JTK wrote:
> Gervase Markham wrote:
> > Netscape is an app for displaying HTML 3.2 (basically.) Mozilla supports
> > HTML 4, CSS 1 and large parts of 2, XML... but you've heard this list
> > before, right?
> Sure, but usually with a bunch of qualifiers such as "will eventually
> support" and "once the bugs are worked out will largely support".
There are still bugs in IE4/5/5.5's rendering engine too. Nothing is bug free.
> Is there a simple chart somewhere showing how much more standards-compliant
> Mozilla is - today - than NC4.77, IE 6, etc? If not, why not?
I know there is, but I'm damned if I can remember where. Let me look...
Ok, here's an old one, old in the sense that 5 months makes it out of date, and
features have been ADDED since then, and they do not show Mozilla on all it's
platforms, but for the Big 3 (Win32, Mac, Linux), it's pretty accurate.
http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/reference/browser_chart/
The one odd thing to me is that it talks about "Internet Explorer 1" which I
don't recall. I recall that MS went from no browser to version 2, just like Word
went from 2 to 5 in a leap, and Access from 2 or 3 to 7.
> > Are you seriously claiming that these two products have the same level of
> > function?
> Not at all! I'm claiming that NC4.77 is USABLE ON A DAILY BASIS, and
> that Mozilla IS NOT. That's not at all "the same level of function" in
> my book!
As far as the browser goes, I find Mozilla much more able than NS4.x. Frequently
I hit sites that NS4.x can't handle, but Mozilla handles with ease. Obviously,
Moz may well crash more frequently than NS4.7x, but comparing NS4.0 to Mozilla
0.9, Mozilla wins in stability hands down. By the time Mozilla 1.0 goes gold,
these issues will have ben worked out. Even from your perspective, you have to
give the programmers a lot of credit for the improvements even since the
beginning of the year.
> [snip]
> > I know at least one person whose thesis got eaten by Word who would
> > disagree with you there.
I refuse to use Word, as it locks up my machine half the time This is on a
machine that I have worked so that even if IE crashes, I can recover gracefully.
> And how many people lost their emails to Mozilla just recently Gerv? I
> don't think you want to get into a bug-fight here Gerv.
No one is, he merely pointed out an obvious flaw in your example. The fact that
Mozilla is still beta doesn't help you either.
> > Check n.p.m.performance for the graphs you need. As all the load-time and
> > mem-usage charts are moving downwards at a steady pace,
> Not the ones I've been seeing Gerv. In fact in the last few weeks
> there's been an inexplicable *increase* in load time.
Then you're not looking hard enough. On my machine, Mozilla loads almost as fast
as NS4.77, and FASTER than IE. My rig is set up so that IE is not loaded with
the OS, but separately, except for shdocvw.dll.
> > if Mozilla 1.0 is
> > released as far from now as you think, we will be using negative memory
> > and loading pages before they are requested :-)
> Um, no, you'll be using more memory than has ever been manufactured and
> loading pages after the internet has been replaced by something else.
Please, try not to stoop to unsubstantiated attacks. Memory bloat is down, load
times are down, app launch time is down, disk usage is down. These are facts.
Although I still wonder about your purpose here. Are you merely trying to point
out room for improvement, or are you trying to convince us to give up on the
project?
--
jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
email [ jesusx @ who.net ]
web [ http://burntelectrons.com ] [ Updated April 29, 2001 ]
tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
warning [ All your base are belong to us. ]
