Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Peek at AT&T's New Browser, Pogo

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the another-way-to-play dept.

The Internet 239

An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica takes a look at Pogo, a browser from AT&T with new features like a 3-D history and bookmark view. The browser's currently in a private beta and Ars' comments aren't all necessarily glowing — particularly in the areas where performance is concerned. 'It requires Windows XP SP2 or later or Windows Vista, and its minimum hardware are surprisingly steep: a 1.6GHz processor, 2GB of RAM, and a video card with at least 256MB of VRAM. Seem like a bit much for a web browser? It is, and as we found out, these requirements posed some major challenges for us during our testing.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not surprising (3, Insightful)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23105952)

SBC's old browser was lousy too.

2GB of RAM??? (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23105964)

That's up to half the RAM on the typical home system. Falling back on Moore's law doesn't help when your requirements are looking two years down the road.

Firefox works fine for me. It's good enough.

Re:2GB of RAM??? (2, Funny)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106028)

maybe they are trying to cache the internet?

How well does it spy on you? (4, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106086)

I want it to report simultaneously to the DHS and the NSA, when I change my vest and underpants.

Re:How well does it spy on you? (4, Funny)

palewook (1101845) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106260)

wonder how many backdoors at&t will build into it

Re:How well does it spy on you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23106828)

Pogo's installation requirements alone imply a good deal about a user's attitude toward technology as well as personal finances. Using Pogo will automatically enroll users in the category of 'Target'... better hope AT&T employs some crack security-oriented programmers. You know, like the ones who, back in the 70's, told Vint Cerf that allowing computers to communicate over phone lines was impossible. Hopefully the lessons learned between then and now inform AT&T's efforts (in some way other than driving the desire to facilitate unfettered access to customer data for anyone with Intelligence-gathering 'credentials').

-/- Developed in conjunction with the artificial person that brought you Virtual Bloatware Ensurance. -/-

Re:2GB of RAM??? (5, Funny)

tomtomtom777 (1148633) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106050)

It's not just made for Vista. It's modeled after Vista too.

Re:2GB of RAM??? (3, Interesting)

Sillygates (967271) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106526)

So vista takes up a GB of ram on boot, and the AT+T browser takes another 2?
If I'm not mistaken vista still can only "use" 3GB of it's ram.
Does anyone else see a problem?

Re:2GB of RAM??? (4, Funny)

krewemaynard (665044) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106650)

Does anyone else see a problem?
Yeah.

I need more RAM.

Re:2GB of RAM??? (1)

nweis (1095487) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106674)

32-bit versions of Windows can only utilize up to 3 GB of RAM, since the OS reserves about 1 GB of address space for other stuff. 64-bit versions can support much more. Even so, that doesn't mean that all three gigabytes of memory on a 32-bit system are going to be used simultaneously.

Re:2GB of RAM??? (1)

Random Destruction (866027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106700)

only if some sucker wants to run a second application on the OS.

Re:2GB of RAM??? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106748)

In all fairness, 32-bit Vista can use 3.5 gigs of ram.

Re:2GB of RAM??? (2, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106896)

it's variable. it's 4GB total minus some other stuff, most prominently video ram, so if you have a 512MB videocard, you'll be able to use about 3.5GB.

Re:2GB of RAM??? (3, Informative)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106932)

Depends on how much memory mapped IO you have. Without or with a low memory graphics card, no soundcard, usb and firewire disabled, and so on maybe.

Re:2GB of RAM??? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106910)

Of course Vista can use more than 3GB of ram? So yes, you are misstaken.

(And no, noone have to reply to me because I know the issue, but he still failed.)

Re:2GB of RAM??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23107000)

(And no, noone have to reply to me because I know the issue, but he still failed.)

Wait, are you saying no one reply to you at 12 o'clock PM or no one reply to you at all?

Re:2GB of RAM??? (2, Informative)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106136)

Unless things have changed drastically since the last time I looked, that's all the ram of a typical home system or 2-4x if you could those that were bought years ago.

Re:2GB of RAM??? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106778)

Up to? I think you mean "at least".

Re:2GB of RAM??? (5, Insightful)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 6 years ago | (#23107088)

At least 2GB of RAM for a typical home computer? I want some of what you're smoking. Wow...I must live in the wrong area with my 1GB primary computer, which I use to play games on. Guess I should be upgrading so I can run this web browser...

