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!

CNET News.com Turns 7

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the late-night-filler-blah-blah dept.

The Media 172

dmehus writes "Just as Google celebrated its 5th birthday last week, which was covered by Slashdot, I thought it would be equally appropriate to point out that tech news darling CNET News.com celebrated its 7th birthday this past week. To mark that occasion, its Editor-in-Chief Jai Singh wrote an article, in which he reflects on their founding slogan of 'Tech News First' and their commitment to that going forward. He also announces a brand new redesign that was unveiled yesterday. To that I'd add, here's to another seven more! Thoughts or opinions, anyone?"

cancel ×

172 comments

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

FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6961884)

Yay!

comp.sys.amiga.games (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6961922)

The top two shitheads of comp.sys.amiga.games exposed!

[Col Seddon] aka Colon Sodomy
This individual is known for his flaming gayness, and his need to be self appointed usenet sheriff of comp.sys.amiga.games. He has wasted countless hours of time maintaining a FAQ of useless shit that nobody reads. The FAQ contains information like "what is an amiga" and "how do i format a floppy disk in windows 95". He is known for his nasty habit of loving to sit in the lap of a well pitched tent.

He is an active member of http://www.Xtreamamigawarez.cz. He is a pirate of sorts, in more ways than one. Not often is he a software pirate, he is also a butt pirate. His hobby other than trolling in comp.sys.amiga.games is taking a stiff cock up his rectum hole.

He carries around a little terrier called "Adrondo". In his spare time he paints it's tow nails and takes it down to the beauty shop where he gets his eybrows plucked and a pedicure.

I met Col Seddon at the mall during christmas time. He came right up to me and asked if i wanted to see his penis. I told him no. He said he was gay. I asked him why he wanted to show me his penis, and he said that he didnt find me attractive, and he was just showing it to strangers, just to get a reaction. He then pulled it out and i kicked him in the crotch. I then grabbed a model candy cane ( made out of metal ) and i belted him in the mouth with it. He lost several teeth. It was obvious he was in pain, as he was bleeding all over the place, and little kids every where were crying. I ran out of the mall as fast as i could.

One day, about a year ago, i was in the diner called "Bills Chicken and Eggs". I ordered a milkshake and a grits with bacon and eggs platter super combo extream uber elite ultra wonderful hardcore meal deal for the hardcore super awsome price of 4 dollars and 20 cents. I was eating my dinner when this ugly woman with hairy legs and poorly done makeup came by and sat at my table. Her dress was extreamly tight, her body was not curvy at all, and one of her tits were missing. All in all, a very unplesant sight to see, and the smell was awful. You could see the hair under the arm pits, and she was obviously wearing a wig, as it was coming off. She then set her purse on the table. The purse looked like it had come out of a trash can, as it was tattered and toren. When she opened up her purse, an awful pungent odor permeated the air surrounding us. She asked me in a deep manly voice, to guess what was inside the purse. I guessed that there was something awful in there. She then proceeded to empty the contents of the purse on the table. What i saw horrified me. Thick, dark brown, viscous diarrhea flowed ever so slowly from the purse. When all the diarrhea had been poured from the purse, she started rubbing it in her face and in her mouth. She then started rolling on the table, covering her self in the diarrhea. She spread her legs, exposed her dick and smiled. After seeing the smile, and all the missing teeth, i instantly knew the nasty whore was Col Seddon.
Heres a picture of what i saw: http://www.asianglow.net/images/pillowfight.jpg

From time to time, you can see him standing on the street corner, in tight lether pants with a pink feather scarf wrapped around his neck. I assume he's turning tricks for crack and money for net access at the local internet coffie shop.

[John Burns] aka John the Flamer
John Burns is dum dum retardo individual. His retardedness is un paralled in the known world. He is also from the united kingdom. His girlfriend ( whom i personally know ) told me his penis measures just short of 5mm. She's not hurting for sex though, i take care of her needs in that area, for some reason John never thanks me for doing the job that he is unable to do. Thanx John, thanx for nothing.

