Microsoft Explorer for Windows 3.1 -- a subjective evaluation

[Thomas Dowling]

Well, it's back to the browser wars, I guess.  I'll admit up front that
I'm running Windows 95, so I'm looking at [slightly] different versions of
these browsers, but I find their performance, functionality, and-how
should I say this?-disdain for standards compliance roughly the same.
(Well, Netscape does handle align="right" and MSIE doesn't yet, so
score one for Netscape.)

For what it's worth, I've heard a Microsoft rep say that MSIE is and will
be free, period, and Bill Gates was quoted as saying that Microsoft is
looking at browsers as a zero-revenue market.  If you have, or work with,
non-academic, non-public library users, that'll save you forty bucks a
copy.  Score one for MSIE.

Whether either browser is demonstrably better on some objective scale,
I don't know (lemme know when you folks come up with that scale, btw).
I do know that Netscape and MSIE aficionados have been bashing each 
other over the head for months over on c.i.www.*, and it isn't worth the
aggravation to take sides.

Thomas Dowling
tdowling at ohiolink.edu

>
>----------
From:  Wilfred (Bill) Drew[SMTP:drewwe at snymorva.cs.snymor.edu]
>Sent:  Tuesday, January 23, 1996 7:56 PM
>To:  Multiple recipients of list
>Subject:  Microsoft Explorer for Windows 3.1 -- a subjective evaluation
>
>I just downloaded Microsoft Internet Explorer.  Don't waste your time. It 
>is a real dog especially when compared to Netscpae 2.0.  Explorer is also 
>a beta release but has very few features when compared to Netscape.
>
>I admire Microsoft but wonder why they don't license Netscape and develop 
>add-ons instead of trying to re-invent the wheel.  
>
>What is really ironic is that the Microsoft Network Homepage (MSN) looks 
>better in Netscape than it does in Explorer.
>
>I will be keeping Explorer on my pc to test out my homepage and my other 
>WWW projects but not for anything else.  My exploring will be via 
>Netscape.
>
>--