Slashdot Mirror
MSIE 7 May Beat Longhorn Out The Gate
Quantum Jim writes "InternetNews.com reports that a major upgrade for Microsoft Internet Explorer may be imminent. Apparently in response to the recent mass migration away from MSIE, top Microsoft developers have been soliciting for improvements in the old browser at a web log and at Channel 9, an aggregate journal previously discussed by /.. InternetNews.com speculates that improvements could possibly include support for tabbed browsing, better security, more PNG and CSS compliance, and RSS integration (which Firefox and Opera Mail already support). Go competition!"
It will be based on the Mozilla source!
MSIE 7 May Beat Longhorn Out The Gate... But I use Mozilla and the bell rang a long time ago.
Well, firefox was able to grab my interest before IE. Even with the new features, I will stick with firefox because of the community that maintains it.
On the other hand it's depressing that MIcrosoft is a big enough monopolist to let the status and security of what they maintain is an integral part of the operating system, namely the browser, to go almost completely to shit before they bestir themselves to even think about fixing it.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Now this is what I call truely clueless. Typical MS thinking that is the cause of IE's sercurity vulnerabilities and lack of established standards.
AC comments get piped to
It's somewhat ironic that the competitor Microsoft thought they had killed, Netscape, is now again, in the form of the now open source Mozilla and it's variants, the biggest threat to IE.
And, also, the re-rise of that competitor is bringing out the first major feature additions to IE in years...
I thought IE and the Window OS were so tightly integrated that they were virtually the same thing? Do you mean IE was actually a separate program all along?
But I don't understand the point of "The Browser Wars".
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Microsoft is finally making some long over due improvements.
But........
If everyone stops using IE and moves to Mozilla/Opera/whatever, Microsoft's loss in revenue is exactly zero.
If everyone abandons other browsers and uses IE exclusively, Microsoft's increase in revenue is exactly zero.
So what's the point of all this?
The June Google Browser graph shows an interesting turn in IE's share. Now, is it like previous "bumps" where IE quickly rebounded, or is this the sign of an actual turn? I hope they release the July figures soon.
If microsoft do manage to get standard complience into this new IE browser, then at least the rest of the internet that was still catering to shity IE 5.5 type design will be practically forced away. It might be good news for people who don't even USE IE. *continues living in a fantasy*
This is the attitude throughout Microsoft. It's the same reason why the Windows API still sucks after 20 years. The vast majority of customers don't give a damn about any of this stuff because they don't care: no sites will use alpha-transparent PNG unless IE does, so why bother implementing it?
This is the problem with relying on commercial entities for "innovation": they'll only bother when it actually benefits them. Mozilla, on the other hand, implement things purely for the sake of completeness and interest.
no popup-blockers? no flash-click-to-view? Other than the fact I'm on XP, is there any compelling reason to switch over?
That, until now, each major IE upgrade has a new, non standard and non-supported-by-other feature, that was immediately and widely adopted by web designers (perhaps because it gets immediately added to Dreamweaver et al).
:(
So, here we go again, new pages that look like crap in non-IE...
The advantages of monopolys are endless.
--krahd
mod me up scottie!
I would have to imagine that microsoft benefits in mindshare and monetarily by having IE as your default browser. Being that millions of users are still unaware that you can change your homepage (or just dont care to) MS gets to advertise their sites and services by default to many windows users. Also the search function (and the fact that if you incorrectly type and address you are presented with a 'search') links directly to the MS portal and advertisers on their engine.
Now I admit that it is not much, but to by default have a user in your sphere can be directly profitable or at elast usefull in a number of ways.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
About his concerns for people who are still using IE 5.5 (mostly all Windows 95 users, since they can't upgrade to IE 6, nor does MS support them anymore), they can be convinced to use IE 7.0 through convincing them to buy a new computer. There are still a lot of Windows 9x boxes out there, so Microsoft could use security as a incentive (among others) for people with older versions of Windows to switch to Windows XP with the new and improved Internet Explorer. (Likewise, Linux/BSD supporters could convince Windows 9x users to switch for the same reasons, too, and there is always Mozilla/Firefox, which runs on Windows 95, so there are other options)
Still, though, the developer's comment was stupid; everyone benefits from full CSS and PNG support; it would save developers a lot of time trying to get their pages to render properly under IE, and it would make IE more standards compliant.
My prediction: lynx will make a comeback and overtake them all!
I didn't buy their request for user feedback. I'm sure they know exactly what is wrong with their browser. They're not stupid, just evil.
It doesn't matter whether they add tabbed browsing, RSS feed integration or any other interface improvements as long as they support XHTML1.1/CSS2 and the recommended modules of CSS3. If users want features they can easily switch to Opera but as a web developer I have no choice but to make my pages work in IE. So until IE fades out of common usage or it is updated to support current standards, the development of the web be halted and we'll be stuck with 1990s web technology.
Strike me down... ah fuck it, you all know the quote.
See the responses (above) to this post.
The future direction of the web is at stake... if Microsoft maintains their massive IE market share, then they can continue to dictate standards, rather than follow standards created by impartial third parties.
Why would they pass this up? They have 50+ billion dollars in the bank... I'm sure tossing a couple of million into IE development is no big deal. And if it allows them to maintain their stranglehold on the Internet, I'm sure they'd find it to be worthwhile.
Visit the Game Programming Wiki!
I mean, exactly what is it about marking a site that makes it "favorite"?!? Consider for example doing research on euthanasia (sp?)... would that someone sits down to use your browser and sees that you have five references to sites describing or providing "howto's" for euthansia. Are these really semantically "favorites"? I don't think so. It's really an example of how cute MS gets, but doesn't get the semantics. Netscape, Mozilla, and all of the other browsers got it right when they provided "bookmarks". The metaphor is apt, and not overreaching.
Just my $.02, and probably offtopic.
And no, IE7 won't be a Transformer.
Microsoft does not sell IE. They gain no direct profit from people's use of it, so you have to wonder what their motive is here. Let's assume that "good" and "evil" are subjective and emotive words that have no relevance to this discussion, ok?
If you read Joel Spolsky's API war article, some perspective may be gained. Microsoft wishes only to discourage Web developers from moving away from the IE platform. If developers move away, Microsoft no longer has control over web development, and can no longer keep new technologies on the fringe.
This is bad news for a company with plans to move to network applications. If a platform for network applications exists outside of Microsoft's control, it will be much harder to profit from. Thus, Microsoft's interest is served here by retaining that 90%+ browser market share, to prevent the adoption of new technologies not under MS control.
"Apparently in response to the recent mass migration away from MSIE..."
o se sshare_1.html
Like it or not, IE has only lost 1% of market share. See:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/12/HNiel
Hardly a mass migration!!!
Since they integrated it, upgrades to IE become upgrades to the OS. I'm sure marketing would much rather hold out till longhorn hits. It'd make thier job of selling a bloated, complex upgrade that much easier. I tell you, I wouldn't want to be the guy who had to come up with reasons why you should upgrade to Windows ME.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I remember Microsoft making the statement that IE6 would be the last standalone version..
Guess control of the market is more important then sticking with your promises...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
In a C|Net article from May 31, 2003, a Microsoft rep said, "Legacy OSes have reached their zenith with the addition of IE 6 SP1. Further improvements to IE will require enhancements to the underlying OS."
Cut to a year and change later, Longhorn is taking too long to arrive and people are getting sick/scared enough of all the security deficiencies in IE to actually look for a better browser. Because informed consumers are their worst enemy, Microsoft gets a little nervous that their lock on the browser market might be in jeopardy, and POW! Miracle of miracles, it is suddenly possible to further improve standalone versions of IE on non-Longhorn versions of Windows! Whoda thunk it?
Technically such an improved beast should be called IE 6.5. If they actually do call it 7, it's purely for marketing reasons-- they'll launch some flashy commercials to try to snow people into thinking this is some totally reworked wonder that fixes everything they didn't like about IE 6, when in reality it will just be IE 6 with some bugs fixed and some extra shit grafted on. Too bad their campaign will probably work on the uninformed.
Don't roll over and take this, people! Keep informing your friends/family/clients that there are better browsers out there, and install your alternative browser of choice wherever possible. Don't let them listen to whatever sunshine Microsoft will be blowing up their asses about the "new, improved" IE.
