[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: ATT:Tradergirl!! (LINUX DOWNLOAD $0)



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

There are no plans on having "any" software for sale
on a CD-ROM at the store.
Computer hardware is splitting paths right now: bigger
and faster machines, smaller more user friendly
machines.
The bigger-faster ones are going to be used by
developers, servers and whoever needs to 'create' new
software or services. 
The smaller-friendlier are going to be used by
everyone else.
You will choose where you will be depending on your
occupation/likes-dislikes.
The problem with Java is that it 'requires' you to
download the application, then have the browser (or
Java Machine) translate it and run it. These
smaller-friendlier devices will not necessarily have
storage devices where you can store all the junk Java
makes you download. I can't use anything Java on my
Handheld PC, WebTV is pretty much on the same boat,
and what when you start surfing the net from your car
or your microwave oven? are all devices going to have
HDs?
Java will not be able to be used for mass market
tasks, so it will just go away with time...
Java is simply not practical and how it was mentioned,
its inefficiant and not scalable...

H
--- John Machtinger <jmach@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2000, M. Simms wrote:
> 
> > A well-founded concern.
> > But 3 things are happening to lessen this problem:
> > 1) Java 1.3 "Java 3" is imminent and beta tests
> are showing 200-300%
> > performance increases !!!
> 
> Two questions from an ignorant bystander (of which I
> consider myself to 
> be fortunate in this particular debate):  :D
> 
> 1.  Is Java designed to be downloaded to a client
> computer every time an
> application is run?  For a web site applet, I
> understand the logic, but
> for an application like a word processor, it seems
> like a huge waste of
> bandwith and time.  Are there plans to write
> applications in Java that you
> buy at the store on CD-ROM just like other software?
> 
> 
> 2.  If not, then why is it solely an interpretive
> language?  Why not have
> a compiler for each platform it runs on, and compile
> it? 
> 
> Best,
> 
> John
>