In my experience, most of the people who will evaluate your work (and decide to buy your product, or not) will be running fairly up-to-date browsers with Javascript enabled and seven hells' worth of plugins. If you want to sell something, make it shiny. Shunting users of "incompatible" browsers to a spartan page with few compatibility issues makes better business sense than trying to make your main site as compatible as possible (and even ivory tower theorists like me can't do that all the time). Whether you'd be better off simply ignoring the luddites is probably better determined by someone with access to your server logs and accessibility policy.

Personally, I'd be much happier using the simpler, text-based site; congratulations on an excellent job. (Of course, this means that I disagree with your assertion that a better product requires cutting edge technology, especially in this context, but you can't have everything.)

That said, I'm annoyed by your implication that I'm some sort of archaic, stunted reactionary for using Netscape 4.x instead of, say, Mozilla. In fact, the only three browsers that my system can run at any acceptable speed are Dillo, lynx, and telnet. Netscape 4.x is the least unacceptably slow of all the rest, so it's what I go with most of the time. If you'll send me a cheque for a new computer, I'll be happy to, as you say, move on and start to grow.

--
F o x t r o t U n i f o r m
Found a typo in this node? /msg me
The hell with paco, vote for Erudil!