# About Web Browsers....



## WhateverJoe (Jan 31, 2002)

( I did not want to continue on the previous thread )

I have a major concern that has a large part to do with Web Browser quality and speed in OS X.

As an IS during the day and Mac Loving Addict at night... I do try to find ways to use Macs in the work place... Of every mac that has been placed in the work enviroment... all complain currently about the following top 3 things:

1) Internet Explorer Has Quit
2) Page loads but there is White space that a quick resizing of the window seems to cure...
3) Loading pages from the intranet that are large and long "tables" displaying data... Takes much longer and scrolling is much slower compared to the "Celeron 733mhz system they were using before"

I have asked some to try using other browsers such as Omniweb and Netscape, but those seem to be worse about quiting and scroll speed with pages containing large tables of data.

There has been enough complaints about this.. That I have been asked to replace the iMacs with cheap $599 systems... Of which "For Web Browsing Purpose" I admit to being better because the windows version of IE is pretty rock solid and displays much faster than the Mac version...

So what can I do... I work on and maintain our 100+ systems out there with me using my little powerbook... and There is a difference and it's very.. well.. you can see a difference in "Browser happiness" ...

Another observation of mine... of late... I bought my girlfriend one of those new 14" iBooks... Having never used a mac before.. she first commented on how nicer looking and neat the Mac OS X was.. but all she complains about.. is "Why does IE quit everytime I visit this site? ... It loads fine on my PC!".. and "Why in the world does IE just Quit out of the blue............ This thing sucks..." ....

She is nothing but an iTunes and WebSurfing user... with the main thing being a WebSurfer... she as asked me to get her a PC... she's frustrated...

So what can I do... ??

I understand things.... and to be honest... most of these things do not bother me.. But I realize now-a-days... not everyone is as calm and "Oh-Well" about things as I am... She looks at her iBook as being a useless pain in her but because the "Best?" web browser currently around is crapy put against what she was use to using, and her experience with surfing using the Windows IE 5.5....

This is not a letter to apple directly... I just want to vent here because.. hey... I've e-mailed support@microsoft.com many of times about the mac version of IE .. humm... (23 letters in my sent-items folder) and have never recived a responce other than "Automatic responce letter"........ so I do beleive as I have known others to have sent their opinion to microsoft... that Microsoft just dosn't give enough of a "%$*m" about their mac version... Perhaps they         do.. perhaps not... but the only developers out there that I see working hard as they can to produce a great product is from the OmniGroup... it's not there yet .. but by gosh you see them trying and responding to their customers... 

So perhaps if Apple does read these message boards.... Put pressure in some fashion on Microsoft.... Buy or "Covertly" help OmniGroup make OmniWeb a direct "same level" of web-browser that the Win IE 5.x-6 browser is... Do something.. because if the i in all the iMacs and iBook is for internet ... it's a joke with the Web Browsers...


----------



## edX (Jan 31, 2002)

apple - if you don't get the logic in that post, then we all have misplaced our trust in you. So far you have been responsible for developing all the great apps that set the mac apart. how about one more that keeps it on par?


----------



## gradic (Feb 21, 2002)

yes, please.


----------



## symphonix (Feb 21, 2002)

There is an agreement in place between Apple and Microsoft, as part of their court settlement, that goes something like:

- MS buys a sizeable chunk of non-voting stock in Apple (their incentive to stop attacking Applee head-on)
- MS agrees to continue producing Office for Mac for 5 years
*- Apple agrees to make MS Internet Explorer the default browser for the Mac* 

So, Apple has agreed to put forward Internet Explorer as their browser for OS X, and I'm sure they would have trouble producing their own browser as they would not be able to include it as the default.
If there are instabilities in IE for mac, then the blame lies with Microsoft. The real question is whether they have deliberately allowed bugs to get through on IE for Mac, or if these are just the usual bugs you'd find in any project of this scale.
Now, in defence of MS, I quite like IE for Mac. It seems stable and fast most of the time and loads most pages with no hassles. I am suprised that it sometimes stumbles over pages that work fine under windows versions of IE, and annoyed that these crashes bring down the entire browser in a sudden crash.
It is not up to Apple to deal with this though, except by keeping the pressure on MS to up the quality, and to advise their customers that other browsers exist and some are of excellent quality.


----------



## Boyko (Mar 4, 2002)

Ah, but that deal is quickly running out.

