I never understood why Windows never included free malware protection before. It seems like a "duh" idea.
Matt
Microsoft to Launch Free Anti-Malware Beta To-Morro
by Paul Thurrott
Microsoft will release a limited public beta version of its Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE)— formerly code-named Morro—tomorrow in the United States, Israel, and Brazil. The anti-malware add-on will work with Windows 7, Windows Vista, and Windows XP, and will be free when the final version is released worldwide by the end of 2009.
"Microsoft Security Essentials is security you can trust," Microsoft anti-malware general manager Alan Packer told me in a briefing earlier this month. "It includes award-winning anti-malware technology with real-time protection. It's easy to get and use, and will be available at no cost directly from Microsoft to all genuine Windows users."
MSE is based on the same anti-malware technology that the company builds into its other products, such as Forefront and Hotmail. And though it will effectively replace the discontinued Windows Live OneCare in the marketplace, it has been upgraded internally since that product to support a dynamic signature service that provides for near real-time signature updates so that users' PCs are always up to date.
MSE is improved over OneCare in other ways, too. Although the software lacks any of the PC-management functionality that Microsoft added to OneCare, MSE is much smaller, lighter, and quicker. And unlike OneCare, it doesn't burden the user with constant, unnecessary notifications.
After the initial MSE public beta release this week, Microsoft will begin rolling out the beta to other locales, beginning with China later next month. The final product will ship in the third quarter of 2009, about the same time as Windows 7.
For more information about the MSE public beta, please refer to the SuperSite for Windows.
Kind of off topic, but it seems odd that they are releasing it to the
United States, Israel, and Brazil. Seems like a strange combination
of countries. I'm sure there's a reason for it...I'd be curious to
know the logic behind that.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Matthew K <matt_...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> I never understood why Windows never included free malware protection before. It seems like a "duh" idea.
> Matt
> Microsoft to Launch Free Anti-Malware Beta To-Morro
> by Paul Thurrott
> Microsoft will release a limited public beta version of its Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE)— formerly code-named Morro—tomorrow in the United States, Israel, and Brazil. The anti-malware add-on will work with Windows 7, Windows Vista, and Windows XP, and will be free when the final version is released worldwide by the end of 2009.
> "Microsoft Security Essentials is security you can trust," Microsoft anti-malware general manager Alan Packer told me in a briefing earlier this month. "It includes award-winning anti-malware technology with real-time protection. It's easy to get and use, and will be available at no cost directly from Microsoft to all genuine Windows users."
> MSE is based on the same anti-malware technology that the company builds into its other products, such as Forefront and Hotmail. And though it will effectively replace the discontinued Windows Live OneCare in the marketplace, it has been upgraded internally since that product to support a dynamic signature service that provides for near real-time signature updates so that users' PCs are always up to date.
> MSE is improved over OneCare in other ways, too. Although the software lacks any of the PC-management functionality that Microsoft added to OneCare, MSE is much smaller, lighter, and quicker. And unlike OneCare, it doesn't burden the user with constant, unnecessary notifications.
> After the initial MSE public beta release this week, Microsoft will begin rolling out the beta to other locales, beginning with China later next month. The final product will ship in the third quarter of 2009, about the same time as Windows 7.
> For more information about the MSE public beta, please refer to the SuperSite for Windows.
If you get sewed for a billion dollars by the eu every time you release a
new product, you might get a bit twitchy about releasing new products as
well. Especially free ones.
But why other than that? Translation? That does take a while. But I don't
have a clue after that.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jacob Munson <yacoub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kind of off topic, but it seems odd that they are releasing it to the
> United States, Israel, and Brazil. Seems like a strange combination
> of countries. I'm sure there's a reason for it...I'd be curious to
> know the logic behind that.
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Matthew K <matt_...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I never understood why Windows never included free malware protection
> before. It seems like a "duh" idea.
> > Matt
> > Microsoft to Launch Free Anti-Malware Beta To-Morro
> > by Paul Thurrott
> > Microsoft will release a limited public beta version of its Microsoft
> Security Essentials (MSE)— formerly code-named Morro—tomorrow in the United
> States, Israel, and Brazil. The anti-malware add-on will work with Windows
> 7, Windows Vista, and Windows XP, and will be free when the final version is
> released worldwide by the end of 2009.
> > "Microsoft Security Essentials is security you can trust," Microsoft
> anti-malware general manager Alan Packer told me in a briefing earlier this
> month. "It includes award-winning anti-malware technology with real-time
> protection. It's easy to get and use, and will be available at no cost
> directly from Microsoft to all genuine Windows users."
> > MSE is based on the same anti-malware technology that the company builds
> into its other products, such as Forefront and Hotmail. And though it will
> effectively replace the discontinued Windows Live OneCare in the
> marketplace, it has been upgraded internally since that product to support a
> dynamic signature service that provides for near real-time signature updates
> so that users' PCs are always up to date.
> > MSE is improved over OneCare in other ways, too. Although the software
> lacks any of the PC-management functionality that Microsoft added to
> OneCare, MSE is much smaller, lighter, and quicker. And unlike OneCare, it
> doesn't burden the user with constant, unnecessary notifications.
> > After the initial MSE public beta release this week, Microsoft will begin
> rolling out the beta to other locales, beginning with China later next
> month. The final product will ship in the third quarter of 2009, about the
> same time as Windows 7.
> > For more information about the MSE public beta, please refer to the
> SuperSite for Windows.
> If you get sewed for a billion dollars by the eu every time you release a > new product, you might get a bit twitchy about releasing new products as > well. Especially free ones.
The big EU cases against Microsoft that I'm aware of are because MS bundles free products with their market dominating OS. I'm not going to argue for or against this practice, but I'm just clarifying that Microsoft would not be sued so often if they offered free products on their website (as I suspect it will work with this new malware tool). But putting it in the OS...it makes it pretty hard for 3rd party tools to compete. Yes...I know people are free to go download something else (which is what I do)...the point is that Internet Explorer and Windows Media player are used by most people because they come free on their PC and there's no big motivation to go get something else.
You can see the same trends with Apple's free bundled software. Most Mac OS users just use Safari, regardless of how much better Firefox is (features wise). So why doesn't anybody sue Apple for bundling Safari? Beats me. I suppose it could have something to do with Apple's minuscule market share...but still, in the Apple world the large majority of people use Safari, because it's already there and there's no big motivation to change.
US , Israel and Brazil seems like an eclectic selection of countries. All different languages and even continents. My guess is it is possibility a licensing thing. If not that then maybe they don't want to melt down their update servers - kind of a staged roll-out.
Wait...how do I get to Microsoft's (or Opera's) web site if the os doesn't
come with a web browser?
