# Browserwar turnaround?



## Straylight23 (Aug 9, 2001)

I just installed and tested the new version of Netscapes 6.1 browser and it seems to me, that the days of IE on MacOSX are finally doomed... It's fast, it's stable and ... it's pretty!
Look at the tides of war to rise again ;-)

cu:Stray


----------



## GrandHighOne (Aug 9, 2001)

IMO OmniWeb remains the best browser for OS X (actually the best browser on any platform). I use Mozilla a few times a week to visit sites that are rendered incorrectly by OW. I don't use IE. If Omni manages to include support for everything that isn't supported yet by OW, I'll never have to use IE or NS again.

Q: why don't you use the OS X port of Mozilla instead of Netscape? -- Only difference: Mozilla has less Netscape-advertisement in it, and the most recent Mozilla release is always a (few) steps ahead of the most recent Netscape release.


----------



## uoba (Aug 9, 2001)

... looks the greatest, but I hate waiting for those nice smooth textual renders, otherwise yes, it would be the best (apart from it's stupid form fill options!)

I am now flying on Netscape 6.1 and have to conclude that it will be my browser of choice from now on. So far no problems, and it's nearly as fast as Opera, which is by far the fastest out there (but isn't free).

Plus, and a BIG plus, it ain't Microsoft.


----------



## GrandHighOne (Aug 9, 2001)

> _Originally posted by uoba _
> *Plus, and a BIG plus, it ain't Microsoft. *



About the biggest plus possible.


----------



## Matrix Agent (Aug 9, 2001)

When 10.1 debuts, i dont think you'll have to wait for much in OmniWeb


----------



## Straylight23 (Aug 10, 2001)

> _Originally posted by GrandHighOne _
> *IMO OmniWeb remains the best browser for OS X (actually the best browser on any platform). I use Mozilla a few times a week to visit sites that are rendered incorrectly by OW. I don't use IE. If Omni manages to include support for everything that isn't supported yet by OW, I'll never have to use IE or NS again.*



Hi,  okay, OmniWeb is a beautiful browser. still, it is slow, very slow. IE isn't better, but has a slightly better Javascript and CSS support. That's why i still used IE.



> *Q: why don't you use the OS X port of Mozilla instead of Netscape? -- Only difference: Mozilla has less Netscape-advertisement in it, and the most recent Mozilla release is always a (few) steps ahead of the most recent Netscape release. *



I don't like the looks of ;-) And even those skins turn me off.
I have never seen a skin like <a href="home.wtal.de/hideout/screen.jpg">this </a> for mozilla. But maybe i'm entirely wrong ;-)

cu:Stray


----------



## Straylight23 (Aug 10, 2001)

Sorry , the link was broken.
Here is the correct url:

Screenshot 

cu:Stray


----------



## Matrix Agent (Aug 10, 2001)

Wow, thats snazzy


----------



## adambyte (Aug 10, 2001)

Hey Stray, how did you get HAL on your desktop?


----------



## Matrix Agent (Aug 10, 2001)

macdesktops.com has them, they're listed under "Hal"


----------



## Straylight23 (Aug 12, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Matrix Agent _
> *macdesktops.com has them, they're listed under "Hal" *



plus some photo-editing  

cu:Stray


----------



## VicF (Aug 12, 2001)

> I just installed and tested the new version of Netscapes 6.1 browser



Does this mean you installed the beta version?  I was going to, until I read the warning that said something like, "as always, you should back up your system before installing this version..."  Has it been stable, both itself, and for your OS X system?


----------



## endian (Aug 12, 2001)

the install notes for anything say that, and if they don't they do say 'we are not responsible for data loss.' 6.1 has been fine for me.


----------



## Straylight23 (Aug 13, 2001)

> _Originally posted by VicF _
> *
> Has it been stable, both itself, and for your OS X system? *



Yes it has been. I had not a single crash of this application up to now. No Probs with my system either (I didn't expect that anyway  ).


cu:Stray


----------



## bradleysmith (Aug 13, 2001)

Just tried Netscape 6.1 on MacOS X and I like it. I've also put it on the Win2K machine at work. It's looking like this will be my browser of choice. We shall see!

OmniWeb is without a doubt the best looking Browser the world has ever seen but it's real slow. Even with a cable modem connection. iCab and Opera just crash too much to be of any use and IE is just as slow as OmniWeb but looks sh*te.


----------



## .dev.lqd (Aug 13, 2001)

Yesterday I gave Netscape 6.1 and the .92 build of Mozilla for OSX a shot.

Both sucked it hard. To the max.

Mozilla drew a white screen over EVERYTHING and then hung there indefinitely. Netscape just didn't do anything... has anyone had similar problems and if so what are your config/system specs?


----------



## knighthawk (Aug 16, 2001)

I got it straight from Omni that they will be releasing OmniWeb 4.1 in September.

What I really hope is that when OS X 10.1 is released, there will be a preinstalled version of OmniWeb and IE.  With this anti-trust thingie, I can't believe that Apple would support them by only preinstalling one browser.


----------



## phantomradio (Aug 16, 2001)

I've used IE, OmniWeb, Netscape, Mozilla, Opera, and iCab for OS X. Mozilla never ran, or if it did, very slowly. Netscape ran slowly, I've heard of a bug that caused it to run slowly on DP machines, as is mine. IE is decent, doesn't often crash. OmniWeb is my main browser, I love all the features it has, but it too is slow. Opera is fast, but doesn't support the mouse wheel (I'm addicted to that wheel)  iCab could be great, it's very fast and small, if only it was more stable <sigh> essentially there are no good web browsers, either they are buggy or slow. I hope once 10.1 comes out, I start to see some nice ones.


----------



## Matrix Agent (Aug 16, 2001)

So the optimal browser would have the features of OmniWeb, but in the compactness of iCab, all run at the speed of Opera?


I think 10.1 will do it for you as far as speed goes, and if you didn't know, there is a feature in both omniweb and ie that lets you remove all of the contols so that you have a very simple window.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Aug 16, 2001)

I have Netscape 6.1 for Mac OS 9.1 and Mac OS X.  The only difference between them is that '6.1 runs a little slower in Mac OS X than Mac OS 9.1 AND that it doesn't handle some web pages with JAVA / JAVA Script very well.  For instance, I can go do my online banking in '6.1 for Mac OS 9.1 but not '6.1 for Mac OS X.  The application unexpectedly quits leaving the system and other applications unaffected.

I've also noticed that '6.1 has difficulty with email attachments in general.  On my system (Mac OS X), it is significantly faster than Omniweb and IE.  Webpages load very quickly.


chemistry_geek

Blue & White G3, 400MHz, 640MB RAM, 12.1GB UltraATA66 HD, 18GB UltraSCSI HD, Adaptec 2930 SCSI Card.


----------



## phantomradio (Aug 17, 2001)

I'm greatly looking forward to 10.1, I have a very hard time going back to 9.2 (Yes I'm running 9.2 on my G4) 9.2 has been awsome, but since it's a very early beta, some of the extensions have expired, now I just need to wait for 9.2 to be fully released. The speed and compatability increase with classic is extremly noticable on my computer. 

When I was talking about small, I was reffering to the footprint left on the system. iCab tends to take up less system resources than IE or OmniWeb.  IE at idle with no windows takes up 2.4% CPU, iCab right now as I type this is only taking up 8%. OmniWeb is decent on CPU usage. iCab is my personal fav. right now, even though it lacks stability and some compatability.


----------



## BBenve (Aug 17, 2001)

I know this is picky but JAVA and JAVA script  are 2 completely different things.....they have the same suffix (JAVA) but they are 2 COMPLETELY different things...........................and as we all know X does not really support JAVA at all...

I am sorry but i am a web designer...and i hate the fact that many people confuses JAVA and JAVAscript...just cause they have a similar name....


