Mac IE Development Team Dissolved?

Saturday May 13th, 2000

Microsoft has dissolved the Mac IE development team, according to this report at MacInTouch (scroll down to May 11. There are confirmations in the May 12th news). You can read another more detailed confirmation on the MacInTouch front page (which contains their May 13 news).

There is a forum at metafilter discussing what Microsoft's reasoning could be behind the decision.

I find the dynamics of this quite intriguing. The statement of the Microsoft PR person (see the first MacInTouch link) gives an impression that the team is not dissolved, but this view is deemed false by the three independent confirmations. MacCentral has decided to believe the Microsoft PR person.

Who to believe? Does it matter? The fact is that Microsoft doesn't have a cross-platform strategy, even for the two platforms that they support. This was clear when MacIE5 came out and trounced the WinIE development team's efforts. I had been wondering how Microsoft would deal with this situation. Would they continue Mac development on a separate track, duplicating (or surpassing) the efforts of the Win IE team? Or would they attempt a cross-platform effort similar to Mozilla? I didn't expect that they'd dissolve the Mac development effort completely. But, then again, those Apple people are getting a bit uppity, with their iMacs and G4s and new OS...

I think Microsoft will have to come up with some strategy to deal with the fact that their two browser efforts are diverging so drastically. It is very difficult to claim that IE is a solid, consistent development platform when the feature sets on Mac and Windows are so different. And what about web appliances like WebTV? How can MS convince developers to develop across 3 differing browser implementations, especially when Mozilla can offer a consistent cross-platform development environment? I think this might be the first move of Microsoft to address this issue. Whether it means that they give up the Mac platform completely, or just temporarily, I think it shows that even Microsoft has a limit to the number of developers it is willing to commit to a non-revenue-generating enterprise.

BTW... I read the news at Taylor's website, while looking at an interesting piece on "bidirectional links". Why do I mention this? I'm interested to see if mozillaZine shows up on his bidirectional links list!

UPDATE: Another non-denial denial, this time from the IE5 for Mac Program Manager, Jimmy Grewal, in the microsoft.public.inetexplorer.mac newsgroup. However, Jimmy does state that Mac IE developers (not all?) have been moved to another project and that "In fact, we are working on a new release of MacIE that will ship on the MacOS X CD." However, it's important to note that nothing he says is contrary to what the sources at MacInTouch say, and it sounds quite like what the PR guy stated at MacInTouch (just more verbose).

#1 microsoft strategy

by jesse

Saturday May 13th, 2000 7:51 PM

"The fact is that Microsoft doesn't have a cross-platform strategy, even for the two platforms that they support."

you shouldn't assume that micrsoft doesn't have a strategy. for all we know, they could be holding back standards compliance to make mozilla look bad (if ie5.5 is a lot more standards compliant than ie5, then mozilla will render more pages as intended by the authors of the pages).

given several possible courses of action, the best strategy is often the one that your opponents can't understand.

#16 Okay, so...

by Kovu

Sunday May 14th, 2000 3:18 PM

So you're saying Microsoft tries to make Mozilla look bad by being broken? That wouldn't work with developers, although maybe with regular users. But if that's the case then it's old news, and certainly not a strategy we aren't aware of. Microsoft has always tried to make Netscape look bad with proprietary crap standards.

#27 Standards

by jesse

Sunday May 14th, 2000 9:01 PM

"Microsoft has always tried to make Netscape look bad with proprietary crap standards."

Don't forget that Mozilla also makes itself look bad by implementing standards word-for-word, because the standards do contain bugs, and do contain ambiguities. For example, new standards say alt text for broken images is supposed to be displayed without any hint that there was supposed to be an image there, which disregards the need for users to be able to alert website maintainers about problems, and ignores the fact that older versions of HTML forced website authors to use images to achieve certain layout goals.

I'm not trying to defend Microsoft for using hidden algorithms to render pages; I'm just trying to point out that while Mozilla's implementation of the standards is more visible, the underlying standards are often ambiguous and buggy. Standards compliance should not be the ultimate goal; it should be one on a list of several important goals that includes standards, usability, and common sense.

#29 I disagree

by Kovu

Monday May 15th, 2000 12:55 AM

I think that standards should be followed stringently because when those standards change it'll be easier to make the change with them. Once you start deviating from standards you have proprietary implementations and it just degenerates from there. If the standards are buggy then hopefully they will change in the future, and Netscape can and should propose that those standards change. Anyway, pages like this are the result of standards, not deviation: and it's pages like that that make IE look like a train wreck. Hopefully we'll see more like them in the future.

#36 Re: I disagree

by Tanyel

Monday May 15th, 2000 1:20 PM

Do you think it would be difficult to find a Webpage that makes Mozilla look like a "train wreck"?

According to the 14 May build information on the MozillaZine homepage, Mozilla seems to make itself look like a "train wreck" without requiring a page specifically designed to make it seem bad.

#40 Re: I disagree

by jesse

Monday May 15th, 2000 5:09 PM

i stopped reading the source to page you linked to when i got several paragraphs into it and saw

-moz-border-radius: 8px;

how ironic that you call that "the result of standards".

#2 Your right Jess

by jedbro

Saturday May 13th, 2000 8:33 PM

Damn Jess.. I didn't think about it that way. Although the point here, is we are scaring MS.. that's good. I think Mozilla is the *Only* hope to a microsoft free internet.. now I state "free" very conditionaly, as they will always be there and big. But Mozilla is the prime force factor that will keep MS from owning the web.

On a side note, may 8th build rocks.. think it's the most stable of the week.



(posted in Mozilla Build 2000050808)

#3 Dead right!

by jedbro

Saturday May 13th, 2000 8:45 PM

Whether this turns out to be a rumor or not.. what "Steven Den Beste" said on the metafilter forum makes you wonder about MS future in MAC.

""IE for the Mac was part of Microsoft's investment in the Mac to maintain it as a viable alternative, as a citeable defense again antitrust.

That's failed.......and as such Microsoft no longer has any use for the Macintosh.

Why does Microsoft need Apple any more? Why bother investing and losing money insupporting Apple? ....""""""

I say it's all good.. put the programers to work on WIN/IE and let GECKO rule on all other platforms... then we will see the power of the lizard!!!

=) *grin* --Jedbro

#4 Re: Dead right!

by Darchmare

Saturday May 13th, 2000 11:28 PM

That's easy for you to say. Right now, Mac users seem to be very dissatisfied with the track Mozilla is going on. Namely, the completely inconsistant non-native UI that we've been told that we should like.

If everyone is forced to use Mozilla as-is by Microsoft leaving the Mac development scene, then these major issues will never be addressed. If IE sticks around and proves to be good competition, people might just put enough pressure on the Mozilla folks to warrant a Clue and we might get a decent UI.

(and yes, I've heard all of the arguments for non-native UIs, and no I don't think any of them have been sufficiently well stated)

#5 Re: Dead right!

by thelem

Sunday May 14th, 2000 5:56 AM

Sorry, but just to clear one thing up, does MacIE have a native UI?

No, it has one that 'looks like' Aqua, but isn't Aqua. Its a safe bet that within a month of Netscape 6 Final Release there will be at least one skin in the style of Aqua.

#6 That's not the point

by mpt

Sunday May 14th, 2000 7:25 AM

MacIE does have a native UI -- native in letter (using the system GUI tools), if not in spirit (using the system GUI appearance). It's not as native as, say, the UI for iCab (which, with the exception of its toolbar icons, is simply gorgeous); but it is native.

What sort of difference does a native UI make? The devil is in the details.

A native UI pays attention to the colors and fonts chosen by the user in the Appearance Manager. Mozilla does not.

In a native UI, context menus go `clink' when you open and close them (if you have sounds turned on). Mozilla's context menus, on the other hand, go `plop', as if they're windows instead of menus (because on the XPToolkit level, they really are windows rather than menus).

In a native UI, when the app is running in the background but needs some input from you reasonably urgently (like a username and password to open a Web page, for example), a little popup window (on Mac OS 8.x) or windoid (on Mac OS 9.x) comes up saying `{app name} requires your attention. Please bring it to the front'. Mozilla does not, because it doesn't tell Mac OS that the authentication window is a dialog.

These are the little details which Macintosh users *expect* from a well-behaved application. Eventually they can be simulated or reimplemented in Mozilla, but it will take a long time -- time which, *perhaps*, could have been better spent on coding a native UI in the first place.

And in the meantime, Macintosh users are regarding Mozilla (in the form they've seen it, i.e. Netscape 6 PR1) as, as one forum poster put it, `a pile of poo'.

