSS
tha's brilliant bumpkin....answer me this: why is it that those opposed to the war in iraq are having to pay for that?...your argument doesn't sound so thorogh from that angle does it...according to your original line of reasoning, what about the people who "don't want or have no use for" running water? "why should the be forced to pay for a service they don't need?"...
imagine the people who could benefit from top-shelf broadband...doctors, biologist, teachers, colleges, etc. - just to name a a few...point here is, there is tons of fiber running through the US....we just don't get it b/c of the super-weak telecos...
i am currently paying for 3Mb download with a paltry 128kbps upload, while my cable modem taps out at 10Mbps and i have Gb on my mobo...tell me why they telecos can't keep up with that...i know they have the bandwidth...even over their existing lines...but why should they open their pipes up any wider when peeps in the US are happy paying for the crumbs they're already getting...
maybe you should check with your personal assistant before you talk in the future...don't be a moron...
- bliSS
aight dude - you can blow me....i can design standards-based all day long and make sites that look phenomenal on any platform and any browser....completely tableless...
the reason i have a "best viewed using firefox" is b/c that's the kind of shit that got IE a dominant position in the first place...even before MS started bundling....
the only reason that i've got that on my site is so that my users will know there is an alternative...i spoke with a user the other day who asked me a question about IE and outlook express...i told him i wasn't sure b/c i didn't use those programs...his response? "I thought that you had to use those for the internet."
The "Best viewed with..." on my site is viral marketing....most users don't even realize there is alternative...
something as simple as the OS prompting for an account password (ala just about any flavor of *nix comes to mind), would do wonders for windows pathetic security...i looked around all the new features that are said to be included with win xp sp2...this wasn't among them....
why is it that the second that i have logged in, anyone could sit down and my system and if i happen to not have a password on the screen saver or have the system set to automatically log me out after x minutes of activity, ANYONE could install ANYTHING on my system...and just extend that a brief moment to any perpetrator online installing malware and any other executable trojan to turn a windows box into a spam zombie....
i just don't buy that MS is serious about security...this is a pretty easy solution that shouldn't take months of ripping apart the OS for implementation....
i don't get it...?
PS - i'm not trolling, i'm serious...this seems like a pretty simplistic fix that wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out...
- bliSS
you've got to be THE idiot of the millenium...the only reason that i vote is so i feel justified bitching about how bad things are...
you are obviously suffering under the delusion that your vote actually matters...go sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here...
- bliSS
Did you ever stop to think that your closed-source, proprietary business model doesn't give a rat's ass about you as a developer? Your employer doesn't give half a shit about your need to eat. They care about their bottom line, and the lineage of products that you've developed that they can commodotize and sell for years after you've gone to work for somone else. You are expendable...so far as they are concerned.
I tend to dedicate my time to OSS for this exact reason. It's not a group hug thing. It's generally to scratch an itch. My knowledge and skills are the point of value. Not the product that I create or the bottom line - b/c there may not be one. Hopefully a respective employer can appreciate those skills and knowledge, and that might have something fresh to contribute to their organization.
Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.
bliSSHalo = only a shadow of what it could have been. See the original movie promos from Macworld, etc. The Halo dev team destroyed that game by moving it to FPS. Now it's just another shooter, and via gamepad, it's super weak.
Halo PC = just another shooter, and a poor one at that. It ran so poorly on my PC that I returned it to MS' for their 30-day $$-back guarantee.
The second that I can use a standard USB keyboard and mouse combo, I will consider halo on the Xbox as an alternative.
It's not that I'm an old-school, PC-hardcore, moreover, it's a physical limitation; the amount of flexibility and mobilty that exists in your fingers are far less than what is comparably possible via keyboard and mouse. FPS' suck on consoles. Again, just MHO, but there are a grand chunk of gamers who agree with me on this point.
Gamepads are great for console-style games. Anyone remember the debacles that were Command and Conquer or Starcraft on the N64?
PC games are a different type of animal - still best suited for key/mouse input. Until then, Halo will be a shadow of what it could have been - as will Halo2. The dev team killed it when they made it an FPS. Now it's just another shooter.
I host a local LAN event and even if/when I've seen consoles at said events, there was only one. No one that I know wants to lug a 32"+ television around. 17" LCD, oh yeah. Shuttle (or comparable mini-) PC - you bet. I can appreciate where console gaming is headed - it's needed to step up to the level of the PC experience for a while. At the same time, console gaming still, INHO, pales in comparison to gaming on a personal computer.
The types of games that I, and most of our LAN attendees, play on a PC are dramatically different than a comparable console title. The Battlefield and UT2k series are beautiful examples. I have friends with Xboxes that hated UT Championship and I can't even fathom trying to play BF on a game pad. These games still harbor mass followings on the PC platform. At the same time, Splinter Cell is amazing on a console, and marginal at best on my PC.
P.S. - Halo PC ran SO horribly on my system (Athlon 2500+, 1GB ram, 256MB Radeon Pro video), that I invoked MS' 30-day money-back guarantee. They were prompt with the refund so, apparently they are good for something. :-P
check out the zodiac - Tapwave.com
I disagree - if only because in more than a couple of instances I've seen first-hand, the gains of a rewrite were worth the tradeoffs of the aging, legacy items that suffer.
Don't get me wrong, a rewrite for rewrites sake is foolhardy, but Netscape 4.x is widely acknowledged to be one of - if not the worst browser on the planet. Regardless of the bloat, Mozilla is still a standards-compliant browser, and I'd be curious if the original author has tried Firebird. I am a Web designer, so a CSS/XHTML-based design is a bit more troublesome on the front-end. At the same time, it's far easier to change the entire layout of my site(s) and it's far easier to maintain accessibility with a CSS-based design.
At the same time, we've recently upgraded to Apache 2 and the performance improvements are far and away worth any amount of legacy support - IMHO. I admit I'm a bit biased as I'm not programming, I am seeing the fruits of the labor as an end-result. But if those fruits come at the cost of legacy support that appears to be "good enough" - that's not enough for me to justify....go ahead and rebuild...
Just my $.02
- bliSS
You should suggest Opera as an alternative for your users' aging systems. It's standards compliant ( albeit with it's own oddities), but will run on a good chunk of older spec hardware.
;, <a href="http://www.opera.com/download/">Opera</a> , <a href="http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/def ault.jsp">Netscape</a>, or <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.a spx?FamilyID=1e1550cb-5e5d-48f5-b02b-20b602228de6& displaylang=en">Internet
NOTE: We are on the verge of a standards-based redesign project and we are moving our entire style sheet into an @import statement. We are including the following in a "display: none;" marked class:
<!-- begin HTML copy -->
<p class="none">This site makes use of modern Web technologies for the best possible experience for all our users. Please consider upgrading your browser for the best possible experience. Click here to upgrade to the latest version of
<a href="http://www.mozilla.org/">Mozilla</a>
Explorer</a>.</p>
<!-- end copy -->
It's a simple derivative to the WASP upgrade initiative (referenced in Zeldman's text), but our users really should be moving forward with their online experience. By using a structural mark-up design, the page will degrade for users of older browsers, it just doesn't have the same visual design elements. Plus, there's no need for a separate design for multiple browsers, platforms, mobile devices, etc.
Just my $.02
-----------------------