iPods already use the FAT32 filesystem which is why they work on both Windows and Macs. I doubt they would go out of their way to format it in NTFS or do something equally silly to make it not work with Macs.
They probably just talk about the Windows compatibilty becuase a Mac user isn't going to be browsing HP's site for iPods anyway.
" I have all the backup e-mail storage space I want on my own Personal Computer. How many people honestly need instant access to an old e-mail from two years ago from anywhere on the web?"
Quite true in many cases, but there are good reasons for using webmail (combined with IMAP, if possible!) It is great to have consistent layout of saved mailboxes available on multiple computers, for example. It's also nice to have saved messages available when out of town, if you don't use a laptop. Finally, your address stays the same if you switch ISPs, and even keeps working if you don't have any internet service for a while.
That said, I would not use a web-only mail service myself. I'm just saying there are uses for it. Personally I have my own domain name, set up with IMAP and SquirrelMail pointed at it -- all the advantages of webmail without the annoyances.
True, but you're probably not the average computer user. The average user will look at it and see the 2 GB mailbox size without regard to the fact that it has the (IMHO) not-so-great Hotmail interface.
It's aimed at the same people who want a 3.5 GHz computer for $299 but don't care that it runs Windows instead of Linux or Mac OS X.
Unless I'm mistaken it is just a play on the idea of an HTML-based mail interface. I think it was originally written as HoTMaiL before Microsoft bought them out.
Sounds like a good plan! It's unfortunate that your company's intranet has to be aimed at one browser, but if that has to be the case it's nice to target one that is cross-platform.
I've mentioned this before, but there is another option:
Rather than make Firefox shortcuts look like IE, all you really need to do is give them a generic globe icon and call them "Internet." It worked in our small library.
The average user is none the wiser because to them "Internet Explorer" and "The Internet" are basically synonyms. And the more savvy ones might actually notice they're using something different and find out what it is, this way.
This sounds like an excellent idea! I've personally never been a fan of the whole "formal" style anyway. Buch of people standing and looking straight forward? No thanks.:)
So this isn't very informative but I just wanted to say how much I like Wikipedia. I've used it countless times and I consider it an invaluable resources. I only wish more people knew about it.:)
> By the way, if you aren't feeling quite as sneaky (I think I actually
> took this less-sneaky route myself), rename your new icon to "Internet", not
> "Internet Explorer". That way you're not just
lying:).
Yeah, it's often just a matter of people not recognizing alternative browsers. I tried a similar approach at work, which is a small library setting.
On our public computers I made a new shortcut to Firefox on the desktop, gave it a generic globe icon, and called it simply "Internet." Now I never see anyone digging in the Applications folder to look for Explorer.
Quite true, you make good points. I guess my comments were based on what is practical, rather than the reality of most buyers.
Unfortunately most casual users make their choices based on perceived speed, as you indicated, instead of on equally important (probably moreso) factors like consistency, security and ease of maintenance.
The average buyer seems to be resigned to all the flaws of the system and just buys new stuff because it is faster than ever, so in theory they can recover from all their problems faster.:)
I will also add that I don't pretend my comment on consistency applies to all Linux software. It certainly doesn't. Though if you take, say, an all-KDE environment (KOffice, Kopete, Konqueror, KMail etc.) it does.
> The Mac is now workable for any type of task... it's > *that* fast... but it's still not where XP is.
Hope I don't get modded down, but...
To me there's a major problem this line of thinking. That is, the idea that speed means a system is good for any type of task.
Yes there is a certain baseline of speed that must be met to get your work done in a reasonable amount of time, but beyond that I believe that the usability of the system is also heavily dependent on interface consistency, availability of appropriate tools, etc.
Consequently I'd take my 533 MHz G4 with OS X, or a properly configured Linux/BSD system over XP any day, no matter how fast it is. You may feel that XP exceeds that line by a great deal while OS X only a bit, but that is irrelevant to me. Speed has diminishing returns with regard to usability once you cross a (relatively low) threshold.
> way off mang. it is a ground up build with new addon ans > a completely different interface and code base. i prefer > its tabbed browsing.. its small and by far my favorite browser.
While there have been some significant changes in Firefox it certainly is not different from the "ground up." It shares much of the same code with Mozilla, the most important of which is (IMO) the Gecko rendering engine.
> way off mang. it is a ground up build with new addon ans
> a completely different interface and code base. i prefer
> its tabbed browsing.. its small and by far my favorite browser.
While there have been some significant changes in Firefox it certainly is not different from the "ground up." It shares much of the same code with Mozilla, the most important of which is (IMO) the Gecko rendering engine.
I don't see anything on the site that qualifies as news. No new build or anything. Is this purely an "in case you didn't know this exists" posting or is there something new we're supposed to check out? I don't mean to be rude or critical -- just asking.:)
Same here. I've used OOo in Linux on two GHz+ machines as well as Mac OS X. It starts really, really slow on all of them. I love it and use it quite often, but it's far from zippy.