I know, I'll have someone email the web to me.
Scratch that, apparently the OS can't come with an email client either.
Cause the EU says so.
Fine, I'll drive to BestBuy and buy a disk with FireFox on it for $10
(assuming I can choose one from the 15 that are for sale there, as mandated
by the EU, we have to give equal opportunity). Well I would, if the EU
hadn't mandated that cars can't come with engines so as to put 3rd party
engine makers out of business.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Jacob Munson <yacoub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you get sewed for a billion dollars by the eu every time you release a
> > new product, you might get a bit twitchy about releasing new products as
> > well. Especially free ones.
> The big EU cases against Microsoft that I'm aware of are because MS
> bundles free products with their market dominating OS. I'm not going
> to argue for or against this practice, but I'm just clarifying that
> Microsoft would not be sued so often if they offered free products on
> their website (as I suspect it will work with this new malware tool).
> But putting it in the OS...it makes it pretty hard for 3rd party tools
> to compete. Yes...I know people are free to go download something
> else (which is what I do)...the point is that Internet Explorer and
> Windows Media player are used by most people because they come free on
> their PC and there's no big motivation to go get something else.
> You can see the same trends with Apple's free bundled software. Most
> Mac OS users just use Safari, regardless of how much better Firefox is
> (features wise). So why doesn't anybody sue Apple for bundling
> Safari? Beats me. I suppose it could have something to do with
> Apple's minuscule market share...but still, in the Apple world the
> large majority of people use Safari, because it's already there and
> there's no big motivation to change.
The OS has come with a FTP client since the days of Windows NT 3.51.
Yes, it is primitive but fully functional.
As to how you retrieve the correct program? A program can provide the
user with a list of programs. The list can be vendor specific. Given
the users choice it then retrieves the selected program and installs it.
That simply requires a TCP/IP stack, not a full browser. Heck this
could be done even without a TCP/IP stack if necessary. I have
programmed in environments where even they do not exist. :->
From: bsdg@googlegroups.com [mailto:bsdg@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
Chris Brandsma
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:12 PM
To: bsdg@googlegroups.com
Subject: [BSDG] Re: Microsoft to Launch Free Anti-Malware Beta To-Morro
Wait...how do I get to Microsoft's (or Opera's) web site if the os
doesn't come with a web browser?
I know, I'll have someone email the web to me.
Scratch that, apparently the OS can't come with an email client either.
Cause the EU says so.
Fine, I'll drive to BestBuy and buy a disk with FireFox on it for $10
(assuming I can choose one from the 15 that are for sale there, as
mandated by the EU, we have to give equal opportunity). Well I would,
if the EU hadn't mandated that cars can't come with engines so as to put
3rd party engine makers out of business.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Jacob Munson <yacoub...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> If you get sewed for a billion dollars by the eu every time you
release a
> new product, you might get a bit twitchy about releasing new products
as
> well. Especially free ones.
The big EU cases against Microsoft that I'm aware of are because MS
bundles free products with their market dominating OS. I'm not going
to argue for or against this practice, but I'm just clarifying that
Microsoft would not be sued so often if they offered free products on
their website (as I suspect it will work with this new malware tool).
But putting it in the OS...it makes it pretty hard for 3rd party tools
to compete. Yes...I know people are free to go download something
else (which is what I do)...the point is that Internet Explorer and
Windows Media player are used by most people because they come free on
their PC and there's no big motivation to go get something else.
You can see the same trends with Apple's free bundled software. Most
Mac OS users just use Safari, regardless of how much better Firefox is
(features wise). So why doesn't anybody sue Apple for bundling
Safari? Beats me. I suppose it could have something to do with
Apple's minuscule market share...but still, in the Apple world the
large majority of people use Safari, because it's already there and
there's no big motivation to change.
> Wait...how do I get to Microsoft's (or Opera's) web site if the os doesn't > come with a web browser?
I think the preferred option would be for Microsoft to give you a choice instead of just putting the word "Internet" on the desktop taking people to their web browser (and their website, btw). I think the EU would like a brand new PC to ask you which web browser you want to use when you first boot up. If you followed the latest EU case about IE in Windows, you'll know that Microsoft has decided to release a version of Windows 7 without IE. This actually angered the EU more because, (using their words), this gives the consumer even less choice than they had before.
Again, I am not arguing for or against Microsoft's bundling decisions. I'm just saying that to say Microsoft is being punished for releasing free products is misrepresenting the issue.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Jacob Munson<yacoub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Wait...how do I get to Microsoft's (or Opera's) web site if the os doesn't
>> come with a web browser?
> I think the preferred option would be for Microsoft to give you a
> choice instead of just putting the word "Internet" on the desktop
> taking people to their web browser (and their website, btw). I think
> the EU would like a brand new PC to ask you which web browser you want
> to use when you first boot up. If you followed the latest EU case
> about IE in Windows, you'll know that Microsoft has decided to release
> a version of Windows 7 without IE. This actually angered the EU more
> because, (using their words), this gives the consumer even less choice
> than they had before.
> Again, I am not arguing for or against Microsoft's bundling decisions.
> I'm just saying that to say Microsoft is being punished for releasing
> free products is misrepresenting the issue.
It is all fun and games on this side of the pond. I have several relatives
who are absolutely irate at the EU parliament right now over this. So far
they are for Microsoft's actions as apposed to the EU's (and they live
there).
And Microsoft didn't release IE for free any more than the car dealer gives
you free mud flaps. It is all about bundling.
I see the move as completely wrong and bull headed by the EU. The end result
is that the EU does not want Microsoft to own the product they developed.
If the EU wins this fight, then the EU will have full say in what can and
cannot be included with software packages. Next they will determine what
can be released with Mac, the IPhone, Linux.
Is this sensationalist? Maybe. Probably just the libertarian in me coming
out.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Jacob Munson <yacoub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Wait...how do I get to Microsoft's (or Opera's) web site if the os
> doesn't
> > come with a web browser?
> I think the preferred option would be for Microsoft to give you a
> choice instead of just putting the word "Internet" on the desktop
> taking people to their web browser (and their website, btw). I think
> the EU would like a brand new PC to ask you which web browser you want
> to use when you first boot up. If you followed the latest EU case
> about IE in Windows, you'll know that Microsoft has decided to release
> a version of Windows 7 without IE. This actually angered the EU more
> because, (using their words), this gives the consumer even less choice
> than they had before.
> Again, I am not arguing for or against Microsoft's bundling decisions.
> I'm just saying that to say Microsoft is being punished for releasing
> free products is misrepresenting the issue.
> It is all fun and games on this side of the pond. I have several relatives > who are absolutely irate at the EU parliament right now over this. So far > they are for Microsoft's actions as apposed to the EU's (and they live > there).
