i think netscrape aka netscape is the worst browser in the industry it may have only one thing over IE... a splash screen but you know why they have a splash screen? because it takes so long to load into the browser they need something to keep the consumer looking at so it will take it's incredibly slow loading time! plus none of the activex controls things work, java barely works, and to top it off when you maximize it refreshes the whole page or feels like it if it's making everything bigger IE is so much nicer about that! i did testing for their first Netscape 6 and they weren't bad to be built from the ground up and be betas but as a final product they were the worst thing to hit the market they really need to start putting out surveys asking people what they want in a browser and not just build it to their liking. i can see why IE is such a popular browser because no one like netscape and it's stupid ways i hope microsoft wins the court battle over the browser wars and crushes netscape out of the system!!!!

Never has so much been said so quickly and with so little punctuation.

I also prefer IE to Netscape. But come ON! Last time I tested Netscape, it not only didn't have a splash screen, but started much faster than IE. It's a thing called QuickLaunch. Loads Netscape into RAM at system startup just like IE. I thought you'd like Netscape being more like IE.

I haven't had any problems with Java on Netscape. That has more to do with the plugin than anything. Some see lack of ActiveX as a security plus, not a negative. Next thing you know you'll be saying Netscape doesn't support web standards as well as IE.

Yeah, Netscape released their browser in beta condition (and they still are). Please limit your criticisms to the things that are actually wrong with the browser. There's plenty, but you seem to have missed them all.

Netscape/Mozilla/Etc..... have horrible font rendering out of the box whereas IE simply kicketh ass. Also, developers for IE have the absolute COOLEST tool for embedding fonts in IE web pages; Microsoft WEFT: Web Embedding Fonts Tool:

http://www.microsoft.com...htm?fname=%20&fsize=

Take a look at some web pages that use this tool with IE, then take a look with Netscape/Mozilla/Etc.....

This technology should be added to the standards body as far as I'm concerned as it is absolutely awesome and does not require that the fonts be installed on the client system.

According to a network traffic analysis performed by Newsbytes (http://online.securityfocus.com/news/347), Netscape is capturing Navigator 6 users' search terms, along with their Internet protocol (IP) address, the date Navigator was installed and a unique identification number.

Anytime a Navigator user performs a search by typing terms into the browser's URL bar and pressing the adjacent Search button, or by using the Search tab on the browser's My Sidebar feature, the user data is sent to a server at info.netscape.com using a uniform resource locator (URL) forwarding system.

Does anyone know if this includes Mozilla?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is one of AOL's great features, and it's not included in Mozilla. Mozilla is hardly controlled by Netscape, I suspect that any attempt at this would create a huge developer uproar. (This is not fact by any means, don't take it as such)

Yes, I think it did include Mozilla. I think that this was fixed before the 0.9.9 milestone, but I'm not sure. I'm sure it'll stay in the commercial Netscape branch. AOL...grumble...

> Does anyone know if this includes Mozilla?

No, it doesn't. This is specific to Netscape

How many of the IE6 users have ever tried anything else? (And more specifically, how many IE6 users ever tried Mozilla 0.9.5+/Opera?)

Cheers,
Gilboa

Sorry for the Piglish... I just woke up :/

Gilboa

I use the "MyIE" plugin type browser for IE6 right now as my default browser. Seems to work better than NetCaptor.
I have tried Opera, k-meleon (great little browser), Mozilla builds, Netscape builds, and I prefer the MyIE plugin over the rest.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Probably not many. Infact I'm willing to bet that the actual number/percentage is fairly insignificant! But this shows nothing more than the customers being happy-enough with what they've got. After all, you don't need to try every single word processor in the world if the one you've learnt is good enough for your needs.

If IE wasn't adequate, then the customers would go out and find something else. Until then they will be happy using IE.

If a web developer makes a web site using CSS2 and DOM2, what is your assessment of the situation when IE6 users can't use his site?

- The users have encountered a page that encourages them to seek out a better product. There is nothing wrong with the page. The users happily download a better browser, which is free and easy to download.

- The web designer is going to put himself out of business. The users are going to assume that his page is broken and take their business elsewhere.

If you choose the first option, you really do believe the free market rewards the best product available, and you're not a hypocrite.

If a web developer creates a web page in CSS2 and DOM2, then it is his fault for not realising that no browser will most likely display his page correctly (depending on what he/she uses of course). So what will actually happen is the 2nd 'option' - and it will be the developers fault. Whenever I have had to write servlets for our company, it had to be made sure that it still worked adequately with Netscape 4.x even though only 5% of our users still use Netscape.

Secondly, there is no real free market that you speak of. That's why the 'BEST' product doesn't always win (e.g. BetaMax vs VHS). The consumers decide what the 'best' product is. And I'm dying to find out why you all of a sudden think I am a hypocrite! What did I say that was hypocritical?

Here's the circular logic, with highlights:

"If IE wasn't adequate, then the customers would go out and find something else. Until then they will be happy using IE."

Here, you specify a condition under which IE users will abandon IE.

"If a web developer makes a web site using CSS2 and DOM2..."

Here, I present a hypothetical situation in which that condition is met.

In your response, some other conditions suddenly appear, which also prevent users from seeking a better product...

"no browser will most likely display his page correctly" "Most likely" a better product does not exist. The again it might. (Will the user even attempt go through the trouble of evaluating which software he likes best? That's a good question!). A better product would most likely not exist IF they use the entire range of the CSS2 and DOM2 specifications! But few web sites use more than a handful of CSS properties and DOM elements/methods. Thus, if this page was a representative web page, Mozilla and perhaps even Netscape could display it without problems, as they have more CSS2/DOM2 support than the rest of the browsers. I admit I am sympathetic to the argument that more web browsers should support CSS2/DOM2 more fully, especially since the standards have been finalized for nearly five years now, and Mozilla's support is minimal. However, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. It is quite possible to use the subset of CSS2/DOM2 supported by Mozilla to create a nice web site. IE6 would be inadequate, and there would be an alternative. Would people flock to Mozilla? (my answer is no)

"[a web developer must make] sure that it still worked adequately [in an inferior browser]"
This is the web developer's dilemma, which is another much more serious condition you've added to the conditions needing to be met before people will consider ditching IE. A web developer should create a page that "gracefully degrades" for inferior browsers. So either that CSS2/DOM2 site could contains a slightly uglier, slightly less interactive site for IE users, or it could downgrade its code, lower its expectations, and wait until IE supports the standards the designer wants to use.

And that's the real trick, isn't it? You said you had to "gracefully degrade" your pages for 5% of your users. Imagine how much stronger the pressure must be to create pages that "gracefully degrade" for 90% of your users.

And there's the circular logic. If the page gracefully degrades, the inferiority of the user's product is hidden from the user, and he can't make an informed choice. If the page looks okay, people will keep using IE, meaning web developers must avoid using CSS2/DOM2, meaning the pages will continue looking okay in IE...and so on.

As for the rest--no, I don't believe our market is free either. And no, I believe the best product doesn't always win. So there's no argument there.

As for hypocrisy--it boils down to making a claim that one simple condition needs to be met when you know that there are other and considerably more challenging conditions that also need to be met, and that you've got personal experience with these other conditions as well!

I think that if that CSS2/DOM2 page was made, AND it worked in other browser(s), AND the site told users where they could download this browser...users would declare it broken and not go to it. Then when IE9 came out with adequate CSS2/DOM2 support, they would go back and say "Great! I'm glad they finally fixed their web site!" This is why having a better product is not good enough.

