<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Web 2.0 &#8212; mirage, distraction or gimmick&#063;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/06/05/web-20-mirage-distraction-or-gimmick/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/06/05/web-20-mirage-distraction-or-gimmick/</link>
	<description>... at the intersection of media, technology, business and the web</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:01:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Beamish</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/06/05/web-20-mirage-distraction-or-gimmick/comment-page-1/#comment-267970</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Beamish</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:30:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/06/05/web-20-mirage-distraction-or-gimmick/#comment-267970</guid>
		<description>Web 2.0 is really just another way of saying client/server or thin client/fat client.

The first interactive computer systems were the ultimate thin client -- the computer did all of the work, and all the client did was display output and accept keystrokes. (Anyone remember the Lear-Seigler ADM-3A, marketed as the Dumb Terminal?)

Early web sites were static pages only, followed by dynamic pages -- but apart from a few browser widgets like dropdown lists, entry fields and pushbuttons, the client was still thin and dumb. (No hotel heiress jokes, please.)

We&#039;ve now progressed along the continuum where the client&#039;s fatter and smarter -- and the web experience is much better for it. I bet Tim and Marc are happy to see the web the way it is now -- it was pretty geeky to begin with.

Yep -- Web 2.0 is here to stay, and that&#039;s a Good Thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Web 2.0 is really just another way of saying client/server or thin client/fat client.</p>
<p>The first interactive computer systems were the ultimate thin client &#8212; the computer did all of the work, and all the client did was display output and accept keystrokes. (Anyone remember the Lear-Seigler ADM-3A, marketed as the Dumb Terminal?)</p>
<p>Early web sites were static pages only, followed by dynamic pages &#8212; but apart from a few browser widgets like dropdown lists, entry fields and pushbuttons, the client was still thin and dumb. (No hotel heiress jokes, please.)</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve now progressed along the continuum where the client&#8217;s fatter and smarter &#8212; and the web experience is much better for it. I bet Tim and Marc are happy to see the web the way it is now &#8212; it was pretty geeky to begin with.</p>
<p>Yep &#8212; Web 2.0 is here to stay, and that&#8217;s a Good Thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

