XP service pack 2

Posted by Jim Andrews | Sun Oct 3rd 2004 8:23 p.m.

http://forums.devshed.com/showthread.php?t4867 discusses a prob i've
noticed with XP sp 2. A very annoying new "feature" has been introduced into
Internet Explorer. You used to be able to go fullscreen no browser chrome
whatever. Now the browser insists on some browser chrome.

If anyone has found a way around this, that would be nice to know.

ja
  • Jim Andrews | Sun Oct 3rd 2004 9:31 p.m.
    Does mozilla go fullscreen absolutely no browser chrome? I kind of doubt it.
    Netscape doesn't.

    ja

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Robert Spahr [mailto:rob@robertspahr.com]
    > Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 7:55 PM
    > To: Jim Andrews
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: XP service pack 2
    >
    >
    >
    > http://www.mozilla.org
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 19:23:06 -0700
    > "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com> wrote:
    >
    > > http://forums.devshed.com/showthread.php?t4867 discusses a prob i've
    > > noticed with XP sp 2. A very annoying new "feature" has been
    > introduced into
    > > Internet Explorer. You used to be able to go fullscreen no
    > browser chrome
    > > whatever. Now the browser insists on some browser chrome.
    > >
    > > If anyone has found a way around this, that would be nice to know.
    > >
    > > ja
  • Robert Spahr | Sun Oct 3rd 2004 9:51 p.m.
    Jim,

    View menu >> Tool bars >> Navigation bar
    (uncheck navigation bar)

    then

    View menu >> Full Screen

    You will then have a full screen. Besides Firefox is not your Mother's Netscape.

    Give it a try and you just might remember what it is like to use software that is free from one companies control.

    -- Robert

    On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 20:30:51 -0700
    "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com> wrote:

    > Does mozilla go fullscreen absolutely no browser chrome? I kind of doubt it.
    > Netscape doesn't.
    >
    > ja
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Robert Spahr [mailto:rob@robertspahr.com]
    > > Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 7:55 PM
    > > To: Jim Andrews
    > > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: XP service pack 2
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > http://www.mozilla.org
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 19:23:06 -0700
    > > "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > http://forums.devshed.com/showthread.php?t4867 discusses a prob i've
    > > > noticed with XP sp 2. A very annoying new "feature" has been
    > > introduced into
    > > > Internet Explorer. You used to be able to go fullscreen no
    > > browser chrome
    > > > whatever. Now the browser insists on some browser chrome.
    > > >
    > > > If anyone has found a way around this, that would be nice to know.
    > > >
    > > > ja
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >

    --
    --

    Robert Spahr
    http://www.robertspahr.com

    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

    1984 - George Orwell
  • Jim Andrews | Sun Oct 3rd 2004 9:59 p.m.
    > Give it a try and you just might remember what it is like to use
    > software that is free from one companies control.
    >
    > -- Robert

    What does it matter if all people can do is speak in ads anyway? Before I
    download it, let me clarify what I mean: just what I said: *absolutely* no
    browser chrome: no status bar, no scroll bars, no nav bar -- no browser
    chrome *whatsoever*. Does Firefox support this?

    ja
  • Robert Spahr | Sun Oct 3rd 2004 10:21 p.m.
    Jim,

    If the browser does not make scroll bars for a very long vertical page I consider that to be a *BUG*

    Of course Firefox will make scroll bars on very long pages, besides that you will have absolutely chrome.

    And regarding your 'speaking in ads' comment... sounds like you should revert back to the pre-service pack2 Windows, that Internet Explorer definitely has _all_ the "features" you need.

    Now stop being lazy, and get a browser without security holes!

    ;-)

    -- Robert

    On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 20:58:56 -0700
    "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com> wrote:

    >
    > > Give it a try and you just might remember what it is like to use
    > > software that is free from one companies control.
    > >
    > > -- Robert
    >
    > What does it matter if all people can do is speak in ads anyway? Before I
    > download it, let me clarify what I mean: just what I said: *absolutely* no
    > browser chrome: no status bar, no scroll bars, no nav bar -- no browser
    > chrome *whatsoever*. Does Firefox support this?
    >
    > ja
    >
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >

    --
    --

    Robert Spahr
    http://www.robertspahr.com

    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

    1984 - George Orwell
  • Jim Andrews | Sun Oct 3rd 2004 10:35 p.m.
    > If the browser does not make scroll bars for a very long vertical
    > page I consider that to be a *BUG*
    >
    > Of course Firefox will make scroll bars on very long pages,
    > besides that you will have absolutely chrome.

    I don't want "absolutely chrome", i want absolutely no chrome (when the page
    is short enough, of course).

    > And regarding your 'speaking in ads' comment... sounds like you
    > should revert back to the pre-service pack2 Windows, that
    > Internet Explorer definitely has _all_ the "features" you need.

    What shows on my browsers is of course of interest to me; I'm also
    interested in what appears on others' browsers.

    > Now stop being lazy, and get a browser without security holes!

    I don't respond well to ads, Robert. You sound like a salesman.

    ja
  • Jim Andrews | Sun Oct 3rd 2004 11:15 p.m.
    What is "Chrome" ?

    Browser chrome is anything on the screen that isn't part of the html
    content, anything visual that gives any indication that you're in a browser.

    It's important to some art pieces that it not be framed by browser chrome.
    The less browser chrome, the better, for my work, and for the work of many
    net.artists. Of course then you're under some sort of obligation to give
    people a way to close the window and navigate through your content not via
    the usual browser controls but via your own interface. And to use the whole
    screen integrally.

    Some browsers permit a state of no browser chrome, some don't. No Mac
    browser permits it, that I know of. Someone please correct me if there is
    one. On the PC, Internet Explorer did, prior to XP service pack 2 (sp 2).
    Robert, I hope, is trying to say that Firefox supports it. Netscape on the
    PC doesn't support it.

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • Pall Thayer | Mon Oct 4th 2004 4:59 a.m.
    As far as I know, the following javascript will open a browser window
    with no chrome on any browser. Correct me if I'm wrong or if I'm
    misunderstanding the question.

    <script language="Javascript" type="text/Javascript">
    <!--
    function inNewWindow(myUrl, myName, myLook){
    window.open(myUrl, myName, myLook);
    }
    //-->
    </script>

    <a
    href="javascript:inNewWindow('my.html','myWindowName','scrollbars=no,width40,height&0')">my
    link</a>

    Pall Thayer

    Jim Andrews wrote:
    > What is "Chrome" ?
    >
    > Browser chrome is anything on the screen that isn't part of the html
    > content, anything visual that gives any indication that you're in a browser.
    >
    > It's important to some art pieces that it not be framed by browser chrome.
    > The less browser chrome, the better, for my work, and for the work of many
    > net.artists. Of course then you're under some sort of obligation to give
    > people a way to close the window and navigate through your content not via
    > the usual browser controls but via your own interface. And to use the whole
    > screen integrally.
    >
    > Some browsers permit a state of no browser chrome, some don't. No Mac
    > browser permits it, that I know of. Someone please correct me if there is
    > one. On the PC, Internet Explorer did, prior to XP service pack 2 (sp 2).
    > Robert, I hope, is trying to say that Firefox supports it. Netscape on the
    > PC doesn't support it.
    >
    > ja
    > http://vispo.com
    >

    --
    _______________________________
    Pall Thayer
    artist/teacher
    http://www.this.is/pallit
    http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
    _______________________________
  • Jim Andrews | Mon Oct 4th 2004 5:31 a.m.
    Hi Pall,

    Yes, there is only a title bar in the window up top in sp2. Though, as with
    other windows that have javascript in them, it asks you if you want to allow
    'active content'. Pretty annoying, that 'allow active content?' constant
    ugly crap popping up. way worse than pop up windows. security issues are
    ruining internet explorer. the 'solutions' they're implementing are worse
    than the problem.

    I'm more talking about trying to open fullscreen no browser chrome. Even
    when you go View>Fullscreen yourself in IE in sp2 (never mind doing it via
    javascript), the bloody thing insists on the status bar at the bottom of the
    window. So in the case where the window doesn't fill the screen, you might
    get just a title bar, but when it fills the screen, you get at least a
    status bar (at the bottom of the window, of course).

    My favorite things about IE were that fullscreen-no-browser-chrome feature
    and the full DHTML since IE 5 compared with what the Mac or (at least until
    recently) Netscape provided. Fullscreen no browser chrome was great for
    complete focus. *If* Firefox/mozilla offers it, I would have a good look at
    it as something to recommend as an art browser.

    Is mozilla/firefox for the mac too?

    ja
  • MTAA | Mon Oct 4th 2004 5:33 a.m.
    fullscreen=yes WILL NOT open an IE browser with absolutely no chrome on
    sp2. There is no way to do this with service pack 2 via client-side
    script in the browser. In addition, you can't use tricks like opening a
    window larger than the screen and positioning with it the chrome
    off-screen.

    you can open a chromeless browser via the command line using the kiosk
    mode (can't remember the exact syntax) or by typing f11 if you need a
    chromeless browser for exhibition or presentation.

    Firefox has tons of plug-ins which extend it's behavior.. I imagine
    there is one for a kiosk mode or FS mode.

    re: Firefox, you can't sell something which is free; respectfully, you
    are *such* the Windows apologist.

    On Oct 4, 2004, at 1:15 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:

    >
  • Pall Thayer | Mon Oct 4th 2004 5:58 a.m.
    Mozilla/Firefox is available for everything and you can go chrome-less
    in the same way, but if I recall correctly, doing full-screen can be
    problematic but I would think that it can be done. I remember once using
    a javascript that set the window for full-screen but it only worked for
    IE and caused very strange results in other browsers. In my opinion,
    Firefox is the very best browser out there. Standards compliant,
    open-source, fast and doesn't pretend to be anything it's not.

    Pall

    Jim Andrews wrote:
    > Hi Pall,
    >
    > Yes, there is only a title bar in the window up top in sp2. Though, as with
    > other windows that have javascript in them, it asks you if you want to allow
    > 'active content'. Pretty annoying, that 'allow active content?' constant
    > ugly crap popping up. way worse than pop up windows. security issues are
    > ruining internet explorer. the 'solutions' they're implementing are worse
    > than the problem.
    >
    > I'm more talking about trying to open fullscreen no browser chrome. Even
    > when you go View>Fullscreen yourself in IE in sp2 (never mind doing it via
    > javascript), the bloody thing insists on the status bar at the bottom of the
    > window. So in the case where the window doesn't fill the screen, you might
    > get just a title bar, but when it fills the screen, you get at least a
    > status bar (at the bottom of the window, of course).
    >
    > My favorite things about IE were that fullscreen-no-browser-chrome feature
    > and the full DHTML since IE 5 compared with what the Mac or (at least until
    > recently) Netscape provided. Fullscreen no browser chrome was great for
    > complete focus. *If* Firefox/mozilla offers it, I would have a good look at
    > it as something to recommend as an art browser.
    >
    > Is mozilla/firefox for the mac too?
    >
    > ja
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >

    --
    _______________________________
    Pall Thayer
    artist/teacher
    http://www.this.is/pallit
    http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
    _______________________________
  • Jim Andrews | Mon Oct 4th 2004 6:04 a.m.
    > re: Firefox, you can't sell something which is free; respectfully, you
    > are *such* the Windows apologist.

    That's bullshit twhid. Just because I don't jump on the politically correct
    bandwagon that disses all things Microsoft with, often, artsy idiotic
    arguments, that doesn't make me an apologist for Windows. There's a G5 and a
    PC on my desk. I just want one that works the way it should, and neither of
    them do.

    ja
  • Pall Thayer | Mon Oct 4th 2004 6:31 a.m.
    The problem with IE is that it *doesn't* work the way that it should. It
    uses tons of non-standard stuff so you end up with pages that work in no
    other browser but IE. That's not the way things should be. I'm running
    Linux, I don't have the option of keeping a copy of IE lying around for
    emergencies. That means that those websites are broken, they don't work
    the way they should. Saying that an exclusive IE solution *works the way
    it should* would be questionable. So bear in mind that unless you find a
    way to make this work in all browsers, I, along with a growing number of
    Linux users, am not going to have the pleasure of seeing your work.

    Pall

    Jim Andrews wrote:
    >>re: Firefox, you can't sell something which is free; respectfully, you
    >>are *such* the Windows apologist.
    >
    >
    > That's bullshit twhid. Just because I don't jump on the politically correct
    > bandwagon that disses all things Microsoft with, often, artsy idiotic
    > arguments, that doesn't make me an apologist for Windows. There's a G5 and a
    > PC on my desk. I just want one that works the way it should, and neither of
    > them do.
    >
    > ja
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >

    --
    _______________________________
    Pall Thayer
    artist/teacher
    http://www.this.is/pallit
    http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
    _______________________________
  • Rob Myers | Mon Oct 4th 2004 6:47 a.m.
    I'm a Safari user [ducks and heads for cover].

    - Rob.

    On Monday, October 04, 2004, at 01:40PM, Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:

    >So bear in mind that unless you find a
    >way to make this work in all browsers, I, along with a growing number of
    >Linux users, am not going to have the pleasure of seeing your work.
  • Pall Thayer | Mon Oct 4th 2004 6:58 a.m.
    but that means you're a mac user and you have, at least, the ability to
    keep a copy of IE around for emergencies.

    Rob Myers wrote:
    > I'm a Safari user [ducks and heads for cover].
    >
    > - Rob.
    >
    > On Monday, October 04, 2004, at 01:40PM, Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>So bear in mind that unless you find a
    >>way to make this work in all browsers, I, along with a growing number of
    >>Linux users, am not going to have the pleasure of seeing your work.
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >

    --
    _______________________________
    Pall Thayer
    artist/teacher
    http://www.this.is/pallit
    http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
    _______________________________
  • Rob Myers | Mon Oct 4th 2004 7:03 a.m.
    Well my partner tends to use IE, so it's installed. Which means that if I want an emergency I can indeed use IE. ;-)

    - Rob.

    On Monday, October 04, 2004, at 01:58PM, Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:

    >but that means you're a mac user and you have, at least, the ability to
    >keep a copy of IE around for emergencies.
    >
    >Rob Myers wrote:
    >> I'm a Safari user [ducks and heads for cover].
    >>
    >> - Rob.
    >>
    >> On Monday, October 04, 2004, at 01:40PM, Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>So bear in mind that unless you find a
    >>>way to make this work in all browsers, I, along with a growing number of
    >>>Linux users, am not going to have the pleasure of seeing your work.
    >>
    >> +
    >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    >> +
    >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>
    >
    >--
    >_______________________________
    >Pall Thayer
    >artist/teacher
    >http://www.this.is/pallit
    >http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
    >_______________________________
    >
    >
  • curt cloninger | Mon Oct 4th 2004 7:08 a.m.
    We use a large vibrating egg."

    _

    Rob wrote:

    I'm a Safari user [ducks and heads for cover].

    - Rob.

    On Monday, October 04, 2004, at 01:40PM, Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:

    >So bear in mind that unless you find a
    >way to make this work in all browsers, I, along with a growing number of
    >Linux users, am not going to have the pleasure of seeing your work.
  • Jim Andrews | Mon Oct 4th 2004 7:11 a.m.
    If you use Linux, you can't see most of my work anyway, since most of it is
    in Shockwave.

    The fullscreen thing isn't the way you seem to think it is. It's simply
    *best* to view *some* works fullscreen no browser chrome. If your browser
    doesn't support it, then you can still open the page, but the screen has
    some browser chrome on it. My work tends to use all the space it has
    available to it. It doesn't *require* the full screen. But, for instance, a
    piece like Arteroids or, more recently, the ound poem uses all the space
    it's given and, anyway, why would a work of art want to be framed by browser
    chrome that intrudes its presence into the experience of the art? I can
    think of some reasons in particular types of works, but generally you want
    to engage the whole screen and the whole computer and the whole brain and
    being of the viewer and as much of everything else in the universe as you
    can pack into that screen and the audio etc.

    ja

    > The problem with IE is that it *doesn't* work the way that it should. It
    > uses tons of non-standard stuff so you end up with pages that work in no
    > other browser but IE. That's not the way things should be. I'm running
    > Linux, I don't have the option of keeping a copy of IE lying around for
    > emergencies. That means that those websites are broken, they don't work
    > the way they should. Saying that an exclusive IE solution *works the way
    > it should* would be questionable. So bear in mind that unless you find a
    > way to make this work in all browsers, I, along with a growing number of
    > Linux users, am not going to have the pleasure of seeing your work.
    >
    > Pall
  • MTAA | Mon Oct 4th 2004 7:35 a.m.
    Hi all,

    Replying to a few different posts:

    On Oct 4, 2004, at 8:47 AM, Rob Myers wrote:

    > I'm a Safari user [ducks and heads for cover].

    HaHa, me too :-) I've been doing a lot of surfing with NetNewsWire's
    built-in browser tho (which uses the same rendering engine as Safari of
    course)

    ++++

    > twhid:
    > re: Firefox, you can't sell something which is free; respectfully, you
    > are *such* the Windows apologist.

    Jim Andrews:
    > That's bullshit twhid. Just because I don't jump on the politically
    > correct
    > bandwagon that disses all things Microsoft with, often, artsy idiotic
    > arguments, that doesn't make me an apologist for Windows. There's a G5
    > and a
    > PC on my desk. I just want one that works the way it should, and
    > neither of
    > them do.

    OK, perhaps I went to far.

    But I seem to remember you arguing *for* Windows illegal monopoly and
    their use of this monopoly to crush Netscape. Agreed, we don't want to
    go down that road again. I think your arg was that Netscape floundered
    in a competitive market. My arg is that the market wasn't competitive
    but controlled by MS.

    My arg against MS has nothing to do with artsy or idiotic. Their
    monoculture has created an extremely dangerous environment for their
    users. But since we're all networked now, it causes headaches for
    people who aren't their users too: clogged networks, downed servers,
    JPEG virus anyone? Tasty! They stifle innovation by not supporting open
    standards. And their software is just simply to hard to use for the
    average home user.

    To get back to more constructive discussion:

    If the chromeless environment is very important to you you may need to
    look into the kiosk method I mentioned earlier. Not sure if it works on
    SP2. Otherwise, Firefox has extensions (not plug-ins as i mentioned
    earlier) which extend the browser's behavior, a quick search turned up
    something that sounds just like what you were looking for:
    http://update.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id4&vid
  • Pall Thayer | Mon Oct 4th 2004 7:41 a.m.
    Jim Andrews wrote:
    > If you use Linux, you can't see most of my work anyway, since most of it is
    > in Shockwave.

    Yeah, actually I had typed that into my response as well but no matter
    how I tried to word it it always sounded slightly rude. But yes, there
    is that too.

    >
    > The fullscreen thing isn't the way you seem to think it is. It's simply
    > *best* to view *some* works fullscreen no browser chrome. If your browser
    > doesn't support it, then you can still open the page, but the screen has
    > some browser chrome on it. My work tends to use all the space it has
    > available to it. It doesn't *require* the full screen. But, for instance, a
    > piece like Arteroids or, more recently, the ound poem uses all the space
    > it's given and, anyway, why would a work of art want to be framed by browser
    > chrome that intrudes its presence into the experience of the art? I can
    > think of some reasons in particular types of works, but generally you want
    > to engage the whole screen and the whole computer and the whole brain and
    > being of the viewer and as much of everything else in the universe as you
    > can pack into that screen and the audio etc.

    I think the best solution here would be to just tell people to hit F11.
    Different browsers will respond in different ways but that's just a
    limitation posed by the medium. Firefox eliminates everything but the
    address bar (status bar disappears), Opera goes entirely full screen
    with nothing but the page, not even the title bar remains. Personally, I
    would say that if it matters that much to go entirely fullscreen than
    maybe the work should be presented in a different way than as a webpage.

    Pall

    >
    > ja
    >
    >
    >
    >>The problem with IE is that it *doesn't* work the way that it should. It
    >>uses tons of non-standard stuff so you end up with pages that work in no
    >>other browser but IE. That's not the way things should be. I'm running
    >>Linux, I don't have the option of keeping a copy of IE lying around for
    >>emergencies. That means that those websites are broken, they don't work
    >>the way they should. Saying that an exclusive IE solution *works the way
    >>it should* would be questionable. So bear in mind that unless you find a
    >>way to make this work in all browsers, I, along with a growing number of
    >>Linux users, am not going to have the pleasure of seeing your work.
    >>
    >>Pall
    >
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >

    --
    _______________________________
    Pall Thayer
    artist/teacher
    http://www.this.is/pallit
    http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
    _______________________________
  • Robert Spahr | Mon Oct 4th 2004 7:58 a.m.
    Jim,

    I am a gentoo linux user, and I can see shockwave within firefox on a installation.

    You should research more technical possibilities if you do want to reach more people.

    -- Robert

    On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 06:11:09 -0700
    "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com> wrote:

    > If you use Linux, you can't see most of my work anyway, since most of it is
    > in Shockwave.
    >
    > The fullscreen thing isn't the way you seem to think it is. It's simply
    > *best* to view *some* works fullscreen no browser chrome. If your browser
    > doesn't support it, then you can still open the page, but the screen has
    > some browser chrome on it. My work tends to use all the space it has
    > available to it. It doesn't *require* the full screen. But, for instance, a
    > piece like Arteroids or, more recently, the ound poem uses all the space
    > it's given and, anyway, why would a work of art want to be framed by browser
    > chrome that intrudes its presence into the experience of the art? I can
    > think of some reasons in particular types of works, but generally you want
    > to engage the whole screen and the whole computer and the whole brain and
    > being of the viewer and as much of everything else in the universe as you
    > can pack into that screen and the audio etc.
    >
    > ja
    >
    >
    > > The problem with IE is that it *doesn't* work the way that it should. It
    > > uses tons of non-standard stuff so you end up with pages that work in no
    > > other browser but IE. That's not the way things should be. I'm running
    > > Linux, I don't have the option of keeping a copy of IE lying around for
    > > emergencies. That means that those websites are broken, they don't work
    > > the way they should. Saying that an exclusive IE solution *works the way
    > > it should* would be questionable. So bear in mind that unless you find a
    > > way to make this work in all browsers, I, along with a growing number of
    > > Linux users, am not going to have the pleasure of seeing your work.
    > >
    > > Pall
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >

    --
    --

    Robert Spahr
    http://www.robertspahr.com

    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

    1984 - George Orwell
  • Robert Spahr | Mon Oct 4th 2004 8 a.m.
    it as something to recommend as an art browser.
    >
    > Is mozilla/firefox for the mac too?
    >
    > ja
    >

    Once again, 30 seconds of browsing on the www.mozilla.org site will tell you that Firefox is available on Linux, Mac and Windows.

    -- Robert

    --
    --

    Robert Spahr
    http://www.robertspahr.com

    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

    1984 - George Orwell
  • Rob Myers | Mon Oct 4th 2004 8:01 a.m.
    On Monday, October 04, 2004, at 02:58PM, Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:

    >I think the best solution here would be to just tell people to hit F11.

    Or to offer a Projector download as well. I offered a full-screen application download version of my Flash project "The Cybernetic Artwork Nobody Wrote" as well as the web-browser window version. I'd like to do a screensaver as well, but I can't afford the wrapper software...

    - Rob.
  • Robert Spahr | Mon Oct 4th 2004 8:14 a.m.
    >
    > I don't respond well to ads, Robert. You sound like a salesman.
    >
    > ja
    >

    I have taken way more time than this thread deserves to show you that there is an open source and freely available alternative that does exactly what you are asking. It is now up to you to go forward and discover if that is what you want. No sales, just help freely offered.

    Being open minded to new possibilities is the lesson here, not what Operating System does one use to make and view art.

    -- Robert

    --
    --

    Robert Spahr
    http://www.robertspahr.com

    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

    1984 - George Orwell
  • Jim Andrews | Mon Oct 4th 2004 8:30 a.m.
    My apologies for no Shockwave for your Linux.

    Do you think of web pages as necessarily involving browser chrome? I can
    (sort of) see the argument that browser chrome should be the option of the
    viewer, whether they want any or not, because developers can go fullscreen
    and provide no obvious way to close the window if there's no chrome, and
    consequently newbies are flummoxed (though newbies are generally flummoxed
    eventually one way or another anyway). but, at very least, the viewer should
    be able to go View>Fullscreen or F11 or whatever and get no friggin chrome
    (unless they mouse the top of the screen and then some chrome slides down
    like it'll slide up if you mouse the bottom of the screen).

    My work doesn't require fullscreen no browser chrome, but it benefits from
    it. Just like most work would benefit from it in that, you know, why would
    you want to share the screen with microsoft or apple or any company, for
    that matter? I think the only reason might be because they provide nav tools
    that aren't built into the interface of the work that are necessary to the
    work. If you're building work that has something to do with interface, then
    you are very likely to build your own nav and maybe even do something
    unusual and integral in this regard.

    Web.art can deliver through the browser apps every bit as interesting as
    downloadable exe's. I far prefer them through the browser. You don't have to
    save the thing somewhere and install it before you can view it and then
    maybe have to create a shortcut or whatever so you don't forget where it is
    and have it clutter your hard drive. You get access to the app with one
    click when it's on the Web.

    Fullscreen no browser chrome *is* associated with desktop apps, but many of
    us have been using it for years for Web apps, at least on IE for the PC and
    Opera. If it is *necessary* that there be browser chrome, whether the viewer
    wants it or not, that detracts from the Web as a medium for apps and art
    that has the wherewithal to use the full screen.

    Now I find Dreamweaver is launching my IE fullscreen no browser chrome, even
    though I have sp2. Hmmmmmmmmm. I like that. I wonder how it's doing it?

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • Rob Myers | Mon Oct 4th 2004 8:49 a.m.
    On Monday, October 04, 2004, at 03:47PM, Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com> wrote:

    >Now I find Dreamweaver is launching my IE fullscreen no browser chrome, even
    >though I have sp2. Hmmmmmmmmm. I like that. I wonder how it's doing it?

    Well, don't break the DMCA by trying to reverse engineer it. ;-)

    - Rob.
  • Plasma Studii | Mon Oct 4th 2004 8:53 a.m.
    Pall:
    >if it matters that much to go entirely fullscreen than maybe the
    >work should be presented in a different way than as a webpage.

    great point. if jim uses shockwave a lot, director has the easiest
    full screen mode ever.

    Rob Myers:
    >I'm a Safari user [ducks and heads for cover].

    twhid:
    >I agree whole-heartedly. Why have some chrome on your work? It's ugly.

    totally, Safari seems to be the least garish. if nothing else, no
    animated logo in the upper left. and pretty compliant (whereas IE is
    just plain frustrating).

    Rob Myers:
    > offer a Projector download as well

    those can easily take up several MB's and if you have limited web
    space, fills up fast. Also you need a Mac and Win version to make
    twin projectors to run on both platforms.

    after this discussion though (an oddly long thread) off to try firefox.
  • Jim Andrews | Mon Oct 4th 2004 9:03 a.m.
    > OK, perhaps I went to far.

    Thank you.

    > But I seem to remember you arguing *for* Windows illegal monopoly and
    > their use of this monopoly to crush Netscape. Agreed, we don't want to
    > go down that road again. I think your arg was that Netscape floundered
    > in a competitive market. My arg is that the market wasn't competitive
    > but controlled by MS.

    That was quite a while ago. I remember, though, feeling that you weren't
    reading me carefully. I am by no means in favour of monopolies. But I am no
    more a fan of Netscape or Apple or whatever than I am of Microsoft. If I
    recall correctly, you seemed to look at companies like Apple or Netscape as
    white knights. I don't see them that way any more than I see Canada as a
    white knight compared with the USA.

    ja
  • Jeremy Zilar | Mon Oct 4th 2004 9:12 a.m.
    Browse Happy!
    Browse Happier!

    http://browsehappy.com/

    if you are on a pc,.. it sure makes life that much better.
    I would love to have a Mac. I have friends who are Mac users who use
    firefox instead of Safari.

    -me

    Plasma Studii - uospn
  • Pall Thayer | Mon Oct 4th 2004 9:14 a.m.
    I'm really curious about how you view shockwave on Linux. Are you sure
    you're not confusing Flash with shockwave?

    Pall

    Robert Spahr wrote:
    > Jim,
    >
    > I am a gentoo linux user, and I can see shockwave within firefox on a installation.
    >
    > You should research more technical possibilities if you do want to reach more people.
    >
    > -- Robert
    >
    >
    > On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 06:11:09 -0700
    > "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>If you use Linux, you can't see most of my work anyway, since most of it is
    >>in Shockwave.
    >>
    >>The fullscreen thing isn't the way you seem to think it is. It's simply
    >>*best* to view *some* works fullscreen no browser chrome. If your browser
    >>doesn't support it, then you can still open the page, but the screen has
    >>some browser chrome on it. My work tends to use all the space it has
    >>available to it. It doesn't *require* the full screen. But, for instance, a
    >>piece like Arteroids or, more recently, the ound poem uses all the space
    >>it's given and, anyway, why would a work of art want to be framed by browser
    >>chrome that intrudes its presence into the experience of the art? I can
    >>think of some reasons in particular types of works, but generally you want
    >>to engage the whole screen and the whole computer and the whole brain and
    >>being of the viewer and as much of everything else in the universe as you
    >>can pack into that screen and the audio etc.
    >>
    >>ja
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>The problem with IE is that it *doesn't* work the way that it should. It
    >>>uses tons of non-standard stuff so you end up with pages that work in no
    >>>other browser but IE. That's not the way things should be. I'm running
    >>>Linux, I don't have the option of keeping a copy of IE lying around for
    >>>emergencies. That means that those websites are broken, they don't work
    >>>the way they should. Saying that an exclusive IE solution *works the way
    >>>it should* would be questionable. So bear in mind that unless you find a
    >>>way to make this work in all browsers, I, along with a growing number of
    >>>Linux users, am not going to have the pleasure of seeing your work.
    >>>
    >>>Pall
    >>
    >>
    >>+
    >>-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    >>+
    >>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>
    >
    >
    >

    --
    _______________________________
    Pall Thayer
    artist/teacher
    http://www.this.is/pallit
    http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
    _______________________________
  • MTAA | Mon Oct 4th 2004 9:31 a.m.
    Hi Jim,

    I think *any* proprietary software (and even hardware) needs to be
    looked at with a skeptical eye, I think there we agree.

    I am a big Apple fan, I'll admit. But if they had the MS's monopoly I
    would look at their actions in a different light. MS's actions have
    much more significance than Apple's due to their size. Many of their
    decisions have been extremely harmful to their users and the rest of
    the computing ecosphere.

    As far as Apple and Linux/Unix companies go I support them in that they
    are the power player's seeking to destroy MS's harmful monopoly.

    On Oct 4, 2004, at 11:03 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:

    >
    >> OK, perhaps I went to far.
    >
    > Thank you.
    >
    >> But I seem to remember you arguing *for* Windows illegal monopoly and
    >> their use of this monopoly to crush Netscape. Agreed, we don't want to
    >> go down that road again. I think your arg was that Netscape floundered
    >> in a competitive market. My arg is that the market wasn't competitive
    >> but controlled by MS.
    >
    > That was quite a while ago. I remember, though, feeling that you
    > weren't
    > reading me carefully. I am by no means in favour of monopolies. But I
    > am no
    > more a fan of Netscape or Apple or whatever than I am of Microsoft. If
    > I
    > recall correctly, you seemed to look at companies like Apple or
    > Netscape as
    > white knights. I don't see them that way any more than I see Canada as
    > a
    > white knight compared with the USA.
    >
    > ja
    >

    ===
    <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
    ===
  • Robert Spahr | Mon Oct 4th 2004 9:33 a.m.
    Pall,

    I am definitely viewing Shockwave, Flash and QuickTime within linux, without any windows code. (other than the plugins themselves)

    I am using crossover office plugin:
    http://www.codeweavers.com/

    This software uses WINE, which is not exactly windows emulation, but basically it allows me to use windows plugins from within Firefox. There is no performance lag, and my viewing shockwave, flash and QuickTime is the same experience I have when using windows or mac.

    WINE:
    http://www.winehq.org/site/about

    hope you find this information helpful

    -- Robert

    On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:14:53 +0000
    Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:

    > I'm really curious about how you view shockwave on Linux. Are you sure
    > you're not confusing Flash with shockwave?
    >
    > Pall
    >
    > Robert Spahr wrote:
    > > Jim,
    > >
    > > I am a gentoo linux user, and I can see shockwave within firefox on a installation.
    > >
    > > You should research more technical possibilities if you do want to reach more people.
    > >
    > > -- Robert
    > >
    > >
    > > On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 06:11:09 -0700
    > > "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>If you use Linux, you can't see most of my work anyway, since most of it is
    > >>in Shockwave.
    > >>
    > >>The fullscreen thing isn't the way you seem to think it is. It's simply
    > >>*best* to view *some* works fullscreen no browser chrome. If your browser
    > >>doesn't support it, then you can still open the page, but the screen has
    > >>some browser chrome on it. My work tends to use all the space it has
    > >>available to it. It doesn't *require* the full screen. But, for instance, a
    > >>piece like Arteroids or, more recently, the ound poem uses all the space
    > >>it's given and, anyway, why would a work of art want to be framed by browser
    > >>chrome that intrudes its presence into the experience of the art? I can
    > >>think of some reasons in particular types of works, but generally you want
    > >>to engage the whole screen and the whole computer and the whole brain and
    > >>being of the viewer and as much of everything else in the universe as you
    > >>can pack into that screen and the audio etc.
    > >>
    > >>ja
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>The problem with IE is that it *doesn't* work the way that it should. It
    > >>>uses tons of non-standard stuff so you end up with pages that work in no
    > >>>other browser but IE. That's not the way things should be. I'm running
    > >>>Linux, I don't have the option of keeping a copy of IE lying around for
    > >>>emergencies. That means that those websites are broken, they don't work
    > >>>the way they should. Saying that an exclusive IE solution *works the way
    > >>>it should* would be questionable. So bear in mind that unless you find a
    > >>>way to make this work in all browsers, I, along with a growing number of
    > >>>Linux users, am not going to have the pleasure of seeing your work.
    > >>>
    > >>>Pall
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>+
    > >>-> post: list@rhizome.org
    > >>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > >>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > >>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > >>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > >>+
    > >>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > >>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    > --
    > _______________________________
    > Pall Thayer
    > artist/teacher
    > http://www.this.is/pallit
    > http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
    > _______________________________
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >

    --
    --

    Robert Spahr
    http://www.robertspahr.com

    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

    1984 - George Orwell
  • Pall Thayer | Mon Oct 4th 2004 9:53 a.m.
    OK, but anyone who claims to be "Bringing Windows to Linux", scares me.

    Pall

    Robert Spahr wrote:
    > Pall,
    >
    > I am definitely viewing Shockwave, Flash and QuickTime within linux, without any windows code. (other than the plugins themselves)
    >
    > I am using crossover office plugin:
    > http://www.codeweavers.com/
    >
    > This software uses WINE, which is not exactly windows emulation, but basically it allows me to use windows plugins from within Firefox. There is no performance lag, and my viewing shockwave, flash and QuickTime is the same experience I have when using windows or mac.
    >
    > WINE:
    > http://www.winehq.org/site/about
    >
    > hope you find this information helpful
    >
    > -- Robert
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:14:53 +0000
    > Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I'm really curious about how you view shockwave on Linux. Are you sure
    >>you're not confusing Flash with shockwave?
    >>
    >>Pall
    >>
    >>Robert Spahr wrote:
    >>
    >>>Jim,
    >>>
    >>>I am a gentoo linux user, and I can see shockwave within firefox on a installation.
    >>>
    >>>You should research more technical possibilities if you do want to reach more people.
    >>>
    >>>-- Robert
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 06:11:09 -0700
    >>>"Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>If you use Linux, you can't see most of my work anyway, since most of it is
    >>>>in Shockwave.
    >>>>
    >>>>The fullscreen thing isn't the way you seem to think it is. It's simply
    >>>>*best* to view *some* works fullscreen no browser chrome. If your browser
    >>>>doesn't support it, then you can still open the page, but the screen has
    >>>>some browser chrome on it. My work tends to use all the space it has
    >>>>available to it. It doesn't *require* the full screen. But, for instance, a
    >>>>piece like Arteroids or, more recently, the ound poem uses all the space
    >>>>it's given and, anyway, why would a work of art want to be framed by browser
    >>>>chrome that intrudes its presence into the experience of the art? I can
    >>>>think of some reasons in particular types of works, but generally you want
    >>>>to engage the whole screen and the whole computer and the whole brain and
    >>>>being of the viewer and as much of everything else in the universe as you
    >>>>can pack into that screen and the audio etc.
    >>>>
    >>>>ja
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>The problem with IE is that it *doesn't* work the way that it should. It
    >>>>>uses tons of non-standard stuff so you end up with pages that work in no
    >>>>>other browser but IE. That's not the way things should be. I'm running
    >>>>>Linux, I don't have the option of keeping a copy of IE lying around for
    >>>>>emergencies. That means that those websites are broken, they don't work
    >>>>>the way they should. Saying that an exclusive IE solution *works the way
    >>>>>it should* would be questionable. So bear in mind that unless you find a
    >>>>>way to make this work in all browsers, I, along with a growing number of
    >>>>>Linux users, am not going to have the pleasure of seeing your work.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Pall
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>+
    >>>>-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>>>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>>>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    >>>>+
    >>>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>>>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>--
    >>_______________________________
    >>Pall Thayer
    >>artist/teacher
    >>http://www.this.is/pallit
    >>http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
    >>_______________________________
    >>+
    >>-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    >>+
    >>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>
    >
    >
    >

    --
    _______________________________
    Pall Thayer
    artist/teacher
    http://www.this.is/pallit
    http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
    _______________________________
  • Jeremy Zilar | Mon Oct 4th 2004 10:39 a.m.
    http://spreadfirefox.com/

    jeremy wrote:

    > Browse Happy!
    > Browse Happier!
    >
    > http://browsehappy.com/
    >
    >
    > if you are on a pc,.. it sure makes life that much better.
    > I would love to have a Mac. I have friends who are Mac users who use
    > firefox instead of Safari.
    >
    > -me
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Plasma Studii - uospn
  • Jeremy Zilar | Mon Oct 4th 2004 11:40 a.m.
    >
    >
    > checking firefox out now. oddly, they appear identical accept for the
    > icons. firefox's "full screen" doesn't appear to be at all
    > full-screen, ends up the same as when you uncheck safari's bookmark
    > and status bars. it's still evident your in a browser. but the web
    > is full of pranksters and paranoids. makes for annoying browser
    > features.
    >
    > safari seems to run a little more smoothly/faster. for masking web
    > stuff fully clearing the cache is important, and i like having the
    > quick-key combo, instead of using the mouse to get through a few clicks.
    >
    > can anybody (on osX) find any other big differences? the fact it runs
    > on Linux seems cool, but those folks aren't going to have safari to
    > compare.
    >
    I actually think that there are alot of extensions that you can DL
    through Fire fox,... that will enable various key commands, and allow
    you to customize the key commands. What ones are you specifically
    talking about?
    just curious.
    I am just happy that while i am on my PC, i can have a browser with tab
    browsing. It makes life SO much better. A friend of mine keep saying
    that the new Windows LONGHORN will come out with their new web browser,
    and it will have tab browsing, and they will act as if they have
    revolutionized the world with it.
    There are just sooo many other features/extensions that i have DL'd
    through FIREFOX that are really nice. Weather extension..... GMAIL
    extension (lets you know when you have gmail)....... and most
    importantly,. the web developer tool bar!!
    that helps out soooo much!

    Oh,.. and thank you for the Mac pitch,... I have been using Macs
    forever, and I service Mac's around the city. I am really familiar with
    how amazing they are,.. and the current prices. I am always drooling at
    apple.com.
    I just havent been able to come into the $$$ to put down on what i want.
    thank you.

    >
    >
    >> I would love to have a Mac.
    >
    >
    > next time you decide to buy a new computer, you definitely can get one.
    >
    > if you're in the US, macs are cheaper. $1000 will get a new eMac that
    > does far more, far faster than anyone needs, a PC with as much muscle
    > will cost $3000, then add all the a la carte features, they need
    > constant repairs. MhZ speed is actually a bogus comparison. iBooks
    > are now about 1200 but usually go below 800 as the model version gets
    > older. Never seen a comparable PC laptop, but the closest are about
    > $3500. osX products open about any file you make on any OS. but
    > there are also softwares that run Win on Macs.
    >
    > they come with a lot of the software you'll need to get started
    > (picture viewer, a far better word processor than Word, email program,
    > ... ) but if there's any other titles you like use professionally,
    > they'll pay for themselves getting an osX version just in hours of
    > downtime saved, since osX hardly ever needs re-booting.
    >
    > elsewhere, you can snoop around and order on-line. the hardest part
    > is delivery.
    >
    > sorry if this sounds like a sales pitch, just trying to be helpful.
    > both Apple (especially in the last few years, what happened?) and MS
    > use a bunch of immoral practices, but like twhid said MS is using
    > their monopoly against us.
    >
  • abe | Mon Oct 4th 2004 12:20 p.m.
    http://linkoln.net/lincoln_browser.gif

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: jeremy
    To: Plasma Studii - uospn
  • Francis Hwang | Mon Oct 4th 2004 12:30 p.m.
    Coming into this thread late after a weekend spent out of town ...

    Ever since Steve Jobs came back, Apple's philosophy is fundamentally
    different from MS's actions. They want to grow, but I suspect that
    they're okay with always being a niche company. That's why their
    products are always well-designed but expensive. It's why they have
    tightly coupled their future to that of open source in general, and why
    they continue to (in some cases) give back to various open source
    projects such as BSD and the Konquerer rendering engine.

    The newest cool thing is the fact that a bunch of companies seem to
    forming together in a standards organization for richer clients. This
    group includes Apple, Opera, and Mozilla -- and notably enough,
    excludes the lumbering giant from Redmond. (See
    http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2004/06/30/ for a press release
    of this.) This is sort of a route around the bigger W3C, which a lot of
    people don't like for many different reasons, one of which is that
    Microsoft has no reason to want the web to progress. Why? Because if
    browsers give you kickass applications for free, why would you pay $159
    for a license of the next version of Windows?

    Francis Hwang
    Director of Technology
    Rhizome.org
    phone: 212-219-1288x202
    AIM: francisrhizome
    + + +

    On Oct 4, 2004, at 11:28 AM, t.whid wrote:

    > Hi Jim,
    >
    > I think *any* proprietary software (and even hardware) needs to be
    > looked at with a skeptical eye, I think there we agree.
    >
    > I am a big Apple fan, I'll admit. But if they had the MS's monopoly I
    > would look at their actions in a different light. MS's actions have
    > much more significance than Apple's due to their size. Many of their
    > decisions have been extremely harmful to their users and the rest of
    > the computing ecosphere.
    >
    > As far as Apple and Linux/Unix companies go I support them in that
    > they are the power player's seeking to destroy MS's harmful monopoly.
    >
    > On Oct 4, 2004, at 11:03 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>> OK, perhaps I went to far.
    >>
    >> Thank you.
    >>
    >>> But I seem to remember you arguing *for* Windows illegal monopoly and
    >>> their use of this monopoly to crush Netscape. Agreed, we don't want
    >>> to
    >>> go down that road again. I think your arg was that Netscape
    >>> floundered
    >>> in a competitive market. My arg is that the market wasn't competitive
    >>> but controlled by MS.
    >>
    >> That was quite a while ago. I remember, though, feeling that you
    >> weren't
    >> reading me carefully. I am by no means in favour of monopolies. But I
    >> am no
    >> more a fan of Netscape or Apple or whatever than I am of Microsoft.
    >> If I
    >> recall correctly, you seemed to look at companies like Apple or
    >> Netscape as
    >> white knights. I don't see them that way any more than I see Canada
    >> as a
    >> white knight compared with the USA.
    >>
    >> ja
    >>
    >
    > ===
    > <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
    > ===
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • Francis Hwang | Mon Oct 4th 2004 12:33 p.m.
    I don't know if having the Mac really helps you here ... Most MS
    programs on Macs are extremely different from their Windows
    counterparts. IE Mac has lots of rendering bugs IE Windoze doesn't, and
    vice versa. Why is it all one company in the first place? Hell if I
    know.

    On Oct 4, 2004, at 8:59 AM, Pall Thayer wrote:

    > but that means you're a mac user and you have, at least, the ability
    > to keep a copy of IE around for emergencies.
    >
    > Rob Myers wrote:
    >> I'm a Safari user [ducks and heads for cover].
    >> - Rob.
    >> On Monday, October 04, 2004, at 01:40PM, Pall Thayer
    >> <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:
    >>> So bear in mind that unless you find a way to make this work in all
    >>> browsers, I, along with a growing number of Linux users, am not
    >>> going to have the pleasure of seeing your work.
    >> +
    >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    >> +
    >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> Membership Agreement available online at
    >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    > --
    > _______________________________
    > Pall Thayer
    > artist/teacher
    > http://www.this.is/pallit
    > http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
    > _______________________________
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
    Francis Hwang
    Director of Technology
    Rhizome.org
    phone: 212-219-1288x202
    AIM: francisrhizome
    + + +
  • MTAA | Mon Oct 4th 2004 12:55 p.m.
    On Oct 4, 2004, at 2:30 PM, Francis Hwang wrote:

    > Coming into this thread late after a weekend spent out of town ...
    >
    > Ever since Steve Jobs came back, Apple's philosophy is fundamentally
    > different from MS's actions. They want to grow, but I suspect that
    > they're okay with always being a niche company. That's why their
    > products are always well-designed but expensive. It's why they have
    > tightly coupled their future to that of open source in general, and
    > why they continue to (in some cases) give back to various open source
    > projects such as BSD and the Konquerer rendering engine.

    Good point, but look at the new iMac marketing, "from the makers of the
    ipod"

    So it seems like they are tying to use the success of the ipod to
    create a wedge into higher PC sales. and the ipod is a wild success, I
    know many PC users who own ipods.

    If Apple had MS's market, I would be very anti-Apple as their monopoly
    would be worse than MS's as they control the hardware and the software!

    My dream is that in the future there will be no Windows. There will
    simply be different flavors of Unix that are controlled by no one and
    they all inter-operate due to well-known, well-documented standards and
    we all live happily ever after.

    This way you can have Mac OS, all the Linux varieties, BSD, etc, etc
    all working together. Apple will still be a niche, Linux will take over
    the place of Windows as the dominant OS but instead of one company
    controlling it there will be bunch of large to small companies all
    supporting it.

    >
    > The newest cool thing is the fact that a bunch of companies seem to
    > forming together in a standards organization for richer clients. This
    > group includes Apple, Opera, and Mozilla -- and notably enough,
    > excludes the lumbering giant from Redmond. (See
    > http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2004/06/30/ for a press release
    > of this.) This is sort of a route around the bigger W3C, which a lot
    > of people don't like for many different reasons, one of which is that
    > Microsoft has no reason to want the web to progress. Why? Because if
    > browsers give you kickass applications for free, why would you pay
    > $159 for a license of the next version of Windows?
    >
    > Francis Hwang
    > Director of Technology
    > Rhizome.org
    > phone: 212-219-1288x202
    > AIM: francisrhizome
    > + + +
    >
    >
    > On Oct 4, 2004, at 11:28 AM, t.whid wrote:
    >
    >> Hi Jim,
    >>
    >> I think *any* proprietary software (and even hardware) needs to be
    >> looked at with a skeptical eye, I think there we agree.
    >>
    >> I am a big Apple fan, I'll admit. But if they had the MS's monopoly I
    >> would look at their actions in a different light. MS's actions have
    >> much more significance than Apple's due to their size. Many of their
    >> decisions have been extremely harmful to their users and the rest of
    >> the computing ecosphere.
    >>
    >> As far as Apple and Linux/Unix companies go I support them in that
    >> they are the power player's seeking to destroy MS's harmful monopoly.
    >>
    >> On Oct 4, 2004, at 11:03 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> OK, perhaps I went to far.
    >>>
    >>> Thank you.
    >>>
    >>>> But I seem to remember you arguing *for* Windows illegal monopoly
    >>>> and
    >>>> their use of this monopoly to crush Netscape. Agreed, we don't want
    >>>> to
    >>>> go down that road again. I think your arg was that Netscape
    >>>> floundered
    >>>> in a competitive market. My arg is that the market wasn't
    >>>> competitive
    >>>> but controlled by MS.
    >>>
    >>> That was quite a while ago. I remember, though, feeling that you
    >>> weren't
    >>> reading me carefully. I am by no means in favour of monopolies. But
    >>> I am no
    >>> more a fan of Netscape or Apple or whatever than I am of Microsoft.
    >>> If I
    >>> recall correctly, you seemed to look at companies like Apple or
    >>> Netscape as
    >>> white knights. I don't see them that way any more than I see Canada
    >>> as a
    >>> white knight compared with the USA.
    >>>
    >>> ja
    >>>
    >>
    >> ===
    >> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
    >> ===
    >>
    >>
    >> +
    >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    >> +
    >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> Membership Agreement available online at
    >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
    >

    ===
    <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
    ===
  • Jess Loseby | Mon Oct 4th 2004 3:20 p.m.
    Hi,

    late in the day and the thread got a bit *heated* as far as I can see but I've been reading
    about this with interest. I also like the full screen (chromeless) capacity of IE had have
    shied away from installing service pack two because of so many posts on differing lists
    saying that it caused problems with a number of software. Some of my work I do within
    the browser (as if it addresses the net directly then I feel the browser should be the
    context anyway) but sometimes I like to have full-screen - its creates an intimacy
    between the viewer that is otherwise not possible (in my opinion I hasten to add). If my
    usual fullscreen java doesn't work under SP2 it will be a real shame. I think Pall
    suggested adding a link to a downloadable projector file but I think they are nasty clunky
    things still. I simply cannot understand why the bundle is so unwieldy - call me a cynical
    old witch (*oy y'cynical old witch*)but I think its just laziness on macromedia side.
    Projector on MX2004 is just a pants as on F4

    I also check my stuff with firefox and safari. I have a sad and demented obsession that I
    have never once managed to make a work that is multi-dimensional (such as VFTGF)
    which doesn't send safari sobbing onto the floor. If I ever manage to create a work that
    doesn't crash it my job will be done and I might have to quit:)

    In the flash forums where I am often found lurking, it is a common complaint that safari
    throws up enormous problems with actionscript, and (in particular) javascript via
    actionscript (often to control page sizes & browsers) I have no idea (and no-one has as
    yet been able to enlighten me) as to why this is. I haven't been using MX2004 long
    enough to know if this is still the same with actionscript2

    btw SP2 apparently also can disable the dongle on cubase SX if you're interested but
    cubase on a mac is like doing the ironing in the rain.

    I'm not going to go too far down the mac v. pc road as nowadays I use both but many of
    the argument in terms of monopolies and accessibility against pc users I feel are
    somewhat thwarted by the astronomical price of macs which I consider has a far more
    mediating influence that any search engine.

    just some thoughts (delete to taste)

    jess. o
    /^ rssgallery.com
    ][
  • Jack Stenner | Mon Oct 4th 2004 4:34 p.m.
    It's a common misconception that macs cost more than pcs. That used to
    be the case, but no longer, especially when comparing based on
    features:
    http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36120.html

    and,
    http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/But-Macs-Are-Slower-Right-36964.html

    Jack

    On Oct 4, 2004, at 4:20 PM, Jess Loseby wrote:

    <snip>

    > I feel are
    > somewhat thwarted by the astronomical price of macs which I consider
    > has a far more
    > mediating influence that any search engine.
    >
    >
    > just some thoughts (delete to taste)
    >
    > jess. o
    > /^ rssgallery.com
    > ][
    >
  • Jess Loseby | Tue Oct 5th 2004 3:21 a.m.
    Hi jack,
    I do feel its pointless getting into a mac v. pc debate as its almost religious in
    commitment - tolerance and understanding is all we can hope for between users:) Still I
    can't help but think these articles are not accurate or unbiased. In the first one for
    example, I see what this article is saying re software, which is a interesting (and possibly
    crucial) issue. However, he are uses dell prices for the case *against* a pc - I mean
    anyone shells out 2grand to dell for an off-the-shelf pc of that spec needs help and
    advice anyway...! I notice the mac prices are without the monitors too. Yes, I love the
    flatscreens but we are looking at
  • Jason Van Anden | Tue Oct 5th 2004 6 a.m.
    I am glad that there are an assortment of OS's - and just one internet. The competition keeps things interesting. The internet insures we can share the love.

    Can you imagine if there really was only one?

    Jason Van Anden
    www.smileproject.com
  • Jack Stenner | Tue Oct 5th 2004 8:07 a.m.
    I agree with you regarding the mac vs. pc debate. Pointless and
    boring....it's a faith issue :-) I have no desire to convert anyone,
    but any time the subject comes up, the first thing heard is "macs are
    so expensive." And then the person starts talking about how they built
    a $500 computer mail order, blah, blah, blah. First, Apple is a
    computer maker, and should only be compared with other computer makers
    regarding cost of their systems. Second, I have built pcs before (one
    is beside my desk right now....piece of s@$!......LOL), and assure you
    that a homebuilt computer at the price levels many people claim, rarely
    has equivalent quality, performance, or specs when compared to the
    nearest priced Mac. Of course, this doesn't even address total cost of
    ownership - maintenance, service, etc.

    You can always find fault with any article, but in general, I think
    there's a lot of false economy that leads people to make statements
    about mac/pc costs.

    http://osviews.com/modules.php?
    op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid#50
    http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/22738.html
    http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4895
    http://gflpraxis.no-ip.com/mvp-price.html
    http://corourke.customer.netspace.net.au/Mac/cost.html

    I'm sure you'd probably agree - Mac/PC/Linux, it's all 1's and 0's and
    what you do with them that matters :-)
    Jack

    On Oct 5, 2004, at 4:22 AM, Jess Loseby wrote:

    > Hi jack,
    > I do feel its pointless getting into a mac v. pc debate as its almost
    > religious in
    > commitment - tolerance and understanding is all we can hope for
    > between users:) Still I
    > can't help but think these articles are not accurate or unbiased. In
    > the first one for
    > example, I see what this article is saying re software, which is a
    > interesting (and possibly
    > crucial) issue. However, he are uses dell prices for the case
    > *against* a pc - I mean
    > anyone shells out 2grand to dell for an off-the-shelf pc of that spec
    > needs help and
    > advice anyway...! I notice the mac prices are without the monitors
    > too. Yes, I love the
    > flatscreens but we are looking at
  • Francis Hwang | Tue Oct 5th 2004 8:56 a.m.
    One of the curious things about cost of ownership is the fact that at
    every techie conference I've gone to ever since OS X, Mac laptops are a
    very big proportion of the laptops in site. At HOPE 2004--possibly one
    of the tech-snobbiest events you can find--Mac laptops outnumbered
    Windows & Linux laptops by maybe 2 to 1.

    This matters in a subtle way, because many non-techie computer users
    rely on having techie friends or acquaintances who can help them out
    when they have a problem. But if you're using Windows, you're going to
    have a harder and harder time finding somebody to help you. I used to
    be able to offer low-level Windows help to my friends, but these days
    I'm fairly useless in that department. More than once I've told people
    "Owning a PC is like owning a car; you need to find a good mechanic and
    pay him what he's worth." Which is code for "If your operating system
    weren't such a piece of crap, maybe I'd be able to help you for free."

    Francis Hwang
    Director of Technology
    Rhizome.org
    phone: 212-219-1288x202
    AIM: francisrhizome
    + + +
  • Rob Myers | Tue Oct 5th 2004 9:12 a.m.
    On Tuesday, October 05, 2004, at 03:31PM, Jack Stenner <jack@jigglingwhisker.com> wrote:

    >I'm sure you'd probably agree - Mac/PC/Linux, it's all 1's and 0's and
    >what you do with them that matters :-)

    And so yet another debate conspicuously ignores trinary computers.

    ;-)

    - Rob.
  • Plasma Studii | Tue Oct 5th 2004 5:53 p.m.
    >One of the curious things about cost of ownership is the fact that
    >at every techie conference I've gone to ever since OS X, Mac laptops
    >are a very big proportion of the laptops in site. At HOPE
    >2004--possibly one of the tech-snobbiest events you can find--Mac
    >laptops outnumbered Windows & Linux laptops by maybe 2 to 1.
    >
    >This matters in a subtle way, because many non-techie computer users
    >rely on having techie friends or acquaintances who can help them out
    >when they have a problem.

    that's really the heart of it though. Win users often assume Macs
    need repairs and tech help as much. in rooms of computers, with
    students and artists using both platforms. it's the osX ones that
    can be left running 24/7 and the Win (XP, pro, etc) that need
    rebooting about twice a day. of course it all depends how everyone
    uses their machines, what sort of processor intensive tasks are
    happening, in what order.

    a habit like keeping multiple windows open, or quiting and opening
    programs independently probably will make a lot more difference than
    what platform you use. but many (non-techy folks) just don't end up
    needing any tech help.
Your Reply