# Which browser do you use for primary?



## ddma (Jun 21, 2002)

Since all web browsers were updated to take the advantage of Quartz Anti-alasing font smoothing. They are now quite close in features. Which browser do you use for primary now?

I personally use the latest build of Mozilla. It provides a great stablity and compeitable with many of the website. And of coz its amazing Tabbed Browsing. I still hope it could have a OSX like interface/form elements tho.

But it has already be my primary use of web browser and I go checking the latest builds every couple of days.

OmniWeb was good but it doesn't compietable with many website especially those Java-Script/CSS HTML.

I am a Chinese user and when I use IE to browse some Chinese website, there will be some crosses (+) on the page and that's really annoying...

Chermia will not be my favorit unless it is finally released. But I know it would be very cool (The best from Mozilla and OSX GUI - that's my dream web browser).


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jun 21, 2002)

> Chermia will not be my favorit unless it is finally released. But I know it would be very cool (The best from Mozilla and OSX GUI - that's my dream web browser).



It's *Chimera* ... 

It's a work in progress, but it's already suitable for everyday use (as long as you can live without the missing features...)...

By the time Chimera Navigator hits 0.5, there will be no stopping it!


----------



## Koelling (Jun 21, 2002)

I was thinking it had been a couple days since we had a good browser discussion and then surprise surprise, one pops up.

I use OmniWeb for all things because it is the most comfortable. It still renders things prettier than the carbon quartz but also it has things that carbon will never have. I can scroll the web page while its beneath another window (hold command and click, this also works for moving the entire window around at the title bar) I can also click submit and hit other form widgets while I'm still talking in Adium. This may not be important to everyone but I have a slow computer and it helps not to have to switch back and forth. Of course spell checking and some of the features like listing all the links on a page also help.

The only thing that I previously used mozilla for was this online game called Utopia. There is a lot of switching pages and sometimes I need to copy and paste some text into a formatter. Omni doesn't copy tables right so the formatter can't recognize the numbers. Now I use Chimera for that because it's even faster and still uses a standard table layout. I'm sure I'll use Chimera in the very near future when it starts to incorporate the strengths of cocoa but for now I can't sacrifice those features that bring me to a cocoa app in the first place.


----------



## dixonbm (Jun 21, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ddma _
> *I am a Chinese user and when I use IE to browse some Chinese website, there will be some crosses (+) on the page and that's really annoying...*



My wife who is Thai uses Mozilla for the exact same reason.  It's the best at displaying non-roman characters hands down.  OmniWeb used to be better, but it's gotten worse at it.  

However I personally use Chimera as my default because of the speed and GUI.  On the rare occassion that Chimera can't handle it, I'll usually go into Mozilla or IE.


----------



## hulkaros (Jun 21, 2002)

...OmniWeb...

Well, not exactly but at least I use it more than the others primarily because it can read Greek web sites whereas the other do not!

Next on my list is Mozilla because is fast, compatible and has Tabs... Then is Chimera but has a long way to go and last but the most compatible than ALL the above combined is IE5.2 

When the others do not display a page that I MUST read correctly I turn to IE... Or at the worst case scenario I fire up Virtual PC 5.0.3 and IE5.5 with ALL the securities patches on 

However, I feel like OmniWeb is the best because looks the most Aquafied of the bunch (which is a plus for me) and because it feels right on my eyes, speed and foremost the champion of Greek support


----------



## satanicpoptart (Jun 21, 2002)

im sorry guys but mozilla is just the best one...... if chimera were done then it probably would be but its not.  mozilla is just the fastest one out there.


----------



## azosx (Jun 21, 2002)

I'm really glad to see Mozilla winning at the moment.  I really do believe it is the best browser for OS X, let alone the dozens of other platforms it runs on.  I currently run it in OS X, Windows and Linux.  It's nice to have something that remains constant when switching computers several times a day as I do, depending on what I'm doing.  I hope it continues to gain market share, forcing silly websites optimized for IE to become W3C compliant.


----------



## Nummi_G4 (Jun 22, 2002)

I use IE most of the time.  Sorry.  But I do play with all the other browsers.  I heard that IE crashes a lot.  It NEVEr crashes on me, and I do web design.  All the other browsers have little things about them that bother me, and I will not use the browser untill those little things are fixed.


----------



## toast (Jun 22, 2002)

I agree about IE that doesn't crash at all. i had one crash once, trying to get something real strange done, that's all.

So I use Chimera to consult Web, and IE for the rest that it doesn't handle. I just hope Chimera won't get polluted with all these stupid features nobody wants in a browser. IE is full of them, I just hate it.

Also, Chimera seems to suit most people here, so why are the votes so LOW for it ?


----------



## xaqintosh (Jun 22, 2002)

I just use IE, its the only one with a likable interface (to me)


----------



## Izzy (Jun 22, 2002)

I've tried using them all...but in the end I went back to IE

OW looks amazing and I loved being able to really customize the toolbar the way I wanted it, but it would crash like crazy on me and it ran really slow.

Mozilla was stable for the most part, and the tabbed browsing feature was pretty good (would have been A LOT better if I could use Apple-Arrow key to flip between tabs), but it was painful to look at, and even with added themes I just never got the feel of a mac browser.  The thing that really made me not want to use it, however, was how painfully slow it ran for me...it was almost unusable. (The same goes for Netscape Navigator)

Chimera (aka Navigator) was amazingly fast and when I first tried it, I couldn't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to use it.  Then as soon as I started browsing with it, problems started arising.  The thing would crash on me all the time...it was almost scary how it would just randomly quit while I was just reading a page and not even clicking on anything.

iCab was one that never really got me interested...all I remember was trying to use iTools and having problems...nothing I saw after that really made a good impression.  

Opera was another one that I thought I might really use a lot, I loved how it handled the loading of pictures and it was running pretty quickly...then the bug parade struck.  I couldn't use the back arrow for some strange reason, no matter what I tried...weird.

I've never had any problems with IE...it's never crashed on me, and I like all the features.  I like being able to minimize the toolbar and have my favorites along the top of the window.  I like the Page Holder, and IE runs great on my computer.  Pages load without any problems and it works without getting in the way.  

I really would like to support another company, but I don't want to work around my browser or have to use multiple browsers to get things done.  I need a fast AND stable browser that I can rely on to "just work."  For now, IE is that browser for me...when another one comes along that works better I will be more than happy to switch.


----------



## toast (Jun 23, 2002)

<u>Explorer</u> works fine with everything I use: Speed Download, Flash, message boards Problem: a bit slow.

So I tried <u>Opera</u>: but the CSS won't show up ! It is fast, true, but I hate the display mode: I like to have my page showing up in a whole, not having the pictures coming one after the other.

I was told <u>Chimera</u> was great for this: in fact, I was satisified. I had to stick to Explorer for the up/donwloads, for the Java, for the Flash That's what I do for the moment.

But I still tried more: <u>Mozilla</u> seemed to have succes round here. So I donwloaded it, and it stayed 15 minutes on disk. It's ugly; okay, but if the rest is fine No, it's not only ugly, it's crashy too. So TRASH.

Last was <u>OmniWeb</u>: I'm using it to post this. I tried to read the Warcraft III trailer: it was ALMOST fine, though the Quicktime integration is not that fine. The rest seems to be good: speed, first of all, is REALLY good, even beating Chimera at first use.

I had seen <u>iCab</u>, I couldn't get to like the GUI. The rest was not smashing, so I couldn't get to use more than that.

Hence, my top list is:
1) Chimera + IE
2) OmniWeb
3) Mozilla with a theme, maybe.

I hope OmniWeb will  beat the first ones, so I can get to click just one browser to do everything. Although that's not SO bad ! Using a browser for browsing, simply browsing through forums and docs, with pictures okay and speed really fine, and another browser to do anything else: download, Flash, etc.

That's for my two cents


----------



## joeth (Jun 23, 2002)

I try to use OmniWeb as much as possible but I keep having to switch back to IE for certain site for example to listen to something in Windows Media Player - Omniweb doesn't seem to be able to do this......

Annoying I know, but I suppose I'm stuck with IE


----------



## ddma (Jun 23, 2002)

I hope Chimera would support 2-byte characters soon...


----------



## fryke (Jun 23, 2002)

I've ditched both Mozilla 1.x and OmniWeb 4.x for now. IE 5.2 rules, definitely. It integrates with Mac OS X better than Mozilla ever will, it is a real speed demon display-wise AND interface-wise and its comfort-features are great, too. Only tabbed browsing is missing, which I hope for in the next big upgrade of IE. The most beautiful thing about IE however is that you don't have the feeling to use beta software all the time. The thing just feels, *IS* and works final.


----------



## phatsharpie (Jun 23, 2002)

Mozilla is my favorite. I use it at work on a PC and I use it at home on my TiBook. On my work machine, I have the IE theme running so that the IS group thinks I am using their "approved" browser, but on my Mac I use the "Pinstripe" theme, and it looks great!

I don't know why it's crashy for some of you, I find it amazingly stable on my machine.

Oh well...


----------



## googolplex (Jun 23, 2002)

People, please, get off the IE bandwagon. I don't understand the compatiblity issues. I run in to absolutely NONE. What sites are you visiting? Microsoft.com? MSN? Geez. It just makes me mad seeing people use IE because it is, well, IE. THINK DIFFERENT!


----------



## fryke (Jun 24, 2002)

No googolplex, it's just that IE 5.2 is the better, faster and nice browser and it's also compatible with more websites than any other browser out for Mac OS X. I never browser on msn.com (wouldn't know why), I don't use Hotmail, basically, I'm not interested in services by Microsoft. But I tend to use the solutions that suit me best. And for web browsing, this is IE 5.2 for now.


----------



## BlingBling 3k12 (Jun 24, 2002)

i like IE the best... and i have version 6!

thank god for the ClearType technology in XP because now it looks like i have Quartz Anti-aliasing in IE.... really nice feature!


----------



## cabbage (Jun 24, 2002)

1. Opera ...until it crashes or something javascript doesn't work then I go to
2. Internet Explorer 5.2 ...the fonts look much better than 5.1.  I can barely read my Hotmail messages though :-(
3. Netscape 7 Preview Release - I would probably use this more but it takes some damn long to load and that's why it's third

I've tried all the other ones and they either crashed or didn't work.  Mozilla was the absolute worse.  It just didn't want to work at all sometimes


----------



## neutrino23 (Jun 24, 2002)

Omniweb is my main browser. The number of sites it can't handle has become virtually zero for me. For those rare cases I use Netscape.

For a few special features I use iCab. I use it for automated page access via Applescript and I use it to save whole pages or sites.


----------



## googolplex (Jun 24, 2002)

Err I don't see why anyone likes Netscape and doesn't like Mozilla. Mozilla = Netscape but also Mozilla > Netscape.


----------



## azosx (Jun 24, 2002)

You Mac users are kidding yourselves.  IE 5.2 is garbage compared to IE 5.5 or 6 for Windows or even Mozilla for OS X.  

I wasn't going to download the update for Mac because I don't use IE in Mac, but after hearing such good things from this forum about 5.2 and all it's improvements, I became curious.

Honestly, I can't tell the difference.   It is still terribly slow rendering web pages and feels like it belongs more in OS 9 than X.  It still uses the Tasman rendering engine, developed in 1998.  This browser is terribly out dated and renders garbled web pages more often than not.  

I have to admit, it's never crashed, but it's never looked or felt right to me either.

I'm not anti-MS.  I used IE 5.5 and 6 in Windows up until the Mozilla 1.0 release.  I think Mozilla is just awesome for OS X as well.  

