Slashdot Mirror
Linux: Browser Wars
Anderson Silva writes "LinuxToday has an article doing a pretty basic comparison on some of the major linux browsers. Although a nice article, and with a fair result, I still think Opera is the best browser available for Linux." I prefer knoqueror, although recent builds seem to have random hangs on images.google.com.
We both like 'knoquers'.
---- http://www.opedog.com/
Telnet in on port 80 and do a manual get.
Anything else is for wussies.
I guess slashcode still doesn't include a spellchecker.
Somewhere in the heavens... they are waiting.
since the site is slashdotted and i have no hope of reading the article i'll just post my opinion. I think i have to go with mozilla as the best linux browser, or more exactly, the gecko engine. The reason being that webdesigners will ONLY design for IE and Netscape since running IE is out of the question (yes i'm aware it runs on wine) netscape is the only logical choice. Unless you only read slashdot in which case even lynx is fine.
I admire the work the konqueror people have done, if they can get it to emulate IE exactly then they'll have a browser that's on par. Kinda like what opera did (trying to emulate IE) it just has to be more accurate, opera screws up on many pages, as does konqueror. Mozilla will render 99.99% of pages rightn (those that don't render right were made with netscape 4.x in mind), the others screw up much more often.
Photos.
From the article: Opera is slick, but it's page rendering is nothing short of horrendous. Galeon performed well in all tests, and, aesthetics aside, it's a good choice.
I haven't noticed this myself...In my experience Opera has (almost always) been very fast in rendering HTML for viewing. Its only problem is that it waits for images to load before it displays anything past the image tag in question. Perhaps this was why it took so long to load the page in the test.
This proves once again, that there still isn't a good browser for Linux. So we have to decide on which one is less crappy, and not which one is better.
I don't understand why this is so. It sickens me that browsing on windows with IE is more stable then anything on the linux platform. Its just not right.
knoqueror
:P.
/. and Fark, it gets to be a pain. I've been using Netscape lately, but as everybody knows, it has stability (and bloat) problems.
You must mean konqueror
Anyway, I really like Konqueror as well, except for the fact that it seems to like pulling things out of the cache instead of downloading them as it should. Yes, this speeds things up, but on frequently changing sites such as
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
No kidding. You might include a low end machine for an extra data point, but having it as the only machine is just plain idiotic. The tests are useless if they're not run on typical hardware. Especially with the price of RAM where it is -- testing apps on memory-contrained machines is pointless.
The author says Opera is clean and simple. In my eyes, Opera is horrible. It's default screen is covered with 500 different widgets. When you load a page, they all start whizzing and moving around. It's very distracting. Opera doesn't look at home on GNOME nor KDE, which just adds to its problems. Opera, with its adverts and grotesque widgets, is a visual insult.
I strictly use only MS Internet Explorer becuase that's the only browser that doens't try to steal my flamberge.
Slashdot uses a lot of tables on the pages which can take a while to render, so what better test for a browser. Obviously this is a pretty extreme test as most pages are nowhere near as big.
Opera: 127 seconds
Konqueror: 57 seconds
Mozilla: 71 seconds
Galeon: 64 seconds
Skipstone: 57 seconds (Note: Browser crashed on first attempt.)
Netscape: 34 seconds
Winner: Netscape Navigator
These load times are absurd. Is this guy connected to the internet via a 300-baud phone-coupler attached to a telephone line spliced together with paper clips? I'm on a cablemodem, and it takes less than two-seconds to fully load slashdot. I think it took about 9 or 10 when I was on a dialup. Anyone else think these figures look a little inflated?
when salmon are outlawed, only outlaws will have salmon
The Mozilla version shipping with Mandrake 8.0 is 0.8.7. While stability is pretty much unchanged since then, Mozilla has gotten noticably faster during the 0.9.x cycle. 0.9.1 is usable on a 350 Mhz Pentium II... sort of. 0.9.3, while still being slower than Navigator 4.77, isn't bad at all. It's finally fast enough that I can use it as my normal, day-to-day browser (I was using Nav 4.77, because while it was unstable as hell, at least I didn't have to wait 20 seconds for a page to load).
