I have used Netscape for years, and am used to Communicator 4.08.
I have begun to suspect it for crashes, so am considering
options, including Navigator 4.08 as a web browser.
I presently use W95B and will shortly go to W98SE on a home
machine. I have 98 MB EDO RAM with my P166MMX.
Just as a
Mike S wrote:
> I have used Netscape for years, and am used to Communicator 4.08.
> I have begun to suspect it for crashes, so am considering
> options, including Navigator 4.08 as a web browser.
> I presently use W95B and will shortly go to W98SE on a home
> machine. I have 98 MB EDO RAM wit
[This followup was posted to alt.usenet.offline-reader and a copy
was sent to the cited author.]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> Mike S wrote:
>
> > I have used Netscape for years, and am used to Communicator 4.08.
> > I have begun to suspect it for crashes, so am
Mozilla is way too much of a pig for your machine. I have a
PIII/933/256MB here, and it's not really usable.
You really should upgrade to Communicator 4.77 though. 4.08 is
extremely old and 4.77 is pretty stable.
Mike S wrote:
>
> I have used Netscape for years, and am used to Communicator 4.
JTK wrote:
> Mozilla is way too much of a pig for your machine. I have a
> PIII/933/256MB here, and it's not really usable.
>
I've learned that varies greatly and depends on the person, and possibly
what we're already running on our machine. I have an Athlon 750 with
128MB RAM, and before I
Mike S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Mike S wrote:
>>
>>> I have used Netscape for years, and am used to Communicator 4.08.
>>> I have begun to suspect it for crashes, so am considering
>>> options, including Navigator 4.08 as a web browser.
>>> I presently use W95B and
JTK wrote:
> Mozilla is way too much of a pig for your machine. I have a
> PIII/933/256MB here, and it's not really usable.
>
> You really should upgrade to Communicator 4.77 though. 4.08 is
> extremely old and 4.77 is pretty stable.
H noo.. if you can't run Moz on a 933 then you have se
Fabian Guisset wrote:
>
> JTK wrote:
>
> > Mozilla is way too much of a pig for your machine. I have a
> > PIII/933/256MB here, and it's not really usable.
> >
> > You really should upgrade to Communicator 4.77 though. 4.08 is
> > extremely old and 4.77 is pretty stable.
>
> H noo.. if yo
JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Who said I can't run it? I said it's unusable. As in, both
> Communicator 4.77 and IE/Outlook Express run circles around it
> speed-wise, functionality-wise, every-wise.
On the *75* MHz SPARC that I use Mozilla on: Mozilla consumes less RAM than
IE; renders as f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Who said I can't run it? I said it's unusable. As in, both
> > Communicator 4.77 and IE/Outlook Express run circles around it
> > speed-wise, functionality-wise, every-wise.
>
> On the *75* MHz SPARC that I use Mozilla on:
Mozill
JTK wrote:
> What axe do you think I'm grinding? I'll admit that the failure of the
> Mozilla project has been a crushing disappointment to me, but does that
> count as an axe?
>
Don't call us a failure until 1.0 ships. Then you can make your own
judgement. I'm using a nightly after 0.8.1
Orrin Edenfield wrote:
>
> JTK wrote:
>
> > What axe do you think I'm grinding? I'll admit that the failure of the
> > Mozilla project has been a crushing disappointment to me, but does that
> > count as an axe?
> >
>
> Don't call us a failure until 1.0 ships.
But I can't wait for the Rapture
JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On the *75* MHz SPARC that I use Mozilla on:
> Mozilla and what else? And what OS? And what Army? ;-)
Mozilla and 6-10 rxvts, Oracle, Tomcat+Apache, and whatever the other users
are running.
> So you're running NT then? How much less RAM? On my Why2K box her
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On the *75* MHz SPARC that I use Mozilla on:
> > Mozilla and what else? And what OS? And what Army? ;-)
>
> Mozilla and 6-10 rxvts, Oracle, Tomcat+Apache, and whatever the other users
> are running.
>
Ok, so it's not NT. So wha
JTK wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> This is why I compare Mozilla on Solaris against IE on
>> *Solaris*, where neither has a blatant advantage.
>
> Well, you mean where both have a blatant disadvantage, i.e., running on
> an OS which was never desig
JTK wrote:
> But I can't wait for the Rapture. I figure it's best to get it out of
> the way now, so that, assuming Mozilla ships before we're all nothing
> but dry bones, I can at that time roll out the "I told you so"'s. "Now"
> of course meaning 3+ years down a sad, lonely, fruitless, yet
>
Orrin Edenfield wrote:
>
> JTK wrote:
>
> > But I can't wait for the Rapture. I figure it's best to get it out of
> > the way now, so that, assuming Mozilla ships before we're all nothing
> > but dry bones, I can at that time roll out the "I told you so"'s. "Now"
> > of course meaning 3+ years
JTK wrote:
> Not without planting a stake in the ground next to it. And I have a
> very hard time calling it progress when both the basic functionality
> *and* resource usage are significantly worse than the programs it is
> ostensibly intended to replace.
Your bound to make alot of people mad
Orrin Edenfield schrieb:
> > ?!??!?!! *MOZILLA'S* mail/news client?!? It's a freaken' mess man!
>
> No way. I like the email app. I've use Eudora, Opera Mail, Outlook
> Express, and I use Outlook at work, and I prefer Mozilla Mail. I'm just
> used to it (I used to use Netscape Mail).
>
wha
Wolfgang Zeikat wrote:
>
> Orrin Edenfield schrieb:
>
> > > ?!??!?!! *MOZILLA'S* mail/news client?!? It's a freaken' mess man!
> >
> > No way. I like the email app. I've use Eudora, Opera Mail, Outlook
> > Express, and I use Outlook at work, and I prefer Mozilla Mail. I'm just
> > used to i
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mozilla is way too much of a pig for your machine. I have a
>PIII/933/256MB here, and it's not really usable.
That's strange, I'm using it on a PII/233/64MB machine and it is perfectly
usable, in fact it's pretty nippy when it's up
Orrin Edenfield wrote:
>
> JTK wrote:
>
> > Not without planting a stake in the ground next to it. And I have a
> > very hard time calling it progress when both the basic functionality
> > *and* resource usage are significantly worse than the programs it is
> > ostensibly intended to replace.
>
Wolfgang Zeikat wrote:
> what do you do when you want to copy headers from messages? make a
> screenshot, then print and scan it?
>
> that part is a "freaken' mess" in my view too, the multi-account feature
> is nice tho.
When do I ever need to copy a header? As far as I use them, they tell
JTK wrote:
> Oh I excel at that sir. ;-)
hehe.. *ducks the egg shells and tomatoes*
> I don't disagree. A fat, out of shape guy running a mile is a major
> accomplishment. For him. But he's no competition for Olympic
> athletes. And in this race, the Olympic athletes don't cost any mor
JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Your bound to make alot of people mad talking like that
> Oh I excel at that sir. ;-)
Trolls usually do.
> I don't disagree. A fat, out of shape guy running a mile is a major
> accomplishment. For him. But he's no competition for Olympic
And you're the guy s
> I haven't used Netscape email since I got Outlook, because Outlook is
> simply so much more advanced, slick, and usable.
How is it more advanced, slick, and usable. What features do you use in
outlook which you would like to see in mozilla mail and news? Have you
filed any enhancement reques
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:49:07 + (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>You're a troll. People ignore you, or ask you to go away, because you
>continue to rant the same drivel again and again. You make the same stupid
>statements over and over, and when people provide the SAME ANSWERS to the
>sam
Sarch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So JTK is a troll just because he thinks Mozilla is a bloated, slow, memory
> hog? Rubbish. It certainly is on Windows, and JTK makes a lot of valid
No, he's a troll because he claims to think so, and posts such again and again
and AGAIN. He's been answered by
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> PS: Please don't feed the trolls. This includes me, if you really think that
> is my goal.
Yes. I will try to stop feeding them. I've realized that I only
encourage them. Thanks for pointing that out.
--
Orrin Edenfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.orrinrule.com
Get
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Orrin Edenfield
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>JTK wrote:
[snip]
>> I don't disagree. A fat, out of shape guy running a mile is a major
>> accomplishment. For him. But he's no competition for Olympic
>> athletes. And in this race, the Olympic athletes don't cos
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, N. Marshall
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I haven't used Netscape email since I got Outlook, because Outlook is
>> simply so much more advanced, slick, and usable.
>
>How is it more advanced, slick, and usable. What features do you use in
>outlook which you wou
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Garth Wallace
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>JTK wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is why I compare Mozilla on Solaris against IE on
>>> *Solaris*, where neither has a blatant advantage.
>>
>> Well, you mean w
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, N. Marshall
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I haven't used Netscape email since I got Outlook, because Outlook is
>> simply so much more advanced, slick, and usable.
