# Fastest web browser



## kilowatt (Jan 12, 2002)

Ok, I know this sounds like another repeat thread.. but listen up folks, this is cool.

For the longest time, I thought OmniWeb was the best and fastest rendering web broswer for osx. I had tried IE, Mozilla/cfm builds, netscape, and icab. 

Trust me folks, this is unbelievable.

I have found the gold at the end of the rainbow. This web site loads in less than a second. Its incredable.

Thank you, Admin, for the irc server.. had it not been for bl.b and gplex on irc, I never would have found this.

Found what? you say. hehehe just wait

Just you wait!!

Ok, here's the link, just download it and install it, pee first because if you don't, you will wet yourself when you see how fast this works.

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest/mozilla-macho-macosx-trunk.dmg.gz

once it decompresses, rename the result to .dmg (mine had some funny extention on it). Read the read-me file, and follow instructions. You will thank me later.


Mach-o Mach-o Man.. I'd like to be a Mach-o man.....


----------



## edX (Jan 12, 2002)

so you are going to use mozilla since it is fastest in your tests?

just understand you are helping to develop the next netrape/aol browsers and aid in creating a world where mac users are second class, money buys you nothing but trouble, users remain internet idiots  and free upgrades will cost you more than you could imagine. if you get this, then have fun being a little bit faster.


----------



## kilowatt (Jan 12, 2002)

Dude, just download it. Mozilla isn't aol. netscape might be, but mozilla isn't.

This is the mach-o build, its nothing like its carbon-look-alike called Netscape, and nothing like the current popular Mozilla build.


----------



## verlorenengel (Jan 12, 2002)

It's a very quick browser, much better than Internet Explorer and quicker to render than OmniWeb.
It's very buggy though however and the widget set is gastly... Why oh why can't they use aqua for the widgets??


----------



## kilowatt (Jan 12, 2002)

They can't make it auqa-ish because mozilla uses themes, and apple has stated they don't look kindly on themes. 

If the mozilla team could make a theme that looked nice (ie, wouldn't make macosx appear ugly to some people), and if it absolutely could not be used with the winblows version (and I doubt this would happen due to mozilla's open-source), then it could happen.

BTW, right click (control-click for you uni-button freaks ;-) ) on a link and choose 'open in new tab'

this feature ROCKS


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jan 12, 2002)

Yeah, the Mach-0 builds of Mozilla definitely render the fastest of the bunch. Unfortunately, in just about every other area, it's lagging behind the Carbon build. Neither Netscape/Mozilla builds for OS X have Java yet, at least as far as I can tell, and without Java, they are kind of useless for me.

The sad part is the Mach-0 builds are looked upon as experimental, and won't get the attention that the Carbon builds will. That's unfortunate, because this build definitely has the rendering speed that no other browser on the Mac currently has - beta or otherwise.

As for the Aqua theme. Apple did put the kaybosh on someone developing an Aqua theme for Mozilla, but not for the suspected reasons. The theme developer wasn't following the Aqua guidelines and Apple wasn't too thrilled with it. If I were Apple, I'd assign some engineer there homework and have him create an Aqua theme for the Mozilla family.


----------



## edX (Jan 13, 2002)

> Mozilla isn't aol. netscape might be, but mozilla isn't



so where do you think netscape comes from, dude? mozilla is development phase of the netrape/aol browsers. i know they are 'independment' but their primary source of income is from netrape. check thru their whole site and read the fine print kilowatt. they are not innocent. they started working with netscape while netscape was still the independent cool browser it once was. but when aol took over netscape, thereby making it netrape, mozilla team just tagged along. so using mozilla is helping to develop netrape's next browser for free. again, read the fine print, users are the major developers of mozilla. 

now i don't mind putting in my effort in helping admin make this a great site, but i am against helping a major rippoff company like aol perpetuate its hold on the naive market members at people like you and me's expense. like i said, if you understand what you are doing, go ahead and do it. i am not the one to make moral and ethical decisions for you. just be prepared to live with the consequences.
on the other hand if we spend our time and efforts trying to get the new independent browsers to work better, then we will benefit and so will they. as long as netrape/aol/mozilla/exploiter continue to hold the edge in browser use, the others will not be treated as competitors. sites will continue to require you to use the old standards rather than adding support for the indies. and the indies won't get enough support to survive. 
just think about it. after you go back and read the small print on mozilla's site.


----------



## julguribye (Jan 13, 2002)

Errr....i couldnt get the file to work...
Mach-o build? What's a Mach-o build? Is it a underground version or something? I looked trough the mozilla.org page and I couldnt find any mach-o build. Just the 0.9.7 (Cocoa?) Mac OS X version. I downloaded it and tried it. These forums was very fast. Apple.com was very slow. Versiontracker.com again was fast. Some pages were very slow, some very fast.


----------



## vanguard (Jan 13, 2002)

Mozilla is an open source project that is commited to supporting standards.  You're really off base when you suggest that because AOL/Time Warner provides the bulk of their funding that they are not building a standards based browser.

If the browser ever did get away from W3C standards license that the code is released under allows to code to be forked.  In a nutshell, if AOL/Time Warner misbehaves then you can have the code.  They can not pull a msft "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy because their code is free (as in freedom as well as in no cost).

If everybody uses a browser that supports open standards then it will always be possible to switch from one browser to another.  If people use browsers that don't support open standards than developers will code specifically for them and before long, you won't be able to switch.

The bottom line is: Using Mozilla is a good thing, not a bad thing.  Using Mozilla helps indies because it forces web developers to support w3c standards.

Vanguard

PS If you're interested, you can read the FAQ http://www.gerbilbox.com/newzilla/general/general03.php


----------



## ksv (Jan 13, 2002)

Why can't just Apple make a good multi-platform browser, eh? 

Sad but true, I'm using IE. Mozilla was, last time I tried it, waay slower than any other browsers I've tried on most pages, and looks like a blue-grey windoes hell. iCab, maybe, but it doesn't have the features IE has. Netscape, definealty not. Opera, yes, cool, and really fast, but they are WAY too slow on delvelopment of the OS X version, and releasing an OS 9 5.0 final version while the Carbon version shows something about the Opera team's mac knowledge. And WHY carbon? It's SLOWW! The OS 9 version is good, though, but I HATE banners, and I never use OS 9 

I'm currently using a good-looking, feature-rich browser.
As long as I don't pay for it, and it doesn't have ugly banners, it's OK to use M$ products 
If Apple comes on the browser market, though, I'll reconsider that


----------



## vanguard (Jan 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ksv _
> *As long as I don't pay for it, and it doesn't have ugly banners, it's OK to use M$ products
> *


 
The trouble here is that msft doesn't support standards.  If everybody uses their stuff then web site developers don't need to build sites that work on any browser.  When that happens you will no longer have a choice of which broswer you can use, you will only be able to use IE.