I imagine that simliar situations are true for at least one or two of the other browsers compared. Development on Mozilla, especially, is happening very fast and comparing something current 6 months ago is not, IMHO particularly meaningful.
A German magazine did a similar thing a while ago, only they included MSIE. It won hands on in every discipline from speed to adherence to standards.
A pity that it wasn't at least mentioned.
Censorship on Slashdot
I'm using Galeon to read this right now 0.11.0, and while it's a really nice, clean interface, it does have some problems.
. htm
:)
http://ska.about.com/library/cannabis/blccrolling
This is one of them. One of the two pop ups on this page crash it EVERY time. Without fail. I warn you, do not visit this in Galeon (unless there is some way of turning pop-ups off, which is entirely possible, I've never really delved too deep into it's guts.
But I like it MUCH better than Mozilla and Netscape. It just seems cleaner to me.
And for those of you visiting that web site in non Galeon browers, I did eventually figure out how to roll a joint without its help
Verloc
From the article: Konqueror: Clean, simple and boring. Perfectly functional, with the bare minimum of fuss. The spinning KDE logo in the corner looks very nice, but of course adds nothing to your browsing experience.
Konqueror, boring? Gimme a break. It's completely themable and it doesn't even need its own themes like Mozilla, you can use general KDE themes. And it works wonderfully as a file manager (and network browser and PDF and manpage viewer), with smooth icon previews of HTML, ps, pdf, images and text files. You can split the view in however many sub-windows you want, you can even have a shell prompt as a subwindow. It has a full screen mode. Right now, I'm browsing with KDE and Konqueror in "Aqua" theme and it looks, well, let's just say you have to buy an Apple if you want something to look cooler than that.
And what's up with testing on a ridiculously outdated machine? P166, no MMX, 32 MB RAM? You've gotta be kidding me. If I wanted a browser that worked fast on this configuration, I'd have stuck with Netscape 3.0...
No one is going to take this review seriously. Not only does the author not give version numbers he also refers to Netscape Navigator as "Netscape". Was he testing the corporation itself?
Personally, I'd be more interested if Navigator 6.1 were compared along side 4.7x and Mozilla.
I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
I wouldn't trust this particular article very much. They don't even mention the versions of the browsers tested. They say there's no direct way (w/o resorting to the "Settings" menu) in Konqueror to disable javascript and images, but sure enough, in my Konqueror (2.2) they're right in front of me (Tools -> HTML options). I dunno, I guess the article is a bit of a troll. And what better place for a troll than the Slashdot front page? :-)
I'm sorry, but aren't the versions of the browsers used somehow important to the story? Was it Mozilla 0.9, or 0.9.2? Netscape 4.08 or Netscape 4.7, or Netscape 6? Hard to tell what these tests mean, especially if not the latest versions of each browser are being used.
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
why oh why where text only browsers not included ?
is this because their user base is small ?
I personally use it but I find that alot of people dont
because I find lynx the fall back GOD the page doent render in netscape or some fool has FSCK the HTML I just use lynx and away I go
really how much information (I am intrested in )is presented in pictures on the web
not much I am sure
lynx is my fallback king (-;
I use it when I telnet into places to check they can see stuff plus all I need is a telnet app which I can obtain for most OS's
what do you relie on to ALWAYS give you the web ?
(me its a telnet client and lynx)
regards
john jones
Hey, at least I didn't post a lame joke about the obvious misspelling. Get a life, people, willya?
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
*CmdrTaco loads images.google.com*
*CmdrTaco types in "tux the penguin nude"*
*Penguin loads up in goatse position*
CmdrTaco: hmmmm....
*CmdrTaco types in "RMS nude"*
*Google locks...*
CmdrTaco: ^$%$#@!