>
>How is it more advanced, slick, and usable. What features do you use in
>outlook which you wou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Your bound to make alot of people mad talking like that
> > Oh I excel at that sir. ;-)
>
> Trolls usually do.
>
OUCH! You got me GOOD there Mr. Hume!
> > I don't disagree. A fat, out of shape guy running a mile is a major
>
JTK wrote:
> You haven't seen much of Outlook then. If it had a decent newsreader in it,
> I'd have completely dumped Nav4.7x long ago.
There is one great feature in the Mozilla newsreader that has me hooked:
when I move the mouse over the subject list panel or message panel, the
mouse wheel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, N. Marshall
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I haven't used Netscape email since I got Outlook, because Outlook is
>>> simply so much more advanced, slick, and usable.
>>
>>How is it more advanced, slick, and usable. What features do
> There is one great feature in the Mozilla newsreader that has me hooked:
> when I move the mouse over the subject list panel or message panel, the
> mouse wheel scrolls the corresponding page without me having to click on
> the panel. It may not sound like much but it makes dealing with a hig
Hi Tim,
Tim Wunder wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> >> Have you
> >>filed any enhancement requests/looked for some of them in bugzilla?
> >
> > God no! I don't want to bring the whole thing to a dead stop!
> >
>
> Hmmm... I seem to remember reading one of your posts indicating t
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Well I'd hope so, given how much memory it hogs. Again, over 22MB *TO
>DISPLAY A BLANK PAGE*.
On what platform, on start up it's 14MB to display a blank page here (on
WinNT at work). Not sure of the numbers at home on Linux. This
JTK wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Moz's Mail/News
> > compares very favorably to Outlook Express, I think. Though, admittedly, I
> > rarely use Outlook Express (Netscape 4.7x at work, KMail at home). Can you
> > change your e-mail identity while composing a message in Outlook Express?
> > That's a fea
> Well I'd hope so, given how much memory it hogs. Again, over 22MB *TO
> DISPLAY A BLANK PAGE*.
I tell you what - we'll make a pre-app that brings up a GIF of Mozilla
showing a blank page. Then, when you click on it, it loads the real thing.
That way, you can have your blank page with almost no
> depends on how much influence AOL has on the
> releases of Mozilla. I suspect that Moz has enough of a life of it's own
> to hold back any AOL/Netscape pressure to release a 1.0 product when
> it's not ready.
Why would AOL/Netscape want to pressure mozilla.org to release Mozilla 1.0
before they
Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > depends on how much influence AOL has on the
> > releases of Mozilla. I suspect that Moz has enough of a life of it's own
> > to hold back any AOL/Netscape pressure to release a 1.0 product when
> > it's not ready.
>
> Why would AOL/Netscape want to pressure mozilla.
Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > Well I'd hope so, given how much memory it hogs. Again, over 22MB *TO
> > DISPLAY A BLANK PAGE*.
>
> I tell you what - we'll make a pre-app that brings up a GIF of Mozilla
> showing a blank page. Then, when you click on it, it loads the real thing.
> That way, you c
Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > depends on how much influence AOL has on the
> > releases of Mozilla. I suspect that Moz has enough of a life of it's own
> > to hold back any AOL/Netscape pressure to release a 1.0 product when
> > it's not ready.
>
> Why would AOL/Netscape want to pressure mozilla.
Ian Davey wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Well I'd hope so, given how much memory it hogs. Again, over 22MB *TO
> >DISPLAY A BLANK PAGE*.
>
> On what platform,
Why2K.
> on start up it's 14MB to display a blank page here (on
> WinNT at work).
T
JTK wrote:
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>>>Well I'd hope so, given how much memory it hogs. Again, over 22MB *TO
>>>DISPLAY A BLANK PAGE*.
>>>
>>I tell you what - we'll make a pre-app that brings up a GIF of Mozilla
>>showing a blank page. Then, when you click on it, it loads the real thing.
>>Th
JTK wrote:
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>>>depends on how much influence AOL has on the
>>>releases of Mozilla. I suspect that Moz has enough of a life of it's own
>>>to hold back any AOL/Netscape pressure to release a 1.0 product when
>>>it's not ready.
>>>
>>Why would AOL/Netscape want to pressu
DeMoN LaG wrote:
> JTK wrote:
>
>> Gervase Markham wrote:
[snip]
>>> Why would AOL/Netscape want to pressure mozilla.org to release
>>> Mozilla 1.0
>>> before they thought it was ready?
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I mean it's never happened before (Netscape 6.0)!
>
>
>
> Netscape 6.0 is a commercial
Tim Wunder wrote:
> Curiosity got the best of me:
> Win 2KPro Sp1:
> After browsing the same 20 or so web pages:
> IE5: 13,032K
> Moz:23,934K (before opening the mail client and subscribing to
> Newsgroups)
> Moz:41,234K (after closing the mail client)
> Moz:44,572K (after re-openin
DeMoN LaG wrote:
> AOL can not make business decisions with Mozilla because Mozilla is an
> open source project.
The vast majority of Mozilla developers, and almost all of those
developers with the power to review and check in patches, are employed
by AOL. AOL interests play an important rol
On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:33:52 -0500, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
somehow managed to type:
>
>I'm at 54,867 K now. After ~10 minutes.
>
Weird. I'm at 28,996 On my W2K box after an hour and a half using the new
modern theme. In that time I've been to various bits of mozilla.org,
slashdot, ibm.com
JTK wrote:
>
> Tim Wunder wrote:
>
> > Curiosity got the best of me:
> > Win 2KPro Sp1:
> > After browsing the same 20 or so web pages:
> > IE5: 13,032K
> > Moz:23,934K (before opening the mail client and subscribing to
> > Newsgroups)
> > Moz:41,234K (after closing the mail client)
> >
"Justin H." wrote:
[snip]
>
> After 10 minutes of heavy surfing, I end up at ~20 megs.
How?
> I started out
> somewhere around ~15 megs. My start page is about:
>
I started, just now, at 20,180 K. My start page was about:.
> The sites I surfed were table heavy, graphics heavy, script he
> IE5: 13,032K
How did you get that figure? Remember IE conceals a lot of its memory
usage in the chunk allocated to the OS.
> Looks like JTK's got a point, eh?
If he says that Mozilla's memory usage is not all it could be, of course
he has a point. I don't think anyone would claim that there's
> > Browse a chosen 20
> > sites in the two browsers (of equal HTML and CSS functionality), then
> > check the memory usage.
>
> Ah, Mr. Markham, do you *really* want me to do that, and report back
> with the results?
Yep. If you like. At which point I would say "Yes, Mozilla's memory usage
co
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ian Davey wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Well I'd hope so, given how much memory it hogs. Again, over 22MB *TO
>> >DISPLAY A BLANK PAGE*.
>>
>> On what platform,
>
>Why2K.
>
>>
JTK wrote:
> I started, just now, at 20,180 K. My start page was about:.
You've got 256M, what's an extra 10M? Come to think of it if you're so
happy with IE and Outlook why are you here?
I'm using Mozilla 0.8.1 here with a K6-2 500 and 128M and I have no
problems with resource usage or spee
JTK wrote:
>
> "Justin H." wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > After 10 minutes of heavy surfing, I end up at ~20 megs.
>
> How?
If I knew that, don't you think I'd tell the devs? :-Þ
> > I started out
> > somewhere around ~15 megs. My start page is about:
> >
>
> I started, just now, at 20,180 K
Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > IE5: 13,032K
>
> How did you get that figure? Remember IE conceals a lot of its memory
> usage in the chunk allocated to the OS.
>
So the fable goes, which is why I suggest we eliminate Microsoft from
discussion on this issue. Here's what NETSCAPE COMMUNICATOR 4.77
Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > > Browse a chosen 20
> > > sites in the two browsers (of equal HTML and CSS functionality), then
> > > check the memory usage.
> >
> > Ah, Mr. Markham, do you *really* want me to do that, and report back
> > with the results?
>
> Yep. If you like.
Done and done.
>
JTK wrote:
>
> Gervase Markham wrote:
> >
> > > IE5: 13,032K
> >
> > How did you get that figure? Remember IE conceals a lot of its memory
> > usage in the chunk allocated to the OS.
> >
>
> So the fable goes, which is why I suggest we eliminate Microsoft from
> discussion on this issue. Here's
> NC 4.77: 13,580 K.
This was the point of my qualifier in my earlier statement - "of equal
functionality". Netscape 4.7 uses less memory than Mozilla in the same way
that Wordpad uses less memory than Microsoft Word. But hey, they are both
applications for editing text, so should have the same m
Hi!
