Internet Browser Usage

[bb]

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
give us a few advantages that alternatives have over IE.....

- Standards compliance
- Security
- Non-monopolistic

bb

[The Edge]

@bb

Also throw in OpenSource.


Edge

[kvs]

sad,you say?
give us a few advantages that alternatives have over IE.....
(pop-up stopper i don't consider great advantage,hell it's only for porn sites.....huh,wait........hehe just kidding...)

Converting average joes from IE to something else IS difficult.. but really not THAT difficult.. if you give me 20 newbies who use IE, and I get like 20 minutes with each to demonstrate opera, I could probably have converted at least half of them.. that's the problem.. newbies often need others to physically show them how it works, they rarely experiment themselves with "alternative software". But I've had great successes even with people who barely know that the "internet thing" they use is called internet explorer.
I've listed many of opera's good points further up on this page.. for converting newbies, these are the main advantages of using opera.. standards compliance, speed, and political stuff does NOT matter to them.

- mouse gestures.. newbies think these are quite cool.. at first they think it's nothing more than a cool gimmick, but when they get used to it they realize it's a real timesaver.
- tabs.. some get afraid by these, some think they could just as well use the taskbar.. but.. let them use it for a while, and most will agree that yes, it's indeed a great feature.
- antipopup.. this alone can convert some newbies, actually!
- download manager.. okay, most newbies don't really do much downloading and stuff.. but those who do, can easily see why a tight little download manager is an excellent thing.
- zoom.. zoom up to 2000% in opera and people say "cool" instantly.. :) Tell them that they could lie in the bed and zoom up to 500% and be able to read everything and stuff.. can't go wrong with the zoom.
- can search directly through adress bar by typing for example g search word for google search, or through fields placed in bars.. first.. show newbies why google is the best search engine, and then show them how much time they can save by avoiding browsing to google.com before a search.
- skinning.. it's a minor point really, but have them go to opera skins, and download some skins.. because of the one-click procedure it's easy to install skins.. newbies like this, especially chicks. :D

Anyway.. these are the most compelling reasons I would give average joe to change.. if they're a little smart, they will realize that indeed, they are many advantages.. and when they reach that point, I can show them the finer points of opera and perhaps even politics.


advantage that would make me surf even more...(speed conecting,rendering speed,GUI responsivness,such stuff.....

Opera, when having lots of windows open, uses far less memory than IE. Opera is extremely responsive, and can render many pages faster than IE.. try www.cdjapan.co.jp (one of my favourite pages incidentally :D) and see how opera outperforms IE (at least on my end it does). The real timesaving comes from tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, no popups, and direct google search. For me at least.

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

Originally posted by bb
- Standards compliance
- Security
- Non-monopolistic

bb

1-produce 10 links that gecko can ,and IE can't...
2-true..but IE is not so unsecure after all.....
(i say after much surfing and less virus infections etc.
and npt keeping it patched every time...)
3-why do i care who made browser as long as it's for free...

(i might add to my objections on mozz's that on some sites i just can't
adapt in a way that i like.......bigger font size ->mozz makes it either too big and thin,or too small....and IE just hits the sweet spot every time...yeap i tried tweaking the fonts section too,but no luck....)

[kvs]

1-produce 10 links that gecko can ,and IE can't...

Hahaha, you actually speak as if IE has good standards
complaince!! Sure, it can render all pages, but does
it render them *correctly*? Big difference there, you
see. Hell, it cannot even render the official page on cascading style sheets (http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/) up at the web site of the world
wide web consortium (the guys who create the standards). To see how it is supposed to be, try opera or pheonix. Funny actually.. this is incarnation 2 (or more I'm not certain) of the CSS page there.. the one before used to be even more messed up in IE. Sure, the alternative browsers are not fully compliant yet either, BUT.. they're trying to improve ALL the time.. hell, opera even EMPLOY the guy who designed cascading style sheets. IE's html engine hasn't changed for years, it seems.

2-true..but IE is not so unsecure after all.....
(i say after much surfing and less virus infections etc.
and npt keeping it patched every time...)

Claiming IE is not so unsecure after all sounds a little ridicilous. Fine, YOU might never have had any problems with it, but what about the MANY people who have? Looking at its track record, and you will see it has a very bad history security-wise.

3-why do i care who made browser as long as it's for free...

Obviously you don't care much about how monopolistic tactics destroy both competition and innovation, and cost consumers much in the end in many ways, both as in beer and as in speech. And microsoft adding lots of bullshit to their browser really undermines web standards. Just for a sideline example.. the PNG standard has been out there now for years. It is an officially recognized standard for web images. BUT.. IE still DOESN'T *beep* SUPPORT ALPHA TRANSPARENCY.. it has had YEARS to do so, but nope.. visit this page http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/png-rgba32.html or this one http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngs-img.html.. as an artist this makes me weep as I could do so much cool stuff with png transparency.. but I dare not.. as 90% of people would not be able to "see" it because IE didn't bother supporting a standard. Blah. But I realize I'm waisting my time on people like you you won't care no matter what I say. Oh well. Maybe there ARE more important things in life.. but..

[Ookami]

Ok, now I'm really fed up with lots of you just ignoring the forum rules.

http://forum.doom9.org/forum-rules.htm

No insulting, profanity, off topic postings or anything else will be tolarted anymore.

I have been very generous in this thread, but as many people didn't cared about what I write ("Please, do not post off topic!" -"Bah! Who cares what the moderator says!") I'm forced to change my tactics...

I hate bringing out this "rules" thingy, but it seems that some of you need that.

So, you all can discuss this nice and like "grown ups"...

Thank you for listening.

Cheers,

Mijo.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by kvs
Just for a sideline example.. the PNG standard has been out there now for years.

It was finalised in early 1997 to be exact. Basically 5 years ago.

Originally posted by kvs
It is an officially recognized standard for web images. BUT.. IE still DOESN'T *beep* SUPPORT ALPHA TRANSPARENCY.. it has had YEARS to do so, but nope..

Indeed. Microsoft has done absolutely nothing with IE's core in almost over 7 or 8 years. Yet everyone is always raving about how each version is somehow better than the last. Even though nothing changed. IIRC Microsoft did make one tiny update back in 1999 with IE 5.x to include broken PNG support.

Originally posted by kvs
visit this page http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/png-rgba32.html or this one http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngs-img.html..

Wow Opera finally got their PNG act together. I still preffer Mozilla though.

Originally posted by kvs
as an artist this makes me weep as I could do so much cool stuff with png transparency.. but I dare not.. as 90% of people would not be able to "see" it because IE didn't bother supporting a standard. Blah. But I realize I'm waisting my time on people like you you won't care no matter what I say. Oh well. Maybe there ARE more important things in life.. but..

Think about it. When Microsoft was writing HTML tools to purposefully rape and break HTML standards in favor of their browser did anyone say "Oh! This is bad! 85% of web users still use Netscape or Mosaic and they can't propperly view our page!"? Nope no one did. Neither Microsoft nor page designer said this. In fact you were more likely to hear people muttering things like "!@#$%^ Netscap can't render pages properly!" under their breath. That's right! They actually blamed browsers like Netscape most of the time. Not to say that Netscape did not have it's problems. But 80% of the time the blame that was heaped upon them was not theirs. It was Microsoft's. All the while Microsoft stood back telling everyone they should use their browser as it was better and could oddly enough render broken pages spit out by their own products. Fast foreward to today and the sentiment has changed or done a 180. The web is prolifferated with broken pages and proprietary components and extensions thanks to Microsoft. Yet they refuse to acknowledge or Implement open standards from 1996 and possibly before. But now people are all of a sudden concerned that by using the open standards the popular browser of the day will not render their page properly or at all? This really frigging upsets me. Where the hell was this compassion and understanding when Netscape and everyone else needed it?

kvs my friend. Here is what you do. On your host set up a browser detect script. Be it in PHP, java script, JSP, or God forsaken ASP. Now write your pages with all the standards you want including alpha transparecy PNG images. But instead of havin the page detect script pass a dumbed down page to IE so it will render properly have it moddify the page and put the message "Danger! Your browser is a massive security risk and it is severely broken. If you wish to view these pages and secure your system please download Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, etc." And provide them links to such browsers. Don't just put it on your front page. Put it on "EVERY" page. After all it is only fair. We are just reversing Microsoft's tactic on them. The more often people do this and the more people are nagged with it the sooner they will switch to better alternatives. There is zero reason that a person, school, or business could not run Mozilla or Opera to name a few. Because if their system does not support those browsers then there is 100% chance they could not see your page anyway and they would be truly pathetic. I do something similar on all my pages.

FRELL MICROSOFT! SUPPORT STANDARDS NOW!

