June 24, 2002
Internet Browsers:
Many things have changed. There is much to say about browsers and how they have evolved (or devolved perhaps)--so here it is.
Netscape 4.x
All good things come to an end. Such is the case with Netscape Navigator (or Communicator if you want to get technical). I was a die hard Netscape 4.x fan (the latest version is 4.79, I think). The reason?. Netscape 4.x bookmarks were, and still are, far and above superior to either Internet Explorer or Opera. The one other thing I like--and this is trivial, perhaps--is that the "Open Link in New Window" is the top item when you right click a link Netscape 4.x.
The problem with Netscape is that all of their development efforts seem to be directed to the monstrosity they call Netscape 7.x. Because of this, or perhaps in spite of this, the Netscape people don't seem to realize that the interface between browser and the web (pages, servers, applications, etc.) is changing. Probably a lot of this change is in order to accommodate Internet Explorer. Netscape has decided to abandon the changes in version 4.x that are necessary in order to interface properly with the web and concentrate its efforts on the newer, less popular, versions. So be it!. If you aren't able to play with the big boys then you really should get off the field. Netscape 4.x should go away so that we can all mourn its loss and get on with our web life.
Netscape 7.x (or it's identical twin Netscape 6.x)
I couldn't begin to mention all the things I dislike about Netscape 7.x. It is cumbersome, slow to load, has a unimaginative and non-user friendly email program (worse than it's Netscape predecessor which was pretty bad anyway). It doesn't allow you to use your default email program should that be Outlook, Eudora, Calypso (aye, Calypso--see below), Pegasus or, for that matter, Outlook Express. The arrogance!. And they complain about Microsoft?
The only thing in the newest Netscape's favor, for those so inclined, is the ability to develop and use customized skins. Big deal!
I take back my previous comments about fewer web page crashes and better stability. Perhaps it does not literally crash but it seems to have great difficulty with many "features" of today's web pages. One extremely annoying aspect of Netscape 6.x/7.x is the incessant pop-behind pages. Who in their right mind thinks these things are anything but EXTREMELY ANNOYING. What are these?. Gecko's revenge or something--a perversion of frustrated browser development combatants?. Give us a break!
Did I mention that Netscape 6.x/7/x is a memory hog?. I can load it and then open up task manager (Windows 2000) and actually watch Netscape 7.x eat up memory without me doing anything in the program. Try clicking a few links, it far surpasses any other program I have running in terms of processor and memory use (with the exception of games, of course, and perhaps MS Word if I have several documents open). All in all, I would say that Netscape is a write off.
May those who use it, or the poor people who think they are stuck with it, enjoy it. Not me though--and not you if you are interested in serious browsing. Oh, one last thing, remember what I said about Netscape 4.x having the superior bookmark management and interface. The Netscape 6.x/7.x people decided to fix something that was definitely not broken. Bad decision, Netscape, AOL, Mozilla, whoever you are.
Opera 6.x
I'm this far away from setting and keeping Opera 6.03 as my default browser. Their ability to get along with the rest of the web in terms of pluggins has improved considerably. Opera still has a few glitches to work out (although I'm not sure all of them are really glitches at all). Their email is no better than Netscape's email program but, then again, no worse either. They, and countless other email client developers, need to get with the program (no pun intended). Many of us have multiple email accounts. We want to be able to receive and send from some of them and only send from others. Outlook XP or 2002 has addressed (also no pun intended) this issue remarkably well by allowing each account to be in a send/receive group. In Outlook, you can customize which groups get checked for incoming mail, which are send only, which do both, how often they check mail, etc. It is a wonderful feature in Outlook 2002 that I have not seen elsewhere. Opera, and Netscape, could learn from them. It's real easy to learn too, just buy a copy of Outlook and try it. Opera has been wise enough, unlike Netscape, to include the capability of using either native Opera email, the systems default Email program or a specified email client. Hey, maybe Opera could license Calypso and embed it in their browser as their native email client. Now that would be an amazing combination!
I tend to get a lot of javascript errors when using Opera. I used to think that they just didn't comply with what everyone else is doing (not necessarily that they didn't comply to standards--just not to the norm). I'm beginning to think that the other browsers simply just don't report the errors. For instance, I get a lot of "variable not defined" javascript type errors using Opera. If I go to the same page with Internet Explorer 6.x (see below) I don't get the errors. With Netscape I either don't get the errors, or the page just doesn't work, or the application crashes. I'm beginning to believe that Opera is right--although rather annoying, in reporting the errors. The other browsers, I believe, simply ignore the error and go on as if nothing is wrong. It may be that the page doesn't function correctly but why should they care. What average user wouldn't know the difference. Opera wants you to know. You can of course (it is the highly customizable Opera after all) turn this feature off--which is what I decided to do. Occasionally I'll turn the error reporting back on just to see how poorly some web pages are designed or tested but usually I'm content to be oblivious to the background troubles (reminds me of "The Matrix").
There are many features of Opera that are in its favor. It is fast. It takes up very little memory so you can open as many windows as you like without fear of memory creep. It has multiple windows within the application so your task bar doesn't get cluttered with a bunch of open web pages. So far, I've received almost no unwanted pop-up or pop-behind pages.
