new internet explorer...

R

ruckus543

Registered
with all the big hurrah comign out about the new ghz machines, 10.2 being released soon, when do you think we'll see IE update its browser for faster optimization of websites, and do you think with 10.2 OSX will finally be as fast/er as 9? If they just did what they did with 10.1 upgrade again it will be twice as fast, lets cross our fingers...
 
Concidering M$ is making IE, it'd be some time in 2004 when none of us use OS X any more.

5.1 is probably gonna stay for a while
 
But I have to believe that Microsoft (or the Mac Business Unit to be precise) wants to remain the default browser on the Mac OS. The 1997 agreement for Apple to use IE for 5 years is coming to an end this summer, so my guess is you will see at least a new version sometime this year.

The other factor that leads me to this is that 5.1 is nothing more than 5.0 carbonized with bug fixes. 5.0's feature set is almost 2 years old. If Microsoft doesn't get a new version out soon, they will be surpassed by the other options out there. I'm sure a company like OmniGroup would love get OmniWeb as the default Web browser installed on Mac OS X.

Bottom line - with the 1997 agreement expiring this year, and with at least three very capable replacements for IE as the default browser, Microsoft better have something new on tap for 2002....
 
sorry, mozilla still blows. I can do html for IE, I can do html that is standards compliant and displays flawlessly on iCab, Omniweb, and Opera. If I try real hard, I can get pages that do both just as i want. Unless Mozilla starts conforming to one of those two categories, it's going to continue to be ignored by web developers.

They spent years rewriting their code base, and now they have the same thing they had before, only a few less years of life left. They should've done something else entirely. Rewriting was the worst mistake the mozilla crew made. Rewriting it the same way and keeping the same old render flaws was the second biggest. I'm not holding my breath for Mozilla.

I like netscape, they have a fond place in my heart. But no matter how much I want to like mozilla, it's still just wrong.

(posted from iCab 2.7)
 
Sorry theed, but in my opinion you dont know what your talking about :).

"sorry, mozilla still blows. I can do html for IE, I can do html that is standards compliant and displays flawlessly on iCab, Omniweb, and Opera. If I try real hard, I can get pages that do both just as i want. Unless Mozilla starts conforming to one of those two categories, it's going to continue to be ignored by web developers."

the code you are writting for IE *isn't* standards complient. Omniweb is a nice browser but it does not render standards complient code. I'm a web developer, I'm not ignoring it. If people would stick to standards then web developers and user would be much better off, instead people just use IE's *standards*.

"They spent years rewriting their code base, and now they have the same thing they had before, only a few less years of life left. They should've done something else entirely. Rewriting was the worst mistake the mozilla crew made. Rewriting it the same way and keeping the same old render flaws was the second biggest. I'm not holding my breath for Mozilla."

They dont have the same thing they have before. They have a FAST rendering engine that renders so much more then old versions did. It supports basically FULL CSS 1 and CSS 2 (you can't say that about IE), a good javascript engine and a whole bunch more cool stuff for web developers (DOM etc.). They didn't keep the same old rendering flaws. That is complete BS. Mozilla renders pages *way* better then NS 4.x. Thats an uniformed thing for you to say. Also Mozilla renders so much more then IE could dream of rendering. For instance did you know that Moz can render transparency in web pages?

I like netscape, they have a fond place in my heart. But no matter how much I want to like mozilla, it's still just wrong.

Just out of interest when was the last time you tried mozilla? I admit that yes it did "blow" in the past, but recently it is great. Its fast, it renders things the way I want it too and its stable. I have absolutly *no* problems with sites that dont render properly. they all look fine in mozilla. I can' say that about Omniweb and icab. You say that you are using icab. icab has a much poorer rendering engine then Mozilla. It isn't as fast and it chokes on many things.

Try a new version of mozilla and then make a judgement. And dont try it look at the interface and throw it out the window. Anyways if you download one of the newer nightly builds you will notice that mozilla now is starting to use an aqua interface. And this is real aqua being drawn by the OS. They haven't got all parts aquified yet, but it is a work in progress.

If you want to support a true alternitive to IE then Mozilla/netscape is it. Try it! :)

BTW: I may have sounded harsh in this message, but i just think that you need to give mozilla a better chance.

googolplex :)

P.S. Here is the URL for the newest (as of today) and aquified Mozilla build: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest/mozilla-macosX-trunk.smi.bin
 
Mozilla has the potential to be a great browser on the Mac platform... But there's one slight problem. Right now, there are two Mac Mozilla projects proceeding on different paths.

You have the Carbon builds of Mozilla, which in terms of feature set and bug fixes, is coming along quite nicely. It's nearly feature complete and pretty solid. The problem is it's slow as molasses. It's a very unresponsive application and it's rendering speeds aren't that great.

