# Broadband is fast on Windows? WHY?



## ScottW (Dec 3, 2001)

Alright,

I am a die hard Mac user. No doubt about that. Heck I run these forums. I really hate Windows, in fact, I despise Windows. But, why is it, my Windows box loads web pages faster than I can see them draw on the screen. Large web pages, load with ease... those same large web pages... are take a few seconds longer.

I timed it... I loaded a large page in Windows XP, it took all but 1 second. On my Mac, it took 5 seconds.

WHY IS THIS I ASK?

Let's compare machines.

Compaq DeskPro - PIII-650mhz 256mb RAM. Standard built in video card with a 100mb connection.

PowerMac G4/500 256mb RAM. Standard built in video card with a 100mb connection. Both sitting off the same hub, connected to the same internet connection.

According to the mhz myth, my G4/500 should be, what 10 times faster than a PIII-650?  

This has bothered me for a year now. I have ONE application I use about once a week for about 5 minutes on my Windows XP box. It is the only reason I have a Windows box... aside for being able to do testing on for a variety of reasons.

Whenever I use the browser, it just screams... it makes me sick. Has Microsoft slowed down the Mac browser just enough to make it slower, or is it just the machine. I get the same results, running OS 9 or OS X.

Macs might be able to render a Photoshop file in half the time, but I don't render photoshop files. I want to see speed tests like what all of us do every day... browsing the Internet.

Thanks for allowing me to fume... now I will get back on my Mac and think... OH BOY, I JUST LOVE THIS THING! 

Admin


----------



## Javintosh (Dec 3, 2001)

Simple question: What browser are you using?


----------



## ScottW (Dec 3, 2001)

To keep the competition the same...

IE (latest versions on both systems)


----------



## gerbick (Dec 3, 2001)

you know, I was thinking the same thing...


----------



## scruffy (Dec 3, 2001)

IE in Windows has home turf advantage.  MS has access to all the APIs they don't give others (eg. Netscape).  It's practically the figurehead for their OS.

On OS X, it's an afterthought.  It's a Carbon app, which slows things down some already, and it's the sort of software any other company would be calling beta, if not alpha.

The difference in speed is the browser, not the OS.  If you want to see how fast the actual internet connection is, just download files to disk, don't render them.

Incidentally, the broadband connections themselves are reportedly actually slower in XP than eg. OS X.


----------



## ScottW (Dec 3, 2001)

Oh, I am not ranting because I have done actual download speed tests... heck, I am still upset I don't have ION anymore, 600k/sec (yes, it is correct) for downloading kicks butt over my cable modem @ 250k/sec on a good day.

Admin


----------



## gerbick (Dec 3, 2001)

normally, I agree with theRegister, but that was some of the most senseless propaganda I've seen since... well, WinXP.

true, Windows is MS homeground; therefore, they can optimize it.  Maybe Apple should create their own browser, or allow somebody to optimize one for their OS.  

and since when does carbon app = slower?


----------



## Red Phoenix (Dec 3, 2001)

Is this with the MacOS X version of IE, or MacOS 9 version? The MacOS 9 version running in Classic-mode is faster than than thing they tried to pass of as a browser for OS X.

And no, Carbon apps do not necessarily mean slower. I think a lot of bias comes from the fact that a lot of Carbon applications just aren't properly done. I see no reason why a Carbonized version of IE couldn't be just as good as the Classic version, except for the fact that Microsoft's Mac team has been spending most of their time on Office.


----------



## ScottW (Dec 3, 2001)

Okay... here are my results...

Mac OS X 10.1.1

ReLoading: http://www.fuckedcompany.com

default settings on browsers

iCab - 7-12 seconds
OmniWeb - 6 seconds
Netscape X - 6 seconds
IE - 4-6 seconds

Windows XP

IE 6.0 - 2 seconds (max 4 seconds)

The problem I have with alternative browsers, and even Netscape (starting with version 6) is that the experience goes down the tubes. The fonts are horrible, and the display isn't even well.

I know I know... that Microsoft doesn't follow standards and you can make 80 mistakes in your HTML code and it will still come out smelling like a rose in IE... but still... pages simply look nicer, fonts and all, in IE for Mac & Windows.

OmniWeb is coming along... the anti-aliasing on small fonts is not good. iCab... still has many screws loose. Netscape, which was always a long time favorite of mine... just seems like it stepped back in time.

