Why is Internet Explorer so bad?

[corvette]

Why is it just dog slow?
Why is every single windows browser better?

Why is even mozilla faster?

I hate microsoft :)

[EmAn]

With the exception of Java stuff, I don't have any problems with IE 5.1.

[Brad]

It's not.
Windows is better than MacOS for web browsing. :p
Well, only marginally faster.

You must have something wrong with your computer or it must just be old if you think IE is so slow... that is, unless you are comparing it to a fairly new PC running IE. IE on my Mac is just snappy. ;)

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>

[corvette]

That's strange. I've got a g4 533 digital audio with a 1.5mbps cable modem.

10.1.1 with sosumi.

[Jonathan]

IE5.1 is a shitty piece of software.

Maybe i'd like it if it A. used native aqua interface elements, b. used quartz AA, C. didn't not render half of th epages on the web...

[applenut]

[quote]Originally posted by starfleetX:
<strong>It's not.
Windows is better than MacOS for web browsing. :p
Well, only marginally faster.

You must have something wrong with your computer or it must just be old if you think IE is so slow... that is, unless you are comparing it to a fairly new PC running IE. IE on my Mac is just snappy. ;)

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

oh come on... IE for the mac is crap compared to the windows version. it has a few nicer features and supposedly is more compatible but the speed and responsiveness sucks. rendering speed is horrible and it doesn't take advantage of any OS X specific features such as sheets, quartz, etc.

[corvette]

For the past day I have been using mozilla 0.9.6..

The rendering speed is VERY fast. Try loading versiontracker with explorer and then try it with mozilla. wow. Also mozilla lets you change the speed of the scrollwheel which is really cool.

The only drawback is that mozilla uses it's own themes instead of using osx's extra.rscr file.

Then sosumi would work for mozilla too! :p
Maybe sinewave should make a sosumi theme for netscape.. :cool:

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by corvette:
<strong>That's strange. I've got a g4 533 digital audio with a 1.5mbps cable modem.

10.1.1 with sosumi.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think sosumi would effect your web browsing speed :)

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>

oh come on... IE for the mac is crap compared to the windows version. it has a few nicer features and supposedly is more compatible but the speed and responsiveness sucks. rendering speed is horrible and it doesn't take advantage of any OS X specific features such as sheets, quartz, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Carbon apps so far can't use Quartz for text rendering. That is why Omniweb is the only browser that does so. Have you tried any of the Sneaky Peek versions of Omniweb 4.1?

<a href="http://www.omnigroup.com/ftp/pub/outgoing/sneakypeek/" target="_blank">http://www.omnigroup.com/ftp/pub/outgoing/sneakypeek/</a>

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by corvette:
<strong>For the past day I have been using mozilla 0.9.6..

The rendering speed is VERY fast. Try loading versiontracker with explorer and then try it with mozilla. wow. Also mozilla lets you change the speed of the scrollwheel which is really cool.

The only drawback is that mozilla uses it's own themes instead of using osx's extra.rscr file.

Then sosumi would work for mozilla too! :p
Maybe sinewave should make a sosumi theme for netscape.. :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Not sure how Netscape makes themes.. where is the documentation for this?

[applenut]

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>

Carbon apps so far can't use Quartz for text rendering. That is why Omniweb is the only browser that does so. Have you tried any of the Sneaky Peek versions of Omniweb 4.1?

<a href="http://www.omnigroup.com/ftp/pub/outgoing/sneakypeek/" target="_blank">http://www.omnigroup.com/ftp/pub/outgoing/sneakypeek/</a></strong><hr></blockquote>


but Office uses quartz for text rendering in certain parts and is all carbon.

have tried a few sneakypeaks. nothing special. try to like omniweb but it just annoys me too often in its shortcomings

[Jonathan]

Office pisses me off too - in lieu of Quickdraw AA in the main workspaces, it uses _NONE_. Therefore, the change from quartz AA to none = quite drastic and ugly.

Also, the platinum controls in web pages in IE5 = UGH

[corvette]

Have you guys tried out Euntorage v.x yet?

It looks very windowx xpish. It is going to take some time before I get used to this app. It looks very bloated but the calendar looks very nice.

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>


but Office uses quartz for text rendering in certain parts and is all carbon.<hr></blockquote></strong>
In Window dialogs it can use Quartz. For text you type out it can't
<strong> [quote]
have tried a few sneakypeaks. nothing special. try to like omniweb but it just annoys me too often in its shortcomings</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seems lots of things "annoy" you too much.
Why don't you email omniweb over and over again and bitch and complain and DEMAND them to change the annoying parts just to suit you? :)

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>

[applenut]

[quote]In Window dialogs it can use Quartz. For text you type out it can't<hr></blockquote>

and the reason behind this is? I don't understand why Excel would be able to use antialiased graphics but word would not be able to use text.

[quote]Seems lots of things "annoy" you too much.
Why don't you email omniweb over and over again and bitch and complain and DEMAND them to change the annoying parts just to suit you? <hr></blockquote>

how about no. they are working on them and are open to changes and suggestions unlike some other places I know.

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>
and the reason behind this is? I don't understand why Excel would be able to use antialiased graphics but word would not be able to use text.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not supported in Carbon. Carbon can't directly access Quartz yet. BUT I HAVE heard that there is a hack you COULD use through QuickDraw to do this. But it is buggy and doesn't provide consistent results.

[Jonathan]

What bout the finder, Sinewave?

That's carbon, and it accesses Quartz. Oh, so does iTunes2 - notice that now, in the "search" field, when you input text, it's antialiased by Quartz...

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by Jonathan:
<strong>What bout the finder, Sinewave?

That's carbon, and it accesses Quartz. Oh, so does iTunes2 - notice that now, in the "search" field, when you input text, it's antialiased by Quartz...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ok.. I just asked some one that is a part of the Finder team about this.. Apple hacks quickdraw to use quartz to render text. It's a hack.

[applenut]

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
It's not supported in Carbon. Carbon can't directly access Quartz yet. BUT I HAVE heard that there is a hack you COULD use through QuickDraw to do this. But it is buggy and doesn't provide consistent results.</strong><hr></blockquote>

don't mean to bug you if you don't know the answer but that just doesn't make sense.

as shwn several apps such as iTunes and the Finder do have quartz rendering for inputed text, there is quartz rendering for graphics, etc. and isn't quartz rendering being implemented into go live and is in illustrator?

[Brad]

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>Ok.. I just asked some one that is a part of the Finder team about this.. Apple hacks quickdraw to use quartz to render text. It's a hack.</strong><hr></blockquote> :rolleyes: Okay, you asked someone on the "Finder team" about this? How believable does that sound?

For CoreGraphics, the default for Carbon apps is to retain the old-style OS9-era font smoothing. The newer AA is certainly available, but is not the default because Carbon apps were expected to be the "bridge crossing" apps that would work in both OS9 and OSX. Several new Carbon apps like the Finder, iTunes, and Snapz (many others I'm sure, but I'm not at my X machine now) have been written to properly take advantage of AA. IE and Office v.X are just examples of shoddy, poorly-coded ports.

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>

[Jonathan]

Not necessarily shoddy... just not all the way to where they should be.

Maybe someday...

[Brad]

Okay okay, not shoddy, :p ;) , but certainly not up to the standards that OS X users expect.

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by starfleetX:
<strong> :rolleyes: Okay, you asked someone on the "Finder team" about this? How believable does that sound?

For CoreGraphics, the default for Carbon apps is to retain the old-style OS9-era font smoothing. The newer AA is certainly available, but is not the default because Carbon apps were expected to be the "bridge crossing" apps that would work in both OS9 and OSX. Several new Carbon apps like the Finder, iTunes, and Snapz (many others I'm sure, but I'm not at my X machine now) have been written to properly take advantage of AA. IE and Office v.X are just examples of shoddy, poorly-coded ports.

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hey..I was just posted what I was told. And yes he DOES work in the Finder Team. Browse has been known to talk shit just to talk shit.

Or Apple really did it that way. Which is probably the case.

[artenman]

[quote]Originally posted by corvette:
<strong>Have you guys tried out Euntorage v.x yet?

It looks very windowx xpish. It is going to take some time before I get used to this app. It looks very bloated but the calendar looks very nice.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I've been using Office v.X and let me get a zip a of water for this........ehem....... IT SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!

It's the same bullshit as Office for Mac OS, I can't believe this piece of crap. It isn't worth your money. Don't WAIST YOUR MONEY! Entourage doesn't import from Apple's Mail program for instance. And Entourage is the only Application out of Office that does live resizing, and the live resizing sucks. It is very sluggish! From there on, sheets is pretty much the only new thing and the use of Quartz.

Folks, don't waste your money on this crap. Wait for a later release. :mad:

[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: artenman ]</p>

[artenman]

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>

don't mean to bug you if you don't know the answer but that just doesn't make sense.

as shwn several apps such as iTunes and the Finder do have quartz rendering for inputed text, there is quartz rendering for graphics, etc. and isn't quartz rendering being implemented into go live and is in illustrator?</strong><hr></blockquote>

That is so true, you should use Illustrator, beautiful program when in Aqua, and it's carbon. Very very nice. I give Illustrator 10 a 10!
I've been using GoLive for OS X as well, and it uses Quartz as well, like Illustrator. Adobe is working hard on these programs. Golive is using many of the technologies Mac OS X offers.

[catalyst]

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>

Carbon apps so far can't use Quartz for text rendering. That is why Omniweb is the only browser that does so. Have you tried any of the Sneaky Peek versions of Omniweb 4.1?

<a href="http://www.omnigroup.com/ftp/pub/outgoing/sneakypeek/" target="_blank">http://www.omnigroup.com/ftp/pub/outgoing/sneakypeek/</a></strong><hr></blockquote>

Carbon applications can use Quartz. In fact, Carbon applications are supposed to use Quartz and Unicode for all text.

[The Toolboi]

IE5 for mac is the best! Do you have any idea how much better it is than the windows equivilent? Hell, IE6 for windows is just approaching on what IE5 for mac is like.

Now Opera, that rules...

[Jonathan]

It's a question of keeping 9 compatibility with your carbon apps. But, seeing as Office X and IE 5.1 are both x-only, they have no excuse for not using Quartz and Unicode.


Stupid Microshaft....

[JLL]

[quote]Originally posted by artenman:
<strong>

That is so true, you should use Illustrator, beautiful program when in Aqua, and it's carbon. Very very nice. I give Illustrator 10 a 10!
I've been using GoLive for OS X as well, and it uses Quartz as well, like Illustrator. Adobe is working hard on these programs. Golive is using many of the technologies Mac OS X offers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Are you sure that Adobe apps use Quartz and not Adobe's own engine that they have been using for years?

Acrobat Reader doesn't use Quartz.

[JLL]

[quote]Originally posted by The Toolboi:
<strong>IE5 for mac is the best! Do you have any idea how much better it is than the windows equivilent? Hell, IE6 for windows is just approaching on what IE5 for mac is like.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Speed my friend - speed!

[EmAn]

Late last night I downloaded the OmniWeb 4.1 Sneaky Peak and I can't believe it's actualy a lot better than IE 5.1. I don't know if I'll use it full time, but right now I'm using OmniWeb and loving it. Before 4.1 I couldn't stand OmniWeb, but my mind has totally been changed.

[catalyst]

[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

Are you sure that Adobe apps use Quartz and not Adobe's own engine that they have been using for years?

Acrobat Reader doesn't use Quartz.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Acrobat Reader uses the Multilingual Text Engine, kind of a superset of Apple Type Services for Unicode Imaging, both of which automatically use get Quartz for free.

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>Late last night I downloaded the OmniWeb 4.1 Sneaky Peak and I can't believe it's actualy a lot better than IE 5.1. I don't know if I'll use it full time, but right now I'm using OmniWeb and loving it. Before 4.1 I couldn't stand OmniWeb, but my mind has totally been changed.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yup 4.1 is a BIG leap.

[groverat]

[quote]Originally posted by The Toolboi:
<strong>Hell, IE6 for windows is just approaching on what IE5 for mac is like.</strong><hr></blockquote>

*falls over laughing*

*is unable to stop, asphyxia sets in*

*dies*

I wish Windows had an OmniWeb-esque super-pretty browser, but. . . that's just. . . wow.

:D

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
I wish Windows had an OmniWeb-esque super-pretty browser, but. . . that's just. . . wow.

:D </strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually what makes Omniweb pretty is it's use of Quartz rendering. I believe IE 6 can do the same type of text rendering. (well almost) I've seen screenshots. Looks nice.

[groverat]

Using TrueType or whatever, perhaps.

I know *why* Omniweb looks pretty, you silly guy.

[undotwa]

[quote]Originally posted by artenman:
<strong>

I've been using Office v.X and let me get a zip a of water for this........ehem....... IT SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!

It's the same bullshit as Office for Mac OS, I can't believe this piece of crap. It isn't worth your money. Don't WAIST YOUR MONEY! Entourage doesn't import from Apple's Mail program for instance. And Entourage is the only Application out of Office that does live resizing, and the live resizing sucks. It is very sluggish! From there on, sheets is pretty much the only new thing and the use of Quartz.

Folks, don't waste your money on this crap. Wait for a later release. :mad:

[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: artenman ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

You think Office is crap just because most of the apps don't use live resizing? Do you think most business users will care? And, just because Entourage doesn't import Mail's e-mail, you think it's crap? (not saying it isn't, stick with Mail/Address Book). Word/Excel/PowerPoint aren't bad OS X apps, but minor cosmetic issues do not make it a bad package.

[Sinewave]

MS just needs to f*cking support they way OS X handles it's GUI. That is all they are trying to ask I think. IE uses it's on "stripes" which don't match OS X's.. Office has similar GUI problems. There is no excuse for it. At least when other companies use their own Aqua resources it at least MATCHES.

[groverat]

How can someone who spends time making skins to subvert Aqua gripe when a company doesn't adhere to Aqua?

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>How can someone who spends time making skins to subvert Aqua gripe when a company doesn't adhere to Aqua?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ah but that isn't my bitch. My bitch is for them to adhere to using the extras.rsrc to get it's look. Makes it a lot easier on those who DO make themes ;)

MS not only doesn't use the Extras.rsrc but the resources they DO use don't even match Aqua.

[groverat]

Maybe they don't want freaks like you hacking their UI. :)

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Maybe they don't want freaks like you hacking their UI. :) </strong><hr></blockquote>

That doesn't stop anyone.. it can be hacked just like OS X was.

[KidRed]

"Why is Internet Explorer so bad?"

because M$ made it :)

CAn't wait for OW to get their shit straight, that will be the best Mac browser.

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>"Why is Internet Explorer so bad?"

because M$ made it :)
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have serious doubts on who actually made it. Considering IE 5 for the Mac fully supports pngs and not even IE 6 does this. I know MS put it out.. but I doubt MS coders made it.

[groverat]

Who then?

[Jonathan]

that's interesting...

IE5 for 9 is SO much better than any Windows browser in everything save pure rendering speed...

although Office 2k1 on 9 rocks, too...

hmmmm

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Who then?</strong><hr></blockquote>

MS has a Mac programming team they pay to do such things. Including Office. That is why IE 5 for the Mac is so much different than IE 5 for the PC.

[groverat]

So it is Microsoft then. . .

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>So it is Microsoft then. . .

:confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not the same MS that is coding Windows.. and coding IE for Windows no...

They contracted it out grover.

[EmAn]

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>
Not the same MS that is coding Windows.. and coding IE for Windows no...

They contracted it out grover.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But it is still people who work at Microsoft, so therefore it is MS who makes it.

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>

But it is still people who work at Microsoft, so therefore it is MS who makes it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

My point was.. it's not the same idiots that obviously left out support for pngs in IE. They contracted a bunch of Mac programmers to do their work. While yes they work for MS.. they aren't apart of the MS programming team.

[groverat]

What are they a part of, then?

It's Microsoft coders, just accept it.

[applenut]

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>

My point was.. it's not the same idiots that obviously left out support for pngs in IE. They contracted a bunch of Mac programmers to do their work. While yes they work for MS.. they aren't apart of the MS programming team.</strong><hr></blockquote>

what are you talking about? MS has always had a huge number of mac specific programmers. ever since 1984. they are the largest development house out of Apple. They didn't "contract" mac coders. they employ and hire them. they are part of MS.

you sure do BS a lot
:p

[Sinewave]

No the first IE 5.0 WAS made by contracted Mac programmers by MS. Before that.. MS products for the Mac where just crappy ported MS apps. A lot of these programmers where just used for IE then let go. I know one of them personally that was let go after IE 5.0 was complete. And a lot of them used to work for Apple. And applenut I am talking since Windows 3.1/95 has been out.

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>

[apple.otaku]

I think what he means is they no longer simply hand a Windows version over to Mac coders to port anymore. The Mac BU is now a more independent entity that works on them from the ground up. They no longer have people from the Windows side peering over their shoulders cutting features and functionality. I think IE 5.1 just needs a new rendering engine as its too slow. My main complaint.

apple_otaku

[applenut]

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>No the first IE 5.0 WAS made by contracted Mac programmers by MS. Before that.. MS products for the Mac where just crappy ported MS apps. A lot of these programmers where just used for IE then let go. I know one of them personally that was let go after IE 5.0 was complete. And a lot of them used to work for Apple. And applenut I am talking since Windows 3.1/95 has been out.

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

hope the guy you know isn't as reliable as your friend from the finder team
:rolleyes:

I'll give it to you that the Mac BU is a bit seperate from MS.

[Junkyard Dawg]

IE 5 is the best browser for OS X, easy, so I don't understand why it's being ragged on so bad for speed. It seems to me that OS X is the problem, not the browsers.

IE 5 has it's share of problems on OS X for user, espeically when it comes to updating download icons in the finder, or drag n' drop functionality. But it doesn't suck as hard as Omniweb.

Omniweb is butt-slow. It sucks. The sneakypeek 10 of OW 4.1 is faster, but it's still slower than IE 5.1 for OS X. If the Omnigroup ever gets their act together then OW might be ok, but for now it's too slow to be usable. Compare OW to IE for browsing speed, and IE wins easily.

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by apple_otaku:
<strong>I think what he means is they no longer simply hand a Windows version over to Mac coders to port anymore. The Mac BU is now a more independent entity that works on them from the ground up. They no longer have people from the Windows side peering over their shoulders cutting features and functionality. I think IE 5.1 just needs a new rendering engine as its too slow. My main complaint.

apple_otaku</strong><hr></blockquote>


Bing Bing Bing. Give that man a cigar.

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>IE 5 is the best browser for OS X, easy, so I don't understand why it's being ragged on so bad for speed. It seems to me that OS X is the problem, not the browsers.

IE 5 has it's share of problems on OS X for user, espeically when it comes to updating download icons in the finder, or drag n' drop functionality. But it doesn't suck as hard as Omniweb.

Omniweb is butt-slow. It sucks. The sneakypeek 10 of OW 4.1 is faster, but it's still slower than IE 5.1 for OS X. If the Omnigroup ever gets their act together then OW might be ok, but for now it's too slow to be usable. Compare OW to IE for browsing speed, and IE wins easily.</strong><hr></blockquote>

OW SP 10 is TONS faster for me than IE 5.1 And makes pages render a lot better to boot.

[Brad]

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>OW SP 10 is TONS faster for me than IE 5.1 And makes pages render a lot better to boot.</strong><hr></blockquote>Agreed!! I'll take OW 4.1 over IE 5.1 any day now... well, most days. OW still seems to have issues with CSS and Java (but IE dislikes some Java too).

[Bogie]

I want all the people in that other thread arguing that IE is not a bad browser and that MS defeated Netscape because IE was that good to come read this. Then I want them to go away.

[Junkyard Dawg]

[quote] OW SP 10 is TONS faster for me than IE 5.1 And makes pages render a lot better to boot. <hr></blockquote>

On my Powermac G4 400, 576 MB RAM, SP 10 is much slower than IE 5.1. Perhaps you're on a dualie?

As for rendering pages, I find that OW sucks at it. In IE5.1, text is simply better: it's bold where it should be, and the font sizes are more optimized for actual viewing.

Also, since OW cannot render as many pages as IE5.1, it's not accurate to say that OW renders pages better than IE.

