download.com Negative comments digest
Gunnartist
look at some of the feedback...
I think we should take these comments into consideration to make Mozilla
a better browser/experience.
=========================
There were 8 proper negatve :-( comments (and 61 positive :-) comments):
Comment 1:
"Netscape Knock off"
Iti s just netscape under the mozilla name. How about a browser that
isn't tied to AOL or Microsoft. If you like netscape you will like this.
I don't like Netscape and hated. Graphics were fuzzy in the browser.
Comment 2:
"Mozilla needs a powerful UPDATE....."
I've just downloaded this browser that has no uninstaller and poor
stability. Recommended for FAST COMPUTERS. Can't wait for Mozilla 2.0
BETA UPGRADE!
Comment 3:
"still needs work but has promise"
I like the way it loads and it's speed and looks but you need a ton of
pulgins to make it work. It has a nice comfortable look and is well
orginized but that is about it. It also will not handle Java very well
even with the plugin provided. Has a tendency to lock up on chat sites
and sites with java amplets involved. Needs to blend in with the windows
enviroment a little better. The requirement to reinstall plugins that
are already on the system such as shockwave and media player 7.1 Or
quick time is nothing more than redundent at best. It should be able to
detect and incorperate exhisting plugins and programs and use them with
out having to add them to it's program. All in all as far as first time
out of the box I'll give it a six on a one to ten.
Comment 4:
"Wait for future version"
Many problems rendering pages. Inconsistency with Flash files. Won't
play music with <embed>. Some probs with JavaScripts. Brave try but more
to be done. Might stick with IE, Netscape & Opera for now.
Comment 5:
"no uninstaller..."
there is no uninstaller for this version... so be careful if u want to
install this browser... can anyone can help /?
Comment 6:
"Its JUST Netscape"
This program is none other than netscape... No better no worse...I would
not recommend this cause I hate netscape...
Comment 7:
"Horrible"
What self respecting company would come out with a possible alternative
to IE that looks so horrible?
Comment 8:
"Slower than Opera"
=========================
So there we have it...
On a good note though, yesterday there had been 3,000 downloads whereas
today there were nearly 30,000.
'Browser Wars II' here we come :-P
Soeren Nils Kuklau
> Comment 1:
> "Netscape Knock off"
> Iti s just netscape under the mozilla name. How about a browser that
> isn't tied to AOL or Microsoft. If you like netscape you will like this.
> I don't like Netscape and hated. Graphics were fuzzy in the browser.
==> Moron. There are themes, and it's not a rip off.
> Comment 2:
> "Mozilla needs a powerful UPDATE....."
> I've just downloaded this browser that has no uninstaller and poor
> stability. Recommended for FAST COMPUTERS. Can't wait for Mozilla 2.0
> BETA UPGRADE!
==> Moron. There is an uninstaller, it's quite stable, system
requirements are given, and there won't be a "beta upgrade".
> Comment 3:
> "still needs work but has promise"
> I like the way it loads and it's speed and looks but you need a ton of
> pulgins to make it work. It has a nice comfortable look and is well
> orginized but that is about it.
Okay.
> It also will not handle Java very well
> even with the plugin provided.
Ah yeah?
> Has a tendency to lock up on chat sites
> and sites with java amplets involved.
Probably the fault of those sites.
> Needs to blend in with the windows
> enviroment a little better.
That won't happen.
> The requirement to reinstall plugins that
> are already on the system such as shockwave and media player 7.1 Or
> quick time is nothing more than redundent at best.
Maybe.
> It should be able to
> detect and incorperate exhisting plugins and programs and use them with
> out having to add them to it's program.
That should actually work, I think.
> All in all as far as first time
> out of the box I'll give it a six on a one to ten.
Not bad.
> Comment 4:
> "Wait for future version"
> Many problems rendering pages. Inconsistency with Flash files. Won't
> play music with <embed>. Some probs with JavaScripts. Brave try but more
> to be done. Might stick with IE, Netscape & Opera for now.
Mostly the fault of the sites.
> Comment 5:
> "no uninstaller..."
> there is no uninstaller for this version... so be careful if u want to
> install this browser... can anyone can help /?
Yes there is ;-)
> Comment 6:
> "Its JUST Netscape"
> This program is none other than netscape... No better no worse...I would
> not recommend this cause I hate netscape...
Moron.
> Comment 7:
> "Horrible"
> What self respecting company would come out with a possible alternative
> to IE that looks so horrible?
Moron.
> Comment 8:
> "Slower than Opera"
Moron ;-)
--
Regards,
Sören Nils Kuklau ('Chucker')
chu...@web.de
Jonas Jørgensen
>> Has a tendency to lock up on chat sites
>> and sites with java amplets involved.
>
> Probably the fault of those sites.
