Which Browser?
marc
"Bhavani Jeevakan" <jee...@ol.com.au> wrote in message
news:38D2C69E...@ol.com.au...
> Hello there,
>
> Could someone there tell me which internet browser is better? Internet
> explorer or Netscape Navigator.
>
> Please also give me your reasons.
IE is better. sorry for saying that NS, because i usually HATE microsoft for
making everything slow and shitty, but the new versions of NS just suck.
NS crashes every 5 minutes.
NS is slooow !
most annoying : NS reloads (!) the page when you resize the window
Bhavani Jeevakan
Could someone there tell me which internet browser is better? Internet
explorer or Netscape Navigator.
Please also give me your reasons.
Thank You in advance for your valuable time.
Bye
Bhavani
Dan Shackelford
basic reasons.
1) More stable than Navigator. And when it does GPF, to does not take
a reboot to get Windows operating again, whereas Navigator often
forces a reboot ot the entire system when it crashes.
2) It renders pages faster than Navigator, especially graphic laden
pages.
3) Navigator's version of Java is slower and much more prone to
causing lockups than Explorer's.
These remarks apply to Navigator 4.x and Explorer 4.x and 5.x and are
just my opinion ;-)
Steve King
>Could someone there tell me which internet browser is better? Internet
>explorer or Netscape Navigator.
>
>Please also give me your reasons.
While I also have both Explorer and Navigator installed on my system, I
almost always use Opera 3.62. It's faster than the other two, using far
fewer system resources so everything runs faster, and I get far fewer
crashes than either Explorer or Navigator.
Howie
For me, Opera is not faster than IE (latest versions of both). Opera
is fine if you don't need java capability or most other bells and
whistles. The java plug-in is a nightmare and I recommend to forego
it. If you need to view something in java, use one of the others.
Opera is sometimes not recognized by certain sites, so you have no
choice but to use one of the "Big 2" (Big 1 before too long?) for
these.
NS has regressed and is a distant #3 for me. It's a shame, because I,
like so many others, broke into the Internet using it and have watched
it lose ground to IE over the years. The AOL deal sealed its fate as
an also-ran.
For serious browsers, it warrants consideration. Otherwise, go with a
free one.
--
Howie
Keith Bowes
> explorer or Netscape Navigator.
>
> Please also give me your reasons.
>
>
> Bye
>
> Bhavani
>
My two cents? Internet Explorer is better. It's engine is faster and pages
look better. The main two reasons pages look better in Internet Explorer
than Netscape are:
* Internet Explorer is much closer to supporting standards than Netscape.
* Internet Explorer is more forgiving to bad code.
You shouldn't even have Netscape on your computer unless you have a good
reason.
The only possible reasons to use Netscape would be if you're
self-destructive or you love software crashes.
The moral: DON'T USE NETSCPE. Uninstall it and clear your hard drive and
registry of any trace of it.
Felix Miata
> Could someone there tell me which internet browser is better? Internet
> explorer or Netscape Navigator.
> Please also give me your reasons.
Netscape, for two primary reasons.
1- It isn't an M$ product intertwined with the OS. It can be totally
removed from the system if desired. Changing its settings doesn't affect
other desktop activities.
2- This only applies if you never or intend never to use another
operating system instead of or in addition to windoze. If you use or
intend to use other operating system(s) and want the same look and feel
regardless of which you booted, your only choice Netscape. IE is not
available for every OS. By using only Netscape regardless of what you
boot allows the same bookmarks and mail folders to be shared.
--
A man finds joy in giving an apt reply -- and how good is a timely
word! Proverbs 15:23 NKJV
Team OS/2
Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.members.atlantic.net
Felix Miata
> * Internet Explorer is more forgiving to bad code.
This is by design. M$ web page creation products have produced bad HTML
code for many generations. M$ knows this and doesn't fix their page
creation software. The resulting bad code annoys users of browsers that
behave nicely only when pages are encountered that conform to HTML and
Javascript standards. IE includes "forgiveness" code to coerce users
into favoring IE. This produces the proverbial catch 22. Do you reward
the villian and avoid the annoyance? Or do you suffer the annoyances and
avoid rewarding the villian?
> You shouldn't even have Netscape on your computer unless you have a good
> reason.
Good reasons exist. See my other post in this thread.
Keith Bowes
"Felix Miata" <bogus....@atlantic.net> wrote in message
news:38D82CFB...@atlantic.net...
> This is by design. M$ web page creation products have produced bad HTML
> code for many generations. M$ knows this and doesn't fix their page
> creation software.
I hate to start anything here, but I disagree with you here. I personally
think that Microsoft does a nice job carrying on the legacy of Mosaic-
producing a freeware browser that doesn't choke or crash when it encounters
HTML that it considers bad (not all code that Netscape considers bad is;
it's perfectly legal to not close a TD element, for example).
