Suggestions for a browser.

Post Reply New Topic

Amen to that. It's a mess, and has been for years.

Personally I'm a fan of Chrome. It has a very streamlined interface with most of the screen being devoted to the actual webpage. It's much faster than IE. And it seems...friendly. For instance, when a page crashes it says "Ah, snap!" and then explains what's going on.

It would be better if it said "OH CRAP, THAT DARN PLUG IN IS MAKING THE BROWSER LOOK BAD AGAIN"

or

"DO ME A FAVOR AND UNINSTALL A FEW OF THOSE TOOLBARS YOU HAVE INSTALLED!! !!"

Actually they originally wanted the microsoft network to stand in place of the web, but of course, that one one major victory for open source. Residual Microsoft Sour Grapes might be one of the reason they continue to screw with the standards.

Please cite your source for that claim. If you are going to claim a major victory for open source make sure it is a real one.

I get what you mean and it does sound somewhat apocryphal - yet somehow completely unsurprising.
Microsoft will screw any standard, given half a chance.

What? The claim about Microsoft Network?

Windows 95, Dude. They had a OEM client/dial up service similar to AOL. Let me be blunt: they had a competitive game plan and network and it failed. Their intent was that most windows users would pay for and use the MSN service.

quoth wikipedia - I think we can trust it in this case.


See that? It was integrated right into the operating system.

The first version of Internet Explorer was an add on package for windows 95; you had to purchase it. Moving that MSN content to the web - and giving it away free - means their plan failed: a clear victory for free content and open standards. History demonstrates my claim is valid.

Or the futzing with the standards?

16 years of failed browser tests, despite Microsoft's endorsement of (and even contributions to) said standards, says "Dont humor him Fuzzy, the evidence is everwhere." Are you really so blind to the fact that they say "yes, html should be this, javascript should be that" and then they implement it some other way?

Oh hey, look at this, straight from the MSN blog. IE is finally getting native svg support. Partial anyway. I mean, its so tricky none of the other browsers can do it, right? And its not like nobody has been asking for it for, oh, a decade or so?



Oh yay. They are excited. Not excited enough to do it 10 years ago. They have always sucked when it comes to implementing standards.

from their blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2009 ... e-w3c.aspx


A leap forward? What have they been doing all these years?

And the acid3 test if you want to see for yourself. http://acid3.acidtests.org/

I made my claims, I backed them up. What do you have?

You have not backed up your claims at all. Nowhere in what you wrote here says that Microsoft's intent was to replace the web with MSN. Just a bunch of Microsoft and Internet Explorer bashing.

I do not have anything to answer your last question. I do not make a claim. I did not offer a alternative to your claim. I just ask you to backup your claim. Which in my opinion you fail to do.

No. Not replace. Dont try putting words into my mouth. They attempted to craft an online service before wide spread adoption of the net. It says right there that it was a service providing online content that had a service fee to microsoft. Let me requote, I know its got some tricky concepts.



They were effectively the ISP for their clientèle. Instead most people chose to buy the services of third party ISPs. If I were MS this would clearly not be what I had planned when I formed this MSN business idea. I dont fault them for wanting to dominate online access. What business wouldnt?

The client software was installed by default in windows 95. Perhaps you are too young to remember. Lots of screen shots out there if you are.



Do you see IE anywhere there? No, But you see The Microsoft Network link staring at you. From the welcome screen. There were only about a dozen software packages installed. MSN was an important part of the windows 95 package.

So what good is it offering a paid service with limited online content while offering unlimited access through a browser? Even considering the IE 1.0 cost money, it was a hell of a better deal.

The original Microsoft Network stunk. Even worse than AOL.

Bah.

Hmm. I have to agree with Fuzzy on this - it's a typical Microsoft ploy.

I actually tried using MSN back then - it was a horrible mess and on a dial-up connection, completely unworkable.
It was clear from the content and presentation that it was an attempt to supplant CompuServe (which I was also using) at the very least.

This page has a pdf giving a short history of Microsoft's typical 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish' approach.

Nothing's changed at Redmond. They just replace the shiny veneer occasionally.

You still have not proved your original point

How does what you have said prove your claim that it was a major victory for open source?

But I suggest at this point we stop debating this on this thread post. The OP wanted to know which web browser to use which we are distracting from with this debate. Feel free to PM me if you want to keep proving your point

Opera. I've been using it since it became non Ad Displaying Freeware. (v8.0)

IE9 did get a nice boost when it got GPU acceleration, though it is still not as fast as chrome, it starts slower and it's tab system is horrible. I'm an avid chrome user myself, it's a lightweight and modern browser which really will speed up your world. I used to use firefox and it is an incredibly powerful browser with plugins such as firebug making it pretty neat.