I mean seriously. 1GB is still a perfectly reasonable amount of ram. I can run 80% of modern games (GAMES! We're talking Call of Duty 4 without lag here) and my system isn't up to spec for this WEB BROWSER! And the default response is, of course, 2GB isn't that much. I mean, no one has less than 3 right now right?

Sometimes even those of us who love technology and play computer games can't afford an upgrade (and before you talk about how cheap ram is, my laptop won't take standard ram, and has 2 512 cards right now. It would be ~$60 to upgrade to 2 gigs, and I'd have to either have a tech out or send it in. Yay Laptops) No Web Browser should require more RAM than Call of Duty 4. Ever.

Re:2GB of RAM??? (4, Informative)

Darundal (891860) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106780)

Typical home systems have 4 gigs of RAM? Last I checked, most systems were coming with 1-2 gigs of RAM, and the majority of systems people have are running between 512megs and 1gig.

Re:2GB of RAM??? (1)

cparker15 (779546) | more than 6 years ago | (#23107122)

I can vouch for that. My aging laptop supports a maximum of 512MB.

Doesn't sound very good (2, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106016)

in fact, it sounds like it's going to be a bit of a stinker.

Perhaps they should rename it to Pongo.

(Sorry)

Re:Doesn't sound very good (4, Funny)

bugnuts (94678) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106058)

Are you saying ATT won't have Pogo Stick?

Invite-only Beta (2, Interesting)

Aefix (968923) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106020)

Anyone on the inside have any details on how this works? Sounds like a gmail-type thing to me. If so, someone hook me up!

Re:Invite-only Beta (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23106818)

I'm an AT&T employee (recently) and a search of the intranet for "Pogo" shows 0 hits... Take it for what its worth...

Forget (1)

edsousa (1201831) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106022)

Another "idea" in AT&T unique style. The only way is if Compiz and Mozilla guys could borrow some ideas.

libcompiz? (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106076)

Speaking of Compiz, is there any sort of "libcompiz" that lets developers use the effects from Compiz within their apps?

Re:libcompiz? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23106406)

What do you mean compiz like effects and how would a generic lib help you integrate with your toolkit widgets/canvas? Have you ever taken a look at clutter? [clutter-project.org]

Bloat (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106034)

And people complain about firefox being bloated? You should not need a dedicated graphics card to check your email.

Re:Bloat (2, Funny)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106084)

Don't get them thinking about a Thunderbird-based email client!

Re:Bloat (1)

Zackbass (457384) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106284)

Why not? How do you know what's possible if you don't try it and what happens?

Re:Bloat (1)

tgatliff (311583) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106374)

AT&T cannot even provide decent cell or phone service, and they now are deciding to build browsers??? It will be a cold day in hell before I would install that trojan... I suspect its real purpose is to collect enough financial information to automatically swap your phone service to them...

Re:Bloat (2, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106490)

All NSA jokes aside, my fear(as somebody who just signed a contract with ATT wireless internet/HSDPA) is that they'll try to force crap like this onto my computer. Using their mandatory, proprietary connection manager is bad enough(takes 10 minutes to install on reasonably fast, modern computer and the install sounded like a hard drive defrag!).

Re:Bloat (1)

SargentDU (1161355) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106630)

An easy fix for you is to go to linux! They will not support linux with their brouser, so you can just use the Firefox and be safer. ;)
I recommend Mandriva Free 2008 Spring if you want all opensource or Mandriva's other versions if you want some propriety helps to smooth your experience.

Re:Bloat (2, Informative)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106776)

Been there, done that with Ubuntu...but the problem remains: The adapter is of USB form factor and its connection manager works only with Windows. There's no NDISwrappering your way around this one :(

Re:Bloat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23106958)

You should not need a web browser to check your e-mail.

People like you are why firefox is bloated.

Linux (5, Funny)

prakslash (681585) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106080)

Since it doesn't run on Linux it will never achieve widespread mainstream acceptance on the desktop.

Re:Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23106248)

Mods - how in green hell is the parent post Insightful???

Running on Linux is an irrelevancy when it comes to widespread acceptance of a web browser on the desktop. Especially given the number of widespread Linux desktops ...

Re:Linux (1)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106386)

Mods - how in green hell is the parent post Insightful???

Now, now: have some sensitivity for the colorblind!