One thing that I DON'T like about Mozilla that IE has is the fact that ALL "Paranoia" settings are on ONE (1) tab in IE. You can delete your Temporary Internet Files, History AND Cookies with 3 simple clicks. In Mozilla, you have to open WAY too many "+'s" and several Windows to accomplish this. For anyone who wants to dump all this stuff QUICK (don't want the boss or wife to see the pr0n sites you've been surfing for the last 2 hrs.), Mozilla is out of the question.

If the wife has a problem with surfing pron, maybe it's simply because she wasn't surfing with you? haha! Check out Galeon, I think it addresses the issues you have with Moz preferences. http://galeon.sourceforge.net/

Who said it was me? I was just saying in general.....

;)

heh

I know. :-P

A GUI is just an interface. I don't care about interfaces, my main problem with IE is it's rendering engine which locks people into writing IE-compatible pages. MyIE is just a GUI using that engine.
Gecko is Mozilla's rendering engine. And you can use different GUI's (k-meleon, Galeon etc...) that use that engine.
Biggest problem: Gecko tries to follow the W3C standards, MS follow their own standard, ie follow W3C when it suits them and go their own way breaking all compatibility.
For a company touting that .Net is a standard (submitted to a standards body), they sure have a poor track record when it comes to their rendering engine (and a lot of other things); why not make Office file formats a standard? Cause then people wouldn't be locked into MS Office! Why not make their rendering engine standard? Same answer.
.Net being a standard is nice for marketing but I like to see where it will once/if it ever gets astablished (which probably will happen just because it's Microsoft... so you can't go wrong. Remember the time all companies choose IBM? It was the safe way; if it went wrong, you couldn't be blamed cause you choose IBM; if you choose another and it failed, you got sacked). I wonder how MS will lock us in then.
Hey, isn't that their own slogan in the Unix FUD campaign? As if companies aren't locked into Windows!

IE does follow the standards but Microsoft also adds their own tags, etc.

I prefer not to think about what browser I'm using. The only time I care is when something doesn't work, or something is too slow. Any more, the above issues are rarely the case.

Correction: MS follows parts of the standards and adds proprietary tags. This should be: First follow all the standards and then add proprietary tags.

No-one follows all the standards... and Mozilla isn't even close to supporting all the standards.

True, no browser (except maybe Amaya) supports it (yet) but I hate the fact that people write IE "optimized" pages. If MS has all this money to make this "good" browser "completely free" for us, why can't they make their browser W3C compliant (and with the extra money add proprietary features?). Just look at the crapy code Frontpage creates. All is done to lock people down to MS products when using the internet.

Yes, but it's not "all bad" that Microsoft has standardized Client PC usage with IE intergrated. Everybody can communicate with each other, share docs and many other things that didn't exist back in the Windows 3.X days. I'm not opposed to competetion but there just isn't any out there to come even close to what MS has offered the public or "forced upon them", depending on who you believe. The only exception I've seen in the Linux camp is Lycoris but many Linux "purists" hate Lycoris and are just as happy to have 100,000,000,000 distro's out there. With that kind of strife, Linux will never be a valid platform for client usage until the lunatic fringe are eliminated from having any say or participation in Linux development.

Standardization is nice, but Microsoft just locks you into them by using proprietary formats and protocols. They make it that you almost don't have any choice (try reading/editing a Word/Excel.... file on anything other than Office; good luck, you forced to use it. ASF, WMF, AVI etc... if you're lucky you can watch them on a non-Windows system. Extending Kerberos (which is allowed I have to say to be honest) but prohibiting others from implementing those same changes, what do you call that?
Do you want to go to a world where everything is the same, boring thing?

"Do you want to go to a world where everything is the same, boring thing?"

Well, As far as platforms go, it wouldn't be a bad thing really. Content will always change with the times though, so it wouldn't really be the same ol' boring thing.

Lets face it, most people will use whats in front of them, whether its good, bad, or indifferant. If windows didnt come with a browser installed, half the people wouldnt be on the net.

This is SO true

:)

It's tough to get people off "formula" and on to "solid food"..........

We'll wean you eventually. ;-)

Is that so?

I personaly like IE, I have used it since version 1.0, I had netscape also installed but never liked useing netscape for some reason. I have also used Mozilla and opera, and for some reason I am turned off to them. I duno why, its just my personal opinnion that I prefer IE to other browsers. Personaly I think IE is good, If you don't like it then don't use it. Thats all I have to say.

Plain and simple and to the point.

I like that.

I think alot of it comes down to the user interface. Clean and simple, and intuitive. Not alot of junk , and somewhat customizable.

My 1st try of Mozilla started at v0.99. I'm late but that was a good try. I was very surprised that Mozilla is better in Javascript exec, HTTPS. I also like the drag & drop link to personal bar. Bookmark & perso bar is better organized than Opera, at least for me. Tabbed browsing is good but less convenient than Opera MDI model. Starting speed is a little bit slower than Opera 6.01 or IE6. But, it isn't a big deal, I can wait a few seconds more.

Overall, I like Mozilla better, which now becomes my official browser. Although Netscape has the same root, I didn't like the way it is packaged and felt little motivation to try it.

Netscape and Mozilla are one and the same. The Mozilla team make Netscape 6+. The latest Mozilla is a few incremental builds ahead but they are they same! AOL/Netscape add product branding and little else. I love it when someone writes "I hate Nutscrape, I only use Mozilla".

Netscape/Mozilla is slow and clunky, even if you have a Pentium 4. The links and bookmarking features are horrible. There are a grand total of about 4 skins available for this "skinnable" browser. Messenger is not even close to Outlook Express. If you're worried about viruses, run a virus scanner like most normal people. There are many free scanners out there. If you don't, you deserve what you get.

If you absolutely must use another browser for religious, spiritual or fanatical anti-Microsoft reason, try Opera.

They are not the same. They are based on the same code, but Netscape is currently built from older builds (ISTR Mozilla 0.9.4 or so) which are nowhere *near* as good as the latest Mozilla builds, and packaged with a bunch of AOL trash including AIM, shopping buttons etc etc etc. Typical AOL bloat.

That is most likely what people mean when they say they prefer Mozilla to Netscape.

Internet Explorer will soon be open-source. Anti-trust laws require that any product leverage from an existing monopoly to gain another must be made available to all to re-establish competition. I think it is madness but will happen soon. That is why .Not will never really take off.

More impetuous tripe from the peanut gallery.......

Grow up dude, .Net WILL be released and own you as well.

Lots of people said XP wouldn't be released..............

.NET already has taken off. Try staying in touch with the industry instead of on your java forums or what daddy tells you.

LOL!

I'm not denying that it will take off, but tell me.. Where has it taken off to already? I haven't seen it anywhere yet. There was that rigged poll that said that it would be in use heavily by the end of the year, but that's all I've heard of it in the real world.

I can tell you that just in the state which I am in, .NET is heavily being requested for usage on new projects. The last 5 or 6 RFPs which just we have bid on have requested .NET for development. And these are from different agencies. Not to mention the state portal was developed using it (I was actually part of the development team).

The launch event I attended was pretty amazing. Way overcrowded, but the cool thing that was during one of the sessions the speaker asked how many were java developers. Honestly about 90% raised their hands (several hundred were in that session).

I have rarely ever seen so many books come out on a platform like .NET Especially even on beta products. Most publishers won't publish entire books on a beta product -its too risky and not cost effective to soon after release a revised edition and expect it to sell.

I had lunch with a consultant from Tatta Consulting, one of the largest international consulting firms in the world, and I asked him what technology the company is moving too. I specifically asked if they were headed towards Java. "Well, we do quite a range of things, but we're moving towards .NET"

.NET is picking up and spreading like crazy. And why shouldn't it? When developers really see just how bloody easy it is and how productive it is. And when they see the value added, they can't help but want to use it. And now that it can move to new platforms doubles its worth imo.

