| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Apple responds to Microsoft dropping Internet Explorer | |
|
||
| Time: 13:22 EST/18:22 GMT | News Source: MacCentral | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
"Safari is the fastest browser on the Mac, and has become the browser of choice for millions of Mac users," said Apple in a statement given to MacCentral. "The Safari beta program has been an incredible success, and we will be releasing Safari 1.0 soon. Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit felt it was a good time to reassign their resources working on IE to the revenue-producing Mac products they are working on, such as the next versions of Office, Entourage (including an Exchange client) and Virtual PC." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 324 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:02:58 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/18/2003 2:20:46 PM |
|
Yeah! For once everybody is happy!
Let's all sing together! http://www.bitstorm.org/happyjoy/ Hello, boys and girls. This is your old pal, Stinky Wizzleteats. This is a song about a whale. No! This is a song about being happy! That's right! It's the Happy Happy Joy Joy song! Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy Joy! I don't think you're happy enough! That's right! I'll teach you to be happy! I'll teach your grandmother to suck eggs! Now, boys and girls, let's try it again! Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy Joy! If'n you aint the grandaddy of all liars! The little critters of nature... They don't know that they're ugly! That's very funny, a fly marrying a bumblebee! I told you I'd shoot! But you didn't believe me! Why didn't you believe me?! Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Happy Happy Happy Happy Happy Happy Happy Happy Joy Joy Joy! This post was edited by sodablue on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 at 14:21. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/18/2003 4:51:08 PM |
| LOL! :) |
| #3 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 6/18/2003 6:53:07 PM |
|
Ren & Stimpy or the Wise Zeldman... hmmm...
Ren & Stimpy... or ... Zeldman. I'll go with Zeldman: |
| #4 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 6/18/2003 6:54:09 PM |
|
There is much that could be said. IE5/Mac, with its Tasman rendering engine, was the first browser to deliver meaningful standards compliance to the market, arriving in March, 2000, a few months ahead of Mozilla 1.0 and Netscape 6. On a mailing list today, Netscape’s Eric Meyer said, “I don’t think people realize just how much of a groundbreaker IE5/Mac really was, and how good it remains even today.” IE5/Mac introduced important innovations such as DOCTYPE switching and Text Zoom that soon found their way into comparably compliant browsers like Navigator, Konqueror, and Safari. And all but Text Zoom eventually made it into IE6/Win, Microsoft’s most compliant Windows browser to date – and the last one they will ever make.
Bafflingly, after attaining dominance on both the Windows and Macintosh platforms, IE stopped evolving. In the past three years, its existing competitors at Netscape, Opera, and the open source Mozilla project greatly improved their browsers, and new competitors flooded the market, but IE/Win and IE/Mac stayed as they were. That might sound like the complacence of victors after throttling an opposing army. But inside Microsoft, nobody was slacking off. Our friends there, we knew, were working on improvements, particularly in the areas of CSS and DOM support. Yet in three years, no significantly new browser version ever came of their activity. IE6/Win still has trouble with parts of CSS1, still does not support true native PNG transparency, and still does not incorporate Text Zoom. IE5/Mac, which had worked well in OS 9, became flaky under OS X, and a minor upgrade did not fix its problems. Even die-hard IE5/Mac fans began switching to Camino, and, when it arrived, Safari. Some who switched may have done so on the basis of features like tabbed browsing or popup blocking; others, because of the improved standards compliance in Gecko browsers like Camino and Netscape. But mostly, we think, the switchers were behaving instinctively. With Camino or Safari, you felt you were using a living product that was continually improving in response to user feedback. With IE, you wondered if the browser was ever going to improve. Microsoft’s browser engineers were busy working on something, but their activities took place behind a (figurative) corporate firewall. Over the past weeks, the stories we and others have been covering (including the unavailability of an improved version of IE5/Mac outside the subscription-based MSN pay service, and the news that IE/Win was dead as a standalone browser) suggested that, in spite (or because?) of winning the browser wars, MSIE was on its way out. And now we know that that is the case. |
| #5 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 6/18/2003 6:54:33 PM |
|
We know that, after spending billions of dollars to defeat all competitors and to absolutely, positively own the desktop browsing space, Microsoft as a corporation is no longer interested in web browsers.
We know that, on the Windows side, it will eventually release something that accesses web content, but that “something” will be part of an operating system – one which won’t be available until 2005, and won’t be widely used before 2007. We don’t know if the part of the upcoming OS that formats web pages will be more or less compliant with W3C recommendations than what we have now. Neither do we know if the OS components that handle web browsing will support CSS3 and other specifications that will emerge during the long years ahead in which Microsoft offers no new browser. From here, as it has for several weeks now, it looks like a period of technological stasis and dormancy yawns ahead. Undoubtedly the less popular browsers will continue to improve. They may even gain in market share. But few of us will be able to take advantage of their sophisticated standards support if most of the market continues to use an unchanged year 2000 browser. But enough, and enough, and enough. We are glad of the latest versions of Opera, Mozilla, Konqueror, Safari, and Omniweb. But on this grey and rainy day, this news of a kind of death brings no warmth. To Tantek and Jimmy and their colleagues on the IE/Mac team: for what you achieved on behalf of web standards and usability, much respect. |
| #6 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 6/18/2003 11:14:13 PM |
|
Gecko, Camino, Opera, Netscape, IE, XSL, CSS, stardard a, stardard b, stardards body a, stardards body b, javascript, blah, blah, blah...
