Re: [LUG] Browser war II (Was: (Another rant) [Fwd: Microsoft shuts down Windows 98])

On Wednesday 12 July 2006 14:27, Ben Goodger wrote:
> Obviously I cannot do that.
>
> [snip]
>
> It doesn't really matter whether IE was superior or not in 2001 - I believe
> it may have been superior in 1998 - but it is most definitely inferior now,
> and that's very important.

that's exactly my point.

> However, I can prove that IE is inferior now and that Jesus does not exist
> now in the same way as I, you, and my coffee cup do.

Indeed it is. Which is why i pointed out (and you took great offence in) that
IE 7 will cause more problems for open source software, as it will support
all the standards you are banging on about, thus removing the need for people
to want to move to firefox.

IE7 is not going to fix much. Haven't you seen the screenshots of Acid2 on it?

on the same note:

Wow,

http://sillydog.org/narchive/

heheheh, i forgot how great NN3 was. weeeeeeee.

> Recommendation, and XHTML 1.1, which predates IE6 by about six months, and
> DOM, whose dating I have been unable to determine.

FYI DOM1v1 was oct 1st 1998, and DOM1v2 was oct 2 2002.

So IE should support DOM1 v1 perfectly then, right? It doesn't.

XHTML back then? you're kidding right?!!

1999.

> Anyone wishing to use CSS with IE must ensure that they hack their way
> around its bugs, or contrain themselves to CSS1.

indeed, because the browser is 6+ years old.

No, CSS2 predates 2001 by several years.

> Then there is the MIME bug.

"The" mime bug?  I'm sure there are lots of bugs. There are lots of bugs in
KDE, and GNOME, and Windows, and, infact, ANY software product.  It's the
nature of human programming.  Do you not remember we paid for Netscape until
v6 (or 7, i forget)?! And it really was a great big pile of pooh compared to
IE 6, buggy as hell.  Yet i don't hear anyone saying "Netscape were EVIL!!"

Yes, "The" MIME bug. The one which prevents IE from technically being classed as a browser, since it incorrectly interprets MIME and through that does all sorts of things it's not supposed to, which people code around, thus buggering it up for the rest of us, etc etc...

I don't think there is any question in anyones mind that IE won browser war I
fair and square, looking back. (although i can argue both sides of the fence
with that view.)

*ahem*

So now we're onto browser war II. or at least, in the cold war before the war.
Both have a chance of winning.  One has massive support and a talented set of
developers, the other has dominance (and a talented developers).

who knows how it will unfold.  I've seen strange things happen over the last
10 years, and we're sure going to see a whole lot more happen.  This time
though, i think google will have a big role to play.

I wonder how long it is before a whole lot of you start bashing google, too.
Just because they're big. must be evil, too!

> [other complaints]

Probably the main reason is that IE 6 is currently *the* mainstream browser -
whatever you think, it is. ffx is getting a higher percentage all the time,
but that's no reason to not support something that is still "mainstream" (ie,
has a majority share), and supported by the vendor.

I'm well aware of the fact that IE has a majority share.
The United States of America has a majority share of the landmass of North America.
So what? Both are buggy, unstable and corrupt, and obtained that marketshare through illegal practises.
Here's a small list..

After releasing Windows 98, Microsoft raised the price charged to OEMs for Windows 95 (62)

In the name of "combating piracy", Microsoft advised OEMs that they would be charged a higher price for Windows unless they drastically limited the number of PCs that they sold without an OS pre-installed (58)

When Microsoft set the price for Windows 98 they did not even bother to consider the prices of other vendors' Intel-compatible PC operating systems (62)

Microsoft charges a lower price to OEMs who agree to ensure that all of their Windows machines are powerful enough to run Windows NT for Workstations (66)

After Netscape Navigator was first announced, Microsoft tried to convince Netscape not to make a Windows version? (79) And later they tried to convince Netscape to design Navigator to rely upon their "Internet-related APIs in Windows 95" (the Internet Explorer core?)? (81) and perhaps be as little as a "user-interface shell" (85)

Microsoft made Intel stop promoting their software that exposed APIs for their Native Signal Processing hardware by pressuring OEMs not to install it, (101) and later made Intel altogether agree to stop developing any platform-level interfaces that might draw support away from interfaces exposed by Windows(102)

Microsoft punished the IBM PC Company with higher prices, a late license for Windows 95, and the withholding of technical and marketing support because IBM refused to move its business away from products that themselves competed directly with Windows and Office (OS/2 and SmartSuite) (115)

When Microsoft managed to bundle Internet Explorer 1.0 with the first version of Windows 95 licensed to OEMs in July 1995 it also included a term in its OEM licenses that prohibited the OEMs from modifying or deleting any part of Windows 95, including Internet Explorer, prior to shipment

That Gateway had specifically requested that Microsoft provide a way to uninstall Internet Explorer 4.0 from Windows 98 (170)

In 1996, after Compaq removed the MSN and Internet Explorer icons from the desktops on their Presarios to instead promote AOL and Netscape Navigator, Microsoft sent Compaq a letter stating its intention to terminate Compaq's license for Windows 95 if Compaq did not restore the MSN and Internet Explorer icons to their original positions (206)

About the same time, Compaq announced its intention to work with Netscape for its internal Internet needs and on Internet server initiatives. In response, Microsoft insisted that Compaq support Microsoft's Internet initiatives throughout its business (MS forced them to install IE on all of their computers). (232) Microsoft also threatened Gateway about its own use of Navigator on it's corporate network(236) and they did the same with Apple (354)

Compaq's license fee for Windows are lower than any other OEMs, they do not have to meet all of the conditions for the lower license fees, and has had free internal use of all Windows products for PCs since March 1998 (234)

Microsoft threatened IBM to make them stop promoting Netscape Navigator, but IBM refused (237)(238)

Microsoft promised to give preferential support, in the form of early Windows 98 and Windows NT betas, other technical information, and the right to use certain Microsoft seals of approval, to important ISVs, but only if they use Internet Explorer as the default browsing software for any software they develop with a hypertext-based user interface and they use IEs "HTML Help" (339)

Microsoft tainted its java tools in such a way that Java applications written with their tools would, unknowingly to the developer, be incompatible with other JVMs and, once written, would be difficult to port, and that they refused to change this until November 1998 when ordered to do do by a court (394)

Microsoft pressured Intel, which was developing a high-performance Windows-compatible JVM, to not share its work with either Sun or Netscape, much less allow Netscape to bundle the Intel JVM with Navigator (396)

Microsoft took steps to thwart the creation of cross platform Java interfaces by stopping Intel from helping Sun to develop class libraries that offered cutting-edge multimedia support (404)