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

standards only?
so non of the mpeg4 unfinished stuff for you?
only mpeg1 and 2?

kidding off course,but as i said,i have
2 other browsers on my machine (kmeleon and mozilla)
how many people can say this?

still,as IE is more practical,faster,snappier on my machine
.......you catch my drift.......

standards?
if it looks funny in IE i have these other two...
make a pointer (as neo said) and i'll quickly jump in
gecko and see it as it's ment o be..no problem there....

practical reasons keep me away from using more of gecko's...
for example they don't have "smooth scroll",and it really is a nice
featurette of IE....

cheers_

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
standards only?
so non of the mpeg4 unfinished stuff for you?
only mpeg1 and 2?

Well I do draw a slight distinction for them. The key thing that they are doing that Microsoft can not be bothered to do is continued development of their codecs and keeping in the standards and fixing as needed. As said Microsoft on the other hand has not actually developed Internet Explorer since about 1996 and they have not fixed their broken HTML compliance from back in 1993. If DXN or the Xvid crew were to pull this we would ditch them rather quickly. Why do we let Microsoft?

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
kidding off course,but as i said,i have
2 other browsers on my machine (kmeleon and mozilla)
how many people can say this?[?QUOTE]

Not to many. And that needs to change.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
still,as IE is more practical,faster,snappier on my machine
.......you catch my drift.......

I understand what you are saying, but see if you can wrap your brain around this! Is IE actually more practical or snappier? I mean if you let Mozilla run in the tray or background all the time like IE does I would hazard a guess that it is every bit as snappy and practical as IE. Here is a fun little tidbit you may not know. There is a project that is part of Mozilla. To which I have a compiled binary. That lets you patch programs that use the IE browser engine to use Mozilla instead. Only problem is you can't patch programs like Windows Explorer which is in reality Internet Explorer.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
practical reasons keep me away from using more of gecko's...
for example they don't have "smooth scroll",and it really is a nice
featurette of IE....

cheers_

I have never found a practical use for smooth scroll. Mozilla's page at a time is perfect for me.

[kvs]

still,as IE is more practical,faster,snappier on my machine

You say you've tried mozilla and stuff, but not if you've tried opera.. for all i know you might not like its feel either, but, I certainly think it's snappier than IE, and well, I also agree with you on IE being snappier than mozilla and even pheonix. As for rendering speed; my own limited testing have showed that opera comes in first, but also that pheonix is indeed faster than IE on random sites I tested with. All this assuming with fast you meant rendering speed.

In fact, I dare say that the number one reason people are turned off by mozilla-based browsers (or is gecko the more appropriate term perhaps) is the slowness / unresponsiveness of the user interface there. Sure it's not by much, but when most other programs don't have this same "sluggishness"-feel to them, "almost good enough" is not good enough. This is all made worse by the fact that many mozilla people don't even aknowledge this slowness even though many people point it out. Perhaps they're too used to it, or perhaps it's not noticeable on their systems, but.. it's still a fact many find there's a something with the ui of mozilla-stuff that's not quite right. (yes I use different terms to describe it because I don't know what the most correct term would be).

It's also what I dislike the most with mozilla and pheonix, this "unresponsiveness". If they could somehow make it work like most other windows programs in that regard, these browsers would instantly become much better in many's eyes. They are much better browsers than IE IMO, but snappiness is worth a lot to many people as well.

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

> If DXN or the Xvid crew were to pull this we would ditch them rather quickly. Why do we let Microsoft?


does xvid crew really ask us that much?
recently i have posted something which is (in my view) a pretty
big bug in recent xvid builds....(and some other folks confirmed this
too..like dloaded my samples,and said..."right,that's the xvid's main problem for me.....").......replies on forum were not that warm at all....

making something "a standard" doesn't say a whole lot about it...
standards might be poor for all that i care.....

off course...codec development is not the same as browser standard compliance,and i agree that people should work together to make
web a place that's to be easy accessible with any browser...
that's true....

why do we let MS?
because it's not quite a big problem to be bothered.....if it becomes,
then users will rebel and MS might do something....
for me bigger problems are that of actually USING the browser then
stumbling on few pages that are garbage in IE.....
if other browsers were as USABLE as IE,then i would be only glad to use them.....it's not a big issue..they are getting better all the time.....when one surpasses the IE i'll be there to USE it.no problems
bare in mind:there are folks on non ghz machines (as i am...)
one who doesn't bare us in mind won't get far.(wether it's mozilla,phoenix,etc.)
i won't upgrade my PC just to make mozilla snappier...

>I understand what you are saying, but see if you can wrap your brain around this! Is IE actually more practical or snappier? I mean if you let Mozilla run in the tray or background all the time like IE does I would hazard a guess that it is every bit as snappy and practical as IE. Here is a fun little tidbit you may not know....

let's see.....i have celeron600.....mozilla is painfully slow if i need to
a)open in a new window
b)open in a new tab
( for easy browsing this must be fast as a lightning! )

these 2 things are enough to put me off.....but complete GUI is dead-meat,dead-beat.......
IE is more practical AND snappier!
a while ago,i was surprised:
in IE i can delete particular "history" items from the list...(just what i needed that day....)
mozzila doesn't have any cache that i saw...i don't wan't to connect every time : i'm on 56k modem.....
cache is a blessing for me.......

mozilla WILL start quicker if it's in tray...but it won't WORK faster..
new windows open just as slow as before....
people say that mozilla suffers from XML bloated code,for all that i care,something is really wrong with it's code if the GUI is non-responsive....( unparalleled slowness..... )
make it snappy,happy GUI,and you have one more user.....
(with or without caching pages.....)

>I have never found a practical use for smooth scroll. Mozilla's page at a time is perfect for me

i don't follow this.......if you have big page that is long few screens,how do you "page at a time" ie. switch pages?
wouldn't it be a pain in the butt to hit "previous page" every time
just to see previous parts..(although i didn't saw this feature of mozilla at all.....)
i think scroll is required in such cases.....it's easier to navigate,
and smooth scroll is sort of clever scroll..i move mouse wheel faster and then it'll scroll more than if i move it only a bit....
normal mozzila's scroll always moves in same increments....
changing settings didn't even worked when i wanted to scroll more than 3 lines (i believe 3 lines is default?)

kvs>In fact, I dare say that the number one reason people are turned off by mozilla-based browsers (or is gecko the more appropriate term perhaps) is the slowness / unresponsiveness of the user interface there

that's what i'm saying:GUI is slow,it renders pages pretty fast though...GUI speed is important as much as rendering speed...

kvs>You say you've tried mozilla and stuff, but not if you've tried opera..

last time i tried opera (a while ago) it couldn't save web pages
in a "civilised" way.....very messy....
mouse gestures were nice,info while rendering the page too.but it couldn't save the page.......big flop!

and for all that i know it's not freeware anymore.......

but don't worry..kmeleon is pretty snappy.....it has gecko,but none of that XML bloat in GUI part.....and it saves pages like a big boy....

/ivo

[Doom9]

without actually having read all the posts... we do consider the browsers maintaining the top three positions in this poll as the default for viewing our site. While I don't have Mozilla and Opera installed at all times I periodically use them to test my site.. and I'll try my best to remain compatible with those 3 browsers.

[chemmajik]

I've never looked back for a awesome small modzilla shell, it brings back memorys of the old small slim days of netscape 3.0 or so gold, difference is it works & dont crash! Plus it allows skins... Trust me forget the crap!

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
> If DXN or the Xvid crew were to pull this we would ditch them rather quickly. Why do we let Microsoft?


does xvid crew really ask us that much?
recently i have posted something which is (in my view) a pretty
big bug in recent xvid builds....(and some other folks confirmed this
too..like dloaded my samples,and said..."right,that's the xvid's main problem for me.....").......replies on forum were not that warm at all....

The key thing is they do listen. In my opinion that is more important with how friendly their responses are or even that they directly respond at all. You need to understand they do it in their free time both the Xvid crew and the Mozilla devs. They don't have to. But they want to. Unless you are part of the internal team you have very little idea about what is really going on. What you considder a major bug in the larger scheme of things be a mear nuscance. and they tackle things as they are submitted unless something threattens operation completely.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
making something "a standard" doesn't say a whole lot about it...
standards might be poor for all that i care.....

Standards like that don't go anywhere anyways. But all of the standards spoken of here are not like that. In fact they are hot and people are longing to use them. Microsoft is just hindering that though because they feal it is not in their best interest,

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
why do we let MS?
because it's not quite a big problem to be bothered.....if it becomes,
then users will rebel and MS might do something....

