Whats your current favorite Web Browser?

Gizensha · Postby **Gizensha** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 4:43 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (hdofu @ Jul 24 2004, 04:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Seems I managed to save the exact note (since I never use them)  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (YahooServices)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Hello duohdofu, You recently attempted to retrieve your Yahoo! Mail messages using a POP3 client such as Outlook Express. Yahoo! Mail no longer provides free POP3 Access or Auto Mail Forwarding to Yahoo! Delivers subscribers. If you would like to continue using Mail Forwarding or POP3 Access, please sign up for our improved package that allows you to: * Use Outlook, Eudora, or another POP3 client to access and manage your Yahoo! Mail. * Automatically forward your Yahoo! Mail to another email account -- even another Yahoo! address. * Send larger attachments, now up to 5MB instead of the free 1.5MB limit. * Send email without the Yahoo! promotional text at the bottom.* Sign up now Of course, you will still have free access to your Yahoo! Mail messages on the web at <a href='http://mail.yahoo.com' target='_blank'>http://mail.yahoo.com</a>. If you have just subscribed to this service, please disregard this notification. Sincerely, Yahoo! Mail For further information, please read our frequently asked questions. Please note that your Yahoo! Delivers settings will not be affected. *Applies only to email sent through the Yahoo! SMTP servers. </td></tr></table>   </td></tr></table>  Snipped because this is getting a little stupid. Anyway... Haven't they upgraded the free service to 5MB attatchments now anyway? (looks like they're desperately trying to compete with g-mail, which I really need to get an account for at some point, but dun know anyone with a spare code, so eh ^^)

Ozymandias · Postby **Ozymandias** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 4:50 pm

I do have Mozilla but IE is on that quick launch thing beside the start button, and im lazy so go figure.

Northern_l33tness · Postby **Northern_l33tness** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 5:59 pm

Avant totally rocks. For those not in the know, Avant is an add on for IE that gives it a lot of Mozilla's features, such as the ability to block pop ups and tabbed browsing. It does this while keeping compatible with almost everything because underneath all that it is just plain old IE. Before I got Avant, I used Opera most of the time. I tried Firefox, but I didn't like it as much as Avant in stock form, though it looks like there are some add ons for Firefox I might want to try out.

Gizensha · Postby **Gizensha** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 7:33 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Northern_l33tness @ Jul 24 2004, 05:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Avant totally rocks. For those not in the know, Avant is an add on for IE that gives it a lot of Mozilla's features, such as the ability to block pop ups and tabbed browsing. It does this while keeping compatible with almost everything because underneath all that it is just plain old IE. Before I got Avant, I used Opera most of the time. I tried Firefox, but I didn't like it as much as Avant in stock form, though it looks like there are some add ons for Firefox I might want to try out.  </td></tr></table>  Yeah, but most of the things that ie are compatable with that nothing else is isn't actually part of html 4 <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... ns/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /> Basically, during the days when Microsoft and netscape were, essentially, at war with each other, the weapons they used weren't software wise but compatability with addon features that aren't actually part of html, which isn't a good thing since it encourages lazy web design and... Um... A little on going arguement based around: "yeah, but IE doesn't stick to the standards" 'some minority browser doesn't set the standards' "Neither does microsoft. The standards were set up by independently of all the browsers" 'The leader of any market sets the standards' "Not when the standards are specified, IE doesn't stick to them." 'Some minority browser doesn't set the standards.' I'm annoyed at the browser wars of old simply for the headache that circular arguement causes me, yet alone the amount of websites that are sloppily designed thanks to ie. Oh, and those few people who use publisher, or even worse, word. But that has nothing to do with the browser wars <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> Bring on html 5 so this whole standards issue can be resolved once and for all. Although admittedly if I'm viewing a site that's designed so that it's only compatable with IE, then Avant is the browser of choice <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Dr. Doog · Postby **Dr. Doog** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 8:46 pm

i use firefox for mac os x. and about netscape, CURSE THEE, MICROSOFT AND YOU "BROWSER WARS" AND YOUR MONEY AND YOUR "MEETING WITH AOL!!!"

Gizensha · Postby **Gizensha** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:11 pm

...Why would the party that's winning set up the talks?

VisibilityMissing · Postby **VisibilityMissing** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 10:18 pm

AOL is a major customer, and now owns netscape. The next-gen AOL software may incorporate Netscape/Mozilla rather than IE. That would be a business problem for Microsoft. That's at least one reason. And, you need to remember that all of these companies are heavily invested in each other. It doesn't do anybody any good for a large tech company to fall apart.

Gizensha · Postby **Gizensha** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 1:38 am

Uhh... bussness problem from freeware. Sorry, I've been trying to get my head round that for years. Anyways. As for 'bussness problem for microsoft', they're too large to have problem problems, surely. The X-Box made a huge loss, microsoft brand it as a success and do another one, hoping to build onto that success. I've seen guesses that they're not going to make a profit on the x-box 2 but might on the x-box 3. Random examples, yeah this is something coming from me all right.

