Re: Windows XP dropping Java support

Tim,

You make some very valid arguments here, and I have to agree, belatedly,
that it DOES depend upon one's experience as to what the "average" user is.
I base my experience on my friends and family, most of whom are quite
baffled about most things that are on their computers. However, I have
noticed (again, in my experience, which is what the argument I made was
based on), that complete neophytes such as my 63 year-old mother with her
33.6K (typical) analog connection has gone and downloaded such things as the
MSN Explorer, Netscape 6, and Opera, all because she read the forced
taglines some email systems put out (MSN Explorer), or thought the buttons
for alternate browsers were pretty (!) on some of the sites she visits. I
have also noticed that some programs will install Netscape 4.x as part of
the default package (but N4 doesn't come with the JRE package that I know
of, so that wasn't included in my rant). Even a friend of mine who uses an
incredibly old Mac (63000 series, I think, which I've been told is the
equivalent of a 286 in the PC world) has gone and downloaded Netscape 4.5
and IE 4.5 just to see which work better -- again, I don't think either of
them have JRE, but it boosts my argument that average users DO download all
these other browsers sometimes, just to give them a try.

Regarding N6's incredible size, while JRE does add quite a bit to it, as
compared to the Mozilla ZIPfiles, JRE isn't the ONLY thing that adds all
that "weight" -- AIM, Mail, WinAmp, RealPlayer, and the other foo-foo stuff
that gets thrown in with it does. JRE is approximately 8MB in size, as can
be seen by the sizes of Opera with and without JRE, or by going to Sun and
getting it there.

But all that's moot. My point, though not made in the best way, is that it's
wrong for people to assume that average computer users don't know how to
download or install alternate browsers, or that they haven't gotten them
just to see what all the fuss is about. The complaints about Microsoft
pulling it's own Java package out of WindowsXP are rather pointless,
because, again, if Java really is that much in demand, the surfers will find
a way to get it, whether through plugin links or by browsing directly to the
source. I foresee the use of Java being much like the use of Flash,
Shockwave, PNG, SVG, or PDF... None of these are inherantly built into the
OS (although PNG and SVG are getting there, support is still spotty). But if
people want to utilize the format, they'll get the program or plugin
required, ESPECIALLY if a cute little "Get Java 2.x Runtime Package" button
is built, like all the other "Get ...." buttons my mom thinks are pretty --
it makes her (and others) think it's something really worthwhile and
important to spend all that time downloading and installing. It's as simple
as that (IMO).

Kehvan


----- Original Message -----
From: "tim booker" <timbooker(at)btinternet.com>
To: "Hwg-Techniques (E-mail)" <hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 03:05
Subject: RE: Windows XP dropping Java support


>
> > The "average" user of any platform has more than one browser
> > installed.
>
> That's not my experience of average users.  Anyone involved in web
> development certainly does.  Other people working in offices and home
users
> certainly do not.  (From my experience).  In fact, I've noticed that most
> users cannot understand the concept that two browsers might act
differently
> when displaying a web page.
>
>
> > Netscape 6 is the newest version and is being pushed on the
> > Netscape site, and it includes the option to install the Java
> > JRE package.
>
> The problem is that Java doubles the download size of Netscape 6, and
causes
> it to run twice as slowly, using twice the memory.
>
>
> > The ONLY thing that comes about from Microsoft
> > dropping Java is that, gee-whiz, people are gonna have to get
> > the plugin, much as they have to get the updated Flash and
> > Shockwave players from Macromedia just to see some nifty
> > animated thing on someone's website.
>
> True, although in the case of Flash, it only takes two minutes to download
> the plug-in.
>
> Personally, I'd rather take my business elsewhere than wait for a large
> plug-in which the site requires.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> www.ApatheticGenius.com
>
>
>
>
>

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA