Huh? Where did you get this reliable information that IE5.5 has the MacIE engine? They're very different beasts, whereas a backport would imply it's very similar.
Opera 6.x has sod-all usable DHTML support. I don't know where you got this strange idea of yours, but Opera's engine is still pretty much a static one, whereas the other graphical ones are damn near all dynamic.
Oh dear, you really are digging yourself into a hole. Right, let's see: 1) Opera's JS support is useless due to the fact it pretty much only supports read-only DOM, if that. 2) I think you'll find CSS is your stripped down language for roll-overs. If you want something that can do the cool things JS does, you need JS. Since you need the DOM, and no matter how hard you try, you simply can't get the stuff you need JS for without a similar scripting language. 3) Netscape6 has better CSS Support than IE6. Seeing as Netscape7/Mozilla1.0 has even better CSS and DOM support, IE cannot possibly be more standards compliant. The web site I currently mainstain makes not insignificant use of DOM and JS in the unlikeliest of places, mostly to get around browser bugs. The schedule page has a fall-back for shit browsers, of which Opera and Netscape 4 are listed. This is because I use DOM that simply breaks Netscape4 and doesn't look particually good in Opera and other shitty browsers.
As for DHTML, DOM is the W3C standard. IE doesn't do a particually awful job of supporting it, but Mozilla supports things like getComputedStyle, which is very useful for making your site work in cases where don't know what the size of the browser window will be.
IE has better CSS support than Mozilla?! What are you smoking? I tell you what, you show me a single objective benchmark showing IE to have better CSS support than Mozilla and I'll eat my hat.
Here's a few pointers to get you started, avoid anything that tests DOM2 support, along with anything that attempts fixed positioning. Hell, even Konqueror2 supports fixed positioning.
Slowing?! Now Mozilla.org has a stable base to build on, they can add features and improve performance at a much faster rate than they could before 1.0. Now the API is stable, apps can be built with it, instead of having, say, Jabberzilla break when a new milestone comes out.
No, it's not really limiting myself, unless you also count saying using Windows is limiting yourself to not running Linux programs, which makes the whole argument pretty silly.
Anyway, Win98 was not the best OS. I could bring it down easily, which is saying something since back then I wasn't programming. I have yet to run any software that can bring Linux down unless it has direct access to the hardware (Such as XFree). Typically, when XFree crashes, it just respawns.
I don't see why not. The way mozilla uses themes is they are all defined in CSS files. Since, in the CSS files, you can set, say, a widget to be a file, you could give it a system colour and use the PNGs alpha channel to shade it the appropriate colour.
So let me get this straight; in order to get a stable Win9x system, I have to limit my choice of software? Thanks, but I'll stick to Linux.
I can understand the drivers argument, but the moment you start saying not to use any user-space software because it could bring the system to its knees, I know there's something wrong with the system.
I guess so, but keep in mind Q3 is the gaming benchmark the P4 does best in. In damn near every other gaming benchmark the Athlon does a lot better with a P4 of the same "speed"
I hear this argument over and over again, simply because people don't think. Quake3 isn't the most demanding game out there, but the higher the Q3 score, the more likely that the framerate in a more demanding game will be >60.
You made a good point there. When somebody takes their car into a garage, they have to explain what happened, even if it's just "the car started spewing steam and a warning light came on". How useful is "it broke"? It's the exact sort of thing I get with people I know. I tell them that next time it happens, write down exactly what they tried and what the error was. Do they do that? No, they just spew "It came up with an error message".
How am I supposed to fix a problem if I don't even know how to replicate it?
The primary problem I have with Konqueror3 is it has a bug when handling widgets and CSS positioning. When I have a banner at the top a page using fixed positioning, if there is a form on the page the buttons show up over the top of the banner no matter what z-index I use. This bug doesn't show up in Mozilla, so I think it's a Konqueror limitation.