Admin


----------



## gerbick (Dec 3, 2001)

your numbers pretty much match mine 

I'm on a unthrottled cable modem too with a 802.11b wireless network.  www.adobe.com is another text.  WinXP IE 6.0 rendered the site in under 2 seconds, while Mac OS X IE 5.1.2 rendered the site in a tad bit over 5 seconds.  WinXP with Opera 6.0 rendered the site at 2 seconds, while Opera 5.0 beta on Mac OS X took 7 seconds.

All of the caches, cookies were deleted, and off fresh reboots.

I did not go as in-depth as you, obviously.

I still remain a bit confused about the matter.  Oh well... stuff happens


----------



## ScottW (Dec 3, 2001)

What I don't like about alternative browsers is they aren't really alternatives. Meaning, you never know what you might get.

For example, http://www.news.com. Looks just fine in IE, Netscape... almost okay in iCab, but OmniWeb... uhh... what happened to that rendering?

But then you run iCab and more pages than not come out looking wrong... about the ONLY solution is to use IE because you can count on every page coming out the way the person who designed it wanted it to look like, because chances are, they used IE as the test browser.

I hate to see Microsoft win this battle, and yes, they didn't win it playing nice... but still...

Glad someone else got the same numbers I did.

Admin


----------



## ScottW (Dec 3, 2001)

And while I am ranting... WHY did Apple decide to develop their own Mail program? Okay, we have mail programs that have been developed for many years... that work well (uhh, another Microsoft product, Outlook Express) and what does apple do? Oh, lets give people a new release of a new software product. I realize Apple has don this because no mail app was available for OS X when the public beta came out. But frankly, I'm not impressed by mail, and still use Outlook Express in classic mode.

I better quit ranting, otherwise you all will tell me to just start using my Windows box. That aint going to happen.

Admin


----------



## hazmat (Dec 3, 2001)

You are correct.  IE is definitely faster in Windows than Mac.  My theory is that IE for Windows is so integrated into the system, as opposed to being its own app and needing its own libraries or whatnot.  The executable for IE 5.5sp2 on my Win2k system is 62k.  It's basically got carte blanche on the system.  I hate it how much slower it is under OS X and hope that the next release is a lot faster.

This may be of interest: http://www.macosx.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9022 .


----------



## Matrix Agent (Dec 3, 2001)

While I too am very comfused over this browser problem, I think i can shed some light on Apple's reason for mail.app other than the fact that they didn't want to count on MS coming out with a version. 

I think the Apple is already trying to distance itself from .net. With MS getting at least close or nearer to charging a supscription for mail services, I think Apple wanted its user base to know that it wouldn't be MS's biatch and play right into .net. 

I bet Apple-MS relations are quite interesting right now, after SJ's comments about MS's proposed settlement.

I like mail.app and I use it as my standart mail client, of course im not much of a demanding user, I only reicieve about 20 messages a day, and much of this comes from this site. For others this just may not be the heavy-duty application they;ve been looking for.

Anyway, thanks for the stats on the browsers. Its a little disheartening to see that type of stuff, but you can always hold out for more optimizations in 10.2


----------



## Chris (Dec 3, 2001)

Is rendering HTML a floating-point intensive CPU activity?  As 3D games have shown, floating point is one place where an x86 processor kicks PPC's butt, even at around the same mhz (magnifying the effect when the x86 is 1.5 to 2 times the mhz of the PPC).  Maybe it's more of a hardware discrepancy than a software one.


----------



## scruffy (Dec 3, 2001)

links!

Yes, good old command-line browsers...  Loaded fuckedcompany.com a lot faster than any quoted times.  What's that you say?  Not loading all the graphics is cheating?  Bah!  Who reads the pictures anyway?

And no, rendering HTML does not use floating point at all.  I thought it was PPC that outdid x86 in floating point, but I guess that shows you what I know.


----------



## ScottW (Dec 4, 2001)

It's lynx!  Yes, spoken from a true user. 

I think someone has been playing too much computer golf.


----------



## ladavacm (Dec 4, 2001)

> _Originally posted by scruffy _
> *
> And no, rendering HTML does not use floating point at all.  I thought it was PPC that outdid x86 in floating point, but I guess that shows you what I know. *



You know more than the previous poster: it is integer math that iAPX32 and PPC are roughly equivalent MHz for MHz.  Floating point performance of iAPX is nothing short of abysmal, thanks to their stack based FPU model (impossible to optimize to using anything short of black magic and intimate knowledge of FP pipeline internals)

And yes, 2D graphics (and most of 3D, for that matter) makes absolutely no use of floating point.


