Can people please start using their brains to realise that if you don't have a web browser installed, that you can still download it? Yes, that's still possible nowadays! You don't even need to have a web browser to do it!
OEMs could install a tiny program that connects to the Internet and downloads your favourite web browser after asking you which one you would like. They could host a recent version on a fixed spot on their website.
Can an OEM choose to not install IE and provide Firefox or Opera instead? No, it can't. Back in the day Microsoft would even threaten to revoke their OEM licenses if they uninstalled IE, or even removed the icons, and/or installed Netscape. That's Microsoft abusing their monopoly right there!
A lot of people seem to have forgotten why bundling IE was so bad and are making up excuses. They should be ashamed of themselves. And shot. Twice.
And if someone sells a copy of a homebrew on a ReproPak cart, is that commercial?
Not really. It doesn't have a publisher.
In which territory? Most Dreamcast software released during production of consoles was region coded. Is the Dreamcast (U) still alive, or is only the Dreamcast (J) alive?
The Dreamcast gets commercial releases in Japan. In the US there are commercial releases of homebrew games, but I don't think those are region-coded.
That's the best argument I've heard so far. It's a good point. However, that's not how I view the life of a game console. To me, it lives off games, not sales.
Because for one thing, I can't buy a new replacement for a broken console.
Just because production stops doesn't mean that all the units that weren't bought instantly disappear. And I remember reading that Sega would still repair broken Dreamcasts until a bit more than one year after the production stopped.
Specifically, is the Nintendo Entertainment System dead? The occasional homebrew game still comes out for it. In fact, I'm working on making one.
I'd say it's dead. No more commercial releases. I'm not sure if the NES programming scene is even significant.
Meanwhile the Dreamcast still gets games released commercially.
It is an analogy of your argument, not mine. So it's not better, it's irrelevant (to my analogy).
Explain to me why a game console is considered dead when it stops being produced. I'm sure most people consider one dead when there's no production and no more games are being made for it. Like how magazines were saying the Dreamcast would go out with a bang through the release of the (then-latest) quality games, even though the Dreamcast wasn't being produced anymore.
So if everyone that wanted a Wii had a Wii, and production stopped (because of no demand), it's dead? With games still coming out in droves? That's nonsense.
The reason your example sounds so ludicrous is because that they're *not* stopping production of the PS2, and in fact continue to sell it in large quantities, so trying to imagine such a unlikely fact creates an unreal picture.
No shit, Sherlock. That's why I use if in my sentence. The essence of the analogy stands.
So if Sony stops PlayStation 2 production tomorrow, the PS2 is dead, even if developers continue to make games for it until one year later, with people buying them?
Seems like bogus logic to me. There's this popular phrase: "It's about the GAMES, stupid!". No game console is anything without its games.
The Dreamcast never really died. It kept getting new games, mostly in Japan. Then there's the whole homebrew game scene, of which some games get a commercial release once in a while.
Apologist weblog post that essentially tells you to buy new components and turn off what you don't like. Kind of defeats his own argument. Defaults do matter, folks.
Granted, I still wouldn't want to try and run it on a system that only meets the "minimum specifications",... but seriously, who's going to recommend such a system anyway?
Anyone who is not out of touch with the needs of today's home users. WinXP and Linux work fine on such systems, and are pretty fast. Home users don't have a need for 1 GB of RAM and a 2 Ghz CPU. Never mind dual-core, quad-core, etc.
As for all the extra "eye candy"... yeah, it's probably a little over the top. But on that same coin, Linux and MacOS have been getting their fair share of extra processor-eating-eye-candy, too, so what's the big deal here?
No, XHTML will not fix the web. I wish people would get it through their head for once and for all. I'm sick of hearing this nonsense.
Well-formed XHTML is not necessarily valid! I can use, say, a soup element and get away with it. Being well-formed means that it follows the XML syntax rules.
Valid XHTML is not necessarily semantically rich! I can use the font element under the transitional DTD, use a host of elements in the wrong way, use the i element, and so on.
Not to mention that XHTML2 is a steaming pile of crap that was thought up by people at the W3C who are so out of touch with what web developers want. A href attribute so all elements can be links? Huh?
Too bad IE doesn't support your prized XHTML 1.0 Strict, though. You're probably sending it as text/html too, which causes all browser to interpret it as HTML, which means you're feeding them invalid markup.
Furthermore, removing IE will still make CHM files unviewable (unless you hack the system to make them display in, say, Gecko), and cripple the Add/Remove Software window.
You do realize that "unbundling IE" can be as simple as removing all shortcuts to Internet Explorer and the iexplore.exe file itself? Afterwards, you can install any default browser you like. Your argument doesn't hold water.
