22-07-2002 08:53									#31
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Thanks, tniem, I have Opera at home and will try it.

	22-07-2002 14:29									#32
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by tniem If you do not want to use IE, give Mozilla (www.mozilla.org) or Opera (www.opera.com) a try. Dedicated to w3 standards, these browsers are very good.

Please don't just parrot the 'dedicated to web standards' line. Where's Opera's DOM support? Mozilla is better, but still not perfect. IE is also 'dedicated to web standards'--the developers fixed the broken box model in the upgrade from 5.5 to 6.

	22-07-2002 15:02									#33
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I recently gave up trying to use Apolyton effectively with Lynx.

I use Links nowadays .

	22-07-2002 17:14									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

MattyBoy, you asked about the browsing speed with Netscape...

As a veteran Netscape user (and nowadays Mozilla) user I have noticed that since Netscape Navigator 4.x, and I have compared it to IE since its version 4.x.

IE has always been faster than Netscape under Windows, but the difference isn't that huge anymore with Mozilla 1.0.

I have never heard any good explanation to that, but my own opinion is that the engine used by the version 4 series NN is so sluggish and that IE gains benefits from beeing deeply integrated to Windows, so that would actually make run faster.

The new Gecko engine used by Netscape 6 and Mozilla (also somehow by AOL) is far more better than the old one, but as you may check out in Bugzilla or any Mozilla forums (you should fins some information there too; I haven't checked that), the future development of Mozilla will include faster browsing. But I haven't read Bugzilla enough to say what that's going to include. At least speeding up the Gecko engine will probably be the key answer to that goal, as it's powering Mozilla when surfing.

And those who're looking for Mozilla, just follow this link .

	22-07-2002 17:35									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by JohnIII Please don't just parrot the 'dedicated to web standards' line. Where's Opera's DOM support? Mozilla is better, but still not perfect. IE is also 'dedicated to web standards'--the developers fixed the broken box model in the upgrade from 5.5 to 6.

Oh I agree that Mozilla is not perfect but it is very good.

And yes IE is still not standards' compliant. That is not a bad thing necessarily. I am not against any browser adding features that the commision has not added yet (hopefully it will prompt the commission to add these new things eventually). However, I am against MS use of them.

They give developers that use MS's server software extra "features" that are easier for a lazy site designer than actually taking the time to make sure it works on all browsers. Then when people cannot see the site properly because it was improperly designed, they have to switch to IE. It is a tactic that MS has used for years with IE and other programs, which is what the whole trial has been about - their tactics to force other companies out of business by leveraging their monopolies and this has been found to be illegal. So while I have no problem with IE using non-compliant code in theory, the way that MS has used these extra "features" does concern me and does violate anti-trust laws (not that this administration will actually punish them, here's hoping that the EU will take care of things for us).


Not to mention that in all of what I had said did I once say anything against IE in the last post. What I did say was, "If you do not want to use IE, give Mozilla (www.mozilla.org) or Opera (www.opera.com) a try. Dedicated to w3 standards, these browsers are very good." It seemed to me that he was using Netscape despite its speed because he did not want to use IE. So I gave him other options. I never even said that IE goes away from the standards - no MS bashing until you forced it back into my face with the whole MS parrot of how great they are. Well, when MS owns the world, I am going to do my best to have my little corner of my room without their control.

	22-07-2002 17:45									#36
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Rasbelin The new Gecko engine used by Netscape 6 and Mozilla (also somehow by AOL)

AOL owns Netscape. They had a deal with MS for a while to only use IE in return for "Try AOL Free for 30 days" links on Window's desktops. But that deal has expired and people expect in the next full release of AOL that the IE only world will go by the wayside for AOL users because AOL will use what they own instead. Of course, this may not happen but AOL has released a version that you can download using the Gecko engine.

	22-07-2002 17:49									#37
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Yes, I do now about that ownership relation. But I just meant how AOL uses Gecko fully or partially in its AOL browser software.

	22-07-2002 18:11									#38
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Opera rocks!

	22-07-2002 19:16									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Threadjack alert.

Back to topic, the IE-centric Web we see today is a legacy of HTML generating software, usually bundled free with PCs. ("Now it's easy to have your own website!" This software is typically pretty easy to use, but inevitably bad at cross-platform compatibility.

In my experience, there are actually very few people out there coding in HTML. And among these, even fewer who worry about w3 compliance.

MarkG is to be commended for this site's high level of compatibility. Improvements by leaps and bounds in the time I've been here.

BRAVO MARKOS!!!

