> > (2) not a Macintosh application (GUI is non-Mac) >as Tee says.. So what? We use Macintosh because it works and it looks good. Why pay more if you just want something that works? We expect the same from our applications. IE trounced Netscape on Mac OS 7/8/9 not because IE built it into the OS but because it was an application that performed better than NS and was a very well designed Mac GUI-compliant app (no funny pseudo-collapsing bars) that don't appear in _any_ other application [for a reason, I might add... note how FireFox has abandoned them :) :) :)]). > > (3) GUI is unattractive; >Beauty is in the eye... As unattractive as you may find it, it does not get >in the way of using it. While I don't like the look of Netscape either, I >do >find very easy to use and it always delivers on the content Arguably it *does*. If it does not rigidly follow Apple's GUI and does not do something which has _greater_ utility than Apple's way of doing things it is a hindrance to full and effective use by everyone since it will require people to learn GUI skills which aren't relevant to other apps. > > (4) e-mail application is the source of the bulk of the web's HTML-based > > e-mails. HTML IS VERY BAD IN MOST E-MAIL; >Again, "Bad"? Just because you don't like it? I like my html messages, so >do >my customers. And, when "properly" used such as Apple's own html mailings, >quite enjoyable and size is minimized with links rather than bulky content! Agreed. Well done HTML mails are quite effective and I do like the way Apple does them. However, _individuals_ *rarely* have a sense of style, plus, HTML makes it virtually impossible to hold a tit-for-tat conversation (with quotes) since > doesn't seem to exist in most HTML mailers (they like to do fancy formatting which gets lost on people who are interested in content and not someone else's concept of "style" ;). And, as can be seen in M$' latest offerings of its Windoze e-mailers, the option now exists to automatically kill HTML in mail so I'm not the only HTML curmudgeon (if only they'd built that into their Mac versions). > > (6) the most amateurish implementation of Tabs; >Well here I agree with you... Check the true definition of the word >Amateur! >The tabs work fine for me, but like Tee, I don't do much tabbed browsing... >I prefer separate windows as I find with tabs, I'm always quitting >something >I wanted to keep active and end up retracing a lot of steps and downloads That's a pain (last sentence) that needs to be fixed in Safari and Mozilla et al. (IIRC OmniWeb has that feature now but I've never warmed to OmniWeb) However, with a 5+6 button "mouse" I very happily browse between 20 and 30 pages *at a time* without having any irritating clutter in terms of millions (or dozens ;) of windows. But, yes, Netscape's implementation is the least functional followed by Mozilla's. FireBird and iCab come next and Safari and Camino have tabs down to an artform. Anyway, I have a few points to address in Tee's e-mail so I'll finish off there. Eric. _________________________________________________________________ http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines _________________________________________________ For information concerning the MUGLO List just click on http://muglo.on.ca/pages/members.html#Joinmuglo Don't forget to periodically check our web site at: http://muglo.on.ca/