In the hour of 10:24 PM 26/02/2003 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] spoke this:
Yeah, it may be old, but it's more accurate that Sun.  Compare a browser
using Sun Java to one using MS Java, and you'll see the difference.  Sun
doesn't seem to correctly "obey" specified commands or tags within a
Java applet, like for example; fonts, timing of the applet, colors, etc.
I can't say if I'm looking at old or new applets.  To use an aphorism
with this to browsers; I'd say Sun Java is like Netscape (not compatible
with many websites), and MS VM is like IE (being compatible with all
websites).

Well, I put your view to the test with a clean install of XP with SP1 against a clean install of XP with SP1 using the Sun JVM 1.4.1, virtual machines are great for this and besides I need it for testing sites too.:)
I did not find your perceptions to be accurate. From viewing sites in Asia, Europe, and North America I did notice that many sites using certain classes viewed with the MS JVM (3809) balked (whether these are new variants or not I can't say as I have not run them through the Console), and some financial sites in Asia and Europe were troublesome as well but these have been common since the MS JVM 3808.
Other JVM's are popular around the world, the IBM JVM is more popular in the Asian Pacific region than anybody else.


Look at older applets created when Netscape was the top browser and you will see IE fail from time to time. The same can be said with using other browsers like Mozilla or Opera and other platforms like Mac.

If being up to date with compatibility, stability, and security is of concern then use a JVM other than the M$ JVM http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Programming/Languages/Java/Implementations/

Peter Kaulback ============= PCWorks Mailing List =================
Don't see your post? Check our posting guidelines &
make sure you've followed proper posting procedures,
http://pcworkers.com/rules.htm
Contact list owner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Unsubscribing and other changes: http://pcworkers.com
=====================================================

Reply via email to