Wow. Historical revisionism if ever I saw it. Netscape imploded like the fall of Rome, rent by incompetent business leaders and crumbling from unassailable technical debt. IE defeated the competition by anti-competitive practice, then had no competition as their opponents scored all of the own goals. Mozilla was a slow rising Phoenix from the ashes of that catastrophe.
From there, Microsoft did what big companies do best, having destroyed their competition. Absolutely… sweet… stuff all. Years of nothing. Technically advanced? Competent? Ha I say! If miserly underinvestment is now “technical brilliance” I weep for the youth. Thank goodness that competition eventually returned; but there are reasons every single human who could jumped on chrome when it was released.
...Advertising? Antitrust action?
Because, let's be honest, Firefox had been around for a while, and Opera was there even longer. The people who waited until Chrome for to jump ship were, mostly, people who hadn't heard of an alternative.
This was in the days of “don’t be evil” and people even liking google. Firefox had its advocates, but it wasn’t the simple “just way better than IE” that chrome was. I shamefully moved from Firefox to chrome. For the tabs man, I needed those tabs.
Confused about this comment. At all points during the history of even single-process Firefox, as far as I know, it could handle far more tabs than Chrome, as in not even worth comparing. Chrome would start actively falling apart at 100 tabs. Firefox could eat up all of your memory with 20 tabs, but would only be marginally worse at 1000 tabs.
Firefox died because it systematically started eliminating all of its advantages over Chrome and imitating it in even superficial ways, and became openly user-hostile as it became completely financially dependent on Google. Imo it had only a little bit to do with Chrome's performance, which was often based on visually cheating and assuming that nobody needed more than 20 tabs, but also had tab isolation so the browser wasn't always hard crashing. Still, plenty of people are impressed by a quickly appearing unresponsive UI, plenty don't need more than 20 tabs, and hard crashes suck.
> For the tabs man, I needed those tabs.
I needed tree-style vertical tabs, so I was locked in because Chrome wasn't flexible enough to build them.
Opera had tabs before Chrome even got released. So i'm assuming the key difference was the ability for Chrome to advertise its features to you.
Note: I don't dispute they were slow, anti-competitive, etc., just that now from a tech point of view IE seems garbage, but that's a false believe and when a new IE launched it was decently competent.
I think, perhaps, we are talking about different eras. When IE came on the scene in the mid 90s it was garbage. Anyone tech-savvy was using Netscape and laughing at the pitiful entrance from Microsoft. Netscape was vastly superior and had a huge runway (so it seemed). But the thing is, MS bundled the browser with the OS and called it the “internet”. Click here for the “internet”. How do you compete with a free app installed on the desktop of every computer? Netscape had an existential crisis on their hands and legal wrangling over anti-competitive behaviour was never going to be fast enough to save them.
Behind the scenes things were already chaos and the code was an irredeemable pile of technical debt (or so the story goes, I’ve never looked at the code). New Netscape versions came out, but the rapid improvements of the early years were gone. It was a buggy unstable mess that seemed to get worse with every release while IE got better (not great, but the trajectory was clear). Soon even nerds like me were using IE because Netscape had jumped all of the sharks. By the time we were partying like it was 1999, IE was the only game in town. And then MS called the internet “done” and went back to throwing chairs and yelling “developers” a bunch.
I’ve never been a web dev, but I expect that the pain of those lost years where MS cared little for standards due to lack of any meaningful competition, could have been dramatically shortened. I’ve always hated www, ever since it devoured my beloved gopher and brought on the eternal September, but it’s a real testament to the power of standards that this inefficient, ugly, slow but ubiquitous method for deploying content has been so successful. Once Microsoft and Adobe finally got out of the way.
IE4 introduced DHTML, i.e., the paradigm that the entire HTML document is on the DOM and you can modify it with JavaScript (and style it with CSS, which is also on the DOM).
IE5 introduced XMLHttpRequest, i.e., the foundation of the modern SPA.
Both of these were major advances in web development, and websites started requiring (or preferring) IE because they wanted to use that stuff.
