God, some of you people have your head buried in the sand. Any time MS pulls an app from the mac, it's gonna be bad press. Potential windows converts might be scared, it rings that "there's no software for the mac" bell.

Also, corporate users might be particularly screwed who are forced to use IE, or need particular compatibility with sites might also suffer.

Anytime a company drops an app, it's not a good thing. Choice is key.

I deleted IE long time ago.

If I come upon a site that only support IE? Big deal. I would stop visiting them. Simple as that.

about converts. if they are scared with things like this. be it. let them live with windows.

On the Intel/AMD PC side, Microsoft has never really competed on the Linux platform and so the only area where they could even potentially be winning the battle is on the Windows platform. However, although they are currently dominate there, all indications are that they are beginning to lose ground.

The "only" area you talk about happens to be 95% of all computer users. So, even throwing out the Mac, they still dominate 90% of all browser usage (taking 5% of PC users off of IE, add in 5% of the 'other' platforms). You seem to give a lot more meaning to the non-windows platforms.

And what indications that they're going to lose ground? I haven't seen any. And they're not going to give it up without a fight.

Their recent announcement regarding discontinuation of a stand alone browser indicates that they are not going to make any signifigant changes to the Windows IE browser until Longhorn comes out in 2005. It is almost as if Microsoft has decided that the browser war is not even worth fighting any longer.

That's bogus. If this is your indicator, your a fool, an idiot, or just don't understand things. Just because there's no more standalone browser doesn't mean IE can't be updated before 2005. Its part of the OS, so they'll update it through OS updates (you know, service packs, update products like WMP, etc). h***, because its all controlled by MS, they can incorporate updates behind the scenes in pretty much any system update, from a critical update to a direct X release.

All MS is doing with their announcement is what they wanted to do 5 years ago, integrate the browser into the OS to control even more of the internet experience, not give up on it.

There is another good synopsis at http://www.billstevenson.org/archives/000178.html

I wish safari can do everything IE can do but the truth is it can't. Its nice to have it as a back up, and at the least we know that it might be compatible with IE for windows. I have several banking sites that just dont liek safari but work well with IE.

I wonder what percentage of os X users actually use IE now. Except perhaps for webdesigners (who we've heard a lot from), I bet the figure is slipping fast with all the other good browsers out there. That would seem like reason enough for M$ to stop its development.

Which also shows how a company with such a large monopoly power can use it in less-than-appropriate ways. Maybe someone should point these arguments to the DOJ, who seemed fit to think that there is no problem with MS.

What's the bemoaning of MS's news about IE development being cut off. Maybe you didn't notice, they haven't released a real update in years. Going along with that, its not like you can't use the copy you have (try telling an OS 9 user that the OS won't be updated, and they'll tell you "Who cares! It works, it works well, and I'll use it until OS X acts just like my clunky OS 9!").

And I still would like to know what kind of OS integration a browser really needs. It sounds more like an excuse tied to their reasoning behind integrating it on a PC.

MACNN must be working for Microsoft just like Krakow! The ignorance that goes on at this place...

Just to note that Safari DOES have a "stealth mode" (ie you can change how it identifies itself to sites).

It's in the hidden "debug" menu, which you can turn on by using Safari Enhancer (free download from the usual places).

I am so sick and tired of reading (often mindless) and poorly thought through responses on these threads. ANY developement for the Mac whether you choose in your ignorance to use it or not IS GOOD FOR OUR PLATFORM.
ESPECIALLY if it from a corporation such as Microsoft. In this day and age where we are becoming increasingly niched, it gives the platform of our choice C-R-E-D-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y.
Understand? Credibility is what will convince more people to switch to Mac. The more people that switch to Mac, means a broader user base. A broader user base means more software developers and more, better software.
I just wish we as the Mac user group was represented by less idiots, and deeper thinkers.
Richfunk

Ok, here's a marginally intelligent post:

First, at least of fairly professional Mac users (the type who read MacEdition, that is), this CodeBitch article shows some OSX browser statistics:

http://www.macedition.com/cb/cb_20030602.php

Since the release of Safari, IE use has gone from 40% to less than 10% (and that is down from 70% a mere year and a half ago).

