I found something interesting a few days ago too. Surfing this site from a friend's place on a PC (Windows XP) with his 56k modem was pretty much equal to my browsing at home on my G4 iMac with DSL. (well, unless there are big images in the thread of course)
<strong>I found something interesting a few days ago too. Surfing this site from a friend's place on a PC (Windows XP) with his 56k modem was pretty much equal to my browsing at home on my G4 iMac with DSL. (well, unless there are big images in the thread of course)
How's that for a kick in the head?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kick in the head??? Its more like in Street Fighter II Turbo when Zangief does a spinning pile driver to you type of slam than a mere kick in the head.
"Tests conducted by Wired News confirmed reader complaints that a new 800 MHz iMac takes an average of twice as long to render Web pages as a comparable or cheaper PC running Windows XP. Even on broadband networks, the iMac's default Internet Explorer browser took an average of 10 seconds per page to render several popular sites, including CNN.com and the Apple Store homepage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't ask me why IE takes so long to load the Apple home page (!!). OW 4.1b4 is a lot faster than that on my 450MHz Cube.
bradbower wrote:
[quote]<strong>Overall I'm just glad IE is by default the Mac OS browser of choice, and the ONLY one that comes with Mac OS X. For both my sake, the Mac community at large's sake, and all of us webdesigners' sakes... if everybody used a single browser that we could handle the features, quirks, advantages, disadvantages, and even shortcomings of, the web would be a better place for users in general, and we would all have less headaches and time wasted on the little things.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are standards, and that should be enough. It's enough for UNIX, and for most major programming languages (including HTML's hugely intricate sire, SGML).
If the browser vendors hadn't been too arrogant to support the standards, and the so-called HTML generators actually generated HTML, we'd be fine. If designers could get past the idea that you cannot have the control over a web page that you have over a printed page, we'd be even better off.
Fortunately, people are coming around, if slowly, to the idea that actually following the W3C recommendations is a good idea. It took long enough considering that it's perfectly self-evident, but at least it's happening.
If the browser vendors hadn't been too arrogant to support the standards, and the so-called HTML generators actually generated HTML, we'd be fine. If designers could get past the idea that you cannot have the control over a web page that you have over a printed page, we'd be even better off.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once the Browser vendors finally get their act together and support standards, then designers can finally use CSS and stop BSing around with tables and single-pixel gifs.
IE 5.1 on the Mac is getting there atleast. Mozilla finally hit version 1.0 so that should help as well.
We just need a virus writer to send a code around that deletes non-standards compliant browsers from users machines. heh heh
<strong>We just need a virus writer to send a code around that deletes non-standards compliant browsers from users machines. heh heh </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I was thinking of something more along the lines of a web browser that will automatically send an email to the webmaster of a site with non-standard code detailing which code is non-standard and why it is non-standard. I wonder how hard that would be?
Actually, I was thinking of something more along the lines of a web browser that will automatically send an email to the webmaster of a site with non-standard code detailing which code is non-standard and why it is non-standard. I wonder how hard that would be?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, iCab (there's a version for X now, pretty decent actually) is half of the way there. Now if only there were a big button that could email the webmaster of a site the results of iCab's tests.
We are basically relegated to second-class web browsing citizens. How about an Apple led consortium of alternative web browsing companies.
Think:
The sex appeal of OmniWeb +
The pure masculine speed of Mozilla +
The ingenuity of Apple.
A.M.O..... (pronounced AMMO)
AMO vs. IE
Of course, Apple would win this browsing battle and neither Microsoft nor AOL would ever develop Mac software again (not like the latter does anyway...) <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
I mentioned this before but if you turn off java it speeds things up considerably. i just bought a G4 466 and in OS9 on AOL it is quite snappy with java turned off......................................
its too bad someone like Connectix doesn't make a mac emulator for windoze, then it would be easier for designers to test their sites on a mac, without buying one
if mac web surfing is slower becuase many web sites are not designed with macs in mind, how come the legendary speed of the mighty G4 processor doesn't kick in and compensate? Surely since the G4 is soooooo fast compared to a gazillion Mghz Intel any slowness in web page rendering, flash movie playing etc would fade away?
There is something else going on here with X - its too slow for many things. I'd never had switched to X if I knew I'd have to sacrifice speed, snappiness of system and responsiveness for the sake of protected memory.
<strong>its too bad someone like Connectix doesn't make a mac emulator for windoze, then it would be easier for designers to test their sites on a mac, without buying one</strong><hr></blockquote>
Several people/companies do. I think they're all 68k though.
<strong>if mac web surfing is slower becuase many web sites are not designed with macs in mind, how come the legendary speed of the mighty G4 processor doesn't kick in and compensate? Surely since the G4 is soooooo fast compared to a gazillion Mghz Intel any slowness in web page rendering, flash movie playing etc would fade away?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering how speedy actually processor-intensive things like video rendering, mp3 encoding, visuals, 3d games, etc are on a G4, it's pretty glaringly obvious that any slowness that people are bitching about has nothing to do with the G4 processor (or even the G3 processor).
[quote]Originally posted by spooky:
<strong>There is something else going on here with X - its too slow for many things. I'd never had switched to X if I knew I'd have to sacrifice speed, snappiness of system and responsiveness for the sake of protected memory.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Too slow? Gee, it seems just as fast as, if not faster, than Mac OS 9 for me. And I can do so much more. Anyway, I won't go on ranting, this was just an inane statement-- you didn't sacrifice those things, and even if you had to the extent you're dramatizing it, it would be for far more than just protected memory.
Comments
<strong>
But I think we'll see a substantial change in OS X 10.2 . Well, hope so.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I sure hope so too.
How's that for a kick in the head?
<strong>I found something interesting a few days ago too. Surfing this site from a friend's place on a PC (Windows XP) with his 56k modem was pretty much equal to my browsing at home on my G4 iMac with DSL. (well, unless there are big images in the thread of course)
How's that for a kick in the head?
Kick in the head??? Its more like in Street Fighter II Turbo when Zangief does a spinning pile driver to you type of slam than a mere kick in the head.
<strong>This was my point EXACTLY!
"Tests conducted by Wired News confirmed reader complaints that a new 800 MHz iMac takes an average of twice as long to render Web pages as a comparable or cheaper PC running Windows XP. Even on broadband networks, the iMac's default Internet Explorer browser took an average of 10 seconds per page to render several popular sites, including CNN.com and the Apple Store homepage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't ask me why IE takes so long to load the Apple home page (!!). OW 4.1b4 is a lot faster than that on my 450MHz Cube.
bradbower wrote:
[quote]<strong>Overall I'm just glad IE is by default the Mac OS browser of choice, and the ONLY one that comes with Mac OS X. For both my sake, the Mac community at large's sake, and all of us webdesigners' sakes... if everybody used a single browser that we could handle the features, quirks, advantages, disadvantages, and even shortcomings of, the web would be a better place for users in general, and we would all have less headaches and time wasted on the little things.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are standards, and that should be enough. It's enough for UNIX, and for most major programming languages (including HTML's hugely intricate sire, SGML).
If the browser vendors hadn't been too arrogant to support the standards, and the so-called HTML generators actually generated HTML, we'd be fine. If designers could get past the idea that you cannot have the control over a web page that you have over a printed page, we'd be even better off.
Fortunately, people are coming around, if slowly, to the idea that actually following the W3C recommendations is a good idea. It took long enough considering that it's perfectly self-evident, but at least it's happening.
[ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<hr></blockquote>
*bell, like Pacbell, BellSouth, etc. never drop out, and have a downtime of about 15min. a week, mostly on monday early-morning
<strong>
If the browser vendors hadn't been too arrogant to support the standards, and the so-called HTML generators actually generated HTML, we'd be fine. If designers could get past the idea that you cannot have the control over a web page that you have over a printed page, we'd be even better off.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once the Browser vendors finally get their act together and support standards, then designers can finally use CSS and stop BSing around with tables and single-pixel gifs.
IE 5.1 on the Mac is getting there atleast. Mozilla finally hit version 1.0 so that should help as well.
We just need a virus writer to send a code around that deletes non-standards compliant browsers from users machines. heh heh
<strong>We just need a virus writer to send a code around that deletes non-standards compliant browsers from users machines. heh heh
Actually, I was thinking of something more along the lines of a web browser that will automatically send an email to the webmaster of a site with non-standard code detailing which code is non-standard and why it is non-standard. I wonder how hard that would be?
<strong>
Actually, I was thinking of something more along the lines of a web browser that will automatically send an email to the webmaster of a site with non-standard code detailing which code is non-standard and why it is non-standard. I wonder how hard that would be?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, iCab (there's a version for X now, pretty decent actually) is half of the way there. Now if only there were a big button that could email the webmaster of a site the results of iCab's tests.
Think:
The sex appeal of OmniWeb +
The pure masculine speed of Mozilla +
The ingenuity of Apple.
A.M.O..... (pronounced AMMO)
AMO vs. IE
Of course, Apple would win this browsing battle and neither Microsoft nor AOL would ever develop Mac software again (not like the latter does anyway...) <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
There is something else going on here with X - its too slow for many things. I'd never had switched to X if I knew I'd have to sacrifice speed, snappiness of system and responsiveness for the sake of protected memory.
<strong>its too bad someone like Connectix doesn't make a mac emulator for windoze, then it would be easier for designers to test their sites on a mac, without buying one</strong><hr></blockquote>
Several people/companies do. I think they're all 68k though.
<strong>if mac web surfing is slower becuase many web sites are not designed with macs in mind, how come the legendary speed of the mighty G4 processor doesn't kick in and compensate? Surely since the G4 is soooooo fast compared to a gazillion Mghz Intel any slowness in web page rendering, flash movie playing etc would fade away?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering how speedy actually processor-intensive things like video rendering, mp3 encoding, visuals, 3d games, etc are on a G4, it's pretty glaringly obvious that any slowness that people are bitching about has nothing to do with the G4 processor (or even the G3 processor).
[quote]Originally posted by spooky:
<strong>There is something else going on here with X - its too slow for many things. I'd never had switched to X if I knew I'd have to sacrifice speed, snappiness of system and responsiveness for the sake of protected memory.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Too slow? Gee, it seems just as fast as, if not faster, than Mac OS 9 for me. And I can do so much more. Anyway, I won't go on ranting, this was just an inane statement-- you didn't sacrifice those things, and even if you had to the extent you're dramatizing it, it would be for far more than just protected memory.