From there, yeah, IE6 was mostly bugfixes and webdev languished until Chrome came around (with Firefox being great, but not enough to topple IE.)
Of course, MS were still competing at that point and shear kinetic energy of the behemoth got you through the next couple of releases. Before how many years of nothing? And internet years are like dog years, it was basically infinity time before chrome burst onto the scene to actually move things forward again. Where might we be right now, if MS hadn’t have been able to leverage their OS install base and complete lack of integrity to kill Netscape dead before it had a chance to threaten their business model?
So the open-source energy that went into Firefox would've gone into... KHTML? Maybe?
At 4.0 the gap widen. While IE's rendering speed got even faster, its integration with Active Desktop etc. slowed down the start up in Windows 98. Netscape got even slower across the board. It's funny that even without the fancy features Netscape 4 was slower than IE4.
By 5 the dust was largely settled. Netscape was on rapid decline and IE5 optimized/got rid of all the IE4 crap in Windows 98SE. My desktop (Pentium III 800Mhz) was faster with 98SE' IE5 than IE4, which was much better than Netscape 4.0.
Ahh Microsoft; ever were you the great teacher on the reality of power.
Prior to that, nothing worked that way. What limited page modification there was after formatting couldn't ever cause a reflow, and you couldn't even do all the things that couldn't cause a reflow, either. Reflows were simply not a thing through Javascript. (Deferred image loading could cause reflows, and a few other special cases the browser would handle, but you didn't have generalized access to it.)
Netscape tried to compete but they clearly couldn't. They tried to build a "layer" concept, which was ultimate just several chunks of page that could be completely rewritten, but couldn't be reflowed as we'd use the term today. It was a weak concept that was very difficult to use for anything.
IIRC, Netscape qua Netscape never solved this. It was only after Firefox that it could compete. There was a long time where IE was really the only recognizably-modern browser.
It, too, fell behind, its internal architecture becoming simply too limiting. But there was a period of time where it was legitimately the best browser, no matter how anyone may have felt about it.
I think you've mistaken this for a brand-off between IE and Netscape. Netscape got very, very bad, then died. That allowed IE to stop working at all on the browser, and even to use their bugs as a moat.
It looks you concede the fact that IE was clearly better in its 4.0-6.0 releases than its competition (chiefly Netscape), but hate this fact so much, that you then still somehow dispute it.
MS had its usual anticompetitive practices, but that does not disqualify the fact that IE was at the time also technical state of the art.
(My teenager MS hating me at the time reacted similarly and stubbornly used/advocated Netscape/Opera anyway).
Yes, but only because they cheated. They poisoned their opponents and claimed victory after they fell over. Just because the new releases showed steady improvements while Netscape was thrashing around in its death throes doesn’t mean they were “technically excellent” in any meaningful sense. And once it was clear that Netscape wasn’t going to be getting back up they completely stopped trying. That’s the bit I’m most annoyed about.
I completely disagree with this. The unfair competitive advantage that MS created was directly causal in Netscape acting out of desperation. Desperate companies do desperate things. Often really stupid desperate things.
If they had continued with the dominant market share and comfortable revenue stream, they would have made slow comfortable decisions. Instead they made rash, desperate decisions and imploded.
Microsoft had no valid justification to take that much market share that quickly (Netscape was much better for the first couple of versions). They could only do it because they could leverage their OS.
If it had been a fair playing field, the outcome might have been very different.
As I recall, Microsoft actually stopped development of IE, saying the job was done, the web browser complete.
Am I correct? Can anyone verify this?
Despite being a technology enthusiast who was paying attention at the time and who heard this when it happened in various discussions and articles, now some twenty years later this is hard to source!
This is one account: https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171546&cid=14288661
Mozilla lists it as such on their timeline (May 31, 2003):
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Timeline
Microsoft Drops the Ball with Internet Explorer: https://web.archive.org/web/20050506233847/http://www.window...
So it wasn't that users refused to upgrade their installations of IE, it's that Microsoft insisted for a long while there would be no IE releases past version six, since it was now a part of the operating system and the team they had had had been disbanded to work on other parts of Windows and Office by that point. It was only when enough bugs were seriously impacting Windows and the emergence of Firefox and Safari that they started taking serious aim at fixing those bugs and releasing later versions of IE, seven and so on..
