Re: [Jmol-users] Jmol v10 java requirements

[Jan R. <jr...@im...>]

PHILLIP W BARAK schrieb:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Miguel <mi...@jm...>
>
>  
>
>>I have a series of questions regarding compatibility and minimum JVM
>>requirements for the JmolApplet. I am interested in your feedback.
>>
>>Proposal: drop support for old JVMs
>>-----------------------------------
>>
>>I have put a tremendous amount of energy into dealing with the quirky
>>behavior of some of these older JVMs. Therefore, it is with some
>>sadness/anxiety/concern that I am making the following proposal:
>>
>> I propose that Jmol v10 *require* Java 1.4
>> This will remove some of the 'baggage' associated with the old
>> web browser JVMs and will allow us to take advantage of new
>> features that are found in the current releases of Java.
>>
>> <clipped>
>>
>>Therefore, anyone running Internet Explorer on XP must install the Sun
>>Java Plug-in in order to be able to run any web applet.
>>    
>>
>
>
>Not exactly true...
>
>http://news.com.com/2100-1012-5087678.html
>'MICROSOFT EXTENDS SUPPORT FOR ITS JAVA MACHINE
>
>(Last modified: October 7, 2003, 3:50 AM PDT)
>Microsoft will continue to support its Java virtual machine through September 2004, a nine-month extension that will make it easier for customers to find substitutes for the software...'
>
>And even after that cutoff date, _all_ the installed JVMs are going to continue to operate, and that's a lot of machines! Now this is not an issue for the developers and their/our machines...it's an issue from at-home students and other users who log onto our Jmol sites and then get instructions to download other software or to reach into the bowels of IE preferences and toggle between the Sun and Microsoft Java machines. 
>
>Simply based on my site statistics, the _great_ majority of visitors' identifiable OSs and browsers are of the MS variety--I didn't ask for it that way, but there's no point arguing with them. And I'd rather not disappoint them by sending them off site without showing them some of the goods, especially if the MS JVM is reasonably fast and technically compatible with Jmol! 
>
>(I recall the havoc created when IE on XP shipped for a while without JVM...I started getting multiple reports that a few pages with a Java applet 'didn't work')
>
>It may not be 'fair' to other OS and browser choices with VMs, but pragmatically Jmol should not abandon use on Microsoft JVM if there is not a technical reason to do so. 
>
>(OTOH, I can see abandoning NS 4.x, etc., because they are dinosaurs _and_ virtually none of the traffic to my site uses them anyway, even if they are chime-capable--can others who keep website statistics verify a need to try to keep them?) 
>
>  
>
Last month statistics of  single count IP from outside the institute
74% Windows
10% Linux
9% Mac
2% IRIX
1% SUN
rest: Free-BSD, HP-UX, OS/2 and mobile devices: Nocia, SonyEricson
using:
57% MSIE
26% Gecko
11% Netscape4.x
1% Opera
1% Konqueror
rest: Mozilla2/3/5, Lynx, libwww-FM, Jakarta

I argue against cutting off MSJVM until September 2004, than MS will 
regard the MSJVM as insecure and it will not longer work without 
lowering the IE browsers security policy, so the user has to take action 
in any case.
Downloading 15 MB SUNJVM is not easy for a student with dial-up internet 
connection, which are about 40% (more than 10 subnet IPs per month 
identified, not uni- not edu) at our site.
Regards, Jan

>None of the above goes to the longer term picture, which is definitely to follow Java back to Sun entirely, across all browsers and platforms. But let us not lead the pack unless there is a clear advantage to having others trailing behind us.
>
>--Phil 'please, not the bleeding edge, again' Barak
>  
>