I use Firefox and Thunderbird (had been using the Suite mostly, though.) I prefer Mozilla apps because of the features they offer. As someone already mentioned, there are more options for cookie management in Firefox. As for Thunderbird, I prefer the way it handles IMAP accounts. My main complaint about it was the lack of Dock icon notification for new messages, but as of Thunderbird 0.6 that's no longer an issue. The interfaces for Safari and Mail do feel better in many ways because they are native, but that doesn't mean much if they simply don't do everything I want.
Also, I in no way mean to degrade these two programs. Both are fine apps and I wouldn't have any problem recommending them to people who have different needs. My family uses Safari and Mail and I'm in no hurry to switch them away.
Besides--what's so different about the interface of say Konq and Mozilla? I like Konq because it's faster in my experience--what makes the UI's so different?
I'm not the original poster but here's my take: Konqueror's engine is fine but my problem with the interface is the tons of buttons that are in the toolbar, and the rather painful customization window one must use to remove them. A little like Opera but not nearly as bad.
If you open a default configuration for Safari and Firefox (and even Mozilla), they're very similar in layout. And they're minimalist. In this respect, Konqueror's design is more like IE than it is Safari or Mozilla-based browsers.
There is truth to this with regard to lots of open-source software, but it isn't necessarily true of all. And these problems do exist for many other programs, both Free and non-Free.
Take Mozilla and OpenOffice, for example. In my experience they are just as usable and stable as other programs, commercial or otherwise.
I'd tend to believe it's more a problem of developer attitude. Although this is often an issue in open-source projects but does not necessarily have to be an inherent trait of OSS.
I got a slightly older one from Other World Computing, made specifically for the 2G 20 GB iPod. Just search for "iPod" at http://eshop.macsales.com/ . The ones you'd want would be in the category "iSkin iPod Cases - For 2G 20GB iPod Only"
Info on the iSkin I got can be found here. FYI it is generally similar to the new ones, but it doesn't have the belt clip and a screen protector is not built-in so you'll want to get some sort of protective film separately. They are still available on the official iSkin site but cost a bit more than at OWC.
Slashdot Mirror
iPods already use the FAT32 filesystem which is why they work on both Windows and Macs. I doubt they would go out of their way to format it in NTFS or do something equally silly to make it not work with Macs.
They probably just talk about the Windows compatibilty becuase a Mac user isn't going to be browsing HP's site for iPods anyway.
" I have all the backup e-mail storage space I want on my own Personal Computer. How many people honestly need instant access to an old e-mail from two years ago from anywhere on the web?"
Quite true in many cases, but there are good reasons for using webmail (combined with IMAP, if possible!) It is great to have consistent layout of saved mailboxes available on multiple computers, for example. It's also nice to have saved messages available when out of town, if you don't use a laptop. Finally, your address stays the same if you switch ISPs, and even keeps working if you don't have any internet service for a while.
That said, I would not use a web-only mail service myself. I'm just saying there are uses for it. Personally I have my own domain name, set up with IMAP and SquirrelMail pointed at it -- all the advantages of webmail without the annoyances.
"Size matters, but it's not everything"
True, but you're probably not the average computer user. The average user will look at it and see the 2 GB mailbox size without regard to the fact that it has the (IMHO) not-so-great Hotmail interface.
It's aimed at the same people who want a 3.5 GHz computer for $299 but don't care that it runs Windows instead of Linux or Mac OS X.
Unless I'm mistaken it is just a play on the idea of an HTML-based mail interface. I think it was originally written as HoTMaiL before Microsoft bought them out.
:))
(Yes, I know you were being sarcastic.
It could be an error of omission of "the coffin of", as you suggest. On the other hand, it could allude to crucifixion.
Crucifixion, eh? So per-processor licensing is dying for your sins?
Sounds like a good plan! It's unfortunate that your company's intranet has to be aimed at one browser, but if that has to be the case it's nice to target one that is cross-platform.
I've mentioned this before, but there is another option:
Rather than make Firefox shortcuts look like IE, all you really need to do is give them a generic globe icon and call them "Internet." It worked in our small library.
The average user is none the wiser because to them "Internet Explorer" and "The Internet" are basically synonyms. And the more savvy ones might actually notice they're using something different and find out what it is, this way.
This sounds like an excellent idea! I've personally never been a fan of the whole "formal" style anyway. Buch of people standing and looking straight forward? No thanks. :)
> The main thing was that the "Server is disconnected" notice happens less
(note: I am not the person who asked you the question, but I was also wondering.)
Interesting. Under what conditions does the above message appear? I use Mozilla and Thunderbird with IMAP and I have never seen that even once.
So this isn't very informative but I just wanted to say how much I like Wikipedia. I've used it countless times and I consider it an invaluable resources. I only wish more people knew about it. :)
> By the way, if you aren't feeling quite as sneaky (I think I actually :).
