Re: ATT etc.

["J. R. Fox" jr_fox@xxxxxxxxxx]

Patricia M Godfrey wrote:

>     By the bye, I hear there's a new, much improved version of Opera out.
> Have you tried that?

Patricia,

I have only tried Opera for OS/2 -- an early version that clearly wasn't ready
for primetime, and a supposedly well-developed port that came out recently, a
couple years later. It has some nice design touches, I must give it that.
However, it has caused a couple of very nasty crashes that took the OS down with
it (!) when trying to perform some rather basic operation I can't recall at the
moment. I didn't have time to troubleshoot this, and haven't revisited it for a
good while now. It may be something that is particular to OS/2 or one of its
components, I don't know. But if it happens again, I will scrub this program off
my hard drive. I just have little patience for dealing with that sort of thing,
especially for a non-essential item.

> The thing about the pages that don't work (one gets
> them in Netscape too) is that many of the Web-creation tools are designed
> to create pages that can only be viewed in Exploiter (why are we not
> surprised?)

That's part of it, but I've been told that HTML / XML -- and I don't know what
other website building blocks -- have continued to evolve, such that if you don't
update your browser every so often, it may choke on some later version webpage
code that our older-version browsers cannot digest or render properly. And that
could be regardless of whether the cite is MS-centric or not.

> What I keep hoping is that someone will port OS X (which is Unix, after all) to
>
> Intel/AMD hardware.

Is it possible you are confusing the Mac OS (which I did not realize had anything
to do with Unix) with the X-Windows for various permutations of Unix ? There
are a very large number of such app.s, and many have been made available to other
platforms. For example, there has long been an X-Windows server for OS/2, giving
us access to that library of Unix app.s.

Jordan