VisibilityMissing · Postby **VisibilityMissing** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 1:53 am

I really have no sympathy for MicroSquish, but they are a corporation. That means that they must make a profit, to keep people employed and to continue to create "new" products. The X-box fiasco is more about "market share" than anything else. If they are going to be competitive, they need to have a product in that particular part of the market. And this is not only a business problem from freeware. This is a business problem from freeware leveraged by a major corporation, which makes it different. If AOL isn't hiring Microsoft, but someone else, to help them write their software then it is a business problem.

Gizensha · Postby **Gizensha** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 3:04 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (VisibilityMissing @ Jul 25 2004, 01:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I really have no sympathy for MicroSquish, but they are a corporation. That means that they must make a profit, to keep people employed and to continue to create "new" products. The X-box fiasco is more about "market share" than anything else. If they are going to be competitive, they need to have a product in that particular part of the market.  </td></tr></table>  With the x-box, no-where to joint second and a huge loss, which wouldn't be bad in terms of market share if it wasn't for... Umm... There are three companies in the sector, including microsoft, one still has enough of the market share to be comfortable <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> So I wouldn't really call it a market share success (if they were universally second, sure. But they're about equal with Nintendo) You do hit the nail on the head though. Microsoft are a company. Companies are there to make more money. The x-box fails to do that, there are people that hold no hope for the x-box 2 doing that. If the x-box had have knocked out either of it's competitors from the industry, then yes, it would have been considered a bussiness success. As it is... They've simply caused a market that conventional wisdom holds there is only space for two competitors to hold three competitors and seem to be healthy holding said amount. Wait... Did I just say that Microsoft did a good thing with the x-box? Yes, but not in the bussiness sense. Now, I'm going to go with the statement that, as I recall, was made by microsoft in regards to the x-box 2. Namely "We're confident we can get the #1 position next generation". Quite frankly, if that's they're goal next generation, and they go at it the same as they did with the x-box... they're going to fail, badly. That strategy might take them into #2, but Nintendo seem right now to be more interested in ensuring it's industry survives than taking market share or directly making money, so I'm expecting Microsoft to get #2 without much effort on there parts because <stereotype> gamers don't seem to want a hardware revolution in the west, they just want bigger better faster developement </stereotype>. Although, saying that, I don't see any way of doing the bigger better faster developement beyond the next generation anyway. But I'm diverging here. Back to the discussion at hand, the only way MS are ever going to get #1 next generation is to essentially do what Sony did to Nintendo in the N64/PS1 thing. Namely - get most developers and/or publishers into exclusive 'you develope for us and no-one else' deals. Microsoft certainly have the money to manage this, well... Ish. You see, now adays there are a total of four publishers that actually matter. The three in house ones, and Electronic Arts (or EA Games in America). Developers are more varied, but most wind up either going through EA or the console in question, and the bigger developers not tied to any of the three consoles due to "we're owned by that company" seem to have almost universally decided that developing for multiful platforms is better bussiness than only developing for who you think's going to be the biggest. Which is a strategy, depending on my mood, I refer to as either "The minority consoles are too significant a minority to ignore the fact that most households only have one console" or "never underestimate the fanboys". Yes, the x-box has fanboys, not because it's microsoft but because there's oh so much more you can do as far as modding something's concerned with a console that has a hard drive.... That and you can easially get linux on there. Yeah, I know people with this mindset <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... lleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /> Also, the circumstances you'd ensure people to think that it's worth going only with you at all, especially if you're not #1 at the beginning, is to be releasing your console well ahead of any other. I'm not expecting the difference between when the ps1 and the n64 to ever be repeated again as far as the difference between first and second in release is concerned. So the current console environment isn't really one that Microsoft can easially work to their advantage as far as their usual 'throw money at a project until the competitors fold' strategy is concerned. Which so far is what they've been doing, and is a perfectly ordinary bussiness strategy, as long as you have the money to do it with. Unfortunately, as far as M$ is concerned, they have so much money, most markets buckle even at the mention that they're getting into them now adays. Well, that's my view on Microsoft and the console gaming market anyway. I'm going to go away now and hope this sub-discussion ends soon and we can get back to browser discussion here. ...Ahh! Tenatious link! WebTV, eg the dreamcast, doesn't work for general web surfing because of the resolution of tv monitors. As such, browsers are going to be few and far between for the next generation of consoles, although they probably will be included in anything with web support for the ease of downloading patches. This is me, trying desperately to not sercome to his bad habit of completely changing the topic of discussion by accident while making a natural reply to a reply to his example. *sigh* As for the AOL thing, 'oh ok' is all I'm going to say here, since there's not really much I can respond to in it <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Maeglin · Postby **Maeglin** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 4:20 am

Firefox.

Arloest · Postby **Arloest** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 7:08 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (DraganFox @ Jul 24 2004, 01:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Firefox. I used IE forever, then as soon as I used Firefox, I liked it a ton better.  </td></tr></table>  Wow... exact same deal with me.

Sabre · Postby **Sabre** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 8:01 am

FIYA!

Dr. Doog · Postby **Dr. Doog** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:30 am

mwaha, i must use that as my sig on my forum.

Ozymandias · Postby **Ozymandias** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 8:23 pm

*observes way long post was ignored by most* Ah well, I read it.

Define Cynical Fan Forums

Whats your current favorite Web Browser?

Who is online