Are you for real? Internet Exploder is INTEGRATED. Over the years it has become more and more tied into the operating system. It started by making the CHM help file format, which uses IE to render its contents. Then there's all the Internet libraries and the folders right in the Windows directory.
There is no uninstall procedure. None.
Have you actually tried deleting iexplore.exe? It autmatically reappears soon after. Scary but true.
This is why FireFox dominates the alternate browser market. It's slower, bigger and just not as cool as Opera but it can work like IE to the point where finding a page that it does not render correctly is a rare thing.
Have you tried downloading IE? It's a big package. Firefox is smaller.
Firefox (Gecko) is actually more strict with standards than Opera. I've lost count of the threads of people complaining in MozillaZine that their site looks great in IE and Opera, but not Firefox. The reason was 99% of the time that Firefox got it right, and the others not entirely. Did you know that Opera goes as far as supporting IE's proprietary coloured scroll bars feature? Ugh.
What I would love to see is a standard *real* GUI for the web that is non-language dependent (i.e. whatever scripting language you prefer you can use). I'd even use something like Jython with newer/better GUI libraries. But we really need something written from the ground up with GUI in mind.
That wouldn't be the web anymore, and it would throw all semantics out through the window. Search engines would be much less powerful. The 'web' would become a collection of applications, which is bad, because information is central to the web.
Final Fantasy V allows for the same meta-game setups, since it allows you to choose the classes of your characters. But it's deeper than the first Final Fantasy's.
I enjoyed its story and plot too, even though most people didn't.
Absolute bullshit. HTML stands for HyperText Markup Language. It describes its contents. It describes the semantics. Being semantic is its very nature.
People know what text editors and text processors are. They have been there since the dawn of computing, and there never was something special about them.
But they don't know what web browsers are. When they became popular with the layman, it was Internet Exploder who was leading the market. It also had a generic name.
Moreover, it's just a viewer. They don't have to actually work with what it views, unlike text editors.
It's obvious why bundling it with Windows made it the most popular web browser.
Yeah, IE7 works pretty well until you have to actually make a website that displays correctly for all web browsers. I've banged my head for days on a simple problem that occurred only in IE7. When it comes to web standards, Firefox is much, MUCH better.
Did you say the same when you were still using IE6? That's an even bigger pile of shit. More bugs, no PNG transparancy, no tabs, etc.
display an error if *anything* on that page is incorrectly formed. The last part of this sentence is absolutely crucial. We need to start breaking pages that are not correct, XHTML is a good chance to push this.
No. No no no. It's not a web browser's job to check if a document is well-formed. The web browser serves the user.
Moreover, it wouldn't change much. A page being well-formed is one thing. A page being valid is something entirely different! Not to mention that a well-formed and valid page wouldn't necessarily be spiritually standards compliant (that is, be semantically rich).
Slashdot Mirror
Can people please start using their brains to realise that if you don't have a web browser installed, that you can still download it? Yes, that's still possible nowadays! You don't even need to have a web browser to do it!
OEMs could install a tiny program that connects to the Internet and downloads your favourite web browser after asking you which one you would like. They could host a recent version on a fixed spot on their website.
Can an OEM choose to not install IE and provide Firefox or Opera instead? No, it can't. Back in the day Microsoft would even threaten to revoke their OEM licenses if they uninstalled IE, or even removed the icons, and/or installed Netscape. That's Microsoft abusing their monopoly right there!
A lot of people seem to have forgotten why bundling IE was so bad and are making up excuses. They should be ashamed of themselves. And shot. Twice.
For crying out loud, it has passed the test since 6 December last year.
Not really. It doesn't have a publisher.
The Dreamcast gets commercial releases in Japan. In the US there are commercial releases of homebrew games, but I don't think those are region-coded.
That's the best argument I've heard so far. It's a good point. However, that's not how I view the life of a game console. To me, it lives off games, not sales.
Just because production stops doesn't mean that all the units that weren't bought instantly disappear. And I remember reading that Sega would still repair broken Dreamcasts until a bit more than one year after the production stopped.
I'd say it's dead. No more commercial releases. I'm not sure if the NES programming scene is even significant.
Meanwhile the Dreamcast still gets games released commercially.
It is an analogy of your argument, not mine. So it's not better, it's irrelevant (to my analogy).
Explain to me why a game console is considered dead when it stops being produced. I'm sure most people consider one dead when there's no production and no more games are being made for it. Like how magazines were saying the Dreamcast would go out with a bang through the release of the (then-latest) quality games, even though the Dreamcast wasn't being produced anymore.
So if everyone that wanted a Wii had a Wii, and production stopped (because of no demand), it's dead? With games still coming out in droves? That's nonsense.
Maybe your definition of 'dead' is different?
