Brett Lorenzen wrote:
> Jack Killpatrick wrote:
>
> > If you have any suggestions, let me know. I can post new ideas
> to the beta
> > forum "wish list" area. BTW, the members only beta forums are
> very active.
>
> Yes, four of them:
>
> 1. Update their website so their features list says something
> useful and
> gives potential purchasers a reason to wait, in case they don't know a
> beta tester they can rely on for correct information (thanks! ;)
Agreed. I guess that's some advice for the marketing dept.
> 2. Offer HS-Lite. Don't even send me the bloated code for the wysiwyg
> crap and everything else--give us an option with the editing window, the
> configurable tabs, project management, and the basic features--trash all
> the MSIE integration, that internal browser
I don't know what form/brand of browser they have built in as the "default"
browser in v3. I'm not sure who created that beast. I've used IE 3 or 4 as
the "internal" browser for a while now. Just change a setting and the
version of IE that you have on your machine will be used "internally".
Sheesh, I had practically forgotten about that crappy browser it comes with.
Not sure if that'll be in V4.
, pop-up everything,
Yeah, I don't know who uses all that popup stuff. It takes more time to
click through one of those dialog boxes than to simply type the code.
Perhaps they've identified a user base unlike me/us? I'm not sure. I suppose
it helps in the learning process for some people, but I can't see anyone
relying on it long term. Dunno, maybe I'm wrong.
floating
> toolbars, etc. -- turning it off still leaves tons of code on my HD,
Install files for v4 = 7mb compressed. Not bad, considering that I've
installed plenty of 35-70mb bloatware apps from many vendors. Help files
included in 7mb figure.
and
> still loads tons of code into RAM for checking whether options are on
> and off -- save us $100 a copy and allow us to run it on a system that
> can live within Win95 resource allocations and still share some space
> with other programs. I'll master vi before I adopt something that
> starts to get like dreamweaver.
Not sure they have vi compatible keystrokes in the plans.
> 2.33 At least write the code itself to live within Win95 limits. Bad
> enough I have to pay for and use that--stupid to think I'm gonna
> willingly fork out for NT to run their software effectively.
I think it's safe to quote this regarding the v4 beta:
"HomeSite now loads faster and is more resource friendly under Windows
95/98. Documents are cached rather than kept in memory, which will help
Win95 users who have experienced resource problems in the past."
then goes on:
"Please keep in mind, though, that resources under Win95/98 have an internal
limit that's not affected by RAM (that is, no matter how much memory you
have, you'll always have the same resource limit). This means that running
several large applications at the same time on Win95/98 may drain resources
regardless of whether you have 16MB of RAM or 128MB of RAM. If you run
several applications at once and find yourself bumping into these resource
limits quite frequently, we strongly recommend upgrading to Windows NT,
where these resources limits do not exist."
I used to run Homesite 3 on Win95 and regularly had ftp, telnet, NS3,
photoshop and homesite running simultaneously without running out of
resources. Ran into serious problems when trying to run NS4 (4.01,02, and
03), which sucked resources like crazy and didn't relinquish them when
crashing or when the app was closed. HS _did_ take a big dent out of
resources, yes, I remember that, but I could still run the medley of apps I
needed. HS 2.5 was better on the resources, for sure.
> 2.66 Modularize. Why allow us to turn things on and off and force the
> bulk code on us? Why not adopt the plug-in approach, release the basic
> program, and integrate code as needed for new features?
Good advice. I will post it to the beta forum. v4 *acts* like it's a bunch
of modules, though I'm not sure what freedom (if any) will be available when
installing the finished product.
> Bet I could
> reduce 20% of new code by eliminating MSIE4 integration I would never
> use. Could drop another 10% eliminating pop-up palletes, unneeded tag
> tabs and other pretty things. Can't say I've ever found their internal
> browser of even nominal use (unless I want to see how something might
> look in Mosaic 1.0 :p), that's probably good for 10% more.
Yes. But then there are those time when I'll discover a feature that I
didn't know was there and be glad I did.
> 3. In the alternative, give away HS 2.5 :) Better yet, open the
> sourcecode to the old versions *grin*
*grin* *grin*
> 4. And, as per my last message, port all of their products to Linux.
That would be great.
> Oh, one more. Give a little more acknowledgement to Netscape, and make
> it easier to acommodate NS all around. :)
Yes. But the ability to accomodate NS is directly related to what NS offers
for integration + the time it takes to do the integration. Perhaps NS 5 will
allow more integration into other programs or make it easier to do so, but
MS has NS beat on that count. That's why Intuit picked IE as the "internal"
browser for Quicken, too.
Thanks for the thoughts. I'll scurry over to the beta forum and do a little
posting now.
Jack
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
