I use Communicator since 4.0.0 (mac) up to 4.7.9 And used Navigator from 3.0.0 to 3.0.4.a Gold.
I currently have IE 5.1 (mac installed) but use it only to get into one website for banking purposes Fedelity's AdvisorExpress. < https://AdvisorXpress.fidelity.com/cgi-bin/client> Communicator, Netscape 6, and Mozilla takes forever and two days to render. I prefer the use of Communicator (for now until its no long available) because I can read my email, New and visit websites without have two or three different program open. I like convenience, or geekyness of impressing some one I know how to use Eudora, or newswatcher, or Howasher, or such. The major reason I get on the net is to read email/news and download updates to software I have, and update my virus definitions for Norton Antivirus. I don't go webpage hopping, and saying "what a Koowl site, wow dig that, man I'll have to try that.". So Communicator as written now works for me 99.99 percent of the time. (That AdvisorExpress site is the .01 percent I have to use IE). gavin long wrote: > > >> From a user perspective, later releases of IE4 were > >> "better" than NS4.x > >>in several ways, primarily stability. > > > > I couldn't stand IE4, which is why I went to Nestscape 4. > > That's _your_ opinion. Many disagree with you. I abandoned NS4.x about > 14 months ago, because Mozilla was more stable on my system. No, I'm > not kidding, 4.x fell over more often than Wile E Coyote on my machine. > > I have a deep-rooted dislike of IE's user interface, so that never even > entered the equation. Dispite all that, IMO, IE5.5 is "better" than > NN4.x overall. Now that's a real apples/oranges comparison, since NN4.x > has been pretty much standing still for >2 years now, while IE 5.5 is, > what, 12 months old, tops? > > >>IE5 beats it too, in > >>the eyes of many, many users. > > > > But I'll bet that the eyes of many, many users have never used > > anything else. There are studies ( and at least one Supreme > > Court ruling) that support my position. > > You think I disagree on that point? I have read the findings of fact. > > >>In my opinion, given a straight fight (which manifestly did > >>NOT happen, see the US Supreme Court's "Findings of Fact" > >>for details) IE4/5 would have won significant market share > >>from Netscape. They would not have achieved total market > >>dominance, nor risen to market leader, as quickly as > >>actually happened, but with IE4 out there, Netscape would > >>not have held on to the 85% (or whatever) market share they > >>had. > > > > Like the actual results of the last presidential election, we'll > > never know now. > > Indeed. > > -- > gav -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling 616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:275-632-0868 Martinsville Va 24112-1809 |[EMAIL PROTECTED], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/america/default.htm> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/message/default.htm>