If IE is the only browser that works, then msft has control of the internet.  You can see them employ this strategy already.  If you build pages with Microsoft Frontpage, other browsers will not work correctly.  If you use their Java implementation, it only works on windows.

MSFT is tying you into windows by not supporting standards.  Just because you don't pay for it, doesn't mean you're not helping them.

Vanguard

PS  I don't mean to sound like I'm on my high horse.  Although I keep trying to get away from it, I still use IE.  Just recently I upgraded the latest milestone release of Mozilla (9.7) and it wouldn't post to this forum.  Now I'm back to IE.  Omniweb is too slow for giant web pages (I use /. all the time), and Opera didn't work for me either but I can't remember why.  The next thing I'll try is milestone 9.8 of Mozilla.  It comes out this month.


----------



## ksv (Jan 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by vanguard _
> *
> If IE is the only browser that works, then msft has control of the internet.  You can see them employ this strategy already.  If you build pages with Microsoft Frontpage, other browsers will not work correctly.  If you use their Java implementation, it only works on windows.
> *



I never said I liked M$ 
But their browser (for mac) is, sad but true, the best (still it isn't good).  It's too slow, and, as you said, they don't follow standards. That's hella annoying when making home pages, e.g, they look different in IE compared to other browsers. The win***s version doesn't even support QuickTime, urk.


----------



## julguribye (Jan 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ksv _
> *And WHY carbon? It's SLOWW! The OS 9 version is good, though, but I HATE banners, and I never use OS 9 *



Opera will never be written in Cocoa, because then the whole app would have to be rewritten from Assembly. And Opera would never do that. The reason Opera has been ported to so many OS's is that they use the same codebase. And this is only possible in Carbon, I think.


----------



## vanguard (Jan 13, 2002)

Yep, I think we're coming to agreement.  On a scale of 1 - 10 IE on the mac is a 5.  That makes it the best thing out there.  I'm still waiting for something better.

As for quicktime, I'm not sure why you say it isn't supported.  I got the qt plugin and I use it all the time on windows.


----------



## kilowatt (Jan 13, 2002)

For those of you who just couldn't download the mach-o build...

The Mach-o build just beats the daylights out of the standard cfm build which is what 99% of all mozilla/macosx users have used.

This build, the mach-o build is, as I understand it, mozilla compiled for macosx's unix, not just carbonated os9 mozilla. Folks, this is WAY faster than the .97 build. It renders the pages on this site in about half a second. The .97 build takes way too much time, I agree.

If AOL/Timewarrner wants to sponcer an open source project than so be it. I think most people here would perfer an open source standards compliant web browser over a closed source non-standard web browser created by microsoft.

microsoft =! AOL/TW (<> for you BASIC types, like me)

AOL has basically opened their IM protocals, sponsors Mozilla, and provides many Americans with basic internet access.

I'd never use AOL personally, and last time I had AOL (version 2.0 or something), it was really bad, but the point is that AOL doesn't use microsoft's competition-stifeling marketing schemes. 

Folks, I hate to say a good thing about AOL (especially after watching all those "the all new 7.0" comercials where the people marvle that they can send "and recieve" email...), but AOL's a much better alternative to Microsoft.

Besides, didn't AOL sort of pull Netscape out of the ground when the Netscape people were filling for chapter 7?


TRY THE MACH-O BUILD. you will really like it. It is WAY faster than Netscape and the popular cfm/Mozilla builds.

Don't bash mozilla's web browser untill you try this one.


----------



## martinatkinson (Jan 13, 2002)

Wow!  It is indeed faster then Internet Explorer and OmniWeb.  I just wish it had a better interface.  Something more OS X like.

Also, kinda wondering how they can copy Netscapes icons without getting in trouble.

Anyway, other then that it is a great browser!

Have a great day!

Albert


----------



## Javintosh (Jan 13, 2002)

holy crap-o!

I just tried this and it blazes! Not only that, but you can also change themes without quitting and relaunching.

Oh yeah... Mozilla starts much faster and new windows open much faster as well...

it does have some cosmetic annoyances that Carbon Mozilla does not, but that's a small price to pay for that kind of speed!


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jan 13, 2002)

Unforunately, the keyboard shortcuts don't work 90% of the time. 

I wish they would concentrate on this build, other than the Carbon build, because it definitely shows more promise for speed and stability.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jan 13, 2002)

can't seem to get it to recognize plugins (Quicktime, Flash, WindowsMediaPlayer). I copied these in to the applications bundle folder "PlugIns", but none of them work. Can't seem to figure out where the application expects them.


----------



## vanguard (Jan 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kilowatt _
> *
> microsoft =! AOL/TW (<> for you BASIC types, like me)
> 
> ...



A couple of things:

1.  It's microsoft != AOL/TW.  No big deal, just thought I'd get that corrected.
2.  Where do I find the mach-o builds?
3.  With regards to the not bashing thing, that's great advice.  I wish more people on this board became educated before the became vocal.


----------



## ulrik (Jan 13, 2002)

I just downloaded and test drove it (actually I am posting from it) and I have to say I am more than impressed. If this build is finished, I will certainly make it my standard browser, but at the moment, as others have mentioned, I can't get things like Plugins to work. 

Anyway, the speed is incredible! Really! The only browser I know which is faster is Lynx.


----------



## vanguard (Jan 13, 2002)

Ok, I see the link in your first posts.  Oops.  I'll try it now.


----------



## vanguard (Jan 13, 2002)

I've been testing it for about two minutes now.  So far I like it a lot.

I went to this page: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/12/2250209&mode=thread&threshold=0

in IE on my 500 mhz icebook and it took 45 seconds to load. (Timed with the system clock.)  I went to the same page and loaded it  in this mozilla build.  It took between 4 and 5 seconds.

Another thing to note, I can see via my network monitor that it takes very little time to actually download the page on my cable modem.  All the time is spent rendering the page.

Bottom line:  It's very fast.

Vanguard

PS  Keyboard shortcuts are working for me.  I'll keep playing around with this build.

PPS I can see that this comes from the nightly builds.  Quality should be getting better and better towards the end of this month because they will stop adding features and start working only on bugs as they prepare for the milestone release.


----------



## Javintosh (Jan 13, 2002)

link for latest mach-o build: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest/mozilla-macho-macosx-trunk.dmg.gz


----------



## edX (Jan 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by martinatkinson _
> *Also, kinda wondering how they can copy Netscapes icons without getting in trouble.
> *



albert, it's the other way around. netscape uses mozilla's icons. read my rant earlier in thread to understand this.



> ]Don't bash mozilla's web browser untill you try this one



kilowatt - i am not bashing mozilla's performance which is the only thing i would be judging by downloading and using. as excited as you are about this, my guess is that i was using mozilla before you ever heard of it (maybe not) and have long since removed it from my hd. you don't seem to get that i am talking about the politics of using a product that supports aol thru the free labor of its users. do you support sweatshops in other industries? now if aol payed people to use mozolla, i would have a different view.  i still wouldn't use it but i would at least figure that they weren't supporting ripping off their customers with free labor. but then again, have you ever heard of "blood money"?



> With regards to the not bashing thing, that's great advice. I wish more people on this board became educated before the became vocal.


vanguard - my "bashing" is an attempt to educate.  now i am trying to understand your position about obeying sstandards? can't this also be accomplihed by supporting the indies? my icab even has a little smilie face that frowns when a page doesn't follow standards.  (it is sad right now). and as for the test link earlier. it loaded it in the same 4-5 secs that mozilla did!!


----------



## Javintosh (Jan 13, 2002)

I'd be interested in seeing what kinds of speed people get here: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/

For me it finishes in anywhere from 13-16 seconds with Mach-o Mozilla.

I've been using IE for most browsing, but use Mozilla for this and a few other very long web pages.


----------



## edX (Jan 13, 2002)

javintosh - about 9-10 secs with icab. but i have my doubts that it rendered properly. 1st part of page looks normal enough, but then text is one word or two to a line.  icab is frowning so the page does not meet standards. (btw, i assume we are all using broadband connections for this comparison and even at that i am sure there is some variation among connections that is independent of browser.)


----------



## Javintosh (Jan 13, 2002)

That is pretty fast fendering in iCab.

I do wonder about the standards compliance. Does iCab give you additional information about the compliance?

I ran the page against the W3C's own HMTL validator at http://validator.w3.org/ . It reports no errors against the HTML 4.0 Transitional Doctype standatd.


----------



## edX (Jan 13, 2002)

javintosh - i just tested all my osx browsers on your page. 1st thing is it confirmed my doubts that while icab was fast it did not render page in its best form. nicest rendering was in omniweb and opera. ie and netscape were adequite.

netrape -22 secs
exploiter - 25 secs
omniweb latest beta - 35 secs
opera latest beta - 43 secs

this is how they stack up on my humble imac with pachell dsl.

i should also note that my icab is not stock. i have tweaked it to get optimum performance for pages i visit regularly. it can probably be tweaked to render your page better as well. one funny thing that made it faster was changing the icon set.


----------



## edX (Jan 13, 2002)

javintosh - icab generates an error report and has an EMCAScript/inscript debugger to optimize pages you use regularly that do not change.

here is example: part of the error report for reply page:

Altogether 266 errors found. Only  25 errors are listed below.
Warning (73/1): The attribute "LEFTMARGIN" is not allowed for the tag <BODY>.
Warning (73/1): The attribute "TOPMARGIN" is not allowed for the tag <BODY>.
Error (73/1): In the tag <BODY> the attribute "MARGINWIDTH" is not allowed.
Error (73/1): In the tag <BODY> the attribute "MARGINHEIGHT" is not allowed.
Warning (97/1): The tag <CENTER> should no longer be used since HTML 4.0.
Error (113/4): The character '&' must be written as '&amp;'. 
Error (116/4): The character '&' must be written as '&amp;'. 
Warning (136/1): The tag <CENTER> should no longer be used since HTML 4.0.
Error (136/9): The character '&' must be written as '&amp;'.


----------



## Javintosh (Jan 13, 2002)

I downloaded the source and ran it part BBEdit, it found 2 types of errors:

unencoded entities (2,268 instances)  
an invalid a href... tag (a space before http://) - bad W3C. bad!  

Funny BBEdit does not find some of the other errors iCab seems to find. Makes me wonder how accurate the iCab standards compliance check is. If I had to bet money, I would bet on BBEdit.

In any case, I'll have to give iCab a twirl and check out that speed!


----------



## edX (Jan 13, 2002)

well here is icab's homepage http://www.icab.de/  for you and everyone else who would like to check it out. i know they have more info about web standards and compliance on the site. they even have a page to check and see if you have your browser configured to read them. it may not be as 'mature' or 'professional' looking as the other browsers but it does a great job once you play with the prefs and the icon sets a little. 

i really wish omniweb would do as well. i like the looks of it better than any.


----------



## vanguard (Jan 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *
> vanguard - my "bashing" is an attempt to educate.  now i am trying to understand your position about obeying sstandards? can't this also be accomplihed by supporting the indies? my icab even has a little smilie face that frowns when a page doesn't follow standards.  (it is sad right now). and as for the test link earlier. it loaded it in the same 4-5 secs that mozilla did!! *



Yes, supporting the indies is another great way to support standards.  As far as I know, everybody but msft desires to support w3c standards.  Not everybody has the resources to pull it off.  I would guess that the rendering problem you found with iCab is caused by an improper implementation.  Sigh, if only everybody had a $1b development budget.

That's cool about the speed that you're getting with iCab.  I'll have to give it a shot.

Finally, I don't agree with the evils of making a project open source and using development time from the community.  (Apple does this with Darwin btw)  I think it's nice that if you ever disagree with the direction they take the project you can get the code and do as you please.  If they stopped taking care of their users that would happen.  Also, although not likely in this case, when a company goes under it's nice to have the code available.  Several Linux projects have continued on and made great strides after the companies that got them started went out of business.