----------



## endian (Aug 17, 2001)

> I know this is picky but JAVA and JAVA script are 2 completely different things.....they have the same suffix (JAVA)



I know this is picky, but that's a prefix


----------



## BBenve (Aug 17, 2001)

Well...sorry if my english is not perfect.....at least i speak 4 languages.....anyway..prefix or suffix..Java and Javascript are 2 different world..


----------



## AdmiralAK (Aug 18, 2001)

What languages do you speak ?


also, the official name of javascript (at least in standards termns) is EMCAScript.


----------



## peppo (Aug 18, 2001)

"Matrix Agent" wrote: 





> So the optimal browser would have the features of OmniWeb, but in the compactness of iCab, all run at the speed of Opera?



That is quite a idiotic thing to say.

The only desirable thing is a browser that has the features of Mozilla. Everything is irrelevant and will spell the death of the open internet.


----------



## endian (Aug 18, 2001)

LOL that's pretty funny. Count me out then


----------



## Matrix Agent (Aug 18, 2001)

Now, Peppo, as a first time poster, you desrve some slack. BUT, I'm sure that there are better ways to get your opinion across. So you like Mozzilla? OK with me, but you dont have to flame everyone who likes anything different. We're disscussing the future of browsers, not how desirable and irrelevant you think things are. This forum isn't like others, we're not here to troll and flame anyone, so either  find out a way to be a little more diplomatic or you just plain leave. And if you are the kind of person who made a separate login name purely for the reason of insulting me, then you also need to learn how to take responsibility for your own words.


This is the end of this conversation, this will not turn into another "spoiling 10.1" thread.


----------



## emh_alpha1 (Aug 19, 2001)

Have you tried Opera.  Its a really good browser - really fast (well at least much faster than IE!)  Doesn't even crash like IE does... hope they fix IE in OSX soon, or replace it, because i'm getting sick of the 'beachball' freezing and crashing.


----------



## Natester (Aug 19, 2001)

I saw some of those posts back there claiming that the biggest advantage of browsers other than IE, is that it's not Microsoft.  I think that's kinda silly.

It's true that Microsoft puts out alot of garbage (Windows 2000, and XP, namely);  however, they have also been working hard to put out great Mac apps.  Microsoft's Macintosh applications have always been far ahead of their Windows cousins.  They are typically more stable, feature packed, and more attractive.  (As seen in Office, and the previews for Office 10.)

I think IE is no exception.  On my first Mac, it took me only two weeks to ditch Netscape.  I still go back from time to time to give it another shot, but IE has always been better.  Smaller, faster, always ahead in the feature department, and the best looking.

Also, remember that IE 5.1 is still a preview, or beta, or whatever they're calling it now.  From what rumors I've heard about the final edition, it will be quick and stable.

Don't dis IE for Mac, or any other Microsoft Mac products, just because their parent company happens to be run by the son of the prince of darkness.  Just think of the Mac division of Microsoft as a completely different company.  I do.  I'm sure Bill Gates does too.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Aug 19, 2001)

I on the other hand cannot swallow IE's apperance 

My main browser is Netscape Nav 4.77
I have iCab, Opera, IE 5, lynx and omni as well to test my web pages out on,  On OS X I prefer omni.


Admiral


----------



## natis (Aug 19, 2001)

Omniweb blows... it's slow and almost as bad as Netscape 4.x when it comes to standards.

Netscape 6.1 - I gave up on Netscape when IE 5 came out.

Opera - I like it, but it's not the best thing on OS X.

IE 5.1 - 3 weeks, hasn't crashed and still the most compliant browser out there.  I'm obviously not the biggest fan of MS if I'm using Mac, but when they do something right (albeit seldomly), MS does it well.

To those of you still using 4.0 browsers, get ready for hell as more and more designers design for compliant browsers.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Aug 20, 2001)

I would like to point out that version number is irrelevent.
A browser can come out today as XbrowX 0.112359 and it can be the best thing since sliced bread when it comes to browsers.

second thing are web designers.  Web designers should ALWAYS design with the standards set in place by standards bodies like the W3C and not design their stuff for a particular browser.


