How about a Web Browser that Works!

[MacManiac1224]

All I here about is Apple and there lack of web browser support. Well, I guess there is really only one alternative: Have Apple create a Web Browser. Wouldn't that solve all of our problems? I mean, I spend about 75% - 90% of my time Web Browsing, and I have to say, it is not the greatest expierience. So, I think we should petition Apple to create us a web browser. They already have the address book, and mail application, all they need is a browser. Not that hard for Apple, considering they have over 10,000 employees. So what do you guys say?

[Ensign Paris]

no,they do not want to damage relations with M$ due to the Office contract running out.

Therefore they wouldn't want to compete with m$ i€.

I€ works OK, iCab works OK, Omniweb works Ok

[evildead]

True... the contract is coming to an end and Apple probably wants to stay in good relations with MS. MS makes money on Offic for Mac so ... I dont think they will drop it... plus it would get them in trouble. They all ready may have to make one for Lunix soon.

As for a Apple browser? I would love one. Or at least a new alternative. The ones that are out there now have too many problems. IE5.1 is ass. It wont retain prefrences that I set for it and it get confused about what plugins to use if you have classic on your mac with old verions of WMP. Netscape is ok... but it still needs work. I'm not in to the all-in-one messaging-browser thing. Seems a bit blouted to me.


will Apple make one? I dont know but I hope they do. Even if I dont use it ... myabe it will push the other guys into fixing the problems with the current ones

[Jookbox]

remember, you can't expect programmers/designers to just whip up a browser. IE, Netscape, and Mozilla took YEARS of development and trial and error. i doubt someone can start from scratch and build a better browser. especially since us web designers use html catered to netscape or IE

[Taft]

Originally posted by Jookbox
especially since us web designers use html catered to netscape or IE

I think that this is one of the biggest problems with the internet today. At this point all of the web standards are flying out the window. How can standards compete with MS's influence and market dominance pushing THEIR altered standards down people's throaghts. I think its time for the internet community to re-address the issue of standards and try to come up with ones that stick.

Its time for consumers to hold MS to standards that are created with the best interest of the internet and the consumer in mind. Half of the browser war was won not only on marketing, shady deals and pushing IE on consumers, but on issues of compatibility. If Netscape can't render all of the pages IE can and certain pages require IE to view them, who is going to want to use Netscape? These browsers are also pushing opposing standards, not just the client itself. We need to remember that.

Matthew

[segastyle]

i'm sure that apple has already researched the technical side of devloping a web browser at least a little. plus they have the mistakes and triumphs of all the other browsers and their history at their disposal.

i wonder just how much a browser by them would upset microsoft... just as long as it's ONLY available on the mac platform. appleworks, mail, and itunes all compete with microsoft products and there hasn't been much of a problem.

and it's not like microsoft spends a lot of effort on the mac ie. for some reason, they decided to make it work and act completely different than the windows version. my two biggest gripes being that you can't choose where inside your favorites to add a new bookmark, and it caches everything into one big archive file. so i'm not able to go in and delete this one file or copy this one file. VERY much a pain when testing new html.

and for that reason alone, it would affect their effort to dominate web development, since after all most sites are optimized for windows ie, then netscape 4.7, then maybe mac ie.....

in order to be successful, apple would need to develop a browser that worked with html, asp, php, etc in the same manner that windows ie does. that, if anything, helps microsoft...

[chicagdan]

I don't understand the OS X browser complaints -- I think OmniWeb is the best browser around. It creates gorgeous pages quickly. What else do you want?

[Kid Red]

Simple solution, Apple should buy OW.

[Ensign Paris]

I bet Apple have one created already for OSX just incase IE pull out.

They just wont release it!

As I also bet they have OSX.1 running on Intel **just** incase Motorola and IBM stop making the PowerPC.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by Ensign Paris
As I also bet they have OSX.1 running on Intel **just** incase Motorola and IBM stop making the PowerPC.

I also think that but I think it is as a life preserver in case the company starts to sink. Basically a last-ditch plan to save Apple in an emergency.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Ensign Paris
I bet Apple have one created already for OSX just incase IE pull out.

They just wont release it!

As I also bet they have OSX.1 running on Intel **just** incase Motorola and IBM stop making the PowerPC.

I don't think that Apple would waste the developers time by going putting OS X onto intel. With the sheer number of peecee hardware choices out there it would be hell on them. They would be releasing updates and drivers left and right for each part that people put into the peecee, or they would have extreme restrictions on the hardware. That last one would drive peecee users away faster then anything else. Just think about it for a second, how many more video cards, network cards, sound cards, and such are out there for the peecee??? Each one has it's own drivers. They even have different drivers for different models in the same line. The sheer number of drivers would keep the developers working overtime far too much, and the rest of what Apple produces would suffer. I would much rather have OS X running stable on my Mac system then to see a peecee based version being produced.

On Apple hardware, it rocks, who knows about the peecee. Also, who knows how many years it would take to port OS X to the peecee (and have it stable).

[chmorley]

Originally posted by chicagdan
I don't understand the OS X browser complaints -- I think OmniWeb is the best browser around. It creates gorgeous pages quickly. What else do you want?
I am actually using OmniWeb more and more, but still use Mozilla 0.9.8 as my primary browser. It is much faster than OmniWeb (4.1b1) with complex page renderings, and it is more stable (on my machine).

I am hopeful for OmniWeb--it is becoming faster and more stable all the time, and it is clearly the best looking browser out there. It is a little buggy on my TiBook 667, though. Too often it doesn't behave a the way I expect a browser to--e.g., it often doesn't want to let me enter URL's manually. I sometimes find pages it doesn't render perfectly. Things like that.

OmniWeb isn't that far from fantastic, though. Apple could definitely polish it up and make it my first choice quick.

Chris

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by Jookbox
remember, you can't expect programmers/designers to just whip up a browser. IE, Netscape, and Mozilla took YEARS of development and trial and error. i doubt someone can start from scratch and build a better browser. especially since us web designers use html catered to netscape or IE

Ah yes, but just as iTunes was originally SoundJam, I'm sure they'd just continue on with an existing browser.

Personally, IE is just fine for me (except for that damn annoying sometimes-half-the-page-disappears-when-loading bug. :mad: )

[AmbitiousLemon]

i think an apple browser would be one of the best things apple could do to improve apple computing. there just arent any web browsers out there that work properly. as for those of you who are happy with omniweb or ie... jeez you remind me of all the peecee users who are content with their beige boxes. ignorance is bliss i suppose. but if you ever used a web browser on a peecee then you would realize that the macintosh community really is lacking. its embarassing. and apple needs to nip this one in the bud. there is no reason mac users should be suffering like this.

like several of you mentioned apple could gobble up any one of many browsers up there and polish it up quickly. id prefer if the bought omniweb (it shows amazing potencial) but iCab or even a Mozilla derivation would be cool.

i really dont think apple will do this though. not for a long while at least. it just doesnt fit into the current apple strategy and i think apple feels most mac users are just like the ignorant people here who dont realize what good web browsing is.

your browser shouldnt crash on you. your browser should render pages properly every time. there shouldnt be any pages you have to open a different browser to view. your preferences shouldnt get trashed. your plugins should actually work and you should have the same set of plugins windoze users have. pages should load nearly instantly on a fast connection. cached pages should load instantly period.

take a minute and browse a few websites on a windoze box with ie. hate to admit it but its pretty nice isnt it? feel a little embarassed? i sure do. o sure peecee's still suck in too many ways to even list, but the fact that those crumby things can do something as simple as browse the internet better than any mac is just sickening.

you might be happy with ie, but as long as apple depends on microsoft (whoa i spelled that without adding any derogatory little tweaks) to provide mac users with a browser, macs will always lag behind wintel machines in browsing.

::hangs head in shame and walks out of the room::

[chmorley]

Well said, AmbitiousLemon. We have a bunch of B- choices for our A+ OS. That is unacceptable. We can all pick our favorite, but how about one that just works right all of the time? Hell, even if it were made by MS, I'd use it.

Chris

[eyelikeart]

from what I've read in other forums & posts....it seems a lot of u guys are fairly savvy when it comes to hacking the systems and all....why not attempt building your own browser? how hard would it be and what would be involved?

[crassusad44]

Originally posted by eyelikeart
from what I've read in other forums & posts....it seems a lot of u guys are fairly savvy when it comes to hacking the systems and all....why not attempt building your own browser? how hard would it be and what would be involved?

Isn't this what the Omni guys are doing? Building their own browser, and giving it free to us?
(And they are doing a great job at it too)

[stoid]

Apple had a browser, a loooong time ago, but they ditched it. Maybe Jobs could resurrect it and simplify it into popularity.

[evildead]

Well said :)

Using SunBoxes and WinBoxes at work, I see the diffrence in browsing. Things that are coded only one way work on PC's and yet when I go home to check it out in more detail... I get a really messed up page. That is really unfortunate. I hope that Apple comes out with a Brower that will fix all the problems that IE and Netcape have. OR at least just add some flavor to the mix.

