Okay, but besides bad analogies, you might agree that only few companies are really good at interface design. Apple is one of them, OmniGroup is one of them. Microsoft has shown for years that the task of creating innovative and yet intuitive interfaces is quite a big part of the equation.
Maybe to put it into an analogy that's easier to grasp, you might agree that all the speed of a car isn't worth much, if its handling isn't suited to the needs of the driver.
But to put the thread a _little_ back on track: I think Phoenix is a good thing for the Windows world, because it brings a fast and clean interface that fits the Windows look & feel to an engine (Gecko) that's quite a bit safer than IE. And I guess it would be good for organisations to make use of Phoenix instead of IE, and to use a different mail application than Outlook or Outlook Express. Most of Microsoft's security issues are with either IE or their E-Mail applications (viruses, worms etc.).
Maybe, if Microsoft had left the browser and E-Mail market to its competitors, MS's security issues wouldn't be that big. Maybe it would have been easier to fight off even Linux that way (or the Mac). But then again, without IE, there would have been much less progress in web browsers, and we wouldn't even be _talking_ about alternatives, as Netscape 3 would still be our worst and best choice at the same time. Reminds me of 'The Fifth Element', where Gary Oldman destroys a glass to show how destruction means activity and therefore jobs and evolution.
I'm getting all philosophical now, so I better end this already too long post.
Maybe to put it into an analogy that's easier to grasp, you might agree that all the speed of a car isn't worth much, if its handling isn't suited to the needs of the driver.
But to put the thread a _little_ back on track: I think Phoenix is a good thing for the Windows world, because it brings a fast and clean interface that fits the Windows look & feel to an engine (Gecko) that's quite a bit safer than IE. And I guess it would be good for organisations to make use of Phoenix instead of IE, and to use a different mail application than Outlook or Outlook Express. Most of Microsoft's security issues are with either IE or their E-Mail applications (viruses, worms etc.).
Maybe, if Microsoft had left the browser and E-Mail market to its competitors, MS's security issues wouldn't be that big. Maybe it would have been easier to fight off even Linux that way (or the Mac). But then again, without IE, there would have been much less progress in web browsers, and we wouldn't even be _talking_ about alternatives, as Netscape 3 would still be our worst and best choice at the same time. Reminds me of 'The Fifth Element', where Gary Oldman destroys a glass to show how destruction means activity and therefore jobs and evolution.
I'm getting all philosophical now, so I better end this already too long post.
