Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: XiaoYao who wrote (17154)	2/5/1998 11:07:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Well, there you go YuanQing. Javascript isn't Java, so what exactly is the point here? Channels are this push thing, and I've been, shall we say, extremely skeptical of that concept right from the start. Your example is what, 2 kbytes of text? I'm always wondering why I got to load 50kbytes for every stupid little story on CNET. Overdesigned web pages, is Microsoft working to stop that and I haven't heard about it? I sort of thought you were taking us the other way. Cheers, Dan.

To: XiaoYao who wrote (17154)	2/6/1998 7:54:00 AM
From: nommedeguerre	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

YuanQing, >>JavaScript isn't Java, but I think the above illustrates the kind of problems you run into when you try to use one tool to solve all your problems. >>Java---and JavaScript--- have their place, but you run into all kinds of problems when you ask either or both to become a kind of universal tool that can do anything. Sounds like the Windows environment as well. Of course, Microsoft is attempting to make it even more difficult by coming up with their own standards for Java and everything else. The example seems like it is more a problem of Netscape not supplying a built-in function that is equivalent to one in ActiveX. Windows does not supply the priority-based queueing mechanisms I am used to, so does that mean Win32 is inherently a loser? No, it just means they did not provide for such things. Cheers, Norm