----------



## twyg (Dec 4, 2001)

I've found that turning off my download cache in all browsers helps. It seems IE gets the best boon. 

http://www.fuckedcompany.com came in on IE at 2 seconds.
Netcape I don't even want to bring to the table, cache off or not it's 6 seconds.
Opera rocks the speed tests. It's closest to my windows box, but the whole "loosing cookies" thing is starting to wear very thin. I'll be browsing the boards for example, and suddenly I'm not logged in... *grr*

I'm not defending IE. I hate it, it's still M$ and IMHO shouldn't be used. 

I do want to support all other browsers, and Admin has well summarized how most feel about technical specs on other browsers, so I won't be repetitive.

Oh, and I'm running an iMac DV w/ 128 MB ram. No über G5 here.


----------



## pbrice (Dec 4, 2001)

I can't say much about the browser thing other than at work I have a Wintel box and it is much faster on the web than my home Cube.

But in regards to Mail, I think the reason that Apple included it was because it was, for the most part, already there.  It was basically brought up to speed for OS X right from NeXTSTEP.  Of you can find old picutres of NeXTSTEP Mail and early shots of OS X Mail, they are pretty much identical except for some prettying up.

Even the Mail icon in NeXTSTEP showed you how many new mails you had.  Most of the features that Apple and everyone are touting as advanced and new features are old hat to NeXTSTEP.

This is why APple purchased NeXTSTEP because it brought a robust OS, with advanced features, and great development tools (even some applications) to APple without that much work.

I don't know if this means anyhting, but I don't think it is at all surprising that Adobe brought Illustrator and Acrobat to OS X first.  The original NeXTSTEP graphics engine was developed with Adobe and based upon PDF (DisplayPostScript) and Illustraotr was available for NeXTSTEP.


----------



## Pollinctor (Dec 4, 2001)

Ive noticed that MSIE running in VPC is much faster than any other browsers I try on using the emulator. I wouldnt be surprised if M$ is favoring their apps on their OS. 

 Thats on a G3 450MHZ with 512 MB Ram and 10.1.1.


----------



## WhateverJoe (Dec 4, 2001)

The Disk Cache trick has an affect because the disk I/O performance has quite a bit to do with how fast a page renders....   ;-)

In general terms however, I can not wait for the day, that every window in OS X draws and re-draws as fast as items running in windows.. It still feels slugish and you can sometimes see a window pane being drawn, where as a window just (Baam) shows up and moves by gosh with the mouse when you move it, in windows... But it'll get there someday ;-)


----------



## bookem (Dec 4, 2001)

On my comp, iCab seems to have the edge, sometimes    even over IE.

You should try Dillo on a rootless X server - that runs so quick, it's hard to click on a link before it loads.  Strange how not many pages (like this one work properly) in it though.

I'll shut up now.


----------



## genghiscohen (Dec 4, 2001)

Okay, just got XFree86 and OuroborOSX (Sp?) installed.  Now I gotta try this Dillo thing.  
On "regular" OS X, Opera is definitely the fastest browser, leaving IE in the dust.  And BTW, at work I access the 'net through my company LAN, using IE in WinNT.  Don't know all the details of the LAN configuration, but the speed ain't all that great.  It's probably traffic-related, but often pages render *slower* than at home using OmniWeb on my iMac with a cable modem connection.


----------



## edX (Dec 4, 2001)

this may be of interest as well in bringing the mac up to speed with the pc
another thread at macosx.com 
I have also noticed that some browsers respond to this hack better than others. My question is why are the new browsers taking so long between version updates? I would be happy if they would just fix one problem a week and share it with us. Following macupdate & versiontracker, I see many osx developers who are making fixes to other types of software almost daily. And I'll bet thses folks have dayjobs. IMHO, there is no one browser right now that is clearly above the others. Some do one thing better than others, but all fail at something. Are we waiting for osx.2 or just wanting to make a big impression at macworld expo?


----------



## iKevin (Dec 4, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Admin _
> *Okay... here are my results...
> 
> Mac OS X 10.1.1
> ...