All I can assume is you IE zealots prefer Aquafied icons over performance or capabilities.

I'm not impressed with OmniWeb 4.1 either.  It's terribly slow as well compared to IE or Mozilla.  It integrates with X nicely but who cares what the browser looks like when web pages load up looking like crap?

Seriously, someone who honestly believes IE is a better web browser in X, tell me why because I just can't see it.  And please just don't tell me because it looks prettier.

As for people who dislike Netscape but adore Mozilla, I am one of them.

Yeah, Netscape is based on Mozilla and the gecko engine but it's the commercial things that AOL/Netscape does with the browser that annoys me.

You can't block popup ads, my book marks are filled with links I'll never use and AOL/Netscape releases weeks behind Mozilla with added features I don't consider improvements.

I think it's best to stick with the source before it becomes mutated by AOL.


----------



## googolplex (Jun 24, 2002)

Well said, except I like nice interfaces though. Thats why chimera is good.


----------



## azosx (Jun 24, 2002)

The first few builds of Chimera I tried worked pretty well.  

The last time I tried it I downloaded a nightly build.  It was really slow and crashed a lot. 

Since it's Beta, I'm not going to hold that against it and nightly builds really aren't releases anyhow.  The browser  certainly has potential.  

Can you download with it yet?

I think if Apple every made a web browser, I  would like it to be "brushed steel" like the rest of the iApps and for it and to use the gecko rendering engine like Mozilla or Chimera.

Also, for you IE zealots.  Head over to http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/demos.html 
and watch your browser choke on 6 out of 7 W3C compliant web pages.

And for some additional fun, how about finding 6 or more web pages Mozilla will completely choke on.


----------



## googolplex (Jun 24, 2002)

you can now download kind of with chimera 

I would hope it wouldn't be brushed metal. A brushed metal look on a web browser would suck.


----------



## themacko (Jun 24, 2002)

I agree with googs, brushed metal on a browser would not look very good at all.


----------



## azosx (Jun 25, 2002)

Ah, but the new iChat is brushed metal and I think it looks bitchin!

There will be a brushed metal iBrowser, you just wait in see!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

muhahahahahaha


----------



## ddma (Jun 25, 2002)

They added a new one: Big Borther


----------



## Koelling (Jun 25, 2002)

Notice how OmniWeb goes all the way to the edges (the website I mean, goes all the way to the edge of the window). If it were brushed metal you wouldn't get that and you would loose a good 10 pixels on each side of the page. Even Chimera has worthless space at the bottom of the screen cause the links have to show up there. I think all browsers should take the cue of Omni and only put up the bottom status bar when it's needed.

IF Apple makes a browser it had better not be brushed metal. I think they should stick to other, more interesting ventures and let the third parties wage this browser war.


----------



## edX (Jun 25, 2002)

*Ed gets up from his imac and runs naked thru the streets, screaming in a primordial voice. ripping his hair out and begging for the pain to stop. He thinks: In what world do mac users proudly proclaim to use ie, or any m$ product? in what world do mac users, especially power users, stand up and shout "Mozilla" or "netscape"? Are these not the warning signs of the apocalypse? Can the four horsemen not be far behind? And for what - speed. Does no one remember the slogan of the past - speed kills? Once you have it, you have to have more of it, and the pusher man just smiles as you slowly destroy yourself.  oh, it hurts to see friends thinking so little of their actions - their only concern being thier own immediate gratification. He releases a scream that makes hair stand on end and children run away. Finally, he falls to the ground, collapsing from the pain*


----------



## googolplex (Jun 25, 2002)

Thats exactly what I think, except I think mac users should suppor things like Mozilla. But thats a different arguement between you and I . Mac users loving IE is wrong.


----------



## azosx (Jun 25, 2002)

Everybody should support Mozilla and Open Source software.

Since 1998, our web experience has slowly been degraded because of IE's dominance over the market and use of non compliant web standards.

A lot of the blame can be attributed to AOL, who purchased Netscape and essentially killed it.  

They didn't want a web browser in the Netscape acquisition, they wanted the largest web portal in the world and because of this, Navigator was only an after thought.

Luckly though AOL had the sense to fund what started out as a little project called Mozilla.

In 4 1/2 years, that little project turned into one of the largest Open Source software projects of all time.  With over 1000 active developers, it had the support that other commercial software projects yet few developers were getting paid, most worked absolutely free.

Now we have this little jem that is as good or better than IE, runs on dozens of platforms and can be openly developed by anyone because it is Open Source, and not only to create web browsers based on it but potentially any type of program thinkable.  Even MS could develop a browser based on Mozilla, though they'd have to keep the source open so the likelyhood of this is next to zero.

Don't be surprised if you see office applications based on Mozilla technology sometime in the future. 

The most absurd argument I have heard for not supporting Mozilla is because it's development was funded by AOL, there for it to must be inherently evil.

That has to be the *stupidest* thinking I've ever seen come out of someone's head.

MS is considered evil yet donates hundreds of millions of dollars anually to AIDS research and childrens charities.

So should we shun these organizations and consider them evil as well because they are operating primarily on MS money?  No, and neither should we shun Mozilla being born of AOL funding either.

You have a choice with Mozilla, you don't with IE.    Use it or don't but never condemn it.


----------



## googolplex (Jun 25, 2002)

Listen up Ed.


----------



## edX (Jun 25, 2002)

oh, i'm listening Jeff. but just because azosx says it, doesn't make it so. I could add a link here to _that_ thread, but what's the point. i'm not likely to change his mind or the minds of anyone who only sees that side of the picture. 

How the internet is dominated isn't going to change much as long people see this whole issue as being like an american presidential election - vote for one of the big 2 or your vote will be wasted. all that will change is who is dominating it. the lessor of 2 evils is still evil.

my problem isn't really with the 'open source community' - a group who has contributed much to improve the computing experience. When programmers work for free, knowing what they are doing, then all is well. But i would guess that some of the people who put a lot of hard work into development of mozilla before netscape was bought by aol, feel pretty taken advantage of at this point. They worked for free and aol reaps the dividends. but the worse are users who naively contribute with their buggy bug reports to continue feeding the beast. 

of course i could go on and on with my reasoning for "condemning" mozilla, but i haven't the time these days.

oh, one other point - donating a relatively miniscule amount of money to charities doesn't make anyone 'good'. It just means they are exercising some control over how some of the money they are going to be forced to part with will be spent.


----------



## azosx (Jun 25, 2002)

I never said donating money to charities makes anyone good.  I just pointed out that even though the source of the money may be "evil", they charity  doesn't become inherently evil because of this.

As for "relatively miniscule amount of money", am I to assume your donations exceed 100 million dollars anually?

I've seen your previous Mozilla thread, and from what I've ascertained, it is complete BS.

Your ramblings on sound like nothing more than someone burned by AOL that is now hell bent on condemning them and anyone associated with them.

I hope you don't read, watch TV or use the telephone because it's very likely AOL/Time Warner has influence over many of those things in your life as well.

I'm not saying there should only be two choices and that this is an election between IE and Mozilla.

You totally have no concept of what Mozilla truly is.  

Thanks to Mozilla we're likely to see dozens of choices in the future, not just a war being waged between two "super powers."  How about heading to the URL below and seeing what choices already exist because of Mozilla.

http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/support.html

It is very likely that Mozilla itself will fade into obscurity and projects such as  Chimera and Galeon will be the browser of choice on their respective platforms.

Your argument thus far, between now and your previous Mozilla rantings, has no bearing whatsoever on what Mozilla was truly developed for, *choice*.

As for the AOL/Netscape merger and any shake ups within the Mozilla development team, when have two major corporations ever merged without there being a loss of jobs and some unhappy patrons?  Also, considering the Mozilla and any browser derived from it's technology is free, why shouldn't users contribute back and report bugs through the Feedback Agent?

It only helps the Mozilla source become more stable and other projects based on Mozilla to develop quicker.  I'm sure they are the ones who appriciate all the help they can get the most, because unlike major corporations, they don't have millions of dollars to spend on development and fixing the bugs themselves.

They just want to give people a *choice*.


----------



## googolplex (Jun 25, 2002)

I don't want to get into the disscussion, Ed. I just thoguht what was thead was said very well and you should listen to it . I've tried convincing you, but frankly, it is impossible


----------



## azosx (Jun 25, 2002)

I'm not trying to convince anyone to switch.  If you're happy with what you're using, keeping using it.  That's the smartest thing anyone could ever do.

It just hate to see propaganda being spread that is completely untrue and utterly absurd.


----------



## edX (Jun 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> I never said donating money to charities makes anyone good.  I just pointed out that even though the source of the money may be "evil", they charity  doesn't become inherently evil because of this.


ok, i'll give you this one. that is what you said. but the way you said it seemed to imply that the companies did it all from the kindness of their hearts.


> As for "relatively miniscule amount of money", am I to assume your donations exceed 100 million dollars anually?



do you know the meaning of the word 'relative'? do you know the term 'tax deduction'? 


> I've seen your previous Mozilla thread, and from what I've ascertained, it is complete BS.



most of what i write is fact. the other is my opinion. show me the 'BS'.


> Your ramblings on sound like nothing more than someone burned by AOL that is now hell bent on condemning them and anyone associated with them.



so what do you do when somebody burns you? keep spending your money with them? help promote them? maybe go get a job working for them? or do you just sit quietly and let them keep burning everybody else? 


> I hope you don't read, watch TV or use the telephone because it's very likely AOL/Time Warner has influence over many of those things in your life as well.



part of my point exactly. nobody should have that much ablilty to control what is going on. not m$, not aol, not ibm, etc. convicne me it's all for the good of the world and freedom, and i'll shut up.


> I'm not saying there should only be two choices and that this is an election between IE and Mozilla.



maybe i wasn't talking to you but to others at that point. 


> You totally have no concept of what Mozilla truly is.



whether you want to believe it or not, the political landscape around mozilla changed the day that aol bought netscape. What mozilla was and what it is and what it potentially can be are very different things.



> Thanks to Mozilla we're likely to see dozens of choices in the future, not just a war being waged between two "super powers."  How about heading to the URL below and seeing what choices already exist because of Mozilla.
> 
> http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/support.html
> 
> It is very likely that Mozilla itself will fade into obscurity and projects such as  Chimera and Galeon will be the browser of choice on their respective platforms.



it is time for mozilla to slide into obscurity now and let its offspring arise.


> Your argument thus far, between now and your previous Mozilla rantings, has no bearing whatsoever on what Mozilla was truly developed for, *choice*.



once more - what it was and what it is are different. i once ran with the mighty beast. it was proud, it was mighty, it was independent like netscape itself. it was the future. it was everything one could want from a browser in those days. but now that it's greatest triumphs are hustled away and incorporated into aol, it is proud no more.


> As for the AOL/Netscape merger and any shake ups within the Mozilla development team, when have two major corporations ever merged without there being a loss of jobs and some unhappy patrons?  Also, considering the Mozilla and any browser derived from it's technology is free, why shouldn't users contribute back and report bugs through the Feedback Agent?



aol users should!! aol supporters should!! anyone oppossed to aol probably shouldn't because they are only helping to solidfy aol's hold on the masses. and please tell me you don't really believe that free means there is no cost involved. Didn't your mother ever teach you there is no such thing as a free lunch? especially from aol!! (oh, wait. i forgot all those 'free trial' disks they send out.  )

and my point from the beginning has only been that people who don't understand the connection between aol and mozilla should be aware before they make the choice to use it. mozilla hides this info deep in their website. many people do not know about it. 


> It only helps the Mozilla source become more stable and other projects based on Mozilla to develop quicker.  I'm sure they are the ones who appriciate all the help they can get the most, because unlike major corporations, they don't have millions of dollars to spend on development and fixing the bugs themselves.



and back when those improvements went into supporting an indepent netscape, i was all for it. i sent my bugs in no matter how many crashes it cost me. but now there is a major corporation with *billions* of dollars benifitting from the hard work of the people who work for free. Frankly, if you want to be one of those people, go ahead. *I DON'T*


> They just want to give people a *choice*.


 well the concept of *choices* seems to be something we can agree on.  i just think there are plenty of alternate choices available to us now. more than we have ever had before. there are 'sons of mozilla' that are worth supporting - even paying for.  these new generation browsers deserve our support. aol has done so little to deserve any mac users support that it is almost criminal. so it is time to stop feeding daddy (or Big Brother) and start raising the kids up to where they should be. but that takes user participation. which they aren't getting while people stay loyal (for whatever reason) to ie, netscape and mozilla. please, use your *choices*.don't squander them.



> _also from azosx _It just hate to see propaganda being spread that is completely untrue and utterly absurd.



please azosx, use quotes and show me something i have said that is not true or potentially true!! something you can actually prove is false.

as for absurdity - i was around when it would have been "absurd" to imagine that Bill gates would be the richest man in the world. absurd to imagine that m$ would dominate the world of computing the way they do now. I was around when it was absurd to think that aol would buy Time Warner. that aol would actually dominate the isp market and then go for more.

see, i've lived long enough to realize that today's absurdities become tomorrows realities if we allow them. (bday in profile is wrong, real dob is 8/9/57. been using macs since there were no windows and no aol)

please have an answer ready for me by the time i wake up because having it implied that i am a liar and a moron are the way i like to start my day


----------



## gibbs (Jun 26, 2002)

oh my goodnesss..rant city 
and all this over browsers ..look out folks we are in geek country! [lol]

I tried omniweb, its good, but slow. I havent tried 4.1 final but someone did comment that its faster now.

I use ie5.2, but I decided to try chimera. I downloaded their nightly trunk binary from their homepage, i think it was dated the 24th. It runs i'd say responsiveness wise about 3x faster than mozilla, and is totally stable for me. Of course, it doesnt have a lot of configuration options, but you couldnt PAY me to stop using this browser for everyday surfing. Its practically saved my life in that respect.

If you ask me, the main mozilla release has a lot to learn from chimera, and at this point I rate the browsers this way -

1) Chimera - Fast, stable, and simple.
2) This is a tie between omniweb 4.1 and ie5.2
3)Mozilla, slowest browser [tried 1.0 final and alpha 1.1] from my experience. Has a nice advantage of email/news/web all in one app though. Sorely needed.


----------



## azosx (Jun 26, 2002)

> do you know the meaning of the word 'relative'? do you know the term 'tax deduction'?



My mistake.  Obviously you didn't mean relative to you.  Relative to them isn't the point either
or whether they receive a tax deduction.  All my point was is that these charities and research 
foundations trying to solve world hunger and cure AIDS are not evil because their primary funding is from
entrepreneurs like Bill Gates or Big Business like MS.  Nor do they care what MS or anybody else does.  Nor do they exist to serve them.  
They survive simply by the generosity of others.  Much like Mozilla.




> most of what i write is fact. the other is my opinion. show me the 'BS'.



Unfortunately I don't have a link to your previous Mozilla thread.  I could look it up but I dont see the point
I had the oppourtunity to read it over a month ago when it was rehatched in a different thread.  It's 
long and tiresome and I don't feel we need a continuation of that.  I will however point out the BS in 
this thread.




> so what do you do when somebody burns you? keep spending your money with them? help promote them? maybe go get a job working for them? or do you just sit quietly and let them keep burning everybody else?



I'm not trying to convert you to start using AOL/Netscape or Mozilla.  I'm just trying to show you there's
a difference between them.  Yes, I've been burned by (insert big business here), I know how it feels.  Do
I go around warning everyone about them, no.  How one would determine if and how they are burning everyone
else, I don't know.  I don't believe in slandering a company, especially when I don't have all the facts,
which seems to apply in your case concerning Mozilla.




> part of my point exactly. nobody should have that much ablilty to control what is going on. not m$, not aol, not ibm, etc. convicne me it's all for the good of the world and freedom, and i'll shut up.



I agree.  It is scary the amount of control Big Business has on the way we live and the government we 
stand by.  Unfortunately that's pretty much how capitalism works in the United States, if you don't like it, move.  
In the 20's it was Standard Oil.  In the 80's AT&T.  Today it's AOL and MS.  I don't have a solution to this problem, but
again, I believe it's way off topic as well.




> whether you want to believe it or not, the political landscape around mozilla changed the day that aol bought netscape. What mozilla was and what it is and what it potentially can be are very different things.



It so happens that the political landscape of Mozilla is outlined on their website before and after AOL
bought Netscape.

http://www.mozilla.org/fear.html 

It hasn't been updated since 1998 which leads me to believe nothing has changed since the day it was written.
Look it over, it discredits a lot of what you've said now and in previous threads concerning the fact that by supporting Mozilla
you are directly supporting AOL/Netscape.  This is completely untrue.  It also states that they are completely seperate entities,
not the evil corporation working together as you'd have many beleive.







> once more - what it was and what it is are different. i once ran with the mighty beast. it was proud, it was mighty, it was independent like netscape itself. it was the future. it was everything one could want from a browser in those days. but now that it's greatest triumphs are hustled away and incorporated into aol, it is proud no more.



See the URL above and also keep this quote taken from the URL above in mind.

" The thing to keep in mind here is that mozilla.org is not Netscape, and never has been. This is something that many people don't understand, or don't believe, but as we described in our original mission statement, the Mozilla Organization has a different agenda from Netscape. We were chartered to guide the open development of the Mozilla browser, and that is what we have done. "






> aol users should!! aol supporters should!! anyone oppossed to aol probably shouldn't because they are only helping to solidfy aol's hold on the masses. and please tell me you don't really believe that free means there is no cost involved. Didn't your mother ever teach you there is no such thing as a free lunch? especially from aol!! (oh, wait. i forgot all those 'free trial' disks they send out.  )



Yes, when I report a bug to Mozilla, chances are that bug will be fixed and AOL/Netscape will benefit from it.
What you fail to see because of your hatered of Big Business is they are but one of dozens that stand to 
benefit as well.  The dozens being independent developers trying to make a difference in this world.  Trying to bring choice to the masses.
Am I correct in understanding that because of the indiscretions of AOL, the many must suffer and go without?
That makes no sense to me.  Your hatred for Big Business has blinded you from seeing the greater good in all things.

As for the connection between Mozilla and AOL, it is clearly outlined in the URL above.  That URL can also be accessed from the
Mozilla website, only 3 pages deep.  Not exactly hidden or hard to find.  Shortly summed up, Mozilla was never 
Netscape.  Mozilla never became AOL.  Mozilla was always bigger than the two, and much like the charity exampled above, their
only connection to AOL/Netscape was through funding.  There was no seedy political underside that made Mozilla the pawn of AOL
after the merger like you want to lead many to believe.

And yes, when I download Mozilla it's free.  I do not directly support AOL/Netscape in anyway because of this.  I'm not directed 
to AOL/Netscape websites, I'm not prompted to download AOL/Netscape software.  AIM is not bundled with my download, and in direct
defiance of AOL/Netscape, I have more control over Mozilla, namely, the ability to block popup ads.    I'm glad you pointed
out why very little AOL/Netscape information exists on Mozilla's website, especially regarding their connection.  As stated in the URL
above, there is no connection other than funding.  the FUD you've been spreading is non existant.  The only way AOL/Netscape could
possibly benefit from you using Mozilla is if you filed a bug report.  Unfortunately if you choose not to, a dozen others stand to suffer.
I guess they are the casulties of some war you've waged against AOL/Netscape.  The propaganda you're spreading isn't going to
hurt AOL, but it very well has the potential to destroy the hard work of many independent developers.  People just trying to make
a decent living like you and I.  If you and people like you succeed in killing Mozilla, AOL/Netscape will still have it.  Maybe they'll close the source like IE, then where will we be.  Do you actually understand the repercussions of what you are trying to accomplish?





> and back when those improvements went into supporting an indepent netscape, i was all for it. i sent my bugs in no matter how many crashes it cost me. but now there is a major corporation with billions of dollars benifitting from the hard work of the people who work for free. Frankly, if you want to be one of those people, go ahead. I DON'T




Your hatred has blinded you once again.  These bug fixes go into fixing Mozilla, which in turn helps Chimera, Galeon and everybody else, not just Netscape.  Why should these indepented projects suffer because AOL, a billion dollar company, and one of dozens that choose to use Mozilla to develop their own web browser?  I don't see anyone else taking the initiative Mozilla has to create an open source platform from which anyone with the desire can develop from.  

Anyone means anyone.  Even billion dollar companies that have something to gain.

Your thinking is craziness.   All Netscape did was fund Mozilla.  All AOL was buy Netscape and did was the same.  There is no seedy initiative or political involvement.  

I think you are terribly confused between the difference between Netscape and Mozilla.  As stated in the URL below, the are not and never were the same thing!  

If anything, choose not to support Netscape, at least then your argument would make sense.





> please azosx, use quotes and show me something i have said that is not true or potentially true!! something you can actually prove is false.



Everything you've said about Mozilla is untrue.  They are not AOL/Netscape, you are not directly supporting
AOL/Netscape by using Mozilla.  There is no seedy conection between AOL/Netscape and Mozilla and Mozilla does
not hide anything from it's users.  



> as for absurdity - i was around when it would have been "absurd" to imagine that Bill gates would be the richest man in the world. absurd to imagine that m$ would dominate the world of computing the way they do now. I was around when it was absurd to think that aol would buy Time Warner. that aol would actually dominate the isp market and then go for more.
> 
> see, i've lived long enough to realize that today's absurdities become tomorrows realities if we allow them. (bday in profile is wrong, real dob is 8/9/57. been using macs since there were no windows and no aol)





As for tomorrow, what will your views be when Apple dominates the market and Microsoft is made the serve them?  You're
kidding yourself if you do not think this is the goal of Steve Jobs.  This is the goal of any
Big Business, to be on top.  And s absurd
as that alternate reality may sound, according to you it's possible.  You don't really believe Apple would be any different than AOL or MS do you?

Get off the bandwagon, think for yourself.   Learn more about something before completely condemn it.  Try and seperate yourself and others from this hatred of Big Business.  If anything I hope you see Mozilla is not the evil.


----------



## azosx (Jun 26, 2002)

One more point in closing.  In 1997 Apple borrowed over 150 million from MS and also succumb to the placement of IE as the primary web browser of Mac OS. 

I understand they needed to do this.  There was no other choice.  Without MS, Apple may very well not even exist today.

My point is, under your belief system, Apple should now be condemned because of their relationship with MS.  Not only did they accept funding from the evil, but helped in assisting it making IE the dominant web browser it is today.  One could easily acuse Apple of seedy initiatives and political involvement with MS.

I'm not going to because I actually don't know all the details, but hopefully you can see how easy it easy it is to spread FUD by mixing up just a few key facts.

You can refute my claims but I don't know how long I'll continue to defend them.   I'm new to forum debates but I've noticed big ones have a tendency to get off track and lose sight of what's important.  I'm also just very tired and in a poor state of mind.