----------



## edX (Jan 14, 2002)

> I don't agree with the evils of making a project open source and using development time from the community. (Apple does this with Darwin btw)


ok, i'll back down on this one. i did overstate it abit a while back. i am not in general against people helping something they believe in be better. but why i would post my original statements is because i am STRONGLY opposed to aol. and you can read the responses that act like mozilla has nothing to do with aol. note albert's questioning how they got away with using netscape's icons!!  killowatt asking me to just judge it by how fast it is!! 
if there is some other project that takes the open source of mozilla and improves on it without feeding it to aol, i would be behind it all the way. 
coors gives money to both the john birch society and norml. for years i have refused to drink coors, much less buy it. even though part of the money would go to a cause i believe in, another part would go to cutting my own throat. so if i want to support the cause i believe in i would just give directly to them and avoid anybody who supports my enemies. and i sincerely believe that aol is my enemy in more ways than one. i have started a poll to see how others have experienced aol.  it makes no sense to me to see a company as being a problem and indirectly supporting them. 
in psychology this is called 'enabling' and the enabler is usually the one who needs treatment first before we can move forward with treatment of the enabled. 
i grew up seeing social changes brought about by people who stood up to things they believe are wrong. i believe that the way aol does business is wrong. i am doing my part to stand up to them. i am attempting to show others why they might benefit in the long run if they do as well. but i can never make that choice for them. it will always be their's. and until someone reaches the understanding that everything they do in the outisde world has political implications, they will not change the world they are creating.  i use political here in the broader scope of controling the world we live in. in the sense that when you watch  x-files instead of alias, you are making a political choice. 
so if given a choice between the independent browsers that are fighting against the same 'powers that be' as i am, and an open source developer who's gains are directly profitting the powers that be, it is my choice to support the new guys. i am willing to sacrifice a few seconds of my day towards that. even a few minutes. in the long run we have a better chance of getting what we really want this way.
and should it ever come that the new browsers fail because of support, then all those who whined about them not being this or that will have only themselves to blame for their total lack of choice. and lack of caring that accompanies that. 
using mozilla is supporting its development over the development of omni, icab and opera. 

now wouldn't it be great if apple were to fund icab or omni and make it an open source project? then manic and his buddies could post my arguements aimed at apple and we wouldn't care less!!!  in fact we would  say that was the best thing about it!!!
now, does that make any more sense!!


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jan 14, 2002)

Ed - I'm a little curious - exactly what do you believe AOL does wrong in it's business practices? I'm no fan of them, but view them as the lesser of two evils. Yeah, AOL goes on buying sprees and gobbles up companies it thinks it can benefit from owning. But just about every company AOL has bought has continued on just as before they were part of AOL (Spinner & ICQ being two examples). Netscape has gone down hill since becoming part of AOL, but that is because Netscape was slow to repsond to the IE threat before AOL bought them. Netscape took too long on version 6, and lost too much ground to IE.

I support Netscape/AOL/Mozilla because it is in EVERYONE's interest in having a viable, alternative browser to Microsoft's IE. Remember, Microsoft's main goal of domination is to eliminate the competition, and once that happens, you see the real Microsoft. Microsoft only innovates when it has to. Once it's the only game in town, it get's lazy and starts jacking up it's prices.


----------



## ksv (Jan 14, 2002)

The fastest of all browsers is Netscape. It's finished loading netsape.com before I've even typed the address  

Well, I'll give that mozilla thing a new try. This time I hope I get a download speed higher than 250 bytes/sec and that the file actually works


----------



## edX (Jan 14, 2002)

> Ed - I'm a little curious - exactly what do you believe AOL does wrong in it's business practices?



good question.  i've been taking my time going thru and trying to come up with a list of point by point reasons. the most difficult part of this is that my anger at aol has long since reached the point where it is acccessed on a more emotional level than that.  
i have noticed that there is no one standing up for aol as being a good thing. at best it has been defended as being "the lesser of two evils" or "better than m$" or a lousy company that only hurts those ignorant enough to use it. gee, these are great testimonials aren't they?
so i'll trace my experience with aol as best i can. i must admit that i do not know how aol does some of these things today as the burning taste they left in my mouth has put them on my ignore list long ago. 1st, i signed up for aol after i was already internet experienced. hell, the one thing you couldn't do very easily was get on the web. but aol built up so much of an internal network that people thought they were on the web. this was certainly before the days of broadband access and almost anything that you wanted to do required that you first download and cache additional graphics and programs. download time could be over 30 mins for something that one minute to see or do. well, at the time aol secured your credit card # before letting you take your free trial. so when my free trial expired they just started charging me. there was no place to go on their site to discontinue service and i got busy and forgot to pursue it any further. eventually i was able to talk to a supervisor in customer service and get my service shut off after paying for several months worth of service i never used. alos at the time there were many parts of thier site that could not be used by macs. they updated their features and versions constantly for the pc, but rarely for mac. 
now back inthe days of floppies i could make good use of those free trial version disks they sent. but these days all they are doing is using resources and littering the planet with the almost biweekly free trial offer disks.
now i always make it a big point to not let my friends get sucked into aol. but my stepdad saw the ads and talked to the salesman (that also convinced him that a pc was the only way to go) and got aol.  it took him forever to figure out how to find the web and basically he can't ddo anything but visit site because the aol and browser combo sucks up every bit of abvailable memory he has. and he is still using the version that was built for his pc's capabilities - ie, he had one custom built that was supposed to be very good for the time. he refuses to switch or let me teach him how the internet really works because aol advertising has him convinced he has the best. my attempts to use his computer while i am visiting are one frustration after another just trying to do things my old lc 475 did easily with a regular isp. 
i could go on and i will add more if this is not enough for anyone. the fact is that aol charges a premium and delivers subquality service. i constantly visit sites that tell aol customers to go thru some complicated procedure to do what i do with the click of a mouse. a single button mouse at that. some sites simply state that aol customers won't be able to something altogether.  and if i count my version updates correctly, they are still not giving the support to mac users that they do to pc's. 
so while i don't want a world with only m$, i also don't want a world with only aol or m$ !!!!!!! i refuse to do anything that supports them when i have alternatives.  and unlike elections wwhre your vote only counts if your choice wins, in the market place there is room for competition. and the little guys will only get bigger and better if we support them.  otherwise we are contributing to a world where m$ and aol are left. then all we have are "two evils."   My only question in raising this issue to start with: "is that what you want?" if it is then go ahead and use mozilla and tell everybody else to. spread the word. do aol's advertising and development for them. just don't ever expect to hear them or me say "thanks".


----------



## edX (Jan 14, 2002)

i want to make one thing clear. there is no one involved in this debate that i have anything against personally . quite the opposite. all those who have spoken up are people i haved developed a high regard for and will continue to see them in a positive light. this was never about "i'm better" or "i'm smarter".    never. 
this has been a very specifically directed plea(?) with much broader apllications: to ask mac users to unite and support those companies that treat us with respect and give us the equal attention we deserve. while there still are companies that put efforts into the mac, let us support them so that they prosper and grow for their efforts rather than folding to the masses and supporting our own demise. we all have an economic vote. and even using a 'free' product has economic implications behind it. if it didn't , do you think anyone would take the time and money to develop one? do you honestly believe that m$ and aol (netrape) spend money to give away browsers out of the kindness of their hearts? as a way of saying thanks?
if a few seconds here and a few seconds there are enough to make you not care what the future brings, then fine. that is your choice.  
outside of m$ who had all sorts of product to pump, there was not one single other browser represented at the macworld expo except for omniweb. Brian, one of the three behind it, was there shaking hands and talking face to face with people. the problem with getting omniweb to where we all want it to be - money and support.  my guess is that icab has the same problem. if we gave them some of both, maybe they could move faster.