Which brings up another question.  Mac platform gets Office.  Microsoft gets money.  Mac platform uses IE as default browser.  Microsoft gets mindshare.  Apple is no longer in the financial situation it once was.  Why bother reintroducing the agreement.  

As soon as a viable alternative to IE exists, I'll use it.

Brian.


----------



## koim (Mar 24, 2002)

Sorry folks, the PC IE is lightyears ahead  of the Mac IE. The Mac IE lacks support for a lot of Javascript and soforth. Many pages look totally broken in the Mac IE. Anyone ever made a website on a mac and then checked how it looked on a PC? I did, and I had to tweak a lot of things to make it look relativly identical on both platforms. 
	The OSX IE is even worse. Here, the list of non-working pages is even longer. And it simply quits when it stumbles upon some unrecognized code.
Come on Microsoft, are you doing this on purpose to make people buy XP? I´ve heard that Microsoft has the biggest staff of mac-programmers outside of Apple. In that case, how come it takes ages to get out a new version of IE and MSN?
	At the moment I´m using OmniWeb as my head browser, and I sure look foward to a new version that will support all that IE6 does.


----------



## nkuvu (Mar 24, 2002)

> _symphonix said:_
> these are just the usual bugs you'd find in any project of this scale.


I think that should read "these are just the usual bugs you'd find in any *MS* project of this scale."


----------



## apb3 (Mar 24, 2002)

shouldn't some of the blame lie with the sloppy web page coders????


----------



## rliebsch (Mar 24, 2002)

Hrm, HTTP, HyperTextTransferProtocol.

Well, it seems to me that Lynx is the best browser ever.

The WWW was not designed for FLASHy, FRAMEd, SHOCKWAVEd, JPG,
 blah blah blah. 

A few tables here and there, some (gasp) Text, and some other Links, 
and all works well.

I know, I know. Times change. Maybe something else needs to be done.
Maybe it will occur with IPV6. Maybe it is a plot. 

But people are not even using HTML STANDARDS to post their web stuff.

Look at the HTML source. NO wonder the browsers dump. No wonder the OS
hangs.


----------



## nkuvu (Mar 24, 2002)

No, I'm sorry, the browser should never hang the OS.  That's just wrong.  

So yes, a lot of it does have to do with sloppy web page coders.  But a lot of *that* code is done by WYSIWYHYG (What you see is what you hope you get) editors.  Very few people that I know of write clean HTML code anymore.  All of my web pages (All two, I think  ) were written with a text editor only.  I am fully aware that the maintenance of large web sites is probably done better with something other than a text editor, though.

I don't enable a lot of plugins -- Flash isn't even installed on my machine.  Since I am currently stuck on a Windows box, I use Opera, and disable the animated gifs.  It's *so* nice not to have flashing banners!  I'll be even happier when I get my iMac and I can use something like OmniWeb and block banners altogether...

But I digress.  I'd love to say that if you can't write HTML, you shouldn't have a web page.  But that argument is pretty weak.  I mean, when does the extrapolation of that stop?  You can't program in C/C++, so you shouldn't have an operating system.  You can't program in binary, so no device drivers for you!

We just need to get some programmers to write HTML-editors that produce clean, W3 compliant code.  And when pigs fly, we can make _all_ HTML-editors produce clean code...


----------



## apb3 (Mar 24, 2002)

exactly..

I'm not saying if YOU cannot code X, Y, or Z that you shouldn't be able to use it. Thats what people who cannot code pay for. Did you write any of the drivers you use? Did you write OmniWeb or Killer.app?

I'm just saying if someone's gonna code in HTML, STICK TO THE STANDARDS!!!!!


----------



## koim (Mar 25, 2002)

I´ll have to disagree on you on that. The web moves forward, sorry, and with IE6 web designers are given a lot of things that they could never have done before. And they don´t care about some mac users that just weren´t smart enough to buy a PC to surf the net with.

Come on Microsoft, give us IE6!!!
(I´m hoping  OmniGroup will be fast enough to give us a fully-supporting OmniWeb before MS )


----------



## apb3 (Mar 25, 2002)

I wasn't "smart enough to buy a PC?"

Consult brain before engaging mouth (or fingers in this case).:smilie('')

I do have a network of over 700 PCs. Not my personal machines, but my responsibility. Not corporate just friends and family and hangers-on - well ok  a few corporate.

