>>I believe MSFT will win the browser wars because IMO IE is a better product than Navigator<<
1. Better products don't always win. Most experts say OS/2 is vastly superior to Windows 95. However, Windows 95 wins.
2. IE and Navigator are considered to be about on par, with some giving a slight edge to IE. Of course, Netscape will leapfrog IE in its next version. (For me, even if I assume that IE is a little better, which I do not, the learning curve is not worth the switch.)
3. When I installed IE 4.0 on my Compaq Presario 3020, it destroyed my system and I had to end up using the Quick Restore, meaning I lost all my data. A few weeks later, I found out that IE 4.0 caused major problems with the Presarios. The problem is now apparently fixed. Soemhow, I don't consider that a "better" product.
>>Long term, Microsoft will win because it produces better products.<<
1. Microsoft sometimes produces better products, but usually only after about 16 different versions (ok, maybe 3 or 4 versions). It only took them seven years to get Windows to a state where it was half usable.
2. It is Microsoft's monopoly which gives it the chance to EVENTUALLY get it right, after multiple versions of pure trash. Most companies get ONE shot to get it right. Look at the original Internet Explorer in Windows 95 Release 1. Absolute garbage.
3. If Netscape hadn't come along and scared the **** out of Microsoft, Internet Explorer would still be a piece of trash.
4. And that is the reason monopolies are bad for us. It takes competition to bring out the best. Microsoft wants to monopolize browsers (and eventually the Internet), and they are using the power of the Windows monopoly to try to attain that position.
Does anyone think for one minute that Microsoft would have even a 20 percent share of the browser market if they did not bundle IE with Windows and force their OEMs to include it with every copy of Windows 95? |
