Windows XP Service Pack 1 anytime soon?

[ThC 129 0]

Does MS plan on releasing a Service pack one for XP? Or are they going to say hell with it and instead release Windows XP SE? I know there are a lot of bugs in XP that i would like to see fixed and I don't plan on getting a new OS just to fix a few bugs

[OLEerror 0]

SP1 for XP is supposed to be released Q3 of this year.

[Palos 0]

Just read that SP1 is ready for shipping to the Beta testers in a matter of days.

 

The list of available pre-SP1 hotfixxes are found here:

 

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/support/servicepacks/windows/xp/pre-sp1_hotfixes.asp

[BladeRunner 0]

We'll be starting on the beta test of WinXP SP1 literally any day now.

As for WinXP SE - It's a myth and doesn't actually appear on any MS road map.

It would appear that a rumour was started, what will happen is next year MS WIll release WinXP with integrated SP1, .net components, those kind of things.

IE. Everything you can download anyway incorporated onto a single installation CD.

[Palos 0]

Latest update: SP1 will be available in September.

[NTGAMEMAN 0]

read this at www.neowin.net :

 

 

http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=4576&category=main

 

 

BACK TO Win2k sp2/ sp3(once its goes final)

[BladeRunner 0]

Number one, this "story" comes from the Register, that site is shite and any story printed there should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Number two, although I say this there is a very good chance this may happen.

SP1 for Office 2000 effectively shut-down known compromised copies of the program, it was well done and the day SP1 was available for download forum's all over the world were filled with threads like "Installed SP1 now Office wont open" & "It tells me this application is locked, why?" this made me happy.

Number three, anybody using a ***** copy of WinXP should be thrown in prision as they are thieving scum, if this happens hats off to MS on a job well done.

Number four, I'm not a thief, so it wont effect me.

Number five, thieves suck, I have no respect for them, especially when they attempt to "justify" their theft.

Number six, Nice one MS!

[Avalanche 0]

Well I have no comment one way or another about how "justified" Microsoft is at doing this, but I am a bit concerned that they will end up rolling SP1 out and rolling right over legitimate users. They did this to me with Office2000.

 

Bladerunner mentioned that SR-1 for Office2000 deactivated the install of pirated installs of Office2000. This is true I am sure, but my copy of Office IS NOT pirated (I could scan the cds if you want proof, I bought an academic version), and when I installed SR-1 it deactivated it as if it were. So my concern is that Microsoft doesn't go too far in their campaign against piracy and alienate legitimate users.

[evilhomer 0]

BladeRunner, first of all i find it very hard to believe that your entire computer has only legitimate software on it and that you arent breaking any software rules. Second of all, to have a computer with the functinality they are ment to have, it would cost thousands in software.

 

Now, yes i would like to justify what you call thievery, MS especially are thieves which our society accepts. They buy out or just otherwise destroy the competition which is trying to offer reasonably priced software to the consumer. Because of MS, I am unable to be a ligitamate software owner because they produced overpriced bugged bloatware which doesnt deserve the money. If they woul allow fair competition and not spend money on copy protection instead of debugging, we would have low cost, compact, effecient software which is worth my dollar.

[Davros 0]

What I get from the article is that the leaked key that Dell used, and some other leaked keys, will be blacklisted in SP-1. So what does this mean to all the people who have a Dell computer with XP on it? Surely they can't just screw over a bunch of legit users. What are you going to do if your legit key no longer works with SP-1? Do you have to call MS and jump through their hoops yet again with their product activation crap to desperately prove that your copy is legit? The way I see it, the legal customers are getting hurt the most. The pirates will have a hack or new key out within days I'm sure. In the end MS will have disabled more legit users than pirates with this. I understand their frustration though, it's hard to fight so much piracy.

[Davros 0]

Just ignore comments like those from evilhomer. Don't let him bait you into that old stupid debate. This forum stands out from so many others by the lack of flame wars, and the members continuing to post intelligent threads. I haven't always had a perfect legit software record, but I don't believe in lame excuses either, or bickering like 10 year olds over what is right and wrong.

[woz_mann 0]

a version of SP1 will be released next week

 

http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17936.html

 

http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17928.html

 

not usre if this is the SP1 or just a major patch though

[BladeRunner 0]

Quote:

BladeRunner, first of all i find it very hard to believe that your entire computer has only legitimate software on it and that you arent breaking any software rules. Second of all, to have a computer with the functinality they are ment to have, it would cost thousands in software.