The ONLY browser I've used that's faster than IE5.1 is Mozilla, but Mozilla sucks real hard in so many other ways that I'd rather use IE.

[Sinewave]

Junkyard it's opinion based. Like think the look of IE's text is pure crap compared to Omni's.

It's all in the personal preferences.

[apple.otaku]

[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>IE 5 is the best browser for OS X, easy, so I don't understand why it's being ragged on so bad for speed. It seems to me that OS X is the problem, not the browsers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No way its OS X. I just ran netscape 6.2 for the first time earlier this week and my jaw dropped. It is so much faster than IE 5.1 its not funny. Pages that took 5 - 10 seconds to load under IE loaded in about 1 second under Netscape 6.2. Its a night and day difference. I'm used to using IE and Mail so its hard to get used to. I like IE except for the slow rendering engine. OmniWeb hasn't been any faster than IE for me. Its actually been slower. They did say it had a memory leak and I only have 128MB so maybe that's it. Sometimes I like the anti-aliased text but a lot of times I don't. I don't like OmniWeb very much except it does follow the OS X form very well.

[EmAn]

I just downloaded Netscape to try it out again and see if it was actually fast. Guess what.... VERY SLOW. What a surprise. Seriously, it was really bad I immediately deleted it. Still gunna be IE most of the time and occasionally OmniWeb for me.

[picachub]

can someone out there please explain to me why i cant get sites that having realtime streaming (datek online for instance) dont work on the mac? is it a java thing or what the hell am i missing. why do i have to use a crappy wintel just to get this feature to work right? is there any browser or something i can do (virtual pc just isnt cuttin it on my ti550)
thanks

[The Toolboi]

Why is every single windows browser better?
Eh? Ive never used a browser better than Mac IE 5, including WinIE 6.
Well, except Opera... best browser ever? Maybe...

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by The Toolboi:
<strong>Why is every single windows browser better?
Eh? Ive never used a browser better than Mac IE 5, including WinIE 6.
Well, except Opera... best browser ever? Maybe...</strong><hr></blockquote>

IE 5 for OS 9 rules. IE 5 for OS X drools.

[macway]

surfing the web on a PC has always been faster than doing it on a Mac.

[macway]

I sure would like to know why, is the tcp/ip more efficient in Windows? In general so to speak.

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by macway:
<strong>surfing the web on a PC has always been faster than doing it on a Mac.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It has :???: News to me.

[corvette]

Yes? Window's renders HTML faster than I can think.

And to say IE for mac is better than windows is very strange. Try putting a mac and a pc next to eachother and load your favorite site.

[Sinewave]

[quote]Originally posted by corvette:
<strong>Yes? Window's renders HTML faster than I can think.

And to say IE for mac is better than windows is very strange. Try putting a mac and a pc next to eachother and load your favorite site.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Depends on what speed of connections the computers are on.. the speed of the processor.. and whether or not they are getting it from the cache or not. My 350mhz G3 renders pages just as fast and my roomates 400mhz P2

[eXistenZ]

I once putted IE 5 in my osx start-up items "folder", when i started up, my whole system got ****ed up. I think that's a bad thing.

[bernard]

[quote]Depends on what speed of connections the computers are on.. the speed of the processor.. and whether or not they are getting it from the cache or not. My 350mhz G3 renders pages just as fast and my roomates 400mhz P2 <hr></blockquote>
you must have dial up. My first PC I got a month ago is a 333 dell P2 and it is faster than my 450 G4 on a 1.2Mbps down line kind of a bummer. but really why are the slower it has to be the rendering engine. this site is a great example my PC pages load in 1 sec. Mac 4-6 sec. Also Macs have slow java performace when ibench used to work i tested my G3 300 and it was = to a P150. Opera is really much faster for me than I.E. on almostevery thing some pages no diff. some drasticaly faster.

[evildead]

[quote]Originally posted by corvette:
<strong>Have you guys tried out Euntorage v.x yet?

It looks very windowx xpish. It is going to take some time before I get used to this app. It looks very bloated but the calendar looks very nice.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I like it. Its much like the 2001 verion but a little more OS X. The calender is muich better. I like the way oppintmets and dates are set up. Printing them is cleaner too.