Yup, like I said, it's gonna own.........

Prolly the BIGGEST steamroller MS has EVER come out with...........and JAVA is the pavement.

The truly sad part is that .NET looks like it is little more than a platform-dependent Java. Yet another one of those lose functionality, gain popularity Microsoft model "innovations."

I think I covered this in another thread, but Java is in fact platform dependent as well. It has just been ported to many other platforms, thus giving the illusion it is platform independent.

You should look into it a little more deeply than just take the shallow words of your friends and bias forums.

Where would that be?

slashdot perhaps?

LOL!

I do have to say though that the folks over at Lycoris have put out quite a nice product.

Compdoc, so you decided to try Lycoris? Good for you! And once you get the updates (it updates Mozilla also!) it seems to run pretty good. Now, all we need is a better way to run what "windows based" apps we use, and things will be even better.
I "play" with Lycoris, but still use XP Pro for business, as Linux (for me) won't work for my business.
Oh, and to "LindowsOS makers"- Lycorice is no where NEAR $100!! Free download, or somewhere around $35 for a CD.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Yup James :) Lycoris, is umm, well......kinda sweet :) I decided to throw my worst at it to see how it would hold up. Below are my issues:

1) It won't open .xls without crashing the spreadsheet app.
2) My HP PSC 750 Printer/Scanner/Copier didn't install and I'm not about to mess with SANE when it *should* work out of the box.
3) Actiontec Call Waiting Modem didn't install. There is a work around that I saw on the lycoris.org site but it *should* again, work out of box.
4) Quake 3 (the real test) *works* ONLY when you execute it from the Play button on the CD. It will not work by clicking the EXE within the Wine Program Files directory (it says "Couldn't Load default.cfg"). Although it *works*, it is SO incredibly slow that it isn't worth playing and the sound is WAY too choppy. Once again, this stuff *should* work out of the box as XP does. To MANY people, games are a VERY big issue. When I'm done working for the day, if I want to fire up a quick game 'O Quake, it should work flawlessly.

Cool, but..

1) It won't open .xls without crashing the spreadsheet app.

Use a different app, gnumeric is good as is openoffice.

>2) My HP PSC 750 Printer/Scanner/Copier didn't install and
>I'm not about to mess with SANE when it *should* work out
>of the box.

My Lexmark Z53 didn't work out of the box with XP, nor did my scanner.

>3) Actiontec Call Waiting Modem didn't install. There is a
>work around that I saw on the lycoris.org site but it
>*should* again, work out of box.

Again, my printer and my scanner did not work with XP "out of the box". Driver installation is a fact of life.

>4) Quake 3 (the real test) *works* ONLY when you execute
>it from the Play button on the CD. It will not work by
>clicking the EXE within the Wine Program Files directory
>(it says "Couldn't Load default.cfg"). Although it
>*works*, it is SO incredibly slow that it isn't worth
>playing and the sound is WAY too choppy. Once again, this
>stuff *should* work out of the box as XP does. To MANY
>people, games are a VERY big issue. When I'm done working
>for the day, if I want to fire up a quick game 'O Quake,
>it should work flawlessly.

Why should Quake3 work ot of the box when you aren't using the Linux version? ;-)

http://www.tuxgames.com/...49700&nc=1017679503

Just thought I'd throw that out there. ;-) FYI, I don't know about Lycoris's wine installation but check these out.

http://www.transgaming.com
http://www.codeweavers.com

Oh I like Lycoris but the point I'm getting at is if it's going to compete with Windows, it needs to have a fully stocked Driver Database on the CD. I'm pleased that it picked up *most* of my hardware but the nightmares I've had with Linux drivers have me very gunshy. I can't believe the argument going on at slashdot about this. Some Linux *regulars* think it's a good thing, which I would agree, but others are whining about how *impure* it is, etc. It passed the wife test here and can't be a *bad* thing if it does. http://www.elxlinux.org was mentioned somewhere in the Lycoris thread and I checked that out as well. Don't think I'll be going there. I REALLY like Lycoris and hope they get the driver database stocked as well as XP's. It would really be the best Linux out there if they did.

Bottome line is:

1) The .xls issue *shouldn't be* out of box

2) XP loads me PCS 750, both printer and scanner side, AND has a *KICK ASS* scanner interface built into the OS. :)

3) The modem thingy isn't a big issue since *I* could get it to work. But Grandma Smith down the street would be lost. Yes, I know driver installation is a fact of life, but they need MORE drivers built in.

4) Wine should run Windows apps effectively and FAST. Why should people have to buy Linux versions of all their software?

Like I said, Lycoris is very promising, it just needs some tweaks to Graphics, Layout, Drivers, Wine and last but not least, Fonts. The fonts are VERY blurry and most people won't download *better* ones.

Thanks for the links.

Sometimes I think I really should create my own distro. haha! I agree that there should be more drivers out of the box, however that won't happen until hardware manufacturers wake up and smell the profit. I know hardware manufacturers that don't support Linux lost over $3500 of my money last year, I wonder who else isn't buying their products. ;-)

What would you call it?

fewtix?

heh

FewlUX LewtUX FewLX Linewt

heh heh

Make your own distro, call it Fewtix, and send me a copy. I may even show it off on a system to customers, to see if there would be any takers....hehe

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

If I had more time, or a team of willing peeps, I'd take a shot at it.

The main reason IE is more popular is because it's bulit into Windows so most people will use it. If Netscape or Opera was bulit in then they would be on the top.

Don't hold your breath.........

I don`t belive it so much.
I used to be a Netscape User, but Netscape is a low Quality product. Net 4.X was a lack of bugs. IE 4x, 5x and 6x, don't. I run IE6 on my Pentium 150, 128 ram, it runs smootly. On the same machine simply Netscape 6 doesn`t run. It takes about 2 minutes to load, and then takes all my resources. So do you think is a good option to use it???
And take care whe make sites or simples pages, Nets is doesn`t gives full support for CSS styles. IE does.
Will you make your page for the 90% of people using IE or for 10% using others?? Think about it...

It's really a combination of things...

First off - in the beginning of the browser wars, Microsoft threw a LOT more designers at IE than Netscape did. I'll ask you to note how large a difference there has been between successive IE versions when compared to the differences in Netscape versions. Microsoft could simply throw more money at development than Netscape - MS didn't need to make any money on IE, and Netscape did need to make money on their browser.

Second - IE loads faster. I make this separate because it's not a consequence of IE taking fewer resources, or being a more compact and efficient browser. The simple fact is that when you load windows, you've already loaded the program - it's built in. When you load windows explorer (i.e. Windows), you're loading IE. If you really wanna compare the speeds of the browsers, open up netscape, and time how long it takes to open another Netscape window (such as in the "open in new window" function). That's really all you're doing when you open IE in windows - you're merely opening another instance of a program that's ALREADY RUNNING.

Last, but not least - the point everyone makes - IE is on top because it's built-in. That's partially true, too. Why bother downloading a browser? I already have one - IE. At least... that's the mentality MS banked on with the IE integration. This, along with the other things, is the reason why IE took over the browser market, and will continue to dominate it.

In short - Microsoft simply used its monopoly to strongarm the browser market. But hey... IE isn't a BAD browser, per se... it's just very insecure... likely by design.

IE gained up to 25% of the market before IE was included in Windows ..

I'd like to see the source of your stats. :-)

When IE 3.0 came out Netscape started to lose the "browser war" as it was free and Netscape was not. Why pay for something that you can download for free. Or do you remember this fewt and are just trying to bust his balls...............as always?

:)

So integration had a little to do with it, but "FREE" had quite a bit more to do with it. 4.0 came out before the Windows 98 integration and it too was free. From then on Netscape was toast.

