It seems like they have been trying for something like this for quite a while. Obviously this would be implemented using Win32 ActiveX binaries so it would be IE and Windows only.
Congratulations, Microsoft, you just re-invented client/server architecture, just using web protocols as a transport.
Actually, before it was Slashdot, it was "Chips And Dips", a section on Rob Malda's Personal site.
For a while archive.org had an archive of a Chips and Dips page, but it mysteriously disappeared. The files I retrieved are here: http://toastytech.com/files/chipsndips.html
I wasn't there myself at the beginning, I discovered Slashdot one of the first times C-Net News.com linked to it - and then I just stupidly hung around without signing up for ages until there was some article I wanted to comment on (probably something anti-IE)
BTW, anyone got the original Chips & Dips logo graphic? Archive.org never did have that.
Since you are talking about corporate software, I don't think any copy restriction measures are needed at all. In fact, make the full uncrippled version downloadable freely for personal/evaluation use. Of course charge $$$ for full licenses and "support". Companies need the ability to evaluate software before buying, do not want to be encumbered by crazy copy restrictions, and they almost alway will pay for the software because they always have to have "support".
Oracle lets you download much of their software for free for evaluation purposes. And they are doing ok.
This reminds be of back in the day when ID software made episode one of Doom 1 available as shareware. Where did giving this away get them? At one point, reportedly, Doom was installed on more computers than Microsoft windows! And enough of those people bough the full version that ID was laughing all the way to the bank.
They didn't learn anything though. I bought Doom III but haven't even played it because it requires the Cd to be in the drive at all times. Complete unusable crap. And I won't buy other games these days because of the stupid stuff game makers think they can get away. Games are supposed to be fun. When they root my system or inconvenience me with restrictions, they are not fun.
But you see how even people around here get confused by the name, getting Office and Open reversed? It is similar and, I am sure, intentionally so to cause exactly such confusion.
To make things less complicated, I seriously propose everyone refer to it simply as "Microsoft's proprietary new Office 2007 format". Less confusion, and vastly more accurate.
So in other words, they just pushed out Office 2007 because they got a hell of a deal for some odd reason, now everybody is sending files back and forth using Microsoft's new proprietary file format, and they figure "hey we are already using this new format everywhere now so let's just make it the official standard".
And the Solaris Sunray workstations get carted off because OpenOffice.org can not open all those XLSX and DOCX files. And let's not even talk about where the handful of Macs went.
I can run Firefox 1.5.0.12, SeaMonkey 1.1.3, and with a slight tweak Firefox 2.0.0.5 under Windows NT 3.51 and Windows 95. On slower CPUs such as a Pentium 200 it runs acceptably for the most part. On faster CPUs speed is almost the same.
At about 5 megs, size wise Firefox is quite small to, compared to modern apps that often come on multiple CDs or DVDs bundled with gigs of junk.
Firefox does have a few performance issues. Try loading a page with a dropdown that has 100,000 or so items. Firefox will sit there, IE and Opera will work faster, and Safari loads it in a blink of the eye.
Now, Firefox 3 is planned to work under Windows 2000 and later only, dropping the ability to run under Windows 95/98/ME that is used on many older computers. Fortunately Firefox is Open Source so if somebody wanted to make a port that again ran on computers with these older versions, it is completely possible. Personally I would love to see such a version and hope somebody takes up the challenge, even if it meant stripping out a few of the newer features.
I wonder how much this switch had to do with them receiving files from the outside in Microsoft new proprietary Office 2007 file formats. OpenOffice simply can't open them (except for one rather limited DOCX-only converter).
My observation is this is an insanely major hurdle for OpenOffice. And even a major factor for people switching from earlier versions of MS-Office.
Yes, I know about the Novell one for Windows and SUSE Linux... but ironically I need one for OpenOffice... on Sun SPARC Solaris!
The office where I work recently switched (for whatever bizarre reason) to MS-Office 2007 on all the Windows computers and instantly Microsoft's new proprietary.DOCX and.XLSX have become the new standard for sending junk in e-mail.
We have some "public" SunRay terminals where employees from other locations can check their e-mail using Mozilla and OpenOffice, and overnight this switch put OpenOffice out of business!