Execute? [Y/N] _
One of the most glaring is that it won't render table cells with no content, so you have to put a non-breaking space in every empty cell. It also screws up table widths.... I could go on and on... ask anyone who works on web application development, they will tell you, Netscape sucks.
If it looks good on your machine in Netscape, it's only because someone slaved away to make it that way.
I use galeon and konqueror mostly and the occasional skipstone (which is by the same guy that does gkrellm and pronto) mozilla, navigator and opera just seem to be the EMACS of web browsers. it always seems funny to me that in the Unix (one tool per job) world we have so many kitchen sink utils. vi, galeon or konq, enlightenment. I like to keep things simple looking if not simple.
-
Yeah, I don't know what that guy was thinking. Mozilla ( and galeon and skipstone, by extension), was written with at least a P-233, 64MB RAM in mind (see here), and all the binaries I've seen have actually been optimized for i686. It wouldn't surprise me if the other browsers were similar.
"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
--Henry David Thoreau
Sorry, the amount of memory used by XFree86 isn't really all that much. What you're seeing when you see huge memory usage for X in top is because the X process has memory mapped your video card's graphics RAM into its memory space, several times over.
On my 32 meg GeForce2MX card, top shows X taking up 135megs of RAM. On a friend's system with an old school 2 meg VRAM card, X is only shown taking up 4-5 megs of RAM.
X is actually pretty damn memory efficient. Remember it was originally created when a workstation might have had one megabyte of memory, total. If you have a lot of windows open at high color depth, there will be some real RAM taken up to store those bitmaps, depending on whether you have 'save unders' enabled, but that's a function of all of the programs you have running, more than of X's inefficiency, even if the memory is counted against the X server process and not the X programs themselves.
FWIW.
I still think that the browser tests covered here are rather meaningless on a 32 meg machine. These days, browsers will take up close to a full 32 megs of RAM on a UNIX system, especially with the 'cache in RAM' option of Mozilla and Netscape. These days, when you can get 512 megs of PC133 RAM for less than fifty bucks, it just doesn't make sense to worry about 32 megs here or there, anymore.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
well many people rarely use those environments, a FAIR test would have been 2 benchmarks one without kdeinit running one with. THen again it doesn't really matter becasue this review has so many probs with it it's not usefull at all.
Photos.
If Microsoft is really as nefarious as we've all come to believe, expect, and even count on, it seems that they *would* crank out a version of IE that runs on Linux. Just think, since it'd only be available as binary, they could hide all sorts of stuff in there and get up to lots of mischief. If they were feeling especially wicked they could make the Linux version of IE work better than any of the other stuff available for Linux and use that to muddy that whole "open versus closed" thing.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The Winner [for "The Look"]: Mozilla, hands down. It's terrific that someone decided to take the route away from the greys.
Oh goody. I was tired of all my applications looking the same and behaving the same. I love guessing which color means disabled for each different application. I like having my system wide colors that I've carefully chosen to minimize eye strain thrown out the window.
System wide colors and looks are feature. If you're sick of living in grey land, change it globally. Gnome supports this. KDE supports this. Windows supports this.
Mozilla is a great browser, but their decision to roll their own user interface was a mistake. Fortunately Mozilla is modular, and as the core engine stabilizes I plan on moving to a more system friendly browser using that engine. Probably Galeon or Skipstone.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Unfortunately this outdated-browser analysis is worthless, for several reasons - all of which boil down to the small amout of actual testing done. A faster, more representative machine would have been useful as well. And I don't need an analysis of browsers way back when on a machine from way back when and then some :-).
:-(
But should you doubt me:
First off, I think the one most deciding factor in the choice of a browser if how well it displays pages - whether corrupt, IE5.5 optimized, javascript enabled, CSS2.0 or ancient, my browser first and foremost needs to WORK. This isn't even touched upon here! The stability of the browser, in my opinion a part of usability, needs to be tested.
A browser doesn't need to be all that fast either just "fast enough". And, not only is "fast enough" a subjective measure, it includes things such as responsiveness while loading, total page loading time, time to create a new window, time to "scetch" a first outline onscreen and more. Many pages can be very usable with only 10% loaded. By the time you're done reading the first paragraph the rest can be loaded. In addition, speed will vary depending on processor speed and type, memory availability, and network bandwidth. A fast browser which gains speed with bad incremental display could be worse than a slower version in which you can start reading immediately. Furthermore, the internet extends beyond slashdot... some HTML elements may render in varying speed depending on the browser used.
Speed is a hard thing to measure. This analysis isn't nearly complete enough to be at all useful.
Startup time is effected by things such as program size (if too much else is loaded, a 32meg machine might well be swapping skewing the image drastically), speed ratio between hard drive and processor, and VERY importantly, dependance on shared libraries. Konqueror for instance might seem much faster when running KDE already... and the same goes for the other browsers too though I don't immediately know which libraries they use. Notice how fast those "second instances" pop up...
Finally, this is a pretty lame attempt to harvest slashdot links by using a slashdot page in a linux browser test...
It is great to see that he used a fairly low end system to do his tests. There are so many Pentium 75 - 200 systems around that are still perfectly useful if people would just think a little harder while programming, and it is nice that somebody is realistically putting one to the test with more "modern" software...
Posted from the wireless couch.
I loaded a recent Slashdot article (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/19/15562 11) over an ISDN connection with the four Windows browsers I have. Instead of timing how long it took between hitting "reload" and the progress bar stopping, I looked at how much of the page each browser displayed while loading the 50 or so comments that are displayed with my threshold:2 and overflow:3.
slashdot in light mode
ie article, no comments
moz article and the comments loaded so far
ns4 article, no comments
opera article, no comments
slashdot in heavy mode
ie nothing except stuff above the article
moz article, no comments
ns4 nothing except stuff above the article
opera nothing except stuff above the article
Conclusion: the fastest way to read Slashdot over a non-broadband connection is to use Mozilla and set Slashdot to light mode.
I didn't test Konqueror because it isn't available for my platform (!?), and I didn't test Gecko embedders because they should behave similarly to Mozilla when rendering pages.
The shareholder is always right.
I had to do a Browser comparison with an application which needed hiding and displaying parts of a web page: depending on what you clicked some different stuff appeared.
This application uses a lot of features a browser can handle: stylesheets (and the nasty "display" attribute), JavaScript, tables, forms and XML.
I tried the following browsers (under Windows, since the people who will use it mainly have Windows):
Netscape 4.x
Netscape 6.1
Internet Explorer 5.x
Opera 5.12
Amaya 5.1
Mozilla 0.9.3
Here are the results:
- IE kicked ass in everything, and even displayed the XML stuff right.
- NS 6.1 kicked ass too, but 6 or 7 times slower. Prettier display, but hideously slow (and no XML, but we didn't care). Same thing for Mozilla (duh).
- NS 4.x sucked. Couldn't handle the "display: none" property properly. No XML.
- Opera faked kicking ass, but in fact had JavaScript problems... just wouldn't show anything whatever you clicked. No XML.
-Amaya didn't even fake. I guess it was a JavaScript problem because the display of the object was weird. But it faked some XML. displayed the source as plain text (ohh it's displaying something!! no, it's the source)
Conclusion: best results on Win: (sniff) IE. Followed by NS6.1 and Mozilla. Then comes Opera.
Gotta try some browsers under Mac and Linux now too, maybe.
E
So what OS should I use? I could re-install Windows I guess -- I'd need to buy a copy from some place. I also don't have much Windows software. Can Windows run Linux software? I can run some Windows stuff in WINE. BeOS runs pretty well on my machine, although their SCSI drivers leave a little to be desired. I could run one of the BSDs too...
What do you think? What is it I should be doing? How can I run an OS that doesn't suck? How can I meet with your approval?
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
I usually use MS Internet Explorer 5 on MacOS 9 or X, and it is really, really good. Really good. And it adheres to the CSS W3C standards so much better than Netscape 4.7x it's obscene. Mozilla and Opera have the same opportunity to make a fast, clean browser for MacOS. Everyone does. But IE rocks.