~Philly
In this world, the same thing will happen to M$ that happened to Netscape. Once you get used to a browser there is no compelling reason to change back. If people shift to Mozilla or Firefox now they probably won't want IE in the future due to the bad reputation, no matter if they really fix it or not.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
So there's a mass migration away from IE.
From the stats gathering we do on our site, I have yet to see that. Oh sure there's a slight rise but that's not enough to convince marketing etc. Mind you, the 3rd party we use is crap for browser analysis but we're stuck using it because everyone in the industry does.
Are there some reliable browser metrics out there? Your own site stats don't count...
Otherwise, as another poster stated, people will simply wait for MS to level the field with the rest of the browsers and keep using what they have.
Interesting questions, interesting challenges... Are there enough resources? Is there enough people/creativity/motivation/discipline (no bickering, forking and what not) to keep MS at bay? Can the F/OSS community focus on the users and develop widely accepted, non-controversial(*) extensions?
Exciting times - I can hardly wait to see what happens!!
(*) The reason I mention this is because FireFox has this ad blocker... Which is good and all, but at some point someone will point that out as something bad. Even if it still hits the advertiser's servers... Joe Consumer will be under the impression that this is not a "good" browser, developed by "good" people. Remember, chances are Joe Consumer does not care about adverts. And companies may find an excuse to indulge in more yummy FUD :( Fear the media, people...
The revolution will not be televised.
Actually, the easiest 'fix' I can think of for MSIE would be for them to release an update that merely includes IE7.css as the default CSS file (read before it reads any site's CSS file). That would fix the vast majority of CSS compliance problems (and PNG, too, if I recall correctly). They also need to pay Dean Edwards a million bucks for this thing, too - not even a rounding error to MS, really.
Well, MSDN front page has an article with code to build your own custom web browser with tabs and an integrated link to a search engine.
You don't need to buy anything for this. Visual C# express is a free download
Notice there's not even a date mentioned in this article. It barely even suggests that ie7 will be released before longhorn (2008 last I heard).
Is it any wonder that people are switching away from a browser (and operating system) that can't even release system patches (XPSP2?) on time.
Hell, with XP SP2 you're forced to buy an encryption certificate if you want to distribute software...
Verisign are making a *hell* of a lot of money of MS' back.
They can safely disable activex as it was dying anyway... they've found a better money spinner now.
It's about damn time. But even if they finally manage to fix their box model rendering and implement native, non-filter:DirectWhatever(foo) PNG alpha support, how long until that's actually widespread? Given that so many people still use IE 5 or 5.5 (last I checked, anyway) long after IE 6's release and subsequent patches, it might be quite a while before IE-specific quirks don't need to be worried about. That is, unless MS forces everyone using Windows to upgrade, or Firefox becomes the dominant browser. /continues using the box model hack and that freakish DirectX alpha filter
Heck, maybe I could use one of IE's security holes to install a PNG fix when users visit my site.
So if we wait until Microsoft develops and releases these features in Internet Explorer, then we get to do everything that we .. uh .. already can do today in browsers like Firefox. Thanks, but no thanks, we can get now what they're offering next year.
Microsoft are truly amazing: Can any other IT company consistently generate excitement and buzz amongst their customer base by announcing that they are going to add features that everyone else has had for years already???
...somebody patent tabbed browsing, mouse gestures and standards compliant browsing...
Opera had this first, didn't they?
If Microsoft's IE team comes up with a nifty new feature that makes surfing the net easier, I can see two possible scenarios: 1) Microsoft patents the feature making it exlcusive to IE 2) the feature is quickly copied into Firefox by either the MozDev team or an enthusiastic extenstion developer. Without patenting features, how can Microsoft keep Internet Explorer superior to its competitors feature-wise? I suppose plug-ins exist for IE to include mouse gestures and tabbing and such, but are these as much of a threat to Firefox and Opera?
Deprecated, not depreciated.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
It's a flagship product. There of course is the idea that if there is a lot of people using IE, there may be more webservers using IIS, which might mean more computers running Windows XP.
But I think the idea might come down to trying to keep a brandname product in public view. And remember that even after there recent returning of cash to investors, M$ still has enough money that they can spend a billion dollars on keeping IE up to date purely for marketting reasons.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
As a web developer / designer, I've been using Mozilla and the like for a long time. But what interests me is what the majority of people use - I need to design stuff that works for everything. Since Explorer has ALWAYS been a pain when it comes to CSS compliance, myself and every designer out there have had to bend over backward to write code that has all these little IE fixes built in. I'm sick of having to play with code and then check both Netscape and Explorer for consistency. Please, oh please, give IE 7 some decent fricken CSS compliance!! That way, I will KNOW that it will all look the bloody same, just like it should for pete's sakes.
Just use HTML tables!!!!
*duck*
(No flames please, yes I'm kidding. Sort of.)
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
That's funny, seeing as it could very well be argued that the primary reason Mozilla has been gaining marketshare is because of it's increased security, while IE has clearly needed such security measures for some years and yet has not even had an established team to work on it for that duration of time.
Imagine you are a webdesigner... and you really NEED to use transparent PNGs. So you have this options:r (src='filename.png')"> where spacer.gif is 1x1 blank gif file.
Mozilla: <img src="filname.png">
IE: <img src="files/spacer.gif" border="0" style="filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoade
Make your choice...
Fucking a fat girl is like riding a scooter... it's fun 'til someone sees you.
As a web developer, it is annoying beyond belief to have to test all of your design code in a growing number of different browsers and versions.
Hey, I think improvements are great, as long as Microsoft focuses on becoming more compliant with CSS standards, etc. rather than trying to reinvent the wheel for a competitive edge.
Because "new and different" doesn't always mean "better".
Computers are useless. They can only give answers. --Pablo Picasso
The cited article itself says that it's based on speculation. Channel 9 attracts developers, not "consumers"; so, the "consumers" the article mentions who "are demanding that IE be fitted with tabbed browsing", etc., are actually just developers. Indeed, the majority of IE's consumers couldn't give a damn about tabbed browsing, or CSS, or PNG.
Sadly, this whole article (i.e., Slashdot's article) has become a collection of threads promoting FireFox, Opera, etc., and generally IE-bashing instead of actually discussing the issue at hand. Sure, perhaps the majority of geeks don't use IE, but we're also the people who would use OpenOffice instead of MS Office, Linux instead of Windows, etc. I.e., we're not Microsoft's intended audience.
So, take a moment and think about the article's premise. Will there be a new version of IE before Longhorn? I'd venture to say no. Why? Mainly, a better IE would be a major selling point for Windows (as Safari has become for Mac OS X, e.g., Tiger's Safari RSS). Also, it's probably moved all new development of IE to Longhorn APIs, and doing double-development of new features is a nuisance (as it was for Apple).
In general, developing new features for IE 6 just doesn't make sense from a business, marketing, or technical perspective. Saying a new release of IE "may be imminent" just adds more vapor to the breeze, seemingly endorsing speculation, and creates even more opportunities for MS-bashing. Whereas MS-bashing can be justified, ripping apart products that exist only in your mind is ludicrous.
It will happen, but everything that the article implies won't be included.
IE7 will be the same caliber of upgrade as IE6, but with much more user value (who cares about the stupid image toolbar?). Little to no rendering engine improvments will happen, but most if not all of the UI features (tabs, popup blocker, etc) will. Remember that IE is essentially a very hacked up version of Mosaic, a codebase that is nearly a decade old. I've heard rumors of a Windows XP2 full release (in about a year)... likely any IE7 would accompany it.
But I do suspect that any possible IE upgrade will not be solely driven by user migration. MS has finally realized that they made a mistake in letting IE lag behind in the marketplace... the users are forcing them to admit it.
The people who run Channel9 post vehemently that they can't promise any improved support for anything. Remember that IE is still the sam bowl of spaghetti that it was 3 years ago (plus being stale and moldy). Do we really expect MS to make major rendering changes (so they claim) to IE and support it while developing the Longhorn UI (a rehash of Mozilla's display architecture)? I don't think so. I'm not sure how likely IE7 for Win98 will be.
And of course, don't hold your breath for IE including useful developer tools (DOM inspector, etc)... it never was for developers, and it never will be.
There's an analogy here to do with Xerox and the photocopier, which I think is quite relevant:
When the photocopier was first developed and Xerox began marketing it to businesses, it took a lot of effort because the bosses couldn't see the point. From a PHB's perspective, there's not a lot of point in having a machine to duplicate documents. After all, whenever a boss wanted a copy of a document they would hand it to the secretary who would re-type it, perhaps with a few sheets of carbon paper.