JTK wrote:
>
> Gervase Markham wrote:
> >
> > > > Browse a chosen 20
> > > > sites in the two browsers (of equal HTML and CSS functionality), then
> > > > check the memory usage.
> > >
> > > Ah, Mr. Markham, do you *really* want me to do that, and report back
> > > with the results?
> >
> >
On Fri, 04 May 2001 13:32:50 -0700, Justin H. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
somehow managed to type:
>Moz 2001042604: Mail window, browser open to cnn.com
>
>Data KB = 26,616 Code KB = 10,632 Total = 37,248
>
>IE + OE: one browser window to a local frameset (almost 0 graphics, some
>javascript). an
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Hodge
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>JTK wrote:
>
>> I started, just now, at 20,180 K. My start page was about:.
>
>You've got 256M, what's an extra 10M? Come to think of it if you're so
>happy with IE and Outlook why are you here?
>
>I'm using Mozilla 0.8.1
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Hodge
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>JTK wrote:
Sorry Steve, I may have inadvertently CC'ed your email in my reply.
[snip]
- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous po
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Justin H. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>JTK wrote:
>>
>> "Justin H." wrote:
[snip]
>> > So obviously there's other factors besides just Mozilla's mem usage.
>>
>> Obviously. What are they?
>
>I don't know. It's your computer, you tell us.
>
Unless my sarcasm m
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Hodge
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>JTK wrote:
>
>> I started, just now, at 20,180 K. My start page was about:.
>
>You've got 256M, what's an extra 10M?
Ummm... that'd be a ~5MB difference. About 2% of the memory on my system. To
display nothing, a big whi
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gervase Markham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> NC 4.77: 13,580 K.
>
>This was the point of my qualifier in my earlier statement - "of equal
>functionality".
That is an important qualifier, because Mozilla provides nowhere near the
functionality of NC4.77, and not
On 7 May 2001 05:12:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
somehow managed to type:
>Sounds exactly like what I'm doing. So you must agree with me when I say
>Mozilla is not suitable for regular use, and most assuredly not for regular
>users.
I love Mozilla's web-browsing component,
Carlfish wrote:
> 4) Frequently, the message-view window will refuse to lay out a message
>as anything but a stream of text with no new-lines.
This regression was fixed some days ago, which build are you using? And
I can confirm the fix since I was really annoyed at it and it hasn't
showe
On Sun, 06 May 2001 23:18:08 -0700, Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
somehow managed to type:
>Carlfish wrote:
>
>> 4) Frequently, the message-view window will refuse to lay out a message
>>as anything but a stream of text with no new-lines.
>
>
>This regression was fixed some days ago, which bu
> > But hey, they are both
> >applications for editing text,
>
> No, they're not. Notepad is an application for editing text. Wordpad is an
> app for editing RTF. Word is an advanced word processor. Not much
> similarity between any of these three.
Netscape is an app for displaying HTML 3.2
Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> I know at least one person whose thesis got eaten by Word who would
> disagree with you there.
And I can name, off the top of my head, 3 dozen more here at Luther who
have had the same scenario at least twice. And they're all sophomores.
But that's off-topic.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Unless my sarcasm meter is faulty, you imply below ("Or did you already know
> that?") that my numbers may have been less than "uncooked". To make such an
> implication, I would think you'd have to have some idea what these "other
> factors" might be.
>
> You claim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Justin H. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> writes:
> >JTK wrote:
> >>
> >> "Justin H." wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> > So obviously there's other factors besides just Mozilla's mem usage.
> >>
> >> Obviously. What are they?
> >
> >I don't know. It'
Carlfish wrote:
>
> 3) The message compose window is prone to throwing the cursor back to the
>top of the document while you're in the middle of typing.
This usually happens to me in 0.8.1 when selecting some text and
pressing backspace. Never happens to me for any other reason. I work
ar
Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > > But hey, they are both
> > >applications for editing text,
> >
> > No, they're not. Notepad is an application for editing text. Wordpad is an
> > app for editing RTF. Word is an advanced word processor. Not much
> > similarity between any of these three.
>
> Ne
> Sure, but usually with a bunch of qualifiers such as "will eventually
> support" and "once the bugs are worked out will largely support". 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?
Well, Netscap
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
On Tue, 08 May 2001 14:45:52 -0500, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
somehow managed to type:
>Sure, but usually with a bunch of qualifiers such as "will eventually
>support" and "once the bugs are worked out will largely support". Is
>there a simple chart somewhere showing how much more standards-c
82 matches
Mail list logo
