<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:series="http://unfoldingneurons.com/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FireFox Copying IE</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ensight.org/2006/07/13/firefox-copying-ie/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ensight.org/2006/07/13/firefox-copying-ie/</link>
	<description>I&#039;m The Boss @ netmobs, past CEO of b5media, author of Blog Marketing and a hardcore Canadian</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:46:26 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Andy Merrett</title>
		<link>http://www.ensight.org/2006/07/13/firefox-copying-ie/comment-page-1/#comment-49705</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Merrett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Jul 2006 21:36:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ensight.org/archives/2006/07/13/firefox-copying-ie/#comment-49705</guid>
		<description>And some of us just don&#039;t get the choice as M$ now refuse to develop IE on the Mac - good thing though it was always a pig to work with. FF isn&#039;t spectacular on the Mac but it does for when Safari won&#039;t handle a web site.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And some of us just don&#8217;t get the choice as M$ now refuse to develop IE on the Mac &#8211; good thing though it was always a pig to work with. FF isn&#8217;t spectacular on the Mac but it does for when Safari won&#8217;t handle a web site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Derek K. Miller</title>
		<link>http://www.ensight.org/2006/07/13/firefox-copying-ie/comment-page-1/#comment-49686</link>
		<dc:creator>Derek K. Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:41:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ensight.org/archives/2006/07/13/firefox-copying-ie/#comment-49686</guid>
		<description>I too agree that calling it 2.0 is a stretch. On the other hand, I&#039;m glad to see Firefox not changing just for the sake of change. And I&#039;m still using Safari and Camino anyway. :) Opera 9 is quite an impressive browser, nevertheless.

Oh, and &quot;Have been in IE7 for more than 6 months&quot; doesn&#039;t quite work. IE7 has not actually been released. Will it and FF 2 come out at the same time in final release? Not sure. But I&#039;m glad to see that Firefox has some decent competition again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I too agree that calling it 2.0 is a stretch. On the other hand, I&#8217;m glad to see Firefox not changing just for the sake of change. And I&#8217;m still using Safari and Camino anyway. <img src='http://www.ensight.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  Opera 9 is quite an impressive browser, nevertheless.</p>
<p>Oh, and &#8220;Have been in IE7 for more than 6 months&#8221; doesn&#8217;t quite work. IE7 has not actually been released. Will it and FF 2 come out at the same time in final release? Not sure. But I&#8217;m glad to see that Firefox has some decent competition again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Gales</title>
		<link>http://www.ensight.org/2006/07/13/firefox-copying-ie/comment-page-1/#comment-49661</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Gales</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:18:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ensight.org/archives/2006/07/13/firefox-copying-ie/#comment-49661</guid>
		<description>From the feature list I have seen, calling it 2.0 is a bit of I stretch. I&#039;ll give you that. But it&#039;s not bad marketing, people like seeing updates regularly. If they could just figure out how to leave a little bit of RAM for other applications it would be such a huge update it could skip 2.0 and head right to 3.0.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From the feature list I have seen, calling it 2.0 is a bit of I stretch. I&#8217;ll give you that. But it&#8217;s not bad marketing, people like seeing updates regularly. If they could just figure out how to leave a little bit of RAM for other applications it would be such a huge update it could skip 2.0 and head right to 3.0.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan</title>
		<link>http://www.ensight.org/2006/07/13/firefox-copying-ie/comment-page-1/#comment-49659</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2006 01:16:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ensight.org/archives/2006/07/13/firefox-copying-ie/#comment-49659</guid>
		<description>I agree. Which is why I&#039;ve made the switch to Opera 9. It&#039;s beautiful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree. Which is why I&#8217;ve made the switch to Opera 9. It&#8217;s beautiful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy Wright</title>
		<link>http://www.ensight.org/2006/07/13/firefox-copying-ie/comment-page-1/#comment-49658</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Wright</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:48:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ensight.org/archives/2006/07/13/firefox-copying-ie/#comment-49658</guid>
		<description>To be fair, there have been more than a dozen releases of IE since 2001. Just not for PC platforms (though IE6 XP SP2 was a major, major overhaul).

I hear what you&#039;re saying, however the reality is that the IE7 team has only been around for a year as well.

Either way, purely from a user perspective, you&#039;d expect 2.0 to be a fairly big leap from 1.5. If nothing else, design-wise, right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To be fair, there have been more than a dozen releases of IE since 2001. Just not for PC platforms (though IE6 XP SP2 was a major, major overhaul).</p>
<p>I hear what you&#8217;re saying, however the reality is that the IE7 team has only been around for a year as well.</p>
<p>Either way, purely from a user perspective, you&#8217;d expect 2.0 to be a fairly big leap from 1.5. If nothing else, design-wise, right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Gales</title>
		<link>http://www.ensight.org/2006/07/13/firefox-copying-ie/comment-page-1/#comment-49657</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Gales</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:43:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ensight.org/archives/2006/07/13/firefox-copying-ie/#comment-49657</guid>
		<description>I think you need to also look at dev cycles. FireFox 1.0 launched in November 2004 and has had an update in the form of 1.5 since the release. Internet Explorer 6 was released in August 2001 and has only gotten security patches since. That&#039;s 5 years of no new features right now and IE 7 isn&#039;t out yet.

So I don&#039;t think it&#039;s fair to compare the point releases of these two, Microsoft has had almost 6 years to work on things. It should be a big update. 

I&#039;m looking forward to both updates.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you need to also look at dev cycles. FireFox 1.0 launched in November 2004 and has had an update in the form of 1.5 since the release. Internet Explorer 6 was released in August 2001 and has only gotten security patches since. That&#8217;s 5 years of no new features right now and IE 7 isn&#8217;t out yet.</p>
<p>So I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s fair to compare the point releases of these two, Microsoft has had almost 6 years to work on things. It should be a big update. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m looking forward to both updates.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