Xerox eventually sold it to businesses by proposing to simply install the photocopier for free, and only charge for the copies that were made using it. Many more PHB's then accepted it, and it immediately became a fantastic tool for the secretaries who no longer had to struggle through typing and re-typing entire documents just to make identical copies. It was only at this point that its usefulness really became apparent to a lot of bosses, who realised that the availability of a photocopier was letting their staff spend time on other things. Really the end customer (PHB) wasn't interested in the photocopier, but by providing it they made someone else's job much easier which resulted in a better service.
I guess if Microsoft wants to market standards compliant CSS and PNG support, they should be marketing it at the people to whom it'll mean the most. ie. The developers. Those are the people whom it's going to benefit most immediately, after all: not the end customer. If there are enough websites and web applications out there that require IE7 and assuming Microsoft makes it easy to get, it really shouldn't be much of a problem.
All the submitter did was link to a blog entry that listed a couple of public advisories and mentioned Mozilla. Apparently, when put through the Slashbot filter, that becomes "recent mass migration away from MSIE?"
According to Google Zeitgeist, IE 6 hasn't dropped at all and is still massively slaughtering the competition. In fact, Slashdot's own browser statistics show that IE is the majority browser for people accessing this website! Also note that every year is the year of "Linux on the desktop," yet Linux is still at 1% of usage on Zeitgeist.
I don't like IE either, but come on. There is no "recent mass migration."
At the library where I'm tech-support, I've installed Mozilla and it auto-launches to the library's homepage on reboot.
I've also posted an explanation on the desktop entitled Read Me.
I have left IE on the desktop for the diehards, mostly to keep the complaint level down.
What I've found: Some people love it (there are one or two who want Opera) . Others just use what's in front of them. Still others re-arrange and delete the Mozilla icon (which re-appears on reboot).
*Shrug*. We've got some people who do online banking and ebay and whatnot and insist on IE. It's not like the IE fans haven't been warned.
These computers also have OpenOffice. There have been *O* complaints, just questions whether it will open and save Word files. Yes...yes, you can!
Shameless plug: Deep Freeze. Let them screw with the computers to their hearts' content. Power-cycle or soft reboot and it goes back to normal.
--
BMO
1. Printing. They've never fixed the problem of text overflowing the right margin and getting cut off, leaving a worthless print.
2. While it's a minor thing, how is it that IE can eventually forget every site icon? I mean, really...come on guys....
As the W3C says:
Cheers,
Jason
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Microsoft doesn't care all that much about Internet Explorer. They don't want to improve it, because then they can keep back web APIs. Face it, XUL isn't exactly going anywhere.
.NET, which is truly Internet-able. Even OSS has gotten into the trap with Mono. Longhorn will be entirely based on .NET, with mere Win32 compatibility DLLs thrown in for older apps.
Microsoft doesn't really care, as they have their sights set on
The Real way to get to a browser war is if developer's simply started coding web sites with only Mozilla/Opera/Safari Compliance in mind.
Just like in the old says, when we had the Netscape Now buttons.
But no one is going to hurt their ROI just because they want to hurt microsoft.
But i dunno if some major news sites, were like, you need Mozilla to view this site. Who Knows?
Problem is the people CSS is intended to save. Dial up users. How can they get their hands on Mozilla. AOL needs to use their CD distribution program for something good. i.e Mozilla!
Of course whenever i say mozilla i mean firefox.
So in IE7 slashdot will be screwed up and displaying over to the right hand side inside a black background with black text?
Speaking of which, does anyone know (a) why this happens, (b) why it only happens occasionally, and (c) whether anyone is working on fixing it? I would have guessed that Taco and Jamie and so forth use Firefox, but maybe not. [shrug]
May we never see th
If it isn't separated from the shell, and doesn't have it's own filetype registry, for starters, then Microsoft hasn't learned a damn thing from their mistakes, and there'd be no reason to believe it would be any more secure that version 3, 4, 5, 5.5, or 6... As all of those releases were supposedly more secure than their predecessor. The extra features can wait, let's see some real solid core code in IE first.
If Microsoft can't even do this, then I hope version 8 is an IE uninstaller.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Warning: also a long rant.
