My families oldest computer is from 1997 and runs Windows 95, should people expect that to be supported?
Expect? No. But open-source is not a business, and doesn't have to bother with questions like "what's the ROI for continuing to support an older OS?".
Furthermore, the Windows API hasn't changed all that much in many years, save for the introduction of Unicode-enabled API functions that otherwise do the same thing as their ANSI versions. This makes older versions of Windows easier to support than, say, old Mac OS versions.
The latest SeaMonkey is still supported on Windows 95. I'm using it right now.
This is true. I was thinking the same thing, actually. But that's the (dodgy) reasoning the EU gives, and I doubt they really want to give Opera specifically more market share, as Apple and Mozilla have also participated in the case.
A serious alternative wasnt to be found until 2006 (ForeFox 2.0), and low and behold IE7 was also released in 2006.
...What? Define "serious alternative", because we don't seem to have the same 'seriousness barometer'.
Netscape after 6.0, Mozilla since 1.0, and Opera have always been good alternatives. Opera less so because of its adbanner and not being free until a couple years ago.
This is not about Opera. Last time they complained to Microsoft about bundling, they released a special 'N' version of Windows XP that didn't have their media player. The problem was that this didn't have any effect, as people just bought the regular Windows XP version.
This time they want to make sure that people see that they have a choice.
Hyperbole much? It's true that for its time, IE6 was decently standards compliant. But there was still a lot left to implement, and loads of bugs. Because IE6 is the default web browser for a lot of people thanks to it shipping with Windows, we got stuck with it.
Meanwhile other web browsers released new versions like hotcakes, but barely anyone used them, because people don't know what a web browser is, and just use what comes with their computer.
That's the real issue, not some cheapskate logic.
As for Netscape 6, that's not a fair comparison. It was built off Mozilla 0.6, which was not stable for everyday use, and pretty much a development version. Mozilla 1.0 was very good, much better than IE6, and released barely a year later.
Yahoo!'s video search engine is better than Bing's. I can get to the videos directly instead of being linked to the page that linked/embedded it (which may no longer have it, even though the video still exists).
I did a Google search, and the only thing that showed up is an add-on/extension. Looks like the Firefox people, in their infinite wisdom, decided that it was clutter. Idiots.
Have you actually read the comment you're replying to, or were you so eager to a -1 Redundant post? The grandparent asked why the EU (like most people on Slashdot, including you) didn't think of the fact that OEMs would be able to choose the bundled web browser. After all, that's how this bundling mess started; OEMs weren't allowed to bundle Netscape or uninstall IE.
Even without an Internet connection and a bundled web browser, people still were able to get web browsers. They copied them from friends, from magazine CD-ROMs, and even from advertisement CD-ROMs from ISPs.
People exchanged files before the Internet became common-place.
People that praise IE8 praise it for its near-complete implementation of CSS 2.1 (even though it has a fair share of bugs). This is a dramatic improvement from IE7.
But you're right. IE is still lacking in other areas, notably in the DOM implementation. Does IE8 even support HTML 2.0 link elements' navigational properties (table of contents, previous, next, up,...) yet?
Spoken like a programmer that has to be protected from himself/herself. C++ adheres to the philosophy that the programmer should be able to use the full power available.
This is just one planet - we can make others habitable if needed.
Just because we can doesn't mean we should. This is our planet, and we should try to preserve it instead of destroying it. What right do we have to invade other planets?
Slashdot Mirror
I forgot to mention that Opera, which is NOT open-source, also supports its web browser on Windows 95.
"super godly bandwidth connections"? You must not know Japan. Compared to other industrialised countries, they switched to broadband quite late.
Expect? No. But open-source is not a business, and doesn't have to bother with questions like "what's the ROI for continuing to support an older OS?".
Furthermore, the Windows API hasn't changed all that much in many years, save for the introduction of Unicode-enabled API functions that otherwise do the same thing as their ANSI versions. This makes older versions of Windows easier to support than, say, old Mac OS versions.
