Shoutbox

Well, guys, another thing I wanted to mention about the start-up time of IE, that in windows, like PlusFan said, some parts are loaded @ start-up, but if you go over to a MAC OS computer, it has a start-up splash like Netscape and other browsers, it takes just as long

Note: I HATE Mac OS, MAC OS X isn't AS bad as the others, but the version I was using was like...8? Anyways, I had to use it for Media Arts last year *shivers @ thought of Mac Os*

{People please read my post :'(}

quote:

---

Originally posted by sock
I think there are some good reasons to be bashing Microsoft.... Some of their software can get really frustrating. The thing is, they don't fix or improve their software once it is popular: When was Windows XP/Internet Explorer last improved (besides security updates)?

---

Well, they shouldn't improve Windows Xp --> when you buy it, you buy what's there right now. It's not that we are used to get Windows features in SPs or anything. However, the IE part is different. They SHOULD be competing. They are just resting on the couch while watching the rest of the browsers evolve. I sincerely hope that everybody stops using IE so that Microsoft puts some money back in the project... I don't see that happening, however...

quote:

---

Why does my entire MSN Messenger 6.1 hang for about 10 seconds whenever someone is added to a multiple-person conversation (or leaves it)? (or could that be Plus?:P)

---

Doesn't happen to me :-/

quote:

---

Oh, and I also think that they (and most other software companies) use too many resources, which forces people to buy new computers...

---

So you are confident that Mr. Bill just says "Hey! Add some nice loop over here so that the users needs 3871597195mb of ram to run Calc.exe!! Cool, isn't it, Ballmer?" :rolleyes:

Software doesn't need more resources to rearrange the menus to be more understandable (which is one of those "small things"), but those things don't sell. Microsoft has to add skinning into Windows XP to make it attractive for the average user (even for the average designer like me :P). They have to add fading, shadows, alpha blended icons. And you can't do that in a 386. And your beloved Apple understands that :P. You can't run OSX with its fancy (and beautiful) dock animations in the 1984 Macintosh.

quote:

---

A computer is a tool, not an entertainment center.

---

Wrong :P A computer is both. They used to be ugly tools, now if they are not entertainment centers they don't succeed.

quote:

---

And by the way, I doubt many other companies would do much better than Microsoft. When the company gets this big, the small details are forgotten, and it's just the big fancy new features that they focus on, to compete with other companies.

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

Adobe Reader 6.0 loads as slow as hell, for example. Very unpleasing.

---

Not anymore! Try the first link here

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patchou
I am not pro-Microsoft, I'm just trying to be more objective. When I start Internet Explorer, it works, within 1 second. When I install Netscape and launch it, it crashes. When it doesn 't crash, it stil ltakes it a while to load so that it can display its ugly interface. My conclusion: Internet Explorer is better than Netscape.

---

:lol:

I remember when Netscape 6 came out, I downloaded it (on 56kbps - :wall:) and LOVED the new skin. I still like it quite a lot, but it was bashed by the xp look :P

quote:

---

And why I hate this company so much? simply because they were at the top 10 years ago (I used Netscape Navigator at that time and I was very happy with it), they went down because they never successfully updated their software and tried to find more opportunities to make Netscape more worthwhile than IE, and when they realized they were not capable of doing it, they concentrated their efforts on blaming Microsoft for their failure.

---

Well, I have to remind you that IE wasn't significantly updated since about 5 years ago. For web developers it's the worst nightmare ever. They don't support standards that have been standards since 1998. At that time, IE was the best. Now, it's good, but simply too inferior to be considered for someone who knows about browsers.

quote:

---

I too sometimes insult Bill when a MS product is screwing up, but I have to be honest: it doesn't happen very often (and for you neither, else, we would all be using another OS and another word editor).  When they screw up, fine, blame them; however, accusing Microsoft for every problem the computer world has to face is not the solution, and I just hate when people accuse someone (or some entity) for no reason except jaleousy.

---

I completely agree with you on that: Office works great, Windows works great. There are just a few details (not worth the hate). But IE is really a bad bad example :P

quote:

---

On that subject, I would like to make it official. I have two companies on my die-list: Netscape and Real Network. Why Real? haha, if you ask, that's because you never installed any of their software (or had to use it afterwards). And after years and years of not being able to update their video client, they've now joined the "Let's get some money from Microsoft" club. That's pathetic.

---

Lol, agreed.

quote:

---

So, yeah... all I wanted to say is that I'm not pro MS, I'm just don't think that I should force myself to find good things in competitive products just because it's "cool". I don't say that you can't love using Netscape, I just say that I hope you're not using it only because you're "not using a Microsoft-empire-of-evil product".