Also, I live in Arizona and have a home where the fires are so have spent the last week on pratically no sleep worrying about whether one
of my homes has burnt to the ground or not (feel sorry for me, boohoohoo).  The only reason I tell you this is because im going on no sleep so anything I've written
above may be slightly garbled, misspelled or lacking clarity.  For that I apologize but  I try!


----------



## themacko (Jun 26, 2002)

What fires?


----------



## azosx (Jun 26, 2002)

What fires?  Are you serious?

Only the largest fire in North America, the Rodeo-Chediski fire.  375,000 acres, over 550 square miles and right in your backyard.

Our cabin is in the the Heber-Overgaard area and presumably burnt to the ground.


----------



## themacko (Jun 26, 2002)

Sorry, my sarcasm was a little _too subtle_, there.


----------



## azosx (Jun 26, 2002)

Oh, I guess it's just not funny when your home burns to the ground.


----------



## fryke (Jun 26, 2002)

I don't care about fires, I don't care about the US. If I were the most altruistic man on the planet, if my choice of software was solely based on ecological issues, I wouldn't work in the graphics design business by now, I wouldn't own a Mac, I wouldn't be here on this board to discuss political issues in a F****ING BROWSER CHOICE THREAD.

Seriously, this is making me angry from time to time. There is choice in browsers. Microsoft helped bringing choice to the browser market by competing with Netscape Navigator at the time. Of course they didn't compete by building the better product, they competed with making theirs free. They also developed their browser until it was actually better than anything out there before. Everyone's playing catch up with them for more than two years now. There is - in fact - one single market where Microsoft was helpful for me and others: The browser market. Look at the browsers of the time before MS entered the market. Applications the size of Photoshop (Netscape 3 at the time), buggy as hell, crashing all the time, behaving like no serious application software package before. On the Mac just like on any other operating system, Netscape was both the only real web browsing software AND the most horrible piece of junkware I had ever seen.

The game turned. MS IE took everything. For some time, they had both around 50% market share. That was the worst time in web experience. Almost every other website didn't work in the 'other' browser, which means it was optimised for only one. People started to write JavaScript pieces that decided which page should be served on which browser, which meant that people using a THIRD browser had no chance of viewing the site at all.

We're over that, mostly. Still there are sites that just don't work if your browser is not exactly one of the big two.

Now, where are we. We can't use

- IE, because it's from Microsoft, which is The Devil.
- Netscape, because it belongs to AOL, which is The Devil, 2.
- iCab, because it feels kinda strange, doesn't look right and also doesn't work with all sites.
- OmniWeb, because it lacks support for many websites we want to see.
- Chimera, because it's based on Mozilla, which 'belongs' to AOL, which is The Devil, 2.
- Mozilla, because it's Mozilla, which 'belongs' to AOL, which is The Devil, 2.
- Opera, because it's ad-based, which is bad per se. Also, Opera is known spyware.

What's still there? Lynx and links, two text-only browser. They're both fast and have incredible support for websites, if you keep in mind they're text-only.

So what do I do? Do I choose between the less of, what, 9 evils? Nope: I choose the best of them all. The one which doesn't get in my way. It's also great that IE doesn't need to be updated every other week, just because some or other feature now finally should (but doesn't) work (right).

My choice: IE 5.2. It's a great, clean webbrowser that doesn't only do the job, but does it right and fast.


----------



## themacko (Jun 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *Oh, I guess it's just not funny when your home burns to the ground. *


Oops.


----------



## toast (Jun 26, 2002)

<i>the strongest oaths that are straw to the fire i'th'blood</i> 

I find <b>Chimera</b> very good. I can just browse my forums with it (this one and desktoppublishing.com).

Now for what it doesn't handle, <b>Microsoft Internet Explorer</b> is a very good browser for me, because it's stable. I have tried others, but they crashed where Explorer didn't.

Still, in my opinion, <b>using two browsers</b> (first to speedbrowse and second to slowbrowse) is a normal thing.

<i>I find
for me
in my opinion</i>
How wonderful these sound in such a thread.

____________
The Macko: there are ways to know this (the mailing list). Sometimes the company traces the customer's IP. Ask them.
Azosx: I think you just broke longest post record, am I right ? I didn't learn much, though. Convincing takes over shouting for me.
Ed: The Bill & Emma Foundation gives out money to 3rd world. Even if they're not on my top-charity list, that's still charity to me.
fryke: I'm glad to see we're two not to care about the US, which are the real Evil of this thread ! LOL, and thanx for such a last open-minded post.
____________


----------



## googolplex (Jun 26, 2002)

These arguements actually amuse me now. Fryke is making sense! Although I disagree with him that IE is the best browser he has a point.

Although I think IE is a great evil then mozilla because IE got its dominance in unlawful ways and continues to do so. Mozilla on the other hand isn't doing anything illegal and it is actually one of the good things AOL does err make that the only good thing AOL does . So by Ed's logic that I'm helping AOL by using Mozilla (which I am, but I'm helping everyone) I'm helping AOL do good, not bad.

Oh and the problem for webmasters that fryke is talking about has a simple solution. I'm going to make this nice and clear so everyone hears.

Use the standards and demand browsers that support the standards!!!

If you are a webmaster and you don't support standards, serioulsy, screw you. You don't help things, you make things worse.

I really don't care what browser you use as long as you use one that isn't made by a company that exploits standards and has made the mess we have now.


----------



## azosx (Jun 26, 2002)

The problem with forum debates is that posts get extremely long and people are less likely to read or understand them.

I don't like to debate that way but I decided to humor Ed anyhow.

To sum up my huge post above.  Mozilla was not Netscape, Mozilla never became AOL.  

Mozilla was always a separate entity from Netscape and then AOL/Netscape and still is.

Yes, the political landscape of Netscape changed greatly after AOL aquired it but Mozilla never changed, only the funding did.

To quote from Mozilla's webpage, 

"The thing to keep in mind here is that mozilla.org is not Netscape, and never has been. This is something that many people don't understand, or don't believe, but as we described in our original mission statement, the Mozilla Organization has a different agenda from Netscape. We were chartered to guide the open development of the Mozilla browser, and that is what we have done."

Now if you are totally hellbent on not supporting AOL, don't use Netscape, it's as simple as that.

For more information regarding Mozilla in relationship to Netscape and AOL visit the URL below.

http://www.mozilla.org/fear.html 

Also, take a look around mozilla.org in general and learn something new.

Please, try to get this through your heads, Mozilla is not Netscape, Mozilla is not AOL.

You are not supporting AOL by using Mozilla.  You are however supporting the open source initiative.

If for some reason you have a problem with that, I suggest you stop using OS X immediately, because Darwin, it's core, is open source as well.


----------



## Izzy (Jun 26, 2002)

Am I understanding this correctly?  From the tone of this topic it seems as though there are people who are against using a product when it works the best on your system.  I'm supposed to use a browswer that runs almost unusably slow, crashes frequently, and is unintuitive for me?  

I've given the other browsers a chance and will continue to do so...when one of the others starts working better for me I will be more than happy to switch.  I want to be the most productive with whatever piece of software that I use.  For right now IE works the best...everyone has their preferences and that is fine.  No amount of arguing, name calling, etc. will change that everyone.  

There are bigger issues out there in this world than what web browser we all use.  I wonder how much better off the world would be if were this passionate about issues like improving our communities, helping the indigent, etc...


----------



## edX (Jun 26, 2002)

ok, let me word this very carefully so everyone knows what i mean -

Mozilla is not Netscape, Mozilla is not AOL.

of course, i never said any differently. what i have said all along is that netrape/aol fund the development of mozilla and reap the rewards of the advances made thru its open source. advances that are made by people who aren't getting paid when they send in bug reports and bug fixes.

if that's ok, with you, then use mozilla. help aol climb to the top and become the next m$. 

it's funny to me that azosx uses the same page (fear) that i would use to point this relationship out to those who doubt it. the word relationship is key to understanding all this. I am in relationship with my significnt other. I am not her and she is not me. but if you didn't like her and didn't want her to prosper for some reason, then it would make no sense for you to hire me. (believe me this happens to people - and people do get fired because of their significant others). the reason it would make no sense is because my money is spent helping her with bills, food, etc. the more money i have to contribute, the more money she has to enjoy. of course, if you believed that i would take advantage of having more money and leave her, then you would want to hire me to cause her grief. how you feel about my children is only partially related to the decision. and if my children have grown up enough to take care of themselves, then they would be of no concern in the decision.

let's see - the fear page is not deep, only 3 pages in. frankly, a relationship like this should have a direct link from the main navigation page. it doesn't. neither does the copy of the letter from the head of aol reassurring the mozilla team that they don't need to find new jobs.  and if anybody believes that the paid mozilla development team is working for peanuts - i would think again.  it's funny because i really believe in communism in theory. but in practice it always comes down to those who are in the central control seat, are the ones to reap the real benefits. it ends ups being capitolism with cheap labor.

as for the apple/darwin relationship. i've said it before and i will say it again. anybody who doesn't want apple to prosper shouldn't be contributing to the darwin project. Stop confusing the whole concept of open source with the problems i have with the aol/mozilla relationship.

what else - oh yea - Mozilla is not Netscape, Mozilla is not AOL.

this seems to be the only point you have to make azosx. so i now agree you are right and you can get some sleep. (i must say that i am sorry to hear about your home. the fires are a tragedy for many and not something to be ignored or made fun of. I truly hope you and your family remain safe throughout this. i hope that some miracle occurs and your home is safe, or at least the things that you value most there can be recovered)



> _said by that fantasy baseball expert Izzy_ There are bigger issues out there in this world than what web browser we all use. I wonder how much better off the world would be if were this passionate about issues like improving our communities, helping the indigent, etc...



oh, i'm pretty passionate about those kinds of things as well. in fact i would say that some of my dislike against aol goes to their 'contributions' in those areas. Did you really want to get me started? 

i know fryke said some stuff back there but other than his thinking ie is the best, i don't think any of it was worth arguing about. when somebody else is the best browser he'll be using it. that's life. i'll never convince him. i doubt i will convince anybody who takes part in these discussions. it's the lurkers that are listening that are the real audience. 

and just to be clear - Mozilla is not Netscape, Mozilla is not AOL.


----------



## azosx (Jun 27, 2002)

Ok, so if you agree that Mozilla is not Netscape and Mozilla is not AOL, then Mozilla is not Big Business right?

If so, tell me why again you have a problem with people supporting Mozilla?  Everybody stands to reap the rewards of it being open source, not just AOL.  Why can't you see this?  Why don't you understand by supporting Mozilla, you are in now way supporting AOL.   How is AOL getting fat off the development of Mozilla?  They change it to fit their needs, they don't just slap their logo on it and say it's theirs.  So pretty much for them it's not free.  

The focus of your argument has changed 3 times now, I'm having a hard time keeping up with you.

Maybe that is your only defense, I don't know.

MS funded Apple and extended it's life and got IE on the desktop as well.  So by supporting Apple are you supporting MS and thus supporting evil as you'd have everyone believe is the case with Mozilla.

The link to the "fear" page is exactly 3 pages deep.  I guess you have difficulty counting, let me help you.  From mozilla.org, the main page, page 1, click on "At A Glance", the first link at the top on the left.  From "At A Glance", page 2, click on "Fear And Loathing On The Merger Trail."  Ironically, I think that title sums you up quite nicely.  Now we are on page 3, where mozilla.org talks about it's mission post merger in hopes to put the minds of people like you to rest.  Obviously they failed.  Going back to page 2 you can learn about every aspect of mozilla.org.  So quite frankly, mozilla.org does link you to ever aspect regarding their mission from their main webpage.  No, not exactly hidden deep within the depths of  the www as you keep trying to convince me or maybe others who wouldn't bother to see for themselves.