People from the UK all act like the freaks we have all seen in the gay porn flick "Monty Python". Such a movie is typical brittish humor, which consists of people acting retarded. Lets face it, if you are not American, you are not really important. The USA holds all of the worlds power and influence. The USA leeds, all others follow, and if you piss us off, we will destroy your fucking asses by what other means is necessary. Look at Iraq, look at Afganistan. North Korea, France, you are next, and if you fucking brit shit asshole mother fuckers dont get your shit in gear, we will bomb your asses too.

You will often find John in the local gay house, where he pays men to manipulate his penis with a pair of tweesers in a futile attempt to produce a neurological response to stimulation.

His past times include visiting comp.sys.amiga.games and posting rude replys to valid communication from other individuals. It's strange that he does this, as he does'nt even own an amiga, and never has, and most likely never will. The vast majority of information he passes off as fact are in fact false. 90% of his posts are negative ones, usually calling amiga game enthusiasts pirates, or thieves.

Congrats! (5, Interesting)

stev3 (640425) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961885)

I've learned to take CNets news with a grain of salt, since many times they just seem to editorialize stories and add in useless comments etc.

To be in business 7 years is a great accomplishment though, and my congratulations go out to them.

Re:Congrats! (1)

kellererik (307956) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961905)

At times they seem a little bit on the M$ side of the opinion, but with a grain of salt they're doing a good job.

my 2 cents

Re:Congrats! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6962260)

overrated? if I had mod points I would mod this back up

Let's face it (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6961989)

CNet is the USA Today of web news. Huge circulation, mediocre journalism at best.

Re:Congrats! (3, Insightful)

pinkocommie (696223) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962030)

I used to like Cnet but that was before they were acquired by Ziff Davis. Somehow after that they always seemed non committal about the pro's / con's of the stuff they reviewed, no BITE, nothing actually sucked etc. Then again, maybe its me :)

Re:Congrats! (5, Funny)

Rolman (120909) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962128)

I've learned to take CNets news with a grain of salt, since many times they just seem to editorialize stories and add in useless comments etc.

Sorry, but I don't see how is this different from /.

Re:Congrats! (2, Insightful)

sniggly (216454) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962307)

But at slashdot we the users get to add in useless comments! Seriously though comparing slashdot to cnet news is comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruit. At slashdot news items are posted for the discussion although for a lot of users its a great collection of news items in their profession and/or interest area.

Re:Congrats! (1)

PhlegmMaster (596165) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962251)

since many times they just seem to editorialize stories and add in useless comments etc.

Yeah, it would be nice if they would seperate out the editorials form the news sometimes, but it's an interesting mix sometimes than just the raw-hard news.

But yes, congratulations to them!

Domain name.. (5, Funny)

Aliencow (653119) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961886)

They have com.com as a domain too... Reminds me of how I always wanted to buy dotcomat.com ..so my email address could be
dotcom@dotcomat.com..

Re:Domain name.. (4, Insightful)

gfody (514448) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961925)

sigh.. and dotcomat.com is cybersquatted just like any other imaginable cool domain name. remember when network solutions had a "strict policy" on cyber squatting? I imagine flipping thru channels on tv and all the low numbers 1-99 show blank screens or "coming soon" where as all the good shit is on channel 249820 or 873923 or something

Re:Domain name.. (1, Funny)

gid (5195) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962010)

COMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOM.COM is available tho! ( I just kept adding a com until I didn't find a match :)

Re:Domain name.. (1)

Dark Lord Seth (584963) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962061)

Isn't cybersquatting a bit against the rules? If it isn't, shouldn't it be? It would clean up the web quite a bit if some sort of INDEPENDANT, LEGAL body were to sanction cyber-squatting by removing DNS records pointing to squatted sites, removing the DNS servers of said company from the root DNS server list and generally request localized sanctions such as IP blackholing of IP ranges belonging to companies which are verified to be hosting/doing fairly unnice things?* (spam, spyware distribution, RIAA, etc)

*) Said IP blocks would be well regulated and possibly any severe consequences avoided by warning admins of sites in advance of an IP range being blocked, giving them enough time to transfer their sites somewhere else. This is especially effective since it both disturbs the net less and it hurts the shady hosting companies where it hurts most, in the wallet.