Opera's downloading interface and capabilities is far superior to anything I've seen. You get a dialogue box that shows you the regular stuff like download speed, percentage downloaded, etc. However, the dialogue box keeps the information. Want to know what you downloaded a couple of days ago?. Did your download mess up because of a bad connection, server lag or server overload. No problem. Just go to the dialogue box and all your downloads are listed with options to resume or restart. My brief experiments showed that download speeds through Opera are comparable or better than MS Internet Explorer or Netscape. Not only that but Opera downloads the file while you figure out where to save it and what to call it. Often, on smaller downloads (1 to 2 Mbytes) the download is complete by the time I've opened up the "Save As" dialogue box, drilled down to my download directory, and chosen a file name. I have a broadband connection to the internet so your mileage may vary.
Once you get used to Opera's hotlist, it is quite practical. The nice thing about Opera bookmarks (hotlist) is that you get a file with HTML text links (true also of Netscape) not iconized shortcut .URL files, like Internet Explorer (see below). As I've said, the only superior quality of Netscape (4.x at least) is it's bookmark interface and management. Opera is close but they need to add a few features like: ease of arranging folders and bookmarks in a non-alphabetical fashion and inclusion of some sort of separator. I like the fact that I can put my personal took bar on the top, bottom or either side of the browser window (I like mine at the right--yes, I know that I am different).
Internet Explorer 6.x
I tried using Internet Explorer as my default browser. Life would be so much simpler if we could all just use this enormously integrated organism called "Microsoft". However, like the supreme court and a number of legislators, I want to be able to use the Microsoft operating systems, without being forced to use their software applications--like Internet Explorer. Of and by itself, in my opinion, this is not a good reason to NOT use Internet Explorer. One has to have genuine user interface or functional problems with a piece of software--not just emotional aversion to it.
Internet Explorer has one thing going for it that the other browsers do not. It fits. It fits with Microsoft operating systems and it fits with much of the e-commerce applications (in my experience, especially with on-line stock brokers, e-banks, credit card companies and the large corporate shopping sites). This doesn't speak to Internet Explorer's superior quality but only to the fact that web developers, commercial ones at least, cater to IE and write directly for IE. To their credit, many developers also ensure that their sites work in Opera (normal web design standards) and Netscape (4.x anyway) but many e-commerce sites seems to fit like a glove to Internet Explorer.
Unfortunately, Internet Explorer has a few problems that are not unlike Netscape 6.x/7.x problems. It is a pig on memory and it has the same or worse problems with pop-ups or pop-unders. If fact, if you have it installed (and how can you not have it installed and run W98, W2K or XP) even programs like Morpheus pop IExplorer pages automatically. The extreme memory use is a design problem which Microsoft, or Netscape for that matter, (unlike Opera) has never been overly concerned with. The pop-ups are just plain aggravating. They are a gnat that should be squished. Thank goodness Opera does just that (or allows for it anyway).
The worse problem I have with Internet Explorer is that it is part of the system. Often Internet Explorer thinks that it is Windows Explorer and shows me file lists that have nothing to do with browsing the web. Sometimes Windows Explorer tries to be Internet Explorer and all of a sudden my classical Windows Explorer interface looks just like Internet Explorer. Life with Microsoft is confusing enough without this chameleon effect.
Internet Explorer saves all of its bookmarks as shortcuts in the "My Favorites" folder (under the user profile if you're that interested). This is also where I save "My Favorites" from my Office XP applications--which I do find handy. I don't like the fact that Microsoft makes no distinction between these files. Internet Explorer saves its bookmarks, and for that matter sees each web page, as a .URL files, which is similar to the shortcut .LNK file. One problem, although their is a registry fix for it, is that Outlook (a Microsoft Office application) designates a .URL as a potentially hazardous file and block sending and possibly receiving of files with this extension. Therefore, when you attempt to send a page through Internet Explorer (which is clearly an option, as it should be), and Outlook is your default email client, the file gets blocked. This bookmark/.URL/favorites issue is not likely to go away. I have a difficult time using Internet Explorer for that reason. I do keep it around though for the numerous sites that absolutely insist on using Internet Explorer exclusively and because some sort of Internet Explorer has to be part of the operating system--for now.
Email clients:
I still miss Calypso. Although it is still available for download, what is the point of running software that is no longer supported or being developed. It was not perfect--just better than all the rest. Like so many good software applications, it was discontinued because it "...no longer [met] MCS' sales, marketing, or revenue requirements." MCS is Micro Computer Systems--the company that bought out the developers of Calypso. MCS is offering source code licenses for Calypso. Information and an email address are available at the Micro Computer Systems, Inc. OEM page. You can also still download the final version of Calypso email client, should you decide you want to try it.
I now use Outlook 2002 (XP) as my default email/contacts/calendar program. Microsoft has revamped this latest version of Outlook, at least in terms of the email component. Outlook 2002 even allows you to use non-Microsoft browsers when you click on a link in an email. I'm not overly impressed with the way that Outlook attempts to block every important file extension known to man but it is probably necessary for many people who have no clue about viruses and how they are spread. There are registry edits that will bypass this security measure. That is a little cumbersome but workable.
