Seems to be doing fine for browsing only for me, under both 9.1 and OS
X.
Is there actually hope?
I couldn't make it save a page as 'text'. I tried 'Save As...' but
there was no chance to specify a format and the saved file was not
'text'. I use MacPerl scripts to post process the pages from many sites
so this is a deal breaker for me.
--
Tom Stiller
PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
> In article
> <plasomatic-2487F...@news-central.giganews.com>,
> Plaz <plaso...@sick.of.spam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Is it my imagination, or is it actually pretty okay?
> >
> >Seems to be doing fine for browsing only for me, under both 9.1 and OS
> >X.
> >
> >Is there actually hope?
>
> I couldn't make it save a page as 'text'. I tried 'Save As...' but
> there was no chance to specify a format and the saved file was not
> 'text'. I use MacPerl scripts to post process the pages from many sites
> so this is a deal breaker for me.
True enough.
> I couldn't make it save a page as 'text'. I tried 'Save As...' but
> there was no chance to specify a format and the saved file was not
> 'text'. I use MacPerl scripts to post process the pages from many sites
> so this is a deal breaker for me.
While viewing a page, choose Edit Page from the File menu. When the page
opens in the Composer window, choose Export to Text from the File menu.
It's one more step than IE (open in Composer first), but you get that
step back when you don't have to choose a file type in the Save As
window (as you do in IE), so it's really a wash.
The deal doesn't have to be broken, it turns out... ;-)
Mike
About as simple as picking yourself up by the hair and holding yourself
at arms length. I think I'll stick with 4.78.
Still a memory hog. ~35Mb for me.
Still leaks memory I THINK.
> >While viewing a page, choose Edit Page from the File menu. When the page
> >opens in the Composer window, choose Export to Text from the File menu.
> >
[snip]
> >
> About as simple as picking yourself up by the hair and holding yourself
> at arms length. I think I'll stick with 4.78.
Huh? It's no more complicated than the old way. Let's compare:
Old:
1) Choose Save As from the File menu.
2) Choose Plain Text from the pop-up menu at the bottom of the Save As
dialog box.
3) Click Save.
New:
1) Choose Edit Page from the File menu.
2) Choose Export to Text from the File menu.
3) Click Save.
Umm... guess it's the same number of steps, same mouse movements, same
results.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Netscape 6, and just as many
reasons to dislike Netscape 4.7x, but if exporting as text is a
deal-breaker, consider the problem solved.
Mike
>In article <tomstiller-9F4D2...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>,
> Tom Stiller <tomst...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> >While viewing a page, choose Edit Page from the File menu. When the page
>> >opens in the Composer window, choose Export to Text from the File menu.
>> >
>[snip]
>> >
>> About as simple as picking yourself up by the hair and holding yourself
>> at arms length. I think I'll stick with 4.78.
>
>Huh? It's no more complicated than the old way. Let's compare:
>
>Old:
>1) Choose Save As from the File menu.
>2) Choose Plain Text from the pop-up menu at the bottom of the Save As
>dialog box.
No, 'Text' is the default for me. The other option 'Source' would have
to be selected.
>3) Click Save.
>
>New:
>1) Choose Edit Page from the File menu.
>2) Choose Export to Text from the File menu.
>3) Click Save.
>
>Umm... guess it's the same number of steps, same mouse movements, same
>results.
>
>There are plenty of reasons to dislike Netscape 6, and just as many
>reasons to dislike Netscape 4.7x, but if exporting as text is a
>deal-breaker, consider the problem solved.
Well, it's not the same number of steps; I consider your procedure to be
counter-intuitive and I considered the problem solved by dumping 6.1.
> No, 'Text' is the default for me. The other option 'Source' would have
> to be selected.
Right you are. Guess I was thinking of IE, where it would be an extra
step. Sorry about that.
> Well, it's not the same number of steps; I consider your procedure to be
> counter-intuitive and I considered the problem solved by dumping 6.1.
I agree that it's counter-intuitive. I was replying just to show that
the "feature" of saving as text was still available, although in a
different (and counter-intuitive) location.
As excuses go, it's a pretty thin reason to dump a whole product, but
nobody's forcing you to switch. I think Netscape 6 is a more standard
program that is much better at rendering pages than Netscape 4.x, but
it's also bigger and has a less-intuitive interface (if that's possible).
With 6.1, however, they improved the speed so it's comparable, and the
stability is better than 4.x, so there are reasons to switch. Just not
good enough reasons for *you* to switch, apparently.
Mike
The first thing I tried (because I was annoyed at how they displayed)
was to shorten and move around some of my bookmark titles. The software
just wouldn't. It froze. After rebooting and doubling the memory
allocated, the program refused to save my changes. It would appear to
save my changes (I had to go to the menu to laboriously cut then paste
individual URLs - it appears that you can no longer just select then
drag them), but after closing then retarting the bookmarks were back as
they had been. When a program refuses to do the first simple thing I
ask it to do, particularly when older versions did it so well, it's
headed for my trash bin.