Now, yes i would like to justify what you call thievery, MS especially are thieves which our society accepts. They buy out or just otherwise destroy the competition which is trying to offer reasonably priced software to the consumer. Because of MS, I am unable to be a ligitamate software owner because they produced overpriced bugged bloatware which doesnt deserve the money. If they woul allow fair competition and not spend money on copy protection instead of debugging, we would have low cost, compact, effecient software which is worth my dollar.

Well normally I would refrain from replying to such a post, but a few points that were bought up I feel I should reply to.

Firstly, all of my home PC's are running 100% legitimate software, I know this must be hard for you to believe but there are still some people in this world that believe one should pay for what they are using.
When I say legitimate I do indeed mean 100%, that includes my Win2k server machine.
ALl of the OS's are legal, that is retail upgrades and then not using the product I upgraded from.
Example, I upgraded from Win2k to WinXP with a retail upgrade, I can no longer use that copy of Win2k on anything as it is now part of my WinXP license.
My second WinXP machine was licensed with a second copy of WinXP (I didn't actually buy it as MS sent me a free copy for being part of the beta test team).
My main machine has Office XP on it, retail upgrade from Office 2000.
My second PC has Office 2000 SBE on, purchased as OEM with some hardware as I cannot use the Office 2000 I used to upgrade to Office XP.
This system follows all the way through, I have two fully licensed copies of WinZip for example as I use it on both PC's.
My PC's are all fully functioning and they are all legal, I do not believe in piracy at all, no matter what the cost I will stay legal.

Now you go on to say that MS are thieves (Pretty ironic statement as you as good as admit to being a thief youself at the end of the passage).
No they are not.
Why?
Because NOBODY is forcing you to purchase an MS product.
You think they are over-priced?
You think they are "bloated"?
Then do not purchase them.
However, why do you think you have any rights what so ever to use the products if you do not purchase them?
You want free software then go and download youself a copy of Linux and play with that.
You are not entitled to a free copy of commercial software because you don't feel it's worth the money.
The same way you are not entitled to a free car because they too are rather expensive.
I am sorry if this is going to come as a shock to you, but this whole world exists on commerce.
From the early days you would swap items and trade, I'm sure MS would listen to any proposal you sent them, offer them something other than cash for a copy of WinXP, if it's a fair deal I'm sure they will take it.
MS's domination of the computer world is down to a few things.

1. Their products are good, people choose MS Office because it is a good package, they choose WinXP because it's good, they choose IE over Netscape because Netscape is terrible.
2. It's business, if you are a successful company then you want to be more successful, rules of business I'm afraid.
3. MS are NOT physically stopping anybody releasing a competitive product to anything they produce.
It is not MS's fault that a lot of the so called "competitor" products pale to nothing when put up against MS products, blame all those people who have not written a better application that MS's.
4. MS will continue to plough money into anti-piracy tools, honest and legitimate users will unfortunately continue to be inconvenienced because of thieves, if any legit MS users would like to find somebody to complain at about PA for example, shout at a thief, they are the ones who forced this addition to the OS.

[ThC 129 0]

I believe that Microsoft is in the right to try and stop some w.arez kiddies from trying to use XP. Its not if you like or do not like MS, it is the fact that Microsoft is a COMMERCIAL software company and they put out products to sell, so they have to worry about piracy and illegitmate copies of their software going around. Its like Winzip, yes MS could use the same protection scheme throughout the life of the product but in the case of something like an Operating System this is not a feasable business model. I do admit that some practices will alienate legit users, but that is why you paid for the product so you can call up MS and get support for the product you bought.

 

Quote:

 

3. MS are NOT physically stopping anybody releasing a competitive product to anything they produce.

It is not MS's fault that a lot of the so called "competitor" products pale to nothing when put up against MS products, blame all those people who have not written a better application that MS's.

