Is Internet Explorer 6 slow and bugyy? Yes. It was slow and buggy and
did not support many standards and failed to meet the expectations for
many developers (including an angry me) on its date of release. Are
better alternatives available? Provided a definition of "better"
includes mention of things like security, support of standards,
performance, frequency of bug fixes (or time to fix a bug), then yes,
better alternatives exist.
I think a better analogy might be MS Word. It has a lot of
functionality, same good -- some not. Ignore the cost of Word and
alternatives for the analogy here.
You can publish a web page with Word and the end result is not so
pleasant. Bloated code and the end result won't even display correctly
in some environments.
You can create full-color newsletters with Word, but it's less than
ideal and there are much better programs to do such tasks. You can do
it, but the end result will be greatest quality. If it's something you
need to do often you might (depending on your circumstances) be
better-served acquiring and learning a different program better suited
to the job.
The overwhelming majority of Word users create documents, mailing
labels, letters, fax cover sheets, form letters, etc. In this capacity
it's an exceptional program. There's a lot of formatting functionality
that is very easily accessible. Integrating a data source for labels,
form letters, etc is trivial for virtually any user. It just works.
There are alternative word processors (analogy: MooTools, YUI, etc),
some of which are also do a good job of same basic Word functionality.
None really do it better, just in a slightly different manner. Word has
a bit of an edge given scores of templates, a hell of a lot of
documentation already floating around and and the occasional feature the
others lack. But the alternatives also have the occasional unique
function and will be the right fit for some.
You could also go grab something like InDesign (analogy: native
Javascript). Its more than a word processor, though it can be used as
one. That'll do a spectacular job creating high end newsletters, but
it's substantially more effort to learn. InDesign can create letters
with a bit more effort than Word and the end result is actually ever so
slightly better. InDesign can also do things like mailing labels and
form letters, and the end result will be just as good as Word's, but
it's really an unholy pain in the ass do these tasks with InDesign.
There's a word processing base that primarily makes letters, labels and
form. It's a pretty large user base actually. For them Word is ideal.
Word lets them make their letters and labels quicker than any
alternative, just as well in 99% of cases. If they need to make a fancy
newsletter they can do an average job with Word relatively fast, or
trudge through InDesign and slowly make a better version. None of these
users have signed an exclusive agreement to use Word.
If they want to publish HTML with their word processor and want a decent
end result they're gonna have to avoid Word entirely. A few will naively
or lazily still use Word for HTML, and the word processing purists will
freak out and use that webpage as evidence why Word should be destroyed.
But in the end, few of this base will ever need to publish HTML so
Word's questionable HTML publishing capabilities are effectively a
non-issue.
Some know how to use both InDesign and Word. They'll use Word for where
it excels to accomplish a task quickly and InDesign if the job calls for
more power or 99% as good won't cut it.
Word is a flawed program. It's improved it's weaknesses quite a bit from
Office 97 to Office 2007, but there's still some flaws and it simply is
not well suited for some tasks (namely, publishing HTML).
Word's continued popularity does not derive from it's weaknesses. It's
popularity stems from where it shines and what it's audience primarily
uses it for. Few of it's users care that it can publish HTML even though
MS is quick to advertise it does so. Some know it doesn't publish HTML
well, so don't know. Very few care either way, as they don't publish
HTML with Word.
Nowadays there's a new word processor claimed by it's author to be the
only viable word processor in existence. It's in an alpha state with no
real documentation. The author claims it's just as good as Word and
alternatives for letters, labels, etc. Its interface will be just as
easy to use as Word and the alternatives (which have been refined over
years) PLUS it'll publish HTML perfectly. The claim is all the features
of InDesign but with the familiarity and ease of the current crop of
word processors.
The author likes to run around to the MS forums, and any other word
processor forums while he's at it, ranting about how great the new word
processor is (will be?). The word processor user base is understandably
skeptical and, in many cases, don't care as they don't use their word
processor to publish HTML or design fancy newsletters. Mostly they're
tired of hearing, literally, years of blather about how they should
scrap Word for an unknown future word processor, or swap to InDesign
instead, to solve the HTML publishing weakness in Word that they're not
experiencing and are unlikely to in the future.
