Posted by Animesh K on 08/30/07 22:21

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Animesh K wrote:
>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>
>>> Also...
>>>
>>> @page { size:landscape; size:29.7cm 21.0cm; ...
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> What is this? CSS3 don't expect many browsers to support this yet. We
>>> cannot even get MS to cooperate and support CSS2.1 with their *new*
>>> browser!
>>>
>>
>> If you think MS Bindows does better with time, you are mistaken.
>>
>> Vista's SP1 is supposed to fix bugs like:
>>
>> 1) Improving time-estimates of copy-paste or move-files.
>> 2) Minimizing memory leaks.
>> 3) Improving screensaver's effect on performance.
>> 4) Better use of RAM.
>
> Huh?
>
> We are taking about *web* browsers and CSS support right?
>
> 1) I don't want my *web* to copy, paste, move, mangle, whatever files on
> my local file system.
>
> 2) Kudos
>
> 3) What does my screen saver got to do with anything? Haven't used a
> screen saver since my kids would annoy me with the lawnmower man and
> bungee-jumping cows in After Dark of Win3.1 era.
>
> 4) Only because much of resource is hidden as part of OS, because IE
> *is* part of OS.
>
>>
>> Need I say more? I mean item 1) is like they are doing it since
>> Windows 95 or 98!
>
> Are you trolling or are you reading a different thread?
>
>


I am not trolling. I wanted to tell why MS's new browser may never work.
That I tried to accomplish by citing a *parallel example* from the OS
world. I hope I am clearer now.

You were telling that MS's new browser doesn't support CSS 2.1 fully. I
just cited a parallel where *MS's new product is known to be
bug-loaded*; my point being, just because the browser is new is not
going to help the situation. Microsoft is known for bugs with trivial
things like cut-paste within their OWN operating system.

[Back to original message]