Re:Linux (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106560)

It did run in a VM...kinda ;)

Re:Linux (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106954)

likely they're modding it insightful as funny doesn't give karma.

Re:Linux (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106370)

Since it doesn't run on Linux it will never achieve widespread mainstream acceptance on the SLASHDOT.

There, fixed that for ya! ;)

More seriously, I didn;t actually RTFA (yawn). The summary makes it sound like a real stinker (and I have some issues with ATT I'd be modded flamebait for if I listed them). What, exactly, does it bring to a browser that we can't get with IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, or any of the other browsers? why, exactly, should we get this browser?

Re:Linux (5, Insightful)

Bodrius (191265) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106766)

Usability (through better visualization)?

History and bookmark handling are not scaling well to modern use of the web.

They were designed for a much smaller Internet - back when Yahoo was a comprehensive catalogue of the web, and you could honestly bookmark a short list of all your favorite sites.

Anyone who had to go through the browser history after a long week, to find 'that link that had some information but I cannot find in google again', has experienced this first hand.
All the links look the same, all your searches get in the way, etc.

Anyone who has had a few dozen disposable bookmarks by trying to avoid the history search also has experienced this first hand.

Bookmarks lose their value as they accumulate, and reality is that you often cannot know the crucial link will be crucial until after the fact - after you got another piece of data. Specially for technical documentation.

Pogo seems to be addressing two major usability problems that exist today.
At this point, I mostly consider those to be non-existent browser features by now. Repeating an Internet search is typically more time-efficient.

Now, I don't really think painting it all in 3D really helps - but what they seem to be trying to fix are real problems.

Re:Linux (2, Informative)

Wavebreak (1256876) | more than 6 years ago | (#23107084)

Quite right, and that's exactly why the awesomebar is so awesome.

of course it needs Windows (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23106094)


unless shdwdoc.dll has been ported to Linux

all these "new" Windows browsers are usually just an IE activeX control embedded in a VB container
same IE engine with all the same vunerabilities, even the bigname AV's (mcafee/symantec) use the dll for dialogs

of course the fastest way to ruin an AV and Windows is simply delete the dll
no AV, no anti-spyware, no security, no web browser (no telnet as that is not installed on Vista by default)

poof all gone with a single dll

Re:of course it needs Windows (4, Informative)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106154)

Except this is based on Gecko (Mozilla).

Then again, that might explain the bloat

Re:of course it needs Windows (1)

TheP4st (1164315) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106826)

Eyecandy for the sake of, umm.. eyecandyore explains the bloat way more than it than that it is based on Gecko. It's not like any other Gecko based browser require more ram than most operating systems do.

Re:of course it needs Windows (1)

edalytical (671270) | more than 6 years ago | (#23107094)

Which begs the question, why didn't they use WebKit? Mozilla has a better browser (Firefox), but WebKit is a better engine.

Re:of course it needs Windows (1)

tomtomtom777 (1148633) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106172)

If you RTFA:

..., based on Mozilla and 3D technology from Vizible ...

I guess not "all" these new browsers are based on the IE engine...

Fine by me (3, Insightful)

The Bender (801382) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106098)

I don't mind any attempt at innovation, and I certainly welcome competition in the browser market. If someone thinks they have ideas about how to make things better, then let them have a go.
It's pretty clear that this is intended for the home user with a nice new 2008-9 computer, who doesn't really run much else. So from that point of view, the requirements are probably fine, and at least it lets them actually use the computing power that they have. Other people have other options, nothing lost.
Uh, and RTFA? You must be joking.

Re:Fine by me (2, Interesting)

Sciros (986030) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106982)

You'd be right if not for the fact that most computers don't come with the video card that this requires. RAM, CPU, sure. But the video card that's still in most computers these days can run WoW at best. If this browser needs something with 256Mb of RAM in the video card, then this is intended for, well, nobody.

Eye candy and Apple's success (5, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106104)

I work with a guy who believes that the reason Apple succeeds is that they accelerate the graphics with hardware. This gives them the ability to do transitions like Expose on the desktop and the smooth sliding on devices like the iPhone.

Pogo seems to be along the same lines. But where Apple's eye candy is functional, the Pogo eye candy looks like flashy for the sake of flashy. The 3D UI looks nice, but it's about as functional as Vista's Windows-Tab app selector.

