Only thing I can remotely concur with - Real Player. Ugh! It has been an ongoing problem I've had with RP for years now on this machine - I cannot run any instance of Real Player without it freezing up my machine - again, not a Mozilla or Netscape thing, Real Player just sucks imho!
S�ren Kuklau wrote: > "jdavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >> I am beginning to wonder what's so difficult about making more >>themes available for this browser >> > > The theme code is still rewritten from time to time, so it makes no sense to > write lots of themes - they won't work in further versions. The XUL API has > yet to freeze. > > >>and what's so hard about fixing print preview, >> > > Easy: That's low priority. > > >>and fixing the sorting of History (retaining it), >> > > Same. > > >>and maybe whether it points to Mozilla being poorly written code that is >> > hard to fix without causing other problems. > > I doubt it, but can't comment on it as I don't know its source code. I'm no > C programmer either. > > >>Also, why does it take like 30 seconds to a minute to load any Java stuff >> > on most pages? > > That's Sun's fault, not Mozilla's. Their plug-in seems to be kinda slowish. > > >>And why is it when I scroll down a page like the Wall Street Journal, that >> > it takes a full second pause between each screen as I am paging downward or > upward? > >> www.wsj.com (need to be subscriber) >> > > I'm no subscriber so I can't test it. Maybe too much DHTML usage? > > >>I cannot offhand think of another website that behaves like that but there >> > are plenty. Why has my Realplayer worked on certain pages before, but no > longer > >>works despite the fact that I've left the plugins folder untouched as I >> > keep trying the new builds? > > Could you be more specific: when did it work, since when doesn't it any > longer? > > >> I try most every build as they come down the pike and these issues >> > stay the same. > >> Anyone else getting annoyed by problems like this? >> > > No. Not these. And look at the version number, we're still 4 months away > from final 1.0. > > >