YES. the "web" as you put it - I'd say, "Internet technology," moves forward. I pretty much think that's a given.

But people spend a lot of time and effort making this tech work. And, sorry, this includes STANDARDS :smilie('') that should be followed if you want your page to work "correctly."

If someone doesn't want to follow the standards, fine. Just hope he never applies at any company I own in the tech area. His first project would get him shown the door.

IE6 will not fix your woes... It my be a bit more forgiving in terms of bad code, but Come on, let's fis the problem where it starts, not just patch an already bad system.

Yeah! and I hope OW does this thing and does it right! Beating MS would be a feather their cap!!!

Apple should use some of their cash reserves to buy (or at least ally) with OmniWeb.


----------



## googolplex (Mar 25, 2002)

The real problem is that web designers code for IE and they don't give a rats...errr behind about standards. They code sloppily or use really old deprecated html. If you tell them that it doesn't work in other browsers they say screw you because they are brainwashed by microsoft. The real future is the combination of html/xhtml with css. all your text and data is stored in the html and css defines how it appears. So no styling is in the actual code, it is linked to in an external css file. Then you can change one file and change the whole site. Once browsers start supporting this better and web designers decide to care the web will be better.

It will get better when AOL switches to gecko because web designers will be forced to support that very large market. They can't ignore it.

I'd love to see browsers grow up with standards support, but the best engine right now is gecko... which is why chimera is so promising. I downloaded the latest OW sneaky peek and it was actually better at some css stuff.

Be glad that we have a much better choice of browsers on os x rather then windows.


----------



## dricci (Mar 25, 2002)

Yes, Standards are a MUST! If you think otherwise, you've been brainwashed by Microsoft. Sure, it's hard to follow them to spec, but it's not too hard to get very close. As long as there are people using IE and .Net and FrontPage, standards will continue to die. Right now we're in a situation no one would have expected - AOL may be the one to save web standards. If they use Gecko, it's a major victory for the internet. If not, then there's no hope (unless Microsoft would suddenly be broken up into tiny pieces). IE will continue to dominate Windows and the Internet, Windozers will follow, and use Frontpage and other WYSWYG editors that pump out IE-only non-standard slop code.  Mac users will continue to pray to Microsoft and beg for IE updates. I am so sick of seeing banners of burning Netscape logos or messages saying to "Upgrade to IE." It's just sick and not how the internet was meant to be!


----------



## Boyko (Mar 25, 2002)

The whole browser war has no winners - so far.

Yes, AOL should switch to Gecko.  But when Netscape 6 came out (and 6.2 is not much of an improvement) AOL/Netscape shot itself in the foot.

It was buggy, it crashed the OS, it was bloated, and it was full of ads, and it was ugly.  

I use Mozilla now - and I can't believe the difference.  But most people (Jim and Jane End User) aren't going to even HEAR of Mozilla, let alone try it.

There are people here that hate IE - but have been using the same browser for 5 years (Netscape 4.5+) instead of using Mozilla or another standards compliant browser because, lets face it, Netscape 6 stinks.  And there isn't much coverage in the mainstream press about Mozilla.  

AOL *really* shot itself in the foot with it's release.  Since (justifiably) no one uses Netscape - and very few will use the "beta" Mozilla, IE (for right now) *is* the standard.  

In order to push for standards-compliant browsing, here is what AOL needs to do - and this is SQUARELY on the shoulders of Steve Case & Co...

1) Release a non-buggy version of Netscape 6 that works like Mozilla.  
2) Integrate Gecko into AOL. 

That said, even Mozilla isn't ready for Prime Time.  I *do* like it, but Chatzilla needs work (although maybe finally there will be some widespread acceptance of IRC after this) as does Composer (Which is actually DAMN GOOD for a free web page WYSIWYG designer - and if you've used earlier versions of Netscape Composer this will shock you) because they both tend to quit unexpectedly in both the PC and Mac versions I've used.

There's also a few problems I have with Mozilla/Netscape in general.

1) Clicking on a Mailto link opens mozilla mail - not the default system mail.
2) Components must be downloaded as a package - not seperately. (I use Jediknight, Adium, and Mail.app, and I just need a *browser*... JUST a browser.) 
3) Keyboard shortcuts must be better organized - yes, I can Apple-Click and open the link in a new window, but can I open a new Tab?
4) It should be easier to support Flash and Java - even if a simple "Get Common Plugins" were put into the help menu which takes you to a link on the Mozilla page which tells you how to download and install the programs for your platform.

