Anyone willnig to share some minor site statistics?  I'm interested in seeing how much RSS Aggregators are beating (if at all) Netscape Nagivator for client browsers.

I dont care about raw numbers, lets see some percentages!

IMHO it sucks that people are adopting Firefox.  It will just turn into another browser war where Firefox wont be able to keep up with IE and whats coming up with Longhorn and eventually die.  Die die die.....  Then again since IE has been so damn slow for decent upgrades its no wonder why that trend is happening.  Heck I have even dumped plain IE for MyIE2 a long time ago.  Maybe those of you that are considering the move to FireFox, take a look at MyIE2 first.

8 Comments

• Scott Galloway said Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:31:00 PM

  Why does it suck? Microsoft always seem to do their best work when trying to beat the competition. Internet Explorer only got as far as it is because it was trying to beat Netscape - evidenced in the fact that when the challenge from Netscape disappeared - so did further developments in Internet Explorer. Following the Channel 9 internet explorer wiki, it seems the plans are to improve security in the short term and grudgingly adopt standards later - looks like the Longhorn upgrades will mainly be some Avalon support right now.

• senkwe said Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:45:00 PM

  >>It will just turn into another browser war where Firefox wont be able to keep up with IE<<
  
  Umm, you do agree that FireFox is way ahead of IE at the moment though right?

• Rob Chartier said Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:47:00 PM

  
  As a developer, I feel it sucks because it *might* mean another huge headache that most of us went through trying to keep up the support for all the browsers and versions of each.
  
  I guess we have hope with the adaptive rendering features in the Framework. For those not using the Framework on the server, good luck with that.

• Rob Chartier said Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:50:00 PM

  >> Umm, you do agree that FireFox is way ahead of IE at the moment though right? <<
  
  There is no question. IE has been left in the dust with features and capabilities. Then again, so has the Windows Deskop and MSN Messenger...
  
  I guess even MS cant constantly improve things fast enough to satisfy the growing needs of its customers.

• Stefano Demiliani said Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:51:00 PM

  I've tryed MyIE2 some times ago... It's an interesting project, fast and tiny, but personally I think Firefox is better. Obviously, it's only my personal opinion. However, IE is a good browser and I don't think it must be dropped.

• Shannon J Hager said Thursday, June 17, 2004 3:08:00 PM

  The problem with Adaptive Rendering is that it's backwards. IE is the least capable in most cases yet is the only browser that gets the benefits of such marvels as buttons with their width set. Adaptive rendering is the layout version of Frontpage web-bots. It has a time and a place but not in the workplace.
  
  If IE would support the standards, there would be no problems. The other browsers would all work the same and if they did, MS would just laugh and say "who cares, we're doing it right". As it is now, we are forced to right incorrect code so it will work in IE.
  
  As for how IE came out on top in the first browser war, there are 3 factors: Monopoly abuse, Netscape almost completely abandoning development for all practical (and public) purposes, and IE's superior support for the standards. If you drop out the monopoly factor (which is the most debatable of the 3) then you are left with the situation we have today: the incumbent Browser King being slack and letting the world evolve around it while it gathers dust and the challenger doing the job correctly, better and better each day.

• SaberOne said Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:31:00 PM

  You really gotta be kidding by saying that Firefox sux. The thing is more standards compliant than enything else around. I feel as if it's a breath of fresh air.

• Steve K. said Thursday, June 17, 2004 5:30:00 PM

  Be careful when you use standards compliance to tout the quality of a browser.
  
  A couple years ago, I received feed back from a developer in Sweden who wanted me to add "Opera" as a term to Webopedia. I had no problem with this, but he still felt obligated to list reasons for its greatness. One point he mentioned was that it was 100% standards compliant.
  
  I asked him how that was relevant when MS owns 98% of the browser market. What if MS has developed better features and functions for IE than what the standard offers?
  
  My point was merely that complying to standards just means it adheres to a status quo.
  
  Standards does not necessarily imply better quality or the best way to do something.