United States of America
No favorite files added yet
2.0.1 (May 28, 2007)
Reliable, extensible, good-looking, no ads, all major protocols, small install and fast. 'Nuff said. Now...
I'm going to have to reference b0mmel's statement from below, just to provide a opposing opinion for those who may care for it: the purpose of alternative messengers, not to point out the obvious, is to provide a user with
1) a free, adwareless client,
2) a method by which to connect to multiple chat protocols should one wish and
3) a lightweight client without all the bloatware.
I get all of that in Pidgin.
I mean, my God, MSN AOL and Yahoo messengers are freakin HUGE! And please don't tell me that the ads are necessary, because if I can use Pidgin that has no ads, well then... you have no argument. And about the only thing I don't get with Pidgin is video. Since I don't care for it anyway, psh.
And why would I use a multi-messenger website for IMing, when I have a perfectly good client? That supports all major protocols? This is akin to saying "I want an alternative messenger, but I don't." What?! Pick one.
Having said that, honestly, there is no more need for these branded, ad- and bloatware-laden crappy messengers when one simple one will allow me to communicate with just about everyone. Technology and the user have moved forward since the days of AOHell.
Meh, I don't mind sayin' it there b0mmel, but there is no longer any reason to use the major clients. The time for those pieces of bloat has, most definitively, come to an end.
RC1 Build 5600 (Sep 6, 2006)
I will say that this is a preliminary review. From what I've tested of RC1, I've no really pressing complaints, other than that User Access Control seems to be a bit more active than in the Pre-RC1 release.
There is still the annoying lack of out-of-the-box support for SoundBlaster NX2 and Logitech Orb Cam, but fiddling around with the Sound Properties enough solves the former (an obscure sound property is muted) and installing the driver from my XP partition solves the latter. Not critical, but annoying.
Install took an about an hour, so no speedy install for me. I really wanted to slam MSIE, especially since I'm an avid Firefox user, but it actually seems nice. Not nice enough for me to leave Mozilla mind you, but whatever.
I'm not sure the upgrade requirements for Vista are on point: 100 GB IDE Hard disk, 1.5 GB RAM, and NVIDIA GeForce Go 6800 (256 MB VRAM). Vista, in all its "wonder", works nicely. Anyone with hardware similar to this should do fine, but YMMV.
Since WinFS was shot down from this version of Windows, I'm not really sure what Vista's killer new thing is, particularly when a good Mac buddy of mine showed me Leopard. I'm impressed. A wise Windows user wouldn't slam those Mac cats. They've got some really nice things. And let's not forget Unix/Linux. They already play with the big boys, but just aren't as mainstream yet. All three are innovating, and MS really needs to watch its rear. When I'm ready to get a new system, it'll likely be a Mac.
Having said that, I'm not convinced that the average Win user needs to upgrade from XP. A really pretty interface is nice and all, but why bother? I can't say I'd tell they should. If you really, really want an overall layout of things that's quite a bit better than XP, and a schnazzy UI, go nuts. Otherwise, stick with XP for now. If nothing better than this comes out, wait till Windows "Vienna" or whatever it's to be called.
Not really good enough for a five, but not deserving a three, I give 'er a four, and will probably go ahead a get Vista, just because I can afford it and know how to back up data to reinstall another OS.
RC1 Build 5600 (Mar 20, 2009 - 7:31 PM)
Erm, I grant that I skimmed some of this article, but what? Kier Thomas' opinion is that Firerfox is already dead? I wonder if there are any FF fans here who would have something to say about that.
Being pragmatic, yes, I grant the plausibility of such a statement, but that strikes me as being a bit too unrealistic of a postulation.
"So, the bottom line is, if Firefox 3.5 doesn't exhibit differentially competitive interface design and bottom-line, real-world performance, it'll be vulnerable to a whole range of agile competitors -- namely Google's Chrome, Apple's Safari, and Microsoft's IE8."
Performance, sure, but differentially competitive interface design? Meaning the UI just has to be "different" enough? Maybe I miss something in this statement, but most every browser I've used is operated in the same basic manner. If someone can clarify, by all means.
Given each browser's installed user base, fan base, and the number of people just willing to use it for whatever period of time, I'd have to say Levy's answer about sums up the entire piece: It's too early.
RC1 Build 5600 (Mar 20, 2009 - 7:10 PM)
@ Paul Skinner: An MIT study on the effectiveness of tinfoil hats? You, sir, just made my day. Bravo!
RC1 Build 5600 (Mar 20, 2009 - 7:00 PM)
Hell of a long way to say you don't care, bud.
RC1 Build 5600 (Mar 20, 2009 - 6:51 PM)
Although since it's not apparently a forced update from the start, that makes me wonder somewhat if MS testing the usage strength based on name alone, or some other such similar criteria. I doubt it, but one can never tell.
RC1 Build 5600 (Mar 20, 2009 - 6:48 PM)
I second darkfire79's opinion. From the two pictures, that looks horrible.