If you are a Macintosh user, I am sure you have been frustrated by the fact that many websites do not work properly on the Mac/Safari. This is unfortunate and only the web developers are to be questioned! because the web was meant to be platform-neutral and browser independent. If developers were to strictly adhere to web standards, everything would be fine.....

California.A.R. is rolling out a new transaction management system which I see having great potential as far as making our "transactions management" life a lot easier! N.A.R may adopt the system later on... Please voice your opinion. Let's do our part in ensuring that the system is open, accessible to everyone, REGARDLESS of the browsers people choose to use:
http://homepage.mac.com/marconey/macrealtors/tomacrealtors.html

Thanks!
Kenneth.

I tried to tell OCCastles, a web developer, in another thread that if his site was compliant it would work on a mac. He made the same excuse that I always hear, which is that they code for IE, which has the most marketshare. It's also the buggiest browser and has the most security issues.

Not because it's a poor product but because it's a favourite target for hackers as well as users.

"Not because it's a poor product but because it's a favourite target for hackers as well as users."

Well, it's a poor product in part because it runs on a poorly designed product - the Windows OS. The flip side of the argument is that open source software is also more stable and less "breakable" because it pools together the talent, hard work and passion of MANY good-hearted developers. (wisdom is garnered from a larger community rather than a small team) You would think that Microsoft, since it holds about 90-95% marketshare, would proportionately invest that much more money in R&D to make their product that much more secure. Do they have the incentive or the market pressure to do so? no! Why fix the problem whene you are already enjoying 90-95% marketshare? (I'd say this is not a sound philosohpy on the long run.....)

Dee, what management program do you use?

I would think that cutting edge companies would include a couple of extra lines of code so that Firefox could be used.

Greg, Settlementroom.com works fine on a mac. I think eFrogg is supposed to work as well.

Alta, I agree. Anything that has a huge marketshare will be a target. It's just too bad I can't use MLS very much on my mac and had to buy a pc. My board is getting Pocket Real Estate soon, but I think it only works on PC. I go to the website on my mac and it doesn't work in the browsers either.

"Well, it's a poor product in part because it runs on a poorly designed product - the Windows OS."

Oh boy... a Mac VS PC discussion... we can wasye a lot of time on this! (but lets not)

Here in SoCal, the system ONLY works on PC with IE. It doesn't even support Netcrap or Foxfire...

Dee in Austin
Try the new site format and see if formats better in your (non IE) browser...
http://www.OrangeCountyCastles.com

I certainly would not wave the MS flag, and have been frustrated with it's 'propriety' as a commercial offering. The important consideration is that the vast majority of my visitors use it.

Oh geez... I'm the LAST person to wave a MS flag... I'll even go the extra distance to use a non-MS product, but you have to go the MS route when as you put it, "the vast majority of my visitors use it".

marconey,
I don't wave a flag for any one company/OSS movement, but you're making some pretty big blanket statements. While the OSS community (which I am often a part of) does have some very talented contributers, there are problems as well. Since most projects are volunteer only, everyone tends to work on the fun and cool stuff; this is why certain aspects of open source apps grow by leaps and bounds, while others seem to never change. The easiest place to find proof of this is looking for documentation. If you're using a Microsoft Product, you can go on MSDN.com (often sited as the biggest website in the world) and you'll find detailed documentation on anything.

With OSS it's hit or miss. If what you're looking for is popular enough, you'll find documentation, if not, then you're out of luck and you have to figure it out on your own. With something like a web browser, no one cares, all browsers are fundementally the same. But when you're a developer looking for documentation on APIs, working with OSS can often times be a painstaking task.

As for the bugginess of Windows/IE, give me a break. Now I love and use Fire Fox (feature wise/security wise), but stability wise Fire Fox is exponentially more likely to crash than IE. FF also seems to have a memory leak, or if not that than is a memory hog.

While previous versions of Windows (anything before 2000) were not stable as can be, modern versions are rock solid. I've only had a handful of kernel (blue screen of deaths) in 3 years, and that's including the fact that I a) overclock, b) leave my computer running 24/7, and c)had a bad hard drive. It took me a while to find a stable version of Linux (on the same computer, different partition) for my system. Fedora Core 4, the kernel, is rock solid stable on my system, however, many applications that come with it are not. Off the top of my head, one of the media players doesn't work and one of the file browsers also crashes. These issues may be due to driver problems with Linux, but as an end user, I don't care, I just want things to work.

As for Apple, I have don't know much about OS/X (other than multithreading handling stinks on it...), but I do know that I cringe whenever someone sends me a QuickTime movie. It'll play for 2 seconds and then the screen turns green. I also don't appreciate QT deciding that it wants to be resident when I boot (I had to disable this myself, which should be default) and being annoyed by requests to upgrade to a pro version.

All products/development movements have pros and cons, try to be more objective next time.

Just my $0.02