The type of Mac users to whom web browsing means a lot, and who follow software, obviously don't like IE, and the uneducated masses will probably use Safari eventually anyway, due to OS upgrades.

On a personal level, I don't care that IE won't be developed further. I essentially never used it anyway, don't like MS, and in the handful of situations I did need it, I can still use the one I've got (and you can still download it--they did say "continue to support", after all).

All that said, I wish they were supporting it. Having an extra rendering engine to throw at a really badly written page that you just need to use is a good thing. I prefer to just not patronize badly written pages, but occasionally you have little choice. And probably more importantly, as a web designer, it was nice having a browser with something resembling IE/Win rendering without using VPC.

In fact, I really, REALLY wish that the USDOJ would've required them to make a version of IE that used the same rendering engine as the newest PC version available on the MacOS (and Linux--why not). Aside from the guaranteed, just-in-case site compabibility, that'd make doing a basic "IE OK?" test for web designers ever so much easier. You'd still need to use VPC or a PC to be sure when it really counted, but a quick check for spot-checking or when you don't care is helpful.

Of course, the current version of IE didn't do to well on that front, either, but it's rendering engine had some quirks in common with the Win version, enough to make it worth poking a page design with.

" The "only" area you talk about happens to be 95% of all computer users. So, even throwing out the Mac, they still dominate 90% of all browser usage (taking 5% of PC users off of IE, add in 5% of the 'other' platforms). You seem to give a lot more meaning to the non-windows platforms."

Actually, I don't mean to nitpick or anything, but you're forgetting the huge number of browsers that actually spoof their identity to make webservers _think_ they're IE to get things working. My guesstimate would be about 70-80% browser average for IE...

Which brings me to the other reader suggesting Apple make it easier for Safari to spoof its identity: Webmasters look at their webserver logs to see what their visitors use to visit their site. If everybody fakes an IE browser, then webmasters see a huge majority of M$IE, and will stop trying to be standards compliant, and will go with what renders in IE only.
It might be a better idea for every alternative-browser user to email these webmasters, and tell them their code doesn't comply with the w3c standards (there's an automated code validator at www.w3c.org to test sites for bad HTML)

Just my 2 cents...
Cheers!

"you're forgetting the huge number of browsers that actually spoof their identity to make webservers _think_ they're IE to get things working. My guesstimate would be about 70-80% browser average for IE..."

No we are not, dipshit. How many people do you think have the knowledge of modifying their browser to spoof? According to you that is 15% to 25% of the internet population - and that is how many million people? You are an idiot!

I could be mistaken here, but MacEdition seems to think that the new version of the MSN browser for OSX is way, way more powerful than even IE6 for Windows. And, it exists now.

I think that means it's pretty obvious that's where IE Mac 6 ended up, and it seems a pity that they won't be giving it to those of us who wouldn't give MS $10 a month if they threatened to shave our heads and force us to wear purple pants. Guess MS doesn't mind giving us their best, so long as we pay for it.

Aside from the fact that that sucks (and the MBU probably would've embarassed the IE Win guys by making a point of a browser that kicked their sorry a**), that makes me wonder if maybe the next rev of IE Win will have these features, in which case WHY CAN'T A WEB DEVELOPER GET A VERSION TO TEST WITH WITHOUT GETTING MSN?! Heck, restrict it to local pages if you're that paranoid.

Even WebTV had a Mac-compatible test browser, so you could chkeck out design without buying a WebTV box--you can still download it from MS's site, in fact.

MS is not stopping IE development for MacOS X - They are only stopping development for the STAND-ALONE MacOS X IE. IE6 for MacOS X already exists and is available - It is imbedded into MSN-for-MacOS-X (look at the way it identifies itself to the Web Server).

MS is not stopping IE development for MacOS X - They are only stopping development for the STAND-ALONE MacOS X IE. IE6 for MacOS X already exists and is available - It is imbedded into MSN-for-MacOS-X (look at the way it identifies itself to the Web Server).

When Microsoft starts losing marketshare it quits. What a bunch of monopolist babies!