What's so great about Mozilla?

[john smith 1924 Veteran]

why wasting your time debate mon....

drink jamacan rum....

oh and ie is far superior

muhahhahahhah

:paranoid: :cross: :old: :bandit:

[Yazoo]

Just enabled quick launch in Mozilla (incidently same as Netscape) and it loads pretty quick, don't know what the fuss is all about.

[Yazoo]

Originally posted by pinky

orbit...

hehe using that one already, cool it is too. ;)

[kyosuken]

hi mates,

i didn't read the last 3 pages (too much to read).

But here is some facts i may put, as even some webmasters over here seemed to forgert IE history.

First, Nestcape 4 was great at the time it went, MS was starting to react quickly (IE3 was a total dog) and Netscape was still innovative browser. Then MS brought up IE4, yes it wasn't the most perfect browser in the world, it JS scripts language had for the most part compatibility with NS but with added features (that weren't all that bad, excluded cross platform dhtml features...).

At that time IE becomes more standards than NS, not fully because MS added it's own functionnality (along with active x engine etc) it supported quiet a few features of CSS1, and even if MS added their own CSS it was not hurting.

Ok now talking about generation 6 browsers, because people always shouted at MS not doing standards, they improved a lot their browsers to meet the standards, there is still some lack of features (png engine broken...) or little differences in the standard functions. BUT the main differences between IE and NS(gecko) is LEGACY, or BACKWARD Compatibility. I don't have any accurate number but MOSTS of the sites designed for IE4 only will have no or very little bug in IE6. Mozilla, Gecko decided not to keep backward compatibility (So NS4 specificated designed sites are dead for good).

So know did someone actually tried to do a site that is true w3c compliant (in every aspect ?) you will see that IE6 and NS6 (i may say gecko/mozilla 6th generation) will show you 99% the same thing, cause saying Mozilla is 'fully' (100%) standard compliant is still false because it has some troubles here and there.

Of course this doesn't prove one to be better than another, the difference is : we saw in web sites, what we saw in real life, MS keeping legacy/backward compatibility as they did (till XP) to dos/some **** *ss 16 bits apps/or well "coded" win95/98 applications.

So now on proved facts, yes mozilla load faster websites, it's image managing engine is great, (You won't see gif animated hoging your system process). Yes it's accurately 99% standard, but so is IE6 when not talking about LEGACY).

So is NS6 (or mozilla/gecko/whatever, in short :p) better than IE6, in a true dev world, no because you don't have the possibility of backward compatibility. Is IE6 better than NS6 obviously not because too many things are broken in it.

So for me they are equally good, and usable. Another thing designing web sites is getting more and more easier nowadays because the IE/NS4 cross platform is not needed anymore, just a little tweaking and everything is ok under IE5.5/Ie6/NS6.

One last thing (that post is becoming too long) saying MS does not do standards, is partly false, there are tons of inovative things they put in JS, CSS or whatever that were 'proposed' to W3C and finally accepted.

K i am a dev, for a long time i did my coding only IE, because IE/NS4 was making me sick. Now things are a lot easyer, but yet mozilla has a long way to be wide spreaded and used by people. (May be aol.. who knows)

Cheers,

Ken

(ps, My English may be bad, i apologie.. my frenchness is at fault)

[Oogle]

BUT the main differences between IE and MS is LEGACY, or BACKWARD Compatibility. I don't have any accurate number but MOSTS of the sites designed for IE4 only will have no or very little bug in IE6. Mozilla, Gecko decided not to keep backward compatibility (So NS4 specificated designed sites are dead for good).

That's an interesting take on things. If this is true, it would be nice for the W3C to have easy-to-navigate documentation on which tag elements/attributes are supported by which HTML version. Outdated elements should be labeled "deprecated" with current elements suggested as replacements.

Or maybe if MS does it themselves since they have 90%+ market share. I know they do it with their APIs and it has really helped me to keep up-to-date with current code.

[kyosuken]

In revision to HTML 1/2/3/4 W3c gives info about what is to be kept and not.

But you won't have any information about IE/NS specific tags (like BGSOUND, LAYER, ILAYER etc...) Anyway everything in Html isn't really used anymore (the way it is i mean), with a good touch of Css the formating get so different..