No, I'm not busting his balls, he said "25%" I just want to know how he figured it. I think 25% is a good number to go with considering IE3 was bundled with Win95 OSR2 and 2.5.

Ah come on guys. Netscape and Opera are a complete joke compare to IE's functionality and performance!

That Netscape 6 is truly the worst browser out there.

Wake up and smell the coffee dudes.

Have you tried Opera or Mozilla recently?

Both have tabbed browsing, and I think both (or at least Mozilla) have intelligent anti-popup software built-in.

This site is quite amusing, it's like the opposite of Slashdot. Microsoft zealotism and anti- everything else!

Fewt, you forget that it's pretty clear from previous posts that "pplchamp" is actually EMPLOYED by Microsoft, so take his posts with a grain of salt.

Also, remember that "up to 25%" can refer to "1%" and not be an outright lie. He must be in marketing.

Wow, I wasn't under the impression that the crowd here was so much more intelligent ;)

HEY, I resemble that!

I mean.......resent that.

LOL!

Oh come on!

It was ALOT more than 1%, probably more like 24%

Like I said, 3.0, 3.01 and 3.02 spelled the end of Netscape and that was LONG before integration. It was a far superior product than Netscape 3.0. I should know, I worked on the Netscape Administration Kit 3.0 and IEAK 3.02 for a local ISP and EVERYBODY liked IE FAR more than Netscape. Besides, Netscape charged an outrageous fee for every browser we sent out on floppies (5 disks!) and IE was free. All we had to do was report how many copies went out to Microsoft on a quarterly basis. IE was also only 3 disks so it cost the ISP less money to get it out and as a result, cut costs in that way as well.

Hey, we need a site too.

:)

We really don't mind sharing the airwaves too.

Free crap is still crap. I know that when people think of IE, they think of IE5, and when they think of Netscape, they think of Netscape 4, and given that choice, anyone would choose IE5. But back in the day, IE3 was, in addition to being free, an unmitigated turd, even by the standards of the day.

The internet explosion had not gotten to its steepest growth rate yet, so when IE 3 was introduced, new internet users may have considered it (and some didn't reject it), but those existing internet users were not about to throw out their copy of Netscape that they already paid for to replace it with a barely-working browser.

I'm not saying Netscape didn't screw up royally with Netscape 4. They did, and with gusto. I'm not saying that IE didn't eventually become better than Netscape. People who chose Netscape 4 over IE5 were a deluded minority. But people who chose IE3 over Netscape 3 were the same. They did more than choose free over non-free. They chose crap versus non-crap. Like Netscape 4 users today, they were a minority.

Are you saying Linux is crap because it's free?

He's saying crap is crap regardless of wether or not it's free. i.e. If Linux is crap, it's crap regardless of wether or not it's free. Note that he did not say Linux was crap.

OK, but he didn't respond to the fact that the ISP saved literally THOUSANDS of dollars by going with IE 3.X over Netscape. IE 3.X WAS indeed a faster browser as well. They would have been fools to stay with Netscape and pay, over getting IE for free, REGARDLESS of the features.

Unless they had already had a significant financial investment in Netscape software.

Fortunately, they didn't. Back then, it was a per month payment option with them.

EVERY AOhelL user switched to Nutscrape, the entire market share of Nutscrape would only return to it's previous 13% before IE 6 came to town.

Pathetic and laughable

:)

See: http://www.wininformant....dex.cfm?ArticleID=24607

I see that many of you love IE. Just say for example, that MS have the complete monopoly in the browser market. And that there is no more netscape or any other browsers for that fact. Just say that MS puts a price on IE for say $100USD. Would you pay for it? Juding from most of you, probably not, but, you have to, because but that time, there will be no more other browsers, and you will have to pay for IE in order to surf the net.

1) It's called open source, stuff stays free. The joys of linux and the open source movement.
2) No, I wouldn't pay. I refuse to pay for a browser when there are so many free alternatives. Even if everyone charged, there would still be the rogues who wouldn't and release their browsers either privatly or publically.

Your idea is unrealistic, and even if everyone under the sun charged, I know enough to at least code a functional text-only browser.

Your point is?

Just to let you know, that MS is planning on folding the Internet Explorer into their operating system. Thus, that means that you will have to buy their new Windows all the time, just to have the latest and updated IE.

Cool!

MS OS's rule anyways so I won't mind paying.

☺

Have a nice day.....

When it was "rumored" that MS would have people pay for IE6.0, there was a huge outcry. So, I very much doubt that will happen (MS wanting to charge for IE).

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Heh, rumors, funny thing how dumb they are. This one wasn't even a rumor based on facts, but some idiot trying to hurt MS.

Because of "rumors" IE6 has lots of missing functionality, including things like smart tags... smart tags in IE were nice, but people (read, complete morons) didn't have a clue as to what they really were, so, no more smart tags.

This would not be a smart move on Microsofts part, kind of cutting off one's nose to spite the face?

IE will NEVER hold dominance in the linux market. Who cares if Microsoft holds browser dominance in its own operatings system... i suppose that is only fair.

Also, there IS NOT a browser war. There used to be a browser war, and Microsoft won. Mozilla is just a open source project, its not trying to compete, or push IE out of market share. If it takes market share, its only because a couple open source guys had better ideas and/or created a alternative product that some people NEEDED.

The fact IS that Microsoft has been holding back operating system features for years. They do this so they can sell new versions of operating systems with more features later. I personally feel ripped off because i have been buying an operating system created by marketing people who like to feed us a few scraps at a time... i am foaming at the mouth. One of these days i really will switch to linux because i am annoyed at not getting the latest technology.

Mozkill, you posted "One of these days i really will switch to linux because i am annoyed at not getting the latest technology. "

I find this really funny, since no matter WHAT OS you choose, you will NEVER have "the latest technology". Go ahead and switch to Linux. Don't download or buy RedHat 7.1, as it doesn't seem to support (or even want to install) with my USB 2.0 card. Maybe if you download/buy either 7.2, or the soon to be released 7.3, it may, but I don't know yet.
If you *really* want to mouth about trying Linux, get this distro http://www.lycoris.com/ as I have found it the best so far from what I have played with- and it has Mozilla as the default browser, *NOT* AOL's crap netscape.

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

up2date, red-carpet, and other fine update tools don't limit installation to bug fixes. Actually, new features seem to be added daily. ;-)

"IE will NEVER hold dominance in the linux market."

dumba**, that's because you can't install it under linux! Besides, most people who use linux do it only because they hate ms, in which case they wouldn't be caught dead using ie.

Netscape lost the browser war in large part because Netscape 4 was horrible. It was slow (both in displaying sites and loading) and half the sites would be displayed incorrectly. It was also bloated.

Netscape 6 fixed most of the problems with displaying web sites, but it's even more bloated now and is a resource hog.

IE is quickest to use. It may be because it's integrated into windows or is already loaded, or what not, but all i care about is that i can start it within two seconds and ctrl+n brings me up a new window instantaneously.

"some idiot trying to hurt MS"

Hmm, got alot of those here.........

The only reason that browsers are free nowadays is because MS made IE free. Netscape used to cost 40 bucks, but then MS came along and decided to give IE away. Although MS's motives for this weren't 100% pure, making browsers free did contribute a huge part towards the "free internet" of the 90's and the big economic bubble that we all used to love. In fact, if broswers had continued to cost money, it is likely that the adoptation of the Internet would not have been nearly as fast as it was.

Hmm, Lycoris looks pretty nifty. I think I'll give it a try. BUT, like I said previously, MOST Unix based OS's have horrible artwork other than OSX. Now if somebody can make an *ix* OS that works on a standard PC and looks as good as OSX, they might have something.......

