Re: Prefer Netscape (was: Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics)

This issue needs to die.. Simply put there are more
then one browser out there and more then one user if
you want the client you need to cater to thier needs..
If you had a store that had free coffee would put out
Decafe only or both pots?

   If Netscape is so good as it is why did they stop
at version 4.X and move to version 6 which is more of
a java enviroment and more like IE?

Kill the issue move on adn code to the best of your
knowledge....




--- Lisa H <nstar92(at)bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> What ever you say! I will do my coding, you do
> yours. Happy coding.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeremy Brown" <jeremy(at)localnetamerica.com>
> To: "Lisa H" <nstar92(at)bellatlantic.net>
> Cc: "KathyW" <kathyw(at)home.albury.net.au>;
> <hwg-techniques(at)mail.hwg.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 9:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Prefer Netscape (was: Lies, Damned Lies
> & Statistics)
> 
> 
> | I hardly believe that coding 'to the standards' is
> babying Netscape.  It
> seems
> | more to me like buying into proprietary corporate
> dependence.  Think of
> | Microsoft's popularity this way:  Can a car
> function without, say a radio?
> | Absolutely.  As a matter of fact, the driver is
> probably less distracted
> without
> | one.  However, almost every vehicle purchased
> today contains a 'factory'
> | stereo.  Does this make the car function better. 
> Absolutely not!  But
> it's
> | there.  Now if someone was to offer you a
> different radio, after you've
> | purchased your car, either for a fee or for free,
> what's the likelihood of
> | switching radios?  Not very.  Why?  You've already
> got one that works
> 'just
> | fine'.  Never mind that the radio that's in your
> car is only there because
> the
> | factory/manufacturer threw it in because they
> control the/your
> environment.  The
> | other radio could be (and in the case of Netscape
> is) better, but it's
> 'too much
> | hassle' to change.  If Netscape had the marketing
> advantage Microsoft has
> by
> | distributing it's own OS w/ its browser pre
> installed, then everyone would
> be
> | complaining about having to code for the IE users.
>  As I started off
> saying,
> | coding 'to the standards' is not babying Netscape.
>  What happens when AOL
> | switches to their own products?  What then when 22
> million plus users now
> use
> | Netscape instead of IE?  We'll see all of the
> developers who will have to
> be
> | babied by their clients while they frantically try
> to fix their mistakes!
> ( I
> | just hope that Microsoft will then get the HINT,
> as so elegantly put )
> |
> | Side note:  Oh, I know that this is sure to start
> the email coming.  Well,
> I
> | welcome them. I have spent over 6,000 hours in the
> past year alone doing
> nothing
> | but coding/programming web sites (Yes, 6,000 hours
> personally, by myself -
> | that's just over 16 hours a day, as I do work
> Sundays.  Collectively, my
> entire
> | staff has logged over 15,000 hours). I have dealt
> with the idiosyncrasies
> of
> | each browser and have exalted the greatness of
> each browser.  But when it
> comes
> | down to it, you make sure your code is written to
> the standards, Netscape
> will
> | love it, and IE will accept it.  Why do we insist
> on coding for a
> browser!!!!
> | (IE) and then scratch our heads in befuddlement
> and anger when another
> browser
> | won't accept the code.  That's equivalent to
> designing a vending machine
> to
> | accept your own 'special currency' then get upset
> when the rest of
> America's
> | coins don't work in the machine.  It's amazing
> what standards can help
> | accomplish when they're followed.
> |
> | Lisa H wrote:
> |
> | > I am tireded of the "browser wars" !  MS had a
> good product, strong
> | > marketing, and Apple could have had it too in
> the beginning instead of
> IBM.
> | > Would we be worse off? I guess not in Netscapes
> eyes.
> | > I say we need to get rid of NS if they cannot
> become compliant.  Too
> many
> | > hours, and not even enough time in my day to
> worry over the small
> amounts of
> | > Netscape traffic. IF we stop babying Netscape,
> perhaps when it has no
> more
> | > users, it will get the HINT!
> | > ----- Original Message -----
> | > From: "KathyW" <kathyw(at)home.albury.net.au>
> | > To: <hwg-techniques(at)mail.hwg.org>
> | > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 7:02 PM
> | > Subject: Re: Prefer Netscape (was: Lies, Damned
> Lies & Statistics)
> | >
> | > | ** Reply to message from Dawn
> <dawn(at)soholondon.com> on Thu, 02 Nov
> 2000
> | > | 19:24:30 +0000
> | > |
> | > | This one has nearly had it's run, but for
> those new to the wars ...
> | > |
> | > | > Many people do not consider the fact that
> although Netscape had some
> | > | > very talented programmers and engineers,
> that sort of management was
> | > | > never going to make it when the market got
> competitive.  That is why
> | > | > they lost the browser wars and that is why
> they now belong to AOL.
> | > |
> | > | Not entirely. As someone who tried to organise
> for an Australian ISP
> to
> | > get a
> | > | contract to sell Netscape when it was still
> commercial, I agree
> | > wholeheartedly
> | > | that their management and marketing sucked big
> time, and their
> arrogance
> | > was,
> | > | in hindsight, amusing.
> | > |
> | > | As a partner in an ISP who looked at a
> contract from M$ for
> distributing
> | > their
> | > | browser, and saw in WRITING the exclusionary
> clauses that would have
> | > prevented
> | > | us distributing NS even if subscribers wanted
> it, I have to say M$
> have
> | > been
> | > | more than just "naughty". Opera aren't exaclty
> innocent in that
> respect
> | > either
> | > | ...
> | > |
> | > | Netscape's poor java support (which annoyed me
> enormously) I have also
> | > come to
> | > | find can also be blamed directly on M$ for
> applying pressure on other
> | > industry
> | > | bodies to stop helping NS improve it, to the
> point where NS could no
> | > longer
> | > | afford to keep a Java development team going
> at all (spelt out in part
> on
> | > the
> | > | Anti-Trust Findings of Fact).
> | > |
> | > | MS have, however, had a lot of help along the
> way:
> | > | * from every slovenly, lazy individual,
> business and OEM that couldn't
> be
> | > | bothered installing the NS browser if the OS
> came with IE;
> | > | * from lazy or ignorant web "authors" (I use
> the term loosely) who
> | > couldn't
> | > | even get their code to validate if their lives
> depended on it ("but it
> | > works OK
> | > | in IE, besides what is 'validate' anyway??");
> | > | * and from a largely ignorant and computer
> illiterate user base who,
> when
> | > asked
> | > | what their Operating System is (on support
> calls) regularly offer
> "Office
> | > 97"
> | > | or "Office 2000" and the occasional "Windows
> 97" (windies jumped from
> 95
> | > | straight to 98 for those that don't remember
> back that far ... ).
> | > |
> | > | > still build backwards-compatible sites until
> NN4x users drop below
> 2%.
> | > |
> | > | Unfortunatley (and despite M$ attempts to the
> contrary), that is going
> to
> | > take
> | > | a while :-(
> | > | One of our support personnel spent 15 minutes
> on the phone last week
> | > | UNsuccessfully trying to talk a windows user
> through shutting down
> their
> | > | computer. Geeez .... felt like saying "put it
> back in the box, take it
> | > back to
> | > | the shop that sold it to you and go buy a Mac
> ..." There is a HUGE
> user
> | > base
> | > | "out there" that are simply incapable of
> installing even the most
> | > | easy-to-install lead-you-by-the-nose piece of
> software.
> | > |
> | > | How long is the warranty period on computers
> these days? How soon can
> we
> | > expect
> | > | the old machines to fail and need replacing
> with something that has a
> | > later
> | > | browser(s)?? Good question.
> | > |
> | > | Will the consumer be given any choice in
> pre-installed browser
> software? I
> | > | doubt it ... not if M$ and lazy OEM's have
> their way. I hear M$ bought
> | > their
> | > | way out of the 95 anti-trust case. I wonder
> how much they are offering
> to
> | > whom
> | > | now to get out of this one?
> | > |
> | > | Well, that's my rant for the month. Pity it
> doesn't make me feel any
> | > better
> | > | about browser incompatabilities ...
> | > | KathyW.
> | > |
> | > | SuSE Linux 7.0 / IBM JRE1.1.8 / PolarBar Java
> Mailer 1.19RC11
> |
> | --
> | Jeremy Brown
> | CTO,CIO
> | Innovative Business Consultants, Inc.
> | http://www.ibc2001.com
> | USA: (937) 277-2000
> | 1-800-398-3007
> |
> |
> 
> 


=====
    www.pc-wizard.net       Mr.Wizard(at)pc-wizard.net
    ===============================================
       ______ _______ _______ __     __ _______
       |         |    |        |      | |
       |____     |    |____     |    |  |____
            |    |    |          |  |   |
       _____|    |    |______     ||    |______

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
>From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer.
http://experts.yahoo.com/

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA