Does Anybody Still Use Netscape?
Jay Nelson
Nils Juell wrote:
> Yeah, MSIE is free, but so in a way is NN. I think the success
> of the browsers depends on which one of them is bundled with
> internet subscriptions from major ISP's. NN has a relatively
> firm grip,
IE 3.0 is now the primary bundle for AOL, AT&T WorldNet, & I think also
CompuServe. This encompasses in excess of 10 million users. Not
everyone has received the new package, and quite a few install Netscape
and convert, but future users will probably not bother or know how to
get Netscape and make it work.
jay
Cody Burleson
I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
in more ways than one.
I would be interested in hearing other opinions about this.
No bash fest, please! The point here is to try to understand the
mind of the user who is out there surfing my sites with browsers
that are severely limiting my capability to create powerful content.
-Cody Burleson
Digital Media Specialist
Ecotomic Group, Inc.
in...@ecotomic.com
http://www.ecotomic.com
Nils Juell
> I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
> continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
> in more ways than one.
Yeah, MSIE is free, but so in a way is NN. I think the success
of the browsers depends on which one of them is bundled with
internet subscriptions from major ISP's. NN has a relatively
firm grip, but when MS is including IE in their OS's they have
a clear advantage ... So Netscape Communications have a tough
job. But if they don't want to be eaten, and I assume they don't,
they will have to come on strong. The good part is probably that most(?)
web developers see the advantages of NN, and make pages optimized for
it,
which in turn will have the end-users demand NN.
(I wish :) )
> No bash fest, please! The point here is to try to understand the
> mind of the user who is out there surfing my sites with browsers
> that are severely limiting my capability to create powerful content.
You said it...
Tom Kelleher
> I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
> continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
> in more ways than one.
>
>
I surf the web mainly from our corporate intranet, so I can
speak to that issue...
Despite the superiority - in some ways - of IE, Netscape is the
name most folks know, and the one that still has ~70% of the
market (latest figures?)...so when companies like mine went out
to strike a site-license deal, they paired with Netscape.
If it's happened to my company (40,000+ people, worldwide)
it's happened to a lot of folks. A shame, because if we were
an IE shop I'd be dazzling a lot of folks with ActiveX code!
And probably crashing half of them, and riddling them with
viruses...oh well, whatever.
===============================================================
Tom_Ke...@ml.com | Yes, I use Microsoft(R) products.
| But I wash my hands before eating.
===============================================================
Jim Cape
Cody Burleson wrote:
>
> I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
> continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
> in more ways than one.
>
> I would be interested in hearing other opinions about this.
>
> mind of the user who is out there surfing my sites with browsers
> that are severely limiting my capability to create powerful content.
It's your personal opinion that IE is better. Who's to say that you
aren't wrong in your starting assumption. I suppose I could ask who was
browsing with 256 color machines, when 16.7 million color jobs are so
much better, that are severely limiting my ability to create killer
graphics, but that would be a moot point.
Have you checked your registry lately? Notice all the little entries IE
shoves into every little corner? Netscape doesn't do that.
Netscape is available on in non-beta form on 16 different platforms. IE3
is available on 2. What if I use Linux instead of Windows 95/NT4? I
would say that the 60-70% of people using non-Win32 platforms is a more
severe limiter than my personal choice of Netscape 3.0.
Netscape 3.0 has JavaScript 1.1. IE barely supports 1.0 (how do you
spell bugs?).
Netscape 3.0 takes up 10 MB disk space, on the drive of your choice, and
requires 15 to install. IE takes up 20-30MB disk space on drive C: and
originally required 60 MB to install.
Netscape 3.0 doesn't come with a "feature" installed and turned on as a
default that can format your hard drive (ActiveX *can* format your hard
drive, but if it's signed, you can know who did it--assuming you
remember the signer after your computer is dead).
Netscape has 50-80% of the browsing community. IE has 20-30%. You tell
me which one is the obvious choice of serious developers.
Netscape originated the idea of plugins for web browsers.
Netscape's intentions are not to rule the entire world. You think that
Microsoft is spending all that money on advertising to give away free
browsers just out of the goodness of their hearts? (At least 3 4 page
ads in Byte, PCWorld, etc. to *give away* a piece of software!)
Jim Cape
Graphic Designer
mailto:ca...@ais.net
Lou Moran
Jim Cape wrote:
> Microsoft is spending all that money on advertising to give away free
> browsers just out of the goodness of their hearts? (At least 3 4 page
> ads in Byte, PCWorld, etc. to *give away* a piece of software!)
>
Does anyone really believe MS is trying to rule the world?
They have a firm grip on things yes...but that's because
Americans have a weird way about picking the worst of any
format...VHS, NTSC, Nintendo. I love NS and I hope they live forever,
but I'm no dope...I'll learn J+++!
Craig Nordin
>On 3 Dec 1996 17:21:14 GMT, "Cody Burleson" <in...@ecotomic.com> wrote:
>>No bash fest, please! The point here is to try to understand the
>>mind of the user who is out there surfing my sites with browsers
>>that are severely limiting my capability to create powerful content.
This is going to happen with different brand-names in the future and
you might as well get used to the basic problem and concepts.
Sticking with the standards is safe and allows for very efficient
creation and a very stable development path.
[ go with what looks good on both MS-Explorer and NS-Navigator]
Going with the defacto standard is neccessary.
[ if you don't satisfy both browsers you've knocked out a very
large segment of the browsing public -- why not shoot yourself? ]
Picking an emerging standard is dangerous, risky, and potentially
rewarding at a far better ratio than picking the standard path.
[ MS-Explorer may end up setting the standards, but are you willing
to risk being wrong? You could end up way ahead, or you could end
up in the drink. ]
This same dynamic covers operating systems, compilers, languages, hardware,
cars, houses, and many other items...
--
Jobs - Graphic Arts - Commercial Production -> http://studio.vni.net/jobs/
Virtual Networks Premier Internet Services cno...@vnii.net
Indianapolis Indianapolis Indianapolis Metro http://www.vnii.net/
Indiana Indiana Indiana
Washington DC Washington DC Washington DC Metro http://www.vni.net/
Virtual Networks Incorporated Virtual Networks of Indiana, Incorporated
Jobs - Graphic Arts - Commercial Production -> http://studio.vni.net/jobs/
Mark Stone
"Cody Burleson" <in...@ecotomic.com> wrote:
>I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
>continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
>in more ways than one.
>I would be interested in hearing other opinions about this.
>No bash fest, please! The point here is to try to understand the
>mind of the user who is out there surfing my sites with browsers
>that are severely limiting my capability to create powerful content.
Users, by definition, cannot be "severely limiting my capability."
Users are what makes all of this possible, a point some programmers
seem reluctant to acknowledge. Whatever users choose, it is your
responsibility to adapt. That's called customer service.
Mark Stone
mst...@mkp.com
mar...@kudonet.com
csel...@wis.twc.com
> I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
> continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
> in more ways than one.
>
> I would be interested in hearing other opinions about this.
>
> No bash fest, please! The point here is to try to understand the
> mind of the user who is out there surfing my sites with browsers
> that are severely limiting my capability to create powerful content.
>
> -Cody Burleson
> Digital Media Specialist
> Ecotomic Group, Inc.
> in...@ecotomic.com
> http://www.ecotomic.com
Well, if you listen to Netscape, they're browser is 30%
to 100% faster than Internet Explorer (IE). This could easily
be translated into dollars, if you consider the time
spent by your employees waiting for a page to load.
Also, IE only runs on Windows systems. Contrary to what
Microsoft would like you to believe, the whole world does
not run Windows.
Finally, I'm sure Microsoft will use IE to lock you in to
other Microsoft products, which will not be free. That's
the Microsoft Way.
Chris Sellers
The Williams Companies
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Ben Hirashima
Are you people serious? I can't believe a JavaScript user would think
that IE 3.0 is better than NN 3.0. IE's support of JS is a joke!
Besides, Microsoft is conducting a ruthless promotional campaign for IE
that borders on the unethical.
Ben Hirashima
Jim Cape
Ben Joyce wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> I work for a tech support comany serving over 20 ISP's and end users and I
> would say about 70-80 percent use Netscape - but IE is really catching on!
> lots of the ISP's and new ISP's are shipping the s.w with IE becuase of the
> cost.. besides, IE4 apparrently really intergrates itself into windows95 so
> Netscape is gonna be left well behind.
Except Microshaft is skipping v.4.0 and going straight to 5.0, which
won't be available until June '97. Microshaft went back on its promise
that a new browser would be available from MS every 6 months. Obviously
their "total integration" policy with regard to the Internet & Windows
97 turned out to be a little more than they could swallow, and they need
another 6 months to chew it down a little. Are we surprised?
Anthony K. Chu
On Tue, 03 Dec 1996 22:31:11 -0600, Jim Cape <ca...@ais.net> wrote:
>
>Have you checked your registry lately? Notice all the little entries IE
>shoves into every little corner? Netscape doesn't do that.
>
where to install it to in Win95.
>Netscape is available on in non-beta form on 16 different platforms. IE3
>is available on 2. What if I use Linux instead of Windows 95/NT4? I
>would say that the 60-70% of people using non-Win32 platforms is a more
>severe limiter than my personal choice of Netscape 3.0.
>
In my experience with interacting with people who browse the Web,
basically the majority of people who favor M$IE are those who only
have had exposure to the Windows operating system and are therefore in
love with Microsoft products. Everyone else who also use other OS's
undoubtedly knows the value of Netscape.
>Netscape 3.0 has JavaScript 1.1. IE barely supports 1.0 (how do you
>spell bugs?).
>
You spell it M-S-I-E! It's bad enough that they can't do a good enough
(or even close enough) job of copying Netscape's implementation of
JavaScript, but they have to claim (or imply, suggest) that it is
compatible with Netscape's JavaScript?! How do you spell liars?
>Netscape has 50-80% of the browsing community. IE has 20-30%. You tell
>me which one is the obvious choice of serious developers.
>
Unless, of course, that serious developer is also a greedy developer,
who takes M$'s money and makes their site M$IE only. (ESPN???)
>Netscape originated the idea of plugins for web browsers.
>
>Netscape's intentions are not to rule the entire world. You think that
>Microsoft is spending all that money on advertising to give away free
>browsers just out of the goodness of their hearts? (At least 3 4 page
>ads in Byte, PCWorld, etc. to *give away* a piece of software!)
>
M$IE is just another product of Microsoft's greed. They saw a market
in which their name and logo were nowhere to be seen and they set out
to monopolize the internet too. Well, they can try, but they'll never
succeed as long as they keep making buggy programs and false claims
like they did with M$IE 3.0.
Anthony K. Chu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Second Year Computer Science Major http://www.webhaven.com/anthony/
University of British Columbia, Canada <anth...@unixg.ubc.ca>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brian Uri!
>Cody Burleson wrote:
>>
>> I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
>> continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
>> in more ways than one.
>>
>> I would be interested in hearing other opinions about this.
>>
In my server log, I have found that approximately 80% of everyone
visiting uses a version of NS. about 15% uses Lynx or AOL and only a
few use IE.
Personally, I use NS because it has full JS support, easy to access
documentation and programming information, and it doesn't ooze itself
into my entire OS like IE.
BU
|------------------------------------------------|
| U R I ! |
|bu...@vt.edu llam...@vt.edu|
| http://buri.campus.vt.edu/BCUHome.HTM |
| -=| UDIC |=- |
|------------------------------------------------|
"All this criticism, it's like ducks off my back."
-Samuel Goldwyn
Ben Joyce
hi,
I work for a tech support comany serving over 20 ISP's and end users and I
would say about 70-80 percent use Netscape - but IE is really catching on!
lots of the ISP's and new ISP's are shipping the s.w with IE becuase of the
cost.. besides, IE4 apparrently really intergrates itself into windows95 so
Netscape is gonna be left well behind.
ben
--
----------------------
benj...@mistral.co.uk
(Do not bend)
Mark Stone <mst...@mkp.com> wrote in article <584b02$6...@mkp.com>...
> "Cody Burleson" <in...@ecotomic.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
> >continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
> >in more ways than one.
>
> >I would be interested in hearing other opinions about this.
>
> >No bash fest, please! The point here is to try to understand the
> >mind of the user who is out there surfing my sites with browsers
> >that are severely limiting my capability to create powerful content.
>
Andre
>Cody Burleson wrote:
>>
>> I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
>> continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
>> in more ways than one.
It is better - in more ways than one.
BUT - Netscape is also better - in more ways than one.
Your ridiculous comments are like saying "why would anyone drive
Toyotas when there are Nissans? Nissans have some features that
Toyotas don't".
>>
>> I would be interested in hearing other opinions about this.
>>
>> No bash fest, please! The point here is to try to understand the
>> mind of the user who is out there surfing my sites with browsers
>> that are severely limiting my capability to create powerful content.
You mean your ability to create powerful content with Microsoft
supported tools.
When you question the mind of the user visiting your site, you might
want to just send those morons with Netscape somewhere else - after
all, they are inferior beings, and you don't need them on your
superior site, right? After all, they don't agree with you, and they
are using that funny non-standard browser - yes that funny Netscape
thing that was an afterthought to the WWW, not like your MS-IE that
practically pioneered the web.
What about all the features on my page that MS-IE doesn't know what to
do with? Huh? You should be better spending your typing time writing
to Microsoft, asking them why they haven't released a patch that can
support more modern Javascript. Then I _might_ let you on MY page :)
Actually, ask them to support Javascript. Period. Not that JScript
thing they have.
Oh, and have you ever tried to remove Netscape from your system? If
you did, you'd notice that it was GONE. Try that with MS-IE. It will
come back to haunt you forever - all over your system.
Haven't you realized yet? MS-IE is just Microsoft's way of getting
those Windows 95 bug fixes on your system without you knowing it, and
them looking silly. You're probably running Windows 97 and you don't
even know it.
BTW - have you seen Microsoft's latest announcement? MS-IE is now
INCLUDED with current versions of Windows 95. They're getting
desparate.
Funny how Netscape still has most of the market - without forcing it
down our throats. People are choosing it. Imagine that.
Netscape users can get Active-X plugins. Can MS-IE users get plugins
to make the newer Javascript work? Don't think so.
To address your original comment about the price - I don't remember
ever having to pay for Netscape. In fact, Netcom, my ISP - the largest
in Canada, and one of the largest in the US - gives away Netscape 3
along with their connection software.
And we didn't have to wait for multi-platform support. Netscape runs
on just about anything.
One last thing - I ran my own benchmarks of the two products. Netscape
was as fast or faster than MS-IE - Every time. (Much faster on the
Javascript 1.1 stuff).
I'm not convinced I should be dropping my Netscape because you would
like to develop pages for the "other" browser. Aside from not being
able to view your page, of course, but somehow my world will continue.
Just my opinions...
(My Netscape runs happily off my drive D:. Can your MS-IE do that?)
Andre
Paul Godden
"Cody Burleson" <in...@ecotomic.com> wrote:
>I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
>continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
>in more ways than one.
>I would be interested in hearing other opinions about this.
>No bash fest, please! The point here is to try to understand the
>mind of the user who is out there surfing my sites with browsers
>that are severely limiting my capability to create powerful content.
Until recently I used Explorer at home and Netscape at work, but I
have now dumped Netscape in favour of explorer. As much as I hate to
admit it Explorer IMHO is the better browser.
Paul Godden
Production Manager
dex
http:/www.dex.co.uk
desi...@mail.netlink.co.uk
Jefferson L Smith
I agree, and it's doesn't really matter if IE is easier to press a
button on, forget that if the button doesn't do what I want.
The important issue is compatibility--IE is not. Example, I finnish a
project that works with NN, then it doesn't work with IE. By the time
it works with IE it has lost important functionality, which can be fixed
sometimes by using IE "Special" functions. But why do that when then it
will not work with ANY other browsers??
That is why Netscape is better.
BIKEMAN
I think NN is better because I can use it in LINUX and also in a lot of
other systems like now (I'm in a IBM/6000), try do this with IE, what
happend? If you don't have and don't what Windows(like me) you can't run
it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ Jose Francisco Gazapo Aguirre
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `.``-..-' E-mail: 01...@eps.ua.es
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,'
(il),-'' (li),' ((!.-' EPSA Universidad de Alicante
??? POR QUE UTILIZAR VENTANUCOS 3.x o 95 PUDIENDO UTILIZAR LINUX
???
Pentium 166 con 16Mb: con Ventanucos ==> Un juguete
con LINUX ==> Un servidor
La guerra es una masacre entre personas que no se conocen en
beneficio de
unas pocas que si se conocen pero no se masacran.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathew A. Hennessy
In article <NEWTNews.849732957.27943.csellers@santiago>,
<csel...@wis.twc.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
>> continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
>> in more ways than one.
Definitely! Sign me up! Now, where do I download the AIX,
Solaris and Digital Unix versions?
>> -Cody Burleson
--
- Matt (henn...@thoughtcrime.com)
<em><a href="http://www.cloud9.net/~hennessy">My mildly useful page</a></em>
Joe & Cecilie
Microsoft is great at reinventing the wheel...
with incompatible tire sizes!
Windows95 is almost as good as Mac has been for
years, and is touted as some kind of stroke of
genius. Likewise with Netscape and IE. Netscape
is YEARS ahead of IE. I get frustrated with
SHAREWARE that's as lousy as IE. Maybe the Mac
version of IE 3.0 is extra bad, but anyway,
you get what you pay for...
Joe
Joe's Virtual Macintosh --> http://www.sn.no/~cvoss/Joe
Random Access System Admin
Cody Burleson (in...@ecotomic.com) wrote:
: I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
: continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
: in more ways than one.
: I would be interested in hearing other opinions about this.
: No bash fest, please! The point here is to try to understand the
: mind of the user who is out there surfing my sites with browsers
: that are severely limiting my capability to create powerful content.
: -Cody Burleson
: Digital Media Specialist
: Ecotomic Group, Inc.
: in...@ecotomic.com
: http://www.ecotomic.com
The question should be: Does anyone actually use Microsoft IE ? I use
NN because of it's speed, the layout, it's free, and I'm running
a Sparc 10 box (Sol2.5.1) and Microsoft hasn't done jack for unix yet,
but NN has... Also Microsoft is rather limited in my view, and I
like to see a bit of good competition so my money's on the underdogs.
R. Dows
SysAdmin
mar...@randomc.com
http://tequila.randomc.com/~marius
Cormac Foster
Jim Cape wrote:
> Except Microshaft is skipping v.4.0 and going straight to 5.0, which
> won't be available until June '97. Microshaft went back on its promise
> that a new browser would be available from MS every 6 months.
Odd -- we've had a beta copy of IE4.0b here at work for a month...
Hise Chapman
Anthony K. Chu wrote:
> >Netscape's intentions are not to rule the entire world. You think that
> >Microsoft is spending all that money on advertising to give away free
> >browsers just out of the goodness of their hearts? (At least 3 4 page
> >ads in Byte, PCWorld, etc. to *give away* a piece of software!)
> >
> M$IE is just another product of Microsoft's greed. They saw a market
> in which their name and logo were nowhere to be seen and they set out
> to monopolize the internet too. Well, they can try, but they'll never
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> succeed as long as they keep making buggy programs and false claims
> ^^^^^^^
> like they did with M$IE 3.0.
>
You are right in your description of M$; but, I'm scared about their ability to
monopolize. Look at what they've been able to do for the last 7 years
with crappy software, unkept promises, year-late deliverables, and always
being last with technology. I've never seen anything like it! With most people's
measuring stick for company acceptance, Microsoft would have folded years ago; yet,
they gain! But, they won't be gaining me!
--Hise
Michael C. McCafferty
Cody,
many people will continue to use Netscape, particularly Netscape 3.0, even
though MSIE 3.0 is free, for a couple of reasons:
1) Netscape Navigator is, for all intents and purposes, free as well. Most
of the people that I know who use NSN downloaded a copy or received a
"free" copy bundled with other software.
2) MSIE 3.0 implements Javascript only in accordance with Netscape 2.0x
(dubbed Javascript 1.0 by NS). This means that there are lots of nice
features in NSN, like dynamically updating images, that don't work under
MSIE's javascript implementation.
3) Lots of people prefer not to use MS products, because MS products tend
to work best when used with other MS products, rather than third-party
software (plug-ins, etc).
4) MSIE 3.0 beta for the Macintosh is not a reliable product. The 20% of
the internet using a Macintosh are likely to continue to use NSN.
- Mike McC
mi...@humandesign.com
Cody Burleson <in...@ecotomic.com> wrote in article
<01bbe13e$5bc8aa40$25c2c2d0@dell>...
Jerry
Couldn't have put it better myself. I went through some trouble getting the
new Netscape to work but it was worth it. M$ explorer is free but Netscape is
free also as I am a student (though I would gladly pay $29 to what's his face
than to f-up my system with M$ explorer). I did try installing it once, I
tried to remove it, and what a mess!!! I wish that M$ would spend it's time
trying to make win95 stop crashing and stop trying to take over the net!
Just my 2c.
Jim Cape
Paul Godden wrote:
>
> "Cody Burleson" <in...@ecotomic.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
> >continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
> >in more ways than one.
>
> >I would be interested in hearing other opinions about this.
>
> >No bash fest, please! The point here is to try to understand the
> >mind of the user who is out there surfing my sites with browsers
> >that are severely limiting my capability to create powerful content.
>
> have now dumped Netscape in favour of explorer. As much as I hate to
> admit it Explorer IMHO is the better browser.
Try uninstalling it & re-installing it.
Check the registry (hehehe).
Where's the cache?
Where's the ActiveX Control Dump (where they go after they've been
used).
How do you enable JavaScript image replacement.
How do you rebuild your system after a *signed* digital control shuts it
down?
How do you get Netscape's Java support to work after IE is installed (it
replaces MFC40.DLL, the Java .dll for Netscape)
I do admit I am biased (Netscape 4.0 Wish List Admin--no, I don't work
for Netscape), but I *really*
Jim Cape
They (MS) said that they wouldn't release the next version until June
'97. It was supposed to be IE5.
Tan E Ming
I still use NN 3.0 because of these facts :
1. it is available in more platforms than IE 3.0
2. it is better in terms of JavaScripts implementations
3. it has LiveConnect for interaction between JavaScripts <-> Java
4. it is non-Microsoft !
BIKEMAN (a01...@eps.ua.es) wrote:
: I think NN is better because I can use it in LINUX and also in a lot of
Ian Fennell
ro...@randomc.com (Random Access System Admin) wrote:
>Cody Burleson (in...@ecotomic.com) wrote:
>: I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
>: continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
>: in more ways than one.
>: I would be interested in hearing other opinions about this.
>: No bash fest, please! The point here is to try to understand the
>: mind of the user who is out there surfing my sites with browsers
>: that are severely limiting my capability to create powerful content.
>: -Cody Burleson
>: Digital Media Specialist
>: Ecotomic Group, Inc.
>: in...@ecotomic.com
>: http://www.ecotomic.com
Here's what's in my mind. I gave IE3 a fair go, but will stick with
Netscape, reasons:
1) I hate the use of the word 'favorites' instead of 'bookmarks', it's
sort of icky.
2) IE is has the traditional MS hallmarks; feature-heavy yet clumsy to
use. I'll trade all of its 'reconfigurability' for NN's 'back' and
'forward' right mouse clicks.
3) It rejects too many legitimate JavaScripts.
4) It won't stop loading when you press 'esc' (the copy I have won't,
anyway).
5) I like to know what's on my hard drive, and resent the way IE
spreads its directories in hard-to-find corners.
6) It supports ActiveX controls, which are insecure. They can arrive
at your PC, cause all sorts of mischief, transmit data to the server
without your knowledge and so on. If they become established no-one
will dare to visit any sites which have not received a certificate of
trustworthiness from Microsoft, who will then effectively rule the
WWW. I read this in 'Wired' magazine; it may be wrong, but I'm going
to be cautious!
------------------------------------
Ian Fennell
redl...@gem.co.za
http://www.geocities.com/tokyo/3776/
http://members.gem.co.za/~redlodge/
------------------------------------
Mark R. Bowyer
Jim Cape wrote:
>
> Cody Burleson wrote:
> >
> > I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
> > continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
> > in more ways than one.
> It's your personal opinion that IE is better. Who's to say that you
> aren't wrong in your starting assumption.
It's *my* opinion that MSIE is the least efficient of the 2. I've had
little experience of using it, as I surf from one of the machines
serving my site here - a 4 processor Sun Solaris machine - so Netscape
is it for me right now (MSIE for Solaris is in beta.)
I have logged a problem with M$'s Java doing far more network loads than
necessary on this very list, and I'm told by a webmaster friend of mine
at a PC Cloner's site that she *hates* MSIE purely coz you can't save
the content you're viewing to disk from it with anything approaching
ease.
All that Jim goes on to say is very, very true. MSIE 3.0 can upload
ActiveX components unsigned and without telling the user. MS fixed it
with 3.01, but they haven't advertised the problem out of embarressment.
I'm telling users about this every other day.
Yes, ActiveX can format your disk on the spot, forcing you to remember
with your WetWare what the signature was on it. it can also install a
virus that does it in 3 months. So then you have to remember *all* the
signatures in WetWare and try and figure which it was...
Thankyou M$ for this wonderful view of "security". Even if you
remember, you then have to sue the bastards through the courts. I live
in the UK. The Component was written by a student in Indonesia. What
are my chances of seeing a penny? Get real, M$.
But the most important issue is quite rightly the one that Jim starts
and ends with. Only a small %age of Web users have 32-bit capable
Windows systems. MSIE may soon cover more of the market, and say people
do migrate.
Do you really believe it to be in M$'s interests, if they manage to kill
Netscape, to continue supporting anyone other than their own OS properly
with MSIE? Wont we be giving them a license to subject us to Windows on
every desktop if we use their products now? And if they finally do kill
all the useful competition, who's going to keep them developing new
stuff, and keep their prices down?
No thanks. Netscape it will always be for me, just coz they *aren't* in
the OS business. And if the current round of Justice Department
investigations *don't* pull M$ back on the bit, may the Gods help us...
,,,
/----------------------------o00-----00o------------------------------\
| o o ` _ ' more...@geocities.com |
| /v\ark R. Bowyer. / \ |
| `-' http://sensemedia.net/sprawl/users/Moredhel |
\---------------------------ooo0-----0ooo-----------------------------/
Gregory T. Kocian
>
> "Cody Burleson" <in...@ecotomic.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
> >continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
> >in more ways than one.
>
>
> >No bash fest, please! The point here is to try to understand the
> >mind of the user who is out there surfing my sites with browsers
> >that are severely limiting my capability to create powerful content.
>
No no...I don't want a bash fest either, I find them rather unproductive
and un-illuminating (is that a word? anyway...) I myself am a loyal
Netscape user. I have used different browsers in the past starting out
with good ol' Mosaic. But I have been using Netscape for the past
couple of years and I find it more than satisfactory. I just don't like
Explorer in an all around sense. The interface and all kinds of little
other things that I don't like. Maybe it's because I could be
conditioned to Netscape, but I'm no Pavlov so I don't know.
Basically I see this topic as a totally personal preference kinda
thing. People over here like Netscape, and people over there like
Explorer, and never the twain shall meet. Anyway that my two cents.
--
Greg Kocian
koc...@cat.com
http://epc505.tc.cat.com/greg.html
or
bh...@lydia.bradley.edu
http://rhf.bradley.edu/~bhaal/
Stephanie R. Arnold
Andre (a...@netcom.ca) wrote:
: BTW - have you seen Microsoft's latest announcement? MS-IE is now
: INCLUDED with current versions of Windows 95. They're getting
: desparate.
Not getting desparate, just FINALLY doing what they said they would in the
beginning. One of the major pluses when win95 came out was that it would
include all the Internet goodies(?) i.e. dialup, browser, email, etc. Did
you notice that they weren't there?! Then they made you pay for it after
you already paid for win95 which was supposed to include it! The reason
was their release date, they had to push so hard to get it out in time
that they couldn't work out the bugs and left off the "Plus". Now their
bragging about including it for free??!! I wish I could do business like
that... "Hey, I'll do your pages with JavaScript, but I don't have time
right now. Well, I can do it if you pay me more, so once it's done I can
give it to my other customer for free." I'm sure everyone will go for
that!
(I'm not bashing M$, just vocalizing my realization that I've been
jipped!)
Stephanie R. Arnold
Cody Burleson (in...@ecotomic.com) wrote:
: I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
: continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
: in more ways than one.
:
: I would be interested in hearing other opinions about this.
Herpes is free, but that doesn't make it desirable! :) Just remember, you
get what you pay for.
Pete
Well, the only question you've got to ask is: what's in it for them?
Microsoft ain't going to concede one inch of turf. Like the saying goes,
if you give Bill Gates and inch, he thinks he's a ruler.
This whole scripting nonsense has got me somewhat bummed, but for other
reasons. Here we are, programmers, developers, hackers, whatever. We just
want to put up web sites that anyone can come and visit from any platform
and either see stuff about our lives or engage in business. We just want
to build community. However, we got two giants who supply the wood, nails,
door jams and such to build the community and they are in a pissing contest
(thus this door doesn't fit that wall, etc.). We end up with a lot of
vendor specific stuff that we have to dish through and figure out.
For example, I want to do something in javascript on my page. Sorry, MSIE
doesn't support it. If I want to do it, I have to program it twice in two
different languages: JS and VBS and I have to test to see what agent has
arrived. <sigh> And the answer isn't "STANDARDS". By the time a
scripting standard evolves the web will be dead and replaced by the "next
great thing" (whatever that will be 3-4 years from now).
So what do we do, you and I? We sit on the sidelines waiting for the dust
to settle? No, we grit our teeth, because we are hackers at heart, learn
the vendor specific ways to get the job done and do it (and yes, twice if
we have too. Look at www.ssionline.com for example). We don't like it,
but we don't have anyway of addressing the issue.
Jerry <arts...@suba.com> wrote in article <587lnj$q...@suba01.suba.com>...
Anthony K. Chu
>Are you people serious? I can't believe a JavaScript user would think
>that IE 3.0 is better than NN 3.0. IE's support of JS is a joke!
>Besides, Microsoft is conducting a ruthless promotional campaign for IE
>that borders on the unethical.
>
I cannot agree with you more. It's made it impossible to efficiently
write code for both browsers. A very simple solution that I usually
resort to everytime M$IE doesn't understand my code:
browser = navigator.userAgent;
if (browser.indexOf("MSIE",0)>=0) {
// my code here
}
This way I don't have to put up with all the non-sense from M$IE.
Life's too short to waste on trying to satisfy a buggy browser made by
a company who does business the dirty way.
Ken Bigelow
Cody Burleson wrote:
>
> I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
> continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
> in more ways than one.
>
> I would be interested in hearing other opinions about this.
>
> mind of the user who is out there surfing my sites with browsers
> that are severely limiting my capability to create powerful content.
>
Herewith an additional 3 cents' worth...
I won't use IE at all from home, and from work only when I have to. I
generally use Netscape both places, and occasionally Lynx according to
what I'm doing.
My objections to MSIE are three:
They don't support as many platforms (I use both DOS/Windows and
FreeBSD/Unix), and I prefer the same functionality on all platforms I
use.
They did a rather poor job of even reverse-engineering the Javascript
interpreter in Netscape 2, and still haven't caught up to JS 1.1.
Those lovely little ActiveX controls have *full access* to the client
browser's *entire computer system.* Say what you will about
authenticodes and electronic signatures, this is too great a security
risk to suit me. One such control, authenticated and everything, was
able to shut down your computer. I don't care to take such a chance.
Those objections are based on demonstrated facts. I'll leave out my
personal thoughts on what I'd expect MS to do if they ever *did* get a
near-monopoly on browser selection. Take a look at some of the things
they *have* done in the past, and decide for yourself if you think their
attitude will ever really change.
--
Ken
Are you interested in |
byte-sized education | http://www.play-hookey.com
over the Internet? |
Anthony K. Chu
>I cannot agree with you more. It's made it impossible to efficiently
>write code for both browsers. A very simple solution that I usually
>resort to everytime M$IE doesn't understand my code:
>
>browser = navigator.userAgent;
>if (browser.indexOf("MSIE",0)>=0) {
> // my code here
>}
>
Hahaha. Oops, a BUG! I guess I'd fit right in as an M$IE programmer!
The line should be:
if (browser.indexOf("MSIE",0)<0) {
Cheers,
David Johnson
Ken Bigelow wrote:
>
>
> They did a rather poor job of even reverse-engineering the Javascript
> interpreter in Netscape 2, and still haven't caught up to JS 1.1.
Yes, this is a very frustrating down-side to IE ... that they didn't
implement 1.0 very well, and seem uninterested in supporting the 1.1
version of JavaScript. I think it was a ploy to get people to buy into
IE -- i.e. saying it supports JavaScript and VBScript (which is barely
true).
I hate having to "dummy down" my web sites just for people too cheap to
spend the lousy $40 for a real browser, or for the blind Microsoft
worshipers who overlook IE's shortcomings because "Microsoft is going to
take over the INTERNET anyway." (I fear that I just started a holy war
with that statement).
> Those lovely little ActiveX controls ...
"Ok", I thought -- maybe I ought to give this IE a fair shot and
evaluate it -- i.e. consider modifying my pages to support IE too. I
ask myself: What is the common denominator between IE and NN?
JavaScript to some degree, but Java for sure: Right? Bzzzzzz - WRONG!
With NN, JavaScript can access all the public members of Java classes
running within the page. In other words, JavaScript can "see" everything
a Java applet can see. It's as simple as:
<applet NAME="myApp" CODE="myApp.class" width=400 height=50>
<param NAME=text VALUE="Enter your text here.">
</applet>
<FORM >
<input TYPE=button value="Go" onclick="document.myApp.myMethod()">
</FORM>
What could be more simple? I can't do this with IE.
All right, maybe I'll use VB Script instead of JAvaScript for IE
visitors. What a mess I discovered: To make VBScript interact with
Java, I have to turn the Java Applet into an Active-X control!! Talk
about twisting the INTERNET to match a Microsoft standard!
First, I have to use J++ to define GUID (Globally Unique Identifiers),
so throw out Cafe or Java Workshop. Next, I need to write a ODL (Object
Definition Language) file to describe the interfaces that my applet will
expose to Active-X. Then, I have to compile the ODL file into a Type
Library file and "import" it into my Java class, and my class must
"implement" the definitions defined in the ODL, and it must handle
special COM exceptions. AND FINALLY, if all this wasn't complicated
enough, I must now register the new applet with the OS registry before I
can use it!!! Unbelievable!
Anyone who thinks Microsoft is not playing the proprietary game, should
realize that buying into IE would allow comparable functionality of NN
only through Active-X, Microsoft tools, and only on a MS OS.
This sort of game is why I'm mad at Microsoft. I remember IBM playing
the proprietary game in the 80's, and it end up costing them their near
monopoly in the PC market. Is Microsoft going to be the next IBM?
Gavin Lambert
In article <32aa2bc...@news.mindlink.net>, anth...@unixg.ubc.ca says...
>>I cannot agree with you more. It's made it impossible to efficiently
>>write code for both browsers. A very simple solution that I usually
>>resort to everytime M$IE doesn't understand my code:
>>
>>browser = navigator.userAgent;
>>if (browser.indexOf("MSIE",0)>=0) {
>> // my code here
>>}
>Hahaha. Oops, a BUG! I guess I'd fit right in as an M$IE programmer!
>The line should be:
>
>if (browser.indexOf("MSIE",0)<0) {
The First Commandment of the Microsoft Bible:
An thou canst not make it good, thou mustest make it look good.
The Second Commandment of the Microsoft Bible:
Thou must makest all thy products by thy deadline, even if they art not done.
The Third Commandment of the Microsoft Bible:
There ist @&*@$*@$**@>>RSRV*#*@( ** General Protection Fault **
The Fourth Commandment of the Microsoft Bible:
"I'm sorry, but you haven't got this free product which requires this $589.49
product to run, so your hard drive will now be unrecoverably formatted. Have a
nice day."
-----
Gavin Lambert
uec...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/1987
Felix H. Lim
I don't know much about those technical stuffs, but I don't think Netscape
will last very long... I heard many people prefer Netscape for the best
browser... but I don't think so. First of all Netscape is too slow. I have
used both Netscape 3.0 and IE3.0 at school, but Netscape's speed is far
behind IE3.0. Also I found few problems with Netscape... Like table stuff,
it doesn't display correctly. Also everything Netscape displays looks
weird...
The last big shot for IE3.0 is that most of computer industry is supporting
it. Its support for ActiveX has made IE3.0 totally dominating over
Netscape. I don't care if anyone doesn't like it or care about it, but it
is the true that internet society gives cheer for what Microsoft has
accomplished.
Does anyone think MS is trying to dominate Internet? Yeah, I think so. Like
MS has dominated PC OS business, it will take over the internet. You don't
really have to say anything about it. It is how things are going and you
gotta follow it, if you can stop MS's way. Will MS be next IBM? I don't
think so. MS and IBM are different... way different. Wait... MS might be
next IBM if Oracle takes over the internet business... Before that, it will
never happen. Thanks for reading my opinion.
David Johnson <d...@tbe.net> wrote in article <32AB13...@tbe.net>...
Rick Mangi
Sure, how about those of us who aren't on a windows or mac system?
Don't forget about us! Until M$ decides to support the UNIX world,
Netscape will still have a leg up on them.
Nils Juell wrote:
>
> > I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
> > continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
> > in more ways than one.
--
===================================================
Numerics | Rick Mangi
---------- = No Problem!| Webmaster
Net | Visual Numerics, Inc.
http://www.vni.com | ma...@boulder.vni.com
...................................................
The Leaders in Data Visualization and Numerics
PV-WAVE - Java Numeric Library - IMSL - ObjectSuite
===================================================
Arno van Boven
Picture this:
I have a 486 running M$ Win 3.1, that I only use for
Internet-purposes. I have a HD of 130 MB. I have about 10 MB free. I
don't have a browser yet. I want a browser, and reserve some space
for (browser)cache, say about 3-4 MB. What browser would you
recommend?
M$IE, >15 MB or NS, <2 MB (v2.01, I admit) (Yet, I believe that NS 3.x
is <5MB?)
A fairly obvious choice, I think. Not to mention the trouble you have
to go through when you re/un/install M$IE.
Arno
_________________________________________________________________________
| Arno van Boven <arn...@dataweb.nl>
| http://www.dataweb.nl/~arnovb
Sean Austin
Felix H. Lim wrote:
> ... First of all Netscape is too slow. I have
> used both Netscape 3.0 and IE3.0 at school, but Netscape's speed is far
IE3.0 is, in my experience, faster when downloading via telephone line
due to
some system calls it makes which are unavailable to NN. However, when
connected
via a wide bandwidth connection, NN is far superior if you have your
number of
available sockets optimized in your setup. IE only opens a limited
number of
sockets to transmit the data. NN will open as many as it efficiently
can.
>
> ... The last big shot for IE3.0 is that most of computer industry is supporting
> it. Its support for ActiveX has made IE3.0 totally dominating over
> Netscape. ...
Cheering IE's support of ActiveX is rather like cheering IBM's support
of MVS. Of
course IE will support what it, and only it, can use. Also, keep in
mind that the
computer industry is tracking and supporting IE as much as it thinks it
needs to,
but from various conversations I've had, I get the feeling it's more
because of
MS's reputation and past history of absorbing or otherwise "killing off"
it's
competitors rather than a genuine belief in a good product. Besides,
only the PC
industry is supporting it as only 2 platforms, both PC, can even run IE.
>
> Does anyone think MS is trying to dominate Internet? Yeah, I think so. Like
> MS has dominated PC OS business, it will take over the internet. You don't
> really have to say anything about it. It is how things are going and you
> gotta follow it, if you can stop MS's way. Will MS be next IBM? I don't
> think so.
I believe it is common knowledge that MS is attempting to gain a
controlling share of
the Internet market. However, they have a long way to go before their
product is
the quality of NN. As to MS's domination of PC OS's, I believe your
view is rather
limited. Unix and its variants are widely used on PC's as are Apple
OS's on their
particular PC platform. Although you will find few of these in homes,
they are
plenty abundant in the business workplace. Also, home PC's are a
relatively small
share of PC use, although the numbers are growing.
The most disheartening portion of your post, however, is your assertion
that MS cannot
be stopped and assumption that we, as users, can do nothing about it.
I, for one, will
not stand for a inferior product, no matter how free it is or how often
it's included
with my operating system, and those of us who rely on the quality of our
browsers are
likely to agree. When my browswer crashes because it does not support
JavaScript
standards well, I lose productivity, time, and money. As users, you can
do something
about it; you can demand quality products or else refuse to use them.
As long as NN
exceeds IE in support of Internet standards, in innovations, and in
performance, I will
continue to rebuff MS's offers for a browser which is free today and
costly tomorrow.
Thanks,
Sean Austin
Systems Analyst
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Jim Cape
Felix H. Lim wrote:
>
> I don't know much about those technical stuffs, but I don't think Netscape
> will last very long... I heard many people prefer Netscape for the best
> used both Netscape 3.0 and IE3.0 at school, but Netscape's speed is far
> behind IE3.0.
Netscape is actually faster in some dial-up cases as compared to IE.
> Also I found few problems with Netscape... Like table stuff,
> it doesn't display correctly.
The infamous table bug is undoubtedly being fixed. Dont' forget that NS
v.4.0 beta is due out before the end of the year.
> Also everything Netscape displays looks
> weird...
You dislike Netscape's current (3.0) interface? Check out the new one at
(http://browserwatch.iworld.com/). It is much better than NS3, and
infinately better than IE3.
> The last big shot for IE3.0 is that most of computer industry is supporting
> it.
Most of the *PC* industry, you mean. Don't forget Sun, DEC, HP, etc. are
still out there.
> Its support for ActiveX has made IE3.0 totally dominating over
> Netscape.
ActiveX gives anyone and everyone with any Windows 32 programming
experience total access to your system. I personally don't want to give
that away.
"But it was meant for the *intranet*" you say... None of the Fortune 500
companies are using Windows 32 exclusively. All of them are using one or
more platforms supported by Netscape.
A little statistic: 85% of all intentional business-computer vandalism
(virii, etc.) is the direct result of *company employees*. So, if 85% of
the things intentionally screwed up on business computers are screwed up
by employees, why in hell would you want to give every employee complete
access to every machine in the company?
> I don't care if anyone doesn't like it or care about it, but it
> is the true that internet society gives cheer for what Microsoft has
> accomplished.
Yep, they have opened up the single greatest security hole for the home
user in the history of the Internet. Thank you Microshaft.
> Does anyone think MS is trying to dominate Internet? Yeah, I think so. Like
> MS has dominated PC OS business, it will take over the internet. You don't
> really have to say anything about it. It is how things are going and you
> gotta follow it, if you can stop MS's way. Will MS be next IBM? I don't
> think so. MS and IBM are different... way different. Wait... MS might be
> next IBM if Oracle takes over the internet business... Before that, it will
> never happen. Thanks for reading my opinion.
This is probably the most depressing, defeatist paragraph I have read
since the end of 1984. "If you think you might loose, just give up now."
I would just as soon not, thank you very much.
You seem to forget the 70-85% market share that Netscape has. Just like
Microsoft has an 85% market share on home computer OS (the other 15% are
Linux, MacOS, OS/2, etc.) No one believes that Mac can overcome that,
but everyone seems to think that Microsoft can overcome it's hurdle.
Why?
Just some things to ponder...
Mike Del
This is really weird--- The page Ken references as an example to display NN's
prowess works flawlessly with my copy of MSIE 3.01, but not at all with
NN3.0Gold. Hmmm.
I personally don't have any feelings either way. I'm not responding here to say
one is better than the other, just pointing out a strange happening.
In article <32AB13...@tbe.net>, d...@tbe.net says...
>
>Ken Bigelow wrote:
>>
>>
>> They did a rather poor job of even reverse-engineering the Javascript
><huge snip>
>See also:
>http://home.netscape.com/comprod/products/navigator/version_3.0/building_block
s/examples/js_example/js-java-demo.html
>
>
--
_______________________________________________________
))))) mik...@ix.netcom.com
"_____
" o o Efficiency is beautiful,
C ) Efficiency is art.
__
http://www.netcom.com/~mikedel/
_______________________________________________________
Klaus Johannes Rusch
Felix H. Lim wrote:
>
> I don't know much about those technical stuffs, but I don't think Netscape
> will last very long... I heard many people prefer Netscape for the best
> browser... but I don't think so. First of all Netscape is too slow. I have
> used both Netscape 3.0 and IE3.0 at school, but Netscape's speed is far
> it doesn't display correctly. Also everything Netscape displays looks
> weird...
IE 3.0 is definitely faster in complaing about problems with the TCP/IP
stack, and it fires up more message boxes where you have to press OK.
> The last big shot for IE3.0 is that most of computer industry is supporting
> it.
All vendors who are Microsoft indeed. For some reason, people on other
platforms don't seem to be interested in IE 3.0 at all :-)
> Its support for ActiveX has made IE3.0 totally dominating over
> Netscape.
Yeah, finally an excellent way to run software from the net without much
security.
Klaus Johannes Rusch
--
e872...@student.tuwien.ac.at, Klaus...@atmedia.net
http://www.atmedia.net/KlausRusch/
Anthony K. Chu
On 9 Dec 1996 06:23:54 GMT, "Felix H. Lim" <fl...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>I don't know much about those technical stuffs, but I don't think Netscape
>will last very long... I heard many people prefer Netscape for the best
>browser... but I don't think so. First of all Netscape is too slow. I have
>used both Netscape 3.0 and IE3.0 at school, but Netscape's speed is far
>behind IE3.0. Also I found few problems with Netscape... Like table stuff,
>it doesn't display correctly. Also everything Netscape displays looks
>weird...
>
Yes, there are a couple of bugs with Netscape's tables, but many of
them have to do with the way they choose to display the tables;
remember, even though the emergence of M$IE caused a lot of the
"browser-dependent" extensions, one can still not say which way of
interpreting a standard HTML tag (like <TABLE>) is *the* "correct"
way. Just because your favorite browser decides to display something
in a certain way, it doesn't make it the "standard."
Actually, I still have not yet seen a controlled, scientific test
(i.e. a test that's done by more than just sitting there and staring
at the monitor) that says M$IE is faster. I think the one done in PC
Magazine a few months ago was the most thorough and controlled, and
Netscape 3.0 out performed M$IE3.0 in all speed-related categories.
>The last big shot for IE3.0 is that most of computer industry is supporting
>it. Its support for ActiveX has made IE3.0 totally dominating over
>Netscape. I don't care if anyone doesn't like it or care about it, but it
>is the true that internet society gives cheer for what Microsoft has
>accomplished.
>
Huh? "Most" of the computing industry, eh? First of all, don't forget
that a lot (over half) of the computers today still run on non-Windows
operating systems. M$IE will almost certainly not be well-accepted in
the Mac and UNIX worlds. And the only reason it has an opportunity to
go somewhere in Windows systems is because Microsoft is including it
in their operating system. This will only lure novices into using
M$IE. Not too many serious web-surfers and programmers will take the
bait; we're not stupid, we know which browser is better.
Not too many people are cheering about M$IE, especially about ActiveX.
Good ahead, keep using it! It looks cool, just don't get mad at us if
we say "we told you so" when a control formats your harddrive or puts
a virus on your computer. Just because they're signed, they're in no
way safe. And knowing Microsoft, they probably put some hidden methods
in there so they can tap information from your computer. They're
famous for that.
>Does anyone think MS is trying to dominate Internet? Yeah, I think so. Like
>MS has dominated PC OS business, it will take over the internet. You don't
>really have to say anything about it. It is how things are going and you
>gotta follow it, if you can stop MS's way. Will MS be next IBM? I don't
>think so. MS and IBM are different... way different. Wait... MS might be
>next IBM if Oracle takes over the internet business... Before that, it will
>never happen. Thanks for reading my opinion.
>
Yeah, they can try, but they'll never succeed. Since M$IE came onto
the browser market, Netscape has only lost about 5-10% of its shares,
and the drop is stopping.
Keep dreaming!
Will Dieterich
If you look the reason that companies such as AOL, compuserve, etc are
supporting microsofts browser as thier default browsers, is so they can
get they software load in the next version of ms-windows and get an
icon for them will display in a folder.
For them it is a cheap way to advertise, and
since they are not in the browser market it really does not affect them.
You see some other companies including the browser because they get money
for doing so, or in some cases using it as a means to install a component
that they would of had to pay for if it had been included by itself.
Or in the worst case they are just stupid, such as the people setting up
a intranet home page at the place I work. They have told everyone to use
microsoft's browser because netscape has problem with sending email back
to them. I guess you can put that down as a reason not to use the mailto:
command.
--
William Dieterich Call Sign: KD4LZE Email: wdie...@rmi.net
"As the flowers are all made sweeter by the sunshine and the dew, so this
old world is made better by the lives of folks like you" inscription on the
tombstone of Bonnie Parker of Bonnie and Clyde fame.
DocOzone
"Ben Joyce" <benj...@mistral.co.uk> wrote:
:I work for a tech support comany serving over 20 ISP's and end users and I
:would say about 70-80 percent use Netscape - but IE is really catching on!
:lots of the ISP's and new ISP's are shipping the s.w with IE becuase of the
:cost.. besides, IE4 apparrently really intergrates itself into windows95 so
:Netscape is gonna be left well behind.
IE4 is better than Netscape? Suppose you don't use Win95? Why are you
comparing an existent product (NS3) with vaporware like IE4? I hear
Netscape 7.0 is *way better than IE2. So there!
-doc-
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thaddeus "Doc" Ozone "Specialization is for insects."
Apocalypse Studios....................www.ozones.com/ozone/
Personal home page.................www.ozones.com/~drozone/
Hands-On Tutorials.........www.ozones.com/~drozone/handson/
Doug Martin
"Felix H. Lim" <fl...@nwlink.com> writes:
>Does anyone think MS is trying to dominate Internet? Yeah, I think so. Like
>MS has dominated PC OS business, it will take over the internet. You don't
>really have to say anything about it. It is how things are going and you
>gotta follow it, if you can stop MS's way.
Felix, you sound like a sheep being led to slaughter.
Guy Smiley
I smiled on 13 Dec 1996 17:59:58 GMT when Doug Martin <dma...@tardis.bgsu.edu> wrote:
:DM>"Felix H. Lim" <fl...@nwlink.com> writes:
>>Does anyone think MS is trying to dominate Internet? Yeah, I think so. Like
>>MS has dominated PC OS business, it will take over the internet. You don't
>>really have to say anything about it. It is how things are going and you
>>gotta follow it, if you can stop MS's way.
They can't dominate the Internet unless they support a wide range of
platforms. Netscape supports about a dozen, MSIE only 1 (or 3 if you
consider the betas for mac and win 3.1 as full support).
--
+----------------------->Guy Kenneth a.k.a Mr Smiley<-----------------------+
UA SEDS President 96-97 < . . > C/C++ Java Perl Tcl/tK
student/webmaster/sysop > . . < HTML CGI VRML POV UNIX
621-5904 Steward Rm 315 < * > astronomy astrophysics
smi...@seds.org > "Electrons For Breakfast" < planetary sciences
+=======================<http://www.seds.org/~smiley>=======================+
" Keep on jumping around in a violent manner so as to transfer as
much kinetic energy to the person next to you."
Joe Mirrow
Netscape is still free to Educational Institutions. Yes! Even servers.
Netscape is ever popular here because it runs on all platforms UNIX, Mac,
Windows. MSIE just doesn't cut it when you have a serious investment in
hardware.
Joe Mirrow
mir...@med.unc.edu
UNC Chapel Hill
Gregory T. Kocian <koc...@cat.com> wrote in article
<32A851...@cat.com>...
> >
> > "Cody Burleson" <in...@ecotomic.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
> > >continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
> > >in more ways than one.
> >
Gavin Lambert
In article <32a61347...@news.mindlink.net>, anth...@unixg.ubc.ca says...
>
>In my experience with interacting with people who browse the Web,
>basically the majority of people who favor M$IE are those who only
>have had exposure to the Windows operating system and are therefore in
>love with Microsoft products. Everyone else who also use other OS's
>undoubtedly knows the value of Netscape.
Here's a good question... how can anyone who has had exposure to the Windows
environment (it is *not* and OS, okay!!! <frothing at mouth> :->) be in love
with Microsoft products?
Before anyone asks, yes, I do use Win95. But only because I'm forced to at
gunpoint and I always wash my hands after using the computer. All these
wondrous new features Microsoft claims for Win95 (extremely buggy and prone to
GPFs, I might add) have been working perfectly on other platforms for years
(notably on the Macintosh).
Dave Halupka
True! How ever Netscape seems to have more problems with HTML coding and
JavaScript! In my experience, MSIE is more forgiving on HTML errors (not big
ones) where as Netscape seems to have problems running the same HTML file. As
in the case with my website. JavaScripting seems to have more error messages
pop up in Netscape than in MSIE, in my experience anyways. My java script runs
fine in MSIE then when I go to view my page in Netscape there are JavaScript
errors galore. Some of these are simple errors that can be fixed easily, but
others are doosies.
Well that's my humble opinion!
Dave
David Johnson
"Cody Burleson" <in...@ecotomic.com> wrote:
>
>I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
>continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
>in more ways than one.
>
Sorry Cody, if you weren't the original poster of this message. I lost
track of the number of quotes and quotes of quotes etc...
Anyway, I was wondering if you'd qualify the statement: "In my opinion,
it [Explorer] is far better in more ways than one." How -- in your
opinion -- is Explorer better (besides being free for the time being).
Dave Johnson
Anthony K. Chu
On 15 Dec 96 17:17:44 GMT, "Dave Halupka" <dave_h...@ica.com>
wrote:
>True! How ever Netscape seems to have more problems with HTML coding and
>JavaScript! In my experience, MSIE is more forgiving on HTML errors (not big
>ones) where as Netscape seems to have problems running the same HTML file. As
>in the case with my website. JavaScripting seems to have more error messages
>pop up in Netscape than in MSIE, in my experience anyways. My java script runs
>fine in MSIE then when I go to view my page in Netscape there are JavaScript
>errors galore. Some of these are simple errors that can be fixed easily, but
>others are doosies.
>
>Well that's my humble opinion!
>
Wow, you really think so? A few examples would definitely have helped
your argument. I've had way more problems with HTML boo-boos in MSIE
than I have had in Netscape. One of the instances I remember is when
you accidentally throw in an extra <FORM> tag before your actual one.
Or when you have <address>blah blah</address>, everything following it
is still italisized (well, that's just a pure implementation error on
MS's part). I know, those are pretty picky and avoidable if known, but
I just wanted to show that Netscape is actually better at handling
HTML in some cases.
It is even harder to compare Netscape's implementation of JavaScript
to MSIE's reverse-engineered, half-hearted, feeble, and pathetic
attempt at the same thing they call JScript. They are two completely
different things. If you write your code to the JScript specification,
of course MSIE will interpret it with a smile, but that is just
because MS didn't copy Netscape's JavaScript 1.0 specs very precisely,
therefore some of its code is purely JScript and of course JavaScript
will choke on it. It's like writing programs for a reverse-engineered
clone CPU and expecting them to run on the chip that it was modeled
after-- good luck.
MS is famous for reinventing the wheel. Win95 is just a Mac with a
little bit of OS/2, accented with a bunch of MS logos-- just like MSIE
is a regurgitation of Netscape (especially true with JavaScript) with
a little better appearance to attract the novices and error messages
that pop up way too frequently that us JavaScripters have learned to
love.
Well, that's my opinion. Merry Christmas to all and to all a good
night.
Anthony K. Chu
----------------
Stupid Joke:
Q: Why do computer programmers get Christmas and Halloween Mixed up?
A: Because OCT(31) = DEC(25)
Jan Krynicky
Dave Halupka wrote:
>
> True! How ever Netscape seems to have more problems with HTML coding and
> JavaScript! In my experience, MSIE is more forgiving on HTML errors (not big
> ones) where as Netscape seems to have problems running the same HTML file. As
> in the case with my website. JavaScripting seems to have more error messages
> pop up in Netscape than in MSIE, in my experience anyways. My java script runs
> fine in MSIE then when I go to view my page in Netscape there are JavaScript
> errors galore. Some of these are simple errors that can be fixed easily, but
> others are doosies.
>
> Well that's my humble opinion!
>
>
Don't blame others for your own errors. If you're not able to write a
correct HTML
it's your problem. Netscape is faaaaar too forgiving. If you'd write
such sh.t in other
languages compiler/interpreter would kill you - and be right.
Jenda
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ms.mff.cuni.cz/~jkry3025
Jeff Zucker
Jan Krynicky wrote:
> ...
> Netscape is faaaaar too forgiving. If you'd write
> such sh.t in other
> languages compiler/interpreter would kill you - and be right.
> ...
Yeah, I agree. Netscrape 3.0 just let me get away with </BR>
interpreting it as a line break, not ignoring it. Another problem
is that they're forgiving until they stop being forgiving - they change
their minds about what they'll forgive and code breaks. The worst one
was when they decided they would handle quotes properly and all the
pages that had gotten by with sloppy <IMG SRC=foo.gif> instead of
<IMG SRC="foo.gif"> started breaking because Netscape changed their mind
and decided they really shouldn't let us get away with that (which is
what they should have decided in the first place).
- Jeff Zucker
jzu...@pspirtone.com
Anders B. Skjønaa/Proventum
Actually, the latest figures tell us that Microsoft Internet Explorer
"only" has about 7% of the market today, and that Netscape will get an even
bigger lead in 97. First in 98' MSIE will really catch up.
Anyway......
As "a pro" developer of web-sites and web-application for large danish
coorperations, I think that everyone should consider very carefully before
writing articles like this one. The browser picture is far more advanced
than this.....
This group - being a JavaScript forum - is probaly more into Netscape, and
that is easy to understand. The JavaScript language is a Netscape thang -
and the latest additions to this very powerful script-language is not
available in MSIE yet. Some of the greatest features is the possibility to
change an image in an HTML-file on-screen. That is without having to load
another file. This gives developers true multimedia possibilities, that has
until now, only been available through Java Applets or Shockwave's (and
some other plug-in techniques)
On the other hand, the MSIE 3.0 has shown some really good stuff, and made
the browser useble for developers - which everyone knows that 2.0 was NOT!
Active X is the first new revolution, and it is truely a powerful tool. But
as one mentioned - it is also a bit more insecure tech than what we
previously have seen. The difference is, that Active X controls (programs)
can write to the client-harddrive, and actually save information on the
client-computer. JAVA has used the disabillity to do that, to promote
itself as a secure language, and that is truely the difference between
these techs.
The things you can do with Active X and Microsofts new Developer Tools is
amazing, and can not be compared with JavaScript. More likely, you could
compare the new VBScript (Visual Basic Script) with JavaScript, and that is
also Mr. Gates's pendant to Netscapes JavaScript.
Personally I stille prefer Netscape. My experience - which expands to some
quite big project - is that Netscape is still faster, but that is not a
factor anymore. The real difference is the functionality and possibilities
in the different browsers, and from where I stand, it is very important
that the difference will be as small as possible.
Neither Microsoft nor Netscape will disappear from the market in the first
years. Therefore to much difference in the two browser will result in a
split between internet users. You could see it as the incompability between
PC's and Mac's. The can talk on a level, but all the great stuff is kept on
the individual platform.
Let's hope that the development of Netscape and Microsoft each going in
different directions will end in 97, so that we will be able to develop to
all internet-users, and not just to the ones that use a specific browser,
or has a specifik plug-in for that sake.
Anders B.Skjoenaa
Graphic Development Eng.
Proventum
Uri Postavsky
Felix H. Lim wrote:
>
> I don't know much about those technical stuffs, but I don't think Netscape
> will last very long... I heard many people prefer Netscape for the best
> browser... but I don't think so. First of all Netscape is too slow. I have
> used both Netscape 3.0 and IE3.0 at school, but Netscape's speed is far
> behind IE3.0. Also I found few problems with Netscape... Like table stuff,
> it doesn't display correctly. Also everything Netscape displays looks
> weird...
The issue here is not the speed or one bug or another. It's the
attitude. Microsoft is a tyrant who wants everyone to depend on him.
That's why they design everything so complicated, with hundreds of APIs,
so they can charge $500/year for the developer's kit + tech support.
They can't stomach the elegant idea that the whole web, including html
and JavaScript, can be programmed by anyone with a text editor, so they
are out to distroy its simplicity with their over complicated Active-X
etc.
By not supporting JavaScript full heartedly, MS certainly weakens
JavaScript's success. Look how much of this groups contains material
about MSIE problems!
I have added the following warning to MSIE users to my site, and I
recommend others in this group to do the same. If users see enough of
these messages when they surf on the web - they will get the message and
switch to NN!
Here is the JavaScript code:
==========================================================
var MSIE = false;
uAgent = navigator.userAgent;
if (uAgent.indexOf("MSIE", 0)>=0)
MSIE = true;
if (MSIE)
alert("You are using Microsoft Internet Explorer! This site works best
with Netscape Nevigator - download it by following the link on this
page.");
===========================================================
>
> Does anyone think MS is trying to dominate Internet? Yeah, I think so. Like
> MS has dominated PC OS business, it will take over the internet.
If this happens, I guess the Internet will end up the same hodge-podge
of kludges that DOS/Windows was...
> You don't
> really have to say anything about it. It is how things are going and you
> gotta follow it, if you can stop MS's way.
What, are we in USSR or China? Sure we have a say in it! Just vote NN
and ask your users to vote the same by including the above code in your
site!
> Will MS be next IBM? I don't
> think so. MS and IBM are different... way different.
Yes, they are different, but they have one thing in common - they both
come up with complicated solutions to simple problems. I still remember
the 20 lines of cryptic JCL (Job Control Language for IBM 370) that were
needed for
something simple like redirecting the output of a program (one line on
Unix).
> Wait... MS might be
> next IBM if Oracle takes over the internet business... Before that, it will
> never happen. Thanks for reading my opinion.
>
> David Johnson <d...@tbe.net> wrote in article <32AB13...@tbe.net>...
> > Ken Bigelow wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > They did a rather poor job of even reverse-engineering the Javascript
> > See also:
> >
> http://home.netscape.com/comprod/products/navigator/version_3.0/building_blo
> cks/examples/js_example/js-java-demo.html
> >
> >
> >
--
----
Uri Postavsky ur...@rtlsoft.com
Right to Left Software http://www.rtlsoft.com
cdr
Another on a long list of Netscape votes. I develop web based business
applications and most companies I do work for request that the software
work on Netscape 2.x+ or Iexplorer 3.x+ so I use both frequently. But
when it comes time to do my surfing, the feel of Netscape is just
'better'. Kinda hard to explain. Sort of like why you go to the same
spot at the beach all the time when there's miles of sand in either
direction. It's familiar, most people surf the web for the first time
on a Netscape browser so their first impressions of what the web should
look like while loading and completed.
I admit, Iexplorer does have some functions which are very useful. But
if your creative and know a little perl, you can output a page based on
the browser being used. I always make a "lowest common denominator"
site without many bells and whistles that will run on any browser
compatable with Netscape 2.x+. I then make modifications to add
'Browser Specific' niceties(sp?) to be added 'on-the-fly' depending on
browser type. So with a little effort I support the majority of the
whole crowd (if your using Lynx with the web still you probably still
use an 'ice box'). The point is that there is always going to be
choices, people like them and if you provide for all choices, people
will like you and your work.
Brian Jonnes
In <01bbeaab$ab844460$5d027018@dave_halupka.ica.net>, "Dave Halupka"
<dave_h...@ica.com> wrote:
>True! How ever Netscape seems to have more problems with HTML coding and
>JavaScript! In my experience, MSIE is more forgiving on HTML errors (not big
>ones) where as Netscape seems to have problems running the same HTML file. As
>in the case with my website. JavaScripting seems to have more error messages
>pop up in Netscape than in MSIE, in my experience anyways. My java script runs
>fine in MSIE then when I go to view my page in Netscape there are JavaScript
>errors galore. Some of these are simple errors that can be fixed easily, but
>others are doosies.
Well - dont blame your errors on the interpreter. MSIE has HUGE problems
with its Javascript - if you do anything a bit more complex than status
manipulation. And errors in HTML - fix them - don't complain about the
browser. Browsers are not SUPPOSED to do anything with broken HTML!
>>I'm just wondering, if, when IE 3.0 is free, anyone would
>>continue to use Netscape. In my opinion, it is far better
>>in more ways than one.
>>I would be interested in hearing other opinions about this.
>>No bash fest, please!
Cause Netscape is also free to the private user. Snippet from the license
agreement:
>---
The evaluation period for use by or on behalf of a
commercial entity is limited to 90 days; evaluation use by others is
not subject to this 90 day limit.
>---
Put that in your pipe and smoke it! Besides MSIE sux to Javascript coders.
Its a pain in the rear.
Cheers,
Brian
Phil Molter
>>True! How ever Netscape seems to have more problems with HTML coding and
>>JavaScript! In my experience, MSIE is more forgiving on HTML errors (not big
>>ones) where as Netscape seems to have problems running the same HTML file.
As
>>in the case with my website. JavaScripting seems to have more error messages
>>pop up in Netscape than in MSIE, in my experience anyways. My java script
runs
>>fine in MSIE then when I go to view my page in Netscape there are JavaScript
>>errors galore. Some of these are simple errors that can be fixed easily, but
>>others are doosies.
>
>Wow, you really think so? A few examples would definitely have helped
>your argument. I've had way more problems with HTML boo-boos in MSIE
>than I have had in Netscape. One of the instances I remember is when
>you accidentally throw in an extra <FORM> tag before your actual one.
>Or when you have <address>blah blah</address>, everything following it
>is still italisized (well, that's just a pure implementation error on
>MS's part). I know, those are pretty picky and avoidable if known, but
>I just wanted to show that Netscape is actually better at handling
>HTML in some cases.
Netscape will ignore some errors that MSIE picks out and MSIE will ignore
errors that Netscape picks out. Personally, I find MSIE to be a much more
forgiving browser when it comes to reading the source, which is why I prefer
Netscape. Netscape adheres to the standards a bit more tightly than does MSIE,
which makes it better for testing web pages and producing a cleaner document.
e.g. Tables
Forget a </table> in Netscape, and the page will be displayed as a blank page.
Forget the same tag in MSIE, and your page shows up beautifully. More than
one time, my site has been edited haphazardly by young techs and this has
happened (because they insist on using MSIE to check things). An extra form
tag producing an error is nothing compared to an entire web page disappearing.
>It is even harder to compare Netscape's implementation of JavaScript
>to MSIE's reverse-engineered, half-hearted, feeble, and pathetic
>attempt at the same thing they call JScript. They are two completely
>different things. If you write your code to the JScript specification,
>of course MSIE will interpret it with a smile, but that is just
>because MS didn't copy Netscape's JavaScript 1.0 specs very precisely,
>therefore some of its code is purely JScript and of course JavaScript
>will choke on it. It's like writing programs for a reverse-engineered
>clone CPU and expecting them to run on the chip that it was modeled
>after-- good luck.
Netscape's not so great with JavaScript either. MSIE's JScript is crap,
everyone knows that, but Netscape's not helping things any by changing the
JavaScript implementations between versions. They could easily have provided a
JS 1.1 upgrade for 2.0 users and their implementation of such 1.1 niceties as
the image index seems to have changed again in the new 4.0 (holding judgment
here since it's only beta 1). Netscape needs to synchronize their own efforts
if they want JavaScript to become truly universal. I don't mind scripting out
MSIE, but when you have to script out separate versions of Netscape as well,
then it gets to be a bit troubling.
>MS is famous for reinventing the wheel. Win95 is just a Mac with a
>little bit of OS/2, accented with a bunch of MS logos-- just like MSIE
>is a regurgitation of Netscape (especially true with JavaScript) with
>a little better appearance to attract the novices and error messages
>that pop up way too frequently that us JavaScripters have learned to
>love.
The differences between MSIE and Netscape's JS implementations are well-known.
If you don't like the errors, just write the script to make MSIE not do it.
>Stupid Joke:
>Q: Why do computer programmers get Christmas and Halloween Mixed up?
>A: Because OCT(31) = DEC(25)
Creative.
Phil Molter
Webmaster, Texas Networking, Inc.
http://www.texas.net
Lahaye Olivier
For my part, I think that MSIE3.01 is realy more stable than
Netscape 3.0. Moreover, MSIE3.0 has a good HTML 3.2 support
(IMG ALIGN=middle, Frame clipping, pictures in table,...) which
nescape hasn't.
Finaly Netscape has a lot of javascript problems.
try this under Netscape 3.0 UNIX and go to another page: core dumped.
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Title</TITLE>
<SCRIPT Language="JavaScript">
function EffaceParam() {
document.formulaire.foo.value = "";
}
</SCRIPT>
</HEAD>
<BODY onUnload="EffaceParam()">
<FORM NAME="formulaire" ACTION="none" METHOD="post">
The bug:<INPUT TYPE="text" name="foo">
</FORM>
</BODY>
</HTML>
(It is the las I've found (and reported), but there are more which
I can't trap, because I loose the faulty URL).
Since it's an old application, netscape should be stable.
MSIE is younger and more stable why?
What about purify and Insure++ ?
I don't like MS marketing, but I must admit that MSIE 3.01 is a
good browser.
Trebor A. Rude
On 26 Dec 1996 17:58:47 +0100, Lahaye Olivier <olivier...@cea.fr>
wrote:
>
>For my part, I think that MSIE3.01 is realy more stable than
>Netscape 3.0. Moreover, MSIE3.0 has a good HTML 3.2 support
>(IMG ALIGN=middle, Frame clipping, pictures in table,...) which
>nescape hasn't.
>
>Finaly Netscape has a lot of javascript problems.
>try this under Netscape 3.0 UNIX and go to another page: core dumped.
Try ANYTHING under M$IE for UNIX and what do you get?
NOTHING! Because M$IE isn't made for UNIX. One of the many reasons I
now use and will always use Netscape.
As for JavaScript implementations, what have you been smoking?
M$IE doesn't support JavaScript half as well as they think they do,
and JScript is a joke. Microsoft just couldn't let someone else be
the leader in any software area, and had to try to do their own thing
with JScript, instead of following the Netscape standard like they
should have (perhaps Netscape doesn't have an "official" standard, but
they premiered the technology, so they have the de-facto standard).
Microsoft's JScript is about at the level of Netscape 2.0's
JavaScript, and no where near Netscape 3.0's implementation. Most
every serious JavaScript developer I've seen post on the subject has
said that Netscape is the way to go, and M$IE is something to support
when you have time to spare. I agree wholeheartedly.
And don't even get me started on M$IE's Active X controls...
>I don't like MS marketing, but I must admit that MSIE 3.01 is a
>good browser.
Good browser? Perhaps. But Netscape is a GREAT browser. Both
browsers are installed on this system, and I have used both, and I by
far prefer Netscape.
--
<*> Trebor A. Rude <*>
<*> tre...@mnsinc.com <*>
<*> Visit my "Favorite Quotes From Babylon 5" web site at: <*>
<*> http://www.mnsinc.com/ruder/b5 (Netscape 3.0) <*>
<*> http://www.mnsinc.com/ruder/b5/non_js_index.html (All Others) <*>
Nathan Moinvaziri
RIGHT ON!!
GIVE IT TO HIM!!!!
Michael
In article <32c45177....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, tre...@mnsinc.com
(Trebor A. Rude) wrote:
[snip]
> Good browser? Perhaps. But Netscape is a GREAT browser. Both
> browsers are installed on this system, and I have used both, and I by
> far prefer Netscape.
I do as well, but I really ache for more control over the display, and more
information. For example, I'd like to know the dimensions and depth of the
window my pages are being loaded into.
--
Visit The SIlent Universe, Version 2
http://users.deltanet.com/~mjholmes
Opens early 1997.
Trebor A. Rude
Understand and agree about the more information. I too would like to
know the dimensions of the browser window (meaning the part the pages
are loaded into, not including the buttons, URL display, status bar,
etc.). They would have to be read-only, of course, to prevent jerks
from trying to re-size the browser to unusable dimensions. You
shouldn't have that much control over the client computer anyway
(despite what Micro$haft thinks).
As for 'more control', what do you mean? Like I said above, you
shouldn't have control over anything that's supposed to be controlled
by the OS or window manager (such as window sizes, and access to local
files). But, that hardly covers everything. Personally, I'd like to
see control over which type of font (variable- or mono-spaced) is used
in text inputs, text area, selection boxes, etc. I'd also like to see
onMouseOver event handlers for every HTML tag that produces a visible
element on the screen (namely, the form input types, so I could attach
an onMouseOver to a button in order to change the status bar and
explain what the button does, for example). What about you? What
would you like to see?
Roger Musson
Trebor A. Rude wrote:
[bigSnip]
>..... What about you? What would you like to see?
A table object (readOnly)
<table name="myTable")
myVar=myTable.cellContents(row,col)
--
Roger Musson
Trebor A. Rude
On Sat, 28 Dec 1996 20:15:36 GMT, h...@netcomuk.co.uk (Roger Musson)
wrote:
That would be nice, but difficult. Since a table cell can contain
multiple things, that function would have return an array of mixed
types. So, you'd end up having to guess (or count very carefully)
which array element each item of the cell lands in, so that you'd know
which methods were legal. Not to mention JavaScript has never had a
way to access things that don't correspond to HTML tags, such as plain
text.
Possibly useful, however, would be info on the table itself. Number
of rows/columns, the dimensions of a particular cell, etc.
Roger Musson
Trebor A. Rude wrote:
>>>..... What about you? What would you like to see?
>>
>>A table object (readOnly)
>><table name="myTable")
>>
>>myVar=myTable.cellContents(row,col)
>That would be nice, but difficult. Since a table cell can contain
>multiple things, that function would have return an array of mixed
>types. So, you'd end up having to guess (or count very carefully)
>which array element each item of the cell lands in, so that you'd know
>which methods were legal. Not to mention JavaScript has never had a
>way to access things that don't correspond to HTML tags, such as plain
>text.
Keep it simple, I just need to know the plain text between the <td>
.. </td> tags. You will only be interogating tables created by
yourself so you'd know what to expect. The purpose off all this is for
me to maintain a simple database that other pages (I create) can read.
Another "what would I like to see":
A follow up post to my post "window resizing causes reload problem" 26
Dec 96
--
Roger Musson
Trebor A. Rude
explain what the button does, for example). What about you? What
would you like to see?
--
Roger Musson
Trebor A. Rude wrote:
[bigSnip]
>..... What about you? What would you like to see?
A table object (readOnly)
<table name="myTable")
myVar=myTable.cellContents(row,col)
--
Roger Musson
Trebor A. Rude
>Trebor A. Rude wrote:
That would be nice, but difficult. Since a table cell can contain
multiple things, that function would have return an array of mixed
types. So, you'd end up having to guess (or count very carefully)
which array element each item of the cell lands in, so that you'd know
which methods were legal. Not to mention JavaScript has never had a
way to access things that don't correspond to HTML tags, such as plain
text.
Possibly useful, however, would be info on the table itself. Number
of rows/columns, the dimensions of a particular cell, etc.
--
Michael
In article <32c563d3...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, tre...@mnsinc.com
(Trebor A. Rude) wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Dec 1996 22:54:09 -0800,
> mjho...@zzzNOzzzSPAMzzzDELETEzzzTHISzzz.deltanet.com (Michael) wrote:
>
> >In article <32c45177....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, tre...@mnsinc.com
> >(Trebor A. Rude) wrote:
> >[snip]
> >
> >> Good browser? Perhaps. But Netscape is a GREAT browser. Both
> >> browsers are installed on this system, and I have used both, and I by
> >> far prefer Netscape.
> >
> >I do as well, but I really ache for more control over the display, and more
> >information. For example, I'd like to know the dimensions and depth of the
> >window my pages are being loaded into.
>
> Understand and agree about the more information. I too would like to
> know the dimensions of the browser window (meaning the part the pages
> are loaded into, not including the buttons, URL display, status bar,
> etc.). They would have to be read-only, of course, to prevent jerks
> from trying to re-size the browser to unusable dimensions. You
> shouldn't have that much control over the client computer anyway
> (despite what Micro$haft thinks).
I just open a new window to my dimensions and get rid of all the clutter. I
always thought the big buttons up top gave it a My First Browser look. ;-)
> As for 'more control', what do you mean? Like I said above, you
> shouldn't have control over anything that's supposed to be controlled
> by the OS or window manager (such as window sizes, and access to local
> files). But, that hardly covers everything. Personally, I'd like to
> see control over which type of font (variable- or mono-spaced) is used
> in text inputs, text area, selection boxes, etc. I'd also like to see
> onMouseOver event handlers for every HTML tag that produces a visible
> element on the screen (namely, the form input types, so I could attach
> an onMouseOver to a button in order to change the status bar and
> explain what the button does, for example). What about you? What
> would you like to see?
Actually, my dream is something to give me Pagemaker-like control over page
displays. I could load in the graphics and then place them at (x,y)
coordinates. Affecting pages after they have been loaded is what I'm after.
I want to treat the page like a bitmap and plot things. I think all these
things could be added to Javascript.