Slashdot Mirror
Alternative Browser Review
alfredo_tomato writes: "I would have liked to seen a larger selection, but here are three browsers reviewed: You'd be surprized at who came out on top. The ugliest of the lot won."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Cool. I guess it would probably be fast on my K6-2/350 as well, huh? Maybe I'd buy it... but I think It'd be weird paying money for software. That's so early 90's.
I have to say, Mozilla is starting to feel more solid these days. I download a nightly build at least once a week just to see how things are going. If the last few I've downloaded are any indication, the final product is going to rock when it finally ships... I just hope its not too much longer.
In addition to my Linux box, I have an NT 4 machine with IE 5.5, and I can say that it provides a 10x better browsing experience than NS4.7 on Linux. Faster rendering, quicker page load times, decent features, and almost rock solid stability, with a huge footprint. This is what I compare the Mozilla builds to, and I would say that they are catching up, and that they are definitely going to give IE some competition sooner or later. They will also go a long way to making Linux a viable desktop platform.
I really should be sleeping right now.
--
Yeah, you are absolutely right, and I am not denying this. It may well be a cool product.
I'm just wondering why they think this highly customizable product is cool, while they often say Linux isn't.
By the way, I haven't used it myself (don't own a Mac :), so I can't judge whether it 'rules' or 'sucks' for myself. So please don't misunderstand me, I didn't say it sucked because it is customizable!
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
The C|Net ad server as usual. This article is a whole lot of nothing. A skin vs. a browser, hold me back.
When I do webpage creation, Opera's the ideal test browser: it renders *to spec* much more thoroughly than any other browser. The developers are extremely intent on creating compliancy with HTML 4, CSS 1 and 2, WAP and supporting XML with CSS. Opera is the standard by which all other render engines can be compared.
If opera is the only browser that renders your code correctly, what good is designing for it?
It's that little smiley face in the upper right corner of the browser window. It smiles when a webpage is well formed and fully standards compliant, and it frowns for the vast majority of the web which isn't. If you go to their partial list of pages with a smile, you'll find that slashdot isn't listed. And with good reason: "Altogether 1765 errors found. Only 25 errors are listed below", is the first line of its status report.
No, I'm serious. It really is somewhat an "other" browser today. I see more and more sites that work correctly with Opera and Exploder but not Netscape. (Oh yeah, Mozilla rocks. I'm talking about Netscape here.)
--
To propogate the myth that the only reasonable choice of browsers is between NS and IE, they toss up a poorly designed (even for cnet standards) review of a butt-ugly browser that's just a wrapper for IE anyways, a browser that's actually a real alternative and has been highly praised, so they lambast it by making a huge issue of its price. And then they actually "recommend" a browser that none of their Windows-using readers could use even if they wanted. (As if any of them know how to find BasiliskII, much less the necessary Macintosh ROM needed to use it.)
In other words, the review is anti-Opera FUD.
Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Gods.
Methinks they wrote this a long time ago and were just saving it for the right time...
--
Password management sounds to me like nice words for "completely loss of security." The only places I've encountered that require password entry repeatedly are exactly those places you don't want to be automatically logged in: banks and e-stores. Everyone else tosses cookies at me, auto-logging me into Slashdot, NYT, etc.
Opera isn't strictly for old metal. I run a K62-400 with 96Mb and an ADSL connect. Opera is my exclusive browser.
Why? Because it's fast. It has superb keyboard controls, which makes me faster.
It has excellent cookie management, which makes me feel better.
It lets me toggle in User CSS overrides, which makes it a *lot* easier to read poorly-designed webpages.
When I do webpage creation, Opera's the ideal test browser: it renders *to spec* much more thoroughly than any other browser. The developers are extremely intent on creating compliancy with HTML 4, CSS 1 and 2, WAP and supporting XML with CSS. Opera is the standard by which all other render engines can be compared.
I like its print preview, and ability to shrink the render so that I can save a page when the last page has widows on it.