 

 

This is both true and false, one of the reasons MS is so sucessful is not because of no competition, it is because they have the money to squash the competition, and the backing from manufacturers to do so. We live in a capitalist country and the person with the most money wins, so MS "middleware" products are not better than or worse off than any other program it is just that since they control the market they can up the ante when they feel like it. If software makers can't produce a better product than the decent MS one then they need to find themselves new jobs. A perfect example is Nero, vs the XP burning Engine. I have a lady whose computer i work on, she has a CD burner and burns a few backups once and a while, so the XP burning engine is good for her. Me on the other burns movies, Mp3 CDs, Images and things of that nature. So the XP burning engine doesnt work for me this is where nero comes in, it is a better version of an XP middleware product. So MS is actually helping progress the market by upping the ante on software developers. This is one of the reason linux isn't as main stream as it could be is because the developers don't work together to perform better. So uhh yeah Sp1 will be out in Sept. cool

[Mr.Guvernment 0]

Quote:

1. Their products are good, people choose MS Office because it is a good package, they choose WinXP because it's good, they choose IE over Netscape because Netscape is terrible.

These are simply my own opinions:

Their products are accepted for their ease of us, and are "okay" to some degree, they did very well with XP, and i am very impressed they are doing things right, or heading in that direction, heck , maybe next they will start to copy linux's interface a bit and lose the MAC wanna be look. Or maybe they are trying to trick people into thinking windows is now stable ..lol (which XP is alot more then previous)

Now if their products were really good, then who would need windows update...... i think they lack seriously in product testing and quality assurance.

Ms Office - good product, can't deny that, corel office..LOL joke! so no real competion there. Now why is this, cause MS has enough money to hire 50 thousand programers to make 1 product, why is that, cause they own the market. Linux could learn from MS as how to program as a "team" if linux was just 1 big company, as in they all joined forces, they could make a product that would blow windows out teh window, but they don't, every one wants to make their own versions and be in the spot light.

Now, Netscape suxs, cause of windows, runs fine on linux and MAC. Put IE on a MAC, crash, freeze etc.
It is all about the O/S and money, MS does not want people to use Netscape, the end.

Quote:

4. MS will continue to plough money into anti-piracy tools, honest and legitimate users will unfortunately continue to be inconvenienced because of thieves, if any legit MS users would like to find somebody to complain at about PA for example, shout at a thief, they are the ones who forced this addition to the OS.

Very true

People steal from stores, prices go up, everyone suffers. Welcome to life. Why do i have to pay higher prices cause someone is too cheap to buy something.

Evilhomer:As for having %100 legal stuff, yes some people do have what are called "jobs", this is where u go to a place, and do something called "work" which in return you are given money, sometime alot of it, when u have money, you can afford tyo buy things, like MS products.

It is possible, some people can afford to buy what they want, other's can't. So don't assume because you can not afford something, that no one else can.

[dan2k 0]

Quote:

Originally posted by BladeRunner
Well normally I would refrain from replying to such a post, but a few points that were bought up I feel I should reply to.

Well normally I would laugh my *** off at you and go have another Coke, but this was just too funny.

Oh, and Mr. Gates-- You don't need to make up a catchy nickname... Bet if they checked their logs, your IP just happens to start with 207.46...

The fact is that Microsoft software is sadly lacking. It costs the American public millions, if not billions, each year in lost productivity.
No one is forcing us to use it? Bull! Call up Dell and ask them what OSs they offer on their PCs! Hmmm... Do you want Windows XP Home, or Pro? Neither? Sorry, that's not an option! Of course, people like you and I (wait, maybe not you since you seem to be averse to the idea of software that wasn't made by M$) can just slap together our own computer in twenty minutes and install any OS we want (I did), but the average user--can't. That's the fault (A) of the computer manufacturers, who want to please ( Microsoft, who in the past has threatened to pull Windows from companies for offering ( 8) gasp!) Linux on OEM PCs. So when Joe User wants a computer, he says, Hmmmm, what ads have I seen recently. "Dude, you're gettin' a Dell," and "The new iMac." Since the average user wants the cheapest possible PC, he calls up Dell (or Compaq, or Gateway) and orders a PC. The only choices presented to him (if any) are XP Home and XP Pro. So M$ is guaranteed an OS sale with virtually every single retail and direct PC sold in the world.

But Office... Office is good, right?
Office is OK in quality. But are we forced?