---

Indeed.

quote:

---

Note about Opera: the Opera internet browser is a very good example of how a company can try to inovate instead of complaining like the morons at Netscape did . It just proves my point. (I do not use Opera but I do like it and I recognize that it's a better browser that IE for many reasons).

---

Yes, it's nice, but they are on mie die-list as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlusFan
* PlusFan wonders why Patchou is so pro-MS :-/


Did they pay you? :dodgy:

---

Being "pro-MS" (not hating MS to death) has been turned into a crime nowadays... It's just so L33T :rolleyes:

quote:

---

really, maybe netscape sucks, but opera and mozilla (firefox) don't.

---

*cough* Netscape IS Mozilla with some AOL apps bundled, nothing more.

And anyway, people, don't worry about netscape: it's not like it will last :P
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13393

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
*cough* Netscape IS Mozilla with some AOL apps bundled, nothing more.

---

On the big picture yes... In detail, no... Netscape's code is Mozilla with some alterations (more stability, some bugfixes).

Netscape only uses Mozilla code if it the code is stable enough. That's why Mozilla/FireFox/Whatever will have a more recent buildnumber then Netscape. But a more recent buildnumber isn't always better. (new bugs etc...) And that is exactly the reason why I use Netscape (7.1) instead of Mozilla/Firefox. (oh, and also, because I used Netscape since version 4 and never -mark my words- never had problems with it on all kind of systems.)

Mozilla is open source, and like Patchou once said, that isn't always a good thing (he can explain it better than me, so find his post about it ); The company Netscape takes the most recent stable Mozilla code, fixes some bugs, add some stability, add some more features, and a new Netscape Browser is born. Sad part is, Netscape is owned by AOL (well not anymore now, so I've read in a recent article), they have to add some AOL things (like AOL IM)...
But these "things" can easly taken out (which I did of course ).

AOL has ditched the Netscape team, so who knows what will happen next. I don't... I'll see, and if nothing good comes up, I'll switch to the Mozilla Suite...

About the startup time of Netscape: Like some people already said in this thread. Every browser starts up roughly at the same speed. Yes even MSIE has that startup time if you consider that MSIE uses many resources from Windows itself, so they are kind of "preloaded". (actually, it's the other way around, Windows needs those resources to work. That's why MSIE is "integrated" into Windows.) Now Netscape (and other Mozilla based browsers) uses the new Gecko-engine. For the startup time this is a real benefit. The first time your start up Netscape the engine is loaded. When you close Netscape, a part of the engine stays "active" for a while. This makes that when you start Netscape a second time, the loading time will be very fast (as fast as MSIE or even faster).

Everybody has his own reasons to use a certain browser. As long as you're happy with it, and you know about other browsers and their pro's, cons and features (very important!).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido

quote:

---

Oh, and I also think that they (and most other software companies) use too many resources, which forces people to buy new computers...

---

So you are confident that Mr. Bill just says "Hey! Add some nice loop over here so that the users needs 3871597195mb of ram to run Calc.exe!! Cool, isn't it, Ballmer?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted: here
Bloat

Why is it that Microsoft's products keep mushrooming in size with each new release always requiring significantly more disk space and more processing power than the last time? They might claim it's because of all the new features they add each time, but that's only half the story. The new features and the increased processing requirements are designed to fuel the process of perpetual upgrades. This is Microsoft's way of rubbing Intel's back so that Intel will give Microsoft preferential treatment when it comes out with new chip specs. It's also Microsoft's way of convincing consumers that their newer product versions are better because they are so much bigger. Their new features are often superfluous but users must still deal with the overhead required by the features even though most will never use the features.

---

and:

quote:

---

"The Bloatware Debate" is a technical discussion of how two separate people dissected one particular Microsoft program and found out, to their shock, that it was over 2,000% larger than it should have Been. It would appear from this discussion that the cumbersome size of Microsoft programs is due not only to the continually growing clutter of useless features but it is also due to careless programming (perhaps to an even larger degree).

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Note about Opera: the Opera internet browser is a very good example of how a company can try to inovate instead of complaining like the morons at Netscape did . It just proves my point. (I do not use Opera but I do like it and I recognize that it's a better browser that IE for many reasons).

---

Yes, it's nice, but they are on mie die-list as well.

---

it's on your die-list for one bug (though it seems very nasty and annoying!)? maybe it's fixed in the opera 7.5 beta.. I hope so for you

Opera beta-testing forum, with links for Opera 7.5 Preview 2

smilies are disabled for this post!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
{People please read my post :'(}

quote:

---

Originally posted by sock
I think there are some good reasons to be bashing Microsoft.... Some of their software can get really frustrating. The thing is, they don't fix or improve their software once it is popular: When was Windows XP/Internet Explorer last improved (besides security updates)?