-- mpt (Mozilla user interface QA)

#7 So-called Native UI

by tialaramex

Sunday May 14th, 2000 8:15 AM

X always had it right anyway.

Apple set policy, and though it's frequently right, it's also frequently wrong. I should prefer that I might set my own policies, and in Mozilla I will be able to do that.

Just like when I use X. My Mouse, My Windows, My Computer, My Choice.

#8 Re: That's the point

by jedbro

Sunday May 14th, 2000 8:23 AM

True.. Mozilla does sacrifice native UI. But that is the lose to a "write-once" application for multiple OS's.

Sure it has it's downfalls (all the ones you mentioned), but we need to give it some time, and see all the future benefits it will have for us.

I'm pretty stoked that for the first time, I will be able to write a SKIN or a full application, and have it be used right off bat on tons of OS's... that's a dream come true!! =)

Cheers --Jedbro

#9 Open Source, Mac, and entitlement

by mozineAdmin

Sunday May 14th, 2000 8:32 AM

I think we should be clear...

Mac users *could* have a native Mac UI for Mozilla, if any Mac developers out there felt like contributing. It's happening for Windows (through use of Adam Lock's HTML Rendering control). It's happening for Linux (through the embeddable renderer). But no Mac developer has contributed to getting something similar for the Macintosh. They either don't care, or they expect it to happen for them.

This is an Open Source project. There are no entitlements. You either put in the effort, or you resign yourself to the results.

Mozilla either follows the path it's taking (where cross-platform consistency is key), or they fall victim to the same problems that IE still has - no consistent development platform. Try to develop a website using the benefits of Windows IE (use an ActiveX control, for example), and it won't work anywhere but on Windows IE. Try to develop a site using Web standards that Mac IE5 supports, and it won't work on WinIE5 (or 5.5). Develop for Mozilla (or Web standards), and it will work on any platform that has a Mozilla browser. I think that's a rather compelling point. (Probably even more compelling for Web Appliance manufacturers!)

In Mike Pinkerton's words, if Netscape had to develop native UIs for each platform, it probably wouldn't have done so. They would have instead diverted their attention to Windows, because they simply don't have the resources. The issue has been hashed over again and again in the newsgroups, and people like Peter Trudelle have said the exact same thing.

But, let's assume that the above scenario *did* happen, and Netscape's Mozilla effort focused solely on Windows. Would the Mac developer community have picked up the slack and gone forward with a Mac-native UI? I think it's safe to say no, because even when the issue is staring them in the face, no developer has taken on the task. All the issues that you mention in your post? The Mac Open Source development community hasn't even stepped forward and said, "let's get these issues taken care of, so that even if it is a simulated interface, it interacts with the OS services properly". Do you think the current Mac Mozilla development team *wouldn't* address these issues if they had more time (or more developers) at their disposal?

I think Mac users should be happy they're getting any Mozilla development at all for their platform. The Mac Open Source development community (if it even exists) seems to have better things to do.

#10 Re: Open Source, Mac, and entitlement

by BruceJ

Sunday May 14th, 2000 11:16 AM

Chris... Chris... Chris...

I see that you are running out of news relevant to Mozilla and embarking on your anti-M$ campaign.

Quite frankly, I am shocked. You were doing good for a while there... focusing on issues at hand, now you have digressed again.

Shame on you!


#11 Re: Open Source, Mac, and entitlement

by kerz

Sunday May 14th, 2000 11:53 AM

Glad to see your still watching over us Bruce...

#12 Re: Re: Open Source, Mac, and entitlement

by BruceJ

Sunday May 14th, 2000 12:27 PM

Oh... I pop in from time to time. This time from Siberia.

I did mean what I said, though... there was a fairly significant period where the news from Mozillazine was directly tied to the development of Mozilla and that was a good thing. Taking pop shots at M$, however, isn't.


#33 Re: Taking pot shots at M$

by Ryouga

Monday May 15th, 2000 10:12 AM

I think Chris's mention of this is a response to the requests from some of us to see more "indirectly related to Mozilla" news on the site. It's not my feel on this that Chris is trying to promote anti-Microsoft sentiment.

#20 Suffer.

by Kovu

Sunday May 14th, 2000 3:48 PM

Like it or not, M$ is a huge part of the Mozilla effort - M$ is its very reason for existence. I consider Chris' post completely relevant, nor do I consider it anti-M$ is particular, and I'm sorry if you don't agree.