One thing I thought was very stupid about this case is that the EU said that the money they would get from Microsoft would go to help pay EU member country fees (or something like that). If the EU really wanted to foster competition in the web browser space, why wouldn't they give the money to Microsoft's competitors, or something else that would help competition? Funding EU admin fees seems stupid. And it's certainly not going to hurt Microsoft. $1 billion is not much for Microsoft considering their $60 billion annual revenue ($49 billion in profit, 2008 numbers) not to mention all of the money they have stashed in the bank. So I doubt this action would have any affect on the browser market anyway.
Was anyone else on this list on the internet back before Microsoft bundled a browser with the OS? That was why ISP's gave you a disk that you had to install if you wanted to get online. Although if you knew what you were doing then you got a copy of Mosaic (or later Netscape) and Winsock.dll (or whatever the dll was that allowed TCP/IP over dialup. . . .) from a friend. Then you spent a while trying to get all the DLL's to work together and find a dialup that worked.
I think when IE took over the browser market share it was less people switching from Netscape to IE, and more people who didn't know any better getting online with what came with their computer. So during that time the number of users of Netscape, Mosaic, etc. probably increased, but not as fast as the users of Internet Explorer.
You may recall when Microsoft Network was released as an ISP and everyone feared it would shutdown Compuserv, AOL and Prodigy. Before this time Microsoft bundled the software from the other Online Service Providers, and then after MSN came out they continued to provide the other service providers, but made MSN more prominent. Well MSN didn't kill everyone else, and Microsoft stoped giving it such a prominate place with new installations.
If you install IE 8 it asks you if you want to use Microsoft's search as the default search, or switch to a different one, including Google (which is what I switch to). Oddly Firefox and Chrome just default to Google and don't prompt you to choose something else . . .
The ideal solution would be to do the same thing for browsers and media players. Default to the Microsoft ones and ask you if you want something different. I imagine most people wouldn't bother switching. The real reason no-one switched to MSN was they already had an account with AOL and didn't want to change. With a browser IE is "good enough" and they don't need to worry about canceling their Firefox monthly fee or telling everyone their new email address. If they were to offer browsers that way it probably woudn't make a huge dent in their IE market share, and then it would make everyone happy.
(Actually everyone would not be happy since you cannot please everyone. Someone would probably say they need to offer benchmarks to the user so they can see that Firefox and Chrome are faster than IE, or request that it not default to IE. And someone else would get cranky that their favorite browser, like http://offbyone.com/offbyone/ is not included. But it certainly would be a step in the right direction.)
I agree. I really dig Chrome with less crashing on the whole program and Incognito mode. Brilliant ideas.
--- On Mon, 6/22/09, Jim McKeeth <j...@mckeeth.org> wrote:
From: Jim McKeeth <j...@mckeeth.org>
Subject: [BSDG] Re: Microsoft to Launch Free Anti-Malware Beta To-Morro
To: bsdg@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 2:14 PM
Was anyone else on this list on the internet back before Microsoft bundled a browser with the OS? That was why ISP's gave you a disk that you had to install if you wanted to get online. Although if you knew what you were doing then you got a copy of Mosaic (or later Netscape) and Winsock.dll (or whatever the dll was that allowed TCP/IP over dialup. . . .) from a friend. Then you spent a while trying to get all the DLL's to work together and find a dialup that worked.
I think when IE took over the browser market share it was less people switching from Netscape to IE, and more people who didn't know any better getting online with what came with their computer. So during that time the number of users of Netscape, Mosaic, etc. probably increased, but not as fast as the users of Internet Explorer.
You may recall when Microsoft Network was released as an ISP and everyone feared it would shutdown Compuserv, AOL and Prodigy. Before this time Microsoft bundled the software from the other Online Service Providers, and then after MSN came out they continued to provide the other service providers, but made MSN more prominent. Well MSN didn't kill everyone else, and Microsoft stoped giving it such a prominate place with new installations.
If you install IE 8 it asks you if you want to use Microsoft's search as the default search, or switch to a different one, including Google (which is what I switch to). Oddly Firefox and Chrome just default to Google and don't prompt you to choose something else . . .
The ideal solution would be to do the same thing for browsers and media players. Default to the Microsoft ones and ask you if you want something different. I imagine most people wouldn't bother switching. The real reason no-one switched to MSN was they already had an account with AOL and didn't want to change. With a browser IE is "good enough" and they don't need to worry about canceling their Firefox monthly fee or telling everyone their new email address. If they were to offer browsers that way it probably woudn't make a huge dent in their IE market share, and then it would make everyone happy.
(Actually everyone would not be happy since you cannot please everyone. Someone would probably say they need to offer benchmarks to the user so they can see that Firefox and Chrome are faster than IE, or request that it not default to IE. And someone else would get cranky that their favorite browser, like http://offbyone.com/offbyone/ is not included. But it certainly would be a step in the right direction.)
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Matthew K <matt_...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> I agree. I really dig Chrome with less crashing on the whole program and
> Incognito mode. Brilliant ideas.
> --- On *Mon, 6/22/09, Jim McKeeth <j...@mckeeth.org>* wrote:
> From: Jim McKeeth <j...@mckeeth.org>
> Subject: [BSDG] Re: Microsoft to Launch Free Anti-Malware Beta To-Morro
> To: bsdg@googlegroups.com
> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 2:14 PM
> Was anyone else on this list on the internet back before Microsoft bundled
> a browser with the OS? That was why ISP's gave you a disk that you had to
> install if you wanted to get online. Although if you knew what you were
> doing then you got a copy of Mosaic (or later Netscape) and Winsock.dll (or
> whatever the dll was that allowed TCP/IP over dialup. . . .) from a friend.
> Then you spent a while trying to get all the DLL's to work together and find
> a dialup that worked.
> I think when IE took over the browser market share it was less people
> switching from Netscape to IE, and more people who didn't know any better
> getting online with what came with their computer. So during that time the
> number of users of Netscape, Mosaic, etc. probably increased, but not as
> fast as the users of Internet Explorer.
> You may recall when Microsoft Network was released as an ISP and everyone
> feared it would shutdown Compuserv, AOL and Prodigy. Before this time
> Microsoft bundled the software from the other Online Service Providers, and
> then after MSN came out they continued to provide the other service
> providers, but made MSN more prominent. Well MSN didn't kill everyone else,
> and Microsoft stoped giving it such a prominate place with new
> installations.
> If you install IE 8 it asks you if you want to use Microsoft's search as
> the default search, or switch to a different one, including Google (which is
> what I switch to). Oddly Firefox and Chrome just default to Google and
> don't prompt you to choose something else . . .