You don't know your history well. Or at least you don't acknowledge it. And it is indeed a big problem. For instance. What web designer in their right mind would want to use PNG with full alpha transparency support. I mean after all who needs any thing more than the 1 bit transparency GIF offers. Plus it's not like anyone can tell the difference between 256 colors and 16+million. Who would want to use the simple and perfect page layout and formatting tools offered by CSS and CSS2. I mean come on the bloated backwards kludge of unintuitive nested tables is far more simple to use right. Who cares if 56kers have to spend an extra 20seconds to download a page layed out with tables that could be done with CSS in a file 30 to 40kilobytes less or smaller. It should be quite clear to you that I am being fecetious and satyrical. You may think it does not effect you. It does. Not as much as someone who designs HTML doccuments. But it does.

People had their chance to rebel or demand better. They failed. Microsoft told them what to believe and they followed. People are sheep. Get out there, make some noise, and make them aware. So that some day even Internet Explorer users may have an equal browsing experience.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
for me bigger problems are that of actually USING the browser then
stumbling on few pages that are garbage in IE.....

It may be a few now. But I assure you it will grow dramatically in the near future. I and many other page designers are getting fed up with coddling Microsoft and IE users. We are bringing out the heavy artillery. OPEN STANDARDS.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
if other browsers were as USABLE as IE,then i would be only glad to use them.....it's not a big issue..

There are plenty that are. perhaps you should investigate more. The only thing special about IE is the incompatable proprietary Microsoft extensions etc that are in it. There are many browsers out there that can point for point beat IE.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
bare in mind:there are folks on non ghz machines (as i am...)
one who doesn't bare us in mind won't get far.(wether it's mozilla,phoenix,etc.)

Once Mozilla is up and running on either my PII 300, my PII 400, or my AMD K6-3 550 it is every bit as "snappy" and fast as IE. And Phoenix runs rings around it.


Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
let's see.....i have celeron600.....mozilla is painfully slow if i need to
a)open in a new window

All I can say is that it is not that way for me on any of the 4 machines that I have that are dramatically slower than yours.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
b)open in a new tab
( for easy browsing this must be fast as a lightning! )

Painfully slow comparred to what? It will probably be many years before IE offers a tabbed browsing feature. By that time you could have opened several billion tabbed pages in Mozilla. That semes a heck of alot faster than IE. ;)

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
these 2 things are enough to put me off.....but complete GUI is dead-meat,dead-beat.......
IE is more practical AND snappier!

How so? Button for button. Menubar item for menubar item. IE and Mozilla and Opera are basically identical in that respect. Mozilla's config dialogues may be different. But they are not more difficult.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
a while ago,i was surprised:
in IE i can delete particular "history" items from the list...(just what i needed that day....)

I have never had a reason or need to clear the history for just one day. Either all or none. Are you browsing for warez or porn on a sharred machine?? If I need to delete history I am cool with chicking it all.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
mozzila doesn't have any cache that i saw...i don't wan't to connect every time : i'm on 56k modem.....
cache is a blessing for me.......

Mozilla has superior caching comparred to IE. Under advanced options on the config dialogue. Unlike IE which caches hundreds of megabytes of stuff IE caches much less to start with. You can change the cache size and behavior. The more a page is visited the more likely it is to be cached. What is the use in caching every single page you visit one time only like IE does.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
something is really wrong with it's code if the GUI is non-responsive....( unparalleled slowness..... )

To be honest with you I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. It is not that way on any of my systems. Maybe I am just lucky with my outdated systems.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
i don't follow this.......if you have big page that is long few screens,how do you "page at a time" ie. switch pages?
wouldn't it be a pain in the butt to hit "previous page" every time
just to see previous parts..(although i didn't saw this feature of mozilla at all.....)

What you can see on your screen at any one time is a "page". You scroll up and down a page at a time. Instantly.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Doom9
without actually having read all the posts... we do consider the browsers maintaining the top three positions in this poll as the default for viewing our site. While I don't have Mozilla and Opera installed at all times I periodically use them to test my site.. and I'll try my best to remain compatible with those 3 browsers.

Good news Doom9. You only have to bend over backwards for that backwards IE browser and those stuck using it. For everyone else things will be kosher as long as you stick to the standards. :D I hope trying to keep IE working will not overburden you. ;) Almost time for a new codec round up.

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

you took some of the stuff i wrote right out of context,
as i said i'm PRO standardized browser AND web,
so that EVERY
browser opens correctly EVERY page....
i saw you didn't quoted that part....