No shit, Sherlock. That's why I use if in my sentence. The essence of the analogy stands.
So if Sony stops PlayStation 2 production tomorrow, the PS2 is dead, even if developers continue to make games for it until one year later, with people buying them?
Seems like bogus logic to me. There's this popular phrase: "It's about the GAMES, stupid!". No game console is anything without its games.
The Dreamcast never really died. It kept getting new games, mostly in Japan. Then there's the whole homebrew game scene, of which some games get a commercial release once in a while.
Apologist weblog post that essentially tells you to buy new components and turn off what you don't like. Kind of defeats his own argument. Defaults do matter, folks.
Anyone who is not out of touch with the needs of today's home users. WinXP and Linux work fine on such systems, and are pretty fast. Home users don't have a need for 1 GB of RAM and a 2 Ghz CPU. Never mind dual-core, quad-core, etc.
They do it while eating up much less.
No, XHTML will not fix the web. I wish people would get it through their head for once and for all. I'm sick of hearing this nonsense.
Well-formed XHTML is not necessarily valid! I can use, say, a soup element and get away with it. Being well-formed means that it follows the XML syntax rules.
Valid XHTML is not necessarily semantically rich! I can use the font element under the transitional DTD, use a host of elements in the wrong way, use the i element, and so on.
Not to mention that XHTML2 is a steaming pile of crap that was thought up by people at the W3C who are so out of touch with what web developers want. A href attribute so all elements can be links? Huh?
Too bad IE doesn't support your prized XHTML 1.0 Strict, though. You're probably sending it as text/html too, which causes all browser to interpret it as HTML, which means you're feeding them invalid markup.
nLite is a third-party tool, not an official one.
Furthermore, removing IE will still make CHM files unviewable (unless you hack the system to make them display in, say, Gecko), and cripple the Add/Remove Software window.
Are you for real? Internet Exploder is INTEGRATED. Over the years it has become more and more tied into the operating system. It started by making the CHM help file format, which uses IE to render its contents. Then there's all the Internet libraries and the folders right in the Windows directory.
There is no uninstall procedure. None.
Have you actually tried deleting iexplore.exe? It autmatically reappears soon after. Scary but true.
Have you tried downloading IE? It's a big package. Firefox is smaller.
Firefox (Gecko) is actually more strict with standards than Opera. I've lost count of the threads of people complaining in MozillaZine that their site looks great in IE and Opera, but not Firefox. The reason was 99% of the time that Firefox got it right, and the others not entirely. Did you know that Opera goes as far as supporting IE's proprietary coloured scroll bars feature? Ugh.
That wouldn't be the web anymore, and it would throw all semantics out through the window. Search engines would be much less powerful. The 'web' would become a collection of applications, which is bad, because information is central to the web.
Not owning a computer doesn't stop anyone from being exposed to them.
The web wasn't that popular back then.
To surf the web, they don't have to edit the HTML. In text editors you edit text.
Well, another factor was that IE was free. Netscape Navigator was not.
Using something in a way that it wasn't created for is a really stupid thing to do. The end.
Final Fantasy V allows for the same meta-game setups, since it allows you to choose the classes of your characters. But it's deeper than the first Final Fantasy's.
I enjoyed its story and plot too, even though most people didn't.
Absolute bullshit. HTML stands for HyperText Markup Language. It describes its contents. It describes the semantics. Being semantic is its very nature.
You're missing the point. If the third-party ads script displays content that's not well-formed, THE WHOLE PAGE DOESN'T DISPLAY.
A web browser serves the user. It's not a web developer's tool.
Having well-formed web pages is only one step of the way. It also has to be valid, and it has to be semantically rich.
People know what text editors and text processors are. They have been there since the dawn of computing, and there never was something special about them.
But they don't know what web browsers are. When they became popular with the layman, it was Internet Exploder who was leading the market. It also had a generic name.
Moreover, it's just a viewer. They don't have to actually work with what it views, unlike text editors.
It's obvious why bundling it with Windows made it the most popular web browser.
Yeah, IE7 works pretty well until you have to actually make a website that displays correctly for all web browsers. I've banged my head for days on a simple problem that occurred only in IE7. When it comes to web standards, Firefox is much, MUCH better.
Did you say the same when you were still using IE6? That's an even bigger pile of shit. More bugs, no PNG transparancy, no tabs, etc.
No. No no no. It's not a web browser's job to check if a document is well-formed. The web browser serves the user.
Moreover, it wouldn't change much. A page being well-formed is one thing. A page being valid is something entirely different! Not to mention that a well-formed and valid page wouldn't necessarily be spiritually standards compliant (that is, be semantically rich).
They're only stronger in that they have gorgeous graphics and spoon-feed the story to you.