Re: Re: Russia's Endgame
By: Boraxman to MRO on Tue Oct 11 2022 09:38 pm
I'm referring more to the business side of things. I read a story just before about how Microsoft pressured the UK government into abandoning a program to push Free Software. Microsoft threated to pull out some resea
i doubt that happened. uk is always the one taking microsoft to task over a
A company I used to contract at would donate life cycled hardware to a local non-pofit that would supply under privileged families with a desktop and monitor that is 3 to 5 years old, but still relevant for classwork and online activities. I've read of other groups trying to avoid the license hassle,
and install a linux distro such as Mint or Ubuntu. Upon asking, I learned MS has a partnership with these refurbishers, and provide activation keys and deployment servers and services to slipstream the OS install / imaging process. I wouldn't be surprised if a special MS Office distribution comes installed, along with tools to indoctrinate budding developers into going
My understanding is the earliest version of Win95 shipped without any form of browser, and Netscape's browser was the clear successor. By shipping IE with the OS, it gave IE a clear advanrage because most basic users would use what the OS shipped with. Same applied with taking business away from the media player software manufacturers. The most software publishers, it
Not only did later versions of Windows include Internet Explorer, Microsoft claimed it was integrated into Windows in such a way that it would be difficult to remove it. That was back when (I think) Microsoft was using sneaky tactics to try to corner the market. Microsoft also made IE behave a
sneaky tactics to try to corner the market. Microsoft also made IE behave a bit differently (in a non-standard way) than other web browsers, so by the time IE gained a lot of marketshare, some web sites pretty much worked only with IE.
sneaky tactics to try to corner the market. Microsoft also made IE
behave a bit differently (in a non-standard way) than other web
browsers, so by the time IE gained a lot of marketshare, some web
sites pretty much worked only with IE.
standards back then weren't really strictly followed.
browsers, so by the time IE gained a lot of marketshare, some web
sites pretty much worked only with IE.
standards back then weren't really strictly followed.
Microsoft certainly didn't strictly follow standards, but they used that to their advantage to get people to use IE.
I've often heard IE was the bane of web developers because they had to do things differently for their web site to work properly in IE.
Not only did later versions of Windows include Internet Explorer,
Microsoft claimed it was integrated into Windows in such a way that
it would be difficult to remove it. That was back when (I think)
Microsoft was using sneaky tactics to try to corner the market.
Microsoft also made IE behave a bit differently (in a non-standard
way) than other web browsers, so by the time IE gained a lot of
marketshare, some web sites pretty much worked only with IE.
standards back then weren't really strictly followed.
Tracker1 wrote to Nightfox <=-
quirks these days. NN 4.x was such hot garbage to work with.
And yet rouding up their own people and putting them in re-education work camps, and killing the ones that won't go or don't pass re-education, doesn't get China quite the same bad rap. Interesting how that works.
look what they did with black people during covid.
And yet rouding up their own people and putting them in re-education work camps, and killing the ones that won't go or don't pass re-education, doesn't get China quite the same bad rap. Interesting how that works.
look what they did with black people during covid.
What did China do with them?
Tracker1 wrote to Nightfox <=-
quirks these days. NN 4.x was such hot garbage to work with.I'm running SeaMonkey on the BBS now, feels akin to Netscape Communicator 4.x bit with a modern rendering engine.
Yeah, it was the rendering that was the biggest issue... was writing web-ui charting and literally had to cover the entire screen when doing so, or it would send someone into a seizure with the flickering. IIRC NN4.07 was required support for the company I was at around 1999 or so,quirks these days. NN 4.x was such hot garbage to work with.I'm running SeaMonkey on the BBS now, feels akin to Netscape Communic 4.x bit with a modern rendering engine.
as Novel was a major client and it was their "standard" browser internally.
I think the moment when Netscape was rewritten into Java killed the adoption completely. It was NN6 if I recall. Looked fancy from UI/UX perspective as we call it today, but slow as hell and unbearable for daily use comparing to sleek IE integrated with the OS.
i used netscape and i don't even remember that happening. i looked it up and it said it was using the gecko engine.
i used netscape and i don't even remember that happening. i looked
it up and it said it was using the gecko engine.
THen perhaps memory plays tricks with me. it somehow resonates with me that six (that with aqua blue ui and big six in the background layer of the welcome web page it was starting with, I think animated as well) was implemented in java or strongly integrated with java.
I liked it up to 4, for sure. It was my browser on early linux and win 3.11/32. My early Internet access memories is Netscape and MIRC :>
I used Netscape for a long time as well, and I don't remember hearing about it being ported to Java. And with that version of Netscape, I
don't recall needing to install the Java runtime to use it.
hollowone wrote to Nightfox <=-
I used Netscape for a long time as well, and I don't remember hearing about it being ported to Java. And with that version of Netscape, I
don't recall needing to install the Java runtime to use it.
Yeah.. I keep searching for some reference, but it seems that my mind's boggled. Apologies for confusion. But still I remember it was slow like hell, that sticks.
But I believe NN fucked up implementation and choosing Java as
front-end was way premature by the end of 90s.
I think the moment when Netscape was rewritten into Java killed the
adoption completely. It was NN6 if I recall. Looked fancy from UI/UX
perspective as we call it today, but slow as hell and unbearable for
i used netscape and i don't even remember that happening. i looked it up and it said it was using the gecko engine.
Tracker1 wrote to hollowone <=-
To be clear, Java isn't JavaScript. The JS UI was started with NN6
using an XML UI templating language called XUL. Riff on Ghostbusters, "There is no data. There is only XUL!"
XUL itself had a lot of really cool features, and by 2002 most PCs were more than fast enough. There was a standalone Application toolkit
called XULRunner and quite few third party apps used it... Mozilla kind
of left it to die though, and eventually nuked XUL support and left it
to die. It was pretty much Electron a decade and a half before
Electron existed.
They also added JS support for E4X (ecmascript for xml), the only other implementation was in ActionScript 3 for Flash/Flex.
But I believe NN fucked up implementation and choosing Java as front-end was way premature by the end of 90s.
To be clear, Java isn't JavaScript. The JS UI was started with NN6
using an XML UI templating language called XUL. Riff on Ghostbusters, "There is no data. There is only XUL!"
I know XUL, it was pitched by Mozilla years after NN collapsed as something that may help Javascript conquer desktop app development. It never resonated though.
But that makes sense to me, if XUL predecessor as Wikipedia claims developed initially by Netscape Communications in around 1997 was responsible for NN6 rendering and I experienced it around 1999/2000 with my Celeron 300Mhz, no brainer it was slow as hell.
To be clear, Java isn't JavaScript. The JS UI was started with NN6
using an XML UI templating language called XUL. Riff on
Ghostbusters, "There is no data. There is only XUL!"
I knew the bell wasn't ringing far from truth. Thanks for pointing me to the right waters. I'd not mistake java with javascript, perhaps my memory resonated with the wrong echo from the beginning.
I know XUL, it was pitched by Mozilla years after NN collapsed as something that may help Javascript conquer desktop app development. It never resonated though.
But that makes sense to me, if XUL predecessor as Wikipedia claims developed initially by Netscape Communications in around 1997 was responsible for NN6 rendering and I experienced it around 1999/2000 with my Celeron 300Mhz, no brainer it was slow as hell.
Now I even found right reference regarding this XUL thing to impact performance on slower machine at the time of NN6 release
| Sysop: | Tandy |
|---|---|
| Location: | New York, USA |
| Users: | 15 |
| Nodes: | 13 (0 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 15:48:28 |
| Calls: | 335 |
| Messages: | 113,756 |