Am i the only one just furkin sick of hearing about browser technologies and browsers? Its like we've all been on this 8 year trek of endless debate. Time for us all to move on. The battles are over. The winner is the consumer. Next topic please... |
| #7 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 6/19/2003 12:24:59 AM |
|
What's up with this additude... Some of the best web technologies have been developed over the last three years but we are largely stuck in 2000.
I say bring it on... keep bringing it on. The web isn't static. It hasn't reached its peak. (maybe this attitude comes from the two different camps involved in building webs these days: designers/artists/content producers/marketers vs. the developers/programmers. It seems both are hitting the wall of their own limitations... Who knows...) Pretty lame no matter what to hear a technologist to say it's over. There's no need to go further. |
| #8 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 6/19/2003 12:44:20 AM |
|
sodajerk - "Some of the best web technologies have been developed over the last three years but we are largely stuck in 2000. "
Hmm, I don't see that at all. The user interface evolved to where it's capable of displaying nearly all content in a very pleasing fashion. Think of your television, does it need to change every other year to display new content? Where the problem has been is in generating that content, and that's where Microsoft has focused it's efforts with .NET. So no, we're not still stuck in 2000, we've evolved past that, but that evolution has occured on the development side of the fence. The endusers have benefited by way of the wealth of improved content available on the Internet. I welcome competition. If the features that Opera, Mozilla, Safari bring forth are worthwhile and improve my life in some way I may consider switching. Or I may not, if I don't find those features compelling. Perhaps Microsoft will encorporate those features into another release of IE, perhaps not. We'll see. BTW, I like Zeldman. I have links on my website back to webstandards.org, etc. But that's because he's like me, more technology neutral, uses what works best for his needs. He was perfectly willing to call out Netscape 4.x for what it was, even though there was no other serious competition to IE. Very refreshing compared to the ABMer crap we normally see. This post was edited by sodablue on Thursday, June 19, 2003 at 00:46. |
| #9 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 6/19/2003 12:59:23 AM |
|
You don't see a full and proper implementation of CSS as important, soda? I still see plenty of deprecated HTML because people are confused about sorting through CSS compatibility. Nevermind CSS2, CSS3, etc...
Are you really suggesting there's no interest or desire to have either an impartial standards body or competition amongst implementations to achieve a better product? Or even funnier, that the web doesn't need anything -- no accessibility, style, multimedia, or XML-related standards and the corresponding implementations and engines -- now that .Net is here? This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, June 19, 2003 at 01:13. |
| #10 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 6/19/2003 1:08:58 AM |
|
By the way, soda, this was hilarious:
"But that's because he's like me, more technology neutral, uses what works best for his needs. He was perfectly willing to call out Netscape 4.x for what it was, even though there was no other serious competition to IE. Very refreshing compared to the ABMer crap we normally see." Thanks for the laughs.!! |
| #11 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 6/19/2003 1:41:47 AM |
|
Oh, you're right, parker... Once again you blow me away with your inciteful brilliance...
And IE accomplishes a first in the computer world: the only piece of software that is utterly flawless and cannot be improved! Uh huh. |
| #12 By 12071 (203.217.76.185) at 6/19/2003 7:30:12 AM |
|
#13 Parker, since you have used zeitgeist several times now as the source to how popular IE is, how popular Windows is etc etc, maybe you could step back and tell us the scientific process behind those statistics. How were they determined for instance? Does google perform an 'nmap' type function to determine what OS you are running? Or does it get that information from the User Agent and possibly javascript parameters? What about those browsers that send out a false User Agent string and those that either do not support or have disabled their javascript? I guess what I'm really wondering is, how accurate are these figures that you keep on presenting us with as proof? Do you even know?
(Note that's not to say that IE is not by far the most popular browser). |
| #13 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/19/2003 11:50:30 AM |
|
sodajerk - "You don't see a full and proper implementation of CSS as important, soda?"
I don't seem to have a problem using CSS. "Are you really suggesting there's no interest or desire to have either an impartial standards body or competition amongst implementations to achieve a better product? " Curious. I see no mention of a standards body in my post. "Or even funnier, that the web doesn't need anything -- no accessibility, style, multimedia, or XML-related standards and the corresponding implementations and engines -- now that .Net is here?" Curious. I didn't see that either. What I did point out was that server content generation had lagged behind display technology, and I approved of Microsoft focusing on that issue, at least from my point of view. What is it that you want to do today that you feel you can't do? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 324 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:02:58 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