Hmmmm... Every company in the US has made it their "standard" = Guaranteed sale with every corporate PC--in fact, it's mandatory at Dell.
Plus, those employees all want it at home for "compatibility" = Guaranteed sale with 50% of home PCs ($$$), anyone else who wants it buys it at retail ($$$$$$$)

Everyone who doesn't have Office has "Works," which is usually mandatory on a home PC from any major manufacturer. = Guaranteed sale with those other 50% of PCs. ($$)

Yep, I think if you don't know how to build a PC, or know a guy or small computer shop that will do it for you, you have to pay for a copy of Windows, plus Office or Works.

Quote:

Firstly, all of my home PC's are running 100% legitimate software, I know this must be hard for you to believe but there are still some people in this world that believe one should pay for what they are using.
When I say legitimate I do indeed mean 100%, that includes my Win2k server machine.
ALl of the OS's are legal, that is retail upgrades and then not using the product I upgraded from.
Example, I upgraded from Win2k to WinXP with a retail upgrade, I can no longer use that copy of Win2k on anything as it is now part of my WinXP license.
My second WinXP machine was licensed with a second copy of WinXP (I didn't actually buy it as MS sent me a free copy for being part of the beta test team).
My main machine has Office XP on it, retail upgrade from Office 2000.
My second PC has Office 2000 SBE on, purchased as OEM with some hardware as I cannot use the Office 2000 I used to upgrade to Office XP.
This system follows all the way through, I have two fully licensed copies of WinZip for example as I use it on both PC's.
My PC's are all fully functioning and they are all legal, I do not believe in piracy at all, no matter what the cost I will stay legal.

I do not believe in Microsoft's business practices or [lack of] quality at all; no matter what the cost I will stay illegal.

Basically, I do not have a single licensed Microsoft product on my computer. I do own the full retail Win98SE, which I received as a gift with my first computer.

Note:
The fact that my Macromedia and Adobe software is not licensed either is only a result of the fact that as a student, I need to learn these programs, but as a student, I have very little money. It is in Macromedia and Adobe's best interests for me to use the ridiculously easy keygens available anywhere to give me access to Dreamweaver and Photoshop now, so that when I become able to buy them, I will. If they had perfect copy-protection, I'd just have to install the Gimp and hand-code my HTML. Future lost customer.
Adobe and Macromedia (like Apple) both produce software that is worth their asking price. That is why I will pay.

The bottom line is, since Microsoft effectively prevents, through the tactics described above, the feasability and availability to the average user to use alternative software, most of us are elbowed into their software. So fine--I'll use it. But since I did not choose it, I will not pay for it.

Try this analogy. I used to work in fast food. Someone might ask for a certain bacon cheeseburger without bacon. (Your PC is the burger. Bacon is Windows, no offense to Bacon.) If they were told we would not leave off the bacon for them even though it made them throw up, and as a result they were forced to pay for the bacon, ate the bacon, and then continually threw up (think Blue Screen Of Death here), the restaurant would be in the wrong. That customer should not have had to pay for that bacon, whether he eats it or not! We should not be forced to buy bacon we do not want!

You might have gotten me to eat the bacon, because I must have the hamburger so I don't go hungry. but I will not pay for the "bacon", because I hate it.

Quote:

MS's domination of the computer world is down to a few things.

1. Their products are good,

HA! I'm laughing so hard right now --Who says people worth billion don't have a sense of humor!!!

Quote:

people choose MS Office because it is a good package, they choose WinXP because it's good,

Ha ha!! Good one, Bill!

Quote:

they choose IE over Netscape because Netscape is terrible.

Already addressed before my post, but had to point out that Netscape only sucks under Windows, because AOL/NS has no support from Microsoft, where the Mac OS team or the Linux/open source community would work with them to give them information they need to make Netscape better.

Quote:

< snip >
3. MS are NOT physically stopping anybody releasing a competitive product to anything they produce.
It is not MS's fault that a lot of the so called "competitor" products pale to nothing when put up against MS products, blame all those people who have not written a better application that MS's.

Hmmmmm... first of all, when I hear "pale to nothing," some little voice in my head whispers "Windows Media Player" and "Windows Movie Maker..."
Second, someone could write a million apps better than Microsoft, and no one would ever know. What OEM is going to put "some other OS" on their PCs and lose Microsoft's support? That would be bad business!

Well, anyway, may the Force be with you, Bill.

P.S.: by the way, I want my money back from Win98. I was not satisfied with it either.

