IE over Netscape

but remember to let ms access your hard drive you have to have ie5 so that every time you visit their page to get new version of dx it makes you install ie5 damn active x..
i\'m one of the 17% and Netscape rox..
might crash more.. but when it goes.. my computer doesnt go down with it..
ie goes.... my comp has to be restarted... 3minutes from off to net sounds pitiful but my isp takes a few times to get through..
1.5minutes to boot up..

What is there good to say about IE overall ?? Hmmm. It comes with the latest versions of MS operating system. IE, the hallmark of being a newbie. Hell, you don\'t even need to choose to install it, it\'s \'just there\'. At least Netscape in large part got to where it was by being a \'choice\'. If one wants/wanted to use it, they download/downloaded it voluntarily, or they opted to install it from the software provided by their ISP. Hell, how can you go wrong, IE is already installed and ready to go, no damn brainwork whatsoever. Sounds like AOL, no brains, just hook up and off you go. Ironies abound, looking at who owns Netscape. IE would have to really, really, really, reek pitifully bad for all the newbies to drop the pre-installed IE and get Netscape. Obviously IE is not that bad, but it reminds me of the MS website.... pooooor.

A large portion of IE users (no, not everything is absolute) are likely just unwitting cows of an attempt by a massive software componay to hold a monopoly. Oh wait, they have already been legally deemed to be a monopoly. Geez, I guess all that web browsing really helped out, among other things. I\'m sure if MS started packin\' in crack and crack subscriptions with their operating system, they could even create their own crack empire. Just get enough cows with a good delivery system, and the empire practically builds itself.

If a billion people are wrong, that doesn\'t make them right

#97, It is only no contest if the organization in question can easily absorb the new OS and new tools. The TCO advantages pale for Linux when you have to HIRE additional staff and spend money on training for existing staff to bring them up to speed.

Sure, there are experienced unix people available, but how can you justify the cost of an additional (minimum of) $40-60k+ a year for the life of the project vs. saving the cost of a $15,000 NT server, $3000 in licenses, and $10,000 in additional software that will serve them for the entire life of the project, using existing staff? That isn\'t even to consider that most of that $10k in software would probably have to be purchased for linux and heavily added onto for the functionality desired or written from whole cloth, adding considerably to the cost for the packages and maintenance price.

I\'ve seen examples of where the difference is even BIGGER in unix heavy shops. Until Linux/*BSD has a tool on par with VB for RAD development or Sybase ports PowerBuilder to Linux (in the case of that tool) for n-tier, Enterprise development, the costs for developing (and maintaining from what I have seen) client/server business applications is going to be higher on *nux/*BSD than on a PC.

A great example being the project I mentioned in #87. That project look one THIRD the time with HALF the staff as the nearest comparable X application (the X app is SMALLER than this one, BTW). Maintenance costs are significantly smaller, because problems take less time to track down and debug and the application runs faster locally than the X app located on the departmental X servers. They are SO pleased with what they were able to achieve with VB, they are talking about phasing out the X applications completely in favor of having ALL the apps in VB.

Again, because of Active X, they were able to integrate the same graphical components between the huge client/server app and the few pieces that were needed by the field agents on their laptops when the dialed into the corporate VPN.

So, please don\'t spout your anti-Microsoft zealotry to me. Yes, there are situations where Linux/*BSD can offer a SIGNIFICANT savings in TCO, but there are plenty more where it cannot, yet.

Windows and the applications that run on it are no where nearly unstable as most zealots such as yourself claim. The advantages in ease of use, broad hardware support, and PnP that works better than any other on the x86 platform significantly outweigh the potential for instability.

Perhaps if you put as much effort into keeping windows running right instead of being a zealot, complaining about how much \"Mickysoft sux\", then you might not have as many problems as you imply? Use whatever OS best suits the job at hand, not the one that is your religion.

BTW, for any of you who have actually programmed in X or Win32... You might want to check out BeOS. The API is pretty neat.

#49 -

IE is on top by far on all PC sites. IE is without a second doubt the most popular PC browser.

Pity on the linux desktop users that they have no choice and have to use Netrape and its terrible broken renderingengine.

To the NutScrape users:
type the following in the location field...

about:mozilla
or
about:jwz

K.. im bored. :)

#83, Well said. Did ya know our very own sCary(Steve Gibson) is a FrontPage Wienie! bwhaha!

#84, I don\'t see how you can even mention MickySoft when you are talking about TCO. You can\'t beat GNU/Linux for TCO. It cost absolutely $0, fur the software. Will outperform any MS crap on cheaper hardware. And there are tons of people out there to admin it.
Its no contest.