> took this less-sneaky route myself), rename your new icon to "Internet", not
> "Internet Explorer". That way you're not just lying
Yeah, it's often just a matter of people not recognizing alternative browsers. I tried a similar approach at work, which is a small library setting. On our public computers I made a new shortcut to Firefox on the desktop, gave it a generic globe icon, and called it simply "Internet." Now I never see anyone digging in the Applications folder to look for Explorer.
Quite true, you make good points. I guess my comments were based on what is practical, rather than the reality of most buyers.
:)
Unfortunately most casual users make their choices based on perceived speed, as you indicated, instead of on equally important (probably moreso) factors like consistency, security and ease of maintenance.
The average buyer seems to be resigned to all the flaws of the system and just buys new stuff because it is faster than ever, so in theory they can recover from all their problems faster.
I will also add that I don't pretend my comment on consistency applies to all Linux software. It certainly doesn't. Though if you take, say, an all-KDE environment (KOffice, Kopete, Konqueror, KMail etc.) it does.
> The Mac is now workable for any type of task... it's
> *that* fast... but it's still not where XP is.
Hope I don't get modded down, but...
To me there's a major problem this line of thinking. That is, the idea that speed means a system is good for any type of task.
Yes there is a certain baseline of speed that must be met to get your work done in a reasonable amount of time, but beyond that I believe that the usability of the system is also heavily dependent on interface consistency, availability of appropriate tools, etc.
Consequently I'd take my 533 MHz G4 with OS X, or a properly configured Linux/BSD system over XP any day, no matter how fast it is. You may feel that XP exceeds that line by a great deal while OS X only a bit, but that is irrelevant to me. Speed has diminishing returns with regard to usability once you cross a (relatively low) threshold.
Yep. There is a release candidate for 0.9 but the latest regular release is 0.8. The 0.9 RC is probably what the article is based on.
Ugh, stupid line breaks. Let's try this again...
> way off mang. it is a ground up build with new addon ans
> a completely different interface and code base. i prefer
> its tabbed browsing.. its small and by far my favorite browser.
While there have been some significant changes in Firefox it certainly is not different from the "ground up." It shares much of the same code with Mozilla, the most important of which is (IMO) the Gecko rendering engine.
> way off mang. it is a ground up build with new addon ans > a completely different interface and code base. i prefer > its tabbed browsing.. its small and by far my favorite browser. While there have been some significant changes in Firefox it certainly is not different from the "ground up." It shares much of the same code with Mozilla, the most important of which is (IMO) the Gecko rendering engine.
I don't think the original poster was implying Apple stole anything, but rather that Microsoft did.
I don't see anything on the site that qualifies as news. No new build or anything. Is this purely an "in case you didn't know this exists" posting or is there something new we're supposed to check out? I don't mean to be rude or critical -- just asking. :)
Same here. I've used OOo in Linux on two GHz+ machines as well as Mac OS X. It starts really, really slow on all of them. I love it and use it quite often, but it's far from zippy.
OK, so this is probably redundant.
I use Firefox and Thunderbird (had been using the Suite mostly, though.) I prefer Mozilla apps because of the features they offer. As someone already mentioned, there are more options for cookie management in Firefox. As for Thunderbird, I prefer the way it handles IMAP accounts. My main complaint about it was the lack of Dock icon notification for new messages, but as of Thunderbird 0.6 that's no longer an issue. The interfaces for Safari and Mail do feel better in many ways because they are native, but that doesn't mean much if they simply don't do everything I want.
Also, I in no way mean to degrade these two programs. Both are fine apps and I wouldn't have any problem recommending them to people who have different needs. My family uses Safari and Mail and I'm in no hurry to switch them away.
Besides--what's so different about the interface of say Konq and Mozilla? I like Konq because it's faster in my experience--what makes the UI's so different?
I'm not the original poster but here's my take: Konqueror's engine is fine but my problem with the interface is the tons of buttons that are in the toolbar, and the rather painful customization window one must use to remove them. A little like Opera but not nearly as bad.
If you open a default configuration for Safari and Firefox (and even Mozilla), they're very similar in layout. And they're minimalist. In this respect, Konqueror's design is more like IE than it is Safari or Mozilla-based browsers.
Oop! I forgot to edit my 'Although' out of the last sentence. :)
There is truth to this with regard to lots of open-source software, but it isn't necessarily true of all. And these problems do exist for many other programs, both Free and non-Free.
Take Mozilla and OpenOffice, for example. In my experience they are just as usable and stable as other programs, commercial or otherwise.
I'd tend to believe it's more a problem of developer attitude. Although this is often an issue in open-source projects but does not necessarily have to be an inherent trait of OSS.
I got a slightly older one from Other World Computing, made specifically for the 2G 20 GB iPod. Just search for "iPod" at http://eshop.macsales.com/ . The ones you'd want would be in the category "iSkin iPod Cases - For 2G 20GB iPod Only"
Info on the iSkin I got can be found here. FYI it is generally similar to the new ones, but it doesn't have the belt clip and a screen protector is not built-in so you'll want to get some sort of protective film separately. They are still available on the official iSkin site but cost a bit more than at OWC.