Granted, these issues should perhaps be addressed post-1.0 - but it still burns me.  

Brian.


----------



## nkuvu (Mar 25, 2002)

> _koim said:_
> And they don´t care about some mac users that just weren´t smart enough to buy a PC to surf the net with.


koim, be careful!  There's a *troll* behind your keyboard!


----------



## koim (Mar 26, 2002)

Take a look at Launch.com

Web designers shouldn´t feel limited because the browser support on mac is lousy. Just my opinion.....

And another thing, one here mentioned "brainwashed by ms". I would say that there´s a higher percentage of mac users that´s "brainwashed by Apple.

(like: "Windows sucks, mac rules. Period)

Microsoft does a lot of good stuff. Put Windows 2000 and Mac OS 9.2 up against each other. There´s no arguing about what´s the best OS of them.
At the moment, OSX has some issues to sort out (mostly in terms of speed ), to REALLY claim that it´s better than XP.
But that doesn´t belong in this thread......


----------



## koim (Mar 26, 2002)

what I said about "smart enough to buy". googolplex says excactly what I meant


----------



## googolplex (Mar 26, 2002)

koim, people do get brainwashed by apple sometimes, but in the area of browsers there is SERIOUS brainwashing going on. Everyone just assumes you use IE and if you don't they think something is wrong with you.


----------



## koim (Mar 27, 2002)

I don´t know. Most of the pages I´ve been to where mac browsers aren´t supported also has some kind of alternative page layout.

So. I´m hoping to get a REAL browser to the mac soon...... 

(iMac=internetMac? you gotta be kidding?!)


----------



## googolplex (Mar 27, 2002)

cough... cough... chimera...cough cough


----------



## apb3 (Mar 27, 2002)

Do you remember when the first iMac made its splash? 

iMac (internetMAC) was a superbly appropriate name.

Look back at the commercials (and yes, those commercials reflected real life experiences - my sister's included) from the time. NO pc box at that time allowed users to do what they could with a computer in just a few seconds and with half a brain.


----------



## koim (Mar 28, 2002)

You´re right.
But for today, it doesn´t qualify as an all-internet computer.
And you can´t blame it on the web-coders writing sloppy code.
80% of the world uses PC´s. Remember?


----------



## Koelling (Mar 30, 2002)

Why can't we blame them? Sloppy code is just that, sloppy. I'll forgive Jonney 7th grader and his geocities account for having sloppy coding but anything.com should be professional. People fail to realize that anything they put on the web is published and reflects directly on the person. If you write HTML (for crying out loud, it isn't that hard) and it's a corporate page it should look like a finished book or magazine. You don't pick up People Mag at the news stand and the pages fall out, that is the same thing for the web.

There is a fair amount of sabotaging going on too. I laughed when I saw in Omni the feature that changes what sites it is compatible with. I cried when I had to use it. I think it was shockwave.com or something and it said "Sorry, you must use Internet Explorer for viewing this page." So I opened preferences, switched from Omniweb to IE 5.5 (windows) and it worked fine.


----------



## ABassCube (Mar 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Koelling _
> *There is a fair amount of sabotaging going on too. I laughed when I saw in Omni the feature that changes what sites it is compatible with. I cried when I had to use it. I think it was shockwave.com or something and it said "Sorry, you must use Internet Explorer for viewing this page." So I opened preferences, switched from Omniweb to IE 5.5 (windows) and it worked fine. *



I agree completely. But it's even worse than that: Apple's own iTools page only lets you sign in with IE and Netscape. When you set OmniWeb to identify itself as one of these, it works. Apple's iTools page is actually the only reason I have OmniWeb set to identify itself as Netscape. And Apple and OmniGroup are supposedly working very closely together, so WHY doesn't Apple's own iTools page work with it? I want to be able to have OmniWeb identify itself as OmniWeb, and Apple's iTools page is the only page that's keeping me from doing that.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, Apple and Microsoft's deal is ending this summer.  I think it was on AtAT a while back with a link to an article saying that the two companies trusted each other enough so that they wouldn't have to renew the contract, meaning Apple COULD make it's own browser.  If an Apple browser was ever released, I would definitely use that instead of OmniWeb, but until then, OW is my browser of choice.