----------



## kilowatt (Jan 15, 2002)

Ed, I'm glad we agree on that - nothing presonal here, just tech talk and stuff.

And I've had similar stuff with AOL, like slow downloads, and a sort of microcosm aol places arround the user, between the user and the internet.

But let me point out something to you, as a sort of analogy:

FreeBSD has a license which allows others to use their code, without having to make the end result open source.

you probably know where I'm going with this, but I want to make sure everyone else does (you know, all those people who read 3 page threads... ;-) ).

Well, microsoft uses some BSD code in windows. 

but I don't boycott BSD.

It just seems to me, Ed, that you are boycotting Mozilla because AOL supports them. Granted, AOL isn't my friend either. But honestly, mozilla is great. Remember, most of the non-windows world doesn't use IE. On linux, its almost 90% netscape/mozilla. 

By using Mozilla, I don't help aol one bit.  All I'm doing is:
1) having a good web browsing experiance
2) Making an open source effort more popular
and 3) ading in the development and protection of internet standards. Netscape 6 is currently the most standards-compliant web broswer avaliable.

consider this: AOL uses Sun computers. So, in effect, Sun enables AOL. So are you going to boycot Sun now? Oh, and Sun uses a few AMD chips in their scsi controllers. Lets ban amd too. And motorola, they probably have something in those servers.

And AOL paid for those servers, too. AOL funded, in effect, some of sun's business.

Yet I don't feel the slightest anger towards sun.

Overall, I think Moz is important to the internet community. No other browser is as cross-plat form avaliable, compatable, or standards compliant.

I respect your adherance to principal, I just think your principal is mis-placed.


PS: like my sig?


----------



## edX (Jan 15, 2002)

yea kilowatt, i noticed your sig when you posted the screenshot for neyo. pretty cool looking. i like dinasaurs just fine. that took some creativity if it is original!!! well done.
i agree that mozilla is an excellent browser. i have never once said anything to the contrary. i liked it a lot when i used it. it was once my default browser (for quite a long time). i would use it over netscape or ie anyday _except_ for the fact that my using it contributed to the next release of netscape. 
putting aside the bsd example for a moment, the others you give are not the same because they are all products that aol/netscape purchases. and all the people who build the product take home paychecks at the end of the week. Sun, AMD and motorola pay their employees.
mozilla specifically states on their site that the majority of work is done by users. some in terms of reporting bugs, some in terms of code development, etc.. this work does benefit aol/netscape.  if aol wants to pay a bunch of developers to sit down and write code and improve a product that is fine. it's their business. when they release that product i still will not use it any more than i have to. notice in my page load comparisons - ihave ie and netscape. i am forced to use them at times. why, because the two of them have virtual control over certain sectors of the net.  
it wasn't long ago that i was using netscape/mozilla as the lesser of two evils. it was the only other choice i had. but now there are 3 other companies trying to bring the web back to us.  we stand at another crossroads with new options. we can continue down the familiar road or embark on a new one. i imagine that you too can remember when netscape was the new kid on the block. wasn't 'archie' the standard before them?  netscape was terrific as long as they lasted. but the day aol bought netscape it became something different. aol bought it to make money with. not as some cheap way to give their clients a thank you gift. so yes, the cause and effect now leads from good people using mozilla to profit for aol.  
i still don't get why you believe you are not benefitting them.

now as for bsd, i don't know enugh about them or their connection to say whether i would want to boycott them or not for having code that m$ uses. i have no linux background and very little time spent on pc's . none by choice. but perhaps if i knew more, i might feel the same way, i just don't know. i'm really not so sure how i feel about open sourcing right now.  so far it doesn't really sound like anybody has finacially benefitted from it except for big companies that take it and put it into something commercial at no cost to them. in the end a few power users are happy with the open development at the expense of the average user. i think i am generally oppossed to that however misguided you might think i am. i can remember my dad saying how misguided i was for being against the war in vietnam too. 

i do know that i would prefer doing my business with a hungry dog than a fat one. and when that hungry dog gets fat and complacent like his buddy, it is time to go find another hungry dog. and from where i sit, mozilla is just a meal for that big fat dog that sits on the porch smiling and doing nothing but getting fed and being fat.


----------



## kilowatt (Jan 15, 2002)

Ed, I think I have this figured out.

This is the classic case of a GNU/GPL person clashing with a BSD-style person.

there is nothing I can say now 

Check out http://www.gnu.org
and http://www.freebsd.org
if you wish to compare the licenses. I have a feeling you will fit in just fine at gnu.org ;-)

No offense intended, though. I hope you find your prefect license through this ;-)

PS, the signature is the Mozilla Dragon, I got it off a mozilla bug report... I think its a bit long, though, so I may replace it soon.


----------



## edX (Jan 15, 2002)

lol 

well at least it's good to know i'm a classic case!!  i have to agree, i am a copyleft kind of person. i am not so sure i agree with some of the other stuff he supports, but copyleft is exactly where i am coming from.  it's good to know that this issue is unresolvable and i can stop wearing my fingers down to the bone typing long passionate replies.
not being a programmer i still believe in proprietary software. i have no problem with that. i need it.  i want it. i am willing to pay for it when it suits my needs. i believe developers should be able to eat, buy homes, watch satelite TV, etc. (not sure about driving cars - i suppose it depends on the individual. it's alright if they can focus on the world around them for awhile - he he). in fact i think individual developers or development groups that put out a great product should eat very well for their efforts. but big companies shouldn't feed all their employees off of others'  work while the person who did the work lives paycheck to paycheck in the blissful ignorance of having enjoyed the work.

so again i want to ask you to explain how you are not aiding aol by using mozilla? i still see you as someone who is contributing to something that you don't really believe in either. eg, i hit a cue ball into a group of three balls. i sink two of them. the third lands in a position that blocks my shot on the eight. i end up scratching and losing. i meant to sink the first two. i accomplished the very thing i set out to do. i enjoyed it immensely and took great pride in it. but in doing so i screwed myself out of the chance to win, which was the bigger objective. of course i can still come away claiming what a great shot i was to sink two balls on one shot and how much fun it was to have played.

btw - your homepage gives icab one of the few green smilie faces i have seen. at least you practice what you preach about adhering to standards!! 


so are there any more gnu's out there or am i surrounded by bsd's?