Re:Domain name.. (1)

n0nsensical (633430) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962082)

Isn't cybersquatting a bit against the rules?

Not particularly, but if you have a large legal team you can do what major corporations do, claim some trademark, and sue them back to the stone age. Unfortunately this strategy seems to be applied to people with legitimate websites more than cybersquatters. I wonder how CNet actually got a hold of com.com.

Re:Domain name.. (1)

gfody (514448) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962090)

cybersquatting is against the "rules" or was at least. not sure what the new rules are.

originally, networksolutions had organized the whole system and even had the forsight to consider cyber squatting and write the rules against it. what they didn't forsee was the "rush" being so immense that enforcing the rules was impossible.

now that its all in the hands of money grubbing capitalists, the rules are of course based on MONEY and non of that first come first serve or fair game bullshit. I don't know for sure, but I would guess that its perfectly legal to be squatting some domain name with only the intent for selling it at an outrageous price (so long as they pay the monthly premium?)

Re:Domain name.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6962142)

the cybersquatter i hate is the guy that's been sitting on bitchbetterhavemymoney.com. That would be the coolest domain name to have especially if you were to start a collection agency.

Re:Domain name.. (1)

Anomander (672837) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962031)

Hmm, wonder if at.at is avaliable? at@at.at anybody?

Re:Domain name.. (1)

Aliencow (653119) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962050)

From nic.at:
at.at - Invalid, inproper or secured domainname!
Yet I did a whois, and the domain is available...damn them!

For Dutch people: (0)

SMOC (703423) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962162)

slikken.sl@alsik.com

translates to swallow.sl(ut)wheni.com

btw. wheni.com and untilli.com seem te be available oddly enough.

Re:For Dutch people: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6962315)

since when does @ translate to ut in dutch? its either at or apestaart... dude you really are looking for weird stuff arent you :)

Re:Domain name.. (2, Interesting)

quigonn (80360) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962207)

In fact, there's a guy owning atat.at [atat.at] who has an email address at@atat.at. And his initials are AT.

Re:Domain name.. (1)

PhlegmMaster (596165) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962244)

It's almost as bad as saying 'slashdot.org'

other funky domains (1)

mblase (200735) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962832)

Didn't CowboyNeal once say he wished that the ".dot" TLD had been approved, just so that he could register (read it out loud) http://slash.slashdot.dot ?

Re:Domain name.. (1)

Eustace Tilley (23991) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962841)

www.wwwcomcom.com [wwwcomcom.com] is pretty cool. I found it on a postcard at CBGB.

Redesign (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6961900)

They removed the investor end of the page it seems, making it seemingly unfriendly to the end user/viewer.

After pushing it for so long as a key component to thier "tech news" package, I wonder if its been thrown on the back burner, or if it was a mistake.

You can still get to it @ http://investor.news.com/

-mason.j

Re:Redesign (4, Informative)

segment (695309) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962033)


Gross Profit
  • 2002 $90,260
  • 2001 $107,720
  • 2000 $166,067
  • 1999 $68,385

Operating Income
  • 2002 ($381,314)
  • 2001 ($1,867,125)
  • 2000 ($316,858)
  • 1999 ($61,138)
( source for financial info [nasdaq.com] )

As you can see they're not making money at all, and it's surprising they're managing to stick around for so long. And you have to admit 7 years is pretty long for the net... They've beat out some pretty big guys too... Prodigy, Compuserve, Tymnet, shit the list could on for Eons... As for the company financial-wise I wouldn't touch their stock even at the low rate of $8.99ps

keep in mind... (2, Insightful)

segment (695309) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962049)

even though these figures are in the thousands theyre still low (earnings), and their operating expenses are off the meter... They must think it's still like the late 90's or something blowing through all that cash...