> The ideal solution would be to do the same thing for browsers and media
> players. Default to the Microsoft ones and ask you if you want something
> different. I imagine most people wouldn't bother switching. The real
> reason no-one switched to MSN was they already had an account with AOL and
> didn't want to change. With a browser IE is "good enough" and they don't
> need to worry about canceling their Firefox monthly fee or telling everyone
> their new email address. If they were to offer browsers that way it
> probably woudn't make a huge dent in their IE market share, and then it
> would make everyone happy.
> (Actually everyone would not be happy since you cannot please everyone.
> Someone would probably say they need to offer benchmarks to the user so they
> can see that Firefox and Chrome are faster than IE, or request that it not
> default to IE. And someone else would get cranky that their favorite
> browser, like http://offbyone.com/offbyone/ is not included. But it
> certainly would be a step in the right direction.)
> -Jim McKeeth
> j...@mckeeth.org <http://mc/compose?to=...@mckeeth.org>
> www.Delphi.org - The Podcast at Delphi.org
> www.McKeeth.org - Personal home page
I have had it take out every tab too, but in IE it takes out every window and every tab within each of those windows. I've never had Chrome crash more than one window. Which is really cool.
Firefox is similar to IE in that, when it crashed on me I lost not only all the tabs on the window I had open, but also all of the other new windows I had open also.
-- On Mon, 6/22/09, Chris Brandsma <chris.brand...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Chris Brandsma <chris.brand...@gmail.com>
Subject: [BSDG] Re: Microsoft to Launch Free Anti-Malware Beta To-Morro
To: bsdg@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 2:57 PM
Also coming in FireFox 3.5.
Actually tho, I have had Chrome crash on me. Took out every tab.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Matthew K <matt_...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
I agree. I really dig Chrome with less crashing on the whole program and Incognito mode. Brilliant ideas.
--- On Mon, 6/22/09, Jim McKeeth <j...@mckeeth.org> wrote:
From: Jim McKeeth <j...@mckeeth.org>
Subject: [BSDG] Re: Microsoft to Launch Free Anti-Malware Beta To-Morro
To: bsdg@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 2:14 PM
Was anyone else on this list on the internet back before Microsoft bundled a browser with the OS? That was why ISP's gave you a disk that you had to install if you wanted to get online. Although if you knew what you were doing then you got a copy of Mosaic (or later Netscape) and Winsock.dll (or whatever the dll was that allowed TCP/IP over
dialup. . . .) from a friend. Then you spent a while trying to get all the DLL's to work together and find a dialup that worked.
I think when IE took over the browser market share it was less people switching from Netscape to IE, and more people who didn't know any better getting online with what came with their computer. So during that time the number of users of Netscape, Mosaic, etc. probably increased, but not as fast as the users of Internet Explorer.
You may recall when Microsoft Network was released as an ISP and everyone feared it would shutdown Compuserv, AOL and Prodigy. Before this time Microsoft bundled the software from the other Online Service Providers, and then after MSN came out they continued to provide the other service providers, but made MSN more prominent. Well MSN didn't kill everyone else, and Microsoft stoped giving it such a prominate place with new installations.
If you install IE 8 it asks you if you want to use Microsoft's search as the default search, or switch to a different one, including Google (which is what I switch to). Oddly Firefox and Chrome just default to Google and don't prompt you to choose something else . . .
The ideal solution would be to do the same thing for browsers and media players. Default to the Microsoft ones and ask you if you want something different. I imagine most people wouldn't bother switching. The real reason no-one switched to MSN was they already had an account with AOL and didn't want to change. With a browser IE is "good enough" and they don't need to worry about canceling their Firefox monthly fee or telling everyone their new email address. If they were to offer browsers that way it probably woudn't make a huge dent in their IE market share, and then it would make everyone happy.
(Actually everyone would not be happy since you cannot please everyone. Someone would probably say they need to offer benchmarks to the user so they can see that Firefox and Chrome are faster than IE, or request that it not default to IE. And someone else would get cranky that their favorite browser, like http://offbyone.com/offbyone/ is not included. But it certainly would be a step in the right direction.)
-Jim McKeeth
j...@mckeeth.org
www.Delphi.org - The Podcast at Delphi.org
Also, the ability to detach tabs on Google Chrome, while cool, rarely seems
to happen when I least want it to.I've also has a number of cases where the
Chrome tab came up blank, and stayed that way. I had to refresh the tab.
But I'm still using Chrome over Firefox for everyday tasks, simply because I
don't get memory usage explosions from Chrome.
Bonus: the next version of Chrome is supposed to be theme-able (like Firefox
and Opera).
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Matthew K <matt_...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> I have had it take out every tab too, but in IE it takes out every window
> and every tab within each of those windows. I've never had Chrome crash more
> than one window. Which is really cool.
> Firefox is similar to IE in that, when it crashed on me I lost not only all
> the tabs on the window I had open, but also all of the other new windows I
> had open also.
> -- On *Mon, 6/22/09, Chris Brandsma <chris.brand...@gmail.com>* wrote:
> From: Chris Brandsma <chris.brand...@gmail.com>
> Subject: [BSDG] Re: Microsoft to Launch Free Anti-Malware Beta To-Morro
> To: bsdg@googlegroups.com
> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 2:57 PM
> Also coming in FireFox 3.5.
> Actually tho, I have had Chrome crash on me. Took out every tab.
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Matthew K <matt_...@rocketmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=matt_...@rocketmail.com>
> > wrote:
>> I agree. I really dig Chrome with less crashing on the whole program and
>> Incognito mode. Brilliant ideas.
>> --- On *Mon, 6/22/09, Jim McKeeth <j...@mckeeth.org<http://mc/compose?to=...@mckeeth.org>
>> >* wrote:
>> From: Jim McKeeth <j...@mckeeth.org <http://mc/compose?to=...@mckeeth.org>
>> Subject: [BSDG] Re: Microsoft to Launch Free Anti-Malware Beta To-Morro
>> To: bsdg@googlegroups.com <http://mc/compose?to=bsdg@googlegroups.com>
>> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 2:14 PM
>> Was anyone else on this list on the internet back before Microsoft bundled
>> a browser with the OS? That was why ISP's gave you a disk that you had to
>> install if you wanted to get online. Although if you knew what you were
>> doing then you got a copy of Mosaic (or later Netscape) and Winsock.dll (or
>> whatever the dll was that allowed TCP/IP over dialup. . . .) from a friend.
>> Then you spent a while trying to get all the DLL's to work together and find
>> a dialup that worked.
>> I think when IE took over the browser market share it was less people
>> switching from Netscape to IE, and more people who didn't know any better
>> getting online with what came with their computer. So during that time the
>> number of users of Netscape, Mosaic, etc. probably increased, but not as
>> fast as the users of Internet Explorer.