[oldMac]

Trust me. Getting a Web browser to perform like IE does on the PC is *extremely* impressive.

Remember, Microsoft has got some really good programmers and it took them about 6 years to get it to where it is now.

That being said, the best bet would be for Apple to dedicate a team to building an Apple browser around Gecko from the Mozilla project. I'm sure that it could be made to perform well on OS X with some highly-skilled and dedicated effort.

Of course, that wouldn't solve the issues of having Windows Media Player, Real Media, Shockwave, Flash and other 3rd party/browser hosted apps running well on our favorite platform.

And, it's probably just a matter of time before Microsoft starts exploiting IE as a proprietary tool for delivering and controlling access to the next-generation .NET applications.

[oldMac]

Alphatech,

Apple has actually released Darwin for Intel with support for limited hardware. NextStep ran on Intel hardware, so really there is no problem on moving the core OS.

The newer bits, like Aqua have likely been ported, but not optimized in any way due to the lack of Altivec.

This day in age, there's not much technical reason for Apple to maintain a PowerPC-centric code base except for the routines that they want to optimize for a particular hardware feature. And even then, they probably just maintain different forks in the tree. That Altivec stuff isn't going to run on a G3 anyway and it probably makes it hell to test on new processors where there might be a lot of bugs in a particular unit, or changes that could affect things badly. Better to get the basic stuff running first.

The real problem with moving OS X to Intel is that you'd have to ask all the Mac developers, who just spent a fortune porting to OS X and optimizing code for Altivec, to recompile all their stuff for Intel and distribute/maintain two sets of binaries.

[alex_ant]

What I look for in a web browser is the right balance of speed (includes page layout and scroll speed), correctness, appearance, bugginess, and stability. Here's how I see things with OS X browsers right now:

- Mozilla 0.9.8: Average speed. Excellent correctness. Okay appearance. Very buggy. Good stability.

- IE 5.1: Average speed. Pretty good correctness. Okay appearance. Kind of buggy. Good stability.

- OmniWeb 4.1 beta: Very slow on pages that are anything more than basic text. Not very good correctness. Hands-down the best looking web browser ever. Kind of buggy. Okay stability (in my experience anyway).

- iCab: Haven't tried

- Netscape 4.7 in Classic mode: VERY fast. Horrible correctness. Poor appearance. Kind of buggy. Good stability.

- Mozilla 0.9.8 in Classic mode: Very fast. Excellent correctness. Nice OS9 appearance. Very buggy. Good stability.

- Opera: Haven't tried

- Lynx: FAST!! CORRECT!! Very simple appearance! Stable as a mofo! This is what we should all be using! :)

I'm typing this in OmniWeb at the moment because its fonts make everything easier to read for me (on an LCD). I want to use Mozilla, but it just feels too buggy for me at the moment. The new OS X look is nice, but it still looks a bit hackish, especially with the old Communicator buttons right next to the Mozilla page-load icon, which itself is overlayed on top of a big Aqua button-thing. (What's up with that?) Once that icky look is fixed, and once it starts using Cocoa fonts (if ever), I'd like to switch to it. Unless OmniWeb's layout engine improves.

Ergghh... so many choices.

Alex

[AmbitiousLemon]

ant: i dont completely agree with your assessment but it seems close enough. Never heard of lynx tell us some more about this browser you are so taken with.

several people have mentioned mozilla's ability to block ads. this sounds great how does one do this? (its probably obvious and im just too tired to find it right now)

im not a fan of mozilla's appearance (who could be) but i dont think its as terrible as most people make it out to be. better than ie in my opinion. one of the first things i did was change the theme to modern. not great but much better than the old netscape style buttons. often i use the purple button (now gray oblong button, why did apple change this?) to just hide the button bar all together. this sint always practical but when i need to type in a url i just click the purple button again and get the button bar back.

someone mentioned mozilla being apple's easiest way of developing an apple branded browser. this is probably true, but i think most of us would prefer an omniweb buyout. id definitely like to see more cocoa apps from apple.

well have have lots more to say and ask but i better get back to the grind...

[chmorley]

Control-click the ad when it comes up, then select "Block images from this server". This is how I've done it, anyway.

I also would rather see Apple develop OmniWeb. I use Mozilla as my default browser and find it remarkably fast, accurate and stable, but would rather have a Cocoa-based app (which I hope Mozilla will be eventually).

Chris

[Hiram]

Originally posted by chmorley

OmniWeb isn't that far from fantastic, though. Apple could definitely polish it up and make it my first choice quick.


There's no reason at all why Apple should `polish up' OmniWeb. The guys and girls at Omni are perfectly capable of doing so themselves. Look at the progress they've made in the past year. Now they are working on CSS support, which was largely lacking so far -- when they get that straight, OmniWeb will become the standard browser on nearly every Mac OS X box without Apple having to `endorse' it any more than they do now.

[AmbitiousLemon]

as much as i love omniweb hiram (i had a friend once name hiram) i have to disagree. omniweb is great looking, and little else. i think the guys over at apple would be able to get the thing so it actually works. they havent put out a new version in quite some time (any specific dates?), so i suspect the chimera folks are going to surpass omniweb in just a few short months. in my opinion chimera is very close to being the best browser for osx, all they need to do is fix the scroll bar, give us some preferences, and contextual menus and the browser is done (they are only in version .1.3). if you want to replace ie, keep an eye out for chimera to be finished. omniweb was great while it lasted, but updates have stagnated and seems like more focus was placed on looks than speed.

[sparkleytone]

pretty much a daily build of OmniWeb 4.1 beta can be found through the sneakypeeks. Take a look again lemon, its coming along rather nicely.

http://www.omnigroup.com/ftp/pub/software/MacOSX/.sneakypeek/

i run sp52

[Rower_CPU]

The PC web browsing experience is enhanced (when using IE) because MS built it into the OS. With that level of integration, of course it's going to be fast. The only thing is that their support for standards has been shady, at best. From what I've seen on web development sites discussing standards like CSS, there is not ONE browser that fully complies with every standard.
Now, is this the fault of the W3C for not giving developers a chance to catch up, or is it the fault of the developers putting out sub-par products?

Like the title of the thread says: How about a Web Browser that Works!

[madamimadam]

Is a piece of ****. It works like what it is, a less than completed browser made in far less time than the big guns.

While it looks wonderful and feels good to use it can't render half the pages I go to. Maybe it would be good if I liked HTML and images only but throw it some basic JavaScript and, so often, it loses it.

IE is VERY buggy but, most of the time, it works.... I'll stick by it for now. I am not a MS follower but when a program is good you just have to use it and most MS 4 Mac programs are good except their X versions are SLOW and buggy.

[AmbitiousLemon]

thanks sparkley: i guess it just feels like they havent done much since they have been stuck on the 4.1b for so long. but maybe they just try to make each update significant and so they take longer.

but still i think apple taking any app in could make the app progress much faster. look at soundjam/itunes. soundjam was great. it was my mp3player of choice. but i think few will argue that itunes takes things to a whole new level.

i dont mean to dump on omniweb. it great. definitely the best looking browser. and its so nice to see people actually using cocoa. it was my browser of choice until i downloaded mozilla .98 and chimera .13. i rarely had problems with pages rendering oddly, biggest problem i had was it crashes whenever you go from apple to macrumors. but that seemed minor. it just started feeling slow after awhile. and i moved on unhappily.

so now ive got a new favorite. chimera (if only it had an icon!). and the updates have been coming very fast (as fast as the browser itself). id be willing to bet that chimera could take on ie on windows in a speed test. it would be some interesting results to say te least.

[chmorley]

I'm with you, AL. I want so much to like OmniWeb because it is pretty, but it just doesn't work as well as the other stuff out there (being buggy and slow. Mozilla is much faster and compliant. The only pages I've found that it doesn't render correctly are MSNBC (after it's personalized--strange), and the Apple Store.

Man, Chimera is the one, though. Isn't it? I agree that we are probably within a month of it being the fastest, prettiest browser we'll have. Once the Cocoa front end is done, it should be as pretty as OmniWeb. It already feels as fast as Mozilla.

I am still amazed so many people use IE. I can't stand using it. It crashes more than any other piece of software I have (except for Chimera, which is probably an alpha), and it is SSSSSSLLLLLLOOOOOOWWWWWW.

Chimera. Chimera is the one. We will all be using it soon.

Chris

[AlphaTech]

First off, I don't try beta's of browsers. So this is my impression of the non-beta versions. The beta's MIGHT have addressed the issue, but I have had more issues with beta releases then anything else.

Mozilla... butt-ugly, less stable then netscape 6.x (which it looks like).

OmniWeb... looks ok, but cannot go to at least one site that is a must for me. People claim that there is a way to get it to work, but everything they reference is NOT an option in the non-beta version.

Chimera, initially looks nice, but you cannot alter the preferences, nor can you import bookmarks. I have too many to manually enter and don't want to waste the time in doing so.

Netscape 6.2.x... not too pretty, seems pretty stable, but has a nasty habbit of wanting to be used for my email (I use the Apple Mail application under OS X since I have all six of my addresses showing up at once).

IE 5.1... comes with OSX, pretty stable, works with about 98% of the sites I visit (unless there is peecee specific code there). I can't remember the last time if crashed on me, and it has yet to bring down my system.

You can trade bookmarks between netscape and ie easily. You can also customize how they appear. You can also easily change the preferences and settings without needing to read a manual.

I had mozilla crash on me in under 10 minutes of first running it. I simply went up to the menu, and it crashed. I have not had ANY other browser do that, remmeber, these are all non-beta's so they should be finished enough to be stable. You cannot mess with OS X native applications memory settings, so I wasn't able to see if that was the problem.

I do not boot into OS 9.2.2 any more, and I will only use classic as a last resort, and then only for as long as I absolutly must (not for hours, more like minutes).

If I had to rank the browsers by my own experience (varies from person to person and system to system). I would have to put ie 5.1 at the top of the list, followed by netscape 6.2.1. Chimera would be next for the site compatibility alone, which would put it several rungs lower. Mozilla would be next and at the bottom of the list would be omniweb.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Alpha: hmmm. i think im missing something about your anaylsis. you said you dont use betas. but have the items you mentioned are only available in beta (ok not half, but 2).

mozilla is in .98. they plan to reach a finished product sometime this year though so they are close.

chimera just started development this month. its in version .13. the page (dont think it says this anymore) says its not usable yet but since people want it they are offering it for download (or something like that).

i can understand you having problems with mozilla. it is constantly changing so if you get a bad build i can understand getting a very bad impression. (some of the builds wont even launch!).

im surprised you liked netscape though. mozilla and netscape are the same, but netscape comes with all of aol/timewarner's bloatware. mozilla (if you get the right build) is much much better. but again its a beta and is probably not worth the effort to most people.

omniweb. you are right. it really is good looking. but slow. and doesnt it bother you how it doesnt remember window size and placement?

so really the only non betas you looked at were ie and omniweb. so it just seems a lil harsh to compare products that are put out there for beta testing with products that are considered finished. but harsh or not your analysis is pretty much true. the fact that those others are betas doesnt change the fact that ie and netscape are the best for you.

i can understand not wanting to use a beta. a bad one can get very messy. so id say stay away from any "nightly builds" type of betas, ones that come with disclaimers like chimera, or ones you obtain through less official channels. but the builds that are put up like mozilla .98, omniweb 4.1, netscape6.2 are probably just as safe as any "finished app." because i think we all know no app is ever finished, bug free, or completely safe. builds like mozilla .98 represent (to me) a stable stepping stone on an apps journey to the finshed product. like anything you need to be a wise shopper. read those disclaimers. and dont download something if the person who wrote it flat out says its buggy, or may not work.

(o and if mozilla is ugly, use a skin.)

and one thing that bothers me about ie is the address bar separate from the button bar. so much wasted space.

in the end though it really comes down to that there is no functional browser for osx. we have lots of hopes. maybe omniweb, maybe chimera... but only time will tell. until then the impatient will use betas and tolerate the quirks, and the rest will tolerate m$ with all of its quirks.

[AlphaTech]

AmbitiousLemon,

Netscape 6.2.1 is no longer a beta...

It was not clear to me it Chimera was beta or not, but it definatly acted as a beta does. As for mozilla, I got the latest that I could, which is the .9.8.

One of the things about netscape that I don't like is the fact that it wants to be used for email, which I refuse to let it do. As for the other parts of it, I have either turned them off, or removed them. It's not hard to do on the classic version, since you can delete the aim module before you do the install, and it just jumps over it (with a minor notice that it couldn't find it).

I tried to get a skin for mozilla... that is where it crashed, and crashed hard. Something so simple as selecting that in a menu brings down an application doesn't put it too high in my books.

I do enough fixing of systems day in and day out at work, that I don't want to have to struggle with a browser when I get home. IE has worked well for me ever since I made the move to OS X. I was using it as well as netscape when I was under OS 9 only, but now, it has taken the lead. I even use IE 5.1 at work for just about everything. It works better with the corporate sites that I have to access, and I can't remember the last time it crashed there either. Maybe I have been lucky, but most of the users at work also have few, if any, issues with ie on their systems.

