Frame's future @ Mac/UNIX

[quills at airmail.net]

At 9:37 AM -0600 3/2/07, Sam Beard wrote:
>Scott,
>
>    This isn't exactly true. Microsoft CHOSE not to export IE for Mac OS
>X. This was done partly because Apple has their own browser, Safari, and
>partly because of the rise in popularity of Firefox, Opera, Camino, and
>others. The last version of IE for Mac was running quite well on Mac OS
>X, but it was also the equivalent of at least one version behind Windows
>IE, IIRC. Safari is generally well-regarded, as are the others listed
>above. And, with MS pushing IE's "integration" into the Windows OS,
>there wasn't really a desire on their part to continue work on something
>without much tangible return. IE for Windows gets stuck into the Windows
>OS in such a way that it's VERY difficult to fully disentangle it from
>the OS and to fully use another browser instead. I've heard of many
>times where someone THINKS they've disabled IE as a default browser, but
>then something happens that launches IE instead of something else. As
>always, YMMV greatly from this.
>
>Samuel I. Beard, Jr.
>Technical Writer
>OI Analytical
>979 690-1711 Ext. 222
>sbeard at oico.com
>

They Chose not to because they were receiving competition, even 
though they still held a majority usage. If anything it highlights a 
very disturbing attitude behind Microsoft that many people still 
don't recognize.  As far as their attempt to integrate it into their 
OS, well, it's a veiled attempt to monopolize the Internet using an 
unfair advantage. And from a usability standpoint, it's a very stupid 
use of html.

Scott