[BladeRunner 0]

Well I suppose that is one way to make your entrance onto a public forum Mr. First Post.

I don't think I've ever joined in discussions in such an explosive way, but hay, your call I guess.

Being somebody who works for a living and more importantly being somebody who works in the computer industry for a living I don't really have the time to go through your whole post and disect it, far too much rambling and "personal agenda" going on, but I will try and address your main points.

 

Oh, and Mr. Gates-- You don't need to make up a catchy nickname... Bet if they checked their logs, your IP just happens to start with 207.46...

 

Had this discussion with somebody before. Appears a lot of children assume that the only way you would promte something is if you work for the company producing that product. I do not work for Microsoft.

 

The fact is that Microsoft software is sadly lacking. It costs the American public millions, if not billions, each year in lost productivity

 

Please explain further.

The MS OS's & Office together form an extremely stable base for workstation.

This is shown by the massive uptimes all of my users PC's have.

One have one misbehaving application that not even WinXP can totally cope with and that is the only and only application that is forcing reboots on our machine.

My users PC's simply do not crash!

No lost productivity as all my users know how to use Windows, it's a pick up and go situation.

 

No one is forcing us to use it? Bull! Call up Dell and ask them what OSs they offer on their PCs! Hmmm... Do you want Windows XP Home, or Pro? Neither? Sorry, that's not an option! Of course, people like you and I (wait, maybe not you since you seem to be averse to the idea of software that wasn't made by M$) <SNIP WAFFLE> The only choices presented to him (if any) are XP Home and XP Pro. So M$ is guaranteed an OS sale with virtually every single retail and direct PC sold in the world.

 

The Mr. Average home PC user is not going to want to use Linux.

I'm sorry if this has come as a bit of a blow to you, but not everybody is saying "I cannot wait to get rid of Windows".

If somebody is looking at a Dell or Compaq then they also want to run Windows, they want a PC compatible with the rest of the world, one that will use all the off the shelf applications and play and game their kids purchase.

They do not want to be playing with Linux, that is left for those people who know what they are doing with said PC.

Those same people who wold NEVER buy a Dell.

The same way nobody is forcing you to purchase MS products is the same as nobody is focing you to buy Dell, Compaq products.

You have a choice, but for some reason you don't seem to think so.

 

But Office... Office is good, right?

Office is OK in quality. But are we forced?

<Snip Waffle>

 

Why do you think MS Office was made "the" standard?

We had three major office packages doing the rounds, Lotus, Novel/Corel and MS.

Of the three packages MS's was simply put, the best.

Everybody loved Word and Excel is loved by millions too.

With today's technology it is extremely easy to get one package to read and write files in the format of another package.

People vote with their feet on Office and that is why it's MS's biggest selling line, because people purchase it.

Once again you feel that people don't have a choice.

Sure a lot of PC's come with MS Works included, but it certainly isn't Office, nowhere near.

User has a choice, upgrade to Office or don't.

The average home user does not purchase a home PC just so they can do work at home, if they can great, if they cannot no biggie.

 

Then we get onto your part about being a thief.

Oh, big man, admitting you steal software and then the best bit, the part that always makes my day "The Justification"

Like somebody on crack sat in the police cell saying "I needed to feed my habbit" as their justification, you come up with yours.

 

Lets see:

 

You don't have a single MS license, yet you use MS products.

So, why are you sing the MS products?

If you are using MS products it was your choice, if it was your choice you shouldn't be a thieving bastard, you should pay.

Is that simple enough to understand?

Lets go over the basics once more, you use something that isn't a free item, you pay the money to do so.

MS produce a whole bunch of student licenses which effectively makes the prodcuts give away.

Your bedmates Adobe do not.

You just crack Adobe products because they are too expensive (Yer, give Adobe a call and justify with them, they would say "Great, you carry on using our products for free") yet this is not an agreument with MS products for students.

Once again we see this "We are forced to use MS prodcuts" from you, why are YOU forced to use these products?

 

Then you finish with some more waffle (The coke you mentioned at the beginning of your post, it is the stuff you drink is it?, or maybe not)

Just to go over your final few points:

Yes, I'm Bill Gates

I have nothing to really do during the day, so I popped along to this quaint little forum and decided to post a defensive message about the products me and my staff produce.