Admiral


----------



## natis (Aug 20, 2001)

Admiral,

The problem with designing is the clients tho.  They want their sites available to nearly everyone running anything.

To be honest, this is where I wish there was a monopoly or even better, for the W3C to be responsible for putting out a browser.

And you're right, version numbers don't mean anything more than a point of reference.

With more browsers coming out, for my personal sites, I'm adding to a script that basically says either IE 5 and higher, NN 6 or Opera.  Anything else (OmniWeb, iCab, older versions) don't get access.  It's a sad thing, but it brings a simplicity to my life.

--natis


----------



## AdmiralAK (Aug 20, 2001)

To shut everyone out like that is wrong.
If it's your personal page, fine, do what you wish.  Fir a company it can cost $$$$.

I have tested my personal web site out with several browsers to make sure it works at least a little, but I do have a help page (or at least I did) that said NN for best results, IE and other browsers might not look optimal + enter at your own peril.  I think this is the wisest thing to do

And finally, a monopoly on ANY technology has a stunt effect, and that would be bad for the evolution of any technology.  I would not give ANY company any sort of monopoly, competition is good.  I would however hold the W3C responsible to giving out some sort of certification to browsers.  If a browser meets their standard they  give it a badge or something, so people (hopefully) will use certified browsers.

Admiral

PS: Boston aint that bad...although I dont like the weather we are having this time of year ...were's the sun ????


----------



## homerb (Aug 20, 2001)

The Natester said...
Don't dis IE for Mac, or any other Microsoft Mac products, just because their parent company happens to be run by the son of the prince of darkness.  Just think of the Mac division of Microsoft as a completely different company.  I do.  I'm sure Bill Gates does too.
.......

I like IE for Mac also, and I'm convinced it's in fact better than its Windoze counterpart. But make no mistake about the Mac division being separate from the Evil Empire, and don't claim to speak for Bill (I don't want to think that lowly of you).

When IE is the only browser out there (almost already), open standards and competition will be gone. The web will work the way Bill wants it to work and you won't have one thing to say about it. 

Paranoid? Maybe. But you know, when you sit down next to a guy and he hits you in the face, and then you sit down next to him again and he hits you in the face again, and then you sit down next to him again and he hits you in the face again...how bloody do you have to be before you pick up a bat?

When iCab or Opera finish working out the kinks (assuming they can do it before Microsoft ruins the web), I will gladly pay $50 or more for either browser. I'm willing to pay for quality software, especially software that doesn't carry a world domination shadow. My wallet is my bat, and it can't be controlled by Microsoft (because I'm not a Passport member).

Typing this message in Opera, by the way.


----------



## kilowatt (Aug 21, 2001)

Omniweb...

Ok, on my beige G3, I've noticed that cocoa applications run at least twice as fast as most carbon apps. Not that one is better than the other, its just fact that on a slower computer carbon is a lot slower (atleast as far as I've seen).

So, on my system, Omniweb is faster than Opera, mozilla, and exploder.

As far as standards go, if I can't view a page in Omni, I just ssh to a linux box, fire up my x server, and run netscape 6 remotely. (And if that doesn't do it, lynx is the way to go. After that, the web page just isn't worthy...)

I link omni web, and I like the onmi group, too. I think its important for the Macintosh Community t support projects from Omni and Opera. Netscape and Exploder can die for all I care. I've loved netscape sence the early 90's, but now its dying. Its bloated and bulky ;-)

If we support Omnigroup and the Opera people, maybe they will be encouraged to invent and create a more better product.

(side note: Cattering to various browsers does suck. I've developed many a web site for many a client, and within 2 days of every page going up I allways get a few of those "[something you worked hard on] doesn't work on [client's outdated web browser]". Oh well, at least ya get some dough!)