--hongpong.com
That is far from a contradiction, considering that Java and Javascript are two entirely different beasts...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Ummm...dumb question. The site in question is LinuxToday, being a Linux site, they would do articles on browsers available to run on Linux natively.
Similarly, there have been many articles done on Windows browsers. Such articles would likely include IE, Mozilla, Netscape 4.x, and Opera, even though everyone one of those browsers, including IE, also run on other operating systems natively.
Geez, don't be so reactionary.
My journal has hot
Being chained to the horrible outlook at work, i have to say that i think that mozilla's mail tool is really nice. It does everything i want in email cleanly and with out any hassel. I really think that an email tool should be separate from the browser so that you can mix and match, but in this case the mail tool makes mozilla the only choice for me.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
a site that will crash a browser one day will work fine the next in my experience
No kidding. IE crashes on me multiple times daily, but I very rarely find a reproducible set of steps I can take to make it crash. Mozilla crashes on me occasionally, but I can almost always figure out what I need to do to reproduce the crash so I can file a bug.
That doesn't mean it's impossible to measure stability. It just means that being able to find reproducible crashes isn't the same thing as having a stable product. If you wanted to compare the stability of various browsers, you would have to get a group of users to try different browsers for their daily browsing while running your own crash reporting tool, but that's far from impossible to do.
Mozilla comes with a third-party program called Talkback that reports crashes to the developers. mozilla.org uses this data not only to find the most common crash bugs (by comparing the tops of the stack traces), but also to calculate theh "mean time between failure" to determine whether any given milestone (and maybe even nightly builds) is particularly stable. Internet Explorer 6.0 comes with a similar feature. (Both Mozilla and IE6 prompt the user before sending the crash report.)
The shareholder is always right.
He mentioned that he only used the versions that came with Mandrake 8.0. That means that all packages were optimized for i585. Still his hardware was rather low-end, as I'm not sure it even meets the mandrake minimun specs. Furthermore, Mandrake 8.0 does not ship with the most up-to-date versions. I beliee it comes with Mozilla .8. It's only since 0.9.3 that Mozilla has lived up to its promise. It has NEVER crashed on my Linux or Windows 2000 machine (neither has IE5.5 sp2 either). I find it kind of funny that in Windows, Mozilla renders the Hotmail interface quicker than IE. I wonder if Microsft has noticed this (Shhhh. don't tell them or they'll mess with it on purpose, I'll bet) The Linux version of Opera is not quite as evolved yet as the Windows version (Gasp!), which is one of the fast browsers around.
Perhaps it holds CSS better, but I'll be damned if it hasn't perverted website development for years to come.
uuh... flash 5 worked in konqueror just fine for
me, without blinking. dunno where you got the
idea that it doesn't
Commodore 64, Loading up the dance floor!
Frankly, if you care, rerun these tests yourself; I don't think the figures quoted are representative.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
For all practical purposes, it can be considered complete.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As for TABLE WIDTH problems, I don't see it. But then again, I'm used to it's weirdness so I guess I just take that into account.
The main thing that bugs me is it's weird CSS bugs now that I've finally started to use CSS everywhere. Ah well.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
There's an IE 5/WINE howto at:
http://www.hardcorelinux.com/wine-howto.htm
which shows you how to run IE 5 in Linux. Someone wrote me recently stating v5.5 doesn't work w/ the command-line parameters i used, but I know personally circa 5.0 does. It works decently too, rendering pages nearly as well as the Windows counterpart.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
I really don't see the big deal in designing an app that works in all browsers.
For me, it is part of my job, and yes I bitch about it but I am required to make it "work". Sometimes that involves kludgey work arounds, sometimes it involves designing two different versions of the same site, and sometimes it means dropping a bell there and a whistle here. Hell, at our office we have a guy who specializes in Netscape quirks, and he is great to have when things like this come up.