Re:Redesign (2, Interesting)

sporktoast (246027) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962873)


I think the most useful redesign that CNET has done in the past was to stop insisting that everyone spell their name c|net, using the pipe character. Too many of the more common fonts on various platforms lacked that particular glyph.

Of course, they were born in the era of TAFKAP (pronounced "Squiggle"), interCapitals, emoticons, and the widespread discovery of <SHIFT>-2, so you can at least understand their impulse to acquire an exoteric punctuation mark all their own.

But of course, after backing down about the pipe, they tried to one-up Sun: CNET, we're ".com" in ".com.com", so maybe they haven't really learned...

I, also updated my design yesterday. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6961907)

But I actually know how to write Valid XHTML strict, unlike the bozos at cnet.

Validation [w3.org]

It looks like ass in konqueror.

Re:I, also updated my design yesterday. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6961943)

Guess one of those "bozos" had mod points...

Looks fine in Safari. (2, Insightful)

Xenex (97062) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962364)

What version of Konqueror are you using?

Looks like you're in need of a KHTML update.

Not even /. is HTML valid (4, Interesting)

bazik (672335) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962447)

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://slashdot. org

Not that I care about as it displays fine :)

Re:I, also updated my design yesterday. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6962453)

Wow it's even worse than Slashdot [w3.org] .

One thing I really hate is how people can just put shit code out there on the internet that my browser has to choke on. It seems like respectable sites like Slashdot and News.com.com should try to get these things right.

Yes, but . . . (2, Funny)

ubernostrum (219442) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961908)

How old is news.com.com.com.com.com.com.com.com?

And may they survive another seven years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6961910)

As long as there are accurate and relevant reports from Gartner and Meta, I expect news.com to be there to publicize them so IT professionals can make informed buying decisions.

Yay for tableless design. (5, Insightful)

reaper20 (23396) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961912)

Wow, CSS, XHTML, and and lots of div tags. Doesn't validate, but they're better off than they used to be, at least they made an attempt I guess.

To bad they ruin it with static width pages. You'd think they'd know this after 7 years.

Re:Yay for tableless design. (2, Interesting)

Juanvaldes (544895) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961987)

I wonder how much longer the page takes to load on dialup with all the whitespace in the source.

Re:Yay for tableless design. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6962081)

Dialup modems use compression. Whitespace is not a (real) issue

Re:Yay for tableless design. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6962132)

No shit. I guess everyone griping about the design are the HTML purists who have little design skill of their own but have a lot of critical comments that general boil down to "it doesn't look like the Net back in 94".

Fixed-width layouts are good for text-heavy sites (4, Interesting)

starvingartist12 (464372) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962201)

A static/fixed width layout isn't a bad thing, depending on when it's used. And I'm sure the people at CNet thought about the pros and cons of a liquid layout in their design process.

For a text-heavy site such as News.com, a fixed-width layout is very ideal. If you happen to have a very high resolution, the text in a liquid/expanding design would run past the optimum line length of about 60 characters or so. Sure, you can have the browser sized to a reasonable size, but it's an added hassle. With a fixed-width website, however, the line length is much shorter. Your eyes won't get as tired from traversing the whole width of a page in a liquid layout.

It's also the same reason why newspapers run multiple narrow columns, rather than having it go across the whole page.

As a side note, Simon Willison has a nice Narrow Bookmarklet [incutio.com] that lets you convert a website's liquid design to a fixed 500 pixel width page with one click.

Re:Fixed-width layouts are good for text-heavy sit (1)

nazh (604234) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962269)

well, yes and no,
its nothing wrong to use a fixed width layout, but it would have been a better solution to use em rather than px to set the width, or even %,
if i increase the text-size on news.com.com it doesn't look any good, it would have been better to use a length unit that allows the page to scale with the font-size

Re:Fixed-width layouts are good for text-heavy sit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6962786)

http://news.com.com/ is wonderfully unprintable by Netscape 7.0 running under X on a high resolution display. I get the middle part of the text of one of the columns on page 2 of the printout and just some header and footer graphics on pages 1 and 3.

Only 5 comments? (-1, Offtopic)

yem (170316) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961916)

Time to test the theory that early posts, however redundant/offtopic/trollish, are likely to be modded up.

(gg news.com btw)

Re:Only 5 comments? (-1, Offtopic)

gfody (514448) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961939)

actually just about any post made in the first 10-15min is modded down. GNAA, goatse.cx, trolls for whatinthehell maybe you've heard of them? scroll down to the bottom of the page if you don't believe me, theres all the early posters

bottom of the page? (-1, Offtopic)

gfody (514448) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962092)

and here we are, lol :)

Asking for it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6961975)

Well, you're just asking to be modded down with this one.

Re:Asking for it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6961995)

Yeah I forgot the magic phrase "This will probably get modded down, but.."

They're 10? I thought they died long ago! (1, Interesting)

MoThugz (560556) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961929)

I mean seriously, most of their stuff are Windows-centric (or MS-centric, depending on how u see it). Don't take my word on it, just click any of their sections and you're guaranteed to see "Windows" or "Microsoft".

I personally stopped reading anything with a double dot com url. And I don't think I'm the only one.

No good (-1, Flamebait)

jabbadabbadoo (599681) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961930)

No need to celebrate. News.com hardly produces any stories themselves; mostly editing of press releases and RSS'es. Besides, they've become to Windows centric.

I like the video section, though.

Webmaster tip : #5859043 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6961931)

Don't get inspiration for updating your site by looking at games.slashdot.org, osnews [osnews.com] and Goatse.cx [goatse.cx] !

Early Bias (2, Interesting)

BWJones (18351) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961932)

I found CNET News.com to be rather biased towards Microsoft early on by running stories favorable towards the company. (often ignoring news critical of Microsoft) Given that they were really sorta a pop news internet publication (and still kinda are), I suppose that label would be appropriate. I assumed that Microsoft was underwriting them at the time. However, recently they appear to have moved more towards an unbiased coverage. They are still kinda superficial in their news coverage, but I have found the editorial changes and news changes in the last couple of years to be more palatable.

Re:Early Bias (5, Funny)

Enoch Root (57473) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961950)

I found CNET News.com to be rather biased towards Microsoft early on by running stories favorable towards the company. (often ignoring news critical of Microsoft)

Wow... That makes them the anti-Slashdot! If packets from Slashdot and CNet ever collide, the Internet will blow up in a huge blast of photons!

Re:Early Bias (1)

j0nkatz (315168) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962624)

What I want to know is, if it wasn't for news.com.com.com.com where would slashdot.org get it's stories?

Re:Early Bias (2, Interesting)

PhlegmMaster (596165) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962265)

They seem to have gone at MS a bit lately over their security problems though and several of their editors (well, ZDNet editors, but it's all the same company) seem to be pretty-much anti-microsoft in some of their columns.

These guys aren't so bad! (5, Funny)

DeathPenguin (449875) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961933)

In the spirit of promoting the Slashdot effect, I decided to visit cnet.com after having dismissed their site as rubbish. Well, as it turns out, I found an interesting article [com.com] where an EFF attorny suggests that universities obfuscate student IP addresses by shuffling them to fend off the the RIAA. Any site that posts that sort of content is okay by me! So to you, cnet.com, may you grow in our dismal economy!

Hyper-commercial and poorly designed (4, Insightful)

sunspot42 (455706) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961934)

I used to frequent CNet every day back around 1999, and I found them to be a timely, valuable resource. But something happened in early 2001, and they began to go downhill rapidly. The site design became cluttered and severely commercialized, to the point where it became difficult to get a page to load properly - even over a DSL connection - because of all the junk slapped on it.