What people tend to forget is that IE 3 was a $45.00 product at one time as well, up until Microsoft decided to "compete". ;-)

I hit control-n and had a galeon window open before my finger was off the N key. I got bold, and fired up Mozilla. I hit control-n and had the exact same result. Go figure. ;-)

Unix looks good to me..

http://www.kde-look.org
and
http://sunshineinabag.co.uk/
and
http://www.themes.org

Oh, when you hit the sunshine in a bag site, hit metathemes, and look at the aqua theme for gnome. It's not so bad. ;-)

It's not bad but XP is much better looking. Thats what I'm saying, it needs a look like OSX or XP if it's ever going to be accepted by the public. The public is used to pretty now and they won't switch for any other reasons than look and feel. People like the ooooooh's and aaaaaaaaaah's like the Fourth of July.

Look for the XP theme, I think it's on one of those two sites. I installed it jsut for kicks, it was VERY accurate.

I'll do that. And PLEASE don't take offence at what I replied to Bad Karma up above, he had it coming.

One thing I'll say prior to install it that they have a very professional looking site. Moreso than even RedHat.

I have to say that MS could have some potential competition with Lycoris. It's easy to install, easy to configure and looks better than any Linux distribution I've ever seen. The only other Linux I've seen that is easier to set up is Corel, but that is history. They still have a ways to go as far as artwork but they are doing good with the layout. A few more tweaks to the layout and a few top notch artists (they will need to be paid, and WELL at that) and I would consider using it as a second OS. XP still gets top billing at this time though.

Never mind, nate deleted it....

Read: http://slashdot.org/comm...d=28572&cid=3070017

At the bottom, there is a post by a guy named "Perdition". He says EVERYTHING that has EVER needed to be said regarding what Linux needs to be.

Fewt, you said "I hit control-n and had a galeon window open before my finger was off the N key"

Getting slow in your old age? LOL!!
"MyIE" is pretty much that fast, except I move my fingers a bit faster than you I guess

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

I type over 50WPM :-P

IE6 has skinning capabilities, *can* zoom too - Ctrl+scroll wheel (whoever said that that was a plus for Mozilla must be a person who doesn't bother to try anything), never crashed on me (WXP, WME, W2K, NT4, W9X), has cookie and privacy control, and supports standards (although it includes support for non-standard tags - Netscape does too, just try ......your page...... - bye, bye!), and it is free. It also runs on platforms other than Windows in case some of you did not notice. Anyhow, I don't care if AOL uses Netscape because AOL is the Internet for Dummies.
In addition, Netscape 6 is very bloated - it runs very slowly, tries to force you to sign up for unwanted services, etc.
I am not against fair competition, but IMHO Microsoft really deserves their success this time.

PS IE6's XSLT support is VERY good

Sorry, HTML tags didn't make it through the postting.
...<body><blink>...your page</blink></body>...

^...your page...

Making a lot of typos - sorry.
:-)

IE 6 runs on platforms other than Windows? Which ones? (Solaris and HP/UX versions haven't gotten an update in years, not to mention the fact that they are TERRIBLE APPS..)

Not only XSLT, but with support for SMIL 2.0, and some IE only features like conditional comments, VML 1.3, other scripting engines, p3p, userdata blocks, transitions, it makes other browsers look weak.

Does NS6/Moz even have antialiased fonts?

However, on the NS/Moz side, the popup/ad stopper stuff is great, along with native skinning.

If I'm not mistaken, and I know I'm not because I have a machine next to me that uses it, IE is also developed for the mac (along with Slowlaris and HPUX) and I must say that IE:mac for OS-X is quite sexy.

The HP and Solaris builds of IE are weak. IE 4.0 for Unix may as well be IE 3.0.. 5.0 is nearly as bad. (I have them here on my home HP/UX box)

I'm not really surprised. I'm waiting for Slowlaris to keel over and die, or at least show signs of dissapearing and HP/UX is rare. =)

I would sooner revert to IE 3.0 than use Nutscrape 10.X or any of the other Open Source crap............

No, of course you wouldn't, we already know that. You'd rather flip burgers than admit that you may be wrong. That's the problem with closed minded people, they can only see in one direction.

It's clearly evident that you have no mirrors in your house.

Why do you say that? I don't limit myself to hamburgers and pepsi. I have more operating systems in my datacenter than you will likely ever touch. ;-)

So now MS products are "hamburgers and pepsi"?

I was refering to: "That's the problem with closed minded people, they can only see in one direction."

It seems to me that YOU only see in one direction and that is why I said: "It's clearly evident that you have no mirrors in your house."

I guess parables and such are beyond your scope of understanding.

No, I understood it quite clearly. I am open minded, as you will see if you actually read any one of my comments. The only thing you seem to post is that you will gladly bend over for Mr. Gates and no one else. :-P

"The only thing you seem to post is that you will gladly bend over for Mr. Gates and no one else."

LOL!

I bend over for NO ONE, I just like MS OS's better than others. MY choice but YOU can't seem to stand that. You seem to get infuriated that someone would DARE to enjoy using MS products. Oh well..........

Enjoyment is one thing, religion is another. You post like you are paid for your arrogance. ;-)

I wish

HAHA!

Support the best tool for the job in terms of features as well as marketshare. Netscape 6.2 (the first Netscape version that was workable and feature filled enough IMO) came FAR too late. Netscape has a lousy development cycle. Wonder where the 12 Billion went...

If you'd rather use IE3 instead of Netscape if those were you're only choices, you're just as bad as the anti-MS zealots, but just in the other direction.

Sure, but someone has to balance the scales arount here. Sometimes I feel like the only MS crusader out here.

:)

I do have an open mind though. I'm going to be loading up FreeBSD 4.5 and Lycoris shortly. I, unlike MANY of my open source buddies, have an open mind. I'm not closed off to MS just because they are "the big bad wolf" or some crap. Sure they MAY have done some things to make the road to success a little "shorter", but many of MS's opponents would have done the SAME thing if they had beat them to the punch.

Let's face the music, shall we? IE - nice, quick, big security hole due to it's high integration with the Windows core. Better on MacOS[-X] and Sun. Netscape - Dead. Old, bloated, slow, while W3C compliant, nothing else is. Mozilla - Based on dead technology, trying to revive it once more. Slow, bloated, memory hog. Mozilla is great, if that's all you run. Opera - Pay? WTF?! I dunno about you, but I sure as heck am not going to pay for a browser. Over-rated. Free version has banner ads, annoying as heck. Lynx - Cool, but text-only and lacks tables support. Links - Everything that lynx lacked is now here. Ok, but I still want to be able to see some images.

Truth of the matter is, there is no optimal browser so you go with what you like. All this "Opera's the best." "No it's not, Mozilla is" type arguing is worthless and a waste of time.

Couldn't have put it better myself, well done.

A browser does exactly what you want it to do, if it don't, then why in the hell are you using it? There are too many options today to say that one is the best of em' all.

Me personally, am a IE 6.0 guy, best browser i've ever used, and if i want anything more complex, i use Netcaptor.

Gimie

First off, let me say that overall, there is NO better browser than Opera 6.x. Its faster that Mozilla, more standards compliant than Netscape, and has more and better privacy configuations and power user level support than IE.

Second - fact of the matter is that Opera users have to SPOOF (yes, built-in spoofing inside of Opera ... very cool) IE5 in order for web pages built by ignorant 'webmasters' (there is a word that has depreciated in value exponentially over the years). These reports of how popular IE is fail to note that the hundreds of thousands of Opera users are contributing to their numbers.