Um, the only thing that seems correct is that it used to be a lot easier to become a professional web page author (IMHO). In my experience, most (educational) places want to teach 1995 era web development ... things like massively nested frames, tables, and photoshopped images. Design is an afterthought.
Furthermore, those "buzzwords" aren't really that hard learn at all! XHTML is just a simpler HTML; CSS makes design so much easier; and a little JavaScript is easy as pie (a lot - like any programming language - takes skill). DHTML usually represents methods using JavaScript to change the existing CSS and markup; easy for little cutting-and-pasting. It just seems complicated many developers feel the need to use everything including the kitchen sink. Don't use CSS if you can use templates with PHP or ASP. Don't use JavaScript unless you really need it. HTML 4 still works. Moderation! Moderation! Moderation!
The hard parts about web development are design and consistency. Web browsers in 1995 were not more compliant than now; however, designs were so much simpler that it didn't matter. As I said before, developers nowadays want everything including the kitchen sink. Complex designs take more skill to develop and more testing to work around browser differences. Good design makes it easier to learn to code web sites, but learning to design well is really hard.
You're describing the design goals for Java or the X Window System. However, that's not for what hypertext was meant. The World Wide Web is about transferring documents - not programs. Writing documents with (X)HTML, and CSS is easy. On the other hand, writing complex programs with markup and scrips is hard.
TBL did have that functionality in mind while writing the original web browser: WorldWideWeb. The W3C's proof-of-concept web browser was designed with exactly that feature built-in. WikiWikiWeb is the popular server version of your vision. The W3C's founders envisioned your suggestion; however, most users simply didn't need or want that functionality. That's one reason why Mosaic and Netscape Navigator were successful despite not having automatic editing capabilities.
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
I agree, I submitted a bad link. I was referring to the recent loss of MSIE's market share to Firefox and other alternatives.
Sorry!
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
Additionally, even in June, it should be noted that Mozilla has regained substantial marketshare, nearly reversing the losses that the Netscape codebase had suffered since 2002. Way to go.
Mozilla is doing well in all its forms. The Google figures if you look closely, indicate a general increase of Internet Explorer 6 is mostly at the expense of other versions of IE. Mozilla and "Other" are actually slowly gaining.
AND this was before the latest security advisories hit.
AND Netcraft has issued an advisory indicating that banner ads could be used to spread malware.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
This is great, and just in time, because Expl... Ooooh, lookie! A flying pig!
The fact is, Firefox is giving the best features to both consumers and developers before they're asking for them, not after the fact. This, I think, is an important distinction. Microsoft is only picking up the ball because, after they announced they would no longer be playing the game, they've realized that the browser isn't going away after all and, oh by the way, Firefox is kicking ass all over IE on a number of fronts.
This is not only self-serving and a way of marginalizing mainstream consumer demands -- all while convincing them that they don't really want what they want after all, no, what they really want is what Microsoft happens to be pushing -- but it's cynical, pure and simple.
The great thing about Microsoft, though, is that they make it so easy for you to hate them. They don't apologize, and they never deliver without being asked, but they are constantly telling you what you really want, even though you didn't realize you needed it, whatever "it" happens to be, like their new touted shell that passes around .Net objects. I'm sure we'll all be "needing" that, too.
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
id Software lost $2.75 million to record-breaking piracy on the weekend before Doom 3's release. Thanks, guys!
...]
this statement is based on two false assumptions:
A) people would have bought it if they hadn't pirated it
B) people won't buy it because they pirated it
please stop spreading BSA-FUD. repetition doesn't beget truth.
[waiting for mac version
You see if you examine your opera useragent string closely you will see that the word Opera definitly is there. I myself filter it out to get some really usable statistics (IE users vs IE pretenders) and I doubt I am a better coder then Google.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It's axiomatic that the browser will be released first. This will be how they essentially force you along the upgrade path.
amen, brother!
There are some things that are kinda tricky to get working in Lynx, but when you have them working, you often have a page that is better thought-out, and where the markup makes more sense for what you're trying to do.
Don't be fooled: IE6 will remain a pestulance for many years after IE7 debuts. There will be many people, influential people, who won't downloand IE7 because it's too big. Even if IE7 pulls some miracle and implements good CSS compliance, you're going to have to sense IE6 and below, and comensate for the damned thing.