Now I have to use boy's computer to update. This sucks.

[rootofnewt]

I had reservations about complaining about the new update interface. I was giving the developers time. However, when they fixed the box alignment problem, other problems showed up--namely the custom filters were inaccessible and the preview button didn't preview--it opened a blank window (new) and *updated* the journal in the original window.

True to form, I complain about incompatibility and now I can't use the new interface *at all*.

That's right--I try to open an edit or update page and the browser crashes. LJ developers need to realize that while PPC Mac users are in the minority, a lot of us are paid users. Alienate even four of us and you lose the money to buy 10 pizzas (twenty if you have coupons--more if you like crappy pizza).

It would be nice if they'd explain what the new "improvements" are fixing. The old interface wasn't broken, was it? Is this one more efficient? It's not efficient for me and it's not the kind of service I want to pay for. It's *not* the kind of service I expect to pay for, either, though I guess I should be used to it by now.

LJ support suggests using one of the "several" preOSX mac clients or another browser, like Opera.

There is exactly *one* client for PPC macs available and when I tried running it, I ran into serious memory leaks and problems with crashing and gibberish posts. That's not good, either. I've tried other browsers and they don't run well and tend to crash. Opera is the worst when it comes to navigating LJ. This has happened in the past--LJ does a new update and once again alienates specific subsets of their userbase. They consistently marginalize users of older Macs. I'm not sure about other platforms since I don't use them. Whatever happened to accessible programming? Whatever happened to making stuff that looks good on the simplest browser? It seems nobody cares about functionality anymore and looks are all that matter. I suppose we have marketing execs and affordable broadband to thank for that.

I'm stuck with IE for now and will be until I can afford to buy a new computer. That won't happen until well after we buy a house.

Sure, I can live without LJ, but it's a community I enjoy. I spend many days housebound and like the diversion.

Maybe it's time to return to Usenet and IRC.

And despite my best intentions, I'm going to go get some coffee.

Comments

[djdead.livejournal.com]

I assume you're running OSX if you are using a mac...

If the problem is with your browser, why not try Firefox?
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

or try Camino
http://www.mozilla.org/products/camino/

[krues8dr.livejournal.com]

The whole problem is that she's pre-OSX.

[krasota.livejournal.com]

No, I specifically said I have a power pc mac. I'm running OS9.2.2 on a powerbook g3 lombard bronze. I can't run OSX on this machine with any semblance of "running".

[djdead.livejournal.com]

I dunno nothing about macs pre-OSX.
case in point.

I's just tryin to help.

[krues8dr.livejournal.com]

As a webdeveloper, I'm familiar with these arguments - but really, it's not at all practical to code to the lowest common denominator. People running machines under similar conditions as yourself make up less than a tenth of a percent of overall users; I'm sure on LJ those numbers are *even lower*. And really, the sad truth is, this "specific subset" doesn't make enough of a dent in the revenue of a service like this to make it worthwhile to support those users.

Why change it at all? Because it's always a race to have the smoothest, best looking, most feature-rich service. And if they don't, their competition will, and they'll lose customers. So, I would suggest you hop on to one of the other services that don't have LJ's push for functionality - blogger or diaryland, perhaps?

Now, if *I* had done LJ and there was a *reasonable number* of older-browser users, I *certainly* would have made the old interface still available, and set a cookie on the machines of those who *wanted* the *new* interface. But supporting two versions is also not very cost effective. And frowned upon in the Web Development world.

[krues8dr.livejournal.com]

Also, I should point out that you're not in their target audience, so making the technology work the way that you'd like isn't really a priority for them. It's the up-and-coming kids with their brand-new G5s that they really want to draw in to their service - there's more of them and they have the money to spend.

[krasota.livejournal.com]

I don't think Mac users are in their target audience at all. There are a lot of complaints about the new update interface and Safari, as well.

[the-revolution.livejournal.com]

I have not had any issues with the new interface in the newest version of safari myself; ; ;

This doesn't mean that they couldn't allow you to specify the use of the old interface in your journal settings or something. . .perhaps giving the option; personally I prefer the older interface. .but I'm a creature of habit.

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

Mozilla 1.2.1 seems to be working for me on 9.2.2.... test post in my journal was done with it.

[krasota.livejournal.com]

So where do I find it? Nevermind the fact that their own website says they don't support this OS and the fact that when I *did* have it, it crashed repeatedly and couldn't handle cyrillic *at all*.

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/releases/mozilla1.2.1/mozilla-macos9-1.2.1-full.bin

There's an experimental build of 1.3.1 at http://www.t3.rim.or.jp/~harunaga/mozilla-macos9/