>> From a user perspective, later releases of IE4 were >> "better" than NS4.x >>in several ways, primarily stability. > > I couldn't stand IE4, which is why I went to Nestscape 4.
That's _your_ opinion. Many disagree with you. I abandoned NS4.x about 14 months ago, because Mozilla was more stable on my system. No, I'm not kidding, 4.x fell over more often than Wile E Coyote on my machine. I have a deep-rooted dislike of IE's user interface, so that never even entered the equation. Dispite all that, IMO, IE5.5 is "better" than NN4.x overall. Now that's a real apples/oranges comparison, since NN4.x has been pretty much standing still for >2 years now, while IE 5.5 is, what, 12 months old, tops? >>IE5 beats it too, in >>the eyes of many, many users. > > But I'll bet that the eyes of many, many users have never used > anything else. There are studies ( and at least one Supreme > Court ruling) that support my position. You think I disagree on that point? I have read the findings of fact. >>In my opinion, given a straight fight (which manifestly did >>NOT happen, see the US Supreme Court's "Findings of Fact" >>for details) IE4/5 would have won significant market share >>from Netscape. They would not have achieved total market >>dominance, nor risen to market leader, as quickly as >>actually happened, but with IE4 out there, Netscape would >>not have held on to the 85% (or whatever) market share they >>had. > > Like the actual results of the last presidential election, we'll > never know now. Indeed. -- gav