Adam


----------



## koim (Mar 31, 2002)

Could we have a professional web-coder to comment this?    That would be nice...
Remember, web coding is more than HTML. It isn´t web pages with HTML-only that OmniWeb and other browsers aren´t compatible with.
It´s all that CSS and JavaScript stuff.


----------



## googolplex (Mar 31, 2002)

I don't know if I'd be considered a professional web-coder, but I do have a lot of experience. I don't see what you want comments on. CSS? Javascript? I'm confused


----------



## PowermacG4_450 (Mar 31, 2002)

> _Originally posted by WhateverJoe _
> *( I did not want to continue on the previous thread )
> 
> 
> ...




Odd, explorer NEVER quits on me... several things to try... just in case you have not yet. 

1. keep your macos version current. 10.1.3 is latest, but run software update for any upgrades, patches, etc. 

2. upgrade explorer. 5.1.3 latest last time I checked. There are a few security updates for IE you should install... software update should find em. 

see if this helps... regarding your 2 and 3, I dont have this problem. never have. ??   so, im lost there. 

I have a cable connection, and pages load, fast. NO problem. when I had dialup, they were often slow. 

what connection type do you have for accessing the net?


----------



## apb3 (Mar 31, 2002)

I had pretty much stopped paying attention to this thread but Koelling, you're exactly correct.
it's what I've been saying all along. What do you guys not understand about STANDARDS and the implications of not following them?




> _Originally posted by Koelling _
> *Why can't we blame them? Sloppy code is just that, sloppy. I'll forgive Jonney 7th grader and his geocities account for having sloppy coding but anything.com should be professional. People fail to realize that anything they put on the web is published and reflects directly on the person. If you write HTML (for crying out loud, it isn't that hard) and it's a corporate page it should look like a finished book or magazine. You don't pick up People Mag at the news stand and the pages fall out, that is the same thing for the web.
> 
> There is a fair amount of sabotaging going on too. I laughed when I saw in Omni the feature that changes what sites it is compatible with. I cried when I had to use it. I think it was shockwave.com or something and it said "Sorry, you must use Internet Explorer for viewing this page." So I opened preferences, switched from Omniweb to IE 5.5 (windows) and it worked fine. *


----------



## koim (Mar 31, 2002)

> _Originally posted by apb3 _
> * What do you guys not understand about STANDARDS and the implications of not following them?
> 
> 
> *


But if everybody just were to follow the STANDARDS, things would never move on.

Somebody wants to push the borders of what´s possible to do with the web.
And I´d like the mac to also be able to display all of that whacko stuff that some folks make.


----------



## googolplex (Mar 31, 2002)

The standards set out by w3c are way ahead of what anyone is doing now. So there would be way more progress if people followed standards

Just take a look at some of the stuff w3c has. Its 'pushing the borders of the web' a lot.

So things would move on much faster if people did follow the standards. Standards aren't boring, standards are very cool and powerful.


----------



## apb3 (Mar 31, 2002)

and...

standards evolve. I am not talking about stagnation. like 'plex said. take a look at w3c.

Having standards IN NO WAY implies any lack of creativity or innovation. Push borders all you want. If it's cool it will be a standard and people should code using that standard.

The bleeding edge will always have kinks in it. That's how standards evolve. But we're not talking about bleeding edge here. We're talking about run of the mill corporate or government sites - whatever - that are just plain SLOPPY. This isn't the browsers' fault. The fault lies with the page coders.

When I go to sites with "new" "pushing the borders" code, I EXPEct issues. Then we figure out the problems and hopefully fix them and --- Tada, a new standard...



> _Originally posted by koim _
> *
> But if everybody just were to follow the STANDARDS, things would never move on.
> 
> ...


----------



## nkuvu (Mar 31, 2002)

The other problem with going beyond the standards is that you may break your page for all of the browsers which do not support that extension.  Heck, there are a bunch of tags that are IE exclusive.  For a lot of the older browsers, this means that the page is displayed incorrectly or not at all.  Are you really willing to isolate anyone who doesn't use IE?  Yes, IE has the majority as far as the browser market is concerned.  But it's very similar to discrimination in any other area.