It's got great bookmarking.
And I really like the MDI interface. Other than my daily cruise through the newsites, my main use of the web is as a research tool. I'll have my wordprocessing or pagelayout tools up and running... and Opera, doing searches for terms, ideas, clarification, etc. Instead of having to deal with dozens of application windows, I have only one or two. Opera's internal window tabs make it brainless to jump between web windows.
Best of all, though, is the responsiveness of the Opera programmers. They really care about their product, and they really do respond to suggestions and questions. They're worth paying, because they really do have my best interests at heart: they want my feedback so they can make the software work better for me.
That's way better than the response I've had from any other software company, and quite a few freeware authors...
[FOOTNOTE: Biggest challenge to using Opera is getting over one's paradigms. When you're so used to the way Browser X works, it's very difficult to accept any other UI. As a fellow who's used MSIE, NS and Opera all, I say Opera's GUI is rough around the edges, but its keyboard controls are the best, bar none... and the keyboard is now where I spend my browsing time. It's worth getting over the hurdle...]
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Er, disable automatic window creation, and you've disabled the vast majority of pop-up ads. Like they were ever a feature to begin with!
You pay money, because it saves you money. At least, that's how it works for me: Opera's keyboard controls and support for helping me maximize my efficiency on the web, means that I can spend more of my time doing the work that earns me money.
It only needs to save me twenty minutes to recoup the costs...
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Opera supports ECMAScript, which is the standardized Javascript. NS and MSIE being the businesses they are, got into a pissing contest over scripting and worked hard to break it for each other. ECMAScript is an attempt to create a reconciliation.
Anyway, my suggestion for you is to submit bug reports to Opera. Describe the incorrect behaviour, describe the correct behaviour, attach sample code and try to determine exactly which statement(s) are causing the issues.
Opera is an unusually responsive company. They're appreciative of feedback and work hard to fix bugs.
If you're in America, you'll want to use Opera anyway, just to test your CSS 1/2 and HTML coding, both of which can go a long way toward making your pages accessible to the disabled, as required by law (for businesses, not personal pages).
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Opera doesn't actually have its own JVM; however, the downloadable versions for Windows come with a JVM from Sun, in the same download and as part of the same install sequence.
As for the cost - Opera is particularly good on older hardware (my mother used it on a 486SX/25 with 8 MB RAM and Windows 3.1 for quite a while, and it was a lot better than Netscape, and I used to use it on a slow P200 laptop). So if you can pay $30 to avoid a hardware upgrade, you are way ahead financially.
Opera is missing a few features such as password management, etc, but its speed and ability to turn off images with one click is enough for me. I'll be registering the Linux version as soon as it gets out of alpha/beta, as it is stunningly fast on my AMD K6-2/350 as well.
#telnet mailserver 110
Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to localhost.
Escape character is '^]'.
+OK QPOP (version 2.x) at vr1-workhorse1 starting.
user james
+OK Password required for james.
pass *******
+OK james has 7 messages (396563 octets).
list
+OK 7 messages (396563 octets)
1 3042
2 3712
3 2371
4 2708
5 3443
6 26040000
7 2619
.
dele 6
+OK Message 6 has been deleted.
quit
+OK Pop server at vr1-workhorse1 signing off.
Connection closed by foreign host.
#
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
If you do webdesign on a mac, and you're good, you use IE on mac/pc/unix, Netscape on Mac/PC/Unix, Opera on PC/Unix, lynx, iCab, Mozilla, etc etc. That's right, you make damn sure your site works in any browser.
I'll admit IE5 on the mac is a damn fine browser, however the problem I've had is that while the rendering is blazingly fast, the app itself is not. So, pages draw very quickly, but if you're doing say 5 window browsing, the time it takes for windows to activate and for the app to respond to buttons, etc get's annoying. iCab is still my main mac browser, it doesn't render as fast as IE5 but overall the app has better response speed and I prefer the interface, not to mention the image filtering and per site javascript permissions.
You'll spend a lot of time under iCab's hood--well, in the Preferences menu--in order to get it working the way you want. For example, you have to turn on InScript, which is iCab's partial implementation of JavaScript, because it's not enabled by default. But all that tinkering is actually the browser's strong suit: you can configure an impressive array of features, including our favorite feature, iCab's image filtering.
So, they think it is cool because it is 'highly customizable', even though it'll cost you quite some time to set it up (e.g. you have to turn javascript on by yourself etc.)
Wait a minute, isn't that just the reason people always complain about 'Linux not being ready for the Big Market'???
So I don't understand why they like this product, while 'Linux still isn't there, blah blah yadda yadda'
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
As usual not a single word about i18n. Of the two browsers mentioned in the test (Neoplanet is not a browser, it's just a skin) none has any i18n support worth mentioning (if I'm wrong about iCab, please correct me). Both big browsers have excellent or at least half decent i18 support, and the up-coming Mozilla has brilliant i18n support.
i18n, and especially Unicode, is a must these days. Unicode is not a nice add-on or special effect, but the most basic of all features of any modern application that deals with text (the main feature of any browser). So non-Unicode, non-i18-n browers are just toys.
Why didn't they review Konqueror? I've never tested it (I use Windows - mostly because Linux is severly behind on the Unicode side), but they say it has Unicode support, so it's a serious candidate.
Yeah, I know. I'm posting way too much to this thread. But I just noticed this in the full review for iCab and had to share.
"Also, iCab lacks an email program, though it does support sending mail. To receive email, you need a third-party client such as Eudora or Netscape Messenger."
.....
Uhm... *Netscape*Messenger*??!!!?! What, pray tell, is the point of using an alternative browser if you have to install *another* browser just to read mail?!
I am now almost convinced that the reviewer a)has no idea what he's talking about and b)is only doing this "review" as FUD.
Oh, and if you're wondering what else one can use for email on Macs, there's Eudora, Outlook Express, Mailsmith, PowerMail, Mulberry, or the old, discontinued, unsupported, but damn if it still ain't the best, Claris Emailer. (Hey, I hear there are still people who use Cyberdog for mail.)
Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Gods.
First, some of the facts about Opera were wrong:
;). The download is approximatly 1.8Mb.
1) No Java? Wrong. There are two separate versions of Opera. One with java, and another with Java.
2) 200Mb of hd space to install? That's just plain bullshit (maybe they counted the space windows uses too?
Second, it is still very fast in comparison to Netscape and IE. (As someone pointed out, they used a beta..)
Approx. $30 for a browser is not much, considering you get the best browser available.
I think the main thing holding Lynx back is that it takes way too long to load images.
Whereas lynx is the One True Browser.
:)
If it doesn't display properly on Lynx, it's wrong
hawk
(I'm also writing this in iCab, yah ....)
Opera is a great browser; the article did not give it enough credit. It supports java just fine. It doesn't support ActiveX which, let's face it, is a good thing. It has the best style-sheet support of all the browsers I've seen, and the latese version supports xml as well. I use it on my pc as a main browser and only fall back to netscape or ie when a page uses javascript that either disables itself if you aren't using ie or netscape (duh!) or uses features not supported by Opera's incomplete implementation.
The price tag is a bit steep for what it is and considering the alternatives, but they offer a half price discount to students which was worthwhile. That extends internationally as well.
For the mac it's very hard to beat IE 4.5 or 5, as saddening as that is. It really is a completely different product from the pc version. Opera are working on a mac version, and hopefully they succeed in making a true mac application, not just a mirror of the pc version on the mac platform.
I just installed icab... the reviews and subsequently comments on this page were a bit incorrect. The standard default leaves the browser working just fine, with scripting enabled and preferences from the internet control panel imported fully (coveres proxy settings, e-mail, file-handlers etc). Basically it's a perfectly able browser without needing to touch the preferences. Having said that, there are a looot of options there, including customising the contextual menus and button layouts. It also has a convenient HTML compliancy button which shows attributes of the page that are not fully compliant such as not always using quotes for attribute values (we all do that now right?!) and using netscape/ms only enhancements. A handy feature for the web-page designers out there.
How did slashdot work with icab? Very well. When loading the page using slashdot.org it says receiving file "/" which was fitting :) The html warnings came up with quite a few though. Not using quotes for attributes came up lots of times, and using <NOBR> which is a netscape only tag. And the character & should be written as & Pretty good all up!
Out of interest I loaded Microsofts home page. over 300 HTML warnings, with a good percentage of them being simple typos in tags which are just treated as unsupported attributes. Whoops. :)
Well this rant isn't going anywhere... as a first time post on slashdot some nice moderating would be appreciated though =-)
W3m has support for frames, tables, and colours, just as links does. It also has support for SSL. My favourite part is that the award-winning (OK, my bias is showing :) vi key navigation works, as well as the arrow keys, and you can use it to launch your favorite editor (vi for me, obviously) for HTML text boxes (like Slashdot). If you're using it in X, you can even use a mouse.
W3m is used by several of the freshmeat.net staff for admin work (I normally use netscape, but have used w3m, and it performed admirably...and Daniel and Jeff, who use w3m, do a LOT more than I).
Tragically, if you are a RedHat user, you will probably have to check around a bit, as it doesn't seem to be a part of their standard distribution (WHY!?). I know that I did find an RPM for it that worked with RedHat. Debian has packages in the usual place, with and without SSL.
If you're still using lynx, you're really missing out.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
If something is highly customizable, it's an advantage. But if it's highly customizable AND difficult to use, then it deters users.
Many people believe that the more customizable software is, the more difficult it is to use. In reality, it's just a case of bad design. You can have software that's customizable AND have an easy-to-use intuitive GUI (nextstep and linux w/ gnome).
But human beings think in binary terms, so this idea of opposites will persist for a long time. It's progressed so far that people think something HAS to be difficult to use in order for it to be customizable. Sad, isn't it?
LL.
I agree.
While a separate e-mail program is useful a browser doesn't need it as an integral component.
This is especially true now that web-based e-mail is easily available for use. If you have a browser you can use a web based e-mail program to send and recieve e-mail for most or all of your correspondance.
Now a good feature would be for the browser to be able to open a new window at your web e-mail site (specified in options) when mail links are clicked.
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
This review was supposedly posted on 8/31/00, yet they're using an outdated version of Opera. Seems odd, since 4.0x has been out for quite awhile...not only that, but the current versions offer significant improvements over older ones. And 200MB? Even if that was a typo (20MB), my Opera dir is still 10MB.
What puzzles me more is their love for iCab. Okay, there's only partial Javascript support. Plug-ins don't always work. It can't send mail, and it's only available on the Mac. But look! It's got an elaborate Preferences menu! Blah.
I downloaded Opera 4 last week and the only thing that kept me from switching was it's Javascript support. I work in Dreamweaver a lot and rather than coding my own Javascript to show or hide layers I tend to use Dreamweavers built in behaviors. (They're easy and the work with IE and NS.)
The problem I've found is that Neither Mozilla or Opera support this code. I'm not sure if it's not compliant with "standard" Javascript or what. And I haven't had the time to test any of my own code yet.
What strikes me as the reason not to switch is that I'm not the only developer in the world who uses Dreamweaver. Lots of other pages use this code and it will inhibit my ability to view pages. I don't want to have to switch browsers cause I'm going to a slightly artsyer page.
Anyone have any input?
vw_bob
I have never understood why people bitch about it not having Java "bundled." You could always get it if you wanted it. I don't, and I'm quite happy to not have to download crap I don't want.
Missing a lot of features? What "features?" It isn't missing anything I want. "Password management?" Oh, yeah, that stupid thing where IE and Netscape want to store all your passwords so you can forget them and be totally screwed when you need to work on a different computer. Or your little sister deletes a file... oops! Come on. I'm glad it doesn't have that so-called feature. You said "features" so you are thinking of more than one?
And yeah, the windows version is blisteringly fast. I start up with 4 pages and load them as fast as IE could do any one of them. K6/350 here too. When the Linux version is stable there won't be much reason left to boot windows except for games.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The KDE Browser gets top rankings...
It's fast.. effective and soon to have Java and Javascript.
Still needs a lot of work but works quite well for most of my browsing...
It looks like KDE is taking the microsoft approch to browser plugins..
Let's hope develupers don't plug into the KDE system with wordprocessors or basic and port e-mail viruses over.
Byond that the KDE browser (and system) is making some nice moves in the area of a user friendly Internet interface...
The only sad side of course being this won't work on Gnome or WindowMaker...
Modzilla. Really just Netscapes dev version.. even before it was open sourced...
It's nice but it's still just the dev browser for Netscapes commertal product. I'm not sure this one will ever be compleatly ready...
There are some nice ports of this to many platforms. Once it plugs into modern libarys it seems to speed up quite a bit...
Arachne. This is really a Dos browser.. for XTs... You may scream now.. It's a full pacage just like Netscape only it's a console browser.
Lacks Java and like Netscape it's free for noncommertal use.
The nice part of Arachne is it's great for a NetBox.. even if your just making one on your own. Just grab an old computer and put Arachne on it. I recomend at least a 386 and no more than 8 meg ram. Arachne accually gets slower when it has to much memory to play with.
VGA and a mouse are good...
This would make a good gift... turns an old PC into a netbox...
The downside... it's not that fast... it uses the hard disk a lot so you want a fast hard disk.. not a big one.. size not issue.. speed is..
I last tryed this on an XT years ago but a while back the min requirements slid up from an 8088 XT to an 8086 XT... wow big jump..
It's safe to say any given XT is a bad move anyway as thies boxes are old enough to have blank BIOS roms.
Anyway there is a Linux version...
Windows users can use the Dos version...
However my recomendation is purely to recycle an old PC and make a NetBox for a famaly member...
http://arachne.browser.org/
And finnaly there is http://lynx.browser.org/
Good old Lynx...
Fast friendly but not GUI...
Lynx is an example of how broken the WWW really is.
Lynx was the second web client.. WWW being the first..
Lynx has had problems supporting HTML every sence HTML 2 and what appears to be a total abandonment of text browsers...
Lynx remains the fastest browser when it comes to loading HTML only pages and of course gets faster when visiting graphic pages (By never loading images).
Obveously Lynx dosn't load banners...
Lacks Java and Javascript and dosn't support plugins.
Mosaic.... a decent base for a web browser itself to old... it won't view most pages (even pages Lynx can view) and is basicly to old to be of any use other than base code for annother browser.
A few updated Mosaics exist however and they are worth using.
Mosaic is a fast decent browser lacking flash and hype... however it's a HTML 1 browser and needs considerable code added if it's to be usable..
My recomendation at this time is the KDE browser...
With the caveot that it needs KDE...
If you want to use Gnome then you probably should look elsewhere...
There are some Modzilla projects to port Modzilla to everything under the sun... odds lay good that a GnomeZilla project exists.. the name sounds to cool to pass up... and such a port is likely gona hook into Gnome something sereous resulting in a nice powerful browser.
One last thing.. I don't nessisarly like KDE I just think it sucks less than Gnome...
Eventually nither will suck... it's just the suckness level of both provides room for Window Manager wars...
Anyway... to take the glass house anolog....
The other camp isn't living in glass houses... they just don't have the walls up yet...
I don't actually exist.
where's good old lynx? ;)
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
This article is pretty useless. One IE skin. One mac browser. And the last one costs far more than i would want to spend one a browser. Who is this comparison aimed to?
Worse, Opera still doesn't include built-in support for common Web tools such as Macromedia Shockwave or Java.
Then about an inch over to the right are a couple links to download.com, for Opera (Non-Java Enabled) and Opera (Java Enabled)
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
I seriously wish they would say 3 browsers and a shell. NeoPlanet is NOT a browser. NOT a browser. It just adds more bloat onto an already bloated browser.
I seriously doubt that CAP is really sending these messages. The message just doesn't sound like them, and besides, they've probably never heard of Slashdot. It could well be some troll trying to give them a bad name.
Before you launch the missiles, you should check with the Slashdot crew to find out the IP address they're coming from...
i've been using the things for three years. And for content creation, there's no point in considering anything else. But they suck when it comes to browsing the web- particularly on OS 8.1 or lower. The speed difference is scary: set up a linux box, a windows box, and a Mac to load a page and the Mac will lose every time, given unweighted test conditions [the fact that the system goes "uh..." when you press the mouse button has something to do with it, I imagine.]
Still....
If you *like* the Big Two, the Mac is STILL the best choice, with IE5/Mac being a browser like no other. Yeah, it may be open source and all, but Mozilla fucking BLOWS in my opinion [last use was M16 and I'm not using it again until there's a final release, period.]
The Browser Wars concept looks like a pretty grim outcome to me- Mac has the best cut of IE, Windows users are pretty much stuck with shittier versions, and *nix users have Nutscrape/Mozilla. Nice of them to consider the browser that comes with OSX server as an option. [I forget what it's called- all I remember is that it wasn't exaclty satisfactory.]
Opera isn't even an option, really... when the rest are free, why pay money? [the product's window tiling is more of a severe annoyance than a feature with popup ads and java-traps and so forth running rampant out there.]
I'd like to see Mozilla get it's act together so that I actually have a CHOICE of web browsers. If you use Mac and design for web, you're using IE5, and that's all there is.
Does Konqueror support the DOM and dynamic documents yet?
Do any of these other browsers?
Despite what some folks at Mozilla may want you to believe, the apperance of the browser isn't the most important thing to consider ;)
-bugg
K-Meleon is a nice, free browser for Win32 that uses the Gecko rendering engine. Worth a try...
If you haven't tried konqueror(kde's browser) yet you are in for quite a surprise! It is fast and does a great job of rendering. It supports javascript, ssl, java, and can open just about any type of file for viewing(It also can make use of Netscape plugins such as flash).
:)
It is now, just in the last few weeks, getting very stable, better than netscape or mozilla. I suggest you give it a try along with the rest of KDE2. It will be out soon
... that people keep wanting to call NeoPlanet a "browser". All it is is some prettied up overlay for IE, yet stupid people still insist that it is an "alternative". Seems like Cnet and, in turn, slashdot, is pretty hard of for articles. Anybody can draw up a form in vb, throw a browser control on it and it's a damn alternative browser.
An article on New Coke vs. Coke Classic would probably be a more useful article than this...
"We obviously need a new moderation category: (-1, Woo-fucking-hoo)" --Mr. AC
I strongly suspect that these messages are trolls. After all, we've had LSD and Emily Dickinson, what's left?
Based on the comments about Java and plugins, I'm increasingly suspicious that the author actually used Opera 4 extensively for the review. The situation he describes is suspiciously like Opera 3.6.
Opera 4 compares quite favorably to Netscape 4.7 or IE5; it's significantly faster, more stable and gives the user better ways of coping with shoddy sites (e.g. the zoom and user-stylesheet settings). I certainly have had no problems making Opera my primary browser and I'm a web developer, so I've got Opera and Textpad running >8 hours a day.
They make it clear that it is not a 'true alternate browser' and that it is just a 'browser within a browser' and some other stuff like that.
--
--
Whom does Larry Wall quote in
But there are many instances when I am faced with a computer that doesn't have a browser installed, which I then have to consider if I want to ftp one or give up. If I could carry a browse on disk (not burned to a cd) then I would be two steps ahead.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.