"Microsoft has optimized IE with Windows, using closed source binaries and tweaks only they could ever do being as they wrote the bloody operating system. Mozilla, Netscape, Opera haven't had that wonderful advantage..."
This comment would be true if we were compiling mozilla on Windows. But since we are all talking about open-source browsers (mostly) running on an open-source OS, this BS hardly applies. Everyone who has ever written an app has had the same access to the same source code.
Given all the bitching on this site about the bloated nature of M$ products, I would submit to you that given the same hardware, a browser running on Linux should (had better be) faster than whatever browser running on M$. Otherwise, we'd all better shut the f**k up.
This comment submitted from Galeon.
Netscape 4.x does suck in many ways. However, empty table cells not rendering the background color is BY DESIGN. There has been plenty of discussion about this in Mozilla; the consensus is that the W3C seems to require it, plus it is a useful feature --- it's easy enough to add an to get the background to render, but if empty cells drew the backround, there would be no way to make the background NOT render.
Are you using the latest Cray or something? I loaded NS6.1 on to a 600Mhz Celeron and it was like treacle.
Now that Opera supports plugins and Java (at last), I can't imagine any reason to ever give Netscape another chance.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Try using the dynamically linked version. The statically linked version of Opera is linked against a QT version that is not compiled with anti aliased font support.
^]:wq!^M
Mozilla has much better compatibility than Konqueror, but the KDE team have about 1% of the resources of Netscape, and with that 1% have managed to produce a browser with 95% of the features of Mozilla.
They are slowly working toward implementing all the CSS2 features -- but there are only 24 hours in the day, and they are much more interested in implementing the features which people actually use.
If you believe that the three features you mention are 'fundamental', then submit bug reports to the KDE site (bugs.kde.org), together with examples of sites which Konqueror fails to display because of a lack of support for these features. A similar burst of bug reports happened after KDE 2.1, which showed the team which areas to work on next.
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
My biggest gripe with it now is that when you launch it, it takes 2-3 times longer to come up that Netscape 4.7. I think that load time is due to their having implemented yet another graphics library. While that means that it will look pretty much the same across every platform, it also means that it will not really fit in on any platform. It also means I have to apply yet another theme to get it pretty close to the same look and feel as the rest of my desktop (It's still a damnsight closer than Navagator ever was, though.)
I noticed that this seems to take place at the lowest level, so it seems to me that Gaelon also takes the hit from having to load those extra libraries. I haven't tested galeon lately though, so maybe it's become faster with the recent Mozilla rendering speed improvements.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I must say that although I prefer Konqueror, it's slow start-up speed (and opening new instances) was disappointing.
Turn on prelinking. That fixes all of it.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
That's what I'm running on at the moment.
Of course I've ordered more RAM, $120 for 64MB extra - I'll have to throw away 16MB to get a free slot of course so I'll only get up to 80MB.
I've also got to wait 3 weeks for delivery.
Some people use laptops where RAM isn't as cheap or as easy to obtain as you think.
Am I the only person who finds it daft that my machine runs a web and database server with ease but has trouble running the browser. Isn't this the wrong way round?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Linux) Opera 5.0 [en]
which you might say is "pretending to be IE", as Opera has another common user-agent entry:
Opera/5.11 (Windows 2000; U) [en].
Of the IE hits I listed though, they all claimed to be running on some flavor of Windows, with nothing varying from the standard IE log pattern. Perhaps Opera can also log in this manner, but I seriously doubt that the statistics I gave are off by more than a percent or two.
Face facts, slashdroids love to say they hate windows, but at the end of the day, it's what they use on their desktops.
You don't run a typical machine. Like I said, a low-end machine is a nice extra test, but it's still not relevant to most people. Using an extremely high-end machine is almost as bad, but at least those results get more relevant over time, instead of less.
Am I the only person who finds it daft that my machine runs a web and database server with ease but has trouble running the browser. Isn't this the wrong way round?