I have been looking around for a good solution for making OpenOffice.org work with.DOCX and.XLSX files that works on both Sun SPARC Solaris and X86 Solaris, but I am not having much luck. And there is no chance in hell that users will save their documents in anything other than what MS-Word defaults to (I had suggested making the old.DOC format the default for everyone, but no one ever listens to me)
I never really realized how dependent we were on the MS-Word and Excel file formats until now. Very scary.
Obviously the typical answer to why some sites still only work in IE is "stupidity" and "laziness" but it boggles my mind that there are still sites out there like this. It is 2007 for crying out loud!
Just a few weeks ago I went through and updated my "Sites that Make Firefox sad" page: http://toastytech.com/good/badsitelist.html I was able to remove a large number of sites from this list as they appeared to be working in Firefox now, but I wound up ADDING almost just as many new sites to my list.
And my list still focuses mainly on sites that completely forbid Firefox, there are incredibly many sites that have various small glitches (like menus or spacing) in Firefox and no fix in site. And the WORST offenders are corporate Intranet applications. Companies are still "sold" on Microsoft. Heck, brand new "web" apps from Microsoft such as Exchange Web Access, Sharepoint, Project Server Web Access still either require IE or give other browsers a "downlevel" experience.
And the thing that really gets me is that Firefox can be a very good thing for companies - it is available for so incredibly many different platforms and works mostly the same on each - Firefox can help turn operating systems in to a true commodity! Each app that only works in IE (and arguably if it is IE only it really can't be called a true web application) just ties you down to Microsoft just that much more.
I know of some State Government agencies that would LOVE this! Of course they would most likely get talked in to using Microsoft paper instead, which locks you in to using only Microsoft Pens, Microsoft Staplers, etc.
On a side rant, it boggles my mind how everybody think putting something "on a computer" or worse yet "on the web" magically makes things better. Sometimes paper and pencil is the best solution.
I really like USB flash drives these days, and this is coming from someone, who back in the day, wrote a floppy disk formatting program to get more than 1.4 megs out of 3.5" disks.
To me the best thing about flash drives is that they work almost EVERYWHERE now. There are drivers out there for Windows 95 ("B" version and up), Windows NT, and even DOS! Ok, here's a link. They will work on my Mac, Linux and even the eComstation (that's OS/2) demo CD I tried!
I used to think Iomega would rule the world with their Zip drives, but the prices of the disks always remained insanely high and the disks and drives were not as reliable as they should have been. Also, I don't think I ever saw anybody other than Iomega produce zip-compatible drives. Probably patents and BS.
I remember when The Outlook 98 "upgrade" to Outlook 97 first came out. This was the first version of Outlook that had the HTML message type (in addition to the normal RTF and plain text). This was also the first version of outlook to require IE to be installed and one of the first really popular apps to require it. Win95 and Win NT 4 that were popular at the time didn't necessarily have IE. All the PHBs "oohed" and "ahhed" over this version of outlook and insisted they wanted it on all of the computers (besides at the time MS was giving the upgrade away for "free"). Which, of course created one hell of a mess considering we are talking about IE 4.
It is my opinion that an OS bundle should never include a full blown web browser as a mandatory component. With how popular HTML is, it does make sense to include a minimal HTML renderer - one that does not change when the users regular browser changes or is upgraded. I suspect this is what MS is trying to ward off if this is true. With the current versions of Outlook the behavior of its HTML files changes depending on the version of IE installed. Using a separate renderer fixes this. Also since a minimal renderer would not have to implement the ability to render web quirks it could be smaller and easier to audit and keep secure.
Anyway if this is true, this might be a good move. But let's not let Word become part of the OS now, OK?
Back in the 90s there was a big push for government agencies to switch to metric. At least one state was even planning on updating speed limit signs.
Personally, I think this conversion might have stood a chance at working if *everything* had been switched all at once. Instead what I observed were things like new construction projects were let specifying the use of metric units and old ones specifying the use of English units did not change. So you had people working with metric on one job and English on an other - and often getting them confused and mixed up. Eventually everyone gave up on the metric stuff, but I am fairly sure there are still a number of these "metric" contracts out there!