----------



## edX (Jan 15, 2002)

so how do you like my new moniker? i think i'll keep it  till this thread hits the bottom of the page  maybe i should put up a new avatar as well. do you think it would be too misleading if i used the gnu cow since i don't really know linux/not unix


gnu's and bsd's can still be friends, right? we just can't talk about stuff like this, right? (lol)


----------



## martinatkinson (Jan 15, 2002)

Hello!

Ed:  totally off the subject but at the time of this posting you have made exactly 1000 postings!  Congratulations!  Keep up the great work!

Have a great day!

Albert


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jan 15, 2002)

Ed - I had a similiar AOL experience back in 1993. I think I used them for a total of 3 months before I bolted and briefly joined e-World (Apple's own "AOL" like service), which I was on for maybe 1 month before I dropped it all together. I didn't get back "online" until late '94, thanks to the wonderful guys and gals at Mindspring.

As a corporation, I'm no fan of AOL. But the Netscape browser issue doesn't bother me. AOL may ultimately own the work that is done by all the volunteers to the project, but shouldn't the volunteers already know that from reading the open source agreement before they contribute? 

I think Apple's license agreement with Darwin is very similiar in that you can contribute anything you like to it, but if you do, Apple can use it for their own gain and not worry about paying the creator.

Either way - my only beef with open source is the speed in which projects get finished. Mozilla started almost 5 years ago, and they have yet to ship a "1.0" release. That's pathetic, and part of the reason why IE now owns over 80% of the browser market. Netscape took too long to get a good IE 5 competitor out.

Hopefully with the antitrust settlement issue of vendors being able to put any browser on XP that they want (Compaq and HP have already stated they will use Netscape), Netscape/Mozilla can gain more share.


----------



## googolplex (Jan 15, 2002)

kilowatt, thanks for promoting mozilla... its really got a bad reputation with people and they bash it without trying it. Or because it sucked before. This mach-o build is amazing. its amazingly fast and it would be amazing if keyboard shortcuts would work. I've filed a bug on this and a few other problems with it at bugzilla and they are being worked on.

Ed, try and file a bug on IE and you wont know if it will even be looked at. If AOL was to kill Netscape today Mozilla would still continue. 

It benefits everyone to have a viable alternitive to IE. Mozilla is the viable alternitive on practically *all* platforms. I dont want to say using Omniweb or Opera or iCab is bad, however. Using anything other then IE is better then using IE. I just think that Mozilla is really getting good. And it makes things easier for web developers since it supports this really weird thing called standards. 

googolplex

P.S. Come on the IRC server (#macintosh on irc.press3.com). We have some really good people on there and some really good discussion at times. It would be great if we could get more people on it.


----------



## edX (Jan 15, 2002)

1st, thanks albert for the recognition. there is a 'congrats to ed' thread in all thoughts non-tech and i invite everyone to drop by there and chat about more mundane stuff 

well, we all agree that having alternatives to ie is a good thing. and i am sure we go on and on with people saying #2 is better than #3 and me saying "but 3's a bigger number than 2".  it is clear that all who have engaged in discussion with me have a pretty good idea of what is going on and make their choice accordingly which is how it should be. it just alarms me when someone posts a link to mozilla and says download it - it works great. many people will then try it and not know all the things we have discussed. so i speak up and say, "yea, but....". then people can make their own decision. i think this thread has done a good job of presenting both sides and hopefully a few people are reading it and making an informed choice - my real goal to start with. 

i don't think my beef is really with informed developers who sign the agreement and have got a clue how it works. it is with those annoying crash reports (yes i know you can turn them off, but people who naively want to help won't do that) that average users generate.

googolplex - if aol killed netscape i very well might go back to mozilla.

btw - another of my favorite features in icab - ad blocking. i can visit ad driven free sites without having to be bothered by annoying banners. this also saves on load time. 

Peace, Love and Use a Mac


----------



## googolplex (Jan 15, 2002)

Ed, in mozilla you can disable popups and popunders! . Also there is an addon being worked on to block banners.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jan 19, 2002)

The Mach-O file that's now sitting in the nightly builds folder is only 1.1MB and doesn't include the Mozilla app, just the libical.pkg file and a readme.

Anyone know what's going on? Is there another location to get nightly builds of the Mach-O Mozilla?


----------



## rinse (Jan 30, 2002)

but what happens when the sites you visit start charging for access because the advertisers have left?  

i hate banner blocking software for that reason... damn... if you like a site don't block their banners... do the opposite. click on a couple of them from time to time and surf that new site that pops up so that the referring page log in their server shows that the ads are working...

i mean c'mon! how do you think people get paid to run content sites?


----------



## theed (Jan 30, 2002)

I'm having some moral issues determining where I stand on these issues... I agree wholeheartedly about blocking ads, it hurts the people we often like the most.  Unless you surf porn sites or warez sites, then you have no choice but to turn on blocking because those people are NOT about fair play in the browser.

I ues AOL as my no quostians asked get on from anywhere ISP.  I travel a fair amount, and it is critical that I can dial in no matter where I am.  I use AOL with a $5 per month very limited time online subscription.  It's enough to check my e-mail a couple times per month.  Anyone reasonable stopped using the AOL browser years ago, as soon as they enabled TCP over AOL.

I agree that they provide an experience largely separate from the internet.  If you want a truly moderated online experience for your kids, I view AOL as the only way to go.  It's inherently closed.  The internet is inherently open, and trying to block things is a messy patchwork.

I do think they are a corporation bent on making a profit, but aren't they all?  They've enabled a minimum of features that keep me happy, and I send them a minimum of dollars in response.  I'm also paying $250 per month for a business grade network connection, so the $5 isn't a big deal to me.  I get online with AOL and surf the web with iCab.  I have no bad feelings about that.  Although the version numbers in Mac and Windows don't match, AOL did port to Mac OS X in short order.  You're free to hate them.  I don't.  They are a viable tool for certain uses.


----------



## googolplex (Jan 30, 2002)

serpicolugnut, there was a problem with the building of mach-o for a little while. The problem is fixed and the builds should be normal again.