Developing a site that makes use of DOM is impossible on Opera. In fact, unless Opera gets some useful developer tools, real developers will develop and maybe test on it, instead of maybe using it as their reference platform.
As for MDI, while some people seem to like it, I hate it, except for tabs, which are a sort of mix of MDI and SDI.
Skinning Mozilla never touches XUL. A Mozilla skin simply provides new images and CSS files. XUL applications are being written, look at mozdev.org. There's even a functional Jabber client.
And finally, what exactly surprised you about DOM? Lots of sites use DOM, the developers just know it as part of DHTML. I'm getting quite keen on DOM, because there's some funky stuff you can do with client-side scripting, rather than having to use server-side kludges.
Oh, and here's a page that Opera doesn't render correctly because it uses DOM: http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~dwinsper/sch edule_ moz.php3?force_tree=1
Mozilla had tabbed browsing before Opera. See http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/hyatt/2002_05_1 9_mozillian_archive.html for more details.
As for major advantages: 1) Good DOM support 2) Not crap CSS2 support (Where's IE's and Opera's fixed positioning support?) 3) Image blocking 4) Better cookie management 5) A saner UI. Opera's only good if you really know it. 6) The sidebar (Opera's is nowhere near as customisable) 7) The UI takes up less space than Opera 8) Javascript console 9) DOM inspector 10) XUL
Opera is hardly ahead of its time in this day and age. Its CSS support has been surpased in Mozilla and probably IE. It has no useful DOM support and its UI is a mess.
Actually, yes. The problem is the Athlon's FSB is 133MHz DDR aka 266MHz. If you overclock the FSB (Chipset proc rather than RAMchipset) to 166MHz DDR you do actually get a significant speed increase.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? Where did you get this reliable information that IE5.5 has the MacIE engine? They're very different beasts, whereas a backport would imply it's very similar.
Opera 6.x has sod-all usable DHTML support. I don't know where you got this strange idea of yours, but Opera's engine is still pretty much a static one, whereas the other graphical ones are damn near all dynamic.
Oh dear, you really are digging yourself into a hole. Right, let's see:
1) Opera's JS support is useless due to the fact it pretty much only supports read-only DOM, if that.
2) I think you'll find CSS is your stripped down language for roll-overs. If you want something that can do the cool things JS does, you need JS. Since you need the DOM, and no matter how hard you try, you simply can't get the stuff you need JS for without a similar scripting language.
3) Netscape6 has better CSS Support than IE6. Seeing as Netscape7/Mozilla1.0 has even better CSS and DOM support, IE cannot possibly be more standards compliant. The web site I currently mainstain makes not insignificant use of DOM and JS in the unlikeliest of places, mostly to get around browser bugs. The schedule page has a fall-back for shit browsers, of which Opera and Netscape 4 are listed. This is because I use DOM that simply breaks Netscape4 and doesn't look particually good in Opera and other shitty browsers.
As for DHTML, DOM is the W3C standard. IE doesn't do a particually awful job of supporting it, but Mozilla supports things like getComputedStyle, which is very useful for making your site work in cases where don't know what the size of the browser window will be.
IE has better CSS support than Mozilla?! What are you smoking? I tell you what, you show me a single objective benchmark showing IE to have better CSS support than Mozilla and I'll eat my hat.
Here's a few pointers to get you started, avoid anything that tests DOM2 support, along with anything that attempts fixed positioning. Hell, even Konqueror2 supports fixed positioning.
Slowing?! Now Mozilla.org has a stable base to build on, they can add features and improve performance at a much faster rate than they could before 1.0. Now the API is stable, apps can be built with it, instead of having, say, Jabberzilla break when a new milestone comes out.
No, it's not really limiting myself, unless you also count saying using Windows is limiting yourself to not running Linux programs, which makes the whole argument pretty silly.
Anyway, Win98 was not the best OS. I could bring it down easily, which is saying something since back then I wasn't programming. I have yet to run any software that can bring Linux down unless it has direct access to the hardware (Such as XFree). Typically, when XFree crashes, it just respawns.
