<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in Web 2.0 &amp;mdash; mirage, distraction or gimmick&amp;#63;</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:30:53 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Web 2.0 &amp;mdash; mirage, distraction or gimmick&amp;#63;</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/06/05/web-20-mirage-distraction-or-gimmick/#comment-1314504</link><description>Web 2.0 is really just another way of saying client/server or thin client/fat client.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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?)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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.)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;We've now progressed along the continuum where the client'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.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Yep -- Web 2.0 is here to stay, and that's a Good Thing.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Alex Beamish</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:30:53 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>