A browser should never hang no matter how bad sites are coded.
>> Needs to blend in with the windows
>> enviroment a little better.
>
> That won't happen.
It should.
>> Comment 6:
>> "Its JUST Netscape"
>> This program is none other than netscape... No better no worse...I would
>> not recommend this cause I hate netscape...
>
> Moron.
Indeed.
>> Comment 7:
>> "Horrible"
>> What self respecting company would come out with a possible alternative
>> to IE that looks so horrible?
>
> Moron.
Well, the classic theme doesn't look like a native Windows app, right?
It should, right?
/Jonas
--
Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is,
of course, in a state of sin.
- John Von Neumann, 1951
Henri Sivonen
Jonas Jørgensen <jon...@jonasj.dk> wrote:
> Well, the classic theme doesn't look like a native Windows app, right?
> It should, right?
On Windows XP, I think the most visible problems with the Classic theme
are:
* The toolbar icons are rather ugly and old-fashioned. They don't look
like Windows XP icons.
* The hover effect on the menubar is wrong. (Yes, there's a Bugzilla
item.)
(What's the deal with the uninstaller complains? Mozilla supports
uninstalling via Add/Remove Programs like any well-behaved Windows app
should.)
--
Henri Sivonen
hsiv...@niksula.hut.fi
http://www.hut.fi/u/hsivonen/
Soeren Nils Kuklau
> Soeren Nils Kuklau wrote:
>>> Has a tendency to lock up on chat sites and sites with java amplets
>>> involved.
>> Probably the fault of those sites.
> A browser should never hang no matter how bad sites are coded.
Point taken.
>>> Needs to blend in with the windows enviroment a little better.
>> That won't happen.
> It should.
Well, it's Mozilla's aim to be platform-independent (as much as
possible). There is K-Meleon, Chimera or Galeon if you want a native
look and feel.
>>> Comment 7:
>>> "Horrible"
>>> What self respecting company would come out with a possible
>>> alternative to IE that looks so horrible?
>> Moron.
> Well, the classic theme doesn't look like a native Windows app, right?
Last time I used it (which coincidentally is yesterday; I usually
*never* use it), it looked *quite* like a native Windows app. Plus if
you use Windows' Themes (only XP has the Theme Manager though), you get
their widgets, too. Works on Mac OS X and GTK as well.
> It should, right?
Good question. Should it? Was this ever clearly defined?
Jonas Jørgensen
>>>> Needs to blend in with the windows enviroment a little better.
>>> That won't happen.
>> It should.
> Well, it's Mozilla's aim to be platform-independent (as much as
> possible).
Sure, but platform independency does not necessarily exclude a native
look and feel.
>>>> Comment 7:
>>>> "Horrible"
>>>> What self respecting company would come out with a possible
>>>> alternative to IE that looks so horrible?
>>>
>>> Moron.
>>
>> Well, the classic theme doesn't look like a native Windows app, right?
>
> Last time I used it (which coincidentally is yesterday; I usually
> *never* use it),
What a coincidence; I usually *always* use classic but I was using
modern only earlier today :-)
> it looked *quite* like a native Windows app.
I dunno... there's something about the toolbars which makes them seem
kinda unnative in some way, though I can't quite put my finger on it.
>> It should, right?
>
> Good question. Should it? Was this ever clearly defined?
I don't know.
/Jonas
--
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby
can't chew it.
- Mark Twain
Henri Sivonen
Soeren Nils Kuklau <chu...@web.de> wrote:
> Well, it's Mozilla's aim to be platform-independent (as much as
> possible).
It is supposed to be portable. Failing to feel native doesn't do any
good.
Scott I. Remick
> > Well, the classic theme doesn't look like a native Windows app, right?
>
> Last time I used it (which coincidentally is yesterday; I usually
> *never* use it), it looked *quite* like a native Windows app. Plus if
> you use Windows' Themes (only XP has the Theme Manager though), you get
> their widgets, too. Works on Mac OS X and GTK as well.
Something I've been thinking about for a while... isn't the point of
"Classic" to appeal to those who liked the old NS 4.x look? Hence the
name? I feel there is room for a 3rd more properly named "Native" or
"OS" theme for the one that uses native widgets and looks like the OS.
Arron
wrote:
>(What's the deal with the uninstaller complains? Mozilla supports
>uninstalling via Add/Remove Programs like any well-behaved Windows app
>should.)
Look at the download.com page for Mozilla, right underneath minumum
requirements, it says "Uninstaller included?: No". I bet people are
basing it off of that. I imagine even a few aren't even downloading it
because of that statement!
-Arron
Soeren Nils Kuklau
> Soeren Nils Kuklau wrote:
>> Well, it's Mozilla's aim to be platform-independent (as much as
>> possible).
> Sure, but platform independency does not necessarily exclude a native
> look and feel.
