It's an alternate browser that supports modern web standards. How is it any more 'pointless' than Firefox or Chrome?
It basically only exists for the sake of testing without buying a Mac. Since it pulls in an entire Cocoa/Carbon/whatever stack, it uses an intense amount of ram and performs slowly.
I'm not on Windows, so I haven't used it myself, but you're the first person I've heard complain about it since 4.0 dropped (though, granted, I don't listen very hard).
More important, I would think, is that it supports the web standards that Google has a vested interest in seeing flourish, and it would be another shiny logo that might get clicked rather than the IE7/8 link they put up out of necessity.
You used the word "portable". I used the word "love". Reflect for a second on what those particular terms mean in this particular context. Give up? Okay: there are no mainstream KHTML browsers available for Windows, except for Safari and Chrome via WebKit, only one of which has a link showing up on YouTube.
I used the word love too actually. But I thought you meant thanks when you said it. I guess you didn't.
It basically only exists for the sake of testing without buying a Mac. Since it pulls in an entire Cocoa/Carbon/whatever stack, it uses an intense amount of ram and performs slowly.
I'm not on Windows, so I haven't used it myself, but you're the first person I've heard complain about it since 4.0 dropped (though, granted, I don't listen very hard). More important, I would think, is that it supports the web standards that Google has a vested interest in seeing flourish, and it would be another shiny logo that might get clicked rather than the IE7/8 link they put up out of necessity.
I use Safari on my Macbook and have it installed on my windows machine for testing.
- IE8 is there because it is a clear upgrade path
- FireFox is there because it has well known brand recognition
- Chrome is there because they want to push their own tech
What would Safari there gain? It would simply be one more choice. I think the three are already too many.
I'm not on Windows, so I haven't used it myself, but you're the first person I've heard complain about it since 4.0 dropped (though, granted, I don't listen very hard). More important, I would think, is that it supports the web standards that Google has a vested interest in seeing flourish, and it would be another shiny logo that might get clicked rather than the IE7/8 link they put up out of necessity.
I use Safari on my Macbook and have it installed on my windows machine for testing. - IE8 is there because it is a clear upgrade path - FireFox is there because it has well known brand recognition - Chrome is there because they want to push their own tech What would Safari there gain? It would simply be one more choice. I think the three are already too many.
It's not targeted at real people who have to make a choice about which to download. It's been pretty well established that the only people still on IE6 are stuck behind IT policies that don't allow for upgrades. It's just a political statement, then, an attempt to drive home the point that IE6 is an ancient and decrepit bane on society and technology. The more sheer embarrassment that you can pile on top of these IT departments, the more frustration you ladle into the end users that they can direct into getting their company policies changed (rather than, hopefully, directed at you), the better. I think showing a wider variety of actually viable browsers makes that point better (hell, throw Opera in), because it makes it obvious just how far behind the rest of the world has left IE6.
It'd probably be monopolistic if they blocked IE8, and maybe IE7. But I think IE6 is legitimately old enough, with enough known problems, that it would be justifiable if it ever came up in court.
I wonder if facebook was paid by adobe when facebook videos began requiring Flash 10. That's the only reason I upgraded flash.
Having developed Flash plugins and applications in the past, you need at least Flash player 9+ to do anything remotely powerful.
I have a dream... of a world where everyone upgrades their browser in a timely way... where security fixes get applied and botnets don't spread... where the millions of developer hours formerly spent on browser hacks are instead used to add features... where advanced CSS selectors can be safely used... I have a dream of a world where one day, rounded corners can be made with a simple declaration and work in all brows…
Your imaginary place starts out sounding like a Mac User's world then drifts off into Lake Wobegon territory.
It'd probably be monopolistic if they blocked IE8, and maybe IE7. But I think IE6 is legitimately old enough, with enough known problems, that it would be justifiable if it ever came up in court.
It' doesn't take much for Google's web search to support an outdated browser since it uses minimal javascript, so Google will only lose out by blocking IE6.
That is a good start. Now, if they will disallow IE7 and IE8, we can get IE users back to a version that does not use ActiveX for plugins. That would be a great security step.