I don't particularly like Apple, but they do seem to have strong design concepts. The design follows the function in their products, as far as I understand. But Pogo looks like they implemented it because the technology was cool, not because they had some difficult problem to solve.

Re:Eye candy and Apple's success (2, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106382)

Agreed. It almost looks like they threw everything they could think of into it, only without much thought.

Re:Eye candy and Apple's success (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23106582)

if you have ever used Beryl or Compiz-fusion, perhaps you wouldn't mention Apple's eye candy.

Re:Eye candy and Apple's success (1)

asc99c (938635) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106730)

Rubbish, both are similar, and similarly daft as the eye-candy in Vista.

As the GP points out Apple's eye candy is there for functional reasons. Expose zooms out and lets you find the window you're after quickly. It looks great but that's a side effect to being there for a purpose. It's a whole different element to pointless but pretty stuff like translucent window decorations.

Re:Eye candy and Apple's success (3, Insightful)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106950)

I do all the time; it's on a (nicely equipped) Dell laptop running Ubuntu that I use at work. I'm actually quite impressed with what you can do, and I'm even more impressed by the ability to customize it.

I also use an Apple Macbook all the time (at home).

So, which one has the more impressive graphics? I've got to say, Apple. It's hard to pinpoint what makes OS X "feel" so nice, but it is definitely something with the graphics.

Aqua's feel is more "solid". I don't know how to explain it, except that moving a window around the screen actually feels like you're moving a solid object around. In Aero and Compiz, the compositing engine indeed makes those Windows feel more solid than in, for instance, XP or Ubuntu without Compiz. But both still feel like they're drawn on the screen; they don't seem to be as "real" as in Aqua.

The same can be said in general about the effects in Aqua vs. Compiz and Aero. And again, I really do like Compiz... I wish there was as much configurability available in OS X.

Re:Eye candy and Apple's success (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106628)

Is there even a niche for a new web browser to fill? Since when do AT&T do freeware?

One thing not mentioned (in the summary, ahem) is whether the browser is just a new front end to Trident(?)/Gecko/KHTML, or if it actually has its own renderer.

Re:Eye candy and Apple's success (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106902)

Since when do AT&T do freeware?
My money's on "when the [NSA|Homeland Security|CIA|FBI] asks them to".

But thats just the system requirements (1)

doombringerltx (1109389) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106126)

From the article:

We decided once again to step it up and run Pogo on a dual-processor Opteron 256 with two 3GHz CPUs, 4GB of RAM, and an NVIDIA 8800 GT video card with 512MB of VRAM. From here, we were finally able to use Pogo enough to actually find out how well it works--for the most part, anyway.

I only wish I had a gaming rig that fast

Speed issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23106144)

Are they doing the UI in canvas 3D? [mozilla.org]

The moz key bindings still work so I doubt they simply embedded Gecko. Perhaps a JIT (tamarin) would make the UI usable?

2 GIGS OF RAM???!!!!one (1)

snarfies (115214) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106146)

Seriously, WHY?

ONE gig of RAM is sufficient to play most current computer games, and I'm gonna go out on a limb and say those are way more complex than a browser.

Re:2 GIGS OF RAM???!!!!one (2, Informative)

Spellvexit (1039042) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106570)

Wow, for me, that's just one of the "whys!" With Microsoft's relative dominance of the browser market and Firefox's slow but steady gains, I don't really understand what sort of a market AT&T thinks they're breaking into. Firefox is gaining because of its simplicity and flexibility, not bloat. Then again, I don't think the Slashdot crowd is the target demographic for this product.

If AT&T can start bundling this browser with its telecommunications suites, I suppose it could gain some traction there... but I'm still not seeing it. Are they going to eventually integrate it with some hardware to allow for browsing with your TV? Can somebody with a bit more insight into AT&T's brain illuminate this?

Twofo Goatse (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23106150)

Eat my goatse'd penis! [twofo.co.uk] [goatse.ch]

You nerds love it.

Spoiled developers (2, Insightful)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106156)

Who gave the developers machines good enough that they thought these requirements were fine? They should have to use their own browser while using budget PCs that are prime candidates for next year's thin clients.

Cover-Flow type of History (1)

jjm496 (1004054) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106166)

Wow, I'll be able to quickly remember on which page I saw that awesome set of ... uhm ... drivers, yeah, that's it drivers.

Re:Cover-Flow type of History (2, Funny)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106276)

So will your significant other.