Of course not, and I would actually prefer Mozilla to have a native
interface (though in that case, nobody would have ever bothered to
create XUL, which is a... umm... nice thing to have), but isn't it a lot
more work? Mozilla runs on lots of platforms (hmm... Windows 9x, NT, Mac
OS 9, X, BeOS-x86, QNX-x86, Linux-x86, Linux-ppc, FreeBSD-x86, OS/2, and
so on.), and creating native interfaces (and I mean *really* native
interfaces, that is, by adhering to each OS's interface guidelines) can
be a lot of work (though undoubtedly worth the effort).
>> Last time I used it (which coincidentally is yesterday; I usually
>> *never* use it),
> What a coincidence; I usually *always* use classic but I was using
> modern only earlier today :-)
:-)
>> it looked *quite* like a native Windows app.
> I dunno... there's something about the toolbars which makes them seem
> kinda unnative in some way, though I can't quite put my finger on it.
It's probably the icons which look a bit "20th century". But that's how
they're supposed to look like; classic was made to emulate the Netscape
4 (hence classic) look and feel, and not a native one.
>>> It should, right?
>> Good question. Should it? Was this ever clearly defined?
> I don't know.
I seem to recall that I read an entry in mpt's blog earlier where he
quoted someone claiming that platform-independent GUIs such as XUL or
wXwindows or GTK or whatever would be a bad idea by design, because no
matter what OS you're on, it never feels native and thus never comfortable.
Whoever that person was, he or she was quite right about this. I've seen
lots of complaints from Mac OS users saying that form controls were ugly
because they "look like Windows". I never used Mozilla on Mac OS yet
since my old Mac is *too* old and my new Mac is yet to be bought. But
assuming that form controls look on Mac OS Mozilla exactly or at least
similarly to what they look like on Win32, I do understand why they
consider it ugly.
If you want an app to look exactly the same on all platforms, you
*cannot* make it adhere to all guidelines documents at once. If you want
to adhere to *some*, then there will be differences in the look and
feel. So there are always compromises.
s.m. koppelman
> (What's the deal with the uninstaller complains? Mozilla supports
> uninstalling via Add/Remove Programs like any well-behaved Windows app
> should.)
>
Could be (as mentioned in the above reply) that the download.com listing
still says there's still no uninstaller included. There wasn't one back
in the M* release days when Mozilla snapshots were distributed as a
plain zip file with no installer.
It could also be because there's no uninstall/setup icon in the Windows
program group. Some Windows apps have them, some don't. I tend to think
they're unnecessary when an entry is available in the Add/Remove
Programs control panel, but I'm a power user. It can't hurt to be
open-minded and see if it emerges as a recurring complaint on support
forums.
-sk
John Levon
> Comment 2:
> "Mozilla needs a powerful UPDATE....."
> I've just downloaded this browser that has no uninstaller and poor
> stability. Recommended for FAST COMPUTERS. Can't wait for Mozilla 2.0
> BETA UPGRADE!
The zippy fortune filter downloaded Mozilla ?
john
Henri Sivonen
Scott I. Remick <a...@me.com> wrote:
> Something I've been thinking about for a while... isn't the point of
> "Classic" to appeal to those who liked the old NS 4.x look? Hence the
> name?
Not really.
Classic for Windows and Mac OS 8 and 9 was created when Mozilla came
only with the Modern 1 theme. (The current Modern is Modern 3.) The user
experience group (if I understood correctly) at Netscape wanted to keep
Modern 1, but many non-Netscape Mozilla testers thought that it was bad
that Modern 1 was non-native-looking and ugly. So the main point of
Classic was to come up with something more native-looking and less ugly
for Windows and Mac OS 8 & 9. The GTK version ended up getting the
Windows version of Classic--probably only because no one stepped up to
create a version matching the GTK default theme.
The icons were taken from Netscape 4.x because those icons happened to
be available. It is not easy to find someone who would be willing to
produce a new icon set not only for the browser but for Mail&News and
Composer, too.
Jonas Jørgensen
> Something I've been thinking about for a while... isn't the point of
> "Classic" to appeal to those who liked the old NS 4.x look? Hence the
> name? I feel there is room for a 3rd more properly named "Native" or
> "OS" theme for the one that uses native widgets and looks like the OS.
See the recent thread 'Replace the "Classic" theme with a native looking
"Modern" theme' in netscape.public.mozilla.ui.
/Jonas
--
Q: Will the virus impact my Macintosh if I am using a non-Microsoft
e-mail program, such as Eudora? A: If you are using an [sic!] Macintosh
e-mail program that is not from Microsoft, we recommend checking with
that particular company. But most likely other e-mail programs like
Eudora are not designed to enable virus replication.
- http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/office/2001/virus_alert.asp