I have no idea what this product is, but let me guess: It's another "web" based application from our good friend Bill that only works in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Am I right?
Apparently TFA is just a bogus rant, but I can imagine many of the brain-dead monkeys that design for IE-only would be up in arms about this new version of IE. IE 6 was released all the way back in 2001, many of these folks probably "grew up" on IE 6 and never knew or cared about anything else. Now they are finally being reminded that the web is an ever changing place.
And to me the funniest part is that this not only affects actual web content, but also locally installed HTML, help files, and apps that stupidly embed IE.
What I don't get is that Microsoft made Exchange clients for DOS, Win31, and Mac (There was even a rare Outlook 97 for Windows 3.1!) Why hasn't any of that been successfully reverse engineered and cloned?
They can bury new versions of the OS in bells an whistles, but some of us will still be happily running Windows freakin 95 because it does what we need. I think there really isn't much more they can add to Windows that people actually need. Of course they currently have the advertising dollars and power to convince people otherwise.
...If Bill Gates want to get Microsoft navigation systems as the standard, they better hurry up because they aren't innovating but just following in the others' footsteps (as usual).
Nah, they will just do as they have always done - let others go first to test the water and then once a market is established Microsoft will jump in with all kinds of underhanded business tactics and advertising to drive everyone else out of business.
Dale Gribble: "You know what they say FORD stands for. Fix it again Tony".
I know it seems like ancient history to some, but what really got me personally angry with Microsoft was how they forcibly shoved IE 4 down everyones throats.
Back in the day most people were happy using Netscape 3 and 4 on Windows 95 or not even having a browser at all. IE 1 and 2 were basically just slightly modified versions of Mosaic and IE 3 was useless and mostly ignored. But when IE 4 came out they started shoving it down everybody's throat. It seemed to come bundled with almost every commercial application for Windows 95 and NT 4 even if it wasn't technically needed - even the non-Microsoft ones. And that wasn't even getting into the monstrosity that was Windows 98 and the IE desktop shell that nobody really wanted.
Back in the day I pointed out how dumb many of the "features" were such as the dangers of Active X - and nobody listened. It's too bad everyone had to learn the hard way.
Because of the pounding Netscape took and because of some mistakes on Netscape's part IE 5.0 got ahead of the then shipping Netscape 4.x and most of the regular users who hadn't already been forced off the ship finally jumped ship. Heck IE 5 was even available for Mac, Solaris, and Windows 3.1. Then Microsoft let it all die.
Even today they find ways to make people use IE. These days whenever you come across an IE-only web site that isn't just garbage or a left-over of the 1900's you can be sure that Microsoft is having something to do with that.
Walk in to any office of any large company an see what browser they are running and why. They likely have apps like Microsoft Project Web Access that only works in IE (And from what I understand Microsoft Office Project Server 2007 still, unsurprisingly only works in IE). So people "just use IE" so they don't have to use more than one browser. Oh, and they are probably all scared to death that if the MS Sales rep shows up and happen to see Firefox running then their special discount on MS-Office licenses, or some such thing, might mysteriously disappear.
Lots of people still use Windows 98. People who don't have lots of money and are perfectly happy with that hand-me-down computer. How about the guy in the corner of the cheapskate office that has a choice of sharing a computer with another employee or using an old machine that was otherwise going to surplus?
In my opinion one of the big selling points of Firefox is that it runs almost anywhere. It runs on Mac, Linux, Windows, even BeOS and OS/2! Being able to run anywhere enables your OS to be a true commodity. But this also includes the ability to run on these older versions of Windows. Currently I can have a web app that I know works in Firefox and be sure it can work for just about everyone because they can all run the same version of Firefox and have it work the same regardless of the OS.
Fortunately there is still time for someone to step up to the plate and get it working in 9x again. Anyone who does would have my greatest appreciations!
(Me? Happily running Firefox and Seamonkey on Windows 95!)
Where did all the Mozilla/Firefox enthusiasim go?
on
Firefox Losing Its Way?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The article is slashdotted, but I think the main problem here is that Firefox has pretty much reached perfection. Firefox was intended to be a stripped down version of the Mozilla suite with just the browser. Now there seems to be a bigger push for built-in gee-whiz features.