You're a pessimist, and you're older.  Much like my father, or any father in that respect.  Like the saying goes, "you can't teach an old dog new tricks."  So I'm not even going to bother.  You'll never admit you're wrong but hopefully others can see the truth.

As for your example with your gf, I don't even know where to begin with that.  Your bitterness for Big Business has lead me to believe you've been a "worker bee" all your life and never the "queen."

You'll never admit the truth to yourself, you're older and stubborn, and in a way I'm sure you've earned it.  Perhaps when I have more wordly experience, I'll understand where you're coming from.

Your problem with Mozilla is that it is open source and that AOL is taking advantage of this.  Now if Mozilla decided to close the source and charge developers like AOL, Chimera and Galeon to license it, would you then be happy?  What's funny is AOL doesn't even have a set plan for Netscape, they are still supporting IE and have yet to release a Netscape 7.0.

Anyone can benefit from Mozilla, not just AOL.  Everyone stands to benefit from Mozilla, that is what it was designed for.  What if Apple an application based on Mozilla technology, would you then stop supporting them.  I don't think you would, and for anyone who did, it would be pure ignorance.

Where exactly do you draw the line?  The problem is every time I counter your claims, you redraw the line.

If you feel like responding to this, tell me how exactly by downloading Mozilla I directly support AOL.  I'd love to see what you come up with!   Considering AOL pays inhouse developers to build Netscape from older builds of Mozilla, they aren't exactly getting it for free.  And if you bothered to download and try both of them together, you'd see they are different in many ways. 

**edited** But anyway I'm done.  Arguing with seasoned gentlemen, burned by Big Business and who have vowed never to look in it's direction again, no matter what the cost, never resolved a conflict. **edited**


----------



## themacko (Jun 27, 2002)

Yet another, Oops!

(I think I'd better stay out of this thread before I make ever more of an ass out of myself.)


----------



## fryke (Jun 27, 2002)

Ed: Of course you are right. I never even doubted your points. Yes, by helping the mozilla project, you also help AOL to prosper. The *one* point that can be brought up here, is that *everyone* can take the mozilla base and wrap an application around it. If, for instance, Apple *would* make an iWeb (or whatever it'd be called), they could use the mozilla base. I'm sure that Apple would make a great browser around the mozilla core. I'm also sure that Mac people would use *that* browser instead of anything else right away (if it were any good, but Apple wouldn't ever care to give out software that wasn't any good). I wouldn't want Apple to do that, this is just to point out that by using any mozilla-based product, you would then help Apple to prosper and actually hinder AOL on the Mac platform. Now this would be getting difficult, as some people wouldn't want AOL to leave the Mac platform altogether (Apple, for instance).

And *this* is why I'm using the best product I find. Yes, some might not think as I do (that IE is the best right now), but it's the concept behind it that counts: Use the best software you can find. The political/economic issues are always a bit in a haze. For most of the people, anyway.

And as soon as OmniWeb hits 5.0 sneaky peeks, I'll give it another try. I've paid for version 4.0, because I really _want_ to get rid of the biggies. But I don't have the time and money (nor interest or nerve) to spend half of my time deciding which browser to use. It's fun and entertainment to follow the development of OmniWeb, mostly because they're a great small company that has all my sympathies running for them, maybe much like you support iCab, btw. But outside of my spare time (and also inside), I have to get the job done. And there's only one way for that: I have to be able to depend on the software I'm using. That's also the biggest reason why I buy Macintosh ever since I bought my first PowerBook (PB 150).


----------



## toast (Jun 27, 2002)

<i>in the dark abysm of time</i>

Oh, somebody remembered iCab


----------



## azosx (Jun 27, 2002)

> Yes, by helping the mozilla project, you also help AOL to prosper.



People are so fond of making this grandioso claim, so tell me how!  How, how, how, how, how, how, how, how, how?  How do you come to the conclusion, especially on the OS X platform, that by using Mozilla, you are supporting AOL in any way, shape or form?


----------



## googolplex (Jun 27, 2002)

Mozilla does help AOL, but it helps everyone else as well. AOL helps Mozilla which help the whole web. Stop just looking at the surface and look at the long term. Ed you do look at the long term by opposing IE, but Mozilla benefits the web in the long run.

Because in reality Mozilla is the only browser that can compete with IE on all platforms. Nobody else can do it at this time. So if you want to help the situation support mozilla. By spreading evil thoughts about Mozilla you are making the web stay where it is now - in hell.


----------



## azosx (Jun 27, 2002)

googolplex,

I want to know how though.  I want to know how by running Mozilla in OS X, I support AOL?


----------



## themacko (Jun 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *googolplex,
> 
> I want to know how though.  I want to know how by running Mozilla in OS X, I support AOL? *


Okay I'm going back on my word here, but I won't intentionally interject ANY humor or sarcasm what-so-ever into this post.

<seriousness>

If I understand the situation correctly:

Netscape is basically AOL's bastard-child with Mozilla.  By using Mozilla, you are supporting the Mozilla project which includes Netscape.  Therefore, in a non-direct nature, you are supporting AOL.

</seriousness>


----------



## googolplex (Jun 27, 2002)

Right, but you also support web standards and help get rid of IE's dominance in the market.


----------



## hazmat (Jun 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by googolplex _
> *Right, but you also support web standards and help get rid of IE's dominance in the market. *



You've just got to support what sucks the least these days.


----------



## edX (Jun 27, 2002)

thank you Fryke, googolplex, macko and all for simply acknowledging my reasoning. i also see your points as well. I have a hard time finding an absolute right or wrong in this issue. there are simply a few different points of view. The best thing is when we present them all rationally and let others make their choice of which philosophy suits them. just as republicans, democrats and other political parties state their positions and then people choose which to support. (sorry, not trying to be americentric here, i only know US political parties).

funny how i got this all rolling again with little melodramtic vignette back there. 

azosx - if you don't understand how aol profits from netscape, then you've got a lot more looking around and learning to do yourself. I assure you that aol doesn't support mozilla nor develop netscape out of the kindness and generosity of its heart.

aol has already switched to netscape as default browser and netscape 7 preview is available. i assure you they are moving full speed ahead in the browser wars.


----------



## azosx (Jun 27, 2002)

I understand fully well how AOL profits by me using Netscape.  I am directed to their website, portals, shopping, other software, AIM and everything else but how am I supporting AOL by using Mozilla?

Nothing concerning AOL exists in Mozilla.  I don't even have the option to file a bug report with the OS X version of Mozilla so how by using it am I really helping anybody unless I go out of my way to file bug reports online? 

Bastard child?  That's the same as saying Galeon, Chimera and the dozen other choices using Mozilla technology are bastard children as well.  It's unfortunate you can't just pick and choose who you support and who you don't.  You base something as trivial as funding to alienate yourself from not just Mozilla, but dozens of other fine applications and potentially cause others to do the same by misinforming them.

You said you have a child.  I'm gussing he's still in school.  Did Windows happen to furnish all the OS's and Office apps he happens to learn on from day to day.  By sending him to school, are you not indirectly supporting MS and their dominance in the computer market.  Possibly that doesn't apply to you, but it does to many.  Should parents yank their children out of school just because MS supports them?

I only use examples like the one above and MS's relationship with Apple because they are essentially they are similiar to the problem you have with Mozilla.  Yet you support Apple and I'm gussing education so the line you've drawn is very fuzzy.

With Mozilla you have a choice, you can furnish a bug report via the Feedback Agent or online or not.  By using Mozilla you're only taking away from AOL/Netscape's market share.  An the reason Netscape uses older builds of Mozilla and takes so long to get their version to the market is because they totally rework it to fit their needs, thus I can understand why you hate them, it's a commercial marketing vessle disguised as a web browser.

Mozilla doesn't work for just one person, AOL, it's trying to work for everyone, and it can only work for everyone if you decide to work for it.  If not, then it's just a good browser you've decided to use, no strings attached.

Those 1000s of people didn't work their asses off for 4 1/2 years so AOL could have a web browser.  They worked so hard so you could have a choice.


----------



## themacko (Jun 27, 2002)

azosx:  I'm assuming most of what you just said was directed towards Ed and not me.


----------



## azosx (Jun 27, 2002)

I post this question to anybody.  How by downloading and using Mozilla are you directly or indirectly supporting AOL.  I want to understand.  Maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## edX (Jun 27, 2002)

ok, a quick set of replies and then i think i'll go hiking in the redwoods with my son -



> _Originally posted by azosx _
> I understand fully well how AOL profits by me using Netscape.  I am directed to their website, portals, shopping, other software, AIM and everything else but how am I supporting AOL by using Mozilla?
> 
> Nothing concerning AOL exists in Mozilla.  I don't even have the option to file a bug report with the OS X version of Mozilla so how by using it am I really helping anybody unless I go out of my way to file bug reports online?



correct (unless you count aol's money in the mozilla team's pockets  )but the point is that mozilla exists within a concern of aol. as for current ability to file bug reports, i concede ignorance since i haven't allowed mozilla on my HD for quite some time.


> Bastard child?  That's the same as saying Galeon, Chimera and the dozen other choices using Mozilla technology are bastard children as well.  It's unfortunate you can't just pick and choose who you support and who you don't.  You base something as trivial as funding to alienate yourself from not just Mozilla, but dozens of other fine applications and potentially cause others to do the same by misinforming them.



as trivial as funding? my friend, money is power. and aol is exercising theirs with their *relationship* to mozilla. as for the others, i've said it before and i'll repeat - those are the ones we should be supporting. It is time for the children to eat their father, just as the ancient Gods, under the leadership of Zeus, ate their father Cronos. (seems like a fitting analogy given the ancient mythological names of these browsers.)

and i do pick and choose who i will support. all i've ever done is outline my criteria for doing so.



> You said you have a child.  I'm gussing he's still in school.  Did Windows happen to furnish all the OS's and Office apps he happens to learn on from day to day.  By sending him to school, are you not indirectly supporting MS and their dominance in the computer market.  Possibly that doesn't apply to you, but it does to many.  Should parents yank their children out of school just because MS supports them?
> 
> I only use examples like the one above and MS's relationship with Apple because they are essentially they are similiar to the problem you have with Mozilla.  Yet you support Apple and I'm gussing education so the line you've drawn is very fuzzy.



reallywant me to add my rant about the current domination of m$ and pc's to this thread? Let's just say that if i had the money (power) to do so, my son's school would be all macs. as it is, he has to settle for an old performa at home running os 7.5.x.

as for apple's relationship with m$, i've not been happy with it for many years and would love to see them seperate them selves from each other if there was a way to do it that assured apple would survive. as it is, i rationalize that this is money and support that m$ owes to apple for stealing from them in the first place. it's not the perfect logic i know, but that's where i draw my fuzzy line.