>> You may recall when Microsoft Network was released as an ISP and everyone
>> feared it would shutdown Compuserv, AOL and Prodigy. Before this time
>> Microsoft bundled the software from the other Online Service Providers, and
>> then after MSN came out they continued to provide the other service
>> providers, but made MSN more prominent. Well MSN didn't kill everyone else,
>> and Microsoft stoped giving it such a prominate place with new
>> installations.
>> If you install IE 8 it asks you if you want to use Microsoft's search as
>> the default search, or switch to a different one, including Google (which is
>> what I switch to). Oddly Firefox and Chrome just default to Google and
>> don't prompt you to choose something else . . .
>> The ideal solution would be to do the same thing for browsers and media
>> players. Default to the Microsoft ones and ask you if you want something
>> different. I imagine most people wouldn't bother switching. The real
>> reason no-one switched to MSN was they already had an account with AOL and
>> didn't want to change. With a browser IE is "good enough" and they don't
>> need to worry about canceling their Firefox monthly fee or telling everyone
>> their new email address. If they were to offer browsers that way it
>> probably woudn't make a huge dent in their IE market share, and then it
>> would make everyone happy.
>> (Actually everyone would not be happy since you cannot please everyone.
>> Someone would probably say they need to offer benchmarks to the user so they
>> can see that Firefox and Chrome are faster than IE, or request that it not
>> default to IE. And someone else would get cranky that their favorite
>> browser, like http://offbyone.com/offbyone/ is not included. But it
>> certainly would be a step in the right direction.)
>> -Jim McKeeth
>> j...@mckeeth.org <http://mc/compose?to=...@mckeeth.org>
>> www.Delphi.org - The Podcast at Delphi.org
>> www.McKeeth.org - Personal home page
Used the internet pre WWW, a telnet connection and tools like gopher,
used Compuserve quite a bit. When it became available to the general
public my first connection was with Slackware Netscape and a 2400 baud
modem. Also remember windows when all it could do was tile, CP/M
before DOS, teletype machines, RAM that you had to address in binary
with dip switches prior to install. I'd like to see the old HP 150MB
disk drives that were the size of a small dishwasher stacked up to
equal 16GB next to an iPhone for comparison, we've come along way.
Brett
On Jun 22, 2:14 pm, Jim McKeeth <j...@mckeeth.org> wrote:
> Was anyone else on this list on the internet back before Microsoft bundled a
> browser with the OS? That was why ISP's gave you a disk that you had to
> install if you wanted to get online. Although if you knew what you were
> doing then you got a copy of Mosaic (or later Netscape) and Winsock.dll (or
> whatever the dll was that allowed TCP/IP over dialup. . . .) from a friend.
> Then you spent a while trying to get all the DLL's to work together and find
> a dialup that worked.
> I think when IE took over the browser market share it was less people
> switching from Netscape to IE, and more people who didn't know any better
> getting online with what came with their computer. So during that time the
> number of users of Netscape, Mosaic, etc. probably increased, but not as
> fast as the users of Internet Explorer.
> You may recall when Microsoft Network was released as an ISP and everyone
> feared it would shutdown Compuserv, AOL and Prodigy. Before this time
> Microsoft bundled the software from the other Online Service Providers, and
> then after MSN came out they continued to provide the other service
> providers, but made MSN more prominent. Well MSN didn't kill everyone else,
> and Microsoft stoped giving it such a prominate place with new
> installations.
> If you install IE 8 it asks you if you want to use Microsoft's search as the
> default search, or switch to a different one, including Google (which is
> what I switch to). Oddly Firefox and Chrome just default to Google and
> don't prompt you to choose something else . . .
> The ideal solution would be to do the same thing for browsers and media
> players. Default to the Microsoft ones and ask you if you want something
> different. I imagine most people wouldn't bother switching. The real
> reason no-one switched to MSN was they already had an account with AOL and
> didn't want to change. With a browser IE is "good enough" and they don't
> need to worry about canceling their Firefox monthly fee or telling everyone
> their new email address. If they were to offer browsers that way it
> probably woudn't make a huge dent in their IE market share, and then it
> would make everyone happy.
> (Actually everyone would not be happy since you cannot please everyone.
> Someone would probably say they need to offer benchmarks to the user so they
> can see that Firefox and Chrome are faster than IE, or request that it not
> default to IE. And someone else would get cranky that their favorite
> browser, likehttp://offbyone.com/offbyone/is not included. But it
> certainly would be a step in the right direction.)
In some ways we have improved and some ways we haven't. I remember my old 8086 computer with 640K RAM. I could start it up, open a word processor, type a document, print a document, and turn it off in less than three minutes.
Now, I have to wait for Windows to load on startup, then wait for all of my startup programs to load, (anti-virus, anti-spyware, etc.), then wait for the word processor to load with all of its help features and plug ins, etc. Then after I type the document, I have to wait for the printer to store the document in its memory. After that I exit the program and then have to wait forever for windows to shut down. It turns the process into at the very least 20 minutes. Ug, what happened to the quickness of technology?
--- On Tue, 6/23/09, Brett Nelson <blizzardvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Brett Nelson <blizzardvi...@gmail.com>
Subject: [BSDG] Re: Microsoft to Launch Free Anti-Malware Beta To-Morro
To: "BSDG" <bsdg@googlegroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 9:04 AM
Used the internet pre WWW, a telnet connection and tools like gopher,
used Compuserve quite a bit. When it became available to the general
public my first connection was with Slackware Netscape and a 2400 baud
modem. Also remember windows when all it could do was tile, CP/M
before DOS, teletype machines, RAM that you had to address in binary
with dip switches prior to install. I'd like to see the old HP 150MB
disk drives that were the size of a small dishwasher stacked up to
equal 16GB next to an iPhone for comparison, we've come along way.
Brett
On Jun 22, 2:14 pm, Jim McKeeth <j...@mckeeth.org> wrote:
> Was anyone else on this list on the internet back before Microsoft bundled a
> browser with the OS? That was why ISP's gave you a disk that you had to
> install if you wanted to get online. Although if you knew what you were
> doing then you got a copy of Mosaic (or later Netscape) and Winsock.dll (or
> whatever the dll was that allowed TCP/IP over dialup. . . .) from a friend.
> Then you spent a while trying to get all the DLL's to work together and find
> a dialup that worked.
> I think when IE took over the browser market share it was less people
> switching from Netscape to IE, and more people who didn't know any better
> getting online with what came with their computer. So during that time the
> number of users of Netscape, Mosaic, etc. probably increased, but not as
> fast as the users of Internet Explorer.