I guess the community has just gotten board and went home. Specifically I have noticed:
* Mozillazine almost never seems to have any news anymore. * The SpreadFirefox image galleries have been screwed up for ages now and people keep posting crap that never never gets cleaned up. * The Mozilla store seems to have been having problems lately (it would hang and timeout when placing an order) and there Firefox CDs are still at old 1.5.0.4 version. (A physical factory pressed CD you can hold in your hand can go a long way convincing a PHB that this is real software!) * And where is Thunderbird 2.0 anyway?
Come on folks! We still have an evil browser from Microsoft to crush!
I wish I had mod points for you right now because I am sick of people throwing other applications (this IS a Win32 application) via ActiveX or a plug-in and then thinking it is somehow better because it is "inside" the browser, which it really isn't.
I really kind of thought people got over this fad back in the 1900s but since Microsoft's web browser is so pitiful and they like to blindly pretend that %100.0000 of the world uses Windows and IE, of course that is how they are going to dish it up.
A web browser is an application program that retrieves hyperlinked documents from a network and renders them. Trying to make it something that it is not is stupid and usually turns out badly.
And this is another good reason why any and every web site or web "app" must be compatible with more than one browser. IE fails? So what, fire up Firefox!
One of the main goals of making "Web apps" is to free yourself from proprietary APIs and environments. If you make an IE only app then you might as well have just made a Win32 app. With Firefox in the mix your web "app" can run on Windows, Linux, Mac, Solaris, BeOS, OS/2, and more!
I hope for the sake of all that is good that these IE only sites that are having problems with IE 7 will finally see the light and upgrade their sites so they work in both IE, Firefox, and hopefully any other major browser.
The hard cold reality is that the web is an ever changing, volital environment. Unfortunately business have become complacent since IE 6 never changed and for a long time it was essentially dead. They thought they could ignore the web moving on, but now it has bitten them in the butts.
I used to warn people about this kind of thing. In this day and age only a moron would make an IE only site. Unfortunately there seems to be no short supply of morons.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like they have been trying for something like this for quite a while. Obviously this would be implemented using Win32 ActiveX binaries so it would be IE and Windows only.
Congratulations, Microsoft, you just re-invented client/server architecture, just using web protocols as a transport.
Actually, before it was Slashdot, it was "Chips And Dips", a section on Rob Malda's Personal site.
For a while archive.org had an archive of a Chips and Dips page, but it mysteriously disappeared. The files I retrieved are here: http://toastytech.com/files/chipsndips.html
I wasn't there myself at the beginning, I discovered Slashdot one of the first times C-Net News.com linked to it - and then I just stupidly hung around without signing up for ages until there was some article I wanted to comment on (probably something anti-IE)
BTW, anyone got the original Chips & Dips logo graphic? Archive.org never did have that.
Since you are talking about corporate software, I don't think any copy restriction measures are needed at all. In fact, make the full uncrippled version downloadable freely for personal/evaluation use. Of course charge $$$ for full licenses and "support". Companies need the ability to evaluate software before buying, do not want to be encumbered by crazy copy restrictions, and they almost alway will pay for the software because they always have to have "support".
Oracle lets you download much of their software for free for evaluation purposes. And they are doing ok.
This reminds be of back in the day when ID software made episode one of Doom 1 available as shareware. Where did giving this away get them? At one point, reportedly, Doom was installed on more computers than Microsoft windows! And enough of those people bough the full version that ID was laughing all the way to the bank.
They didn't learn anything though. I bought Doom III but haven't even played it because it requires the Cd to be in the drive at all times. Complete unusable crap. And I won't buy other games these days because of the stupid stuff game makers think they can get away. Games are supposed to be fun. When they root my system or inconvenience me with restrictions, they are not fun.
But you see how even people around here get confused by the name, getting Office and Open reversed? It is similar and, I am sure, intentionally so to cause exactly such confusion.
To make things less complicated, I seriously propose everyone refer to it simply as "Microsoft's proprietary new Office 2007 format". Less confusion, and vastly more accurate.
So in other words, they just pushed out Office 2007 because they got a hell of a deal for some odd reason, now everybody is sending files back and forth using Microsoft's new proprietary file format, and they figure "hey we are already using this new format everywhere now so let's just make it the official standard".