I said I wasn't going to post here again...But this I had to respond to.  You've tested a variety of different browsers, all from different companies and Windows with IE outperforms them all.  Load Opera on windows, load Netscape on windows...they'll all be faster than on the Mac......how is that Microsofts fault?

Keep in mind i'm not defending M$ at all here...I'm just saying I think it's the Mac system as a whole, the way it crunch's data or something...either way Windows is just plain faster.  

I do think that all the eyecady is what makes IE in X so slow, it just can't draw it fast enough...OS9 I have no excuses for.


----------



## swizcore (Dec 4, 2001)

Mozilla Version 0.9.6+
I loaded the page in 2 seconds.
A also set cache to 0.


----------



## hazmat (Dec 4, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Admin _
> *It's lynx!  Yes, spoken from a true user.
> 
> I think someone has been playing too much computer golf. *



There's both.  http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~mikulas/links/


----------



## Jasoco (Dec 5, 2001)

I've noticed the same thing. Both IE and OW are slow here. OW is a little faster though. IE has so many redrawing problems and OW is too featureless to use full time. I was on my Dad's Crappy PC and the damn thing loaded pages at lightning speed. UGH! I totally despise MS and I'm beginning to think Microsoft's alleged "Mac Developers" can even program their way out of a wet paper bag. I await the day we have a native OS X version of IE that is even the same as the OS 9 version. What is MS's problem? Even the Mac programmers who only work on Mac versions can't program worth shiz-nit. If the guys over at Omni would make OW have all the features I need, I'd switch and never look back. All they need to do is keep up with IE. Then I'll be happy.


----------



## Dradts (Dec 5, 2001)

Maybe the slowness of most OS X Browsers is also caused by the font antialiasing and by the double buffered windows.
Maybe its faster when font antialiasing is switched off.

I bet, m$ windows is just so fast because there ain't no font antialiasing


----------



## Jasoco (Dec 5, 2001)

Actually, there is, but only on certain fonts bigger than certain sizes. And it looks just like the IE font smoothing. Whereas OW's smoothing is much nicer.


----------



## rinse (Dec 6, 2001)

the anti-aliasing.... hmm i saying no....

<speculatiion> i think much of it might have to do with sites being run on MS IIS use a language, Active Server Pages ".asp" which is probably much easier to render on MS IE than Mac IE. </speculation>

<circumstantial proof>  fuckedcompany runs on IIS 4.0 according to netcraft. </circumstantial proof>


----------



## se7en (Dec 7, 2001)

As to the effects of AA, with TinkerTool, you can disable AA (Font Smoothing tab, Disable Font Smoothing in CoreGraphics). Restart your favorite browser, and see the effects - warning, this might be ugly  . On my machine (Cube 450, 384Mb Ram), I hardly see a difference in window resizing with or without AA.


----------



## Dradts (Dec 8, 2001)

> _Originally posted by rinse _
> *the anti-aliasing.... hmm i saying no....
> 
> <speculatiion> i think much of it might have to do with sites being run on MS IIS use a language, Active Server Pages ".asp" which is probably much easier to render on MS IE than Mac IE. </speculation>
> ...


----------



## tagliatelle (Dec 8, 2001)

I'm working whole the time on Windows on MacOSX.com. I see that my windowsmachine is very keen on saving webpages on my hd. But most of these computers suffers from blocking after 1 hour and must be restarted (this takes 5 minutes). I suspect that memory is the reason, a machine with 32 mb of ram is maybe a bottleneck (because M wants to sell os with M - explorer) even as it has a fast processor and huge hd(nicer than one with a little and more ram - no problem). You have a similar problem if you have a i(powermac) and emulation or has to use it for Java 2 on OS9.


----------



## hazmat (Dec 8, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Hervé Hinnekens _
> *I'm working whole the time on Windows on MacOSX.com. I see that my!*


----------



## hazmat (Dec 8, 2001)

Hmmm, not sure what happened to that message:

You running Win98 or ME?  Could be, if so.  Still I find that weird that you have to reboot the machine a lot.  But 98 and ME do suck major moose balls.  NT and 2000 work awesome and I leave either up for months at a time, and the two main apps I tend to use are IE 5.5 and SecureCRT.  Only reason I usually have to reboot is when software requires it on install or whatever.

