on 4/6/02 20:58, Tina Holm at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Sorry, seems to be v. 5.0 (don't know how I got that idea), and I don't > find it smooth at all. Intercrash Exploder, is the name it goes by around > this house. As bad and non-smooth as I also found the NS 4.7x versions to > be. Which is why I stayed with 4.08, nicest thing they ever came up with, > and I've been running it all the way back from my IIfx and 7.5.3. Now > running on my G3/300 (running 9.1), and I'm flying around the web.
What befuddles me is how so many (I assume we're all intelligent & rational) people can have completely differing opinions on the same software. I know that on a Linux list anything Microsloth is bad, regardless of its quality, and on Mac lists M$ isn't a favourite either, so this begs the question of whether our opinions are merely that, opinions, or whether they are actually based in verifiable fact? What might be an interesting experiment would be to browse on one browser the one day, and another the next and track the actual number of crashes or poorly rendered pages experienced. On my Classic OS I have to say that Internet Explorer 5.x.x (all versions tried so far) is stable. I can safely run it and expect it not to crash and do a decent (not great) job of rendering pages. Netscape 4.7.9 has such an archaic user interface that I don't really find much use for it so I no longer have a sense of its stability (no command-click to move the window around therefor can't really use a browser unless it offers something compelling like OmniWeb's page layout in OS X or iCab's scriptability & ad filtering) (plus, some pages take *forever* to load (or crash) in NS 4.x... complex tables are a bitch for NS 4.7 to render (e.g. Hotmail, which I'm sure M$ intentionally engineered to be slow on NS)). NS 6.x has proved itself to be unstable enough that I'll only load it if I'm using "Composer". I can't run it as a browser and expect it not to take down OS 9. I'll have to give this experiment a try. Browse for an hour in each browser every once in a while and see how each fares. On OS X it's not even worth trying the experiment. NS 6.x/Mozilla 1.0.x/0.9.x is so unstable that it goes down at the drop of a hat (can't browse for long). One consideration may be the browser's ability to deal with a LAN vs a dial-up ethernet connection. It may be that some browsers deal better with slow page loads whereas others thrive on high-speed connections (I've seen 1 MB/sec downloads over FTP if that gives you any indication of my connection). -- G-List is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | -- We have Apple Refurbished Monitors in stock! | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> G-List list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml> Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/g-list%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Macintosh? Get free email and more at Applelinks! <http://www.applelinks.com>