And the Solaris Sunray workstations get carted off because OpenOffice.org can not open all those XLSX and DOCX files. And let's not even talk about where the handful of Macs went.
Yeish... I just got done formatting a 500gig hard drive FAT32... with Windows 95!!!! (OSR2 version + an updated FDISK intended for Win98FE)
That's progress for you.
I can run Firefox 1.5.0.12, SeaMonkey 1.1.3, and with a slight tweak Firefox 2.0.0.5 under Windows NT 3.51 and Windows 95. On slower CPUs such as a Pentium 200 it runs acceptably for the most part. On faster CPUs speed is almost the same.
At about 5 megs, size wise Firefox is quite small to, compared to modern apps that often come on multiple CDs or DVDs bundled with gigs of junk.
Firefox does have a few performance issues. Try loading a page with a dropdown that has 100,000 or so items. Firefox will sit there, IE and Opera will work faster, and Safari loads it in a blink of the eye.
Now, Firefox 3 is planned to work under Windows 2000 and later only, dropping the ability to run under Windows 95/98/ME that is used on many older computers. Fortunately Firefox is Open Source so if somebody wanted to make a port that again ran on computers with these older versions, it is completely possible. Personally I would love to see such a version and hope somebody takes up the challenge, even if it meant stripping out a few of the newer features.
I wonder how much this switch had to do with them receiving files from the outside in Microsoft new proprietary Office 2007 file formats. OpenOffice simply can't open them (except for one rather limited DOCX-only converter).
My observation is this is an insanely major hurdle for OpenOffice. And even a major factor for people switching from earlier versions of MS-Office.
Yes, I know about the Novell one for Windows and SUSE Linux... but ironically I need one for OpenOffice... on Sun SPARC Solaris!
.DOCX and .XLSX have become the new standard for sending junk in e-mail.
.DOCX and .XLSX files that works on both Sun SPARC Solaris and X86 Solaris, but I am not having much luck. And there is no chance in hell that users will save their documents in anything other than what MS-Word defaults to (I had suggested making the old .DOC format the default for everyone, but no one ever listens to me)
The office where I work recently switched (for whatever bizarre reason) to MS-Office 2007 on all the Windows computers and instantly Microsoft's new proprietary
We have some "public" SunRay terminals where employees from other locations can check their e-mail using Mozilla and OpenOffice, and overnight this switch put OpenOffice out of business!
I have been looking around for a good solution for making OpenOffice.org work with
I never really realized how dependent we were on the MS-Word and Excel file formats until now. Very scary.
Obviously the typical answer to why some sites still only work in IE is "stupidity" and "laziness" but it boggles my mind that there are still sites out there like this. It is 2007 for crying out loud!
Just a few weeks ago I went through and updated my "Sites that Make Firefox sad" page: http://toastytech.com/good/badsitelist.html I was able to remove a large number of sites from this list as they appeared to be working in Firefox now, but I wound up ADDING almost just as many new sites to my list.
And my list still focuses mainly on sites that completely forbid Firefox, there are incredibly many sites that have various small glitches (like menus or spacing) in Firefox and no fix in site. And the WORST offenders are corporate Intranet applications. Companies are still "sold" on Microsoft. Heck, brand new "web" apps from Microsoft such as Exchange Web Access, Sharepoint, Project Server Web Access still either require IE or give other browsers a "downlevel" experience.
And the thing that really gets me is that Firefox can be a very good thing for companies - it is available for so incredibly many different platforms and works mostly the same on each - Firefox can help turn operating systems in to a true commodity! Each app that only works in IE (and arguably if it is IE only it really can't be called a true web application) just ties you down to Microsoft just that much more.
I know of some State Government agencies that would LOVE this! Of course they would most likely get talked in to using Microsoft paper instead, which locks you in to using only Microsoft Pens, Microsoft Staplers, etc.
On a side rant, it boggles my mind how everybody think putting something "on a computer" or worse yet "on the web" magically makes things better. Sometimes paper and pencil is the best solution.
To me the best thing about flash drives is that they work almost EVERYWHERE now. There are drivers out there for Windows 95 ("B" version and up), Windows NT, and even DOS! Ok, here's a link. They will work on my Mac, Linux and even the eComstation (that's OS/2) demo CD I tried!
