On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 23:06 -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
> > Never mind the fact that IE stagnated so badly in browser design because
> > they had NO drive to better it.
> 
> They created things -- not the greatest things (certainly not for SECURE 
> computing) like ActiveX and what-not.  They weren't sitting on their 
> laurels, ever that I can remember.

I NEVER said they didn't create great things. I remember the day when I
first downloaded IE3 and was ASTONISHED how much better it was then
Netscape. It was faster, had a ton of useful features and seemed more
stable. 

What I said is they STAGNATED. How long did it take IE to get tabbed
browsing, by far one of the most useful features of today's browsers?
Opera had it YEARS in advance. What about ad blocking? Flash blocking?


> Firefox really got traction by GREAT MARKETING mostly.  Safari, because 
> it's the "monopoly" browser on Apple systems.

Perhaps, although the "security" angle was 100% valid, and both Firefox
and Apple on the whole attacked MS in general successfully with that
one.

> > While Safari and Firefox are both far better then IE, they still have
> > many issues. Firefox in many ways has been stagnating of late, adding
> > pretty eye candy, but ignoring the fundamental problems (performance,
> > resource usage, stability). Chrome seems to be aiming at Firefox's
> > weaknesses very hard, and that can only be good for consumers.
> 
> Bah.  Just another browser.  Haven't seen any good reasons to subject 
> myself to testing their software for them (beta).  Let me know when 

Speed. It's FAST. I'd have it as my primary browser if they had a Linux
version, and a flashblock mechanism. I was astonished how much faster
then FF3 it felt on my slower machines.

TTYL

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist