"Chris Wiles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 06/17/99 04:56:35 AM > > or standard applications! Voyager is fine ... and we all know how > > buggy that thing is! > Erm? We do? I wouldn't say it was 'buggy' as you define it. Sure there are a > couple or things missing from the HTML support, but the definition of > 'buggy' is a different thing entirely. > I find it quite sad that someone can state '..and we all know *how* > buggy..', a clear over-exaggeration. You must not actually use Voyager that much then. It is extremely buggy. So many irritation were obvious the first time I used it, like: 1) Clicking on a link or entering a URL that doesn't exist will confuses the state of the back history. Hitting the back button then causes the URL display to show the previously displayed URL, but the display will go back also to the previous to the previous URL. Whenever this happens, I have to exit and restart Voyager, then gstep though the sites again to get back where I was. 2) Shift clicking to start to start a second download while one is in progress "acts" like it is doing both simultaneously, but the data in the second file is total trash. If simultaneous downloads are not supported, the the software should not proceed like it does, it should queue up the request or give an error message. 3) Numerous Enforcer hits, but too random to place any specific cause. > ALL browsers have their 'bugs', mainly as there are so many different > variations of HTML code. IBrowse is quite buggy with tables, certainly table > widths (amongst other things), and I have more crashes with the PC version > of Netscape 4.5 than any other browser, and this happens on two different > machines. Wow, that statement reads to me as, "Since IBrowse and Netscape crashes, its OK if Voyager does to. > Not forgetting that a program can be near crash-free on many machines (like > Voyager is here..) yet on other machines it crashes like fury. This is > simply due to the hugely differing Amiga configurations out there (including > hacks/patches). Just because a program doesn't crash doesn't make it "bug free". Just because it behaves properly within the limited scope of use defined in the documentation doesn't make it "bug free". Bug free is when it does not do what is not expected when non typical sequence of events occurs. To that respect, Voyager, Microdot, and others are still very buggy. BTW. "Near crash free" means it is still buggy! Lawrence W. Esker _____________________________________________________________ NetConnect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send an 'unsubcribe' message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