Until the alternate browsers can get out of beta mode, and produce a solid release, I will stick with the ones that work... Before anyone fires up the torches or flame throwers, this is what I intened to do. I don't presume to tell anyone else that they should do the same. If you can get one of the others to work for you, go for it. Whichever browser you do settle on, just make sure it is free. There are enough free ones out that you shouldn't pay for one. The only thing that I have done a donation on is the Macrumors, and that was to get the mug and help to keep the site going. Besides, I enjoy the title change :D.

[PCUser]

"Netscape 6.2.1 is no longer a beta..."

Apparently, you do not have your facts quite straight. Netscape 6.2.1 is based on Mozilla 0.9.4. The current version of Mozilla is 0.9.8, as you are aware. And you know what, it's still "beta". Mozilla.org explicitly states that Mozilla is still not finished. Mozilla 0.9.9 is planned to be released in the next few days, with the very first version of Mozilla to not be beta (version 1.0) to be released early next month.

I'm using Mozilla 0.9.8 on Linux, and I love it. It's great. It's fast, it's stable, it's clean, and it renders 99.99% of the pages I go to.

However, whenever I use a Mozilla build that's been ported to a different platform (such as Windows or MacOS), it's buggy and unstable. My conclusion is that in the minds of Mozilla.org: "Linux first, everyone else later.". And that everyone else includes Netscape.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by PCUser
"Netscape 6.2.1 is no longer a beta..."

Apparently, you do not have your facts quite straight. Netscape 6.2.1 is based on Mozilla 0.9.4. The current version of Mozilla is 0.9.8, as you are aware. And you know what, it's still "beta". Mozilla.org explicitly states that Mozilla is still not finished. Mozilla 0.9.9 is planned to be released in the next few days, with the very first version of Mozilla to not be beta (version 1.0) to be released early next month.

I'm using Mozilla 0.9.8 on Linux, and I love it. It's great. It's fast, it's stable, it's clean, and it renders 99.99% of the pages I go to.

However, whenever I use a Mozilla build that's been ported to a different platform (such as Windows or MacOS), it's buggy and unstable. My conclusion is that in the minds of Mozilla.org: "Linux first, everyone else later.". And that everyone else includes Netscape.

Find any mention that netscape 6.2.1 is a beta on this link and you win a prize... http://home.netscape.com/browsers/6/index.html?cp=dju6xpod I did not see any mention of it being a beta. I do remember that the initial release of netscape 6 all those months ago was beta, but not any more. Maybe they improved the code beyond what mozilla is doing and released the full version.

I have gotten sick of mozilla and netscape being referred to as the same... The underlying code may be, but the rest is not. Where mozilla is still in beta mode, netscape is not...

Either way, I rarely use netscape (any version), and actually prefer to use ie 5.1 on any system that I use (work or home). I don't get enough errors or problems with ie to warrant me switching to one of the others. Especially since most of them are still in beta mode. Say what you like about the big browsers, but to me, they are more reliable, come out with updates when needed and have more people working to improve the code.

Whatever browser you happen to use, is up to you. I am not saying that people should use one or the other, ie, netscape, or an alternate. Rather, use the one that YOU CHOOSE to use.

PERSONALLY, I have had more problems when attempting to use any of the alternative browsers then either ie or netscape. I will continue to use the ones that work for me, but will still occasionally try the others (when they kick into non-beta mode). Maybe at some point in the future they will work well enough for my needs.

[AmbitiousLemon]

alpha: i think you have a healthy attitude toward the browsers. i think the restof us were just pointing out some errors. but in the end you are right. ie is probably the best browser for your (because you said so after trying the others).

i dont use ie. but i think i have to admit, that for web browsing in osx, ie is probably the best for me.

im one of the impatient few who will accept the odd quirks in mozilla, or chimera just so that i don have to use ie. sounds a bit childish, but anything that isnt ms just feels nicer to me.

i wish i had never used chimera. its just so fast. i have to use it because everything else feels so very slow. but its so young. they havent even added some very basic features yet, but they have me hooked so what can i do?

ive installed osx on a few of my friends computers. and the most i will ever tell them is maybe you should take a peek at [fill in the blank] but frankly i dont think most people should be using all these betas. with so many people here who love mozilla or omniweb or chimera its easy to get the impression that everyone is doing it. but if you take a look at the poll in one of the other lets complain about browsers threads 70% of the people here use ie. and i think the people here are probably more likely to use something else then the general mac public.

until one of the other browsers gets their act together, we are stuck with ie being the browser of choice. and as much as we rave about other browsers i think we all rave because we think this one could be the one, but some time soon. i think most would agree that ie feels finished (and good thing because it seems ms is never going to update it), and i would say none of the others feels finished.