>The resulting bad code annoys users of browsers that
> behave nicely only when pages are encountered that conform to HTML and
> Javascript standards.
What browser would that be? No browser in existance conforms to the most
recent HTML standards- even Internet Explorer 5 only supports around 95% of
HTML 4.
Besides, JavaScript doesn't have a standard. JavaScript was standardized as
ECMAScript. Internet Explorer 4.0 and higher, and Netscape 4.5 and higher
support ECMAScript.
If you're talking about Netscape, then I urge you to compare the results of
web pages written in valid HTML 4 between Internet Explorer and Netscape.
You'll be surprised (if you think Netscape will display them more correctly,
that is).
>IE includes "forgiveness" code to coerce users
> into favoring IE.
Coerce people into favoring a browser that displays web pages correctly?
Next joke please. As I said before, Internet Explorer contains the
"idiot-proof" code that Mosaic had. Pages that aren't Netscape-specific
should look OK.
> Good reasons exist.
Yeah, but the special effects from feeding Netscape CSS are wearing a little
thin.
Wilburn Franklin
Bhavani Jeevakan wrote in message <38D2C69E...@ol.com.au>...
>Hello there,
>
>Could someone there tell me which internet browser is better? Internet
>explorer or Netscape Navigator.
>
>Please also give me your reasons.
>
Keith Bowes
Netscape every chance they get? It sounds to me like they don't have
confidence in their product (analogous to people with low self-esteem
putting down others).
"Wilburn Franklin" <wfra...@fgi.net> wrote in message
news:sdi3t8...@corp.supernews.com...
> Opera.
>
Felix Miata
> "Felix Miata" <bogus....@atlantic.net> wrote:
> > This is by design. M$ web page creation products have produced bad HTML
> > code for many generations. M$ knows this and doesn't fix their page
> > creation software.
> I hate to start anything here, but I disagree with you here. I personally
> think that Microsoft does a nice job carrying on the legacy of Mosaic-
> producing a freeware browser that doesn't choke or crash when it encounters
> HTML that it considers bad (not all code that Netscape considers bad is;
> it's perfectly legal to not close a TD element, for example).
Netscape doesn't choke on missing optional closes like it does on
missing mandatories. It displays blank pages on missing mandatory
closes. There's no excuse for mandatory closes to be missing, so there's
no reason for Netscape to include code bloat to accomodate them.
> >The resulting bad code annoys users of browsers that
> > behave nicely only when pages are encountered that conform to HTML and
> > Javascript standards.
> What browser would that be? No browser in existance conforms to the most
> recent HTML standards- even Internet Explorer 5 only supports around 95% of
> HTML 4.
The most recent standards aren't relevant when browsers can't even
accomodate earlier HTML versions. Most pages Netscape doesn't handle
gracefully were created with M$ software.
> Besides, JavaScript doesn't have a standard. JavaScript was standardized as
> ECMAScript. Internet Explorer 4.0 and higher, and Netscape 4.5 and higher
> support ECMAScript.
> If you're talking about Netscape, then I urge you to compare the results of
> web pages written in valid HTML 4 between Internet Explorer and Netscape.
> You'll be surprised (if you think Netscape will display them more correctly,
> that is).
Sorry. M$ only makes IE for selected operating systems. Netscape is
available for all. I can use it regardless of what is booted at the
moment.
> >IE includes "forgiveness" code to coerce users
> > into favoring IE.
> Coerce people into favoring a browser that displays web pages correctly?
> Next joke please. As I said before, Internet Explorer contains the
> "idiot-proof" code that Mosaic had. Pages that aren't Netscape-specific
> should look OK.
Correctly displayed is tough to define for a buggy page. Idiot proofing
wouldn't be necessary if the people writing the page creation software
weren't purposely including bugs in result pages, or bloating pages with
fluff.
> > Good reasons exist.
> Yeah, but the special effects from feeding Netscape CSS are wearing a little
> thin.
I wouldn't know. CSS is disabled in my 4.x Netscape, which sees little
use anyway. I still like the CSS ignorant, svelte 3.x far better.
Keith Bowes
>
> Netscape doesn't choke on missing optional closes like it does on
> missing mandatories. It displays blank pages on missing mandatory
> closes.
Yeah, but it's a known fact that Netscape requires closing TD and TR, even
though the ending tags of these elements are defined as optional by standard
(but, since when has Netscape not supported anti-standards).
>There's no excuse for mandatory closes to be missing, so there's
> no reason for Netscape to include code bloat to accomodate them.
I guess the last thing we need is Netscape code bloat, since Netscape is
already larger than Internet Explorer. For Windows- the latest version of
Internet Explorer is 17.0MB, where the latest version of Netscape is 18.3MB.