Re:Cover-Flow type of History (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23106456)

There is no longer a significant other. He received a driver components mismatch error.

Re:Cover-Flow type of History (1)

jjm496 (1004054) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106886)

lol, not bad, but I probably got her input on how awesome the drivers were in the first place. Not everyone lives in permanent fear of a system failure just because he passed a page containing other drivers. Now I hope the bad floppy drive puns are at an end.

Problems aside... (5, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106174)

On the plus side, it reports all your browsing activity to AT&T.

AT&T
Your world delivered
(to us)

Re:Problems aside... (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106302)

All your world are belong to us!

Re:Problems aside... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23107140)

you joke, but can you not see this "browser" watching for words like "torrent" and song titles? It will be a "install our software so we can better throttle your connection when we think your doing something bad". No thanks.

3D history? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23106186)

So, I'll need special glasses to see my history?

Re:3D history? (1)

jjm496 (1004054) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106948)

no, you'll have to alternate winking each eye really fast to create your own shutter effect.

Pogo? 2 Gb?? To run a browser??? (5, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106216)

Walt Kelly was right: "we have met the enemy, and he is us".

Now with free NSA spyware! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23106296)

If anyone believes that AT&T can be trusted for protecting your privacy; check yourself into the mental hospital right now. Given AT&T's track record, I would never install this. The big question is if they try to make it mandatory to install this to use their network. Not a far-fetched idea.

Welcome to the future of the web. (1)

Delusion_ (56114) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106328)

Just think of it as client-side VRML.

I'm sure this one will take off just as quickly.

Biased review... (3, Informative)

klubar (591384) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106364)

Complaining about a private beta not being fast or working in less than the minimum requirements isn't really fair. The reviewer spends the first half of the review complaining that it doesn't run on hardware less than the requirements, doesn't run on the mac.. and by the way they could of added that it doesn't run on the iPhone, their GPS nor the 1980-era walkman that they own.

It's a beta, designed to show some concepts and trials. The released software can be sped up or modified. Why not review the features that are included. Presumably, importing bookmarks isn't a core feature for a beta.

Although, I'm unlikely to switch browsers (seeing no reason to switch from a fully patched IE 7 running as non-administrator on Vista), it's great that there is still competition in the browser market.

Re:Biased review... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23106798)

Betas aren't for showing concepts, those are Alphas. Betas are used when the system is stable enough to use while you look for bugs on the way to a Release Candidate.

Re:Biased review... (2, Insightful)

cowscows (103644) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106906)

While the definition of "beta" isn't set in stone, it's usually meant as a version of a soon to be released product that's mostly through the design phase, and more into the polish, tuning, and bug squashing phase. You don't want to be adding features while moving from Beta to release, because then you'll add in more bugs that won't get tested for.

But you're right that it's not completely fair to definitively judge beta software in terms of speed and performance. But I don't think it's horribly unfair to make some assumptions based on what you see, nor to run some quick tests to see how something runs on more "reasonable" hardware. I'm guessing that the majority of computers out there do not have 256MB+ stuck on their video cards, and Ars Technica seems to be skeptical that AT&T will be able to squeeze enough performance out of their software to make it useable on more common hardware. It's certainly not wrong for AT&T to release software like that, but it's also not the best way to make your new web browser popular.

They could follow Apple's model for market share.. (1)

klubar (591384) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106422)

Following the successful, and well reviewed by ./ readers, model that Apple used to gain browser market share, AT&T could automatically download the browser as part of a "software update" for AT&T phones. When you visit the AT&T wireless site, they could require the option to upgrade your phone (and without warning install the new AT&T browser).

Hey, if it worked for Apple, it should work for AT&T.

What are they doing that needs 2GB? (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106430)

2GB? Really. This business of storing full resolution images of pages is silly.

Sure, you can buy 2GB of RAM, but perhaps you might like to use it for something useful while the web browser is running.

We're approaching the point where web browsers won't run on a 32-bit machine.

Optimized for NSA surveillance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23106496)

Why in God's name would I want to run an AT&T browser? It probably automatically forwards all your activity to the NSA, and has built-in net-nonneutrality support.

Re:Optimized for NSA surveillance (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23107056)

Why in God's name would I want to run an AT&T browser?
I'll go out on a limb and say that they'll make it a requirement to use their service.