>For instance. What web designer in their right mind would want to use PNG with full alpha transparency support

i know PNG tends to be quite large,but i haven't toyed
with this transparency option.....
images of 200-500 and more Kb's are not for web usage...
when i see that someone posted PNG as a sample of something,i run
like hell!
i know you're satyrical,but anyhow.....web pages should load fast...
i say NORMAL PNG will load slow....dunno about transparent one..
(so...is it really that small in size?)

>To be honest with you I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. It is not that way on any of my systems. Maybe I am just lucky with my outdated systems.

you don't?
should i point you to some usenet discussions where it's like
6-7 users against one mozz developer,and they beat the crap out of him....
wise,experienced system integrators ask why is mozz so slow,and why we have to wait 1 second for button to react if it reacts insttantly in IE..........

it's NOT like mozzila is the ONLY program on my PC!
i said it and will say it again:
i don't have a program on my PC that has so slow responsive GUI as mozilla........so my system seems ok ,and mozilla seem sslow....
what do you say?
that all other prog's are faulty and only mozz is OK because it's so slow?
(yeap,i'm ironic right there.....)


why use cache?
do you really mean what you say?
i have to visit page 10x with mozz in order to be cached?
when i browse forums,i don't wan't to save pages instantly,and it's handy to have them in cache....
IE does this.....mozz doesn't!
on said example,i needed cache to be erased for ONE ITEM only (one batch of web pages),because i have collected some pages one day,but tomorrow i needed to clean that pages from cache,as new ones with same
core name will come.(as leaving them all would make a mess.....
there were plenty of them...)
so i did it in elegant way with IE...
(nope,i wasn't hiding porn from some curious eyes...)
then,when pages were in IE cache i selected what i wan't
(saved what i wan't) offline (56k modem) and all is well.....
do that with mozzilla.....

pushing this thing is ok,but if you attack IE only because it's MS
then i must disagree..(and you do...)
anyone who says that mozz is snappier than IE is attacking MS,and not
judging the prog by it's USABILITY (or INABILITY as in mozz's case...)

MS won't pay me because i say IE is good.....mozilla.org won't pay me if i say it has good browser.......
i'm lookingon it from users point f view,and we're all web users,right?

/ivo
[over&out]

{ ps. PM me if you wan't some of pointers to mozz vs IE discussions on usenet,as it sems you don't have that much of a feedback from mozz users at all..... }

[edit:some typos...]

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
you took some of the stuff i wrote right out of context,
as i said i'm PRO standardized browser AND web,
so that EVERY
browser opens correctly EVERY page....
i saw you didn't quoted that part....

I did not imply you were otherwise. At least not on purpose. I did indeed notice you mention of K-mellon at the very end. I did not have issue with that so I lef it out. Sorry. I have never thought anyone here was a bad person including you.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
>For instance. What web designer in their right mind would want to use PNG with full alpha transparency support

i know PNG tends to be quite large,

Then you only half know PNG. It also tends to be quite small. My avatar as a 256color GIF was aproximatly 4k. Converted to PNG it is just over 2k. On large photographic images you can't beat JPEG. But PNG can come close. And be lossless at the same time. ;)

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
but i haven't toyed
with this transparency option.....

The alpha transparency feature is bliss. No more GIF 1bit jaggies.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
images of 200-500 and more Kb's are not for web usage...

If it is 200 to 500Kb chances are someone did something wrong. PNG is a bit like SBC and not so much like GIF and JPEG. It has a number of compression schemes at it's disposal and ways to losslessly "discard" information.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
when i see that someone posted PNG as a sample of something,i run
like hell!

That is not the fault of PNG.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
i know you're satyrical,but anyhow.....web pages should load fast...
i say NORMAL PNG will load slow....dunno about transparent one..

You have only ever been exposed to bad PNG examples it would seme. PNG can be as small as JPEG and GIF and load just as fast to boot. Even with transparency.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
(so...is it really that small in size?)

Yes.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
you don't?
should i point you to some usenet discussions where it's like
6-7 users against one mozz developer,and they beat the crap out of him....

Mob mentality and group violence never spring from intelligence. Only ignorance. Perhaps they beat the crap outtta him verbally but the way you lay it out I doubt they were able to prove even one of their points. My perception.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
wise,experienced system integrators ask why is mozz so slow,and why we have to wait 1 second for button to react if it reacts insttantly in IE..........

I am telling you the honest truth. IE is not faster or "snappier" as you put it on any of my systems. Even on my painfully slow systems it looks to me like a dead heat. Perhaps my ability to judge time is imparred. But I don't think so. I never said you were lying about it being slow on your system. Just that my experience and mileage have varried greatly. And who would you call wise experienced system integrators. I doubt I would hold them in such high esteme. But that is just me. One mans wise man is another mans fool.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
it's NOT like mozzila is the ONLY program on my PC!
i said it and will say it again:
i don't have a program on my PC that has so slow responsive GUI as mozilla........so my system seems ok ,and mozilla seem sslow....

I never said you were lying. I said my experience shows on my systems that it keeps up with IE just fine. My experience. Your experience. My experience. Your experience. One does not preclude the other.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
what do you say?
that all other prog's are faulty and only mozz is OK because it's so slow?

No but I am hinting that one or more of your ok programs could be having an adverse effect on Mozilla and not that Mozilla is solely to blame. Stranger things have happened. I have seen no end of tests and proof that starting Mozilla from scratch takes longer than creating a new instance of IE after it is already open. But then that is a stilted and unfair comparrison to begin with. But all I have heard so far on the GUI issue is oppinion and no data. My personal experience contradicts yours. But no one has put forth data even of a stilted nature to show that the GUI in Mozilla is actually slower. I don't doubt or deny you. I have no reason to. But for me the jurry is out as to whether it is really Mozilla's fault.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
why use cache?
do you really mean what you say?
i have to visit page 10x with mozz in order to be cached?

No. You have a set cache size. By default it is much smaller than that rediculously bloated IE cache file. You can make the cach size equal between the two and they will perform quite similarly. If you decrease IE's cache size it does not do so well. But Mozilla and many others have inteligent cache handling that keeps files from sites visited more often in the cach and discards the ones that are not accessed regularly. IE does do this. But it does not work as well.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
when i browse forums,i don't wan't to save pages instantly,and it's handy to have them in cache....
IE does this.....mozz doesn't!

No no Mozilla "does" do that as well.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
on said example,i needed cache to be erased for ONE ITEM only (one batch of web pages),because i have collected some pages one day,but tomorrow i needed to clean that pages from cache,as new ones with same
core name will come.(as leaving them all would make a mess.....
there were plenty of them...)

Yeah IE's 200Mb+ cach file can create an insane amount of clutter on your HD. That is why I like Mozilla being able to do good caching in a file 1/20th the size or less than that of IE.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
so i did it in elegant way with IE...
(nope,i wasn't hiding porn from some curious eyes...)
then,when pages were in IE cache i selected what i wan't
(saved what i wan't) offline (56k modem) and all is well.....
do that with mozzilla.....

I don't have to. Mozilla does that for me. Sorry.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
pushing this thing is ok,but if you attack IE only because it's MS
then i must disagree..(and you do...)

Then you have verry little grasp of what I am saying. Don't feel hurt it is a common thing. It does not really matter that IE is made by Microsoft for the most part. If AOL put out IE then I would have a beef with them. But they don't and I don't. Make no mistake I have no love for Microsoft. But that is not the reason behind any of the things I have pointed out.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
anyone who says that mozz is snappier than IE is attacking MS,and not judging the prog by it's USABILITY

Perhaps. But then I ask that you go back and read every thing I have typed in this thread. I never said Mozilla was. I said that at least on my 4+ systems Mozilla based browsers including Mozilla performed on par with IE speed wise. There was no real noticable difference. The only places where I pointed out and rightly so that IE was blown out of the water was open standards support. Everybody and their grandmother has current browser versions with better support than IE.

Originally posted by ^^-+I4004+-^^
{ ps. PM me if you wan't some of pointers to mozz vs IE discussions on usenet,as it sems you don't have that much of a feedback from mozz users at all..... }

Hmmmmmm. I am a Mozilla user. My parrents are Mozilla users. Most of my friends are Mozilla users. Many people I converse with over the internet are Mozilla users. How many do I need before my feedback is adequate? Just to let you know I have IE, Opera7, Mozilla, Phoenix, and more installed and use them regularly as well. Mozilla most of all though. I am not trying to put a spin on things. This is my experience. You have yours. We agree for the most part and on the things that matter. That should be enough.

[Krawhitham]

I use Phoenix, it is like a lite version of Mozilla

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/phoenix/phoenix-release-notes.html