Then there is the Mach-O build of Mozilla that has been discussed here recently. It renders pages faster than any browser currently available for OS X. The problem is (in my testing), that it's not up to par with the carbon build - most keyboard commands don't work, SSL support seems to be missing, meaning you can't view any website that uses SSL Secure connections, and it's interface hasn't adopted any Aqua guidelines like the Carbon version has.

The Mozilla project should dump the Carbon version and focus all their attention to the Mach-O version. It shows the most promise right now. Sure, it would put the project behind, but I think it would be more beneficial in the long run...

That said, Mozilla doesn't suck. It's just a work in progress...
 
I aggree mach-o is much better and it would make much more sense over the long run. Many people always complained about the bugs in mozilla and if they went to mach-o they will get more of those complaints. Its a hard decision to make. One is almost feature complete but not as fast and one is faster but not as feature complete and buggy....

Anyways work is progressing on both builds fortunatly :) It is a work in progress and thats what I like about it :) you always get something new and cool :)
 
I admit my last build of mozilla is over two months old, and a lot has changed since then. I agree it's rendering speed is good, and it seems to be far more on par with the other browsers I use.

http://homepage.mac.com/greenneonsoftware/english/index.html

this one still screws up in unique ways under Mozilla. omniWeb misses a background image, and everyone else seems to get it just fine. ... Better, but still seems to be the oddball as often as not. I'll upgrade it to being roughly equivalent (if less mac-like) than the other third party browsers. IE is still, painfully, the most feature complete in some ways. (java applets)

http://software.liquidbinary.com/apps/CalcThingy/
 
icab has a much poorer rendering engine then Mozilla. It isn't as fast and it chokes on many things.
Click to expand...

1st, there isn't one of the browsers for osx that doesn't choke on something. the only two things icab doesn't do as far as i can tell are java and css2. make sure css2 is unchecked in your prefs and it almost eliminates any stalls. rendering is as good as any other browser. btw - icab shows theeds webpages to be fully standards compliant but takes blame for not being able to run his java script.

2nd, go back and read the thread about "how fast does your browser load this?" icab CONSISTENTLY kept up with mozilla mach-o. If you're not getting icab to do as well as mozilla than either you're not keeping up with progressive updates or something is wrong with your computer.

and please don't start on asking me to try mozilla again. we have had that discussion already;)
 
I have to admit that iCab for me, especially when I set the cache to be ridiculously large (100MB) takes for freakin' ever to render the Apple store.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore

I think the iCab caching model could use some speed tweaking, but it seems to be correct in its implementation. It's the only browser that runs offline like I expect it to. It's sweet for taking web pages to clients who aren't near a network connection.
 
Ok, on my (formerly top of the line) G4/800DP, here's the load times for the Apple Store....

Mozilla Mach-O Build 0.9.7 - 7 Seconds
iCab 2.7.1 - 18 seconds
IE 5.1 - 17 seconds
OmniWeb 4.1sp34 - 19 seconds...

So with the exception of Mach O Mozilla, the other browsers all are around 17-19 seconds. I think this really illustrates the point of just how fast Mach O Mozilla is, and has the potential to be.

Apple should hire somone to work on this build for them, and then make this their default browser. It is open source after all, and if it could ever get finished and polished up it would be THE browser for OS X.

While it sucks that there still is not one browser on the platform that can do it all (IE comes closest, but it's not the fastest and it is MS), the good news is that the situation is improving very very fast. Think of the browser landscape back in September when 10.1 came out. Mozilla was a joke, iCab was horrible, and OmniWeb was slow as molasses and didn't support hardly any recent web standards.

Don't worry people, we're getting there...
 
I think its great that there are so many different *quality* browsers on os x. Its better for the user. Theed you should download an ew mozilla build, or even the mach-o build. You will be suprised at home much it has improved in a relitivly short period of time! :)


serpicolugnut, it would be great if apple hired people to work on mozilla mach-o. It would really get a *huge* boost. But I dont know if microsoft would be too happy about that, and they could pull the plug on office at any time... I think they should at least include mozilla or netscape with os x like they did in OS 9.

googolplex

P.S. it took 7 seconds in mozilla carbon for the apple store to load for me (on dsl with an ibook 500mhz, 384 megs of ram)
 
Sorry, I may have missed it, but where is the latest build of this "Mach Mozilla" thing, or whatever? I'd like to try it.
 
Me too. I've been trying out a variety of browsers these last couple days and right now my choice is leaning toward omniweb. I really really like it but sometimes it just doesn't load a page and doesn't even try which is really frustrating. Does Mozilla support any kind of filters? That was my favorite part of omni because I would get a lot of popup windows that always slow everything down but with a filter it doesn't even load the page. This of course slows down everything else because it has to check every page but I like the option at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top