I can't help but wonder... (5, Funny)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106528)

..since I'm an AT&T customer, it feels like there are two unasked questions.

1.) What is AT&t going to do to make sure that this is the only browser that I use? Certainly something more than a silly EULA. How about automated litigation if I step a foot off Ma Bell's Farm?

2.) What can Bell do to offer me more choice with their browser? In other words how can they help me by blocking anything other than a heavily proxied port 80. Mail, it should sit on AT&T's webmail, where they own it and copyright whatever I say. FTP, thats for terrorists. We need more choices, you know, like cable TV.

The perfect complement to... (1)

danielsfca2 (696792) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106540)

Crysis!

VisualFlow (1)

eepok (545733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106552)

So it's VisualFlow (http://www.mee.com.sa/sony-vaio/SoftwareImages/Cr8tvSoftware/Photos/vf_04.gif) for your bookmarks? /pass

Re:VisualFlow (1)

jrothwell97 (968062) | more than 6 years ago | (#23107194)

Not a cheap rip off of Cover Flow... honest...
OK, let's get this straight. It looks awful.

Stick to Connecting Our Calls (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106584)

AT&T is doing a terrible job just connecting our phonecalls and TCP/IP streams without spying on us or holding it for ransom to Net Doublecharge. It should spend more time getting that right before it wastes the revenue for that basic service which we're paying it every month on bloated browsers that just create demand for more expensive Windows and PC upgrades.

AT&T used to have Bell Labs, which did do basic research that wasn't just to connect calls cheaper and more reliably (and safe from snooping). But AT&T sold it off to get out of the innovation business. Let's see them stick to their mission better before stepping off that path to basic profitability.

Re:Stick to Connecting Our Calls (1)

mishehu (712452) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106852)

I'm sure those hardware requirements are due to all those NSA plugins the browser has and needs to support...

Will it run VR5 on a Gibson in an InGen jeep? (2, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106638)

Judging by the screenshots, it looks like some AT&T execs happened to catch a marathon of those 1990s cyber-thrillers which featured portrayals of that mysterious new "Internet" thing that was starting to get noticed, and decided the real Internet should start looking like those Hollywood mockups.

SBC/AT&T writing software? Please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23106686)

Sounds like the browser they used to make you install with your DSL, which was always bloated and sucked ass.
I'm sorry but an internet provider should never write software...especially a web browser!

Fancy light shows with expensive glitz (2, Insightful)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106696)

If all I get for that kind of performance requirements is fancy light shows I'm going to put my precious hardware resources someplace else Thankyouverymuch.

Naming rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23106750)

There is a social gaming site that is named Pogo. pogo.com. I think it is tied to AOHell somehow. I wonder who is going to win the naming rights in this contest.

Lex 2.0 (3, Funny)

Speare (84249) | more than 6 years ago | (#23106978)

a browser from AT&T with new features like a 3-D history and bookmark view

Lex turns to the clueless paleontologists, "This is Pogo! I know this!"

AT&T + NSA Browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23107086)

Hmm, I wonder how much help AT&T is getting from the NSA in designing this backdoor, er, browser?

Re:AT&T + NSA Browser (1)

Khan (19367) | more than 6 years ago | (#23107164)

Exactly! No doubt that's the real reason for the heavy duty hardware requirements.

rice browser (2, Insightful)

trb (8509) | more than 6 years ago | (#23107092)

I don't need a browser with tumbling history and ray-traced menu buttons. Just serve up the pages quick and clean.

There's no taste for accounting.

Why are ISPs trying to recreate AOL? (1)

CheeseTroll (696413) | more than 6 years ago | (#23107128)

Seriously, are they such control freaks that they feel they must control the *entire* online experience of their users? Did that work for AOL (or CompuServe, or ...) in the long term?

I don't trust them, and I don't want it. (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 6 years ago | (#23107150)

There are so many browsers derived from Firefox, yet the core itself is getting worse with each new release. Firefox 2.0.0.13, which I'm using, likes to go braindead at random intervals, anywhere between 10 and 45 minutes, at which point I have to restart it. The Javascript likes to use 100% CPU and freeze the whole damned browser. The whole add-on system is getting polluted with whiney half-bred gadgets that can't do anything right.

Don't get me wrong, Firefox is still my favorite, but I think there's a lot of work still to be done before we should run off adding random bling like AT&T has done. The priority should be to fix problems before creating new ones.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?