The sluggish performance and cluttered pages would be worth trudging through if there were some solid content behind them. Their hardware and software reviews were once top notch, but now I can find better elsewhere - Tom's Hardware, for example, or a slew of specialized sites (silentpcreview, for example, or mini-itx). Even the amateur reviews at Epinions or Amazon are more informative (taken in aggregate).

Frankly, I'm amazed CNet has lasted this long.

Re:Hyper-commercial and poorly designed (4, Funny)

Enoch Root (57473) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961959)

It's simple, really: they got bought out by VA Lin... What? You said CNet? Oops. Heh heh.

Re:Hyper-commercial and poorly designed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6961993)

Funny how capitalism works isn't it.

Re:Hyper-commercial and poorly designed (1)

gfody (514448) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962151)

if only there were some sort of alternative ..that didn't mean certain genocide

Re:Hyper-commercial and poorly designed (1)

Malcontent (40834) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962017)

Forget the ugly site it's the non stop MS cheerleading that turned me off.

Re:Hyper-commercial and poorly designed (-1, Troll)

RevSmiley (226151) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962034)

For once I agre with you. The ceasless Microsoft suckboyism is gut turning and devoid of use.

It's OK to lie if you are a liberal left wing demokrat.

Re:Hyper-commercial and poorly designed (1)

shione (666388) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962296)

I used to get all my shareware there, many many years ago. Now thers places like Aarnet and planet mirror that are faster and dont make you have to make dozens of clicks just to get the file you want.

Re:Hyper-commercial and poorly designed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6962813)

The "news" stories sometimes appear to be thinly veiled rewrites of company press releases and/or rehashing of past wisdom contained therein.

Can't remember what the old design was like? (5, Informative)

a.koepke (688359) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961937)

If you want to compare the new site design to the old one check out the archived copy [archive.org] provided by Archive.org [archive.org] Wayback Machine [archive.org] .

Or why not check out some of the previous designs... Nov 17, 1999 [archive.org] or why not go right back to Dec 23, 1996 [archive.org] .

Re:Can't remember what the old design was like? (1)

Jebediah21 (145272) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962024)

Woah. I just noticed that I never visited the main page since the 1999 design changed.

Re:Can't remember what the old design was like? (1)

dricci (470949) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962254)

The 1996 layout was clean and organized, the current one is bloated, it even has a giant dell ad that takes over the main page for a few seconds as soon as everything loads!

You'd think all these years later as technology and the web advanced (and now that just about everyone has a computer and internet access) we'd see sites designed and organized even better, but sadly that's not the case. Instead of competing for a better user experience, it seems that sites are competing for who can have the bigger and noiser ads.

zd net (2, Interesting)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961940)

also got swallowed up by them... used to be bitter riavals

Re:zd net (2, Interesting)

MonTemplar (174120) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962099)

Actually, ZDNet is still around, but as the majority of its content has been assimilated by CNet, I have to wonder why they don't just redirect people to the CNet front pages. Comments?

MT.

Re:zd net (1)

PhlegmMaster (596165) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962271)

All it is is just a different skin on the website.

You can get CNet news in an msn.com skin if you want (not that you'd EVER want to).

to be honest: CNET news is quite mediocre (1)

nv5 (697631) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961944)

I find their stories not timely enough anymore for an online publication. I don't think these more traditional sites can compete with the timeliness standards achieved by the blogging approach invented by /. But: I find sme of the other CNET sites quite a bit more useful (reviews, downloads).

Re:to be honest: CNET news is quite mediocre (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6962189)

I find their stories not timely enough anymore for an online publication. I don't think these more traditional sites can compete with the timeliness standards achieved by the blogging approach invented by /.

You do realize we are discussing a story first posted on CNET two days ago :-) Besides, after the dotcom revenue collapse, it's no surprise they don't update their stories as often. It's just a wonder they're still standing

Old in more ways than one (2, Insightful)

Felonius Thunk (168604) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961947)

I used to go to cnet all the time around then, the time of launching news.com. It makes me feel a little old thinking that that's been 7 years already. The site hasn't aged well, though. I come here or various other aggregators for news first, and rarely check cnet at all anymore. If not for the very occasional download from there, I'd probably have forgotten about it by now. I guess I want more either more news at a glance than they're willing to show, or more in depth commentary than they're willing to allow. The columnists weighing in, followed by no reader input or argumentation, feels cheap now, even when the columnists are sharp people.