> You may recall when Microsoft Network was released as an ISP and everyone
> feared it would shutdown Compuserv, AOL and Prodigy. Before this time
> Microsoft bundled the software from the other Online Service Providers, and
> then after MSN came out they continued to provide the other service
> providers, but made MSN more prominent. Well MSN didn't kill everyone else,
> and Microsoft stoped giving it such a prominate place with new
> installations.
> If you install IE 8 it asks you if you want to use Microsoft's search as the
> default search, or switch to a different one, including Google (which is
> what I switch to). Oddly Firefox and Chrome just default to Google and
> don't prompt you to choose something else . . .
> The ideal solution would be to do the same thing for browsers and media
> players. Default to the Microsoft ones and ask you if you want something
> different. I imagine most people wouldn't bother switching. The real
> reason no-one switched to MSN was they already had an account with AOL and
> didn't want to change. With a browser IE is "good enough" and they don't
> need to worry about canceling their Firefox monthly fee or telling everyone
> their new email address. If they were to offer browsers that way it
> probably woudn't make a huge dent in their IE market share, and then it
> would make everyone happy.
> (Actually everyone would not be happy since you cannot please everyone.
> Someone would probably say they need to offer benchmarks to the user so they
> can see that Firefox and Chrome are faster than IE, or request that it not
> default to IE. And someone else would get cranky that their favorite
> browser, likehttp://offbyone.com/offbyone/is not included. But it
> certainly would be a step in the right direction.)
1. 16bit vs 32bit vs 64bit. You don't upgrade bit counts because you want
speed. You upgrade in spite of speed. More bit count, more memory
accessible, but the longer you have to wait to load that memory, so loading
applications take longer.
2. People kept asking for more features. On your 8086 you didn't have a
windowing OS to load. You had dos. No internet, no network, no
authentication, no security system, no self updating applications, etc. And
Windows is not alone with this one. Mac and Linux also take longer to load.
In dos days you had TSRs. Why do people keep upgrading with the new stuff?
It is prettier. Pretty sells. Ugly does not.
Bigger problem is how can you turn off features you don't need, and how do
you know you don't need them. As our systems have become more complex, it
is harder to know.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Matthew K <matt_...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> In some ways we have improved and some ways we haven't. I remember my old
> 8086 computer with 640K RAM. I could start it up, open a word processor,
> type a document, print a document, and turn it off in less than three
> minutes.
> Now, I have to wait for Windows to load on startup, then wait for all of my
> startup programs to load, (anti-virus, anti-spyware, etc.), then wait for
> the word processor to load with all of its help features and plug ins, etc.
> Then after I type the document, I have to wait for the printer to store the
> document in its memory. After that I exit the program and then have to wait
> forever for windows to shut down. It turns the process into at the very
> least 20 minutes. Ug, what happened to the quickness of technology?
> --- On *Tue, 6/23/09, Brett Nelson <blizzardvi...@gmail.com>* wrote:
> From: Brett Nelson <blizzardvi...@gmail.com>
> Subject: [BSDG] Re: Microsoft to Launch Free Anti-Malware Beta To-Morro
> To: "BSDG" <bsdg@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 9:04 AM
> Used the internet pre WWW, a telnet connection and tools like gopher,
> used Compuserve quite a bit. When it became available to the general
> public my first connection was with Slackware Netscape and a 2400 baud
> modem. Also remember windows when all it could do was tile, CP/M
> before DOS, teletype machines, RAM that you had to address in binary
> with dip switches prior to install. I'd like to see the old HP 150MB
> disk drives that were the size of a small dishwasher stacked up to
> equal 16GB next to an iPhone for comparison, we've come along way.
> Brett
> On Jun 22, 2:14 pm, Jim McKeeth <j...@mckeeth.org<http://mc/compose?to=j...@mckeeth.org>>
> wrote:
> > Was anyone else on this list on the internet back before Microsoft
> bundled a
> > browser with the OS? That was why ISP's gave you a disk that you had to
> > install if you wanted to get online. Although if you knew what you were
> > doing then you got a copy of Mosaic (or later Netscape) and Winsock.dll
> (or
> > whatever the dll was that allowed TCP/IP over dialup. . . .) from a
> friend.
> > Then you spent a while trying to get all the DLL's to work together and
> find
> > a dialup that worked.
> > I think when IE took over the browser market share it was less people
> > switching from Netscape to IE, and more people who didn't know any better
> > getting online with what came with their computer. So during that time
> the
> > number of users of Netscape, Mosaic, etc. probably increased, but not as
> > fast as the users of Internet Explorer.
> > You may recall when Microsoft Network was released as an ISP and everyone
> > feared it would shutdown Compuserv, AOL and Prodigy. Before this time
> > Microsoft bundled the software from the other Online Service Providers,
> and
> > then after MSN came out they continued to provide the other service
> > providers, but made MSN more prominent. Well MSN didn't kill everyone
> else,
> > and Microsoft stoped giving it such a prominate place with new
> > installations.
> > If you install IE 8 it asks you if you want to use Microsoft's search as
> the
> > default search, or switch to a different one, including Google (which is
> > what I switch to). Oddly Firefox and Chrome just default to Google and
> > don't prompt you to choose something else . . .
> > The ideal solution would be to do the same thing for browsers and media
> > players. Default to the Microsoft ones and ask you if you want something
> > different. I imagine most people wouldn't bother switching. The real
> > reason no-one switched to MSN was they already had an account with AOL
> and
> > didn't want to change. With a browser IE is "good enough" and they don't
> > need to worry about canceling their Firefox monthly fee or telling
> everyone
> > their new email address. If they were to offer browsers that way it
> > probably woudn't make a huge dent in their IE market share, and then it
> > would make everyone happy.
> > (Actually everyone would not be happy since you cannot please everyone.
> > Someone would probably say they need to offer benchmarks to the user so
> they
> > can see that Firefox and Chrome are faster than IE, or request that it
> not
> > default to IE. And someone else would get cranky that their favorite
> > browser, likehttp://offbyone.com/offbyone/is not included. But it
> > certainly would be a step in the right direction.)
> > -Jim McKeeth
> > j...@mckeeth.orgwww.Delphi.org<http://mc/compose?to=j...@mckeeth.orgwww.Delphi.org>-
> The Podcast at Delphi.orgwww.McKeeth.org- Personal home page
> Ug, what happened to the quickness of technology?
You gave me the opportunity to say something that I've had on my mind for a long time now. I think there are a lot of reasons why computers are slower now than they used to be. But one reason I believe this happens is because developers almost always have faster machines than the general public (the people that use the software we make). To use Windows as an example, I'd bet that the Windows developers have top of the line machines from today's market. So when they build and test Windows, it runs pretty fast. But when it gets to the rest of the world, it's annoyingly slow. But the developers never see that because they are using very fast, beefy machines.
