|
#17
February 9th, 2006, 06:50 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| We shouldn't discount the very first browser/editor though... or the reason it was WYSIWYG. HTML started out life as a cross platform page layout language... that didn't really work and was dropped by most everyone. It was still very limited when Berners-Lee adopted it as the layout language for documents for WWW. Between the portability of the documents, the hypertext linking and the flexibility of the layout language (which was working against it as a page layout language), made it perfect. So, in the original concept, people would not only browse the web, they would have populated it with documents... which was why WWW was both a browser and a user oriented HTML editor. The problems came from the move from NeXT systems to other systems. The rendering engine was ported... for browsing, but much of the rest of WWW was left with Berners-Lee and the NeXT systems on the web. And one of the key factors of this was that HTML was (for the most part) human readable (specially at this very early stage of the web). Writing web pages by hand was very easy for people who were currently writing their research paper in TeX. There wasn't a need for the WYSIWYG HTML editor by these people. And by the time that Marc Andreessen and Eric Bina were introduced to the web while they were at NCSA, most browsers had shed the editor that was such a big part of WWW. Quote:
When I started using the web in 1993 it was a place to communicate and find information about what other people in your community were doing... in my case, the mathematics community. I honestly didn't realize that normal people were on the web until mid 1995. I remember starting to see web addresses on ads and thinking... why are they on the web? I was still using xmosaic on a Sun workstation and hadn't even heard of Netscape yet. Basically my first three years on the web I never ventured outside of the interconnected institutions of research and study. Math, physics, astronomy... these were the subjects of browsing the web for me. In fact watching the first images of the impact of Shoemaker-Levi on Jupiter made me realize that the web was an almost instantaneous medium. But I never thought that graphic designers would have anything to do with making web pages. Quote:
Sometime I end up feeling like a marriage counselor in those situations.  As for the original question... what was the question again? 
__________________ _____________________________________________ Rhapsody Resource Page  |
|
#18
February 9th, 2006, 07:06 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| I guess it depends on your definition of web page in general. There were early instances of "pages" which could easily be justified as being called a web page (a Mac is technically a Mac regardless of it being PowerPC based or Intel/x86 based, right?). If you want to limit it to just HTML based pages, then I would have to agree with you. Personally I don't limit it to that though. As far as why the Macs aren't as popular, a lot of it has to do with three things: Cost, Market Share and Education. PCs can be had for less, there's no questioning that (especially in the last 10 years). The PC also has a larger share (ok, most of it) of the market. Generally speaking, designing a web page isn't "rocket science". Until recently you could easily get a job doing it with little or no formal education required. The pay for such jobs was also pretty low because of that. Graphic design on the other hand requires a bit more training in a formal sense. Sure people can and have done it without formal education, but that's far rarer than it is with web design. The pay is a lot better too. Generally, those buying Macs have a bit more money to spend than those buying PCs. Companies, who thrive on the "bottom line" also play a small role here...why buy a $1000 to $2000 system when you can grab a $500 one that'll do what you need. Not saying I agree with it, but money (specifically profit) talks in the business world. You could easily make a claim as to "the why" with any number of reasons mentioned here singularly. Some make sense, some don't (what in life ever does?). Some are easy to see, others aren't. Honestly the real reason is probably a combination of some or all the reasons mention in this thread. I don't think there's one concrete reason that it can be narrowed down to. ((And yes, I know I didn't make a good argument here on my reasons...it would just take way too much space to do so...no one would want to read it, including me.))
__________________ . | mdnky@macosx.com | My Homepage | My Music | Restore the Pledge | MacOSX.com Widget | • MacBook Pro Core2Duo 2.33GHz 15", 2GB DDR2 RAM, 120GB, DL Superdrive, OS X 10.5, • Apple 23" Cinema HD Display, Apple Slim-Stainless Keyboard, Logitech Optical Scroll Mouse • iPhone 8GB, iPod Photo 30GB, Nikon D50, Nikon L6, Epson 3490, Epson R1800, HP LaserJet 1200 • LaCie 500GB d2 Quadra, LaCie 160GB d2 FW, harman/kardon SoundSticks II, Mighty Mouse, iSight |
|
#20
February 10th, 2006, 02:22 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
__________________ 15" MacBook Pro Mac OS X v10.5.1 2.33GHz, 2GB RAM, 120GB HDD 5G iPod 60GB |
|
#22
February 10th, 2006, 09:23 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| yup. IE was the reason the PC took over in the first place, or at least the final nail in the coffin. every PC shipped had windows on it by about 1996, every copy of windows was completely integrated with IE by 1998. IE didn't start the internet, but it started to define it, and by IE4, netscape, the previous standard, was dying. ActiveX controls became the standard, and ever since then, every webpage had to be complient with IE, or it would fail. to make it easier to make sure it complied with these standards, you made web pages on a pc. i would still choose a mac. to be sure it wotrks on any platform.
__________________ Dual 1.8GHz G5 2GB, 1TB, Radeon 9600XT 128MB, 10.5 20" Apple Cinema Display + Dell 2005FPW 20" dual-head iBook G3 700MHz 640MB, 40GB, Rage128 16MB, 10.4, dying battery |
|
#24
February 10th, 2006, 02:33 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
|