And the new design looks worse at a glance: same stuff, basically same layout and colors, but now featuring retro "folded corner" tabs. Nothing like trying to get your attention on news with conspicuous nostalgia.

vignette (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6961957)

7 years and still using vignette story-server for their backend?
i've heard from people who worked there that their content management system is a complete disaster and they have never been able to clean it up and escape from the crappy vignette software. for a site that reports on tech news, this is rather embarassing.

CNet censors opinions they don't like? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6961965)

Well this [lamlaw.com] person does not like them... Take a look Wrap and Flow [lamlaw.com]

Why Celebrate CNet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6961983)

Why celebrate Cnet after 7 years? Seriously. Their website is, and always has been, an affront to nature; their news judgement myopic and journalism inept. Not to mention, they have been a scurrilous dot com in the worst tradition. Let's not get started on the horrible ad campaigns. This blind love affair with CNet has always been mystifying. I just cannot imagine a slashdotter even going their.

New design? (1)

DennyK (308810) | more than 10 years ago | (#6961996)

Huh? Looks about the same as it always has. Big page of text with no images. Come to think about it, that's how most CNet pages look...

/me loves the right-click "Block Images" command...

DennyK

Which going forward? (1, Funny)

BiOFH (267622) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962012)

... and their commitment to that going forward...

Which 'going forward' are they committed to, exactly?

God I hate that phrase... Thank you Andy Grove, Craig Barret, et al for forcing me to listen to such masturbatory perversions of grammar and language... Thank you so very much... asshats...

What, is there some danger that someone will think they've invented time travel and are talking about things they'll do to the past? Is there some fear that someone might perceive they mean "going backwards" instead?

We should all synergize our back-ends to re-purpose our execution of EOL on corp-speak... going forward, of course. If anyone would like to whiteboard this in real-time I'll be leveraging some action items into my world-class 'stab a CEO's head' dart board.

*sound of my karma going down the drain*

7 more years of news.com.com.com.com.com? (4, Funny)

jab (9153) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962014)

What, did someone break a mirror, AGAIN?

cnet & microsoft expired pages (3, Interesting)

Sonnenschein (701061) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962032)

I've always enjoyed a particular quirk in cnet/news.com that expires vulnerability stories about microsoft/windows products prematurely.

(Notice that the original page in each of the stories below can be seen, you've gotta keep your eye on it though.)

Worm dupes with fake Microsoft address - May 19, 2003 [news.com]
have allowed a good hacker both to read files stored on the Windows NT-based Internet [news.com]

descriptions were taken from google, search for more keywords associated with worms/viruses/etc + windows and you'll end up with expired pages on news.com

Blame me for being paranoid, fuck it.

Here's your birthday present for turning 7... (2, Funny)

gimlix2 (451817) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962054)

... a nice Slashdotting!

Click away: newscom.com [com.com]

Re:Here's your birthday present for turning 7... (1)

jaani (525877) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962302)

All this talk of .com brings back fond memories of Zombo [zombo.com] .

"THIS is Zombocom!" The sad part is they had more content on their website than most of the dotCom era folks.

I suppose if there's one thing CNet is good at, it's heaps of content. Not necessarily that memorable, but it's there in droves.

Remember way back when? (2, Interesting)

macmouse (525453) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962058)

I remember there used to be an CNET TV Show. Not their own network, but an show that was on Sunday mornings. I wonder what happened? As I remember the web-site was made to *supplement* the tv show - not the other way around.

Anyone remember the answer guys? I wonder what has happened to them. It was certianly my favorite segment of the show.

Re:Remember way back when? (2, Interesting)

minesweeper (580162) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962306)

I remember that as well. It was fairly informative and timely with news and a few product reviews as well. They started reviewing interesting websites as well... but then it started changing.

