benyto
Premium
join:2000-07-09
Chico, CA
| reply to morbo
Re: this is innovation?
said by morbo  : destined for failure. I'm not so sure about that. It may turn out that AT&T will include this in the installation CD that is "required" to get online with their service. It could be set as the users' default browser and may automatically launch from some sort of "Connect to the Internet" shortcut installed to the Windows desktop. Remember not all end users are savvy enough to use some sort of consumer grade router to maintain their connection at all times and to know that they can use whatever browser they wish when they have an active connection. They also may not know that they don't have to install any software provided by AT&T in their self-install kit or whatever they do these days. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
 ·Charter Pipeline
 ·AT&T Southwest
| i disagree.
imagine the chaos of firefox being installed by default on all new dsl or cable installs. no doubt it will also cause problem with the integration of ie with xp and vista...
not to mention the ill feelings people have toward AT&T. they could at least not be so obnoxious and arrogant about their ambitions. do one of those stupid toolbar search things first. see how it works. THEN attempt a new browser. |
|
Dan
Professor Lava Hot
Premium
join:2002-12-17
{runtime_%#}
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to benyto
»arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/pog···ok.ars/1
"We decided once again to step it up and run Pogo on a dual-processor Opteron 256 with two 3GHz CPUs, 4GB of RAM, and an NVIDIA 8800 GT video card with 512MB of VRAM. From here, we were finally able to use Pogo enough to actually find out how well it works—for the most part, anyway."
"Keeping a handful of cells open means you are going to take major performance hits and have your resources gobbled up too—on our Opteron 256 machine, Pogo began to slow down with just three cells open, and with more than that, it became stuttery and annoying to use."
Keep in mind this is a beast of a machine they are running it on. Keep in mind that "Cells" are tabs.
I would be offended if AT&T were to start offering this to me, as apparently they feel I'm an illiterate clod who can only navigate the web with glossy freaking pictures of websites, and that a Website Title isn't enough to distinguish on page from another. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to morbo
I guess Fedora Core would be out of the question for AT&T as well.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
javaMan
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-15
San Luis Obispo, CA
| reply to benyto
said by benyto :said by morbo : destined for failure. I'm not so sure about that. It may turn out that AT&T will include this in the installation CD that is "required" to get online with their service. . . Required? Perhaps you were being facetious since required was in quotes, but AFAIK there has never been a requirement to connect your system to AT&T's DSL service using their installation software. In fact, when friends of mine get their service I advise them against using it. But you're right, too many people run that crap because they don't know any better and I'm also sure you're right that it will be one of the foremost installations on their CD.
--
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. . . Isa. 5:20 |
|
cerone
join:2001-10-28
Hialeah, FL
| reply to benyto
Hold on a sec...if you know what you are doing with the equiptment provided from AT&T, you don't need the provided software. The IP address of the DSL modem provided from AT&T is 192.168.1.254, when you type this address in your browser, it will take you to the modem setup and all you will need to do is enter your email address and password, and off you go!!! |
|
benyto
Premium
join:2000-07-09
Chico, CA
| reply to javaMan
said by javaMan :Required? Perhaps you were being facetious since required was in quotes More or less. I'm well aware any software provided by AT&T for their DSL installations is not required. |
|
benyto
Premium
join:2000-07-09
Chico, CA
| reply to morbo
said by morbo :i disagree. imagine the chaos of firefox being installed by default on all new dsl or cable installs. An ISP providing/installing a branded browser is not a new thing. Why should this be any different. |
|
benyto
Premium
join:2000-07-09
Chico, CA
| reply to cerone
said by cerone :Hold on a sec...if you know what you are doing with the equiptment provided from AT&T, you don't need the provided software. Perhaps I needed to add some [sarcasm] tags or some  images to my initial post. I thought I had made it clear that the AT&T provided software wasn't actually required. You know, the part that read "They also may not know that they don't have to install any software provided by AT&T". |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | reply to benyto
there's a difference between installing a new browser over "branding" IE, as is usually the case. |
|
benyto
Premium
join:2000-07-09
Chico, CA
| I'm curious what you think the problems will be, and why those problems would stop AT&T from installing their browser as a default. You make some claim about integration problems with XP and Vista. Surely many people use Firefox, Opera, or other non-Microsoft browsers on those platforms. What show-stopping integration problems do you foresee that would stop AT&T from doing such a thing?
For what it's worth I don't use Windows. I don't know of the existence or absence of such problems. I'm not trying to bait you in to anything here. I'm honestly curious if you know of something that would make this a headache that isn't worthwhile for AT&T to try. It is not something I would put past them. |
|