> With Mozilla you have a choice, you can furnish a bug report via the Feedback Agent or online or not.  By using Mozilla you're only taking away from AOL/Netscape's market share.  An the reason Netscape uses older builds of Mozilla and takes so long to get their version to the market is because they totally rework it to fit their needs, thus I can understand why you hate them, it's a commercial marketing vessle disguised as a web browser.
> 
> Mozilla doesn't work for just one person, AOL, it's trying to work for everyone, and it can only work for everyone if you decide to work for it.  If not, then it's just a good browser you've decided to use, no strings attached.
> 
> Those 1000s of people didn't work their asses off for 4 1/2 years so AOL could have a web browser.  They worked so hard so you could have a choice.



my feeling is that when netscape sold out to aol, those thousands of developers got sold out in the process. the only real way to make sense of this is to now support those independent projects that have grown out of mozilla and lead them to faster success. take what was good about mozilla and make it better. but do so in ways that protect it from semi-monopolies like aol. that's all.

now is the time to support those choices. they are no longer little playthings, they are full fledged browsers in their own right and need our support and participation to grow into the things we complain they aren't. those who are not willing to make the sacrifices involved are only adding to the chance that we will never see the benefits they could one day provide.


----------



## azosx (Jun 27, 2002)

> as trivial as funding? my friend, money is power. and aol is exercising theirs with their relationship to mozilla.



This is where FUD, Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt sets in.  You think Mozilla is in AOL's back pocket because AOL chooses to support them finacially but you have no idea if that is actually true or not.

You'll continue to tell everybody this though despite every point made on mozilla.org refuting your claims.

You said you once used Netscape and so did I.  I loved Netscape, it gave us a choice.  But Netscape was Big Business as well, and like every big business, they were in it for a profit.  They had to sell to AOL because they just weren't big enough to take on MS.  That was devistating to me, and for a time MS was my only alternative.  I didn't mind IE, it did what I needed it to, but I would have much rather been supporting anybody but them.

Netscape did one thing though to insure it's legacy before the merger and before AOL could kill it.   It created the Mozilla Open Source Initiative.  Something to not only combat the corruptness of Big Businesses like MS, but AOL as well.  If they hadn't have done this, Netscape might very well be proprietary today, and then what choices might you have?

This is what Mozilla is today, what Netscape once was.  The Netscape we remember before AOL made it "evil."  If you look at Mozilla in any way, look at it as the final coup de grace from Netscape to AOL and Big Business in general.  A slap in the face that not even AOL has the power to destroy.  

Like mozilla.org says, Mozilla was bigger than Netscape, Mozilla is bigger than AOL.  AOL had no choice but to support Mozilla.  Basically, they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.  

Don't you honestly believe AOL would rather have a proprietary browser like IE that it could control?  Unfortuantely, before the merger, Netscape gave them no other alternative with Mozilla.

Now because of Mozilla, something AOL doesn't have the power to kill, they have to compete with Mozilla itself, Chimera, Galeon and the many others.

Mozilla is Netscape's legacy, and has more power than AOL or any Big Business.  If you truly believed in what Netscape was, then you should whole heartedly support Mozilla.


----------



## googolplex (Jun 27, 2002)

I hope everyone knows Mozilla.org is a totally seperate entity with people not at netscape on their staff. The head of the Mozilla project was actually fired by AOL but is still the head of the project. If AOL really had all the controll that person wouldn't be there anymore.

All AOL provides is servers and some Netscape engineers who work on it.


----------



## edX (Jun 27, 2002)

azosx - you say FUD like it was some dirty word. Frankly i think not having a little fear, uncertainity and doubt about things is much scarier and much worse. apathy is the disease of our times. when we use our FUD's to inform us, then we can work to make sure they don't become realities. That has been one of my basic points from the start. We could have used a little more FUD when IBM was climbing to power in the 60's. Whenever anyone starts getting very powerful, you had better exercise some FUD or risk living in  a world not of your choosing.

so what is your point in insisting upon supporting mozilla rather than the other browsers it has spawned? you keep listing how great they are and i keep agreeing and you go back to defending mozilla like you're the guy that develops it.

and you keep inisisting that aol's funding in no way influences mozilla? do you have any proof of that? I'm not trying to say aol controls mozilla, but let's be real for a sec. If i tell you i'm getting money from a source but that they don't influence me, would you just take _my_ word for it? i doubt it. and if you did, you would probably be mistaken. cause money talks and people naturally listen.

now, off to the redwoods.


----------



## azosx (Jun 27, 2002)

FUD can be a dirty word because 9 out of 10 times, the claims that arise from FUD are unsubstantiated.

I guess it all boils down to paranoia.  

This debate has lightened up which is good, I think we are both learning something.

My point in supporting Mozilla, is that if you don't, there will be no other browsers spawned from it's efforts.  If users hadn't seen Mozilla through to 1.0, Chimera and Galeon would have had little reason to continue.  They didn't and still don't have the user base yet to support them on their own or the developers to fix the various bugs and issues Mozilla was plauged with.

People need to realize this is the future, this is what will keep us free and most of all, this is the only way we'll have a choice against Big Business. 

Yes, OmniWeb, iCab, lynx and various others will be an option, but let's face it, they are not going to free us from the bonds that MS and AOL have imposed on us.

AOL would just as soon see Mozilla dead and Netscape proprietary once again.  This is unfortunately not an option so the only way AOL saw it is, if you can't beat'em, join'em.  

Do you think with the money AOL has, they needed to develop a browser from Open Source?  They could give a s*it about Open Source.  The fact is, they had no other choice but to support it.  It would seem that they became the willing pawn of Netscape and Mozilla after the merger.  You keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.  

Like I said before, Mozilla is Netscape's legacy and the final coup de grace to Big Business before Netscape had to bow out and AOL nearly destroyed them.

Other than money, they certainly did nothing to support Mozilla in the begining, letting Netscape die completely at first then releasing a terribly buggy version of Netscape 6 and calling it complete.  It would almost seem by doing that, they wanted Mozilla to seem like a faliure.

There is no way you can positively determin whether money is an influencing factor or not, but the way Mozilla has operated pre and  post AOL, there is no indication that it is.  Absolutely nothing has changed, their mission is still the same, which leads me to believe no influence has been exerted.

One other benefit of Mozilla is that it is not centralized.  There is no one determining factor on where the project should head.  It's a colabrative effort by 1000s of people.  Influencing such an organization with money would be next to impossible.  These people would never develop Mozilla for AOL, they develop it for people like you, who want to remain free and have a choice.  Even when you don't appriciate their efforts.


----------



## JetwingX (Jun 27, 2002)

YAY i am the only one who uses Netscape!!!!


----------



## toast (Jun 28, 2002)

Burn him ! Aaaaaaah ! A fudging Netscape user ! Clicking on (aaaaaaaaaa) AAAAAAAAOOOOOOLLLLLLL  things ! Baaaah !

Support Mozilla = giving fuel to the gecko pump / and the gecko is also Netscape. So yes, helping the gecko to exist through Moz. is helping the gecko to exist anywhere else, Netscape included.

But Chimera is very good  and you don't need all these stupid functions you have on Netscape/IE/Moz/etc

E-mail: use Mail (Apple)
Upload: use OsXigen (Version tracker)
Download: use OsXigen or Speed Download (Version Tracker)
Flash: okay... one point for you
Compose HTML: use Wallaby (www.darkeagle.com)

But still, don't forget we should burn JetOsX before    yeah ! Burn ! Burn !


----------



## fryke (Jun 28, 2002)

There's one problem in your logic, Ed, about supporting the children (so they'll eat the father), and it's called open source. Galeon, Chimera and others are doing a good job in taking Gecko, improving it on the way and putting a nice interface around it. But their development of the Gecko engine flows back to the open source mozilla project. Thus helping the children is still helping mozilla and thus Netscape (AOL).

Until now, AOL has chosen the default interface (the XUL one) for Netscape. What if they start a (good) development of interfaces for various platforms themselves? Why do we choose Galeon over mozilla on Linux? Because it's a far better and faster interface for the browser, because it integrates with the operating system (if you use Gnome at least). The same is happening with Chimera (if the interface becomes better fast). But what if AOL decides to put some money behind the Netscape project? They could have a _good_ Netscape 8 for Windows and Mac OS X up in no time. And people like me, who tend to choose function over politics, might make the jump to Netscape again. Seeing how Apple starts to have a good relationship with Beast No. 2 (AOL support in AirPort, iChat using the AIM network, Apple letting go of IE as the default browser in ads and the like), I fear that Apple might *really* - with AOLs support - develop THE Mac OS X browser, based on mozilla *for* AOL. There might be money flowing from AOL to Apple for Apple's support of what AOL wants to happen on the platform or not: If the result is a nice looking, fast, easy to handle web browser that comes standard on every installation of Mac OS X, people will use THAT. There was much talk about how the integration of IE in Windows wouldn't really hurt Netscape, but we know what happened: IE won. Big time. There's not only bad things about this (!), as the browsing experience on a Windows machine (comparing Windows 95 with Netscape to Windows XP with IE 6) has improved a thousand fold. And I guess a good Apple web browser based on mozilla, which is already good in standards compliance, would also improve the web experience of Mac OS X. And _that_ would actually be a good thing functionality-wise. A very bad thing, of course, politically.

This sums up to a pretty scary picture, doesn't it? Scary for Ed, anyway. I tend to see the picture as half good, half bad. I, too, don't want AOL to be the Microsoft of the 21st century, but I want Apple and Mac OS X to succeed. And if Apple plays their cards right, they're never going to be dependent on AOL, as mozilla at least is open source.


----------



## azosx (Jun 28, 2002)

> There's one problem in your logic, Ed, about supporting the children (so they'll eat the father), and it's called open source. Galeon, Chimera and others are doing a good job in taking Gecko, improving it on the way and putting a nice interface around it. But their development of the Gecko engine flows back to the open source mozilla project. Thus helping the children is still helping mozilla and thus Netscape (AOL).



You're confused.  Galeon and Chimera don't develop the gecko rendering engine, they only build their browsers from it.  Now in the case of Chimera, it has branched from the Mozilla development tree, but the chances of Netscape/AOL using their developments seeds to build Netscape are are next to none.

While it is possible developers within these seperate projects work for Mozilla, which I think is the case for Chimera, these platforms aren't used to improve Mozilla in anyway by supporting them.
The seperate branch for Chimera is used for directly supporting just it though.

Thus, by using Chimera, Galeon or any of the other Open Source projects based on Mozilla, you're definitely not going to be helping AOL.

Apple is only using iChat to hopefully expand it's user base.  Apple is also trying it's darndess to get away from MS and it's services.  Realize though it dare not defy MS, because if MS pulled Office from OS X, Apple would be screwed.  With all the trouble MS is in right now, it would be difficult for them to do that though.  I think Apple is using this oppourtunity to lessen their dependence on MS, while MS can't do anything about it.

If Netscape made an Aquafied version of it's browser for OS X and it was slightly faster than Mozilla, I still probably wouldn't use it.  The beauty of Mozilla is that it comes with no strings attached.  When I start it my bookmarks don't tell me to go shopping or to AOL/Timer Warner related websites, a web commerce site doesn't load up as default and I have control over what I choose to view on the net.  I can also choose whether I want to support it or not.

Unfortunately, this wouldn't be the case for all.  Many would take visual enhancements over performance or politics any day.

If Mozilla ever started making a totally inferior product to lets say MS or AOL, I wouldn't torture myself just to keep using it.  

IE is pretty and starts faster than Mozilla but without tabs,  a location bar, inability to load pages as fast or correctly, no way to block popup adds, lack of a email client, lack of web standards and dozens of other features, it's just too unproductive for me.

When you start getting used to the subtle but extemely useful features of Mozilla, you don't know how you ever did without them.

**This was only my little chant for Mozilla because I know you're and IE user** 

Apple doesn't need Netscape either to build a terrific browser.  That's the beauty of Open Source.  Apple certainly has the resources to use the Mozilla code and do it on it's own.  iBrowse or whatever would certainly complete their collection of iApps.