As far as better browsers? IE5 is newer more refined. NutScrape(Mozilla) is being developed in open-source, and it\'s pretty much being re-written. Expect some good things. The bottom line is that there arent going to be any stable apps on the WinXXX platform. Why? Because the damn OS isnt even stable. How do you know if its the apps fault or the OS\'s?
Win2k? Blech. What a resource hog. Move the mouse and watch it start swapping memory to disk! bwahaha! Is\'nt it funny how with each release of NT, and now win2k that MS, is incorporating more and more Unix like features. *sigh* you MS users are on a the MS treadmill. Get off now.

http://quake.hal-pc.org

IE\'s bookmarks don\'t suck damnit!

Just drag those fuckers around in the menu itself and they stay put!
This feature alone was reason enough for me to switch over to IE for good. Try sorting \'em like that and you\'ll dig it.
I have yet to use the \'Organize Favorites\' dialog(which DOES lick, I admit); wonder why they even bothered with it.

Saw that some other guy mentioned this, but it was hidden under the rest of his post.

What really ticks me off is ICQ insisting I have a \'From ICQ\' folder in my bookmarks. If anyone could tell me how to get rid of that shit I\'d appreciate it.

God IE sucks.

Thats all, thank you.

Suma.

I\'m part of that 17% too I guess... I don\'t know if your stats would pick it up though, I mangle my browser reponse into something a bit more... umm.. interesting.. :-)

Once every 3 weeks or so I get an NS crash... that\'s far more acceptable than what IE/Windows can sustain.. IE crashed every chance it got when I tried it.

IE is faster loading and a bit with pages, I\'ll give it that.

But I\'ve found Netscape is better when your opening images.

NS crashes more, but it doesn\'t crash as hard as IE does and nuke your system along with it.

IE\'s bookmarks suck, a lot.

IE has bugs that piss me off. I selected \"do not search from address bar\" and \"do not auto complete addresses\" but the fucking thing does. Another reason why I use NS.


Until those are fixed, I\'ll stay with NS. (not the most recent version. It sucks. \'Shopping\' button indeed)

forgot -
Gecko looks cool though -
it\'s a browser with full java and current html support that fits on a floppy.
That\'s a good angle to take on the browser war, and something MS isn\'t even thinking about.

I did support for Netscape for 2 years.
For that time I was very loyal. I NEVER used IE out of some innate hatred I had for ANYthing made by Microsoft that wasn\'t required to run my QuakeX games.
I supported the browser under win3.x, win9x, NT, MAc, and every UNIX you could imagine.
A couple months after I left that job, IE5 came out. I saw someone use the full-screen browsing thing and I was intrigued.
Tried it once and haven\'t gone back since.
There\'s obvious technical problems with both, but IE seems faster(well, it\'s PART of the fucking OS - big surprise...), more stable and, well - has some damn cool features.
With MS having hooks in your OS, it\'s damn hard to compete.
Netscape seemed to have too many things going on server-wise to really concentrate on the browser like they used to.
MS WANTS the entire browsing market and can allocate the resources to take it. To Netscape, their main focus became server products(especially with the new Sun/Netscape alliance), therefore letting the browser client sort of fall to the wayside as a priority.
There was a definite time when they ceased to make a great browser -
Communicator 4.5
That\'s when it REALLY started sucking to have to support the shit.
Too many bugs, problems with inter-operability...
It was a bummer for all us schmucks who had to field the calls.
No matter what I say here, Netscape flailing and all, IE suddenly looking like a better option - using MS products STILL gives me the creeps.
But damn, it really IS faster (see above), hard to argue with that.
Netscape was necessary though - MS NEEDED competition in browsing just as they still need competition in all other SW areas.
Don\'t slam Netscape just slam someone: it\'s a tough gig to compete in.
Their reign, just as everything non-MS, is always temporary if Gates has a business interest in what your company is doing.
That\'s what a monopoly is all about - creating inevitable
\'finish-lines\' for competing products, especially if they are good.
You can\'t compete fro too awful long, really.
< note: RealAudio = case in point>
That is, unless the courts nail the fucker\'s who are your main competition =]

PS. Mozilla will have (well, already has) some cool features like a completely skinnable and customizable interface, for those of you who are into skins :)

#85: You\'re right, Mozilla right now is not a usable product. It\'s in alpha-stage, I called it a beta but it\'s really not ever close to being a final product.

Still I think for a completely unfinished piece of software it\'s quite amazing. It\'s not optimized at all and yet the rendering engine is extremely fast, faster than IE in most cases. The load time has been greatly improved from previous versions, and it\'s almost stable enough to surf on. Anyway, it\'s meant to be a preview of things to come from Netscape and Mozilla, not a \"demo\" at all. I guess I\'m praising it a lot because I\'ve followed it from early on and I\'m very impressed with how well it\'s progressed.