I used to think Iomega would rule the world with their Zip drives, but the prices of the disks always remained insanely high and the disks and drives were not as reliable as they should have been. Also, I don't think I ever saw anybody other than Iomega produce zip-compatible drives. Probably patents and BS.
I remember when The Outlook 98 "upgrade" to Outlook 97 first came out. This was the first version of Outlook that had the HTML message type (in addition to the normal RTF and plain text). This was also the first version of outlook to require IE to be installed and one of the first really popular apps to require it. Win95 and Win NT 4 that were popular at the time didn't necessarily have IE. All the PHBs "oohed" and "ahhed" over this version of outlook and insisted they wanted it on all of the computers (besides at the time MS was giving the upgrade away for "free"). Which, of course created one hell of a mess considering we are talking about IE 4.
It is my opinion that an OS bundle should never include a full blown web browser as a mandatory component. With how popular HTML is, it does make sense to include a minimal HTML renderer - one that does not change when the users regular browser changes or is upgraded. I suspect this is what MS is trying to ward off if this is true. With the current versions of Outlook the behavior of its HTML files changes depending on the version of IE installed. Using a separate renderer fixes this. Also since a minimal renderer would not have to implement the ability to render web quirks it could be smaller and easier to audit and keep secure.
Anyway if this is true, this might be a good move. But let's not let Word become part of the OS now, OK?
Back in the 90s there was a big push for government agencies to switch to metric. At least one state was even planning on updating speed limit signs.
Personally, I think this conversion might have stood a chance at working if *everything* had been switched all at once. Instead what I observed were things like new construction projects were let specifying the use of metric units and old ones specifying the use of English units did not change. So you had people working with metric on one job and English on an other - and often getting them confused and mixed up. Eventually everyone gave up on the metric stuff, but I am fairly sure there are still a number of these "metric" contracts out there!
I have no idea what this product is, but let me guess: It's another "web" based application from our good friend Bill that only works in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Am I right?
Apparently TFA is just a bogus rant, but I can imagine many of the brain-dead monkeys that design for IE-only would be up in arms about this new version of IE. IE 6 was released all the way back in 2001, many of these folks probably "grew up" on IE 6 and never knew or cared about anything else. Now they are finally being reminded that the web is an ever changing place.
And to me the funniest part is that this not only affects actual web content, but also locally installed HTML, help files, and apps that stupidly embed IE.
What I don't get is that Microsoft made Exchange clients for DOS, Win31, and Mac (There was even a rare Outlook 97 for Windows 3.1!) Why hasn't any of that been successfully reverse engineered and cloned?
They can bury new versions of the OS in bells an whistles, but some of us will still be happily running Windows freakin 95 because it does what we need. I think there really isn't much more they can add to Windows that people actually need. Of course they currently have the advertising dollars and power to convince people otherwise.
...If Bill Gates want to get Microsoft navigation systems as the standard, they better hurry up because they aren't innovating but just following in the others' footsteps (as usual).
Nah, they will just do as they have always done - let others go first to test the water and then once a market is established Microsoft will jump in with all kinds of underhanded business tactics and advertising to drive everyone else out of business.
Dale Gribble: "You know what they say FORD stands for. Fix it again Tony".
Hank Hill: "Your thinking of Fiat, Dale."
I know it seems like ancient history to some, but what really got me personally angry with Microsoft was how they forcibly shoved IE 4 down everyones throats.
Back in the day most people were happy using Netscape 3 and 4 on Windows 95 or not even having a browser at all. IE 1 and 2 were basically just slightly modified versions of Mosaic and IE 3 was useless and mostly ignored. But when IE 4 came out they started shoving it down everybody's throat. It seemed to come bundled with almost every commercial application for Windows 95 and NT 4 even if it wasn't technically needed - even the non-Microsoft ones. And that wasn't even getting into the monstrosity that was Windows 98 and the IE desktop shell that nobody really wanted.
Back in the day I pointed out how dumb many of the "features" were such as the dangers of Active X - and nobody listened. It's too bad everyone had to learn the hard way.