----------



## Natester (Aug 21, 2001)

I'm glad you mentioned that, homerb.  I also believe that monopolies are an awful idea, stifling new ideas, and removing the freedom to choose.  I'm very happy to see other programmers and developers writing new browsers (or anything else, for that matter).
I would not say that I'm loyal to Microsoft, only that I'm currently loyal to IE, until a better product comes along - which it seems, may be happening shortly.  I prefer to use the best product until a better one comes along.  I'd simply rather not waste my time.
That's what I meant, by not dissing Microsoft.  Although almost all of the time, they have been more trouble than not, it is also good to remember that there are exceptions to many rules, and this is one of them.


----------



## rhale1 (Aug 21, 2001)

> What I really hope is that when OS X 10.1 is released, there will be a preinstalled version of OmniWeb and IE. With this anti-trust thingie, I can't believe that Apple would support them by only preinstalling one browser.



Thats a VERY good idea. The Mac OS X Setup Assistant would ask: "What Web Browser would you like?". It would then list several browsers (IE, NN, OW, iCab, Opera) and display info for each one. You select one, and then it is installed from the CD (since it is still in from Install). If you want to add more or change browsers, one woud click a 'Browser' button, and a Sheet would drop down from the Internet Preferences pane. Pop in the Install CD, select one, and there you go!

However, seeing untill Apple and MS have a deal untill 2002 (i think  ), if this is added, it will be at least 10.2


----------



## Natester (Aug 21, 2001)

Although it seems Apple does have a deal with Microsoft, I still hold to the belief that the only reason IE was the only app bundled with OS X was because there were no others out of beta.  
Apple had been working closely with Microsoft on IE, and probably felt that it was the only browser close enough to ready to be bundled.  (Of course, that's turned out to be untrue - they won't be ready until 10.1, as we all know.)  
I would not be surprised at all if 10.1 comes also includes at least OmniWeb, and likely others.  (Possibly even Netscape, if it works.)  Apple has always given it's users a choice when available, I certainly hope they always will.


----------



## Kusako (Aug 21, 2001)

*that the only reason IE was the only app bundled with OS X was because there were no others out of beta* 
The IE that cam with my version of OS X says version 5.1 beta...
Besides OmniWeb is one of the oldest browsers on the market. I've been using it for some 7 or so years now, it's always been slow, slightly instable, and displayed most pages wrongly. That's why I love it.


----------



## Natester (Aug 21, 2001)

I did say that IE was probably chosen because all the other apps were in beta;  however, I also said:  "Apple had been working closely with Microsoft on IE, and probably felt that it was the only browser close enough to ready to be bundled."  I didn't say that it was finished, though.  Cause it sure as hell isn't.


----------



## peppo (Aug 26, 2001)

natis wrote:



> it's slow and almost as bad as Netscape 4.x when it comes to standards.



If you care the least bit about standards, you'd know that Mozilla (Netscape 6) is unparalleled when it comes to standards!

This is really the only valid concern in these times!!! A browser like Mozilla is indeed fast and responsive enough, given today's computer speeds.

Don't be a hypocrite and claim you care about standards, and then go and use IE (even if it is better on the Mac platform -- which goes to show that IE is not the least bit cross-platform!).


----------



## kilowatt (Aug 26, 2001)

I think it would be cool to port the linux version of Mozilla to Mac OS X and have it run of course under an X display server. I was concidering doing it, but some of the libaries it required would not compile, and, well, its been my experiance that if the supporting libs will not compile, that the application will be even more of a headache. 

Anyone up for it... we could start a neat sourceforge project.


PS: I don't use explorer because I don't like Mickysoft. I wouldn't care if every page was designed for it and if it never ever crashed. Its like brand disloality ;-)


----------



## AdmiralAK (Aug 26, 2001)

upon further consideration I have downloaded and installed N6.1
Amazingly IT WORKS!!! 
I am TOTALLY amazed!!! I cant believe it!!!!

