There's a lot of excitement about Firefox 2.0 (although it seems muted compared with 1.5) but I have no plans to jump on the bandwagon quite yet despite the new version's better security and better speed. Why not? It mostly has to do with the compatibility of extensions. Why would I want to jump to 2.0 if some of my 1.5 extensions won't work? It would be like buying a new car with a better motor but the headlights and speedometer don't work. For now, I'll stick with 1.5. Who knows, I may even try IE7.
Update: Hardware 2.0's Adrian Kingley-Hughes has a post looking at 2.0's shortcomings, including memory leaks, weak anti-phishing features and incompatible extensions. He still believes 1.5 users should upgrade: "If you stick with 1.5.x then you're going to be at risk from unpatched vulnerabilities.  The only way to go is up to 2.0 and keep downloading updates as they become available."

Another week, another Talking Tech podcast. We've gone high-tech, migrating from an Olympus digital recorder (which mysteriously locked up and remains so until someone from Olympus returns my e-mail) to Apple's GarageBand (sweet!). Anway, where was I? Oh yeah, Talking Tech. This week, Kevin and I take a look at Apple's stellar fourth-quarter results, including the fact more than 39 million iPods were sold in fiscal 2006. We also explore the "new and improved" Internet Explorer 7, and take a skeptical look at the virtual world/Second Life phenomena. If you have suggestions, comments, etc., you can e-mail us.

After months of anxious anticipation, Internet Explorer 7 is finally available. Now, we can abandon those pesky open-source browsers that have kept IE from cementing its domination of the market. I can't wait to uninstall Firefox, Flock and Opera. No more worrying about cool extensions and plug-ins from an army of developers, no more worry about Web sites that just don't look quite right, and finally no more guilt about trying to be one of those people who seeks out Microsoft alternatives. If I were you, I'd rumble over to IE7's download site immediately. Can it only be a matter of time before Firefox's 10% to 12% share of the browser market returns to a more reasonable level - say 2% to 3%? Then, we'd be back to normal again with a true king and lots of little wannabes wandering around to make it seem like competition is alive and well.

   Then again...what if IE7 isn't the be all and end of browsers? What if it's a simply much-needed improvment from IE6, which was still using Spyglass technology from late-1990s? What if Firefox 2.0 is just as good and user-friendly? (and less of a memory hog would help as well!) Surely, this would force Microsoft to deal with competitors (Firefox, Opera, Flock, Maxthon, etc.) that encourage innovation. What if all those Firefox users and all those Firefox developers just keep on doing what they're doing? Now, this could be interesting, very interesting.

   So what do you do as a browser user? Well, if you're curious and brave, download IE7. If you're happy with Firefox, Flock and Opera, just keep on doing what you're doing. For more view check out FactoryCity, Inside Microsoft and Matt Cutts.

According to the New York Times, Google has a serious problem with the fact Microsoft's new IE 7 browser has a box in the upper right-hand corner that sends people to MSN search. Google claims this could give Microsoft an advantage in attracting Web traffic and advertising revenue. Whether Google's concerns are justified is left to be seen but it does offer more evidence Google will eventually launch its own Web browser. As the world's leading Web services company, it makes little sense not to own the "operating system" used by consumers when they go online. Why let the evil competition control how people get through the doors when you can have your own door, right? Of course, it could be argued that Firefox is Google's de facto browser but Google doesn't own or control Firefox. In an idea world (at least according to Larry Page and Sergey Brin), a Google browser would likely offer easy, one-click access to Google services such as search, GMail, Talk, Writely, Finance etc. So let's turn around the question and ask why Google hasn't launched a browser yet? Why has it focused on me-too services (blog search) and small, strategic acqusitions when a browser seems like a no-brainer? It's difficult coming up with solid reasons other than perhaps Google believes Firefox can meet its needs with some financial and other support. But if you read the tea leaves (and some of the quotes in the NYT story), it is difficult not to get the impression Google's could jump into the browser market as a means to protect its search business from Microsoft. For more views, check out Nicholas Carr and Nial Kennedy.
Update: Check out Explorer Destroyer, which provides details on how Google is offering people $1 for referring IE users to Firefox.

With the launch of the IE7 beta, there has been some fascinating discussion about Microsoft's track record in the Web browser market. John Dvorak, who's no stranger to controversial, against-the-grain ideas, describes IE as "The Greatest Microsoft Blunder" - suggesting it has taken the company's focus away from more important strategic priorities such as getting a new version of Windows - Vista - out the door. So, what if Microsoft never got into the browser market? What would have happened if Bill Gates had not decided to turn the Titanic onto the super-highway or, at least, decided to focus on other online opportunities other than the browser? I suspect Netscape would probably be around and thriving, and the Navigator browser would be industry standard. Maybe it would have been better for the Web's evolution because Microsoft wouldn't have had such a key role in how people accessed online services and content. You have to remember that until IE7 came along, the core of IE was still based on technology licensed from Spyglass Inc., which Microsoft jumped on after failing to secure a licensing deal with Netscape. While Microsoft continued to reply on Spyglass,  rest of the browser market continued to move ahead with Opera, Firefox, et al pushing the envelope. Meanwhile, Netscape got sucked up by AOL, which proceeded to emasculate what had been one of the Web's most exciting companies. If Microsoft had not launched IE and/or not proceeded to attack Netscape, maybe the browser market would be a different place today. Maybe Marc Andreessen would still be working there and Netscape wold have evolved into the flagship Web 2.0 company. Then again, Netscape's demise has allowed Firefox to successfully emerge so perhaps that's the silver lining.
For some other thoughts on IE7, check out Nicholas Carr, Inside Microsoft, Nick Bradbury and Makeyougohmmm.