Ed has chose to hand pick which Big Businesses he supports and doesn't.  This makes his stance against AOL/Netscape and Mozilla very confusing.  

I think if AOL or MS itself bought Apple, Ed would still support it.  He only yanks support if he has a choice.  Kind of a double standard.


----------



## googolplex (Jun 28, 2002)

You'd be suprised what Chimera might turn into, especially considering the number of Netscape engineers working on the project.

Thats all I'm going to say


----------



## azosx (Jun 28, 2002)

What Netscape engineers are working on Chimera?


----------



## toast (Jun 28, 2002)

Surprise...


----------



## xaqintosh (Jun 28, 2002)

What is Tabbed Browsing? does IE use Tabbed Browsing? which Browsers Do?


----------



## googolplex (Jun 28, 2002)

David Hyatt (http://mozillazine.org/weblogs/hyatt) and Mike Pinkerton (http://mozpink.blogspot.com) are two big chimera developers both at Netscape. There are more but I can't remember their names off the top of my head.


----------



## Izzy (Jun 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by xaqintosh _
> *What is Tabbed Browsing? does IE use Tabbed Browsing? which Browsers Do? *



Tabbed browsing is where you have the option of clicking on a link and creating a seperate viewing page for it within the same window you are in at the moment. (you can view new pages in their own window without having a bunch of new windows open)  

It creates a tab of the page you want to view and then you can switch between pages by clicking on different tabs.

I know that mozilla and chimera (navigator) have tabbed browsing...IE doesn't, and neither does OmniWeb


----------



## azosx (Jun 28, 2002)

Where does it say either of them work at Netscape?

They seem to only put-down Netscape.

If in fact they do work for Netscape, there went Ed's theory that AOL money is used for corruption.  

I don't think if AOL was hellbent on browser domination, they'd let engineers go work on other Open Source projects that stand to steal the thunder away from their "beloved" Netscape.

In fact, I think AOL would just as soon seen Netscape die again and hopefully take Mozilla with it.


----------



## googolplex (Jun 28, 2002)

Well its is pretty aparant on many of their blog posts and their email addresses are hyatt@netscape.com and pinkerton@netscape.com.


----------



## Boeing777 (Jun 28, 2002)

Well I hate to say it but I have giving up netscape cause it simply sucks. I'm now using IE (unfortunately  ) but it's a much better browser. Maybe I should try few others as IE sometimes quitte under OS X.

Not to mention that the new msn messenger has crashed my os x on its very first install. Damn microsoft.


----------



## azosx (Jun 28, 2002)

Try Mozilla


----------



## toast (Jun 28, 2002)

or Chimera, what's wrong with Chimee ?


----------



## azosx (Jun 28, 2002)

Nothing is "wrong" with Chimera, it's just not stable enough.  

You can't really download with it either and it's plugin support is kind of sketchy.

I wouldn't advise someone who was complaining about IE crashing to go tryout betaware. 

Chimera crashes a lot, certainly more than any of the others in the poll.

It's only at 0.3 though, so it certainly has a ways to go.

On a scale of 1-5 from a standpoint of useablility, Chimera gets a -2, but, in terms of potential it definitely gets a 10.


----------



## toast (Jun 28, 2002)

Hey, I'm not the one who complained about IE - it's stable here, at home, just as Chimera is. NEVER crashed Chimee. In fact, I never crashed my two browsers. I crashed those I tested and then trashed - Opera, Omni, Moz, and iCab.

The download _handle it with Speed Download, you'll go faster than a bormal browser.
The plug-ins  You are right. I'm waiting for Chim. to handle only Flash, though, Java is not a priority.


----------



## Boeing777 (Jun 28, 2002)

All right, all right boys, don't fight on this particular small issue. I shall keep on using IE, so this matter is now settled. Unless, apple decides to develop its own Browser and it's own Office suite so that we completely give up "bloody" MS. 

They've already started with iChat for the coming version of os x (jaguar code), why not an "isurf" for a browser and an "ioffice" for an office suite?

Cheers


----------



## toast (Jun 28, 2002)

I think Apple will wait for the end of the actual browser war, where technologies evolve fast thanx to competitivity, before writing iSurf.

In fact, Chimera would integrate perfectly the Apple iApplications. Just a few GUI things to draw again.

I'm waiting for iOffice. REALLY. I want a text processor that can read .doc, .rtf and .txt, no more. With style sheets and a good font management, that's all. The rest is Quark's job.

Finally, a last request: iPhotoshop .


----------



## azosx (Jun 28, 2002)

Where do you live?  I'll come over and crash Chimera for you in 12 seconds or less, guaranteed! 

I can also give you webpages that will crash Chimera instantly if you're interested.

I just find it impossible to believe Chimera has never crashed for you.  You can admit it, it'll be ok.  We wont think any less of Chimera or your opinion if you do. 

Mozilla has crashed for me before!  Look, there, I said it.  Whew.

As for speed download, I don't download a web browser just so I can download other apps to get the whole browser "effect."  It's beyond me that downloading wasn't the first thing implemented in Chimera.

Nevertheless, I think your support for Chimera is great, but you could certainly be doing more harm then good to the project by telling people to switch to it when it's far from ready for primetime.  

Most people not knowing would download Chimera, have it crash once or twice within the first few hours, not beable to download, view flash sites or java and declare that it sucks.

To sum it up, it's certainly no replacement for someone who's using IE, Netscape, Mozilla, OmniWeb, Opera or iCab as their primary browser.

I would use Chimera a lot more if it could just download properly.


As for an Apple iBrowser, it would seem as the next logical step in Apple's iApp suite.  

An iOffice app though is very unlikely.  iApps are free, Office suites of any functionality typically are not.  Though OpenOffice is starting to prove me wrong.

That would be a dream if OpenOffice could directly compete with MS and force them to lower the price of MS Office or even make it free.

MS did it to Netscape so hey, it could happen!  McWooooooooooorld!  Yeah!


----------



## googolplex (Jun 28, 2002)

You can download with chimera. You control click or right click and say save file as. Or you option click on the link. They just haven't got the code in to recognize if it is a download. Just make sure all of you know that.

But, yes, unless you are willing to put up with betaness Chimera is not for you.


----------



## azosx (Jun 28, 2002)

> You can download with chimera. You control click or right click and say save file as. Or you option click on the link.



This only applies if the download link references the actual file you are trying to download.  

Most download links now-a-day don't work this way.  You are put on a wait query while the file is accessed from the first available mirror.  In this case, you'd only download whatever script they are using to implement this.


----------



## Yoda700 (Jun 28, 2002)

Use a combination of Omniweb and IE; I do.


----------



## toast (Jun 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *Where do you live?  I'll come over and crash Chimera for you in 12 seconds or less, guaranteed! *


*
Well, I browse this forum, desktoppublishing.com forums, adobe and quark forums, as well as dozens of sites every day without crashing ChiM. Nevertheless, I believe some pages are condemned to crash under ChiM. Just give the address to make your statement valuable please.




			I just find it impossible to believe Chimera has never crashed for you.
		
Click to expand...

I tell you: Chim. never crashed here, at my place, Toast's place, Grenoble, France, Alps.




			As for speed download, I don't download a web browser just so I can download other apps to get the whole browser "effect."  It's beyond me that downloading wasn't the first thing implemented in Chimera.
		
Click to expand...

I like the Unix philosophy that says one application does one thing, only one, but it does it well. Chimera browses very well. Speed Download downloads very well. Mail mails very well. OmniWeb and Mozilla crash very well .




			Nevertheless, I think your support for Chimera is great, but you could certainly be doing more harm then good to the project by telling people to switch to it when it's far from ready for primetime.
		
Click to expand...

I don't take people for idiots, everyone is able to realize Chim. is not a finished product.

Anyway, Chimera still opens this page faster than any other browser. That's my point. *


----------



## Milamber (Jun 29, 2002)

While I will admint IE is probably not the best as far as quality of product, speed, and interface go, it IS the best to use for me.

These other browsers are all great and on their way to becoming fantastic - but none of them are there yet. I mean, if it's not one thing, it's another. One loads and runs incredibly fast - but can't do css, or perhaps one has incredible configuration options, but crashes alot. None of these have all the fuctionality that IE has. And none of them have the single most important thing that IE has.

Users.

I'm not joking - almost 80%-90% of web surfers are using some form of IE. Look at any web logs out there. As a professional web developer, i really admire what the other browsers are doing, but it is *way* to much a hassel to run one browser for myself cause it's faster, nicer, or whatever, while I have to run IE for the clients sites I am building testing.

All in all, once these others are up to par with rendering, speed, ease of use, interface, and compatibility (css, java, javascript, flash, quicktime, real, downloading, etc, etc) then I will probably be one of the first people to jump on their wagon and be yelling for others to do so as well. 

My 2cents.


----------



## googolplex (Jun 29, 2002)

If anybody should be supporting mozilla it should be web developers. Mozilla has the best support of everything except MSHTML and if you dissaggree with me on that you should really do some research. Code to standards and nobody has the right to complain.

A web developer who doesn't code to standards is a bad developer and shouldn't be one.


----------



## toast (Jun 29, 2002)

> *if you dissaggree with me on that you should really do some research*
> 
> A web developer who doesn't code to standards is *a bad developer and shouldn't be one.*



I can't see what you're bringing to the community with this kind of (useless) remarks.

#EDIT# Sorry for it.


----------



## Milamber (Jun 30, 2002)

googolplex,

A standard, while being defined by a hopeful W3C, doesn't become one until it is accepted and used by the majority of users. Right now that majority is using IE and that makes it the standard - whether you like it or not - and so that's what I develop towards.

Besides - if we really wanted to be a completely standards compliant developers, we'd probably end up using three tags, P, B, and I - cause those are probably the only three that all the browsers can agree on.


----------



## toast (Jun 30, 2002)

and U.


----------



## googolplex (Jun 30, 2002)

Toast, I saw your post before you edited it, but I couldn't reply. There was no need to edit it. I may have stepped out of line .

I aggree that the W3C is hopefull and most of the stuff they recommend isn't plausable for developers, because most users couldn't see it. However, developers should try and code to some level of standards. If you code to HTML 4 transitional both IE and Mozilla should support what you have done. Which is great. 

Anyways, I shouldn't be complaining, since recently things have been looking very good. WE have lots of alternative browsers emerging and many are very good. Using Mozilla or a Mozilla variant (chimera etc.) I have very rarely run into a page that it can't handle. Which means developers are doing a good job.


----------



## toast (Jun 30, 2002)

I was asked to edit it, googol, that's why it was edited. I didn't find it offensive at all, someone else did, I obeyed.  Bad times, hm ?

I must support on this point: Mozilla is making good job of web pages. Its variant I'm *always* advertising for (without being paid  ), that's CHIMERA, is really fast and I never crossed a page it didn't handle as far as HTML is concerned.


----------



## googolplex (Jun 30, 2002)

Toast, ask anyone around here and you will find out that I am the biggest chimera nut around these parts


----------



## azosx (Jun 30, 2002)

Chimera is crap and I question the intelligence of using Chimera, betaware, to design and test web pages.


----------



## googolplex (Jun 30, 2002)

It seems that you are being sarcastic, but I'll respond to that anyways.

The engine in chimera isn't beta its Mozilla. So designing sites for it is very smart.


----------



## azosx (Jun 30, 2002)

The Chimera is making improvements to the gecko rending engine in their browsers so technically it is beta.

I was kidding about the crap.


----------



## J5 (Jul 6, 2002)

Hey - 
I saw some talk about flash?