	22-07-2002 19:17									#40
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by tniem And yes IE is still not standards' compliant. That is not a bad thing necessarily. I am not against any browser adding features that the commision has not added yet (hopefully it will prompt the commission to add these new things eventually). However, I am against MS use of them.

Why does adding new features make browser makers incapable of complying to standards from years back? No browser is standards-complient.

quote: no MS bashing until you forced it back into my face with the whole MS parrot of how great they are.

Excuse me? I pointed out that they weren't dedicated to standards, and somehow that's saying how MS are great? I pointed out that Microsoft are also 'dedicated to web standards', by your definition, because they improved their CSS support. How about responding to what I say next time?

	22-07-2002 20:12									#41
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by JohnIII Why does adding new features make browser makers incapable of complying to standards from years back? No browser is standards-complient.

What I am saying is that by going further then the standards they are making it so that no browser other than IE can compete on the Internet. By going past the standards, they make them meaningless. It has become IE's standards and if you don't have them - you cannot view the web. By bundling developement software in Windows that has tons of IE only commands they are forcing lazy developers to develop for IE. This makes it so half the web is IE only (or tries to be). They are using one monopoly to make another which has been found to be illegal. And so, no, I do not believe IE to be standard compliant because they have gone further in an effort to force out the competition.

quote: quote: no MS bashing until you forced it back into my face with the whole MS parrot of how great they are. Excuse me? I pointed out that they weren't dedicated to standards, and somehow that's saying how MS are great? I pointed out that Microsoft are also 'dedicated to web standards', by your definition, because they improved their CSS support. How about responding to what I say next time?

No that is not what you wrote. This is what you said, "Please don't just parrot the 'dedicated to web standards' line. Where's Opera's DOM support? Mozilla is better, but still not perfect. IE is also 'dedicated to web standards'--the developers fixed the broken box model in the upgrade from 5.5 to 6."

If you read my first post it had nothing against IE. In fact, I think it is really good piece of software (however I have problems with the MS corporate mission). So, I choose to use another browser and am more than willing to show people where to get it when they ask for it. That is what he was doing. He said flat out, I find that IE is faster but I still use Netscape. So I told him that standard compliant browsing is available outside of the two main browsers and told him where to get it. He even thanked me for the links. I didn't even say that I prefer Mozilla and find Opera's ad obtrusive. I simply pointed out where he can find other browser. Nex time I might just dig up links to Lynx and others as well as putting a link to microsoft just to keep you happy.

I have not once said - do not ever use IE. It was only you that made this into a huge issue of me disliking IE. I use it daily. I haven't a choice on some sites. However, I appreciate that Markos allows me to use Mozilla, which I find with tab browsing and popup killers (non-Apolyton ones of course) to be a far superior browser. And I don't mind telling others about it as well. But as for being a parrot, well as they say, it takes one to know one.

	22-07-2002 20:18									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: And so, no, I do not believe IE to be standard compliant because they have gone further in an effort to force out the competition.

I don't think they should add tags, either. But trying to force out the competition has nothing to do with standards compliance.

Please, just read my post again. I wasn't saying you were bashing IE, I've said that twice now, I was referring to web standards and using IE as another example, because I took issue with you suggesting that they were 'dedicated to web standards'.

	23-07-2002 05:50									#43
	Remove this text

Either way, open source is what really makes Mozilla worth it and kicks it above IE.

	23-07-2002 07:39									#44
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by JohnIII Please, just read my post again. I wasn't saying you were bashing IE, I've said that twice now, I was referring to web standards and using IE as another example, because I took issue with you suggesting that they were 'dedicated to web standards'.

Ok, I am sorry if I took your intent out of context. I also believe that you had taken mine out of context as well but no need to continue going at that. I understand now what you intended and I respect your point. I just would like to say that in the flow of this thread, there was no need for me to mention IE. The poster stated that he knew that IE was faster than Netscape, yet he still was using Netscape. This seemed to tell me that he wanted a non-IE option, which I gave him and by saying they are standard's compliant so that he knew that he could see the web. Hopefully we can now simply get on with our lives.

	23-07-2002 09:34									#45
	Remove this text

Thanks for the information regarding Mozilla, gecko et al. I like your summary of IE and MS behaviour, tniem. I suspected as much, but these days have moved from UNIX developer to MS user so I have adopted the more limited perspective of the masses.

Also I run projects delivering via a global intranet where the only options are IE 5.x and Netscape 4.7x (because the broad user base is too hard to upgrade). Our outdated internal standard is Netscape, but most have moved to IE as the only other choice.