(fwd) Re[2]: User distribution by browser

[Jennifer Heise]

eayoung said:

     The reach of the Internet exceeds anything those of us who hacked on
     the old ARPA/DARPAnet ever imagined.  Were browsers more expensive -
     and they are nearly free these days - a case could be made that more
     attention should be paid to users and systems that are still
     character-based.  But its hard to imagine that anyone doing serious
     work doesn't need everything that we can provide.  Consequently, I
     skew toward building toward a Netscape 3.0 world.  I normally leave
     the glitz out - the ShockWave and such - because I've not seen
     evidence that those items add value to reference content.  They do
     consume bandwidth, and bandwidth - more than browsers - is the choke
     point on the Internet.

*sigh* Earl is obviously unaware of the time and opportunity cost that
graphical browsers of all kinds impose on their users.  I use lynx for many
things, when I'm in a hurry and/or can't afford to have my system crash if the
site turns out to be unstable. I don't have a PPP connection at home. When I
do use PPP, out of the office, I generally use telnet because at 19.8 I could
grow old and die trying to get to most sites. And that time, unlike the
browser itself, DOES cost money in many cases.
I realize that most home users DO use PPP, because you can't GET anything else
(another discussion, another time).
But I also realize that neither Netscape nor IE are very stable applications
through a PPP connection. Boy, do I realize this. In fact, each succeeding
version of Netscape and IE get more resource intensive and more crash-prone.
I sympathize with anyone who hasn't gone past Netscape 2.0; I did, and I'm
sorry for it. (Do I NEED a popmail reader in my browser? NO.)