Because of the pounding Netscape took and because of some mistakes on Netscape's part IE 5.0 got ahead of the then shipping Netscape 4.x and most of the regular users who hadn't already been forced off the ship finally jumped ship. Heck IE 5 was even available for Mac, Solaris, and Windows 3.1. Then Microsoft let it all die.
Even today they find ways to make people use IE. These days whenever you come across an IE-only web site that isn't just garbage or a left-over of the 1900's you can be sure that Microsoft is having something to do with that.
Walk in to any office of any large company an see what browser they are running and why. They likely have apps like Microsoft Project Web Access that only works in IE (And from what I understand Microsoft Office Project Server 2007 still, unsurprisingly only works in IE). So people "just use IE" so they don't have to use more than one browser. Oh, and they are probably all scared to death that if the MS Sales rep shows up and happen to see Firefox running then their special discount on MS-Office licenses, or some such thing, might mysteriously disappear.
Who seriously still uses Windows 98?
Lots of people still use Windows 98. People who don't have lots of money and are perfectly happy with that hand-me-down computer. How about the guy in the corner of the cheapskate office that has a choice of sharing a computer with another employee or using an old machine that was otherwise going to surplus?
In my opinion one of the big selling points of Firefox is that it runs almost anywhere. It runs on Mac, Linux, Windows, even BeOS and OS/2! Being able to run anywhere enables your OS to be a true commodity. But this also includes the ability to run on these older versions of Windows. Currently I can have a web app that I know works in Firefox and be sure it can work for just about everyone because they can all run the same version of Firefox and have it work the same regardless of the OS.
Fortunately there is still time for someone to step up to the plate and get it working in 9x again. Anyone who does would have my greatest appreciations!
(Me? Happily running Firefox and Seamonkey on Windows 95!)
The article is slashdotted, but I think the main problem here is that Firefox has pretty much reached perfection. Firefox was intended to be a stripped down version of the Mozilla suite with just the browser. Now there seems to be a bigger push for built-in gee-whiz features.
I guess the community has just gotten board and went home. Specifically I have noticed:
* Mozillazine almost never seems to have any news anymore.
* The SpreadFirefox image galleries have been screwed up for ages now and people keep posting crap that never never gets cleaned up.
* The Mozilla store seems to have been having problems lately (it would hang and timeout when placing an order) and there Firefox CDs are still at old 1.5.0.4 version. (A physical factory pressed CD you can hold in your hand can go a long way convincing a PHB that this is real software!)
* And where is Thunderbird 2.0 anyway?
Come on folks! We still have an evil browser from Microsoft to crush!
I wish I had mod points for you right now because I am sick of people throwing other applications (this IS a Win32 application) via ActiveX or a plug-in and then thinking it is somehow better because it is "inside" the browser, which it really isn't.
I really kind of thought people got over this fad back in the 1900s but since Microsoft's web browser is so pitiful and they like to blindly pretend that %100.0000 of the world uses Windows and IE, of course that is how they are going to dish it up.
A web browser is an application program that retrieves hyperlinked documents from a network and renders them. Trying to make it something that it is not is stupid and usually turns out badly.
And this is another good reason why any and every web site or web "app" must be compatible with more than one browser. IE fails? So what, fire up Firefox!
One of the main goals of making "Web apps" is to free yourself from proprietary APIs and environments. If you make an IE only app then you might as well have just made a Win32 app. With Firefox in the mix your web "app" can run on Windows, Linux, Mac, Solaris, BeOS, OS/2, and more!
I hope for the sake of all that is good that these IE only sites that are having problems with IE 7 will finally see the light and upgrade their sites so they work in both IE, Firefox, and hopefully any other major browser.
The hard cold reality is that the web is an ever changing, volital environment. Unfortunately business have become complacent since IE 6 never changed and for a long time it was essentially dead. They thought they could ignore the web moving on, but now it has bitten them in the butts.
I used to warn people about this kind of thing. In this day and age only a moron would make an IE only site. Unfortunately there seems to be no short supply of morons.
My company has already said we should not take IE7 since it's not compatible with some of our stuff.
:)
Do these apps work in Firefox? Just use Firefox instead. Then it dosn't matter what version of IE is installed.