To keep in touch with Mozilla development, check out http://www.mozillazine.org, I go there a few times a week.

Oh, and Belzebutt...

That Mozilla beta has a LONG way to go before it\'ll give IE a run for it\'s money.

The thing crashed (GPF) several times while I was sitting at the mozilla.org page arranging the GUI to my liking. There were a number of options that seemed to have NO effect on the browser settings, like toolbar text and changing the text size on the pages displayed. In addition, the page load speed wasn\'t as fast as IE5 and several of the pages I checked that look OK in IE, Opera, Netscape 4.6, or NetPostive looked funky (weird table lines, strange text spacing, etc). Frankly, the thing seemed in little better shape than the last version of Bezilla I tried.

Sorry, #83, but if Microsoft\'s tools do the job better and at a lower TOC than the alternatives, I\'m going to use them.

This is especially true in a company without any internal unix knowledge base. However, even in a company that is entrenched with unix as a client and server side OS, I have seen the growth of Microsoft\'s tools because they ease the burden on the developer and provide a more professional product than the alternative.

In one company they replaced nearly 100 commercial unix workstations with the same number of PCs running windows 95 and a commercial X-client. The result saved the company a LOT of money and resulted in faster performance on the clients. In addition, everyone in the company now had access to the suite of business applications from Microsoft and the corporate email system.

Because of the presence of the Windows OS, they chose VB instead of X as their next platform for development because the cost of development and maintenance was LOWER than coding and maintaining another native X application. Because of the integration of Active X in intranet and desktop applications, they chose IE for their browser, allowing the new application to share components with an intranet based version of the app for their field agents.

They also use Apache for a webserver, mostly coded in with Perl CGI. They use NT for their mac and PC network servers, but have NO intent on using NT/IIS for web or database services. Quite frankly, there isn\'t an Intel or Alpha based machine fast enough to use to justify a change over from their millions of dollars in investment in unix servers. However, they are even researching using Linux to host their current X-Servers, to further reduce their TCO by 10\'s of thousands of dollars a year in maintenance and licensing fees.

I\'m not going to have some anti-Microsoft zealot choose the tools I use for development. If I am going to make recommendations to clients, it will be for what best matches THEIR needs, not who I think has the ethical and moral upperhand, or even the coolest tech. If Microsoft fits the bill best, then they are used. If they don\'t, then I\'ll use or recommend what DOES.

#78: That\'s Microsoft\'s fault, not Netscape\'s. You\'re using Microsofts own propriatery (sp) development tools (ASP, VB, and I bet you use a Microsoft version of SQL running on NT? I\'m right, aren\'t I... hang your head in shame).

Reality is, IE is far and away better, but its because NS had an impossible fight, and that\'s why the american goverment is busting them. But it\'s also YOUR fault. Developers like you, being as ignorant about the long term effects of your development choices, are contributing to the cause of giving Microsoft an upper hand in the playing field... no longer just limited to the fact that they control the OS on which things operate, but in your world they control the server from which the pages come.

Why don\'t you just make your sites with Front Page while you\'re at it (if you can\'t see the sarcasm in that, you\'re a lost cause).

My point is that we, as the people who understand what is going on in the industry, must shoulder the burden of deciding who gets our development dollars, and that\'s where the money is made. Microsoft isn\'t rewarded when the average person choses IE, they are rewarded when we chose them.

- strAtEdgE (Scott Beuker)

Web content developer with
Apache, MySQL, PERL, PHP, on Linux.

Oh and thanks to Belzebutt for the link to the M10 beta. I hadn\'t heard that was in good enough shape to bother with yet.

Downloading it now for a look-see. Only 4MB, so maybe they are doing something right?

Most annoying table bug? In Netscape, you need to put a ;nbsp <---blankspace in every table cell that is supposed to be empty. If you don\'t, the cell turns white.

Head over to /. and checkout their thread:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/11/06/1747232&mode=thread&threshold=-1

If a bunch of anti-microsoft people are slamming Netscape that much, then something MUST be wrong.

I love the one post of the Linux geek and netscape user who was feeling guilty for using IE because he found it to be better than the version of netscape that is available.

I\'ll certainly try the next version of Netscape (or Mozilla, whatever it is going to be called) when it comes out, just like every other version (hell, I tried NeoPlanet and Opera on Win32 as well). I don\'t have any hopes that it will beat IE5, though.

We\'ll see soon enough, I am sure.

to the guys who were having trouble with tables in netscape:

i nest tables like mad, and I have never had many problems with netscape\'s ability to render tables.

