Wow. Didn't mean to hit a sore spot.Sorry I asked.
It didn't hit a sore spot, it's just- your basic concept is sound, but when you think about it, it's a rather silly question. I mean, there is competition between say, Editpad and UltraEdit; why doesn't one incorporate the 'best parts" of the other? Simple- because the reason people purchase and use one or the other is almost purely based on UI design, or feature discoverability. sure, JGSoft could change editpad to look more like ultraedit, but there are still those who prefer the "feel" that editpad has. Other then that, they are almost completely feature-par. This sort of thing applies to a good number of other "sectors". for example- Jasc has Paint Shop Pro, which is a fairly powerful image editor. Adobe has Photoshop. Why doesn't Adobe implement the "best features" of Paint shop pro? the main reason is that the "best feature" of PSP is it's lower price, so sometimes you simply cannot implement these "best features".
This applies to browsers as well. The main reason I use firefox, and don't use chrome is because I don't like the whole concept of a "minimalist" approach. any non-trivial application should have a menu bar, it's where you find the functionality. As they have it now (with no menu bar) Chrome's features are not discoverable. Firefox has a good number of menus and toolbars, but it's the visibility of these features that make them discoverable. Anyway... some people prefer that approach, and they use chrome. When you have such a large shift in UI design between the two programs it becomes difficult to implement the best features of one program in another, simply because said features may actually be a part of the UI itself.
