Ahh the old Nutscrape Aggrivator. Refused to update with Microsoft standards and spent the next 8 years being a pain in the ass for website compatibility.
Microsoft standards?
Sounds like we're due for a history lesson.
No. I was just looking for an example of when Microsoft created standards for IE that other browsers could adopt, given that they were tied into IIS and undocumented in order to give them an uncompetitive advantage.
Let's also think about how they deliberately downgraded performance, or broke functionality on non Microsoft browsers, again for anti competitive behaviour.
They were called browser wars for a reason, and Microsoft is very well documented indeed regarding their fuckerry. But you go ahead trolling.
Yes, everything you said is correct, ipso facto Microsoft won and was setting the standards at the time.
The competitors still had significant market share and thus their obstinance to follow the leader lead to a large portion of users that had to be catered to by web developers for compatibility due to corporate requirements for access to these market shares.
Thus because these competitors weren't the key demographic, in the context of a developer, they were an additional burden due to the severe lack of uniform standards between major platforms.
No they were not setting standards. They were in fact breaking them. Their own standards were not disclosed, forcing competitors to actually have to reverse engineer them in order to try to have a chance at compatibility.
The whole reason for the lack of uniformity was Microsoft fucking with the standards!
Secondly, the competitors did not have a significant market share.
Thirdly, it's funny that you mention in the context of a developer, given that they all complain mightily, even to this day, about having to support the festering pile of IE versions still around.
Still, this won't stop you telling, so you go do your thing elsewhere please.
Sure, just ignore the context I provided and substitute it for your own, doesn't change they were the market maker and the primary development platform for web with IE, I know this because I've probably been a developer longer than you've been alive, and had to create work arounds for compatability with netscape for those 8 years I mentioned.
What do you mean the competitors didn't have market share, in '98 netscape was 41.5% of all browsers to IE's 48.3%. You don't even know what you're talking about.
Your idealistic hard on with Microsoft' s tactics doesn't change the reality that they became market leader, or that they were the ones using that influence to drive standards. Saying the standards weren't known is also bullshit because we were developing on those standards. So yes, Microsoft was market leader and Microsoft was calling the shots for website development standards, because they had market share whether you like how they got there or not, it doesn't change this objective fact.
Funny how you want to engage in part of a conversation and then instead of wanting to hear a rebuttal you just want me to go away so you can think happy ignorant thoughts. Why did you bother responding?
and netscape navigator. ah my glory days!
Ahh the old Nutscrape Aggrivator. Refused to update with Microsoft standards and spent the next 8 years being a pain in the ass for website compatibility.
Microsoft standards?
Sounds like we're due for a history lesson.
No. I was just looking for an example of when Microsoft created standards for IE that other browsers could adopt, given that they were tied into IIS and undocumented in order to give them an uncompetitive advantage. Let's also think about how they deliberately downgraded performance, or broke functionality on non Microsoft browsers, again for anti competitive behaviour.
They were called browser wars for a reason, and Microsoft is very well documented indeed regarding their fuckerry. But you go ahead trolling.
Yes, everything you said is correct, ipso facto Microsoft won and was setting the standards at the time.
The competitors still had significant market share and thus their obstinance to follow the leader lead to a large portion of users that had to be catered to by web developers for compatibility due to corporate requirements for access to these market shares.
Thus because these competitors weren't the key demographic, in the context of a developer, they were an additional burden due to the severe lack of uniform standards between major platforms.
No they were not setting standards. They were in fact breaking them. Their own standards were not disclosed, forcing competitors to actually have to reverse engineer them in order to try to have a chance at compatibility. The whole reason for the lack of uniformity was Microsoft fucking with the standards!
Secondly, the competitors did not have a significant market share. Thirdly, it's funny that you mention in the context of a developer, given that they all complain mightily, even to this day, about having to support the festering pile of IE versions still around. Still, this won't stop you telling, so you go do your thing elsewhere please.
Sure, just ignore the context I provided and substitute it for your own, doesn't change they were the market maker and the primary development platform for web with IE, I know this because I've probably been a developer longer than you've been alive, and had to create work arounds for compatability with netscape for those 8 years I mentioned.
What do you mean the competitors didn't have market share, in '98 netscape was 41.5% of all browsers to IE's 48.3%. You don't even know what you're talking about.
Your idealistic hard on with Microsoft' s tactics doesn't change the reality that they became market leader, or that they were the ones using that influence to drive standards. Saying the standards weren't known is also bullshit because we were developing on those standards. So yes, Microsoft was market leader and Microsoft was calling the shots for website development standards, because they had market share whether you like how they got there or not, it doesn't change this objective fact.
Funny how you want to engage in part of a conversation and then instead of wanting to hear a rebuttal you just want me to go away so you can think happy ignorant thoughts. Why did you bother responding?
In 800x600 pixel resolution.