You see, I'm very defensive of my products, I've ploughed a lot of money into them, so I thought I would come and defend them for a bit.

 

I think that's what you want to hear, no?

 

The end results:

You are a student with no real-world experience of how all this works.

You are currently living in your "Linux Rules" world.

This is the world where MS is evil.

This is also the world where you don't pay for software, you just steal it, take what you want, why should you have to pay for anything?

You feel the whole world owes you a living and anybody who supports MS products obviously works for the company.

You have been fed story after story from the likes of theregister & theinquirer and just assume they must be true, they are anti-MS so they have to be the truth.

 

For that reason, I've decided to not go further into your post.

It's nothing more than a self-justification for theft, so if it makes you feel better: "Nice one, you got MS products you were forced into using so didn't pay for them, hats off to ya".

Reality, you are thieving scum and if I spend any more of my time talking to such a person, it would be like you were thieving my important/expensive time too.

Good luck, you'll learn.

[javajeff 0]

openoffice.org is a free office suite that is compatible with Microsoft Office. It does not have dancing paperclips though. Anyone will find it easy to use, and not feel like it is different than MS Office. It has all the features that I need and will always be updated by the open source community. With an incredible free program like this available, I do not see why people would pirate software. Download it and try it out:

 

Windows download:

http://sf1.mirror.openoffice.org/1.0.0/OOo_1.0.0_Win32Intel_install.zip

http://ny1.mirror.openoffice.org/1.0.0/OOo_1.0.0_Win32Intel_install.zip

ftp://infinet.idlegames.net/pub/OpenOffice.org/1.0.0/OOo_1.0.0_Win32Intel_install.zip

ftp://ftp.mn-linux.org/linux/openoffice/1.0.0/OOo_1.0.0_Win32Intel_install.zip

 

Official Website:

www.openoffice.org

 

Regards,

 

javajeff

[BladeRunner 0]

Thank you!

My exact point.

If you want a package that does the same as MS Office but don't want to pay for it, then try the alternatives.

Star Office is only £75 now and as the previous post stated there is another one (not that I've tried it, but he obviously has and is recommending it).

Don't steal, shop around, there are alternatives out there.

[javajeff 0]

StarOffice is built on OpenOffice.org. Sun opened the source by creating OpenOffice.org. If you buy StarOffice at $75 instead of using the free OpenOffice.org, you get a database application, additional fonts, and some other small features with one technical support call. If you only need a word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation package, they are both the same. StarOffice is more likely going to be a choice for larger corporations that want to buy a support oriented package.

 

Regards,

 

javajeff

[DosFreak 2]

Another vote for OpenOffice. Been using it for the last couple of weeks instead of Office XP and am considering using it at work. MUCH less annoying and easier to install than Office XP and it does everything that I need it to. The interface could use more thought however.

[Sampson 0]

There are alternatives to Office. This one is free: http://www.software602.com/ . If you want to register it, several new components will be activated. The fee is very nominal. A second and quite elegant package is gobeProductive: http://gobe.com/products.html for $75.00. Its appeal is the site license which allows you to place a copy on your company's computers and allow those who work on it put a copy on what they use at home as an extension of their work.

The point is that the talented people who develop this software ought to be encouraged by supporting them by purchasing their products. If you really care about the MS monopoly, put your money behind those who offer good alternatives.

[BladeRunner 0]

*Nods*

If people like to complain about MS products back other products out there.

If another company can produce a great package and sell it for $75 then MS have to do two things:

 

1. Make their product as good

2. Drop their prices

 

This is good for us all round, nobody wins except the software houses when prices stay inflated.

[javajeff 0]

BladeRunner: You are missing the point. The other product is FREE. openoffice.org is FREE. FREE, FREE, FREE, FREE, FREE.

 

How do you compete with free software? This is why MS killed Netscape. A taste of their own medicine if you ask me. Open source is a thorn in their side.

 

Regards,

 

javajeff

[BladeRunner 0]

People go for features, not price.

If it was price alone then MS Office would not be the biggest selling and most widely used Office package.

Star Office is now some £75 for business use, so can be considered an alternative.

I really do not see this "Free" office package killing MS Office on features alone.

Netscape didn't just die because of the price issue, Netscape (Come the release of IE4) was vastly inferior.