Too bad it dont support WML 


Admiral


----------



## Soapvox (Aug 27, 2001)

As a long time Netscape fan ( see the resemblence to Apple pre-AOL) I was mortified when AOL bought them and I told all my friends that the browser war was just won by M$ because AOL would only develop a crappy browser and my prediction was true for 6.0....... Oh MY GOD 6.1 is so stable on the other hand.  These guys must've done some true soul searching after they release that piece of crap called 6.0 and they made this beautiful piece of browser called 6.1.  Since switching to X I have been using omniweb, mozilla, opera and iCAb just because I hated the Microsoft piece of junk (as well as microsoft, for you guys about the microsoft hatin, so the nurses that worked in Nazi germany were not bad because they helped mend the soldiers right? Microsoft is Microsoft if you support one part you support it all in the financials.  The Nazi comment is way over the top but it gets the point across).  I am pleased to see Netscape listened and developed a quality product, now if they could only get AOL to sell off Netscape so they can be the great small company they were back in Netscape 2.0 days!


----------



## sandbagger (Aug 27, 2001)

> _Originally posted by .dev.lqd _
> *Yesterday I gave Netscape 6.1 and the .92 build of Mozilla for OSX a shot.
> 
> Both sucked it hard. To the max.
> ...




.dev.lqd  --- you aren't by any chance running a dual processor?  don't know about Mozilla, but I don't believe 6.1 will work.  Wouldn't on mine, and I think I recall a post on this somewhere else.

anybody else see this?


----------



## xphile (Aug 27, 2001)

Whoever finally implements a workable JAVA solution, and gives me a browser I can stay in, instead of bouncing around from browser to browser when a site doesn't work will win my unwavering loyalty.


----------



## Natester (Aug 27, 2001)

> _Originally posted by xphile _
> *Whoever finally implements a workable JAVA solution, and gives me a browser I can stay in, instead of bouncing around from browser to browser when a site doesn't work will win my unwavering loyalty.  *



My sentiments exactly.


----------



## eric halfabee (Aug 27, 2001)

If you get the about Netscape and Mozilla info you will find that they are basically the same.

Netscape 6.1 = Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; rv0.9.2) Gecko/20010728 Netscape6/6.1

Mozilla 0.9.2 = Mozilla/5.0 (macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; rev0.9.2) Gecko/20010702

Now I'm sure some of you enlightened folk will tell me that they use the same engine (Gecko I think) but if so they are still pretty much the same, and is that why when I change the 'theme' for one its automatically changed in the other.

What gives??

eric


----------



## hyph-n (Aug 28, 2001)

Netscape 6.1 & Mozilla are not the same...

Netscape is full of branding & adverts & other crap
Mozilla is pure.

yes - they are both based on the same engine, but what happens is that Netscape grab a copy of Mozilla at a certain point... then spend a short amount of time buggering around with it & 'Netscaping' it....

I have tried both, but prefer Mozilla over Netscape... I have found that Mozilla builds are always newer & tend to be more stable..

I now use Mozilla 0.9.2 @ work (on NT4) 100% of the time... it's quicker & more stable than IE..(!)

@ home, i use Omniweb.... yes yes,... i know that it is slower... BUT it is the Quality & depth of thought that i've fallen for ....

I find that Mozilla & Netscape for Mac (any flavours) always tends to be slower & more buggy than the Windoze builds (i've no experience of the Linux builds)... this is the reason i don't use it on MacOSX... i can only assume that this is because there are more people coding for the Windoze version...(?)

I know that everyone is putting *alot* of faith in 10.1 speed improvements.. but if they make OmniWeb just that little bit faster... then i will even purchase a License.... I think these guys need all of the support they can get!!!


[the guys & gals who developed OmniWeb so us that there is still a place for revolutionary products that approach a problem from the ground up - thank god for that!!]


----------



## free_bound (Aug 28, 2001)

I'm using iCab, and it works fine most of the time despite being a beta. 
The pages load nice, but sadly it is carbonized and not in all points conform to the display-standarts (like the nice prefs of omniweb). 

It has many features I really like (like automatic update of a page whenever I save the html-document - I write the pages in textedit -). 