----------



## iamnotmad (Jan 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *
> 
> btw - another of my favorite features in icab - ad blocking. i can visit ad driven free sites without having to be bothered by annoying banners. this also saves on load time.
> *



Way to talk out of both sinds of your mouth.  one side: "Support the little guy don't use mozilla!!"[becasue of some personal opinion on the connection between totally open source user built mozilla and the large company AOL], the other side: "I love blocking ads..." [on those little sites where i get all kinds of free information, and thier only source of income is ads]


----------



## edX (Jan 30, 2002)

and if i am not going to follow those ads, what difference does it make? i am pretty sure phone solicitors make their money by placing calls and i don't buy from them either. advertising has never been a guarentee that anyone will buy. there is never any gurantee that the right people will see it. it is a best guess science. i am guessing i won't be needing anything they are advertising. no one has lost anything by not showing me the ad. 

btw, icab doesn't block all ads, just those generated from the most well known and least appealling (to me) sources. 

the world doesn't always have to be totally congruent. i pick the ways that make it seem like that for me, and you choose your ways.

"sometimes we live no particular way but our own"
-Grateful Dead


----------



## iamnotmad (Jan 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *and if i am not going to follow those ads, what difference does it make? i am pretty sure phone solicitors make their money by placing calls and i don't buy from them either. advertising has never been a guarentee that anyone will buy. there is never any gurantee that the right people will see it. it is a best guess science. i am guessing i won't be needing anything they are advertising. no one has lost anything by not showing me the ad.
> *



In fact those sites make money when the ads are simply displayed, just not as much as if there was a click thru.  But also, this is not a random association.  You talk specifically about helping the little guy, meanwhile you leach off the little guy in your own way, by stripping them of what is sometimes thier sole source of revenue.

Absolutely, but perhaps everytime someone posts a message about how they think others should give mozilla a try (becasue they themselves thought the functionality was good)  you hop on and say, whoa, don't use that you're being bad, oh, but make up your own mind.


----------



## googolplex (Jan 30, 2002)

ooh its heating up .

Ed, you do tend to be very one-minded on Mozilla


----------



## edX (Jan 30, 2002)

> everytime someone posts a message about how they think others should give mozilla a try (becasue they themselves thought the functionality was good) you hop on and say, whoa, don't use that you're being bad, oh, but make up your own mind.



that's right. i'm like the houseguest from hell that won't leave when it comes to this topic. (actually interpretting my point of view as some judgement of good and bad is a bit off, i'm just saying support a world you want to live in and don't support one you don't)

i also think your points about ad blocking are things people should take into consideration before thay do it. you've got good points. I personally don't visit many small ad driven sites. the pages i like looking at the best without ads are some of my own homepages. They are not commercially oriented in the least and i find the banners very annoying. of course i am too cheap to pay to remove them as well. so that is the price of free. 
of course, if i really wanted to, i could argue that allowing advertisers to pay for ads you ignore is ripping the advertiser off, but i won't go there.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jan 30, 2002)

the latest build of MachO Mozilla has some good improvements in using Aqua widgets, but that damn annoying bug of keyboard shortcuts not working is still there. This should be a high priority bug fix. Otherwise, this build just keeps on getting better and better...


----------



## googolplex (Jan 30, 2002)

yeah the keyboard shortcuts is *really* annoying... thats why i use the mozilla carbon build.


----------



## ulrik (Feb 24, 2002)

I had to come back to this thread, because today I  used maybe the fastest browser when it comes to rendering I have ever seen, in fact, I am writing from it at the moment!
Konqueror on Linux! Damnit, this thing is really fast, faster than the latest Mozilla build on Linux! Just thought I'd share


----------



## mindbend (Feb 24, 2002)

Hi, I'm the dead horse beater. So, regarding this pathetic graphics layer speed that plagues virtually every OS X application (wham!:sound of dead horse being kicked). I've officially downloaded and tried every browser recommended on this board and others. I can't think of all of them, but basically we've got Explorer, Omniweb, iCab, Opera, Mozilla, Netscape official, Chimera...what am I missing.

I'm here to say that for me and how I use web browers they all completely suck in OS X. And I mean SUCK as in total embarassment. Most of my tests are done on a lowly iMac 400, which I know might be a teeny bit unfair, but you'd think somebody could make a browser that doesn't function in slow motion for a base model Mac. 

The really funny part is that they run faster in X's own Classic layer! Too funny. I know it's totally different rendering technology, but still, it's the same machine, make it work or use a better method. Until I see Quartz run smoothly, I wish Apple would have chosen another method.

I have my browser window set to full width simply because it makes me cringe to even think of resizing. For the love of God, this is 2002 and I have to put up with this total crap! 

One step forward, two steps back.


----------



## verlorenengel (Feb 24, 2002)

Let's hope 10.2 is better


----------



## kilowatt (Feb 25, 2002)

LOOK PEOPLE,

if Ed doesn't click on ads, how is blocking them any different, to the person on the other end, than not clicking on them?


----------



## theed (Feb 25, 2002)

It's called branding.  Having exposure to a brand gives you a warm fuzzy about it, even if you don't know anything about it.  When you go to a store and look for something, and you see a familiar name, you're more likely to investigate it.  You remember the name, it's familiar, you don't remember why.

Budweiser has some really nice ads, that look like beer.  I don't even drink, but I look at the ads and get familiar with the name.  It's a similar startegy to what the Apple stores are doing, they're not just trying to be point of sale capable.  Apple would be perfectly happy (if not ecstatic) if you went for the first time to an Apple store, and then actually bought an Apple from Best Buy.  

Ads are not always point of sale.  There are many levels of comfort a customer goes through before purchase.  Identifying a brand is one of those.

And now in a vain attempt to get back on topic.  I still like iCab, although I realize that it renders kinda crazy sometimes.


----------



## edX (Feb 25, 2002)

Yea, i still like icab the best too!!  unclick css2 and switch the icon set and the thing flys and renders much better. And it is made in Europe so it is supporting an international economy concept. 

but theed, just to get back off track , i was in advertising for 7 years. i know many of the tricks of the trade. it should still come down to my choice as to whether i want to be exposed or not. Otherwise you are promoting brainwashing. besides many ads create a very different feeling from the warm fuzzy you are describing. in fact, most ads do. Just because someone wants to pay to reach me, doesn't mean they have a right to. they have only a chance to. 

you know billboards can be helpful things sometimes. but 50 of them in a 2 mile stretch is ridiculus. same with the mass amount of pop ups and banner adds that litter the internet. I don't really eliminate them, i just reduce the number i am exposed to.

these anti-blocking arguments would have to be applied to spam as well, and i doubt many people would stand up and shout about how wrong it is to block spam.