Just wait until AOL forces Nutscrape down 13 million people's throats and no longer can these weekend warrior IE only web authors get away with their slanted, non-compliant, non-standard web sites.

Its a win-win scenario for us Opera people. Opera - the only browser out there that costs; because its the only browser out there worth paying for.

So explain to me how I can create a standards validated page that works in both IE and NS, has no browser checking functionality and yet still does not perform correctly or display correctly under Opera? Opera still has some holes in it's standards compliance just like the others do, it's just holes in different places.

"Nutscrape".......

LOL!

I've been using Mozilla since 0.8.x on Linux and since 0.9.1 on Windows. (Though I still use IE for IE-only sites.)
While stable on normal machines, the IE6 will crash without stop on dual machines on both Windows 2K and Windows XP. (Someone at MS should consider taking the threads-101 course ASAP.)
Mozilla on the other hand has improved considerably by each release and the 0.9.9 is no exception.
Since the 0.9.9 release, I've yet to see the Linux or the Windows Mozilla crash. (On anything from P2/300 to Dual Athlon XP2000)
Secondly, the Mozilla seems to be much faster then the IE6. (Especially if you use the Quick Launch option)

In short, *for me*, the Mozilla 0.9.9 is a pure winner!
Gilboa

BTW, The Mozilla's tabbed browsing feature is a god given gift!

Baaah.
Forgot to add:
* Java VM control.
* Built-in pop-up killer.
* "block image from site".
* etc, etc, etc.
Perfect for blocking annoying pop-up ads.

Guys, don't take my word for it! Before you decide, download the 0.9.9 (1.0 should be released shortly) and give it a try. (You can always uninstall it if you don't like it!)

Gilboa

Excuse me?

I beta tested XP Pro on a dual boot system (2000 on primary, XP on secondary), IE 6.0 NEVER crashed.

I think you have more problems than just what you think you have with your dual boot if IE6 is crashing all the time.

Exactly.......

IE6 crashed on my three times this morning while attempting to open a plugin. I rebooted, and it went back to normal. Does that mean there's a problem with the plugin? No, because it crashed on several. Does that mean there's a problem with IE? Yes, I should never get a "memory could not be written" or "memory could not be read" error opening a plugin.

The 1.0 tree has been closed, which I think means it's "done" now and just a matter of wrapping things up and releasing it...

Ah yes, the built-in and intelligent popup-stopping.. I really like the way it stops unwanted popups while still letting through ones you "ask" for on certain sites :)

Thinks like this are why I'm still really happy with Mozilla, despite the p3p letdown (not many browsers have it anyway, in fact only IE6 I think)

I'm talking about a dual/quad CPU machine and not dual boot.
If you don't know the difference between the two, please don't post a reply.

Gilboa

Thats "a god given gift" with a little "g" I see.

Nothing else to say.

You didn't say "dual/quad CPU" in your original post. He, like many people breezing through all the meaningless tripe from the slashdot crew, could have mistaken it for you meaning Dual BOOT Athlon. You guys put us on the offensive many times, so blame yourselves. You'll win LOTS of converts to your OS with that gentle spirit of yours.

Sorry, you can't rule out the plugin if it was installed on all the machines you are speaking of. Even if it wasn't, it's no big deal. I get IE crashes from time to time, but I'll put up with a little instabillity for the sheer speed. Racecars can be a little dangerous and unstable to drive at times, but I'd rather drive a racecar than a Model T Ford.

Besides, the Internet Explorer Error Reporting shows how interested Microsoft is in making their product better.

Look for the feature in a "6.5 browser near you" soon.

I stand corrected then.

Gilboa

I can't run NS 6.2.2. It uses so much processor and memory I can't run anything else at the same time. Mozilla .99 is much better, but far from perfect. Opera 6.01 is almost there. Its fast, uses fewer resources, but lacks some javascript functionality. Its almost there. Opera is worth its price just for the zooming capability. Hold ctrl and scroll your wheel. Its a beautiful thing. I dig the mouse gestures too. I'd like to see Mozilla take off, however, because I HATE NS 4.x. Only because its stylesheet support sucks ass.

Great to see AOL actually pulling Netscape out of the grave!

If Netscape is now at a mere 7%, I wonder what percentage of users are using Opera. I would think they overtake Netscape now.

For IE lovers out there, try Opera for awhile and get use to it then try and go back to IE.

What i hate about Opera, at least the free version, is that all the ads and other crap in the toolbar makes the space in which the web pages are displayed tiny, especially at lower resolutions. I personally find it very annoying.

Also, i find the keyboard shortcuts (something which i consider a decisive feature) to be poorly designed. I don't want to reach over to F8 in order to type in a web address. I find pressing Alt+D in IE much easier because i don't even have to lift my hand off the home row.

*Gloat* *Snort*

LOL!

Not really surprising. Why download a browser when you have a perfectly good one built-in? That's what most will say. The adoption of Gecko by AOL will make the engine itself relatively popular, which in turn will make some awkward sites more accessible to those who *are* using Mozilla (mainly Linux users) since most webmasters are happier fixing their site for the pretty large number of AOL users than for the odd 1 person who comes along saying "your site doesn't work with Netscape". But I don't think it'll help make the browser itself any more popular.

The only thing Mozilla/Netscape has going for it, unless you're a Free (as in speech) Software advocate, is tabbed browsing. Even that isn't in the Netscape branch yet I don't think.
Then IE6 has one wonderful advantage - cookie privacy levels based on website privacy policies (p3p). Mozilla was supposed to get these, even had a non-functional preferences page ready for it a build or two back, but the back-end for it can be included *only* if you compile Mozilla from the source (yeah, right). They decided that for some insane reason they wouldn't compile it in by default unless lots of people actually asked for it - otherwise, and as it stands right now, the only way to get it will be to compile from source and add the option manually.

I don't remember Microsoft refusing to introduce nifty new features unless a percentage of the public specifically asked for them, which is one fundimental reason why IE6 suceeds and Netscape doesn't.

If you want to vote for the inclusion of p3p by default though, please vote for this bug:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=128639

Excellent post. Thanks for the information on P3P for Mozilla. While I think it will be a while before all webmasters fully comply with the standard, it is definitely a step in the right direction.

Awesome post! The only thing I would change is:

"Why download a browser when you have a perfectly good one built-in?"

to

"Why download a browser when you have a PERFECT one built-in?

With the new version of AOL coiming out with Netscape as the default browser, Netscape share should really rise. Then, once it gets even with IE in marketshare, I wonder if anyone will say "They are using their online service to leverage their browser!"? More than likely not, as they are "not a monopoly", LOL

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Well I for one will sue AOL, IF and WHEN they begin to compete with MS. And it will be for "using their online service to leverage their browser".

Anyone else interested in a class action?

At least not yet. AOL has distributed 16.2 billion free CDs.

Please do, I want to see the court laugh at you. Make sure you get lots of exposure!

I would replace that with "Why download a browser when you have a CRASH-PROOF one built-in?"

Then I would laugh.

I try to avoid reading user comments on BetaNews because the insane level of ignorance always makes me angry. However, I feel as if I need to respond to this one.

It's quite ignorant of you to assume that you are fully aware of and appreciate every feature in Mozilla. Or even for you to assume that you know enough about the browser to determine that the "ONLY" thing it has over IE is tabbed browsing. What about standards compliance? What about skins? What about stability? What about multiple user accounts? Those are just the first ones that came to my mind.

The second assumption you make is that Microsoft doesn't implement features unless "a certain percentage" of its users want it. I e-mailed Microsoft tech support years ago asking for tabbed browsing, and they never implemented it. And I'm sure that I'm not the only one who has requested that. If every single IE user had e-mailed them, however, they would probably implement it. Thus, there is a certain percentage of users who want a feature that is required for both Microsoft and the Mozilla team.