It doesn't update the whole page if you use frames, but only all frames whenever you update the parent-page. 
Sometimes it dies (espeacially the new version, I'm using one of the previous ones), but it can always be restarted instantly and only loses part of the history. 
I already payed for it because I want to support the company, they have to pay more if I buy later and I already decided, that iCab will be my design-browser. 

OmniWeb didn't display the pages as I wanted and was way too slow. so I stopped using it. 

Internet(ex)bugger got really on my nerves, because it displays a start-dialog instead of launching silently as all other applications and it always jumped to the front whenever a page loaded successfully. The fact that it is from MS greatly supports my decision. 

I will try the other ones instanty, thanks!

Computer: PPC G3 (oldest one possible   )266Mhz, 128MB Ram, 6GB; ibook 500Mhz 256MB Ram (can't use it due to the electromagnetic fields, which actually hurt each time I go near it).


----------



## ventora (Aug 29, 2001)

> _Originally posted by GrandHighOne _
> *IMO OmniWeb remains the best browser for OS X (actually the best browser on any platform). *



Please have a look to http://www.ventora.de/tmp/omniweb_cssbug/. The screenshot you'll see there has been taken from http://www.ventora.de/tmp/omniweb_cssbug/beispiel.html.

OmniWeb looks smart, yes, but if one even can't disable CSS, it's unusable for some sites. Using CSS for invers colors is a common technology and OmniWeb can't handle this.

OmniWeb fails handling separate stylesheets for more than one device. If you declare the stylesheet for screen (media="screen") and later for another device (e.g. media="print"), OmniWeb will only regard (and remember) the recommendations made in the last linked stylesheet.

So tell me, are you still sure OmniWeb remains the best browser? Keep your eyes open.

Bye, Michael
(please excuse my Englisch, it isn't my first language)


----------



## Red Phoenix (Aug 29, 2001)

Well, I will. Personally, I use OmniWeb almost exclusively (I have a cron job that downloads the latest nightly build of Mozilla every morning, so I check that once a day. Hence, I can't claim to use it exclusively). They've admitted from the get-go for version 4.0.x that CSS support was not their main intent. This is fine for me; I very rarely see any problems. For me, I see OmniWeb as the most stable browser out there, other than perhaps to Netscape 6.1. And in general, I find web pages look better. In fact, the only problems I really ever have with OmniWeb are it's plug-in support (due to the fact Apple did not inform them of a change in how plug-ins were to be designed until it was too late), and also being able to download QuickTime movies (and this is remedied by going to Tools->Show Info, selecting the movie, and clicking "Save As...").

This discussion about browsers has been interesting to read, but it is kind of getting stale. Mozilla is changing daily (last week I could barely use it, it crashed so much. Now it's much stabler); the final version of Internet Explorer will come out with OS X.I; OmniWeb 4.1 will follow soon after, and iCab will...uhm...maybe come out of beta someday? Anyway, I am curious what features it will take to leave their current browser. For example, OmniWeb 4.1 is supposed to have much better CSS support and be faster. And I hear the new IE is supposed to implement the Mac division of Microsoft's latest Doesn't-Suck-as-Much-as-the-Windows-Version Technology (Trademarked).


----------



## peppo (Sep 3, 2001)

Matrix Agent:

No, I'm completely new here. And I feel very comfortable using words that might be offensive to most people. It's a topic I feel strongly about. It's a topic of extreme importance, and user experience is extremely irrelevant.


----------



## Ripcord (Sep 5, 2001)

> sandbagger quipped:
> 
> .dev.lqd --- you aren't by any chance running a dual processor? don't know about Mozilla, but I don't believe 6.1 will work. Wouldn't on mine, and I think I recall a post on this somewhere else.
> 
> Anyone else see this?



Sandbagger, here's a quote from the Mozilla 0.9.3 release notes:

"<i>If you have a dual-processor G4 running Mac OSX, Mozilla will stall. There are no problems with dual-processor G4's running MacOS 9.</i>"

Ian


----------

