Netscape vs Explorer

[alext12]

wats better netscape or explorer???

[Mrh0ax]

depends on what you like

[syanet]

IE by far. Unless your designing web pages and want to know what they look like in NS, I suggest not even having it on your computer.

[Mandrake]

I'd have to agree with that one! :)

[ianpri]

I'm sure this has already been mentioned in another thread, but as i'm new to this forum, i'll raise it anyway.

Do you think the time should come soon when people should stop developing for netscape? from these stats below take from two different sources it looks like NS is losing the battle big time:

çà ïåðèîä ñðåäíèé


Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.xx 64.15
Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.xx 14.
Netscape Navigator 4.xx 8.097
Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.xx 0.797
Opera 4.xx 0.311
Netscape Navigator 3.xx 0.147
Opera 3.xx 0.105



Browser Family
IE 5.x 70.1%
Netscape 4.5+ 12.8%
IE 4.x 8.6%
AOL 5.4%
Netscape 4.0x 1.9%
Other 1.2%

surely it would be more important and make more business sense to start drawing the line somewhere. everyone talks about sites saying 'are the NS compatible', but you never hear anyone say about AOL compatibility, or even new stuff like idtv,webtv etc, which all by the way don't support CSS. You don't see motorways slamming a 20mph speed limit because some older cars aren't up to it? surely that would make people want to upgrade more if they knew that they could look at more sites i fthey upgraded. software development does that all the time, isn't it time browsers done this?

[Woofcat]

IE5 and NS6 both support XHTML 1.0 and CSS2 very well... I think once more people have NS6 than 4.x things will start to change...

[Bruce]

I would have to go with IE. I think any intelligent person would agree. The one major thing I hate about NS is that it doesn't support iframes. Now what kind of browser is that?

[Canuckkev]

I downloaded NS 6 to see how my site looked in it, and it looked the exact same as IE 5.5 . This surprised me as all the other sites I have made in the past and tried viewing with NS 4.72(or something), looked quite a bit different. It did seem that NS 6 was slower though, so I use IE.

[Nick]

Originally posted by Phrozen
I would have to go with IE. I think any intelligent person would agree. The one major thing I hate about NS is that it doesn't support iframes. Now what kind of browser is that?

The kind geared toward non-newbies who don't use iframes :confused:

[Bruce]

So you're trying to say that "non-newbies" don't use iframes? I think not...

[Nick]

Originally posted by Phrozen
So you're trying to say that "non-newbies" don't use iframes? I think not...

An iFrame is completely useless piece of ---- idea from Micro$oft. Just a ASP/SSI/PHP include work around. There's no point. If your host doesn't support include commands get a template based html editor. iFrame = no significant purpose.

[ianpri]

"Just a ASP/SSI/PHP include work around. "

I think thats a bit misleading. Includes can only be altered by page refreshing but iframes can change their contents dynamically/with a mouseclclick without having to load the whole page its contained in. for certain graphical heavy pages iframes are a bonus not a hinderence.

[Nick]

Originally posted by ianpri
for certain graphical heavy pages iframes are a bonus not a hinderence.

Cache all the images with a JavaScript and then when you click on a page, the images are cached so all that has to load is the actual content. So they're still useless in my book.

[Sick N Twisted]

you can accomplish iframe's by normal frames


but i like IE better

[}:8) Supermoo]

Thankyou Nick! At least someone is sticking up for Netscape! Every wondered about some truth in Netscape before you completley destroy them?

While your busy singing the praises of Internet Explorer on Windows your forgetting about the delay in putting it on the Mac.

While your living in your complete and utter garbage Windows operating system you're forgetting about how Microsoft forgot to disclose information about DialUpNetwprk connections in Windows, how Netscape was delayed... how they lost their market share.

While you're wondering how slow Netscape is... remember it's not part of Windows... it's not the core files like some other browsers!

Netscape have been fighting a dying battle open sourcing and creating similtanious releases on all major platfors (Windows, Mac and Linux). At least it deserves some respect.

[Chicken]

As I see it, you've hit upon the major difference. While I do prefer IE, I also run Windows and imagine that most Windows users prefer IE. I can see unix users prefering NS.

Really, so long as it doesn't take 3 years to open up and drain resources, I couldn't care less.

[Nick]

Originally posted by }:8) Supermoo
Thankyou Nick! At least someone is sticking up for Netscape! Every wondered about some truth in Netscape before you completley destroy them?

While your busy singing the praises of Internet Explorer on Windows your forgetting about the delay in putting it on the Mac.

While your living in your complete and utter garbage Windows operating system you're forgetting about how Microsoft forgot to disclose information about DialUpNetwprk connections in Windows, how Netscape was delayed... how they lost their market share.

While you're wondering how slow Netscape is... remember it's not part of Windows... it's not the core files like some other browsers!

Netscape have been fighting a dying battle open sourcing and creating similtanious releases on all major platfors (Windows, Mac and Linux). At least it deserves some respect.

Damn strait.

[LeX]

I once was a faithful NS user. I removed all links to IE from my computer. I refused to use IE (AND MSWord, MSthis, MSthat...) I hate Micro$oft!!!

Not now, though. NS crashes too often, and takes a while to load. It also has less features than IE. But I changed for only because a friend told me to stop using NS, with good reasons. He said that the NS4.7's sucked, and told me that if I really want to use NS, then go with Navigator 4.07 or 4.08, which is simpler, loads faster, and doesn't crash as often.

I'm using IE5.5 as my default browser now, and made NS my secondary, and use Opera to download files (I liked their Download window) and quick browsing. I don't dare try NS6, heard too many rumors about it.. but if NS ever publishes a new browser, I'm willing to try it, and switch back if NS has made improvements.

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by LeX
Not now, though. NS crashes too often, and takes a while to load.

Is that really their doing?

[Nick]

Originally posted by LeX
Not now, though. NS crashes too often, and takes a while to load.

You guys' computers suck! Something has got to be wrong with them. Netscape has NEVER crashed on my system, nor does it take long to load.

[Chicken]

So IE loads slower for you than Netscape? Didn't think so :)

[Nick]

Originally posted by Chicken
So IE loads slower for you than Netscape? Didn't think so :)

Actually, it does. It takes it forever to start connecting to the homepage which is why I am forced to keep the home page on my hard drive. It also crashes all the time. The only reason I use it is because I had to use it before I downloaded NetScape; therefore, it has all my cookies already stored.

If there was only a small automatic upgrade pack for NS4 that added some CSS functions :p.

[}:8) Supermoo]

Originally posted by Nick
If there was only a small automatic upgrade pack for NS4 that added some CSS functions :p.

Yep, it's been given the secret codename Netscape 6, all bow to it's supreme glory! ;)

[Mandrake]

Originally posted by LeX
I once was a faithful NS user. I removed all links to IE from my computer. I refused to use IE (AND MSWord, MSthis, MSthat...) I hate Micro$oft!!!



I like Microsoft a hell of a lot better than AOL (Netscape's owner, in case you don't know). And they just got bigger over the weekend too.

[LeX]

How can anyone possibly like Micro$oft?!!?

Er, okay.... so maybe there IS something wrong with my computer, but NS takes like 10 seconds to finish loading all the Preferences, Bookmarks, whatever. Actually, IE isn't better off... takes 7~9 seconds. Well, it took 5 seconds for the actual window to pop up, but I had to wait a bit longer to be able to do anything with it.

My comp's specs: http://freewebspace.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1275&pagenumber=3

[Nick]

Originally posted by LeX
...but NS takes like 10 seconds to finish loading all the Preferences, Bookmarks, ...

That must be it. All of you guys use Bookmarks. I deleted all of my IE/NS ones because I simply don't use them.

[RNilsson]

I only say one thing; Webdesign vs Browser...
Write proper html-code/CSS.
Then open the page in Opera, NS[i use 4.7] and IE [ i use 5.5] then look at the differences...Not many, huh?

NS; Pretty strict about misplaced tags, doesn't like multi-choice css, but pretty fast.

IE; Doesn't care about faulty html [almost],also pretty fast.

Opera; Well, not much to say. Overall good.

It took me about 20 minutes to make my website look about the same in all three browsers, with only som tweaking in the .css file.

Every browser has their own good's and flaws.

That's my coin[s] to the discussion.

[Coolin]

Netscape 6 sucks. It is based off of a beta version of mozilla. Personally, I think that this will tarnish the reputation of the netscape browser beyond means seen ever before. It also takes forever to load on any computer.

[Zitech_Industries]

I love Micro$oft. I use all their products. I absolutely love they way DirectX 7 is so buggy and they way Frontpage writes over my code. I also love how MS Word likes to just stop working all of a sudden.
Seriously, Microsoft needs to stop putting out such buggy software. I love IE 5.5, but old Billy Gates needs to get his act together.

[eggman]

Netscape 4 ever

[dipshit69]

I have probably wasted a month of my life waiting for netscape to make up its mind on whether it wants to connect to its own server. I don't know how many times I would connect to the internet and have that damn browser time after time not able to connect to its own website while I open up IE and it comes up easy. I don't even use netscape to test my own sites because that would still be too hidious of an experience. I use Opera 4.0 for that purpose. If it works on Opera 4.0 then It should work on everything. I think everyone should give Opera 5.0 a try. It loads fast. It is small. You can scale the webpage so if you have low resolution you can zoom out if someone designed the site for a higher resolution. It has the best download interface of any browser. It intergrates with ICQ. Has support with newsgroups, and ftp sites. It is also stable. New version is free with banner ads but you could just download the shareware and crack it. Opera's only downside is that it is a little buggy with scripting languages. Opera will catch up with that though.

[atlas]

I use a few platforms: Solaris, Linux, Mac, and Windows. I actively use all of them.

Let's check IEs record:

Solaris: IE 4.5
Linux : not available (suprise suprise...)
Mac: IE 5
Windows: IE 5.5,6


Netscape's record

Solaris: 6
Linux: 6
Mac: 6
Windows: 6

Opera's record:

Solaris: -
Linux: 5.x
Mac: 5.x
Windows: 5.x

The only one I can use all on all platforms is Netscape. I generally use Netscape 4.76 on all of them (except for N6 on my linux machine).

Granted, I've been using IE more and more on my Mac and in Windows. It's just more pleasant to browse with some of the time because CSS in N4.76 is pretty poor and text shows up tiny.

-mk

[polestar]

Originally posted by ianpri
but you never hear anyone say about AOL compatibility

The AOL browser is basically MSIE with a 'more user friendly' GUI from at least version 5, so compatability is no longer an issue.

However sites often display mysterious JS errors with AOL that don't appear when using IE.

[ultimate]

IE is the best i think because if wanna view a site in netscape i get many time Site Not Found and wenn i try with IE i get the site with no problem.

so IE 4 ever

[Homeygwiz]

;) IE supports more and it is more flexible when developing webpages.

Netscape is not so flexible... if you forget a period or don't have something exactly the way it should be it bombs your webpage.

Anyone disaggree?:confused:

[Bruce]

IE doesn't support more... netscape just supports less :p

[Dry Ice CO2]

Okay all you Microsoft haters, listen up!

Why the hell are you dissing them up? Think about it for a second. Is there any reason you have other than the fact that they're a big company with lots of money? If that's your reason to hate a company, then can I feel free to stab you to death if you become a multi millionaire business owner?

Admit it, Microsoft makes some pretty good stuff. And Internet Explorer is one of their best brainchilds. Netscape is horrible compared to IE. Did you know that NSN doesn't even support background colors for tables? Did you know that NSN 4.x doesn't support CSS? Did you know that NSN is owned by AOL???

Now I'm not dissing AOL's company size, I have other reasons. For example, their software is extremely overbulked, but you NEED to install it to use AOL! With other Dialup ISPs, you just make a new connection in Dial Up Networking, enter in a username and password, and you've got the internet. Also, the people in the chat rooms consist of white trash 14 year old sluts with names like "Candy SeXXXy 69", pedophiles/stalkers, idiots, narcs, people who overuse the abbreviation "A/S/L", and people with more numbers than letters in their numerated usernames because the username "Bob" was already taken. That's why I hate AOL.

Getting back on topic, let me tell you about NSN 6. It's basically NSN 4.x with CSS support added, skin support added, and blinking text support removed. The skins look stupid, and if you want some stupid skins that lag your surfing even further, just use NeoPlanet (which borrows most of it's features from your installed version of Internet Explorer)

Yes, I understand Microsoft messed up in terms of security holes and OS exploits (which they try to make up for with service packs), but the topic of this thread is "Netscape vs Explorer", not "Windows vs Linux".

When will you Netscape lovers learn?

- Dry Ice CO2

[atlas]

Originally posted by Homeygwiz
;) IE supports more and it is more flexible when developing webpages.

Netscape is not so flexible... if you forget a period or don't have something exactly the way it should be it bombs your webpage.

Anyone disaggree?:confused:

So basically IE lets you write malformed code and it works... I don't think that's a good thing. IE ads an end table tag if you miss it. Therefore, on Netscape and others you table won't show at all. It's just not a good situation -- IE is only making it worse when people develop with it.

Why should it allow you to be sloppy?

-mk

[atlas]

Originally posted by ultimate
IE is the best i think because if wanna view a site in netscape i get many time Site Not Found and wenn i try with IE i get the site with no problem.

so IE 4 ever

Usually this occurs when a webmaster, no doubt developing with IE, includes a CSS file that doesn't exist.

This really annoys me... 1. People shouldn't have call CSS when the file doesn't exist. 2. Netscape should let me see the page anyway

-mk

[atlas]

Originally posted by Dry Ice CO2
Okay all you Microsoft haters, listen up!


I'm not a Microsoft hater, but I'll read on



Why the hell are you dissing them up? Think about it for a second. Is there any reason you have other than the fact that they're a big company with lots of money? If that's your reason to hate a company, then can I feel free to stab you to death if you become a multi millionaire business owner?


Look above at some of my arguments. It's not a good thing when a web browser allows people to get sloppy with their code.

Frankly I don't care that it's a Microsoft product. IE is only so fast on your Windows machine because it's built into your operating system. Give the other products a chance: Opera looks like a nice product, and on the linux platform Konqueror is turning out to be an amazing web browser.



Admit it, Microsoft makes some pretty good stuff. And Internet Explorer is one of their best brainchilds.

Microsoft does make some nice products. I personally like using Word, Excel, and IE isn't a terrible product. I wouldn't say that it's a brainchild of theirs. They didn't have anything to do with the development of the basic features of a web browser.



Netscape is horrible compared to IE. Did you know that NSN doesn't even support background colors for tables?


Netscape does support background colors for tables. It just doesn't render the cell if the cell doesn't have any content.



Did you know that NSN 4.x doesn't support CSS? Did you know that NSN is owned by AOL???


Netscape 4.x does support CSS, just not very well. Yep, I do know Netscape is owned by AOL. They have allowed Netscape to remain their own separate entity though.



Now I'm not dissing AOL's company size, I have other reasons. For example, their software is extremely overbulked, but you NEED to install it to use AOL! With other Dialup ISPs, you just make a new connection in Dial Up Networking, enter in a username and password, and you've got the internet. Also, the people in the chat rooms consist of white trash 14 year old sluts with names like "Candy SeXXXy 69", pedophiles/stalkers, idiots, narcs, people who overuse the abbreviation "A/S/L", and people with more numbers than letters in their numerated usernames because the username "Bob" was already taken. That's why I hate AOL.


Ahh.. I see you have issues with AOLs dialup services. :) I'm not going to defend them either -- I don't like their dialup either. Did you know ICQ is owned by AOL? I don't really notice them doing anything to that company. It's all separate.



Getting back on topic, let me tell you about NSN 6. It's basically NSN 4.x with CSS support added, skin support added, and blinking text support removed. The skins look stupid, and if you want some stupid skins that lag your surfing even further, just use NeoPlanet (which borrows most of it's features from your installed version of Internet Explorer)


N6 is just N4.x with a few alterations? I'm sure the Mozilla people would disagree. N6 uses a totally different rendering engine (Gecko engine) and is a totally different browser.

Go check out http://www.mozilla.org



Yes, I understand Microsoft messed up in terms of security holes and OS exploits (which they try to make up for with service packs), but the topic of this thread is "Netscape vs Explorer", not "Windows vs Linux".


I wasn't going to mention it, but you're right : Microsoft is pretty bad with security in their software :)

-mk

[puDDs]

Originally posted by Dry Ice CO2
Okay all you Microsoft haters, listen up!

Why the hell are you dissing them up? Think about it for a second. Is there any reason you have other than the fact that they're a big company with lots of money? If that's your reason to hate a company, then can I feel free to stab you to death if you become a multi millionaire business owner?

I agree....MS hating is most often for no other reason than their success.


Admit it, Microsoft makes some pretty good stuff. And Internet Explorer is one of their best brainchilds. Netscape is horrible compared to IE. Did you know that NSN doesn't even support background colors for tables? Did you know that NSN 4.x doesn't support CSS? Did you know that NSN is owned by AOL???

They do, and IE has been great for the web...I wouldn't say netscape 4 is horrible in comparison, tho, it was a good browser when it came out....unfortunately, its not almost 2 generations behind. NS4 does support CSS. Just not fully.


Now I'm not dissing AOL's company size, I have other reasons. For example, their software is extremely overbulked, but you NEED to install it to use AOL! With other Dialup ISPs, you just make a new connection in Dial Up Networking, enter in a username and password, and you've got the internet. Also, the people in the chat rooms consist of white trash 14 year old sluts with names like "Candy SeXXXy 69", pedophiles/stalkers, idiots, narcs, people who overuse the abbreviation "A/S/L", and people with more numbers than letters in their numerated usernames because the username "Bob" was already taken. That's why I hate AOL.

I have two differing thoughts on AOL. First, to be fair, they have expanded the reach of the internet and made it more accessble to the idiots. Job well done, mission accomplished. However....do they HAVE to screw their customers? For $23.95 (canadian), you get an ISP with lots of busy signals, jackasses for customer service, Pop-up ads and bloated software....Man, you'd think the world's biggest ISP would at lease be competitive...for 19.95, I can get Sympatico, which is faster, cheaper and with no bloatware....that's why I hate AOL....


Getting back on topic, let me tell you about NSN 6. It's basically NSN 4.x with CSS support added, skin support added, and blinking text support removed. The skins look stupid, and if you want some stupid skins that lag your surfing even further, just use NeoPlanet (which borrows most of it's features from your installed version of Internet Explorer)

No, NS6 is a complete rewrite from NS4. Its based on Mozilla's Gecko engine, not NS4. Its also one of the most HTML compliant browsers out there, much ahead of IE's lacksidasical HTML requirements...


Yes, I understand Microsoft messed up in terms of security holes and OS exploits (which they try to make up for with service packs), but the topic of this thread is "Netscape vs Explorer", not "Windows vs Linux".

When will you Netscape lovers learn?

This isn't just about Netscape lovers. There are some legitament reasons to still use NS4 (NS6 is still to buggy for real use). First, I still prefer the Netscape GUI over IE (I use IE, however). Its also more strict with coding conventions that IE is, which, while being a pain to get cross compatibility, is actually a good thing. If IE dumbs down the standards too much, you won't be able to find an error free page anywhere, which is definitely not a good thing for any new browsers or users of older browsers....

[Dry Ice CO2]

I agree....MS hating is most often for no other reason than their success.

Glad to see that someone sees my point on that.


They do, and IE has been great for the web...I wouldn't say netscape 4 is horrible in comparison, tho, it was a good browser when it came out....unfortunately, its not almost 2 generations behind. NS4 does support CSS. Just not fully.

Yeah, but NSN 4.x and IE 4.x were released around roughly the same time, and even IE 4.x conquers over NSN 4.x

As for CSS, Netscape was very lazy and blind when it comes to that issue. Many webmasters view CSS as the future of the web, and for Netscape to do a half assed job on implementing it, that's just lame.


I have two differing thoughts on AOL. First, to be fair, they have expanded the reach of the internet and made it more accessble to the idiots. Job well done, mission accomplished. However....do they HAVE to screw their customers? For $23.95 (canadian), you get an ISP with lots of busy signals, jackasses for customer service, Pop-up ads and bloated software....Man, you'd think the world's biggest ISP would at lease be competitive...for 19.95, I can get Sympatico, which is faster, cheaper and with no bloatware....that's why I hate AOL....

More accessible to the idiots? Well there's no arguing that, seeing as AOL was my first ISP ever, and I can honestly look back on those days and say "My God, I was an idiot back then compared to now!"

As for Sympatico... are you, by any chance, living in Southern Ontario, specifically the GTA and surrounding regions? If so, I live near you (in Markham)! Right now I'm using Rogers @Home Cable Internet, which gets slower and slower every day. The connection speed is insulting, and they just raised their prices and updated their ToS agreement to say that you can't use a router to split your connection across other computers. Things were much better with Shaw... *sigh*. Now if you want to know an evil company, Rogers is the one!

We're going to do the switch over to Bell Sympatico Highspeed Edition DSL Internet next week. The tech people at Sympatico say they don't care if we split our connection, and I think I know why. With cable TV, you're not legally permitted to use signal splitters unless you pay for a connection for each TV on the splitter (like buying more licences for software). With a telephone, you can hook as many phones as you want on your phone line, as long as you have lots of phone jacks to support them all. Also, cable internet is a shared connection, meaning that the more computers you have linked to it would result in bandwidth rape for other customers. With DSL, your bandwidth is yours alone, so you can do what you like with it.

But enough about my life...


No, NS6 is a complete rewrite from NS4. Its based on Mozilla's Gecko engine, not NS4. Its also one of the most HTML compliant browsers out there, much ahead of IE's lacksidasical HTML requirements...

Oops, just checked Mozilla.org, my mistake.


This isn't just about Netscape lovers. There are some legitament reasons to still use NS4 (NS6 is still to buggy for real use). First, I still prefer the Netscape GUI over IE (I use IE, however). Its also more strict with coding conventions that IE is, which, while being a pain to get cross compatibility, is actually a good thing. If IE dumbs down the standards too much, you won't be able to find an error free page anywhere, which is definitely not a good thing for any new browsers or users of older browsers....

I kind of agree with that. The NSN GUI looks more "professional", and IE (as well as many other Microsoft products) are leaning more towards looking more "Macintosh style" (WindowsXP is a prime example.) I also agree that IE is encouraging sloppy webmasters to rely on IE to fix their mistakes for them, and I think that should be dropped too.


Did you know ICQ is owned by AOL?

I only use ICQ to find my victims for DDoS attacks. And I only do that to people that spam me on ICQ. I have an unhealthy hatred for spammers, and I consider myself an anti-spam activist.

- Dry Ice CO2

[atlas]

Originally posted by Dry Ice CO2
I kind of agree with that. The NSN GUI looks more "professional", and IE (as well as many other Microsoft products) are leaning more towards looking more "Macintosh style" (WindowsXP is a prime example.) I also agree that IE is encouraging sloppy webmasters to rely on IE to fix their mistakes for them, and I think that should be dropped too.


There's a difference between elegant (MacOS X Aqua interface) and childish Windows XP interface.



I only use ICQ to find my victims for DDoS attacks. And I only do that to people that spam me on ICQ. I have an unhealthy hatred for spammers, and I consider myself an anti-spam activist.


My point was not that you use ICQ -- rather that AOL owns it and hasn't totally re-tooled the company like you suggest AOL does with the companies it aquires (such as Netscape).

-mk

[puDDs]

Originally posted by Dry Ice CO2

Yeah, but NSN 4.x and IE 4.x were released around roughly the same time, and even IE 4.x conquers over NSN 4.x

As for CSS, Netscape was very lazy and blind when it comes to that issue. Many webmasters view CSS as the future of the web, and for Netscape to do a half assed job on implementing it, that's just lame.

Actually, I didn't start using IE until version 5....IE 4 just didn't do it for me.

Not sure about CSS...since I never used IE4, I don't know how much CSS it supports. As for them doing a half-assed job, well, that's true, however, it was very new technology back when NS4 was new...not yet a standard. So even partial implemenation at the time was not bad. The problem was that the NS4 engine was so poorly written, it made it difficult to add proper CSS support. Hence the complete rewrite.


More accessible to the idiots? Well there's no arguing that, seeing as AOL was my first ISP ever, and I can honestly look back on those days and say "My God, I was an idiot back then compared to now!"

As for Sympatico... are you, by any chance, living in Southern Ontario, specifically the GTA and surrounding regions? If so, I live near you (in Markham)! Right now I'm using Rogers @Home Cable Internet, which gets slower and slower every day. The connection speed is insulting, and they just raised their prices and updated their ToS agreement to say that you can't use a router to split your connection across other computers. Things were much better with Shaw... *sigh*. Now if you want to know an evil company, Rogers is the one!

We're going to do the switch over to Bell Sympatico Highspeed Edition DSL Internet next week. The tech people at Sympatico say they don't care if we split our connection, and I think I know why. With cable TV, you're not legally permitted to use signal splitters unless you pay for a connection for each TV on the splitter (like buying more licences for software). With a telephone, you can hook as many phones as you want on your phone line, as long as you have lots of phone jacks to support them all. Also, cable internet is a shared connection, meaning that the more computers you have linked to it would result in bandwidth rape for other customers. With DSL, your bandwidth is yours alone, so you can do what you like with it.

But enough about my life...

Yea, I am. I'm in etobicoke....I have Rogers@home too, and while the speed hasn't bothered me very often, I've got other issues with it, such as a few months ago when my connection went down every other day. Seems to be not bad now tho.

What are you paying out there? Its $39.95 here....haven't heard anything bout a price increase here...

They added that to the ToS, eh? Oh well....I'm running 3 computers and a server off there, and they haven't said anything to me now. ---- them. Back when my connection was really unstable, I looked in to DSL...not avaliable in my area....plus, at the bell stores, I noticed a speed drop from my cable...of course, being up all the time would have been advantageous ;)


I kind of agree with that. The NSN GUI looks more "professional", and IE (as well as many other Microsoft products) are leaning more towards looking more "Macintosh style" (WindowsXP is a prime example.) I also agree that IE is encouraging sloppy webmasters to rely on IE to fix their mistakes for them, and I think that should be dropped too.

Oops..that's a mistake...don't even compare MacOS to Windows, or you'll have the Maccies at your door in seconds....Personally, I think the MacOS GUI looks like a lollypop, and the WinXP GUI looks like a no-name cheap lollypop. Either way, I'm happy with Windows 2000 for a while.

[lucifer]

Interesting thoughts...

I think some micro---- products are nice word/IE however my major complaints against microsoft are the way it tries to control and manipulate things such as frontpage writing ----ty code that won't run on any old server and ties you to their products. plus the state of the html itself - almost as good as that which word produces. They don't belive in slick functional

Also this increasing need to bulk up everything so that everyone needs to buy a new pc (plus OS) every couple of years.

Also why do linux servers run for years at a time whilst windows wants to be rebooted several times a day when it locks up? And why can't they just get one stable version working instead of all these different flavours with their unique f**k ups -

I think I'm just angry because I can't change the blue screen of death settings to a different colour - now that's the sort of thing they should be working on - :p

I don't hate them cos their big but because they try to remove my/your power. by not providing the information you need or allowing you to change things you should - bring back the command line I say.

[puDDs]

Originally posted by lucifer
Interesting thoughts...

I think some micro---- products are nice word/IE however my major complaints against microsoft are the way it tries to control and manipulate things such as frontpage writing ----ty code that won't run on any old server and ties you to their products. plus the state of the html itself - almost as good as that which word produces. They don't belive in slick functional

Also this increasing need to bulk up everything so that everyone needs to buy a new pc (plus OS) every couple of years.

Also why do linux servers run for years at a time whilst windows wants to be rebooted several times a day when it locks up? And why can't they just get one stable version working instead of all these different flavours with their unique f**k ups -

I think I'm just angry because I can't change the blue screen of death settings to a different colour - now that's the sort of thing they should be working on - :p

I don't hate them cos their big but because they try to remove my/your power. by not providing the information you need or allowing you to change things you should - bring back the command line I say.

Before you talk about Windows crashing all the time, you should get ahold of a copy of windows 2000. I installed it back in september, and I haven't rebooted froma crash once. The only time I ever reboot is when I get some software that requires it, or when I apply a service pack.

[Homeygwiz]

I will agree that IE allows for sloppy coding.

I don't believe Netscape will be any better than IE as long as Microsoft is still doing business today.

Most users like the user friendly environment of Microsoft and all of its products.

Other companies haven't come out with anything better so why even argue the matter that any other product other than Microsoft is better.

Till other companies can gain ground on making better user friendly OS and other software products I don't believe IE / Word / Excel or any other of MS products will be taken out of the lead.

This is the whole reason why Linux OS isn't as popular as Microsoft OS.

As long as we have users that are not Programmers / or Techies that can code or configure the software then Microsoft will always be the popular source of computer software.

By all means give me your view on this...

:rolleyes:

P.S. Not all websites are developed by Professional Web developers .... So Microsoft usually becomes the first choice when designing sites.

HGW .... Homey says so.....

:D

[Hellbound]

Just use what you want and shut up. No need to cram it down everyone's throat.

You guys really act like kids being denied candy at the store.

Opinions are a stupid thing to fight over.

[puDDs]

Who's fighting? Its been pretty civilized to this point, I'd say. Nothing wrong someone explaining the logic behind his/her differing opinion...

[Hellbound]

I didn't say anyone was.

But the fact that this topic is 4 pages long with every other post full of those annoying as hell quotes with people saying that their opinions are more correct then someone else's remains.

Maybe if these people got lives they could find real things to debate over.

[Homeygwiz]

Hey Hellbound,

Isn't that the purpose of this website is to promote discussion on topics?

We are all just giving our opinions and explaining why we believe one product is better than the other.

I personally don't care if anyone else agrees with me.

Its just fun to get different views from different people.

This is what the the World Wide Web is about. Sharing info and ideas with various people.

So why you have a problem with that?

HGW --- lighten up dude...:)

Want a good quote "Opinions are like -------s everyone has one.";)

[gyrbo]

Free expresion of opinion.