IE won the browser wars -- fair and square.
Now explain Opera. I remember seeing the lengthy blog post by the CEO of Opera demonstrating how Microsoft was deliberately messing with the browser when users tried to access Hotmail and other Microsoft controlled sites. It's a matter of historical irony that Google used some of those same tactics on Microsoft later when they were trying to make Windows Phone a thing.
>IE won the browser wars -- fair and square.
There was nothing fair about it. Microsoft went so far as to tie the browser to the system in order to compete. It messed with compatibility to screw with users of competing browsers.
You can snow people who didn't live through it, but you cannot snow those of us who were there and did.
I remember when IE4 came out. It was a fascinating piece of software (and extremely crashy too in beta) packed with all sorts of forward looking technologies like Active Channel, Active Desktop, a chat app, Outlook Express, and more. I'm a bit sad, but I could literally watch a 2 hour documentary on IE4, there must be so many stories behind its development and eventual demise.
These days, Microsoft are concerned about getting my money at my god damn desk every second of the god damn day.
I'de disagree with that statement as some of their moves (such as purchasing GitHub) could be equally viewed as part of their typical EEE strategy that permeated the entire business.
WSL could also be, and indeed is by many, viewed the same way ("Microsoft is just trying to pseudo-own the linux ecosystem by embedding it within Windows").
Personally, seeing how EEE permeated the entire business in the infamous 90's & 00's era Microsoft and all of the dirty laundry that ended up being aired, I don't doubt for a second that the current-era Microsoft is just as bad, but better at hiding it.
Apples don't fall far from the tree.
Fool me once...
To me their actions speak louder than slogans and have proven themselves good citizens in many areas. Scrutiny is good. They should constantly be scrutinized.
Yet we have Google and Apple who regularly escape the same scrutiny that they ought to be getting, and instead are given a free pass for more nefarious actions than ms have committed.
If we're going to take a stance if distrust, it needs to be extended to everyone. Otherwise it's just politics and brand loyalty.
They haven't done jack shit for open source. Buying Github doesn't mean anything.
They also haven't done jack shit for open platforms either.
They can't ship working cross-platform software that matters to save their lives. (VSCode doesn't matter. There are a million other text editors)
Things that DO matter, that they have locked into their ecosystem are things like Office or Teams.
Teams is based on electron, and they still fucked up the cross-platform capabilities. Teams on Linux is absolute ass.
Why not port Office to Linux? I thought Microsoft <3 Linux. They don't. They haven't changed.
They lose a ton of devs to Linux and Mac, since doing any kind of dev work is a pain.
Their solution? Ship an entire Linux OS (WSL2) alongside their own OS, since their dev tools are dogshit. They didn't do this out of goodwill, they are trying to stop the bleeding.
So please tell me, in the last 20 years, is there really anything microsoft has _actually_ done to foster any kind of goodwill from Linux people?
I agree with you except for this. Microsoft has, since the '90s, always had top-tier dev tools. They're a different ecosystem than unixy development, and hence incompatible and unfamiliar with a different user experience. Linux's dominance in the server environment has caused it to gather developer mindshare in the last 20 years and so there are many developers who prefer the Linux tooling ecosystem. And yes, Microsoft is trying to (and succeeding at) keep them in Windows with WSL. I expect to see them use the 'extend' playbook to trap them on the platform (if they haven't already, I'm not following very closely).
Not to defend Apple or Google, as they are both toxic companies, but Microsoft literally supported SCO.
Hands up if you've ever heard of Xenix!!
The grandparent comment said that Google and Apple had done much more nefarious than Microsoft. Microsoft who funded SCOs baseless lawsuit to completely destroy Linux.
If you can think of "more evil" things that Google and Apple have done then I'm all ears!
Meanwhile they absurdly managed to make people beg for technological innovations fromt he main group at fault for technologic stagnation aka huge undefeatable monpolies.
To be emotional towards a company, means to become a p3wn.