[PCUser]

Firstly, I wouldn't suggest Mozilla for anyting but x86 Linux users right now. In my experience, it runs best under x86 Linux.

Secondly, Netscape 6.2.1 is simply Mozilla 0.9.4.1 with a few extra AOL features. Beyond that, Netscape IS Mozilla. And an older version of Mozilla at that.

However, if you feel that since Netscape doesn't call it a beta it isn't, that's up to you. It is only a earlier, buggier version of Mozilla with some extra AOL "features". That, in my book, qualifies it as a beta, because it is a beta with some extra crap added my AOL.

[Rower_CPU]

Be careful about getting into a debate about betas with 'Lemon...:D

[AlphaTech]

I MIGHT launch netscape 6.2.x once a month, if that. To me, arguing which version of what netscape is, is pointless.

From my own experiences with both netscape AND mozilla, they are more crash prone then ie 5.1. The first time I went to use mozilla (think it was .98 or whatever they call that version) it crashed on me, and after only a minute or two as well. If something crashes when you go to select a menu item, something is just not right. Before you even start, my system is not the issue. I have plenty of resources, and ie has never done that to me.

For now, I will stick with the stable browser that I use. If/when the others are either finished, or compatible with the sites I need to visit, I will try them again. Until then, I will stick with what works.

If it ain't busted, don't try and fix it.

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by PCUser
Firstly, I wouldn't suggest Mozilla for anyting but x86 Linux users right now. In my experience, it runs best under x86 Linux.

Secondly, Netscape 6.2.1 is simply Mozilla 0.9.4.1 with a few extra AOL features. Beyond that, Netscape IS Mozilla. And an older version of Mozilla at that.

However, if you feel that since Netscape doesn't call it a beta it isn't, that's up to you. It is only a earlier, buggier version of Mozilla with some extra AOL "features". That, in my book, qualifies it as a beta, because it is a beta with some extra crap added my AOL.

Are you trying to say that is has taken two points (ie. 6.2) to add AOL stuff. Don't think that just maybe inbetween 6.0 and 6.2.1 they have changed the code a little?

[PCUser]

"Are you trying to say that is has taken two points (ie. 6.2) to add AOL stuff. Don't think that just maybe inbetween 6.0 and 6.2.1 they have changed the code a little?"

It would be logical to think that, except... Netscape 6.0 was based on Mozilla 0.6. Netscape 6.2.1 was based on Mozilla 0.9.4.1. Netscape 6.0 was based on an earlier version of Mozilla, with extra AOL stuff added.

Mozilla was created BY Netscape a few years ago to create the source code for the broswer, and make it freely available. Netscape doesn't change the code, they just add a few AOL things (like AOL Instant Messanger, and Netscape Webmail in the mail servers--neither of which work as good as the stand-alone AIM or webmail).

http://www.mozilla.org/mission.html

[madamimadam]

As an example that is in front of me, Filemaker 4 is a "Final Product" but you tell it take next time you want to edit a record via the web. In fact, Filemaker, the sub-s of Apple, are so proud of 4 that they do not support tech questions anymore.

I think the same goes for Netscape in this example, just because one group of people is more picky about what will be a final product than another does not make a **** version of software a final product. Hey, Windows constantly ships working like a piece of **** with bugs all over it but people don't debate over whether it is a final product or not.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by madamimadamtimallen
As an example that is in front of me, Filemaker 4 is a "Final Product" but you tell it take next time you want to edit a record via the web. In fact, Filemaker, the sub-s of Apple, are so proud of 4 that they do not support tech questions anymore.

I think the same goes for Netscape in this example, just because one group of people is more picky about what will be a final product than another does not make a **** version of software a final product. Hey, Windows constantly ships working like a piece of **** with bugs all over it but people don't debate over whether it is a final product or not.

Version 5.5 is out, and it runs under OS X as well as 9. Support can be obtained via http://www.filemaker.com/. You can browse to the support from there.

I use FMP5.5 every day at work to keep track of hardware, software, users both old and new. It works well under both OS 9.2.2 as well as X.

I don't put them into the same category (netscape and FMP). Maybe because I actually have a use for FMP.

[PCUser]

First... by bringing up Microsoft, you just ruined your argument. Microsoft only ships alpha products. Nobody debates what to call them because they suck.