---

Well, they shouldn't improve Windows Xp --> when you buy it, you buy what's there right now. It's not that we are used to get Windows features in SPs or anything. However, the IE part is different. They SHOULD be competing. They are just resting on the couch while watching the rest of the browsers evolve. I sincerely hope that everybody stops using IE so that Microsoft puts some money back in the project... I don't see that happening, however...

quote:

---

Why does my entire MSN Messenger 6.1 hang for about 10 seconds whenever someone is added to a multiple-person conversation (or leaves it)? (or could that be Plus?:P)

---

Doesn't happen to me :-/

quote:

---

Oh, and I also think that they (and most other software companies) use too many resources, which forces people to buy new computers...

---

So you are confident that Mr. Bill just says "Hey! Add some nice loop over here so that the users needs 3871597195mb of ram to run Calc.exe!! Cool, isn't it, Ballmer?" :rolleyes:

Software doesn't need more resources to rearrange the menus to be more understandable (which is one of those "small things"), but those things don't sell. Microsoft has to add skinning into Windows XP to make it attractive for the average user (even for the average designer like me :P). They have to add fading, shadows, alpha blended icons. And you can't do that in a 386. And your beloved Apple understands that :P. You can't run OSX with its fancy (and beautiful) dock animations in the 1984 Macintosh.

quote:

---

A computer is a tool, not an entertainment center.

---

Wrong :P A computer is both. They used to be ugly tools, now if they are not entertainment centers they don't succeed.

quote:

---

And by the way, I doubt many other companies would do much better than Microsoft. When the company gets this big, the small details are forgotten, and it's just the big fancy new features that they focus on, to compete with other companies.

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

Adobe Reader 6.0 loads as slow as hell, for example. Very unpleasing.

---

Not anymore! Try the first link here

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patchou
I am not pro-Microsoft, I'm just trying to be more objective. When I start Internet Explorer, it works, within 1 second. When I install Netscape and launch it, it crashes. When it doesn 't crash, it stil ltakes it a while to load so that it can display its ugly interface. My conclusion: Internet Explorer is better than Netscape.

---

:lol:

I remember when Netscape 6 came out, I downloaded it (on 56kbps - :wall:) and LOVED the new skin. I still like it quite a lot, but it was bashed by the xp look :P

quote:

---

And why I hate this company so much? simply because they were at the top 10 years ago (I used Netscape Navigator at that time and I was very happy with it), they went down because they never successfully updated their software and tried to find more opportunities to make Netscape more worthwhile than IE, and when they realized they were not capable of doing it, they concentrated their efforts on blaming Microsoft for their failure.

---

Well, I have to remind you that IE wasn't significantly updated since about 5 years ago. For web developers it's the worst nightmare ever. They don't support standards that have been standards since 1998. At that time, IE was the best. Now, it's good, but simply too inferior to be considered for someone who knows about browsers.

quote:

---

I too sometimes insult Bill when a MS product is screwing up, but I have to be honest: it doesn't happen very often (and for you neither, else, we would all be using another OS and another word editor).  When they screw up, fine, blame them; however, accusing Microsoft for every problem the computer world has to face is not the solution, and I just hate when people accuse someone (or some entity) for no reason except jaleousy.

---

I completely agree with you on that: Office works great, Windows works great. There are just a few details (not worth the hate). But IE is really a bad bad example :P

quote:

---

On that subject, I would like to make it official. I have two companies on my die-list: Netscape and Real Network. Why Real? haha, if you ask, that's because you never installed any of their software (or had to use it afterwards). And after years and years of not being able to update their video client, they've now joined the "Let's get some money from Microsoft" club. That's pathetic.

---

Lol, agreed.

quote:

---

So, yeah... all I wanted to say is that I'm not pro MS, I'm just don't think that I should force myself to find good things in competitive products just because it's "cool". I don't say that you can't love using Netscape, I just say that I hope you're not using it only because you're "not using a Microsoft-empire-of-evil product".

---

Indeed.

quote:

---

Note about Opera: the Opera internet browser is a very good example of how a company can try to inovate instead of complaining like the morons at Netscape did . It just proves my point. (I do not use Opera but I do like it and I recognize that it's a better browser that IE for many reasons).

---

Yes, it's nice, but they are on mie die-list as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlusFan
* PlusFan wonders why Patchou is so pro-MS :-/


Did they pay you? :dodgy:

---

Being "pro-MS" (not hating MS to death) has been turned into a crime nowadays... It's just so L33T :rolleyes:

quote:

---

really, maybe netscape sucks, but opera and mozilla (firefox) don't.

---

*cough* Netscape IS Mozilla with some AOL apps bundled, nothing more.