>
> The most recent standards aren't relevant when browsers can't even
> accomodate earlier HTML versions. Most pages Netscape doesn't handle
> gracefully were created with M$ software.
I create my pages with Microsoft Notepad and my code is perfectly valid.
>
> Sorry. M$ only makes IE for selected operating systems. Netscape is
> available for all. I can use it regardless of what is booted at the
> moment.
I guess that's motivation enough to only use Windows, Mac, or Unix, huh?
>
> Correctly displayed is tough to define for a buggy page. Idiot proofing
> wouldn't be necessary if the people writing the page creation software
> weren't purposely including bugs in result pages, or bloating pages with
> fluff.
Correctly displayed is guessing how the guy that read the first chapter of
"HTML for Dummies" last night expects his page to render. All browsers have
syntax-correcting code, but Internet Explorer simply does a better job.
>
> I wouldn't know. CSS is disabled in my 4.x Netscape, which sees little
> use anyway.
That's probably the best thing to do if you're stuck with Netscape. When
Netscape doesn't display the CSS as plain text, it doesn't accurately obey
your rules. And how about Netscape's poor box model and it's interpretation
of the value "inherit" on color values as a green. And let's not even get
into when you apply CSS to tables? Just horrifying when you thing people
are stuck with this browser.
>I still like the CSS ignorant, svelte 3.x far better.
Reliable sources claim that Internet Explorer 3 and higher supported a
subset of a WD of CSS. Some of these sources say that IE3's CSS support was
vastly superior to Netscape 4's.
If you want a svelte, minimalistic browser, try the .5MB Lynx. If the
binary isn't available for your OS, then download the source and compile it.
> --
> A man finds joy in giving an apt reply -- and how good is a timely
> word! Proverbs 15:23 NKJV
>
True.
> Team OS/2
>
How different could OS/2 be from Win16?
> Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.members.atlantic.net
Really?
CNET has some browser reviews- Internet Explorer 4.01 vs. Netscape 4.5 @
http://coverage.cnet.com/Content/Reports/Shootouts/Brow0701/?tag=st.int.3773
.txt.int_brow , Internet Explorer 5 @
http://home.cnet.com/category/topic/0,10000,0-3774-7-272552,00.html?tag=st.i
nt.3773.txt.3774-7-272552 , and Internet Explorer 5.5 Beta @
http://home.cnet.com/internet/0-3774-7-1478331.html?st.cn.3774-7-1478318.txt
.3774-7-1478331 .
BTW, for some reason I question your reasoning that Netscape is better
because it's available for operating systems that only rebels use anyway.
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
<keith...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Felix Miata" <bogus....@atlantic.net> wrote in message
>news:38D9A535...@atlantic.net...
<snip>
>>I still like the CSS ignorant, svelte 3.x far better.
>
>Reliable sources claim that Internet Explorer 3 and higher supported a
>subset of a WD of CSS. Some of these sources say that IE3's CSS support was
>vastly superior to Netscape 4's.
See http://www.webreview.com/pub/guides/style/lboard.html for an
objective review. Netscape beats IE3, but is still far away from the
front runners IE 5 and Opera 3.6.
--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek - mailto:ri...@iname.com - http://rijk.op.het.net
After things go from bad to worse, the cycle will repeat itself.
<Cookie 16 of 109>
Alan Pollock
It's more a case of combatting excessive arrogance from mainstream
users.
As far as sites are concerned often it's ignorance, sometimes it's sheer
arrogance that makes some of them try to force the user to run either of the
main two browsers and nothing else. Sloppy? Ignorant? Arrogant? Take your pick
- but it's a very good reason for Opera users to try and educate the great
unwashed about an excellent feature-ridden third browser option.
If I count the IE pushers out there in the newsgroups and anywhere else they
can purvey their supremist philosophy, and then compare their numbers with
Opera pushers, the IE folks have it by a wide margin. Moreover, I do not come
away with the feeling that Opera people lack confidence - rather after looking
at the *content* of their assertions I get the definite impression that
they're trying to rectify an unfair, skewed perception on the Net for IE to
the detriment of anything else, fostered not only by the excessive and
imperious language used by IE fanatics, but also by their much larger numbers,
which Opera users know will leave John Q User oblivious to the added features
Opera sports.
Sorry, that sentence was longer than a line, so unfortunately I've lost many
IE users. Ah well - Nex
--
Felix Miata
> "Felix Miata" <bogus....@atlantic.net> wrote:
> >There's no excuse for mandatory closes to be missing, so there's
> > no reason for Netscape to include code bloat to accomodate them.