IE tends to be more forgiving than netscape when it comes to table alignment and a couple of ether things, but as a web designer, the last thing I want is a forgiving browser.

i\'m guessing the problem you\'re having is the one where (i\'m leaving out brackets, because I don\'t know to what extent the comments system understands html):

table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
tr
td
/td
td
/td
/tr
tr
td
/td
td
/td
/tr
/table

still has a gaps between your image slices. that bothered me for weeks, and yes, I do consider it a bug, but the solution is very easy. just open and close your td on the same line of code. doesn\'t make a damn bit of sense seeing as how html doesn\'t even see returns, but it works. so the same piece of html above would look like this...

table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
tr
td /td
td /td
/tr
tr
td /td
td /td
/tr
/table

if theres a table bug i don\'t know about, please let me know, i might have a solution, or be able to hunt one down

my two favorite browsers are ie4 and netscape 4.6. i am anxious for netscape to release 5.0 because it is supposed to be much smaller than current versions of netscape and microsoft, and i\'m sort of curious to see what advantages an open source browser will have. i will still have both browsers, and all my sites, regardless of concept, content, etc., will work identically on both (with the exception of dhtml, at which netscape\'s (current) browser is admittedly weak). and yes, you will se a lot of cool stuff after netscape 5 is released that was possible for a while in ie, but rarely done, because people have to stay compatible with both products.

I have to use netsuck at work (stupid proxy server ACL check!), but am quite happy using EI5 at home. It\'s much more familiar, doesn\'t crash (netscape always with the BSOD, probably a Bill Gates code problem)and in my book easier to use.

dammit, I gotta read all the earlier posts.... earlier.

IE does load faster, because it takes up a chunk of your hard earned RAM as soon as you start your GUI, so all of its start up routines are cached in, 24/7. And it doesn\'t give your RAM back!
Anything that steals my RAM doesn\'t make me a happy gamer.

hehehehe. #3. I bet that\'s why the shack looks better in MSIE

DOH! :)

hi.

INTERNET EXPLORER SUCKS.

How can you people use such a cheesy looking, crap image handling, OS integrating piece of shit?

Yeah, whats up with it adding bookmarks? I went to hotmail once, using NETSCAPE, and that wack-ass MS owned page added a bookmark to that too. Muvfux0rs.

Wack-ass Link - http://www.microsoft.com

The only problem I have with IE is that sometimes it randomly makes that damn \'links\' folder in my bookmarks... just pisses me off.

#41, You mean like most ISPs do when they force users to install Netscape?

I\'ve got 3 different Netscape CDs from 3 different ISPs sitting in my CD rack. I\'ve even got a set of the windows 3.1 disks from another one.

It was only in the first case that I ever willingly installed it, since I had bought into the Netscape is better than IE rhetoric. However, after Netscape kept sucking up all my memory, crashing Java, and otherwise behaving poorly, I switched to IE on 3.02 and have never found a version of Netscape that worked as well as IE since. IE 3.02 was a lean, fast program with an excellent Java VM. IE 4.0 had all the features of Netscape and more and was faster than the 4.0 version of Netscape. IE 5.0 just blows Netscape away in every regard. IE 5.0 not only loads faster because of OS integration, but displays pages faster as well. And WHERE is Netscape 5.0?

I agree with the ZDNet article. There are a lot of businesses that were using Netscape because it was the \"accepted standard\" without evaluating IE and because the web admins had SERIOUS bias against Microsoft. I\'ve seen more than one company give IE serious consideration as a browser of choice, recently and several switch over when intranet development reqired it because IE supported features that made the TCO of the project lower than Netscape.

BTW, you might want to make sure the \"Launch Browser windows in a separate process\" option is set on IE. This should prevent any collateral damage if/when IE crashes.

I use Netscape on Linux because I have no choice, since I have not found that version of Opera to be up to snuff. On BeOS, however, the version of Opera that is available is FAR beyond the version of Netscape, while the browser that comes with the OS, NetPostive, remains the most stable and the fastest, but doesn\'t support Java scripting.

I agree with #66. I don\'t quite understand the problem with IE favorites vs. Netscape Bookmarks. I really like the way the IE favorites work, but never had an issue with the Bookmarks, either. Also, if you have Windows 98, you can just re-arrange the order of the favorites by dragging them around on the menu.

Way back when, Netscape was pretty good. All my buddies were using it. All of a sudden, a lot of sites just looked like shit - table problems. I wondered, \"Geez, are these guys crazy? This browser sux.\" That\'s when I went to IE. When MS released 5.0 they made is a vastly superior browser. Netscape, I just deleted the friggin\' thing.

#64, In what way does IE handle bookmarks so badly? I think it\'s pretty straight forward if you ask me. I mean, you can arrange them in folders and rename them and do whatever you like with them, I don\'t see your point. I really don\'t. How hard could it be? You tell me.

I think the question should have been if you had to pay for the browser and email client and which would you choose ? money changes everything. and it looks like with microsoft being a monopoly that it may come down to that.