#21 Re: Suffer.

by BruceJ

Sunday May 14th, 2000 4:21 PM

Damn Kovu!

You've got a zest that leaves most in the dust. Point taken... but I must reiterate! ;-)


#25 Heh

by Kovu

Sunday May 14th, 2000 5:15 PM

BJ: I still say that A) Mozillazine is Chris' baby and thus for him to define and B) his post was NOT particularly anti-M$ any more than M$'s activities are anti-Mozilla. :)

#22 Re: Re: Open Source, Mac, and entitlement

by thelem

Sunday May 14th, 2000 4:33 PM

Come on. Are you saying that they SHOULDN'T report the fact that one of the major competitors on the number three platform may disappear? Be it good or bad (and I consider it bad), it is VERY important to the development in relation to the Mac.

#24 Re: Re: Re: Open Source, Mac, and entitlement

by BruceJ

Sunday May 14th, 2000 4:56 PM

I'm saying that Mozilla 'supporters' should concentrate on keeping it's side of the street clean...

#44 Re: Re: Open Source, Mac, and entitlement

by danielhill

Tuesday May 16th, 2000 3:19 AM

The constant attack of Microsoft and their users is why I'll never take any open-source project seriously.

Anyone that dares argue with the bigots is labelled a troll.

Instead of attacking MS, how about putting that energy into developing a decent browser?

#48 Accused of trolling? No, really?

by gwalla

Thursday May 18th, 2000 12:39 AM

> Instead of attacking MS, how about putting that energy into developing a decent browser?

Comments like this are why people call you a troll. If you haven't noticed, a lot of people have put a lot of effort into producing a decent browser. Just because you don't think it's up to par yet (and you're certainly entitled to your opinions, but for God's sake, it *is* beta software) is no reason to belittle their effort.

#50 Re: Accused of trolling? No, really?

by danielhill

Sunday May 21st, 2000 12:41 AM

In case you hadn't noticed, Microsoft put effort into their browser. But of course, MS is evil and a complete load of crap.

What the hell does the Mac IE team have to do with Mozilla anyway? This article was nothing but a futile attack on Microsoft.

MozillaZine used to be a good place and I used to like Mozilla, until the focus shifted from developing a browser to attacking Microsoft.

I could go on and on, but I won't.

#17 You are 112% correct.

by jesusX

Sunday May 14th, 2000 3:23 PM

Lazy, whiny Mac users bitching about a problem they could fix without much difficulty. There's just not enough skilled people with the will to actually DO something about it.

If you can look at a button and know what it does, and do what you need to do without much fuss, then it's a good UI. Just because you don't think it's pretty doesn't mean it's bad. A hammer isn't pretty, but when you need to pound in some nails, it's VERY useful.

#19 Thank you. Agreed completely.

by Kovu

Sunday May 14th, 2000 3:46 PM

I wish I could have said such as nicely in my other post, but being an Amiga user makes me particularly unforgiving of Mac users who demand Netscape waste time on a Mac-native UI. By doing so they're saying also that they don't give a shit whether my preferred platform EVER gets a version of Mozilla made for it, and I'm afraid that makes me a little hot under the collar, especially when that's ALL they ever seem to say about Mozilla.

#23 Re: Thank you. Agreed completely.

by basic

Sunday May 14th, 2000 4:33 PM

Speaking of Amiga...

There is a news update on the builds group. Doesn't sound too good for Amiga Classic...


Couldn't get a deja news link. Some of dejanew's service is down...

#30 I know, I posted it :)

by Kovu

Monday May 15th, 2000 12:57 AM

Yeah, I posted that. No one is stopping Classic users from doing it themselves, but I just don't see that port as meaning much with the new system coming. Anyway I don't know the old system, I don't use it, and it's the new one I'm concerned with.

#34 :) N/T

by basic

Monday May 15th, 2000 10:28 AM


#32 How a Mac user should deal with Moz

by masri

Monday May 15th, 2000 8:58 AM

There are two ways a Mac user can deal with Moz. They can either whine, or they can follow protocol, find specific UI violations using Mac HIG manuals or other sources, and posting bugs! Some of the items you're mentioning are already in the system as bugs. Are all of your ideas in there?

IMO, the most important thing right now is getting the functionality right, and making it cross-platform stable. Later, after 1.0 ships, developers will have time to go back and work on the UI.