If someone wants to make a web page that uses exclusive (IE or otherwise) tags, they should have a version which doesn't use the tags.  It's that whole "everyone should be able to access your page" kind of thing.

Like putting alt tags for your images.  Most people load images, but there are some that don't or even can't.  Discriminating against those non-image users is stupid, even though there are very few web pages that are designed to work without images.

There is nothing wrong with experimentation, in fact I encourage it.  And I agree that the only way to find new ways to do things is to experiment outside the current boundaries.  But you can do that without *making* people try to deal with those experiments.  That's what beta software (or beta anything, for that matter) is all about.  You want cutting edge?  Fine, try the beta.  You want a stable version?  Use the latest release version.

I think I should stop now -- too much repetition.


----------



## slur (Apr 7, 2002)

MS is notorious for the "embrace and extend" methodology that marginalizes non-Windows OSes. The use of FrontPage extensions, IE proprietary tags, and the somewhat intentional handicapping of the Mac version of IE are only a few examples. Those who have championed standards here are correct.

Those of us who use Mac OS X are in many ways more fortunate than those who use Windows, because we can choose from an enormous variety of browsers, each one of which has its own specific strengths and weaknesses. OmniWeb renders pages beautifully but needs more work on its Javascript and CSS 2 implementations. Mozilla renders really fast but doesn't adhere to Mac's UI guidelines.

If Microsoft decides to let IE linger any longer it's going to fall further and further behind. OmniWeb in particular is repidly catching up to IE, and with the next version it has almost reached parity. My recent testing of OmniWeb 4.1 beta 2 has shown that it renders pages slightly faster than IE and its Javascript is really beginning to take shape. By the end of the year I believe it will be the best browser available for Mac OS X.

Frankly I don't care for Microsoft's browser deal with Apple. It's made them appear lazy. It would be total folly if they honestly think at this point that they don't need to stay competitive. Given their resources they could easily have created a browser with decent page rendering/caching speed and complete CSS2 support. Unless they have a secret IE6 in the works they're going to lose out to Mozilla, OmniWeb, and Opera in 2002.

As a side note, I work as a web developer. I refuse to use any tag, CSS property, or javascript method that isn't supported on Mac IE, Win IE, and Netscape. Often times this means I have to do a little extra works, but it's worth it to make my sites behave consistently for the widest variety of users. At present I'm trying to push our development group towards stronger adherence to XHTML, which is the purest hybrid of HTML 4 and XML. There are some voices of reason on the subject of standards, and here are my two faves:

Jeffrey Zeldman http://www.zeldman.com
Jakob Nielsen http://www.useit.com/alertbox/


----------



## apb3 (Apr 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by slur _
> *As a side note, I work as a web developer. I refuse to use any tag, CSS property, or javascript method that isn't supported on Mac IE, Win IE, and Netscape. Often times this means I have to do a little extra works, but it's worth it to make my sites behave consistently for the widest variety of users. At present I'm trying to push our development group towards stronger adherence to XHTML, which is the purest hybrid of HTML 4 and XML. There are some voices of reason on the subject of standards, and here are my two faves:
> 
> Jeffrey Zeldman http://www.zeldman.com
> Jakob Nielsen http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ *



Thank you!

btw: i've had ie off my machine as soon as i could! I'm pretty much covered with OW and mozilla. i do use a few others for play and to stay on top of things. ow's latest beta is pretty damn good though.


----------



## koim (Apr 8, 2002)

Still slower than IE Classic, but hey. I don´t want to be pessimistic though


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 8, 2002)

I was able to find a page that OW couldn't load.  It was my credit card company website, and they said I couldn't use anything other than Netscape or IE.  So I set the prefs in OW to say "I'm IE 5.something for Mac!".  No go.  I tried all the IE and Netscape settings available.  Nope.  Tried to go through IE.  No problem.


----------



## phatsharpie (Apr 8, 2002)

It's possible that the site was checking via JavaScript functionality (document.layer, document.getElementById, document.all) instead of broswer identifier string. I know I usually check for browsers that way.

-B


----------



## nkuvu (Apr 8, 2002)

No matter how they do it, it's still annoying.  128 bit encryption is 128 bit encryption, right?  It shouldn't matter what browser is being used...


