Unfortunately for those that want to use windows, but also use better software than the norm will always find it more difficult. Choices will be more limited, rarely designed as well as the microsoft alternative (You’ll find the same situation on any platform. The software developed Apple is better integrated in the OS … the software included as part of gnome works nicer than the software developed by joe-shmoe in his spare time)

Thats not exactly what i said … I used the words “rarely designed as well” … that doesn’t mean that the MS products are better, just that they are designed better.

Thunderbird verses outlook: compare that to “Apple dual G5″ verses “eMachine 433″

The apple is beautiful looking, its fast, its sleek. eMachine is priced right and is stacked to the ceiling in every walmart across the country. Which is the average consumer going to by? then ask which is better.

MS Designed outlook to be a part of the work flow. It was designed to be easy to use for an MS Office user, and integrate into MS Office. It was designed to be integrated into a corporate network. Outlook was designed to interface with the OS. And, the ‘express’ version ships with the OS, and the full version ships with Office … so its essentially ‘free’

Thunderbird, while a technically better email client, lacks these things. Last time i checked (about 3 weeks ago) its /still/ lacking a complete mapi interface. This is something that a good number of programs require. (Going over everything it is missing is a mute point)

MS Outlook sucks. no doubt. It was poorly designed from a computer science point of view. Thunderbird is just the opposite. However, tech rarely write the cheques to order software and MS designed Outlook to have all the features that managers and corporate folk want.

The same arguements hold true for other software. iTunes or Windows Media player. Which is automatically updated and patched via Windows update, thus requiring less time to maintain? (Yes, windows updates can be automatted fairly easily, even on a locked down-secured computer ) Media Player is cheaper to maintain, it is integrated into Windows and IE.

–
I suspect a lot of people are still where I was a couple years ago�looking at Mozilla and saying, �what�s the big deal?�
–

I’m still saying that, and i’ve been using it off an on for years I don’t like Mozilla. Its big and bulky. On windows I like Firebird, on Linux and MacOS X I do not. On linux I prefer Galeon. While it has some bugs I find that it fits better into my work flow than Firebird. On MacOS X I use safari, because of that integration with the OS. It just works nicer than the alternatives.

The only way that you are going to see people start developing more for Firebird on windows is if you get it bundled with Windows .. then Plugin authers would start developing for it as well (another stumbling point). Because it is Open Source, you could redistribute it with your applications. You’d almost have to because very few people will go out and download it. Even coworkers of mine (In a Computer Systems Office) won’t really use Firebird or Mozilla. They will use it for a day or 2, come across a site that only works with MS IE or that requires a plugin that only works in MS IE and switch back to MS IE. Better to have one browser than switch between two, right? (right! should be the resounding answer )

Its a huge uphill battle, but it all goes back to design. MS Designed windows around IE. You really can’t seperate the 2 (easily). A brilliant Design that has locked people into using IE … whether it is the best choice or not.

“IE is what everybody is using. It’s not broken, why switch to Mozilla? IE has so many more people who develop for it, it must be good. It’s Microsoft, so I trust the brand name ['Oh yeah?! Some people like blood sausage, some people are stupid.' - Groundhog Day]. I’m not used to the way Mozilla looks, so I don’t want to use it. Wait, how do I install it? If I can’t find the link on their website, I won’t download it…”

These are the nags that developers may hear from the masses. Why bother learning how to develop for the minority if the majority doesn’t want you to. Why fix what isn’t broken (albeit it really is somewhat)? What looks better on your resume?

A) Developed 6 extentions for Mozilla Firebird
B) Developed 2 Applications for IE

Unfortunately I think B is the answer because most IT departments don’t even find Mozilla a browser to consider when making web rules. It’s IE (whatever the current version is, because it’s all they have to work with) and NS4x (that son of Mordor!). I did hear someone mention how bad our work website looks in Mozilla once, followed by – “Yeah, but who ever heard of Mozilla?”… to which I popped out of my chair, gazed over the cube wall and stated, “I’m using it right now.”

I hear your frustration K. It’s going to take alot longer than estimated before Moz is considered a serious browser contender in the eyes of the masses. I.T. is starting to get it, but the average web user doesn’t know or care about it. Sad huh? How about they ADVERTISE as in TV like MS? I know they are non-profit, but I’d gaurentee you if they had one 30 second spot during the Superbowl that said “Mozilla. Use a better browser”, people would start to take it very seriously. It’s got nothing to do with how hard it is to develop for. It’s simple supply and demand. Sure the supply is there, but the demand just isn’t. sadly

To say that people develop using Internet Explorer code libraries because Microsoft ships IE with Windows is not a valid argument. That’s like saying that people don’t write code using Borland libraries because Builder doesn’t ship with Windows. That’s silly: when developers ship Borland-built products, they’re shipping binaries–all of their libraries are built into the products that they distribute.

Having said that, let me anticipate an argument. You might note that IE is bundled into Windows and its APIs are exposed in such a way that developers can easily use the IE engine in their applications with pain-free procedure calls. Thus, developers are keen to use IE’s engine in their applications to render web-based content. You’d have a good point, but you’re still missing where I’m trying to drive this discussion.