Second... a beta is a product that is being tested to remove bugs. A product will remain in beta until the developers consider there to be an acceptably few number of bugs and stop making pre-release betas.

Third... a final version is a product with few bugs (EDIT: few bugs by the developers view) that only gets minor bug fixes because the bulk of them have been fixed. So, the developers release the final version. And that's it. If there are any bugs, they will be fixed up and released a couple weeks later as the next number up (say 1.0.1). But there won't be a large number of builds of the product, there will just be ONE build.

Mozilla still has quite a few bugs. Mozilla.org is still releasing pre-release bug fix releases. There is a pre-release bug fix version available daily. (0.9.8 is simply a snapshot version that works pretty well). Therefore, it's still beta.

Netscape took one of the snapshot versions, 0.6, and released it as a browser, 6.0. Anyone who ran that one knew it was SLOOOOW and had a huge memory leak problem.

(EDIT: Netscape took a snapshot version between 0.6 and 0.9.4.1 and released it as 6.1, but I don't have the snapshot number handy.)

Several months later, Netscape again took one of the snapshot versions, 0.9.4.1, and again released it as a browser, 6.2.1. It's fast, but it still has bugs.

So... Netscape takes some of the snapshot pre-release beta versions of Mozilla, adds AIM and Webmail, then calls it a final release. Does that make it a final release? Not in my mind.

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


Version 5.5 is out, and it runs under OS X as well as 9. Support can be obtained via http://www.filemaker.com/. You can browse to the support from there.

I use FMP5.5 every day at work to keep track of hardware, software, users both old and new. It works well under both OS 9.2.2 as well as X.

I don't put them into the same category (netscape and FMP). Maybe because I actually have a use for FMP.

That's great, wanna buy me a legal copy of it because your talk does not add my current knowledge

[AlphaTech]

PCUser, I can see your opinion of m$ for their operating systems. I can only see one of them as being worth anything (but not what the charge) and it is NOT xp, me, nt4, 98 or 95. That is also after two service packs, and about a dozen 'critical updates'. I would never recommend BUYING any os from m$ until at least one service pack has been released (fixes the FIRST set of bugs/problems).

As for the browser they offer, as much as some people might not like me saying this, it works. Yes, I am sure it crashes. I am sure some people (or many) have problems running it. I know some people that won't use it on principle alone.

IF I could download a free, non-beta, fully functional right off the bat browser, I would. I don't have the time, nor interest in having to go in and alter the browser other then a few settings for cookies and java. I prefer to get the notice before accepting the cookies, and tend to turn java off (for the most part). Maybe I have set things in just the right way to make ie function without mucking things up or crashing daily.

IF anyone has a link to a site that shows you how to make Omniweb fully functional for ALL web sites, I would give it another shot. I am NOT talking about the lates/beta version, but the latest non-beta version.

I also require secure browsing (128bit security). Without that, a browser is useless to me. Before anyone starts screaming, the variant of both netscape, and ie have that. I never downloaded any netscape unless it was the 128bit, and have applied the update to ie to make it so. My bank requires that in order to bank online. It checks the browser to make sure it meets their requirements and will not allow access without it. That is another thing the alternate must have... security that is recognized.

[PCUser]

I don't want anyone to misunderstand my views here. I am not suggesting people use Mozilla or Netscape, I am just trying to point out that Mozilla is intended to be used for beta testing purposes right now. Shortly (April is the goal right now), if everything goes to plan (and so far it has), a final release version of Mozilla will be available.

I have to admit, IE is pretty good at speedy browsing. I don't trust it due to the security holes that affect IE, but that's just me.

[chmorley]

Maybe the most interesting thing I've learned from these browser threads is that different people using the same machines and same OSs get different results. It may just have to do with the web sites we use or some idiosyncratic things about how our machines are set up, but it's odd to me.

I have said this before, but the contrast is striking. IE crashes on me a lot. If it were more stable, I still wouldn't use it. It is much slower than Mozilla (or NS) on my machine. In three months using Mozilla as my primary browser, I have had it crash twice. It's a beta and still more stable than IE. I agree that it does not feel as finished or polished as IE, but it works better. I checked out the latest overnight built of OW. It is getting faster, but it's still too slow for me.

I definitely have some aversion to M$ products, but am committed to using the software that works best. In the past, I used IE 5.0 in OS 9 because it was the fastest, most reliable thing on my old 7500. IE 5.1 just sucks on my machine.

Anyone else out there find Mozilla this stable?

Chris