Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> My favorite MS program is Internet Explorer 5.5. Although MS totally
It's a much besser browser than Netscape, but what's wrong with
http://www.opera.com ? It and Netscape 4.75 makes the wait for
usable (1.0?) Mozilla bearable, and trains people not do design
web site which can only be used with a specific browser.
> broke the syntax rules of HTML in previous versions, they have since
> seen the light. Their latest version fixed much of their buggy
> non-compliant software, and added a lot of support for Cascading
> Style Sheets. They released IE for the Mac later than the PC, and
> this latest version is currently rated as the most CSS-compliant
> browser ever.
Trouble is, the web is broken, and broken beyond repair. I'm really
looking forward to p2p web successors, and whether we'll get a new
open standard simultaneously addressing the balkanization and the
technical deficiencies issues in a sustainable way.
> Meanwhile, Netscape has released a larger, bloated version which
> actually degrades its function. Since being bought out by AOL, they
> have been more focused on merging AOL functionality into the browser
> rather than implementing actual Internet standards. Microsoft IE is
> now a superior product over Netscape due to superior quality.
Netscape 6 is dead as a doornail, absolutely.
> My earlier post mentioned MS' dirty tricks of serving jagged fonts to
> Netscape, having MS servers delay netscape pages, and deliberately
Here's one instance as to why the web is broken: it renders documents
for the user's retina, but it deliberately, stupidly did not specify
how exactly the document is rendered, making it rely on existing context.
Instead of specifying embedded cacheable fonts (font ID made from
the cryptographic hash of the font data) and a mechanism by which
they're typeset.
You have to keep the context essentially at zero, and define higher
order functionality in terms of existing primitives. A language,
in other words. Since it can be made to run in a sandbox, it needs
not be unsafe. And don't get me started on http, oh my.
> serving error messages instead of content to Netscape. That was
> given as a history lesson. None of Microsoft's current products are
> known to play these tricks any more. Although many old-timers have a
Even MS does not that it can't afford playing it's usual heavy-handed
tricks if it's under heavy flak fire from all parts of horizont.
I really wish it'd sink, and only to liberate the human resources for
the job market.
> long memory, the market is quick and dynamic. The market
I personally make a statement to boykott vendors who're malicious
and/or stupid. Concerted action can cumulate, provided well-informed
customers.
> re-evaluates things currently in view. Microsoft products are no
> longer defacto, and are actually fighting on their merits. Macintosh
> is making a comeback. Unix, especially AIX and Linux are becoming
I could say several nasty things about Cupertino here, but I won't.
> bigger all the time. And Microsoft's defacto windows client base has
> fragmented into window 95/98, windows NT, windows 2000, windows ME,
> etc.
Hey, they tried to cash in multiple times on essentially the same
products. Time to taste how balkanization tastes if it concerns
your own line of products on your very own market.
> Although Microsoft may have gotten its start with a lot of
> quasi-legal maneuvering and dirty tricks, these methods don't work
> forever. If Microsoft is going to survive, it will do so based on
Which partially restores my faith into humanity.
> actual product quality. Windows was a kludge of smoke and mirrors
> over DOS. Windows 95 was actually a major product development of a
> shell over DOS. Windows NT was actually a carefully designed
> operating system. Windows 2000 is an attempt to migrate their client
Strictly speaking, NT was not a purely Microsoft product.
> base from the kludge to the real OS. In the future, they will have
> to produce even more quality products. Their quick-and-dirty tricks
> seem to be a thing of the past.
I would love to see Microsoft to reinvent itself. It would prove that it
can be done.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:24 MDT