I'm not talking about you here, but I contrary to popular belief here, Windows NT and 2000 are very solid OSs and do a lot of things MUCH better than any Mac OS, and vice versa.  That's the way things are.  Anyone who says differently has their head in the sand.


----------



## edX (Dec 9, 2001)

the sand's nice and warm..feels good...definitly more comfortable and grounded than having my head in the clouds and flying around cow pastures. yup, i like the beach.


----------



## tagliatelle (Dec 9, 2001)

I'm only saving money by not replacing my computer, I can't prevent those &é"''(§è!è!ç!ççà)- at 1 km of my house for making new processors.


----------



## Krevinek (Dec 10, 2001)

> _Originally posted by hazmat _
> I'm not talking about you here, but I contrary to popular belief here, Windows NT and 2000 are very solid OSs and do a lot of things MUCH better than any Mac OS, and vice versa.  That's the way things are.  Anyone who says differently has their head in the sand.  [/B]



True, they are solid, and I have toyed with both. However, I also like the sand, and have to comment on this.

Most of the things I have seen NT/2k do better than my Mac is to fsck with my driver settings and handling the MS-ified standards. 2k can sure do things much better than my Mac if MS is the one that 'standardized' whatever service like ASP/etc. There are a couple of other things it does better, but I really don't care about those. A whole half-second increase in waiting for a few things really outweighs some of the configuration issues still haunting pre-XP machines (and possibly even XP machines, I haven't checked) with drivers/etc. 

With OS X out, and XP also out, the two 'combatants' are focusing on entirely different things. Apple wants a multimedia powerhouse, which it is producing (albeit with slowly growing support) exceptionally well. Just needing a G4 machine to do real-time filtering/etc with FCP3 is pretty good. Microsoft wants to own the world's machines with their OS. Microsoft doesn't really try to do anything exceptionally well, it just makes its own standards that play well with their OS because they attach into their own OS code tightly (through custom shims/etc for each 'integrated' app). Apple used to not do that, but these days I am not so sure with QT. However, the rest of the stuff is playing nice with the OS, and doing the same things any other program does.

It is a trade-off on what you want to do with your machine...

(Note: this post is most likely flamebait)


----------



## hazmat (Dec 10, 2001)

Not flamebait at all.  It was a very good reply.  Thanks.  And though I said what I did, and stand by it, notice where I am, and recently what platform I went over to for home use.  OS X.   It really is a wonderful OS with lots of potential, and I am excited to see where Apple goes with it.  Though  there are some Mac things that still seriously piss me off about it, I would consider switching from NT to OS X as my main machine at work, but some things I simply need NT for, since I am basically the System Administrator and IT dept.  One big stopper for me is the terminal.app.  I need something more robust than it I think before I could switch like that in a professional environment.


----------



## edX (Dec 10, 2001)

> I would consider switching from NT to OS X as my main machine at work, but some things I simply need NT for, since I am basically the System Administrator and IT dept. One big stopper for me is the terminal.app. I need something more robust than it I think before I could switch like that in a professional environment.


which raises an issue that has little to do with broadband - is the standard by which the mac should be judged the ablity to be a professional computer? I suppose it depends on the profession. Probably the bigest boost for M$ was excel, and then the integration of apps into office. because these add so much to the computer's use in plain old accounting and day to day business operation, the pc was easily the work computer. And since most people have learned to use a computer thru their work, it follows they will buy what they know. which is sad, because the mac has always been the better personal home computer in my opinion.  It was so damned easy to use and it kicked ass graphically. But M$ saw this and worked their ass off to replicate everyting truly outstanding about it. I could go on with this, but you should all know the story by now.  Back to the point - why can't mac just be the best user experience a computer can provide without having to be good at supporting a corporation?  What's the real short coming to letting pc's handle the grunt work, and let macs have all the fun stuff? (other than that old buy what you know clause). If more It's let it be known that they mangae pc's at work, but use mac for themselves, the big picture would probably change dramatically. Particularly if the It's make it easy to exchange work across the 2 platforms when neccessary. It has long been a mystery to my pc friends that i can read and write in their platforms, but they can't in mine. apple has long worked at good interfacing, M$ has always said 'our way or the highway'. I decided a long time ago, the highway is better. 