And anyway, people, don't worry about netscape: it's not like it will last :P
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13393

---

I agree IE is starting to be way behind. I just want to say something about the famous http standard. Netscape is the worst complient browser currently available and they are the one who didn't follow the standard in the beginning (when every used their software). IE is very standard complient, and of course they've added lots of stuff. The web has evolved a lot in the past 5 years, the standard has not, and Microsoft has always been good to push new stuff. Of course, if you're still found of the unix shell of linux, that's not an argument for you, but I personally like to use tools made for this century .

The university of Calgary still uses Unix e_e

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patchou
I agree IE is starting to be way behind. I just want to say something about the famous http standard. Netscape is the worst complient browser currently available and they are the one who didn't follow the standard in the beginning (when every used their software). IE is very standard complient, and of course they've added lots of stuff. The web has evolved a lot in the past 5 years, the standard has not, and Microsoft has always been good to push new stuff. Of course, if you're still found of the unix shell of linux, that's not an argument for you, but I personally like to use tools made for this century .

---

Well, IE decided to push ahead and add all these new features, and for Mozilla and the other rendering engines this was a big lose our because the majority of the globe uses IE.. and therefore develop pages for IE.

I agree on the fact that netscape is currently the worst browser, its very bloated, and is using the old Gecko based rendering engine.

IE kinda made the standards, and didnt really give the other browsers a choice..however in some things they werent very compliant (i remember XHTML support was very buggy in IE 3 and 4 - even though XHTML was new it was still rendered properly in Moz).

I agree on the tools for this centuary thing as well, but i sometimes like to argue that the traditional way of things is better (sometimes anyways.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patchou
I agree IE is starting to be way behind. I just want to say something about the famous http standard. Netscape is the worst complient browser currently available and they are the one who didn't follow the standard in the beginning (when every used their software). IE is very standard complient, and of course they've added lots of stuff. The web has evolved a lot in the past 5 years, the standard has not, and Microsoft has always been good to push new stuff...

---

I'm sorry, but I totaly disagree with this... It is not Netscape's (Mozilla's) fault that the W3C group doesn't update the standard as much as everybody wants (and it is as good aswell, or there will be even more problems). On that matter, Mozilla is doing what a good browser should do, following the standard...

Many times I say: "Mozilla is more complient to the standard then MSIE". What I mean by this (because that isn't exactly true) is that MSIE has more own stuff added. And many times, this new stuff is their own variant of an existing implementation/standard. The problem with this is that people think that this IS the standard, which totaly isn't...

It is great that MSIE adds stuff which web developers can use. But a good web developer would not use those strictly MSIE functions, but will use the W3C standard functions, until those MSIE functions get accepted by the W3C standard... If a webpage is created following the standard then it will show up correctly on every browser!

Don't blame Netscape (Mozilla) for bad webpage development!
An example: mess.be... How often didn't I hear people bashing at Netscape/Mozilla because mess.be didn't show up right, while it was dwergs fault because he made HTML mistakes. The reason why it showed up "right" in MSIE was exactly that MSIE didn't follow the standard as it should...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Boulton
I agree on the fact that netscape is currently the worst browser, its very bloated, and is using the old Gecko based rendering engine.

---

The only extra things that comes with Netscape are the AOL things like AOL IM. But these things can be not installed or ripped of the suite. The only thing you have left is like every other browser suite: a browser, a mailclient, a composer... This is as bloated as every other suite... and while talking about bloated (I can shoot the ball back), what's up with all those useless toolbars, popup-blockers, plugins, etc... in for example Opera? Sure you can choose not to install it.... well, that's the same for Netscape....

Gecko: old rendering engine? what's the new then?



I realy don't want to defent Netscape more (although I use it along MSIE) as any other browser. The pro that one browser has, is the con for another and vice versa. It all comes down to personal taste and what you need. I can imagine, that if you only are interested in a browser, you don't want a mailclient. But in that case, d/l the browser only and compare that. To be mean: or should we start comparing Netscape suite with MSIE+Outlook Express+Frontpage????

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Many times I say: "Mozilla is more complient to the standard then MSIE". What I mean by this (because that isn't exactly true) is that MSIE has more own stuff added. And many times, this new stuff is their own variant of an existing implementation/standard. The problem with this is that people think that this IS the standard, which totaly isn't...

---

If you consider that the majority of users use IE, and then consider the definition of the word "standard," well...

Hehe... I'm only kidding. I try to comply with the W3C standards whenever I can... I use Opera myself, so I want my pages to work perfectly in it, and I also want them to work right in IE because that's what most of the visitors will be using. Sticking to the W3C standards is probably the best way to ensure compatibility. However, I've found that even when a page complies to the standards, different browsers can still interpret certain things differently, forcing you to find a dodgy solution or have different code for different browsers... blah.