Very Computer

As a general rule I prefer using Microsoft apps, they just seem to work
best for me. When it comes to a Web browser I've found Netscape better
then MSIE. But this Plug-In thing has started me thinking and worrying
about what's to come. In the last few weeks we've been told that
plug-ins will let us do almost anything. The next evolution of the Web.
But how many are we going to need?

One to read Acrobat files.

One to view QuickTime movies.

One for VRML 3-D viewing.

Director for presentations.

Shockwave on top of Director.

RealAudio to hear audio streams.

Formula One Net to view spreadsheets.

God only knows what is next. Am I the only one who sees a pattern here?
This is going to quickly get out of control. Each site is going to have
its own way of displaying information. And we'll all have to have a hard
drive full of Plug-ins just to view these sites.

Am I missing something?

Regards,

John

Quote:> Am I missing something?  

-l

---
-----> Undertoad (under construction) http://falcon.jmu.edu/~bumgarls/ <--------
REALITY.SYS corrupted. Reboot universe (Y/N/Q)? | "Usenet is Frosty The Snowman
committing suicide with a flame thrower."-- Kibo |Somebody visited a.r.k and all
I got was this lousy .sig | M$'s Blackbird is EVIL, do not support it! | ##30##

<SNIP>

Quote:> ...When it comes to a Web browser I've found Netscape better
> then MSIE. But this Plug-In thing has started me thinking and worrying
> about what's to come. In the last few weeks we've been told that
> plug-ins will let us do almost anything. The next evolution of the Web.
> But how many are we going to need?

> One to read Acrobat files.
> One to view QuickTime movies.
> One for VRML 3-D viewing.
> Director for presentations.
> Shockwave on top of Director.
> RealAudio to hear audio streams.
> Formula One Net to view spreadsheets.

A] You have helper apps to process the data
B] You simply ignore the data

Well if its "B", then whats the problem? continue to ignore it, and if its
"A", trash the 'external' helper app and replace it with an 'internal'
Netscape Plug-In.

Quote:> God only knows what is next. Am I the only one who sees a pattern here?
> This is going to quickly get out of control.

Quote:> Each site is going to have its own way of displaying information.
> And we'll all have to have a hard
> drive full of Plug-ins just to view these sites.

Dave,
http://www.ski.mskcc.org/browserwatch/ BrowserWatch
Now the home of Plug-In Plaza!

P.S. Check out the latest story on BrowserWatch - My site was just hit
     by the 1st beta of Netscape 2.0 GOLD! (from a computer inside the
     netscape domain) if the past is any indication we may see a beta
     this weekend or next...

As long as the plug-ins are free, I have no problem with this.  But
if folk start charging for either the plug-ins, or for use of the plug-ins,
then the internet's price of usage just jumped a quantum leap.
--

:s <URL:http://www.teraform.com/%7Elvirden/> <*>
:s Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should
:s be construed as representing my employer's opinions.

I just spoke to some people at Corel (the Corel Draw people) they have
just released a CMX Plug-In for Windows95 and well I guess thats nice and
all (I hear the CMX format can do some pretty neat things) they tell me
they don't have any plans on releasing a Mac or Unix plug-in and I *know*
they won't release any source for 3rd party developers to write one (Corel
doesn't share their graphic format - at least this was the case last time
I checked) anyway what *BIG* web site is gonna bother using CMX graphics
knowing that ONLY the Windows95 users can view them??? - I guess only a
company thats interested in selling to *ONLY* the Win95 population (but
thats not what the beauty of the internet is - if you wan to do that run a
site on the MS-Network) because you gotta know any site that looking to
have a LARGE percentage of the web population see them in the 'best light'
wont (.. use CMX graphics).

Same holds true for 'pay - for' Plug-Ins (not that I've heard of any yet).
Do you think any *large* site is going to *REQUIRE* its visitors to PAY
for plug-ins just to look at what they have to offer? Okay they *may* have
'neat things' for people who did buy a 'pay for' plug-in but I'd hate to
think I couldn't even view someones site with out it.

I could be wrong but I sure hope not... many professional sites have gone
out of their way to offer 'the right view' to the person doing the viewing
(ie: click here for graphics - here for text etc. etc.) and I sure hope
they will continue to do that ... well at least until I get a T1 run to
*MY* home! ;-)

In short - I get the feeling most plug-ins will be free and the money will
be made 'building' the content that the plug-in will show.. Shockwave =
Free, Director = $$$ : RealAudio Player = Free, RA Server = $$$ : etc,
etc, etc.

But like most things only time will tell...

Dave,
http://www.ski.mskcc.org/browserwatch/

Well, if you look at Corel, that only have have software for the PC, no Mac
stuff and they seem to be doing OK. That may be their way of justifying it,
since nobody using a MAc has any use of Corel's file formats.

_____________________________
**** "TaKe a PieCe oF BeauTY & MuLTiPLY iT LiKe FiSHeS" ==> SGT ****

Quote:> I could be wrong but I sure hope not... many professional sites have gone
> out of their way to offer 'the right view' to the person doing the viewing
> (ie: click here for graphics - here for text etc. etc.)

mathew
--
Checking whether HTML is correct by looking at it with a browser is like checking whether C code is correct by looking at it with a text editor.
                      http://www.domino.org/~meta/