When developers simply spend as much time creating equivilent apps for mac os, then all the differences will even out.

another 2 cents worth


----------



## anrkngl (Mar 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by scruffy _
> *IE in Windows has home turf advantage.  MS has access to all the APIs they don't give others (eg. Netscape).  It's practically the figurehead for their OS.
> 
> On OS X, it's an afterthought.  It's a Carbon app, which slows things down some already, and it's the sort of software any other company would be calling beta, if not alpha.
> *


*

That explains the constant beachballs when I click back into IE, the fact that sometimes I click an IE window and it moves so its title bar is directly under my mouse, and the fact that IE keeps bringing up a right-click menu when I'm not using a modifier. The apps I'm having trouble with so far (processor hogs, etc) are:

IE
AIM Beta
iTunes (It rips faster when minimised, which is just WRONG)

IIRC all three of these are Carbon and not cocoa.*


----------



## Boyko (Mar 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Admin _
> *And while I am ranting... WHY did Apple decide to develop their own Mail program? Okay, we have mail programs that have been developed for many years... that work well (uhh, another Microsoft product, Outlook Express) and what does apple do? Oh, lets give people a new release of a new software product. I realize Apple has don this because no mail app was available for OS X when the public beta came out. But frankly, I'm not impressed by mail, and still use Outlook Express in classic mode.
> 
> Admin *



Actually, Apple's mail program was one of the reasons that I was first interested in the OSX interface. - There are very few email clients for Windows that don't have some sort of fatal flaw.  Pegasus: UI stinks.  Eudora: Has ads & loses data!  Outlook/Outlook Express: Too much overhead & too many security vulnerabilities.  Netscape: Loses data & crashes.  

Previously I used Eudora, because at the very least, it had spell-check on the fly.  (Something in MacMail) and good filtering.  But MacMail has everything I need with none of the crap I don't - it's a fully featured program that I could use... and doesn't have a "fatal flaw"

Brian.


----------



## Krevinek (Mar 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by anrkngl _
> *
> 
> That explains the constant beachballs when I click back into IE, the fact that sometimes I click an IE window and it moves so its title bar is directly under my mouse, and the fact that IE keeps bringing up a right-click menu when I'm not using a modifier. The apps I'm having trouble with so far (processor hogs, etc) are:
> ...



Don't make me pull out my tazer... I shock people for complaining solely through ignorance.  

IE is a Carbon PORT, which is where Carbon looks bad. Carbon apps are just as good as any Cocoa app, and if you really want to get technical, a master programmer can get a Carbon app a bit more efficient/responsive, since they can control the flow a little more closely, but there aren't many of those guys out there. Carbon PORTS such as IE, AIM and iTunes show that they were ported rather than written for OS X.

Also, under OS X, each up is given a timeslice of X to operate in. If iTunes is minimized, less time is used for drawing, and so that remaining timeslice can be used for MP3 encoding. Much different from the OS 9 environ, neh?


----------



## ksuther (Mar 5, 2002)

anrkngl, use Adium instead of Aim beta, it uses less CPU time and has no ads. It's missing buddy icons and file transfer, but who cards :-/

I use the built in Mail app and I like it much more than OE or Eudora. As far as I know Mail is a carryover from NEXT, and Apple didn't develop it themselves...


----------



## Jasoco (Mar 5, 2002)

Yes, Mail.app was originally MailViewer.app on the NeXT OS (Is it NeXTStep or OpenStep?) and was ported to Rhapsody when they were making that. I have some screenshots I found somewhere. (I forget where, but I'd like to see MORE!) one has the mailViewer.app whose icon is the same as one I found in a Next OS screenshot on a toolbar. (Or did they call it a Dock?)

For interested peoples, I have created a page on my site.
http://www.jasoco.com/lookhere/ss/
Some interesting old stuff there. Enjoy! 

The screenshots I mentioned above are found on the Rhapsody 03 (Which has the Rhapsody MailViewer.app screenshot) and the NeXT OS (Which contains the icon of MailViewer.app) images.


----------



## Sogni (Mar 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Admin _
> *What I don't like about alternative browsers is they aren't really alternatives. Meaning, you never know what you might get.
> 
> For example, http://www.news.com. Looks just fine in IE, Netscape... almost okay in iCab, but OmniWeb... uhh... what happened to that rendering?
> ...



I donno but the latest encarnation of Mozilla so far seems GREAT! I love it! 
Ok I better quit while I'm ahead before I get kicked or something!


----------