I've made a benchmark app(still in the works, but it's ok) that tests the performance of the flash player. The latest mac player (MAC 6,0,39,0) is still in beta, but there are some improvements. 

I've done plenty of tests on my powerbook, but it's a wallstreet, getting older. So I wanted to get some numbers for some of the fastest macs available. Especially those with fast graphics cards. I have 2 versions of the test, 1 running at 21fps and another at 20fps, the second being the better test I believe. 

Here are the links:
Test1: (21 fps)
http://www.conciousriddims.com/flashtester/

Test2: (20 fps)
http://www.conciousriddims.com/flashtester/index2.html

If you take the time to run them, or even one of them, post the results here, along with your os (9, 10.x), browser and system specs. 

For comparison, my latest tests:

Celeron 600mhz, 120megs ram, winXP, 8megs vram
Test2 - ie6:
high quality: 16.364@17.355fps

Powerbook G3 300mhz, 160megs ram, os10.1.5, 2megs vram
Test2 - ie5.2:
high: 33.102 secs @ 8.5795fps


----------



## xaqintosh (Jul 6, 2002)

I have recently switched to Chimera from IE on account of the "aqua-ness" "lack-of-M$ness" and Tabbed browsing, among other things. I LOVE IT. I can't go back... I won't...


----------



## xoot (Jul 6, 2002)

Ah... another person caught in Chimera's grips. How sad...


----------



## joeth (Jul 15, 2002)

You might not have seen me for a while but I'm BACKK!!!! & using AOL.....

so that concludes the fact............

*drumroll please*

I USE NETSCAPE FOR PRIMARY!!!!!


----------



## hulkaros (Jul 15, 2002)

OmniWeb! It may not be the most feature-full browser but at least it is Mac-only and the way it draws the sites is AWESOME...

But when all said and done at the Mac side and someone MUST use a PC then the best is Mozilla...

However, at the Mac side of the Force there can be only one: OmniWeb!

Support OmniWeb or deal with IE, Mozilla, Chimera, Netscape crap...

Maybe just for few sites you need to use IE just for compatibility problems (but this is hardly a surprise after all is a M$ app which one way or another force companies to comply to their standards) but then SWITCH back to OmniWeb... Chimera maybe fast but I prefer good looks, ease of use and stability anytime over speed, speed and only speed that Chimera offers! Mozilla and Netscape can be seen as alternatives to IE easily ( they are faster, better lookers, more secure  ) but next to OmniWeb they pale, get sick and then die 

OminWeb, OmniWeb, OmniWeb, OmniWeb.1 is the best there is!


----------



## azosx (Jul 15, 2002)

OmniWeb is a joke.  I've tried to use there last two releases and other than it's continuity with the Aqua GUI, everything else is just crap.

Flash support is crap.  No tabbed browsing, ad blocking support, email client and much much more.  It loads web pages slow, some distorted and some not at all.

Maybe I just do more with my computers than the average person but I am very critical of both hardware and software, especially web browsers.

Calling OmniWeb crap is a little harsh but for what I'd use it for, it just plain don't work.

I like IE in Windows but despise it in OS X.  After using tabbed browsing and ad pop-up blocking in Mozilla, using any other browers comes at the expensive of my productivity.


----------



## hazmat (Jul 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by azosx _
> *Flash support is crap.  No tabbed browsing, ad blocking support, email client and much much more.  It loads web pages slow, some distorted and some not at all.
> *



Look harder.  OmniWeb does indeed have ad blocking.  Though, I recommend using your hosts/NetInfo to block them on a system level, pointing them to 127.0.0.1.

Maybe it was mentioned here, but I played again for the first time with Chimera last night, version 0.4, and finally Java doesn't crash it!  Finally looking more promising.


----------



## hulkaros (Jul 15, 2002)

Thanks Hazmat! Of course OmniWeb supports Ad Blocking!!! Other than this I wrote previously:
"...OmniWeb! It may not be the most feature-full browser..."
And then Azosx you went on and wrote all those features (or some of them) that OmniWeb lacks...

However:
-Flash & Tabs: Maybe in the next version of OmniWeb?
-Email client: Mail.app is just fine for the majority of users... Only Mozilla/Netscape have email capabilities built-in and many other stuff that IE offers if and when you get Outlook Express which of course is NOT IE's email client but it can work with ANY other browser. As for Chimera it does not include an email app so why OmniWeb must offer you one? And to take it even further why ANY browser offers you an email client? Oh, I forgot: They call it BloatWare... Also, Mail.app runs circles in ease of use area when you compare it with OE and Netscape/Mozilla email apps...
-Slow: Maybe OmniWeb is slower but at least what it draws makes other browsers pale, sick and die next to it! Distorted or non displayed pages can be found in any single browser: IE, Chimera, Mozilla, Netscape, et al. they all have their wrong displayed if not displayed at all web sites... That's what M$ wanted in the first place, remember (this page is best viewed with IE ver.x.x.x)? That's another reason to use (especially if one uses a Mac) ANY other browser except IE 
-As you, azosx, already said the OmniWeb is the BEST Aqua-compliant browser and if I am not mistaken one of the reasons that someone prefers a Mac in the first place is to have the ability to let other primitive GUIs and their apps die in their misery

Also, one other note: OmniWeb is just version 4.1... Wait till it gets in version 5, 6 or 7 just like some other browsers... I'm sure that it will rock a Surfer's heart out! Mozilla and Chimera while they say that are version 1.x.x or 0.x.x they actually are something like more version 6 or 7 of Netscape but only lighter, faster, boosted if you prefer for speed, speed and speed again...

Support OmniWeb and make it a better browser by using it and if you can, by buying licenses for you, your friends or your family  

When all said and done Chimera looks promising and yes it can surf well but I think that, we the Mac users, have to make a choice which will make our loving Mac platform a better place and that choice while it seems that can be Mozilla, Netscape and Chimera, actually there is only one: OmniWeb! Support OmniWeb and OmniWeb alone and when you absolutely cannot surf otherwise just for that page, use even IE... But then ASAP, return and start using OmniWeb!

Oh and one other thing: Anyone can call anything a crap as long as he/she can support his/her opinion and even when he/she cannot that's fine: That's why they call it "My opinion". Remember politics and lawyers (or in a movie they said liars --he, he) can take you to the moon, Mars or even further but they will not make your world a better place  

Well, my clear opinion is:
-OmniWeb surfs
-Netscape crashes
-Mozilla tabs
-Chimera gets speed tickets
-IE gives you security holes, viruses and worst of all M$      

OmniWeb, OmniWeb, OmniWeb, OmniWeb.1 rulez!


----------



## Bobo (Jul 16, 2002)

I use IE 5.2 on my Mac at home, at work I must use IE 4.5 through 6, Mozilla 1.0 and Netscape 4.5 through 6.2, we make websites, the compatibility is very important..

I noticed this:

IE and Mozilla (Netscape 6 also, maybe also Chimera) are the best, because they support most of the w3c features, and the DOM, that is very important in modern javascripts.
Opera, OmniWeb and things like that don't support CSS basics features and do not implement DOM (go to www.w3.org and learn more).

Also, IE is very fast to me, but not Mozilla, it's too skin-java-javascript dependent...

Bye bye


----------



## toast (Jul 16, 2002)

Chimera surfs at incredible speed, downloads fine, blocks my unrequested windows and handles Flash/Java/CSS. It also tabs the browsing. What's missing ? Security maybe, though I don't want any (it would slow down the whole thing).


----------



## McMickey (Jul 16, 2002)

Jeez...it's only a browser not the end of the world...everybody has his/hers priorities about what a browser should be or can do. Some people love tabbed browsing..others don't. That's not a good reason to kill a non tabbing browser which some people like now is it? Some folks prefer speedy browsing and downloading...some don't. I ask you what's a fast browser without a SCROLL MOUSE?? As long as an app/broswer/whatever dosesn't crash me it works for me..sometimes i use OmniWeb sometimes I Use Mozilla or sometimes I use IE 5.2 (YES I DO..even when I hate MS but it works!! That's the key!) Why hang on to (or support or love or whatever) just one app that crashes/not finished/not completly shows the content of a webpage only 4 the reason it's not MS,AOL or blalblabla...???


----------



## Giaguara (Dec 3, 2002)

i guess since july quite a few could have changed their prefernce. i used IE and OW sometimes, now 95 % chimera. should we need a new poll?


----------



## bigbadbill (Jan 2, 2003)

I "switched" to Chimera for awhile and loved the tabbed browsing and speed, but the lack of an auto-form-fill feature drove me to look into omni-web, used that for a bit and noticed it was very S-L-O-W. So now I back in IE where I started.


----------



## edX (Jan 2, 2003)

the most surprising thing to me is that with all the people who continually shout about how great chimera is, only 15 people here report actually defaulting to it. 

of course, it is equally disturbing that so many people use ie.


----------



## hazmat (Jan 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *the most surprising thing to me is that with all the people who continually shout about how great chimera is, only 15 people here report actually defaulting to it.
> *



Really?  Well 16 then.   It's all I use.  Especially after the last nightly build, where it doesn't pop down a shade for every freakin' ad server I have pointed to locahost in my /etc/hosts.


----------



## Sogni (Jan 2, 2003)

I tried to switch to Chimera but I missed Mozilla BAD - bugs and all... 

I kept thinking to myself "I wish I could close this tab with the mouse instead of a keyboard command, I wish Righ-Clicking had more options (like View Image), I wish I could easily block images/ads from specific servers (too lazy to download anything to make it work on Chimera )... and well things just mounted up so I'm back to Mozilla! 

But Chimera is now permanently on my dock as my 2nd browser (at times I need to be logged into the same service at once, like two Yahoo Mail accounts).
IE I only use for testing. 

That goes for Windows too - Mozilla default, Phoenix 2nd, IE for testing.


----------



## Sogni (Jan 2, 2003)

See?


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 2, 2003)

Of Chimera, IE, Netscape and Omniweb, only Omniweb allowed me to successfully get past the "Enter" link on this page:

http://taken.scifi.com/index_flash.html

...and yes, I had the plugin installed.


----------



## toast (Jan 2, 2003)

I've just entered your page with Chim' 0.6.


----------



## toast (Jan 2, 2003)

PS: why is this June 2002 thread back ?


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 2, 2003)

toast  - I'm curious, did you try that page with chimera yourself?  Any luck?


----------



## hazmat (Jan 2, 2003)

Worked fine for me with Chimera.


----------



## Sogni (Jan 2, 2003)

Worked for me in Mozilla - altho it almost crashed (locked up the browser for a bit).


----------



## Giaguara (Jan 2, 2003)

Worked for me in chimera...

Hey ... i'm curious to see the developments of the browsers in time; so these results give the numbers for 2002 .... i think it'll be curious to compare to 2003 so.. does anyone have anything against a browser thread of 2003?


----------



## xaqintosh (Jan 2, 2003)

request granted, see the 2003 browser wars 
http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26683


----------



## Andrew Scott (Jun 4, 2003)

Please forgive me if this has already been covered somewhere in this thread.

I love Camino 0.7, it's sooooo fast and stable, tabs are great and I can't remember what pop-up ads look like!

Now my question - How can I disable IE as my default browser? - I'm sure you'll agree that this is a pretty important question in a thread like this and it can't hurt to have it repeated a few times.


----------



## hazmat (Jun 4, 2003)

It's in the Internet System Pref.  I believe you can also set it in Safari's prefs.


----------



## Andrew Scott (Jun 4, 2003)

Thanks, that saved some time.


----------