On a side note, I find it interesting that you imply that compiling the source with the P3P option is too much of a hassle ("yeah, right") when posting on BetaNews but you state on the Mozilla bug page that "Compiling in the option from the source code is probably fine for me."

And the "insane reason" they don't compile P3P by default almost surely involves balancing features with download time and disk/memory usage. I personally wouldn't call that "insane."

I guess that's it. Enjoy.

LOL @ Compdoc ;-)

AOL already competes with MS, since MS has the MSN internet service, remember? I am not worried about it myself, as most people in my area are moving to cable and wireless access, AWAY from AOL, Compuserve, MSN, etc. Makes it much easier have just a "door that opens to the web", than a "door that opens to a lobby, that opens to a proprietary version" of the web.
People will use what browser they want. Plus, with all the lawsuits and such, why isn't Opera involved? Surely if MS has done so much evil in the browser market, shouldn't Opera be suing for "harming their business"? Or could it be Opera has been slowly gaining ground, improving their product, while Netscape hasn't? Things that make you go "Hhmmmm..." (hehe)

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Standards compliance, IE has darn good standards compliance, it's not that they don't comply with standards, it's just that they extend the standards to add more features into that did not get included in the standards (which they probably requested it to be).

Skins, you CAN skin IE, in XP you can do it with the entire OS, with other versions of Windows you just head over to stardock.com and get their IE skinning tool... however, there is not much sense in skinning JUST the browser, all you can really do is apply some color schemes here and there, change some icons, maybe the scrollbar, and that's about it.

Stability? Huh? Mozilla is FAR more unstable than IE, heck, it's been quite some time since my IE has crashed, pretty much since IE5 came out it's been smooth sailing.

What exactly can be gained with multiple user accounts in a browser? I would say absolutley nothing. Sure multiple accounts in the e-mail reader (which Outlook Express does) is a must, but that's ALL you would need it for.

Mozilla offers close to nothing over using IE, and on top of that, IE both starts up (still) faster and runs a hell of a lot more smoothly.

Too bad AOL has opened up a new division, AOL broadband, which uses Time Warner's Road Runner cable lines.

I recently designed several pages for the company I work for. The s*** in design for this set of pages was to design completely to the standards CSS 2 and HTML4.01. Everything validated to the standards and yet NS failed to display the content correctly because of a bug in their standards support (float bug in .99).
I praise the product, both products in fact for coming so close to the standards that I can in essence code one time and it display correctly on both browsers but I get frustrated with some people's constant harping that Mozilla PERFECTLY adheres to the standards. It does not, there are still bugs, there are still nuances. Once fixed I will be happy to create pages that work in both browsers, until then I'll just worry about using the standard knowing that IE5-6 supports what I'm actually designing.

"Stability? Huh? Mozilla is FAR more unstable than IE, heck, it's been quite some time since my IE has crashed, pretty much since IE5 came out it's been smooth sailing. "

HUH? You can't be talking about anything newer than Mozilla .8, as I've had Moz windows open for days at a time on some boxes. (Galeon on others, which counts also as it is based on Mozilla)

So where's the problem with that? LOL They have had a network accessable client for years, I used to install it for clients to use over ISDN.

Haha! Perfect in what sense? security? standard compliant? fast? easy?
Well, I guess Opera is more secure, faster, easier and definetly more standards compliant!..
So, Opera is "more perfect" then?
The only reason IE is dominating the web is because suckers like you go with everything served by Gates & Co!

The comments here which assert that Internet Explorer 6.0 is the best browser today need reconsideration.

Why do I think Mozilla (and Mozilla based browsers such as Netscape and Galeon) have something unique and of value to offer? I list seven reasons for you to consider:

1) First and foremost, Mozilla gives you - the user - a choice. You choose if you want to experience the Internet from an iMac, from a Windows based computer or from a Linux based computer. With Mozilla, it does not matter which operating system (OS) you use; you will always have the same browser, email program and webpage editor, regardless of the kind of computer/operating system (OS) you have. (This particular freedom in choosing your OS is important, and is more than just a reason for Microsoft haters to proclaim Mozilla's usefulness. For people in developing countries such as India, low cost Linux-based computers which can access the Internet would be a credible alternative to expensive Windows-based computers. For some people, saving $300 means saving three months worth of pay.)

2)This freedom of choice does not end there. You can choose which search engine handles keywords you type into the address bar. You can choose to block Pop-Up advertisements, if you prefer not to have offers for a wireless camera (X10) or plane tickets (Orbitz) pop up in your face.

3)You have the freedom to customize not only how Mozilla *looks* but also how it *acts*. You may say "Sure, with Windows XP you change how the whole operating system looks! And as a plus, Internet Explorer changes too!" How about this, though: what if you could change how Internet Explorer manages your "favorites" or which order the options are presented to you? What if you could fix problems that you saw in Internet Explorer without waiting for a Microsoft employee to answer your email? For Internet Explorer users, that's just wishful thinking. For Mozilla users, that's reality. That's because Mozilla is an open-source project; if you don't like something, you can fix it yourself.

4)Mozilla is more than a browser, as I briefly touched upon in my first point. It has a first rate webpage editor that DOES NOT mangle the pages you create! "What a useful feature!" you might say, and you would be right. Of course, Microsoft has Frontpage Express, which mangles the webpages you create, at no extra cost. Of course, if you prefer to pay, you could waste several hundred dollars and buy Frontpage (without the "Express"), so that your webpages could be mangled for a fee. "Don't worry," you say, "They will look great in Internet Explorer!". Don't try looking at that page in Netscape or Opera, though, because you might not recognize it. This is where Microsoft's "support for standards" comes in. If Microsoft truly supported web standards, they would refrain from "extending" them, just as Netscape did when it s***ed development away from version 4 to version 6 of its browser. Microsoft's support for standards means that things such as * document.all * exist in Microsoft's version of JavaScript, and do not work in any other non-Microsoft browser. One result of this is that many of those fancy drop-down menus (such as those on Microsoft's site) simply don't appear on non-Microsoft browsers.

5)As an extension to point number 4, it would be worthwhile to mention that Mozilla has an email program. "Sure" you say, "why do I need Mozilla Mail, when I have the newest version of Outlook Express?" I would reply by asking you how much you like viruses. If you said "not very much", I would say "Well that's a really good reason to use Mozilla email!" Not only is Mozilla Mail more secure (virus-immune) than Outlook Express, it is more flexible, offering features such as a quick search function right above your inbox, and an outstanding address book. Additionally, it makes use of Mozilla's profile system, so a single profile can have as many email accounts under that profile. If you share the computer with someone else, that person can store his email accounts, bookmarks, and email files under his profile.

6)Saving passwords: When you sign onto a website such as Hotmail, Mozilla will offer to save the password for you. Internet Explorer may offer the same functionality, but Mozilla goes one step further in keeping your passwords safe from prying eyes. You can specify a "master password" which encrypts all your stored passwords. So, if someone accesses your computer without your knowledge, your stored passwords will be unreadible by him, unless he guesses your master password.

7)Easily available/downloadable: Mozilla, with its browser, email program and editor, is about 11 megabytes for the Windows version. Add up the size of Internet Explorer 6, Frontpage Express/Frontpage and Outlook Express/Outlook. I can guarantee that that size will be greater than 11 megabytes. For someone with a slow dial-up Internet connection, in a country such as India, Mozilla is only an hour away, with no money to give away in exchange. I cannot say the same for Internet Explorer, and other Microsoft products.