> I guess the last thing we need is Netscape code bloat, since Netscape is
> already larger than Internet Explorer. For Windows- the latest version of
> Internet Explorer is 17.0MB, where the latest version of Netscape is 18.3MB.
The Netscape download includes such optional elements as Real Player and
AOLIM, besides the non-optional and substantial Composer that has no IE
counterpart.
> > The most recent standards aren't relevant when browsers can't even
> > accomodate earlier HTML versions. Most pages Netscape doesn't handle
> > gracefully were created with M$ software.
> I create my pages with Microsoft Notepad and my code is perfectly valid.
I code by hand too, but you & I don't create all the pages on the web,
do we.
> > Sorry. M$ only makes IE for selected operating systems. Netscape is
> > available for all. I can use it regardless of what is booted at the
> > moment.
> I guess that's motivation enough to only use Windows, Mac, or Unix, huh?
What's good enough for lemmings is . . . good enough for lemmings?
> > Correctly displayed is tough to define for a buggy page. Idiot proofing
> > wouldn't be necessary if the people writing the page creation software
> > weren't purposely including bugs in result pages, or bloating pages with
> > fluff.
> Correctly displayed is guessing how the guy that read the first chapter of
> "HTML for Dummies" last night expects his page to render. All browsers have
> syntax-correcting code, but Internet Explorer simply does a better job.
HTML is not Postscript. Whether it renders functionally is supposed to
be the issue, not looking like a print shop published it. If you want
something to look just so, use PDF.
> How different could OS/2 be from Win16?
Runs DOS and win3 apps better than DOS or windoze, including providing
them more RAM to run in. Runs 32 bit apps on less RAM than M$. Crashes
*far* less, a few times a year maybe instead of a few times a day. Has a
reliable, high performance file system that isn't wasteful with large
volumes. Not succeptible to viral attack. Plenty different.
Visit a major car dealer parts department or a really large bank. Odds
are pretty good they're using OS/2, and it isn't because it's what's
installed on new PC's at CompUSA.
> BTW, for some reason I question your reasoning that Netscape is better
> because it's available for operating systems that only rebels use anyway.
I don't think many rebels use Sun. Many are proud to have "rebel"
applied to them. Can't see anything wrong with people who choose for
their own reasons rather than using the lemming method. The Linux
distributions I've installed came with Netscape on the CD. I've not see
one yet with IE.
People come to me for help. For me to give it to them, I have to be
familiar with what they're talking about. I'm not going to waste my time
learning another browser that can't be used regardless of what's booted,
particularly when most of my boot time is to one for which IE is
unavailable. If "everybody" else is using something else, they don't
need me anyway.
Little things make a difference too. One single IE "favorite" can waste
nearly 64K of disk space. With Netscape, one chooses font size in a
standardized fashion, point size, instead of from a limited selection
from among imprecise terms. Netscape allows a choice to use words for
buttons instead of only a choice of silly pictures or pictures plus
words, thus reducing the space the button bar consumes, leaving more for
the business of viewing what's in the reason for any browser's
existence.
--
A man finds joy in giving an apt reply -- and how good is a timely
word! Proverbs 15:23 NKJV
Team OS/2
ajm57
However, ever since AOL took over Netscape I've been unhappily observing a
slow but steady decline in Netscape's usability. I'm sick and tired of
'Netscape has been contacted. Waiting for reply' messages. More and more I'm
seeing 'Your personal Netscape is momentarily unavailable' messages. Yesterday
'momentarily' translated to twenty minutes! Last month Netscape permanently
lost my personal page and I had to go through the aggravation of creating a
whole new one.
AOL seems determined to use its notoriously slow e-mail performance as a model
to be applied everywhere. Even Time-Warner cable service has been going
downhill. ever since AOL took over.
So for me its goodbye Netscape, hello internet Explorer and goodbye
Time-Warner cable and hello DirectTV.
The technical merits of the browsers are irrelevant; even a perfect browser is
worth bugger-all if you can't connect.
In article <38D82A19...@atlantic.net>, bogus....@atlantic.net
says...
>
>Bhavani Jeevakan wrote:
>
>> Could someone there tell me which internet browser is better? Internet
>> explorer or Netscape Navigator.
>
>> Please also give me your reasons.
>
>Netscape, for two primary reasons.
<snip>>
______________________________________________________________
Posted via Uncensored-News.Com, http://www.uncensored-news.com
Only $8.95 A Month, - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
m...@bestpages.com
do you *really* think that Netscape can make
files disappear?
when was the last time you cleared your cache?
: 'momentarily' translated to twenty minutes! Last month Netscape
permanently
: lost my personal page and I had to go through the aggravation of
creating a
: whole new one.
--
Mitchell D. Miller http://www.bestpages.com/homepage/
Marty
says...