UI is critical. But it's not more critical than an application that actually works, and is mostly bug free. I believe that over time, Moz will become a world-class development platform. Right now, it's still in development.

- Adam

#18 Mac user's will live

by Kovu

Sunday May 14th, 2000 3:33 PM

I swear, that's the ONLY thing I EVER see Mac users discussing in regards to Mozilla. They're coming out of the woodwork specifically to whine that Netscape doesn't deem them worthy of the endless, endless hours it takes to develop a Mac-native UI.

If Mac users would prefer to use BROKEN-ASS IE just because they don't like a BETA-LEVEL UI, that just verifies exactly why I feel I have nothing whatsoever in common with Mac users.

Did anyone catch that they intend to land a Classic skin for PR2? Maybe it won't look just like Mac Nav Classic with the little stripes in the title bar, but so what? I don't personally think that the entire Mozilla cross-platform development strategy should be scrapped just so Mac users can keep their particularly unexciting native UI, especially when all they have to do to get it back is make a damned skin or even package. Anyway, they're not going to make a native UI for Windows -- by far the more prevalent market -- so I don't know why Mac users would think Netscape should make an exception in Mac's case. Feel lucky that you're still considered one of the three core OSs.

Bottom line: If Netscape was wasting time on native UIs, Mozilla would not be so nearly easy to port to the new Amiga as it is now. YOU may not care how easy it is to port, I who wants to port it to the new Amiga DO care about cross-platform UIs... ALOT. It saves a TON of work, that's the point in scrapping native UIs.

#49 Alternate Mac Complaint

by Ugg

Saturday May 20th, 2000 11:15 PM

First off, Mac *is* one of the top three OSs. Take your condescending "consideration" and stick it you-know-where already.

Now, to the point.. I agree that whining about an interface that's easily changed, and doesn't completely suck to begin with, is stupid. What I'd like to know is why the **** all the pop-up windows are blank. Or why opening a local file calls Nav Services and then chokes on it. Or why, when people hail some major new improvement, I grab the lastest build and don't see any improvement an hour later.

#13 Well

by Tekhir

Sunday May 14th, 2000 1:01 PM

Supposely the rendering engine for Mac IE is really portable. So if the Win IE team takes over that then the Mac team only really needs to work on the frontend and Mac specific features.

#15 If that's the case...

by Kovu

Sunday May 14th, 2000 3:15 PM

If it's that portable it should go into IE 5.5. Anyone?

#26 Re: If that's the case...

by Ben_Goodger

Sunday May 14th, 2000 7:24 PM

not really, IE5.5 is in beta stage. You'd seldom make a decision to change the rendering engine at that point in development unless you wanted to spend another 2 years in development and miss a version number ;)

#14 Don't they send these morons to grade school?

by Kovu

Sunday May 14th, 2000 3:14 PM

"and to polish are cool new UI." My God that's awful. Anyway, I find it interesting they're in Mountain View. What say next time we have a Dev Con in SF that we all go down and beat the crap out of the WebTV people? Anyone?

Anyhow, I see what the goon is saying. Of course it would take 20 months for IE5, Mac is a difficult platform to develop for. Now that they're done with it, I can see that indeed it wouldn't be hard to port to OS X, perhaps, and that these people would in fact have not much to do. It still amounts to the same thing: THERE IS NO LONGER A MAC IE UNIT. I wish they'd shut the hell up and just admit it. I find it interesting by the way that they keep the Mac guys two very large states away from Redmond.

#28 You are reading too much into this.

by rgelb

Sunday May 14th, 2000 11:56 PM

If anyone has read the statement on the newsgroup, it is clear that now that the browsing component is done with, the developers are simply being moved to another project, since the component is already DONE. Mac IE supports CSS1, HTML4, variuos DOMs. What is it that you'd have them work on. Obviously now they are gonna focus on usability issues. From the statement it is clear that they are going to continue to put out versions of Mac IE.

#31 Well...

by Kovu

Monday May 15th, 2000 1:00 AM

From the statement it's clear that they're going to put out an IE for the OS X. But that's already pretty much done, they said. They have yet to mention whether there will be later versions (6?) or not. I'd tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, Microsoft is polishing their image, or trying to, after being proven to be lying, manipulative assholes, so I don't think they'll pull a bad PR stunt like dumping Apple yet, not at least until the trial is over with.

