In a message of 27-Jul-99 Chris Wiles wrote:
[JavaScript:]
> IMHO it's ok. Do remember that most of the JS 'errors' are either:
Well, you might be right. I have just encountered a bunch of sites where
V� reports errors and where AWeb-II happily goes on. Well, perhaps AWeb-II
just ignores them.
> Oh, also, don't forget that once he fixes an error on one site, this
> generally fixes errors on others - many problems overlap.
Yes, let's hope so.
Do you know if Olli wants JSERROR.LOG to learn of sites that don't work?
We can naturally trim them to only the URL, like
EXECUTION ERROR 17
URL: http://www.get2net.dk/
LINE: 40
DESCRIPTION: property "cookie" is undefined
being only
URL: http://www.get2net.dk/
since he will get the actual error when visiting the site which I guess
he will have to visit in any case to see the JS source. I don't like to
start spamming Olli with thousands of sites (okay, not that many) if
he don't want them.
And btw. a couple of other questions:
1. Is V� able to read my VNG configuration, so I don't have to reconfigure
fonts and the like?
2. Is V� able to use my VNG cache? I remember when I upgraded to 2.95,
then my old cache was useless in that VNG 2.95 used the cache
differently. I am at the moment running af 256 MB cache and would
prefer if I could keep using it.
And a generel question about caches. What is the ideal size of a cache?
Is 256 MB much too large for Voyager to handle well, or haven't the
size got any thing to say?
>> Personally I think Olli should have waited a bit more in release a
>> prerelease of V�. I think a lot of people is talking very well about
>> V�, and this is mainly caused by V�'s lack of JavaScript support.
> So, the speed factors, Flash and so on aren't impressive?
I think V� is faster than VNG, although I don't know how much. Perhaps
around 20 % or so faster - that is definitely great. Perhaps even faster.
Don't really have an opinion about flash. I haven't missed it before, so
I don't know where to look to check it out :) But many has requested it, so
I think it is great V� has support for such.
I definitely like V�. If I turn JS off, it is almost as stable as VNG - at
least until I start messing around with TearOff :) I also think V� has been
very well received on this list, but most of us are Voyager people and not
iBrowse or AWeb people.
People have had less good comments about V� elsewhere. I won't quote any
Danish speaking lists, but the two comments below are from
csa.applications, and they certainly don't speak to well about V�:
"And don't expect most of the older bugs/quarks to be fixed yet. For one,
Tables are still messed up, something I would have considered a higher
priority over shockwave. I think I'll wait for IB2 (or Voyager 4.85)."
"Why even bother pre-releasing such a bug-ridden semi-functioning
JavaScript broken browser anyway? [...] Seesh, the TD width bug is still
their - a hangover from V2 that apparently has not yet been fixed."
> Personally I think people moan too much. ie. what are these people generally
> comparing the browsers too? ie. IB 2 (with NO Flash and virtually NO JS and
> with a table implementation which is reported to be *worse* than IB v1.22!)
> and AMozilla (doesn't exist)? :)
Nope, people compare V� with Netscape and MSIE. Most people really don't
care if they use Voyager, AWeb or iBrowse - they just want a browser that
works the same way as NS and MSIE does. I think our platform is too small
to expect wonders, but still I think we have some great browsers. On the
other hand we can probably credit our small platform for three browsers,
because on any other platform they would have been killed long ago by
some commercial application.
> Voyager 3 is the first Amiga browser with embedded Flash/Shockwave (although
> AGA support is poor atm), first Amiga browser with HTTP 1.1, first Amiga
> browser with OpenSSL support and is certainly a lot faster than v2.9x was.
Yes, no doubt Voyager is the leading Amiga browser.
> True there are a lot of JS problems, true I think he should have waited a
> while (I told him we need as many JS sites working as possible...) but we
> also wanted to get 'something' out for WOA.
Yes, sooner or later you got to release. We have been crying for one in a
very long time, and Olli has promised one for a very long time. I think it
is very nice that we at least can see that V� exists and more or less works
all right. Then we can just wait for the bugs to be removed.
I just wish people also remember to give Olli a bit of praise for his
works. I don't think it will be much fun for Olli to receive hundreds of
complaints and no praise :)
> Especially considering HiSoft made consistent 'IB 2 will be out at WOA'
> announcements for weeks.
Is there a public demo of IB2 available? I haven't seen any mention of
a such, although I have heard it was sold at WOA. But no IB2
demo/prerelease/whatnot URLs have been listed.
> Give V two weeks and you'll have a nice JS implementation, embedded
> Flash/SW, all the rest of the functionality and a few extra enhancements
> too.
One thing Amiga users always have been good at is waiting. We are a very
patient community :-)
Uffe Holst
____________________________________________________________
Voyager Mailing List - Info & Archive: http://www.vapor.com/
For Listserver Help: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "HELP"
To Unsubscribe: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "UNSUBSCRIBE"