Eventually they'd starting doing 30-45 super-quick segments with no depth and maybe flash a website for half a second at the end and then say, "If you missed any of that, head on over to our website, CNET.com..."

The show became very light on substance and was soon just a nonstop plug for its website.

On another note, CNET launched an actual broadcast radio station in the San Francisco Bay Area a few years ago at 910 AM. It mysteriously disappeared from the air at the beginning of this year and turned into a news-talk station.

I remember when CNET was on Sci-Fi.. (2, Interesting)

Praedon (707326) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962087)

It was rather interesting... It had a lot of cool things thrown into it.. Wonder why it was cancled...

Pages horribly broken on MSIE 5.0SP3 (1)

flakac (307921) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962118)

Amazing but true. Ran their current start page through HTML Tidy and the results are pretty bad, even for dynamically generated HTML.
  • mismatched <span> tags
  • mismatched <li> </li> tags
  • <li> tags outside of <ul> or <ol> blocks
  • mismatched <td>/</td> tags
  • use of unapproved <nobr> tags (but without </nobr> closing tags)
Netscape 7 renders it OK, but all in all, I'm amazed that any browswer could, especially with the mismatched <td> </td> tags.

new design (2, Informative)

zeekiorage (545864) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962129)

I am not sure if the new look is good or bad but one positive is that the new site looks exactly _same_ in mozilla under both Linux and Windows. Previously under Linux I either used to get fonts too large or too small.

HTML? (1)

oniony (228405) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962206)

Seven years and they're still making sites that have a fixed width. Really glad I bought that 23" monitor ;)

wasnt cnet (1)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962241)

wasnt cnet a razorfish production?

razorfish gone..cnet soon to follow?

Acres of blank screen (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962243)

Does anyone else get three screenfuls of blank space before the first headline on IE 5.0?

in the future (3, Funny)

rsilverman (266807) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962272)

... in which he reflects on their founding slogan of 'Tech News First' and their commitment to that going forward... Thoughts or opinions, anyone?"

I really hate that bit of idiotic business-speak, "going forward." We should all feel incentivized to leverage our existing linguistic infrastructure, and architect a solution using existing word-assets rather than repurposing them -- going forward.

Read the full.. (1)

rylin (688457) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962285)

Read the full article on NYTimes [nytimes.com] (registration required)

Net Veteren (1)

Cackmobile (182667) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962293)

Really puts it into perspective when I hear people talking about the net and how new and exciting it is (usually older people). I was around on the net when CNET lauched. I've been using it for abut 1/3 of my life. Not so new anymore!!!

Pro Microsoft (2, Informative)

mantera (685223) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962343)

They used to be my favourite source of news, along with zdnet, back in the nineties until I noticed they were too often pro-Microsoft; My observation was confirmed when I realized that Paul Allen, Mirosoft's co-founder, was a major, major investor in Zdnet/Cnet.

Well then.. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6962347)

if cnet is 7, slashdot isnt quite as old.. right?

we all know that most of the news slashdot posts is day old news.com news. I mean the new website layout has been up since sometime saturday.

If CNet news.com goes away, where will slashdot get its day old news from?

My opinion... (1)

DCowern (182668) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962571)

Thoughts or opinions, anyone?

They're only 2 years old.

Asking for "thoughts and opinions" on Slashdot is just begging for heaps and mounds of misinformation. I figured I'd just add my fair share. :P

Speaking of CNET (0)

MrBlint (607257) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962595)

Whatever happend to CNET TV and more particularly Sofie Formica (if thats how you spell it).
Bring back Sofie I say!

Too bad the shit don't work right on all browsers. (1)

Electric Eye (5518) | more than 10 years ago | (#6962815)

I guess the fockers didn't test their viewer using OS 9. Looks like ass on my machine. All the links on the right are way down the page. What can't anyone just use straight HTML and stop trying to be so goddamn fancy all the time?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>