From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_009C_01C2CDFA.77458CC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   The same is true of Netscape or any other browser that has been =
installed on the desktop by default or made the default browser by =
someone.  I'm not sure that is quite true since being on the desktop =
affects discoverability and not the perceived quality.  Also, in real =
world terms, you don't get an incrementally improved version of IE or =
Netscape often.  You get a whole new version.  When a new version and =
therefore a new option is available people may revisit their prior =
choices and some will change.  That is why growth of IE usage coincided =
with new versions even though there was no change in the presence of =
browsers on the desktop.  I have no doubt that Netscape's long period of =
stagnation led to its abandonment by many of its users.  New versions =
were not forthcoming or the minor releases that did occur didn't include =
anything of consequence.

Rich

  "Gregg Nemesure"  wrote in message news:3e42f4a0$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  It is also possible that had it not been on the desktop, it would have =
had to have been incrementally better than it was before it would take =
off as a product.

  Gregg
    "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e42e609{at}w3.nls.net...
       Too bad for you that your belief does not match reality.  Usage =
statistics were readily available and despite IE 1.0 and IE 2.0 being =
right there on the desktop they did not get used much.  Only with IE 3.0 =
and 4.0 did usage pick up.  Clearly being on the desktop wasn't the =
reason for usage taking off.  Now you are free to ignore real usage and =
believe what you wish were true.

    Rich


------=_NextPart_000_009C_01C2CDFA.77458CC0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   The same
is true of =
Netscape or any=20
other browser that has been installed on the desktop by default or made = the=20
default browser by someone.  I'm not sure that is quite true since
= being on=20
the desktop affects discoverability and not the perceived
quality.  = Also,=20
in real world terms, you don't get an incrementally improved version of = IE or=20
Netscape often.  You get a whole new version.  When a new
= version and=20
therefore a new option is available people may revisit their prior = choices and=20
some will change.  That is why growth of IE usage coincided with = new=20
versions even though there was no change in the presence of browsers on = the=20
desktop.  I have no doubt that Netscape's long period of
stagnation = led to=20
its abandonment by many of its users.  New versions were not =
forthcoming or=20
the minor releases that did occur didn't include anything of=20
consequence.
 
Rich
 

  "Gregg Nemesure" <{at}> wrote in message news:3e42f4a0$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  It is also possible that had it not =
been on the=20
  desktop, it would have had to have been incrementally better than it =
was=20
  before it would take off as a product.
   
  Gregg
  

    "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3e42e609{at}w3.nls.net...
       Too
bad for you that =
your belief=20
    does not match reality.  Usage statistics were readily =
available and=20
    despite IE 1.0 and IE 2.0 being right there on the desktop they did =
not get=20
    used much.  Only with IE 3.0 and 4.0 did usage pick up.  =
Clearly=20
    being on the desktop wasn't the reason for usage taking off.  =
Now you=20
    are free to ignore real usage and believe what you wish were=20
    true.
     
    Rich
     
     

------=_NextPart_000_009C_01C2CDFA.77458CC0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4