The same thing happens in the Web. We web developers generally are testing our sites with Ethernet speeds, or even locally on our PC. So we build a site that runs very fast for us, but when people try to use it over general Internet pipes...it's a lot slower. Of course, there are tools available to simulate slower connections (I've used them myself), but I don't think most developers take the time to test their software on slower PCs/connections.
Easy, you answered it yourself: MS has money, Apple doesn't.
And it only took one lawsuit, combined with the fact that MS didn't
have a ton of Lobbyists in DC, Netscape did.
If you read Runaway Jury (or watch the movie, but the book is better),
though fictional, it points out the fact that the first lawsuit in
anything is the most important to win, because for the lawyers, once
there is that precident, all the other lawsuits against a company or
industry are easy money. Tobacco, McDonalds, Twinkies, etc get screwed
over once that first lawsuit wins for 10 billion dollars, and all the
lawyers go get there minions to sue over something. Forget personal
responsibility, we need the government to tell us how a company should
offer its product to us.
Just like Virus writers target Windows, lawyers target Windows. I
guess MS could do what Apple did, start building their own computers
and pull all the licensing for all the "competitors". Apple said
mmbuhbye to Power Computing, MS could say mmbuhbye to Dell, HP, etc,
then MS could bundle all the software they want, since it's their
hardware.
oh well. As long as MS has to pay those lawyers, the price of their
software sure won't get cheaper.
> You can see the same trends with Apple's free bundled software. Most
> Mac OS users just use Safari, regardless of how much better Firefox is
> (features wise). So why doesn't anybody sue Apple for bundling
> Safari? Beats me. I suppose it could have something to do with
> Apple's minuscule market share...but still, in the Apple world the
> large majority of people use Safari, because it's already there and
> there's no big motivation to change.
The Xerox 820 CP/M machine had the capability of coming up in
typewriter mode. When connected to a Xerox 630 (Diablo) it became a
typewriter connecting the keyboard to the printer directly. No room
for error though as the 630 did not have the ability to erase. It did
run at 150cps which seemed pretty fast for typewriter quality text at
the time. Also since it could microspace and run the balen forward and
backward I saw programs running off of text only computers creating
pie charts and nice looking graphs using the period character only.
These were fun to watch while printing out. When using wordstar at 64K
Ram the first time you pressed CTRL-Y to delete a line it would swap
to floppy to get the overlayed code and perform the delete. That was
the same year I saw the Lisa at comdex in Vegas. Xerox's big thing
that same show (I had to sign a non-disclosure to see this) was
packing two computers in one box with a hotkey switch. Their idea of
multitasking :)
Brett
On Jun 23, 9:55 am, Matthew K <matt_...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> In some ways we have improved and some ways we haven't. I remember my old 8086 computer with 640K RAM. I could start it up, open a word processor, type a document, print a document, and turn it off in less than three minutes.
> Now, I have to wait for Windows to load on startup, then wait for all of my startup programs to load, (anti-virus, anti-spyware, etc.), then wait for the word processor to load with all of its help features and plug ins, etc. Then after I type the document, I have to wait for the printer to store the document in its memory. After that I exit the program and then have to wait forever for windows to shut down. It turns the process into at the very least 20 minutes. Ug, what happened to the quickness of technology?
> --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Brett Nelson <blizzardvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Brett Nelson <blizzardvi...@gmail.com>
> Subject: [BSDG] Re: Microsoft to Launch Free Anti-Malware Beta To-Morro
> To: "BSDG" <bsdg@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 9:04 AM
> Used the internet pre WWW, a telnet connection and tools like gopher,
> used Compuserve quite a bit. When it became available to the general
> public my first connection was with Slackware Netscape and a 2400 baud
> modem. Also remember windows when all it could do was tile, CP/M
> before DOS, teletype machines, RAM that you had to address in binary
> with dip switches prior to install. I'd like to see the old HP 150MB
> disk drives that were the size of a small dishwasher stacked up to
> equal 16GB next to an iPhone for comparison, we've come along way.
> Brett
> On Jun 22, 2:14 pm, Jim McKeeth <j...@mckeeth.org> wrote:
> > Was anyone else on this list on the internet back before Microsoft bundled a
> > browser with the OS? That was why ISP's gave you a disk that you had to
> > install if you wanted to get online. Although if you knew what you were
> > doing then you got a copy of Mosaic (or later Netscape) and Winsock.dll (or
> > whatever the dll was that allowed TCP/IP over dialup. . . .) from a friend.
> > Then you spent a while trying to get all the DLL's to work together and find
> > a dialup that worked.
> > I think when IE took over the browser market share it was less people
> > switching from Netscape to IE, and more people who didn't know any better
> > getting online with what came with their computer. So during that time the
> > number of users of Netscape, Mosaic, etc. probably increased, but not as
> > fast as the users of Internet Explorer.
> > You may recall when Microsoft Network was released as an ISP and everyone
> > feared it would shutdown Compuserv, AOL and Prodigy. Before this time
> > Microsoft bundled the software from the other Online Service Providers, and
> > then after MSN came out they continued to provide the other service
> > providers, but made MSN more prominent. Well MSN didn't kill everyone else,
> > and Microsoft stoped giving it such a prominate place with new
> > installations.
> > If you install IE 8 it asks you if you want to use Microsoft's search as the
> > default search, or switch to a different one, including Google (which is
> > what I switch to). Oddly Firefox and Chrome just default to Google and
> > don't prompt you to choose something else . . .
> > The ideal solution would be to do the same thing for browsers and media
> > players. Default to the Microsoft ones and ask you if you want something
> > different. I imagine most people wouldn't bother switching. The real
> > reason no-one switched to MSN was they already had an account with AOL and
> > didn't want to change. With a browser IE is "good enough" and they don't
> > need to worry about canceling their Firefox monthly fee or telling everyone
> > their new email address. If they were to offer browsers that way it
> > probably woudn't make a huge dent in their IE market share, and then it
> > would make everyone happy.
> > (Actually everyone would not be happy since you cannot please everyone.
> > Someone would probably say they need to offer benchmarks to the user so they
> > can see that Firefox and Chrome are faster than IE, or request that it not
> > default to IE. And someone else would get cranky that their favorite
> > browser, likehttp://offbyone.com/offbyone/isnot included. But it
> > certainly would be a step in the right direction.)
I think we have to draw a fine line between regulation and free
markets. I, like you, think that businesses should not be hampered so
much that they can't afford to do their business. But on the other
hand, I also believe that unregulated businesses can go to far...like
before we had the labor laws that we have today, many corporations
would work men, women and children for 80+ hours a week, pay them
almost nothing, and then fire them if they didn't like it. Sure they
could try to find a job elsewhere, but most of the other businesses
had the same practices.