On a related note, I have a DSL internet connection and download files
all of the time. But Netscape continually failed to allow me to
download 4.78 all afternoon on Sunday. I gave up after several hours.
Netscape used to offer multiple sites from which software could be
acquired. If US sites were busy at mid-day, I could often get what I
needed fairly quickly by downloading it from Australia (where it was the
middle of the night). Now the company seems to offer only one FTP
alternative rated "poor" by CNET and, having tried to use it, me.
The company and their products appear to have gone steadily downhill
since acquisition by AOL. Mozilla is a better alternative. But this
former Netscape advocate now uses IE 5 for all serious work. Everything
else (Opera, iCab, etc.) is still too buggy.
--
Yours For Truth!
Michael Oflanagan
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
> The first thing I tried (because I was annoyed at how they displayed)
> was to shorten and move around some of my bookmark titles. The software
> just wouldn't. It froze.
Works for me on Mac OS X using the latest Mozilla build. (The names are
edited by selecting Properties in the context menu.)
> But Netscape continually failed to allow me to
> download 4.78 all afternoon on Sunday.
Are you, by any chance, using a broken HTTP 1.1-hostile proxy?
--
Henri Sivonen
hen...@clinet.fi
http://www.clinet.fi/~henris/
> In article <michaelo_flanagan-0...@NEWS.BINARIES.NET>,
> Michael OFlanagan <michaelo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The first thing I tried (because I was annoyed at how they displayed)
> > was to shorten and move around some of my bookmark titles. The software
> > just wouldn't. It froze.
>
> Works for me on Mac OS X using the latest Mozilla build. (The names are
> edited by selecting Properties in the context menu.)
>
> > But Netscape continually failed to allow me to
> > download 4.78 all afternoon on Sunday.
>
> Are you, by any chance, using a broken HTTP 1.1-hostile proxy?
It turns out to have been a temporary problem that weekend. The site
was accessible later in the week.
> In article <plasomatic-2487F...@news-central.giganews.com>,
> Plaz <plaso...@sick.of.spam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Version 6.1 crashes with a Type 3 error at launch for me (Mac OS 8.6). Same
> for
> Mozilla 6.1. While the 6.0 version would launch the TalkBack feature to
> report
> the bug, the crash in 6.1 doesn't even let that work anymore.
>
> It's likely an extension conflict, but since I have three other stable
> browsers
> to use, I haven't taken the time to troubleshoot it.
>
> Is there hope? Maybe.
Recently I've been using Netscape 6.1, with my PPC 6500 & OS 8.6. I have
no problems with it. It takes a while to start up (30 sec or so) and
display my home page (home.excite.com), as compared to MIE 5.0 (which
takes about 13 sec to do the same startup), but after that, I see no
difference in speed in surfing about. What I DO like about NS 6.1 is
that it seems to have more capabilities than MIE. For example, when I go
to Phil Mickelson's web page, there are videos of his various golf
shots. I can view them with no difficulty using NS 6.1, but MIE shows
nothing. I'm not patient enough to dig around and try to figure out why
that is. I just use NS for a lot of stuff.
I like several features of MIE. One is the ability to easily change the
font size by hitting command - plus or - minus.
Another great feature MIE has is the Autofill for amazingly filling in
all of my name, address, and telephone number data for forms.
I wish NS 6.1 had those two features.
A nice feature NS 6.1 has is the user ID & password remembering. That's
quite handy and smooth. You can turn it on or off selectively for
various sites.
NS 6.1 does seem to be stable. So far. Maybe there are some other new
features for NS 6.1 I haven't discovered. Any comments?
Jerry
> Go back to Apple.com from MacCentral.com (avg 3 tries). Test checks
> loading from cache but was affected by changing adds on web page
> Netscape 4.7.7 7.00sec
> Netscape 6.1 0.669sec
> Mozilla 0.9.3 0.628sec
> IE 5C less than 1sec (couldn't measure accurately)
IE 5 achieves that sort of thing by caching the rendered page in RAM.
Which gets in the way of the web "designers" who like to do silly
tricks with JavaScript when the page's window is viewed again.
That seems to bother the "designers"...it doesn't much matter to me,
since I've likely been driven away already by the "features" of such
sites. Whether the speed is worth the problem to you is up to you.
--John (text and static images are all the web needs)
In article
<jfsebastian-E4C0...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com>, J. F.
Sebastian <jfseb...@tyrell.com> wrote:
> In article <plasomatic-2487F...@news-central.giganews.com>,
> Plaz <plaso...@sick.of.spam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Supposedly there is a Mozilla beta for OSX
There is, but it fails on dual processor Macs, so I can't try it out.
--John