The latest SeaMonkey is still supported on Windows 95. I'm using it right now.
Software patents don't exist everywhere. They don't in Europe, for example.
By Mozilla 1.0, Mozilla was very usable, and had better web standards support than IE6. Firefox 1.0 was even better.
This is true. I was thinking the same thing, actually. But that's the (dodgy) reasoning the EU gives, and I doubt they really want to give Opera specifically more market share, as Apple and Mozilla have also participated in the case.
...What? Define "serious alternative", because we don't seem to have the same 'seriousness barometer'.
Netscape after 6.0, Mozilla since 1.0, and Opera have always been good alternatives. Opera less so because of its adbanner and not being free until a couple years ago.
What was wrong with Firefox 1.0, anyway?
This is not about Opera. Last time they complained to Microsoft about bundling, they released a special 'N' version of Windows XP that didn't have their media player. The problem was that this didn't have any effect, as people just bought the regular Windows XP version.
This time they want to make sure that people see that they have a choice.
Hyperbole much? It's true that for its time, IE6 was decently standards compliant. But there was still a lot left to implement, and loads of bugs. Because IE6 is the default web browser for a lot of people thanks to it shipping with Windows, we got stuck with it.
Meanwhile other web browsers released new versions like hotcakes, but barely anyone used them, because people don't know what a web browser is, and just use what comes with their computer.
That's the real issue, not some cheapskate logic.
As for Netscape 6, that's not a fair comparison. It was built off Mozilla 0.6, which was not stable for everyday use, and pretty much a development version. Mozilla 1.0 was very good, much better than IE6, and released barely a year later.
Yahoo!'s video search engine is better than Bing's. I can get to the videos directly instead of being linked to the page that linked/embedded it (which may no longer have it, even though the video still exists).
I did a Google search, and the only thing that showed up is an add-on/extension. Looks like the Firefox people, in their infinite wisdom, decided that it was clutter. Idiots.
View > Show/Hide > Site Navigation Bar > ...
That's how you get to it in SeaMonkey. I know Firefox has the feature too in a similar place.
Nonsense. It's called taking responsibility for what you do.
No, it definitely doesn't. That philosophy is wrong.
Pretty much all Mozilla-based web browsers support it, as well as Opera, and perhaps Safari.
I agree that it's indeed a step backwards. It should have been the OEM's job.
By the way, every Windows 95 version that was not the initial retail box version was bundled with some version of IE, so Windows 98 wasn't first.
Have you actually read the comment you're replying to, or were you so eager to a -1 Redundant post? The grandparent asked why the EU (like most people on Slashdot, including you) didn't think of the fact that OEMs would be able to choose the bundled web browser. After all, that's how this bundling mess started; OEMs weren't allowed to bundle Netscape or uninstall IE.
Even without an Internet connection and a bundled web browser, people still were able to get web browsers. They copied them from friends, from magazine CD-ROMs, and even from advertisement CD-ROMs from ISPs.
People exchanged files before the Internet became common-place.
Like most other people here, you forgot that Microsoft has a monopoly on OSs, and has long been abusing it through bundling IE into its OS.
People that praise IE8 praise it for its near-complete implementation of CSS 2.1 (even though it has a fair share of bugs). This is a dramatic improvement from IE7.
But you're right. IE is still lacking in other areas, notably in the DOM implementation. Does IE8 even support HTML 2.0 link elements' navigational properties (table of contents, previous, next, up,...) yet?
Spoken like a programmer that has to be protected from himself/herself. C++ adheres to the philosophy that the programmer should be able to use the full power available.
Just because we can doesn't mean we should. This is our planet, and we should try to preserve it instead of destroying it. What right do we have to invade other planets?
After which you asked a question about all games, hence my reply. :)
Of course. But your reply is not a reply to my comment, as suddenly you're narrowing it down to the music game genre. :)
Most of the games involve violence or some fantasy world. That's not stuff you should/can do in real life.
True. However, how many of those songs does the buyer like? Chances are that it would have been cheaper to buy just the songs you like as DLC.