When the government stepped in and forced the businesses to treat
their employees fairly (I.E, not kill them), people began to enjoy
life again. Of course, labor laws can go too far as well...that's why
we have to find a balance between free markets and regulation.
Neither of the two are bad in and of themselves...unless taken too
far.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Mike<m...@thehedmans.net> wrote:
> Easy, you answered it yourself: MS has money, Apple doesn't.
> And it only took one lawsuit, combined with the fact that MS didn't
> have a ton of Lobbyists in DC, Netscape did.
> If you read Runaway Jury (or watch the movie, but the book is better),
> though fictional, it points out the fact that the first lawsuit in
> anything is the most important to win, because for the lawyers, once
> there is that precident, all the other lawsuits against a company or
> industry are easy money. Tobacco, McDonalds, Twinkies, etc get screwed
> over once that first lawsuit wins for 10 billion dollars, and all the
> lawyers go get there minions to sue over something. Forget personal
> responsibility, we need the government to tell us how a company should
> offer its product to us.
> Just like Virus writers target Windows, lawyers target Windows. I
> guess MS could do what Apple did, start building their own computers
> and pull all the licensing for all the "competitors". Apple said
> mmbuhbye to Power Computing, MS could say mmbuhbye to Dell, HP, etc,
> then MS could bundle all the software they want, since it's their
> hardware.
> oh well. As long as MS has to pay those lawyers, the price of their
> software sure won't get cheaper.
> <snip />
>> You can see the same trends with Apple's free bundled software. Most
>> Mac OS users just use Safari, regardless of how much better Firefox is
>> (features wise). So why doesn't anybody sue Apple for bundling
>> Safari? Beats me. I suppose it could have something to do with
>> Apple's minuscule market share...but still, in the Apple world the
>> large majority of people use Safari, because it's already there and
>> there's no big motivation to change.
I actually converted a 1930's teletype machine to act as a printer for use
by a TRS-80 computer in 1979. The thing was all mechanical no electronics
and was totally indestructible. It operated on a 5 bit baudot code and I
created a parallel interface which converted ASCII to Baudot and it printed
at 50 to 75 characters per second max. Since I was a student and could not
afford a printer quite a few Basic and Pascal listings were printed in this
manner. It matched the 300 Baud modem that clipped on to the phone handset.
Of course phone microphones were carbon mikes with carbon granules in them
so every so now and then you had to bash the hand set on the desk to loosen
the granules to keep it working since the 300 baud frequencies made the
granules settle and the mike would stop working.
-----Original Message-----
From: bsdg@googlegroups.com [mailto:bsdg@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
Brett Nelson
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:04 AM
To: BSDG
Subject: [BSDG] Re: Microsoft to Launch Free Anti-Malware Beta To-Morro
Used the internet pre WWW, a telnet connection and tools like gopher,
used Compuserve quite a bit. When it became available to the general
public my first connection was with Slackware Netscape and a 2400 baud
modem. Also remember windows when all it could do was tile, CP/M
before DOS, teletype machines, RAM that you had to address in binary
with dip switches prior to install. I'd like to see the old HP 150MB
disk drives that were the size of a small dishwasher stacked up to
equal 16GB next to an iPhone for comparison, we've come along way.
Brett
On Jun 22, 2:14 pm, Jim McKeeth <j...@mckeeth.org> wrote:
> Was anyone else on this list on the internet back before Microsoft bundled
a
> browser with the OS? That was why ISP's gave you a disk that you had to
> install if you wanted to get online. Although if you knew what you were
> doing then you got a copy of Mosaic (or later Netscape) and Winsock.dll
(or
> whatever the dll was that allowed TCP/IP over dialup. . . .) from a
friend.
> Then you spent a while trying to get all the DLL's to work together and
find
> a dialup that worked.
> I think when IE took over the browser market share it was less people
> switching from Netscape to IE, and more people who didn't know any better
> getting online with what came with their computer. So during that time
the
> number of users of Netscape, Mosaic, etc. probably increased, but not as
> fast as the users of Internet Explorer.
> You may recall when Microsoft Network was released as an ISP and everyone
> feared it would shutdown Compuserv, AOL and Prodigy. Before this time
> Microsoft bundled the software from the other Online Service Providers,
and
> then after MSN came out they continued to provide the other service
> providers, but made MSN more prominent. Well MSN didn't kill everyone
else,
> and Microsoft stoped giving it such a prominate place with new
> installations.
> If you install IE 8 it asks you if you want to use Microsoft's search as
the
> default search, or switch to a different one, including Google (which is
> what I switch to). Oddly Firefox and Chrome just default to Google and
> don't prompt you to choose something else . . .
> The ideal solution would be to do the same thing for browsers and media
> players. Default to the Microsoft ones and ask you if you want something
> different. I imagine most people wouldn't bother switching. The real
> reason no-one switched to MSN was they already had an account with AOL and
> didn't want to change. With a browser IE is "good enough" and they don't
> need to worry about canceling their Firefox monthly fee or telling
everyone
> their new email address. If they were to offer browsers that way it
> probably woudn't make a huge dent in their IE market share, and then it
> would make everyone happy.
> (Actually everyone would not be happy since you cannot please everyone.
> Someone would probably say they need to offer benchmarks to the user so
they
> can see that Firefox and Chrome are faster than IE, or request that it not
> default to IE. And someone else would get cranky that their favorite
> browser, likehttp://offbyone.com/offbyone/is not included. But it
> certainly would be a step in the right direction.)
Speaking of coming far...yesterday at work I heard a true story about a modern "CMS" at it's best (this event just happened this week): 1. Client prints out their website pages. 2. Client makes manual edits on the papers with pen. 3. Client scans the "edited" pages into their PC. 4. Client emails the scans as a PDF to the web editor. 5. The web editor recreates the edits on the website referring to the PDF.
Don't you love that smell of brand new technology being put to good use? ;)
> I actually converted a 1930's teletype machine to act as a printer for use > by a TRS-80 computer in 1979. The thing was all mechanical no electronics > and was totally indestructible. It operated on a 5 bit baudot code and I > created a parallel interface which converted ASCII to Baudot and it printed > at 50 to 75 characters per second max. Since I was a student and could not > afford a printer quite a few Basic and Pascal listings were printed in this > manner. It matched the 300 Baud modem that clipped on to the phone > handset. > Of course phone microphones were carbon mikes with carbon granules in them > so every so now and then you had to bash the hand set on the desk to loosen > the granules to keep it working since the 300 baud frequencies made the > granules settle and the mike would stop working.
|
