Netscape 7 - faster/better than Mozilla 1.1

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:

    <strong>



    They are nearly identical, but in general, Netscape is a little more Windows-like in appearance and procedure (wizards and all -- ugh).</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Huh? Remove AIM, the search button and the Netscape throbber from the application and it is identical to Mozilla. I think I'm missing something here.
  • Reply 22 of 36
    Like I said, a little more Windows-like.
  • Reply 23 of 36
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:

    <strong>Like I said, a little more Windows-like.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't see how the additions to Mozilla made by Netscape 7 make it more Windows-like? It's more Windows-like because it has AIM and a Netscape throbber?



    <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
  • Reply 24 of 36
    How come, in Netscape 7, when I go to type an address in the address field at the top of the window, I can't get it to do anything. I've hit return; I've hit enter....Nothing! Blasphemy! The damn cursor just sits at the end of the address flashing! BAAAAAH!
  • Reply 25 of 36
    [quote]Originally posted by Dave Hagan:

    <strong>How come, in Netscape 7...</strong><hr></blockquote>Because it's a shabby app with an awful interface. NONE of the interface elements are "native" Mac OS X widgets. They are all custom made for Netscape/Moz and have their own custom (and often confusing) behaviors.



    Netscape and Mozilla have the worst interfaces of any modern web browser, IMNSHO.
  • Reply 26 of 36
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by kcmac:

    <strong>



    Browsers must really be complicated more than laypeople like me will ever understand. I can't imagine Apple putting out a browser that would need at least 3-4 versions before it would be good enough.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Browsers are insanely complicated for two main reasons:



    1) They're usually attempts to extend codebases that are, at this point, very old. That takes a lot of work. That's why iCab progress ground almost to a halt when they hit CSS - the engine they'd built wasn't designed for CSS, and it's not something you can bolt on.



    2) People tend to blame browsers, not pages, for a page looking strange or not working. Combine that with the unbelievably bad code churned out by MS Word, FrontPage - heck, almost all GUI apps - and the need to support "HTML" code that's kludged to work around a bug in another browser, and you have an incredibly messy, illogical and inconsistent set of rules to follow instead of the relatively logical and straightforward W3C recommendations. That increases the complexity of the problem enormously. If you add in the recent push for standards support, it gets worse: A lot of the accomodations made for legacy HTML code directly contradict standard behavior, so the implementor has to either choose one or the other, or have several different rulesets lying around and some way of deciding which to apply when.



    Then you add in JavaScript (which, though standardized, suffers from the same raftload of variously incomplete and incompatible implementations), cookies, caches, filters, etc. and things get complicated quickly.



    The sad thing is that it really shouldn't be that hard to write a web browser. But that's just not how things turned out.
  • Reply 27 of 36
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>1) They're usually attempts to extend codebases that are, at this point, very old. That takes a lot of work. That's why iCab progress ground almost to a halt when they hit CSS - the engine they'd built wasn't designed for CSS, and it's not something you can bolt on.</strong><hr></blockquote>Quite right.



    This is exactly why OmniWeb 4.1.1 isn't really a lot more "compatible" than 4.0. OmniWeb's rendering engine has reached the limit of what it can do. Thus, the Omni Group has been rewriting the engine from the ground-up for OmniWeb 5.0.



    Amorph is also spot-on about the code that most WYSIWYG editors poop out. That stuff is awful.



    [ 09-03-2002: Message edited by: Brad ]</p>
  • Reply 28 of 36
    If Netscape 7 is somehow faster than Mozilla, I can only think of one thing that could cause that.



    They may have used different compilers.
  • Reply 29 of 36
    Count me as another vote for Netscape 7 being smoother and slightly faster than Mozilla 1.1.
  • Reply 30 of 36
    [quote]If Netscape 7 is somehow faster than Mozilla, I can only think of one thing that could cause that.



    They may have used different compilers.



    <hr></blockquote>



    Actually, I've heard they do the same sneaky shit IE does on Windows: Preloads a bunch of stuff on startup into RAM so the app launches faster. Apparently Realplayer on windows does this too.
  • Reply 31 of 36
    btw, you OSX users could make a startup script that does:



    cat /location/of/Chimera-or-similar/* &gt; /dev/null



    to achieve the same effect.



    [ 09-03-2002: Message edited by: stimuli ]</p>
  • Reply 32 of 36
    stimuli



    that is true, when you turn your computer on ie starts loading at startup then so that by the time your desktop appears ie SEEMS to start up much faster then netscape. so that when you click on netscape which has no such operating system head start it has to start from the begining...



    however during installation you can activate netscap's "quick launch" feature which helps it.



    i've also ordered the netscape 7 cd for some of my friends who will not use netscape "because ie came with their computer" these people are such unquestioning sheep they would probably use poison if THAT came bundled with thir computer!
  • Reply 33 of 36
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    [quote]Originally posted by stimuli:

    <strong>



    Actually, I've heard they do the same sneaky shit IE does on Windows: Preloads a bunch of stuff on startup into RAM so the app launches faster. Apparently Realplayer on windows does this too.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Oh, it preloads a site that I've not even told it to go to yet?



    We're not talking about launch time.
  • Reply 34 of 36
    [quote]Originally posted by [email protected]:

    <strong>I'm not saying we should all switch to PC's!!!!



    I think Apple had better do something fast and takeover the Chimera project. So that we all don't get completely locked out of the internet. How long do you think it will be before Webmasters just program for IE? and even worse just IE for Windows. :eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>



    a good web designer/webmaster whatever you want to call it shouldn't program for IE alone
  • Reply 35 of 36
    [quote]Originally posted by stimuli:

    <strong>



    Actually, I've heard they do the same sneaky shit IE does on Windows: Preloads a bunch of stuff on startup into RAM so the app launches faster. Apparently Realplayer on windows does this too.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That won't affect page rendering times which is what I think the original claim was.



    I don't use Netscape so I don't know.
  • Reply 36 of 36
    [quote]Originally posted by burningwheel:

    <strong>



    a good web designer/webmaster whatever you want to call it shouldn't program for IE alone</strong><hr></blockquote>



    What you say is true, but many webmasters do just that.... hence "nonstandard" HTML handling features in IE become "standard" by default.
Sign In or Register to comment.