#37 Re: Well...

by Tanyel

Monday May 15th, 2000 1:32 PM

Has created a better browser for the Macintosh system than Microsoft has? If not then Mozilla fans are directing their criticism to the wrong company.

#39 I don't get it.

by rgelb

Monday May 15th, 2000 2:46 PM

Kovu: It clearly says in the statement that Mac IE development will continue. Why are you looking for straws to hang onto? May be you should direct your anti-Ms energy into building Mozilla - it'll make for a better browser.

#42 Re: I don't get it.

by BrerBear

Monday May 15th, 2000 6:30 PM

Kovu said: "It clearly says in the statement that Mac IE development will continue."

Well, yeah, maybe if the magical browser gnomes come in at night to work on it. <g>

Seriously, the "Internet Explorer for MacOS X" is just the Carbon API port mentioned in the MacInTouch articles. It may be continued development, but hardly.

Meanwhile, the Mac IE team is working on WebTV for the forseeable future. Seeing as it took them 20 months to make the last version of IE, I'd say the _best_ case for a major new Microsoft Mac browser is 2002 if at all.

"Why are you looking for straws to hang onto?"

I can't speak for Kovu, but I might ask why you believe MS? It's not like they actually said _anything_ about the developers moving to WebTV until they got called on it by anonymous sources.

"May be you should direct your anti-Ms energy into building Mozilla - it'll make for a better browser."

I think we should all focus on that goal. And I sincerely hope Apple sees this as a wakeup call and puts some of its own engineers on Mozilla to ensure that a Mac browser with emerging standards support is timely.

#43 Oops, rgelb said that, not Kovu (n/t)

by BrerBear

Monday May 15th, 2000 7:41 PM


#45 Re: Re: I don't get it.

by rgelb

Tuesday May 16th, 2000 10:30 AM

At the moment, MS got the best Mac browser going (probably the best browser going for all platforms). It complies with all the standards. What is it that you would have them do? You want them to think up new standards? Exactly what would you change about MacIE?

As far as why I would believe MS on this. Being a software developer myself, I understand why what they said makes sense.

Regarding the being called on the WebTV move, since when are they supposed to disclose to you what they are doing?

#46 Re: Re: Re: I don't get it.

by BrerBear

Tuesday May 16th, 2000 1:36 PM

regelb said: "It complies with all the standards. What is it that you would have them do? You want them to think up new standards? Exactly what would you change about MacIE?"

I said _emerging_ standards. You think the web is standing still or something? Let me quote you from the Macworld review of Mac IE 5, linked directly from Microsoft's own Mactopia site: "But IE 5 still has a ways to go; it offers only partial support for the XML, CSS-2, and DOM-1 standards, which will usher in the next wave of Web innovation." Does that answer your question?

Then rgelb said: "As far as why I would believe MS on this. Being a software developer myself, I understand why what they said makes sense."

As far as why I don't believe MS on this (besides being a software devloper myself)... I got my info from former developers on MacIE.

Besides of which, I think you missed my point entirely. MS has every right to cancel Mac IE, which I consider to be a great browser and use on a regular basis. My concern was that MS were going to keep it quiet as long as possible, and that Apple and Mac fans need to get to work _now_ on other browsers so that the Mac platform doesn't lose viability in the future. As the delays in Mac IE 5 point out, it takes a lot of time and effort to make a great browser.

#35 what about future evolution of IE Mac ?

by RvR

Monday May 15th, 2000 11:45 AM

so, MS is telling us that the Mac IE is gone to work on another project because this one is "finished". well, nice.

imagine that they release it anyway... if the developers' team does not exist anymore, who will fix the bugs ??? who will update the code when needed ???

this anwser from MS is ridiculous, i'm sure all developers have understood that.

#38 Re: what about future evolution of IE Mac ?

by Tanyel

Monday May 15th, 2000 1:34 PM

Maybe they do not see a need to fix bugs or update code until somebody catches up with them.

#47 Re: Re: what about future evolution of IE Mac ?

by basic

Wednesday May 17th, 2000 10:44 AM

So much for not needing to fix bugs...

#41 Conpsiracy theory #2

by jesse

Monday May 15th, 2000 5:14 PM

by making it seem to us like we won't have competition on the mac platform, microsoft is trying to make us ignore the mac users.