Here are the main features that I like about Outlook:
- easy to set up multi-server/multi-account email
- accounts can be put into send/receive groups so that an account can be send only, receive only, both. You can even set different check times for each group or whether or not they are automatically checked.
- able to use whichever browser is default
- excellent email organization folders
- no crashing when trying to retrieve an email from a user with a dot notation user name like web.master@zaboo.com (even Calypso had exception errors in this case).
- one program for contacts, calendar, email, tasks (the interface could be a little more user friendly, like using tabs for each task rather than a button to change between them)
Things that could be improved:
- ability to write an email to a contact from the contact list by just clicking an icon
- ability to save a file, folder, group of emails to a text file.
- some less stupid dialogue boxes.
Like the one that asks if you want to empty your deleted email upon exiting and gives you a "yes" or "no" option button, along with the "X" button to close the dialogue box, but whatever you choose the email program exits.
- ability to create a filter from the current email
- one nasty thing that needs to be fixed, and it's a problem with all of the Office applications, is that sometimes when I close a dialogue box, or even sometimes after a cut and paste operation (seems related to the application loosing focus for a short period of time) I lose my curser. The cursor is still there, I just can't see it. Needless to say this is a little annoying.
- etc., etc., etc.
Of course you have to buy Office 2002, which is not cheap. Also, security is an issue with Microsoft email clients (perhaps a little more than other email clients). However, as long as you have a good anti-virus program running in protect mode (see Anti-virus), and as long as you practice prudent email handling procedures, you should be reasonably safe in using Outlook. All-in-all, I find it useful--but I'm still looking for a reasonable alternative. Maybe I'll look at Pegasus again?
Anti-virus:
If you want to pay for software, in my opinion, Norton Anti-virus is the best bang for your buck. When I built my new Windows 2000 system, I also bought and installed Norton Anti-virus 2000. It seems to work great. I only had to reinstall it once because it was having troubles scanning Outlook email, which could have been an Outlook problem. The configuration is simple and extensive. The LiveUpDate feature makes upgrading the .dat, or even the software engine, simple. Norton Anti-virus also has a decent scheduling component and can be configured to protect any email client not just the standard Netscape, Outlook Express or Outlook. The only complaint I have about Norton Anti-virus is that running a full virus scan seems to take a lot longer than with some other anti-virus applications I have tried. I still think that Norton Anti-virus software is the best alternative.
Having said that, I have an old 233Mhz DEC (wonderful) system on which, for various reasons (mostly so I can run old, legacy applications that no longer run on Windows 2000), I run Windows NT 4.0. On this system I try to use freeware as much as possible. In my search for an anti-virus program for this machine, I came across the AVG 6.0 Anti-virus System by Grisoft, Inc.. They have a free downloadable program that includes free virus definition file it updates automatically (on an always-on system, I assume). I've had absolutely no problems with the software. They even email me when there is a definition update. I don't know why it's free but I'm taking advantage of it while I can.
Linux:
I'm getting more LESS serious about Linux. When I built my new Windows 2000 system (mostly for all the consumer PC games that I'm becoming increasingly involved with) I decided to turn my old(er) DEC 266 into my Linux machine. This did not turn out well. Apparently, there are all sorts of hardware conflicts with the Linux operating system. I wasn't able to get Xwindows to view properly on my monitor. I had to replace the video card because by SB3 didn't work at all. Then I had problems with the sound system. All, in all, it was a frustrating experience. Then, I needed my DEC (see above) to run some legacy programs (and my sound system) on. So, I scrounged some old parts from my wife's defunct Packard Bell computer (not the Packard Bell parts) and built myself a brand new, pentium 200 Mhz system. On this system I installed only Linux. Well, I installed Linus three different times, from three different distributions. Red Hat didn't work past the part that it goes into full XWindows mode. Debian didn't install at all or was too cumbersome, or didn't detect some of my hardware--I just can't remember. Finally I was able to install the latest (at the time) version of Slackware. I've always been partial to slackware, being an old DOS keyboarder from way back.
Unfortunately, I've had a lot of real things to do, not to mention exciting games to play, since then and I have only fired it up perhaps once or twice since Christmas of this year (I always seem to build my systems at Christmas). Linux is still not, in my opinion, an operating system for the casual PC user--it's not even an operating system for the casual Linux user. Without a lot of experience, running Linux is a hands-on (and head-on) experience that takes a lot of time, a huge amount of reading, and probably a large support group, in order to use successfully. As strange as it seems, I actually want to use my computer rather than just maintain it and so my interest has waned.
This does not mean that I do not see the value in this free operating system. More than likely, my interest in Linux will resurface if and when the Microsoft world is forced to use Windows XP or something like it. Windows 2000 seems to be a good operating system. Therefore, it will probably not last long from a marketing standpoint. In the future I might choose to ditch Microsoft completely in favor of the free and highly configurable operating system that Linux is. For more information about all kinds of Linux distributions and other Linux stuff visit Linux Online! |