Not really. "Server" does make people think of big machines, but that's only because it has to scale. Server software can in general be smaller and simpler than client software, as it is more specialized, and doesn't have to deal with video, input devices, etc. A browser is the worst-case scenario for a client, because they have everything but the kitchen sink built in now, and are VERY "smart" with respect to the traditional client-server model.
Maybe I'm a bit extreme, but these tests are in no way representative of my browsing environment. Clearly, if the browser can't render a table or include an image, then it pretty much fails the HTML compliancy test. With regards to a browser being useable, however, it's going to take many more tests.
For example, I rarely, if ever, have only one browser window open; I have seven right now. In this measure, Opera fails instantly. The last time I checked, you could have multiple pages loaded in Opera, but they couldn't be outside the main Opera window. With Mozilla and Netscape, I frequently have multiple pages spanning multiple screen pages and multiple desks. In this regard, Netscape wins above Mozilla, though only slightly, because it can launch a new window onto a different desk. If you try to launch a new Mozilla window, which is a little bit slow to begin with, and try to skip to a new desk before it loads, it will pop you back to a different desk, meaning you have to then move the new window to the desk you want. Of course, let's not get into multi-heading, because Opera would fail even more miserably.
If you measure stability, though, Netscape is going to lose. I think Mozilla has crashed one time, ever. Given that I launch a browser, and then run it for weeks without closing it, and given that it goes through many new windows and many removed windows, Netscape loses. It just leaks too much memory. Every 14 days it would crash (rather, it would fill up ALL of the swap space). Mozilla went down for a really bad URL (poor content design). I don't recall it ever going down for a memory leak.
What am I saying? Netscape, while fast, just can't handle what I do to it; it leaks too much. Opera was fast (in my experience), perhaps the fastest browser I've seen (faster than IE), but if I can't browse 55 different pages in 25 to 55 different places on my desktop, forget it. Mozilla wins for now, because the 0.9.x optimizations have made it fast enough to use, and it doesn't die every week like Netscape. The others I have no experience with.
The tests, while interesting information about `old' machines' capabilities, may not be very representative of today's user base, or of today's optimized code.
Most likely the #1 Unfunny Meta/Moderator on
Linux Today doesn't have an article, they are reporting on a reputable publication that DOES.
1 78 ,00.html?tag=81&sb=79
-ShieldWolf
Here is the link:
http://www.canadacomputes.com/v3/story/1,1017,7
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Nope, that's just the world of MS. We've got NT here too, and Netscape 4.04 is faster and more stable on it. Nothing ate up but the computer by NT. Oh well.
How I hate these MSIE troll posts. There is fine and stable browsing available under Linux and has been for years. Trolls, get back under the bridge.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The claim was that Konq's support for CSS2 is "practically complete". If the poster meant "Konq's support for the parts of CSS2 that people actually are using on Websites today is practically complete", then that would certainly be more credible, but that's not what they said.
... we'd never make progress.)
(Note that few Web designers will use features that are not supported by browsers, so it's not good enough to implement what people are currently using and then say "OK, that's complete support"
Then there's the question of whether these features have simply been "implemented" or whether they've actually been debugged along with all their interactions with other parts of the system. That's actually where 80% of the work is. Jeff Baker seems to think the debugging is lagging...
Actually I'm incredibly impressed with Konqueror and its developers. They're doing a great job. They don't need advocacy that plays loose with the facts.
Bzzzt! It's what I have to use all day, thanks to some PHB thought on "standardization". Insecure, unstable, costly and crippled. You don't really think anyone would purchase and then go through all the install and upkeep hastles that crap demands if they knew any better, do you?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It's funny what people have to put up with at work, isn't it? I also wonder what the link was too, any way. The Bill Gates Free Love Site TM?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I know that IE has made some major advances in XML and xsl, and many e-software packages are using these features to integrate their products with the Web. (My current organization is one of them).
However, I get comments from non-IE users who complain that these features bar them from using our services.
What browsers out there can compete with this?
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
"Got Linux?"