----------



## MACLOVA (Apr 30, 2002)

AN APPLE-INTERNET-BROWER WOULD BE  AWSOME


APPLE RULEZ

BTW::: AM I THE YOUNGEST MACUSER???? (IM 13)


----------



## googolplex (Apr 30, 2002)

Do you know neyo?


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (May 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by googolplex _
> *Do you know neyo? *



Cheeky Git! LOL! ...  

NeYo


----------



## peteLasko(); (May 19, 2002)

I've been using Mozilla 1.0RC2. (here's the smi) for a little while now, and I must say I really like it.  MUCH better (read: faster, less bloated, with cool popunder disable capabilities) than netscape, and it also *seems* more stable than MSIE. I also have been playing with Chimera (here's the dmg)  , and it is SOOOOOO promising. I'm very excited, and wish I was a better programmer so I could contribute to the project.

I highly recommend either of these. They were both simple "copy this file to your desktop" type installs. Mozilla has more features, but Chimera is superfast and best of all *cocoa* mmm.


----------



## Bluefusion (May 22, 2002)

Basically, I just want Chimera to have all of the features it needs to be competitive... as I just love the interface for it. OmniWeb is great but development on it is SOOOO SLOW (regardless of what people THINK is happening at OmniGroup, they really don't move too quickly-- OmniWeb, in various forms, has been out since NeXTStep and it's still not on par with IE's rendering)... but also, IE 5.5:Mac is coming out at the Expo in July, and it's supposed to have far faster page rendering and this time be 100% native Cocoa. I have to say, I like the simplicity of IE's interface. If it worked, this would be a good browser. Seriously. Although I can't wait for OmniWeb/Chimera to be fully functional (the last few sneakypeeks have only messed things up more, not fixed things...)


----------



## ABassCube (May 22, 2002)

As I have said numerous times before, IMO OmniWeb is the best browser for OS X. Even if IE 5.5 is really fast, don't really care about that too much. OmniWeb has a far better interface to IE's and if possible, I always try to avoid using any Microsoft apps. 

I've tried Chimera, and although it is faster than OmniWeb, I really don't like it that much. I think OmniWeb's interface is a lot nicer, and it's bookmark system is also much better than either Chimera or IE. While Chimera is a lot more compatible with JavaScript and CSS and renders pages more accurately than OmniWeb, it's plugin support still sucks. OmniWeb is much better with plugins like Flash and QuickTime. Also, Chimera doesn't have a real download manager, and OmniWeb's download manager is by far the best of any OS X browser.

OmniWeb 4.1 sp81 did introduce an annoying new table bug, where some frames, tables or toolbars get cut off of many pages, but OmniGroup has improved this a bit in sp87. This bug is the only thing that's keeping OW 4.1 final from being released, so as soon as OW fixes this, 4.1 will finally be released. 5 should hopefully be out by the end of the year or beginning of 2003, which is supposed to fix most of the problems with JavaScript and CSS, so by then OmniWeb should be very close to IE and Mozilla/Chimera in terms of rendering pages.

Adam


----------



## mattimpact (May 23, 2002)

I read through this rather lengthy thread, and I have a small comment to make. I use IE5.1.4 in OS X on three separate machines (two at work, one at home) and I have never once had a page crash the browser. I have not noticed anything slower or crappier about IE5.1.4. Most of my workload is research, and most of that research is done on the Internet. I am using a high-speed DSL connection, so maybe that is why I don't notice any slowdown.  That doesn't explain why my browser has never locked up.


----------



## Bluefusion (May 23, 2002)

Matt--the IE browser itself is actually quite good. It's the user interface that's the problem. I would suggest that you download OmniWeb (b6 is the best choice, as it seems to WORK, unlike newer builds...) and see what you think about it. IE is not a bad browser, it's just that other browsers are better in certain areas. For all-around use, IE is still the best. Sad, but true. I use OmniWeb though, as I rarely run into pages it can't display, and the interface and antialiased type more than makes up for the deficiencies of its rendering engine, for the moment anyway. Now, when IE 5.5 comes out, as I said before, a new champ may be rising... but until then, OmniWeb is the most feature-rich and nicest-looking browser on OS X. That's my opinion on the matter, anyway.


----------



## nkuvu (May 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Bluefusion _
> *Now, when IE 5.5 comes out, as I said before, a new champ may be rising... *


I guess I must be biased -- when I read this sentence, I thought at first that you said "a new _chimp_ may be rising"...


----------

