> I can't trust a company/developer who is reactionary to the market share and their profit line as opposed to doing their job good in the first place. They di

> I can't trust a company/developer who is reactionary to the market share and their profit line as opposed to doing their job good in the first place. They did a damn good job in the first place. IE 5.5 was such a tremendous step forward in reliability and consistency that web apps stampeded towards it and away from the alternative, the hideous Netscape 4.72. Before anybody could plan for it, tens of billions of dollars of activity had moved to IE, and Netscape's market capitalization was a smoking crater. The catch was that the web apps of that time were brittle, something like Perl or PHP code with HTML snippets hard-coded into it. The brittleness of these apps prematurely standardized the quirks of IE 5.5/6. Microsoft had no choice but to put the product line on long-term support. Consequently, a lot of app authors sensibly decided to target IE 6's carved-in-stone quirks rather than emerging standards. At that point IE 6 was there to stay for the long haul; trying to migrate away would have been tilting at windmills. What we are seeing today is that (1) the emerging standards of 1998 have finally been carved into stone, (2) the web app frameworks have finally gotten good enough at separating logic from presentation to make rewrites worthwhile, and (3) IE challengers finally accumulated enough development to compete. This is not because Microsoft was evil, but because you have to climb a tall hill to replace a pretty good solution with an ideal solution.