Though the libraries may be included in Windows, a developer can’t USE them unless he or she finds a development environment capable of referencing those libraries. But, NO development environments–and I’m talking about compilers, really, not just text editors–come shipped with Windows. Not Microsoft Access, not Borland Builder, not Microsoft Visual Studio, not Eclipse, not Mozilla, or even emacs. Developers ALWAYS have to go out and acquire those tools, sometimes for a lot of money.

So the question remains: why would thousands of developers choose to write their applications in tools that they need to pay thousands of dollars to use? In particular, why would these developers choose these pricier alternatives when Mozilla provides opportunities to build flexible software in a language that anyone who has written a website can understand?

You answered your own question with:

–
Ken Said:
Thus, developers are keen to use IE�s engine in their applications to render web-based content.
–

Developers want to use what they are going to make the most from. They are much more likely to make money using the native API’s, and the software bundled with Windows over 3rd party software which can litterly change overnight. Products developed for Mozilla 1.0 aren’t gaurenteed to work with 1.5, thus more development time is needed. If the product doesn’t work during that stretch of time they are likely to loose customers to the IE product which changes much more infrequently.

MS is also famous for, argueably to a fault, of maintaining backwards compatability with previous versions of their software. A developer can assume, for the most part, that a product developed for IE 6.0 will work under 6.5 (or whatever).

You can argue that this isn’t the case, since Mozilla beta’s are freely available to everyone … however, we then go back to the development time involved. What if plugin support breaks between 2.0rc-29 and 2.0rc-1089? They have to do all that development work again, costing more time (== money), and still there is no garentee that it will work with mozilla 2.0 final.

Hobbiests are a different beast entirely, and you will likely find that many hobbiests have aquired MS Development tools for free, thus negating the whole cost for development software arguement at all and focus on which is easier to develop for. Again, I argue that it is easier to develop for IE because, over time, it take less effort.

I completely agree with you that people should be consentrating on Mozilla development over IE development. There is little to no innovation in IE, no new features except security updates, bad standards compliance, etc … The reasons not to use IE are limitless.

Unfortunately, there are those couple pressing issues why one /should/ use IE over Mozilla. And all those issues have to do with MS Branding, Bundling, the native api’s, etc …

–
Ken Said:
In particular, why would these developers choose these pricier alternatives when Mozilla provides opportunities to build flexible software in a language that anyone who has written a website can understand?
–

Because the people that maintain websites aren’t developers.

IDE’s and programming langauges aren’t hard to learn once you understand one language. Learning a 2nd, 3rd, 17th, 29th language doesn’t take all that long. With that in mind, I don’t think the answer to your question has anything to how difficult it is to develop for one browser or the other. I think it all goes back to how easy it is to start development, maintain your product over time, and what will be the easiest for your customers to install and use; which all points back to MS IE, at least for windows.

–
Ken Said:
To say that people develop using Internet Explorer code libraries because Microsoft ships IE with Windows is not a valid argument. That�s like saying that people don�t write code using Borland libraries because Builder doesn�t ship with Windows.
–

This isn’t a good comparison. A better comparison would be, “People don’t develop for GTK+ on windows because it doesn’t ship with windows.”

GTK, TK and QT are all MUCH easier to develop for than native windows API. I use GTK and TK on windows all the time to whip up little gui applications because it takes a fraction of the time compaired to Visual C++, and the tools are free. BUT, which is better to use … tk, gtk, or windows native API? This question is almost identical to what you are asking about why people develop for IE over Firebird or Mozilla.

Altp.

But you are wrong stating IE vs Mozilla diffusion as browser doesn’t count. It counts even more for Mozilla, since it has no o.s., nor ide, nor external api behind. Awareness of this new development opportunity is thus strictly linked to Mozilla adoption. One probably start hacking Firebird or making plugins, before considering xpfe toolkit for standalone applications.

Well, if we consider this point the whole situation is probably going to get better. While tha average user is still very far away from replacing IE, power-user, like web developers, are openly supporting it right now. And since the springing up of Firebird also frequent surfers, those which use the pc a lot but not necessarely develop, are considering the switch.

So I do thing that things are going to change, although slowly, as a result of the changing of surrounding context. Gre will surely help also

This was an analogy. Nobody rebute it with DVD comments please. I know digital video is the way to go /now/, but for the sake of my point, pretend it doesn’t yet exsist.

- Slightly related… Somebody please post the Style Switcher plugin for Firebird again! It’s not comming with my new installs of Firebird and I miss it! -

(here I am making the antagonistic point while asking for the protaganist’s hope… )

Anyway Philip Wilson is right and some have drawn similar conclusions in a poll on the same subject: http://www.xulplanet.com/ndeakin/article/218?show=c#comments

But while xul can do a lot to mimic a PHP like community involvement, it is worth noting that xpfetoolkit starts has a Mozilla internal project, specifically aimed to Mozilla needs. While PHP is a general purpose language. Also xpfetoolkit is a collection of technologies, whereas PHP give access to to really specialised libraries through a unique syntax and a basis of core instructions.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=xul+development+forum&btnG=Google+Search