As illustrated from the above seven points, Mozilla offers greater choice and security than Internet Explorer. Mozilla has proven itself to be a credible alternative to the stable of Microsoft products, and I am sure the upcoming version 1.0 will reinforce this opinion, not only in my mind, but in the minds of many others.

Firstly, I'm talking about visible advantages that the average person is going to notice. Yes, you have a point with stability, though some find IE6 extremely stable as well...
Standards compliance is officially a "Good Thing(TM)" but Mr Web Surfer doesn't tend to care as long as it works. I think it's reasonable to assume that 99% of sites work with IE. I'm basically taking on a 'user' persona here - users aren't likely to be bothered about it being open, standards compliant etc - they're much more likely to care whether it draws websites as "well" as IE does.
This isn't Mozilla's fault, it's just that most sites are written for IE even with its standards compliance problems.

Skins... well, you can download Neoplanet or Webblinds. But not that many are too bothered about making the browser look like MacOSX or whatever. I'm talking about functionality.

Regarding 'yeah, right', yes it's a hassle. By 'probably fine' I meant that I was *capable* of downloading and learning the win32 development stuff - not that I wanted to.
I'm also taking on a bit of an 'average user' persona here since that's the kind of person I hope will use Mozilla one day. Surely you don't expect Uncle Joe to start grabbing all the dev tools and learning how to compile just for those clever privacy tools he had in IE6?

Disk/memory usage? How big is p3p exactly? I was pretty sure it was really small. And since when was Mozilla a lightweight browser that skimps on features for reduced memory?

AOL releasing NS in the next version will NOT automatically make NS marketshare rise. Considering the fact that most AOLer's are still using version 5 and they're on 7 now, tells me they are real slow to adopt. The 40 or so websites on my webserver shows lots of version 5 with just as many 4 as there are 6 and above.

Well they are missing a few. I snap every one I get in the mail as well as the ones that come with OEM Hardware and Software. Heck, I even rid my relatives and friends of as many as they let me get my hands on as well. It just feels good to snap an AOL CD, what can I say.......

A very good reply!

I'd like to point out that I'm using Mozilla right now and like it. The advantages - with tabbed browsing and proper control over popups being the most *visible* - far outweigh the disadvantages such as a lack of p3p.

Whilst I know it's confusing, heck I confuse myself, I'm in a way 'roleplaying' the Joe Bloggs user. I take the worst points of Moz, the most ignorant and negative thoughts these people would have (the general public *are* usually fairly ignorant), and voice them myself. Some think it's ludicrous, but I think it's a good way to get the point across and put yourself in their shoes.

Even when it comes to the point about choice, I don't see many everyday people really concerned about the 'principle' of it.

You reminded me of some other advantages, too. The form saving, for instance, tends to save your user ID... and the password that goes with it. Wonderful for multiple ezboard accounts.

The point still is that most of your everyday folk aren't going to notice these kind of advantages. They're only going to know that IE is included without any effort, and works with all the sites they visit.

BTW as an email client I'm a huge fan of The Bat (it was on the front page recently) - it'd take a *lot* of effort to tear me off that!

I made a p3p for my site when IE6 came out... I think it's a great idea.

Trust me, I have a good enough attorney to sue and win a settlement from the AOL/Nutscrape conglomerate if I so desire. Also, it would be a nice quiet "under the table" one just so you would be deprived of it's knowledge.

Hehe James....

Most of the time I only post to re-fewt the FUD that fewt posts against MS and it's allies. Sometimes it may seem off the wall, but it's meant to. What better way is there to show how rediculous fewt can be at times than to stand at the opposite side of the scale with equally retarted comments for our side?

AOL has also offered Satellite broadband for a few years now. Suppossedly a pretty decent service.

You are doing nothing but making yourself out to be a fool as always. ;-)

LOL! That's good! HAHA, Please, try!

Excuse me?

You are the one that freely admitted that you are the "biggest a****** on the internet" no more than 2 weeks ago.

I just like to bait you into showing it to be true.

Even if I do, you will never know about it............................................................

Compdoc, I know you and Fewt love to "play" here, and I get a good laugh at times from your little rivalry. I talked with Fewt on ICQ that I may have to start making some wild posts, because very few people post replies when I make thought-out, serious posts ;)

James Wheat
http://belprecomputerwizard.com

Hey, why not! It's all in good clean fun.

:)

We can't be TOO serious or we won't get to enjoy life. Heck, I've learned to not take things too personally from the many arguements I've had here.

I guess I'll have to settle for the silver medal.

LOL

Bait me? There's no need. :-P heh

heh

That's because it'll be a small potatoes thing that didn't get any press coverage since you were laughed out of the court room. :-P

Even if it does, it will only revive to the original 12 to 13 percent it had before IE6 arrived on the scene.

See: http://www.wininformant....dex.cfm?ArticleID=24607

I'm serious. I'm gonna tell 'em not to let fewt know or all bets are off.

Although I like Mozilla and have been using it since just before 0.8 (mainly for testing) you post was far too long for me not to reply to it =)

"1) First and foremost, Mozilla gives you - the user - a choice."
I always had a choice, I chose XP and I chose IE6 =) But it's nice to know that Netscape is slowly going to be able to render pages correctly (and quickly - let's not get into how slow v4.x is at rendering tables within tables within tables).

"2)This freedom of choice does not end there."
This hardly warrants a whole new point =p But yes the javascript blocking ability is very handy.

"3)You have the freedom to customize not only how Mozilla *looks* but also how it *acts*."
I don't need this 'freedom'. No-one but a child or a graphic designer needs their web browser to 'look pretty'. It does not make it any more productive, intuitive etc etc. In fact, it more often than not reduces productivity and makes the browser less intuitive. Any poorly designed skin will do that, not just one for a web browser.

"That's because Mozilla is an open-source project; if you don't like something, you can fix it yourself."
That's the biggest joke you can possibly say in regards to OS! Yes it's a fantastic thing to get the source, but let's be realistic about how many people could actually 'fix-it-themselves'. Mozilla is by no means a small project where you only have to browse through a few classes to work out what and where needs to be changed! It will take a developer a fair amount of time and effort to 'fix-it-themselves', let alone an average user! Sorry, but the whole fix it yourself thing is completely unrealistic!

"4)Mozilla is more than a browser"
IE is more than a browser. =) As for Mozilla's webpage editor, it's not even worth using, thanks but I'll stick with tools like HotDog Pro and Dreamweaver. And new standards have to come from somewhere... Netscape came up with TABLE etc, were they just creating their own proprietary standards? of course they were. And it's a good thing they did, we all benefited as a result! And no browser is 100% standards compliant - or even close for that matter! They (IE, Mozilla, Opera) all fail to comply with standards, they just fail to comply with different standards.

"5)As an extension to point number 4"
Once again, that hardly justifies a new point =p I haven't had a single virus as a result of Outlook or Outlook Express, but thanks for carign about my well being. And no, Mozilla Mail does not even begin to compare with Outlook.

"6)Saving passwords"
Once again, I never have this option selected. To log into my computer you need my password, so I don't need an additional 'master password'. It's a nice addon but hardly something you go 'wow' over, let's be honest!

"7)Easily available/downloadable"
You can't find where to download IE from? Yes Mozilla is smaller, but once again, you can hardly compare it's mail program to Outlook and it's editor to anything that's more advanced than Notepad!

"As illustrated from the above seven points"
Well 5 if you're streching =)

So yes, by all means, go out and try Mozilla, use it if you prefer. It has a lot of great options which may be attractive to you, e.g. tabbed windows, which I find to be a horrible feature myself.

One thing I will say is that Mozilla is almost as fast in Lycoris as IE is in XP. And I do like the tabbed browsing as well.

BUT, XP is my OS and will remain so until something better AND with program compatability is released.