I don't see why not. The way mozilla uses themes is they are all defined in CSS files. Since, in the CSS files, you can set, say, a widget to be a file, you could give it a system colour and use the PNGs alpha channel to shade it the appropriate colour.
IIRC GDI resources are irrelevent in NT based systems.
So let me get this straight; in order to get a stable Win9x system, I have to limit my choice of software? Thanks, but I'll stick to Linux.
I can understand the drivers argument, but the moment you start saying not to use any user-space software because it could bring the system to its knees, I know there's something wrong with the system.
Yeah. Reality Distortion Field and all that.
Not to sound like a Troll or anything, but do you not find that rendering to be far to blurry? It actually hurts my eyes trying to read it.
I guess so, but keep in mind Q3 is the gaming benchmark the P4 does best in. In damn near every other gaming benchmark the Athlon does a lot better with a P4 of the same "speed"
Seeing as Transgaming don't accept American Express or Switch, I *cannot* pay them.
I hear this argument over and over again, simply because people don't think. Quake3 isn't the most demanding game out there, but the higher the Q3 score, the more likely that the framerate in a more demanding game will be >60.
You made a good point there. When somebody takes their car into a garage, they have to explain what happened, even if it's just "the car started spewing steam and a warning light came on". How useful is "it broke"? It's the exact sort of thing I get with people I know. I tell them that next time it happens, write down exactly what they tried and what the error was. Do they do that? No, they just spew "It came up with an error message".
How am I supposed to fix a problem if I don't even know how to replicate it?
Psst...Mozilla can do that too.
There is a reason HTML has stuff like & and > defined in the language.
The primary problem I have with Konqueror3 is it has a bug when handling widgets and CSS positioning. When I have a banner at the top a page using fixed positioning, if there is a form on the page the buttons show up over the top of the banner no matter what z-index I use. This bug doesn't show up in Mozilla, so I think it's a Konqueror limitation.
I dare you to prove that statement. Fiver says you can't.
Developing a site that makes use of DOM is impossible on Opera. In fact, unless Opera gets some useful developer tools, real developers will develop and maybe test on it, instead of maybe using it as their reference platform.
h edule_ moz.php3?force_tree=1
As for MDI, while some people seem to like it, I hate it, except for tabs, which are a sort of mix of MDI and SDI.
Skinning Mozilla never touches XUL. A Mozilla skin simply provides new images and CSS files. XUL applications are being written, look at mozdev.org. There's even a functional Jabber client.
And finally, what exactly surprised you about DOM? Lots of sites use DOM, the developers just know it as part of DHTML. I'm getting quite keen on DOM, because there's some funky stuff you can do with client-side scripting, rather than having to use server-side kludges.
Oh, and here's a page that Opera doesn't render correctly because it uses DOM:
http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~dwinsper/sc
Mozilla had tabbed browsing before Opera. See http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/hyatt/2002_05_1 9_mozillian_archive.html for more details.
As for major advantages:
1) Good DOM support
2) Not crap CSS2 support (Where's IE's and Opera's fixed positioning support?)
3) Image blocking
4) Better cookie management
5) A saner UI. Opera's only good if you really know it.
6) The sidebar (Opera's is nowhere near as customisable)
7) The UI takes up less space than Opera
8) Javascript console
9) DOM inspector
10) XUL
That's just off the top of my head.
Opera is hardly ahead of its time in this day and age. Its CSS support has been surpased in Mozilla and probably IE. It has no useful DOM support and its UI is a mess.
You could have /home on a seperate partition/drive and use the "noexec" mount option. It disables the execution of binaries on that drive.
Actually, yes. The problem is the Athlon's FSB is 133MHz DDR aka 266MHz. If you overclock the FSB (Chipset proc rather than RAMchipset) to 166MHz DDR you do actually get a significant speed increase.
Actually, they did change the source code for The Sims. Ergo, they ported it to WineX.