----------



## theed (Feb 25, 2002)

That's about as close as we'll probably ever come to disagreeing.  I agree with you that it's your choice to download page's parts selectively.  If you choose not to, that's fine.  I also think it's pretty sweet that iCab allows it in such an intelligent manner.  I myself will not block ads like that because I think it hurts the providers.  But I'm all about leaving the choice up to the individual.

My previous point was that seeing an ad is part of the advertising campaign.  Just because you don't click on it doesn't mean it wasn't effective.  At the same time, I hate the number of ads people are usually exposed to.  I don't watch TV in part because of this. ... that and it sucks.  At least with web sites I can look at what I want without having my time wasted waiting for advertisements to finish.  If your web browsing experience is such that you are wasting life because of ads, then by all means turn those puppies off.

It saddens me that advertising has substituted so effectively for quality of design.  Sales are more dependent on marketing than on the product.  It also saddens me that advertisements can now be effective by creating an emotional tie between a product and ... an emotion.  Don't sell me a computer with blue people and a jingle!  At least show the product you're selling!  Those bastards.

But, finally, when you block ads, you're not taking revenue out of the advertiser's pocket.  He pays per thousand downloads.  If the image isn't downloaded, it's probably not counted.  You're only reducing revenue to the site provider who is pulling his money from advertising.  If you want the lack of view to count against the advertiser, you'd need to download, yet still not view the ad.  At least this level of honesty in the transaction remains.


----------



## QuackingPenguin (Mar 3, 2002)

I don't understand some of you. You complain about speed issues etc, and say IE is still the best for X, and yet, if someone were to tell you that say, some (eg) WinAmp, or is mac relative MacAmp ripped  MP3s faster, iTunes, would you change, simply for speed? No. You would think to youself, well, iTunes is an easy to use program, with decent features, and it has a user interface that is pleasing to the eye. I cannot stand IE. Microsoft tried to replicate the Windows IE, and yet still look like "the good guys" to Mac users, by making it frickin aqua, which they still didn't do right. It doesn't respect standards, it doesn't use system settings (even under os9) and above all, its from microsoft. does IE REALLY have any worthwhile features that say OmniWeb or iCab, or Opera don't have? 

I admit, i do use MS products. I use Entourage and Word. i do this, because i used Entourage under 9, and for me, Mail.app simply isn't what i want in an email client. and word, - well i've been taught all the ins and outs of Word/Excel/Access as TAFE,  it has more features for advanced data handling, and it integrates with Entourage, allowing dynamic content from my address book etc. 

I wish Mail.app was as good as, or better than Entourage, but it isn't for what i want. I wish AppleWorks had the features of Word, but last time i checked, (6.something in 9) it didn't and the toolbar was buggy (buttons were all black).

All i'm saying is, the whole point of looking at a  website is to actually LOOK at it. It's not much point looking at a pile of shit that doesn't resemble the authors design, even if it does load in half a second.

Thats my two cents....plus a few dollars.


----------



## edX (Mar 4, 2002)

While being one of the most vocal anti-netrape/internet exploiter persons on the site, i can hardly deny having them on my hd. and from time to time i am forced to use them. Itools works with ie. don't even get me started on how much apple pisses me off by not working with the other browsers closer to make this a non issue. ie also is the only browser that uses WMP as far as i can tell. sometimes i like to hear things that some 'under m$'s thumb' site has to offer. If i want to hear anything in real format, i have to go to classic communicator to hear or see it. 

even among members of our site, there is some ridiculus worship of flash and having to use the latest version. so back to ie or raper to see the site. 

but the fact is that 99% of the time i spend online can be done just as well and often better with icab. or even omniweb or opera. It is only those sites that participate in the big corporations' quest for control that force me to be controlled by what browser i use.  

btw Quackingpenguin, i don't understand those people either


----------



## Captain Code (Mar 4, 2002)

Can anyone get the latest nightly build to install?

When I install it it doesn't actually install anything at all, besides the Mozilla registry, the prefs and a few other files.  

The actual Mozilla application isn't anywhere on my drive


----------



## themacko (Mar 5, 2002)

I'm having the same problem, I've tried probably a half a dozen times over the past 2 months and have never been able to install the Mach-O browser for one reason or another.

It would be to get a link to a download that actually works.


----------



## edX (Mar 5, 2002)

so what you guys are saying is that i'm getting all worked up over nothing. that only googolplex, vanguard , kilowatt and now solrac can even get the thing to work? 

so let me ask people - could we dispense with all this debate and pondering about why we all feel the way we do and just agree that either you or me puts something straightforward like mozilla does on their site to the effect that mozilla is used in the development of netscape for aol and for people to use it with that in mind.  we can work on the exact wording. that's all i really ever wanted. for people to know the connection and to make a choice accordingly.


----------



## Captain Code (Mar 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *so what you guys are saying is that i'm getting all worked up over nothing. that only googolplex, vanguard , kilowatt and now solrac can even get the thing to work?
> *



I HAD it working, but I deleted it because it was butt ugly, but now I want to try it again, and It's not working  



> *
> so let me ask people - could we dispense with all this debate and pondering about why we all feel the way we do and just agree that either you or me puts something straightforward like mozilla does on their site to the effect that mozilla is used in the development of netscape for aol and for people to use it with that in mind.  we can work on the exact wording. that's all i really ever wanted. for people to know the connection and to make a choice accordingly.  *



Ed, if I ever get this thing working, I don't plan on submitting any bug reports to them, I just want to use a fast browser.


----------



## genghiscohen (Mar 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by QuackingPenguin _
> *It doesn't respect standards, it doesn't use system settings (even under os9) and above all, its from microsoft. does IE REALLY have any worthwhile features that say OmniWeb or iCab, or Opera don't have?
> 
> I wish Mail.app was as good as, or better than Entourage, but it isn't for what i want. I wish AppleWorks had the features of Word, but last time i checked, (6.something in 9) it didn't and the toolbar was buggy (buttons were all black).*



Yup, me too.
The only "advantage" to using Internet Exploder is that it can access M$ websites that Gates & Co. have deliberately blocked other browsers from.


----------



## googolplex (Mar 5, 2002)

Mozilla mach-o is in development, there was a problem with the script that created the nightly builds.

devonferns and others, you should get chimera at chimera.mozdev.org. It looks nice and its fast . 

I really don't think this needs much argueing anymore... I'm happy with people using icab or omniweb or opera. Just don't use IE people .


----------

