What's so great about Mozilla?

[twist]

Originally posted by giantsnyy2002

mozilla is not substandard... at least it FOLLOWS the w3c standards... (unlike IE). Linux users, dont even bother getting me started there, as i use linux, and find it BETTER than windows, and IE crashes every day. And I run XP pro. Reason why? Microsoft Virutal Machine. Every time i look at the error report, its because microsoft virtual machine didnt load properly. I cant even have 2 windows of IE open its so bad now.

[edit] oh, and... its outdated???? It follows every w3c standard, and comes out with builds every day... You must be thinking Netscape 4 [/edit]

mozilla does not follow the standards, it adds as much proprietary crap as ie.

[threetonesun]

Originally posted by VaxoP

it is d*mn okay to not follow standards. if anything, it should be microsoft making the standards if they control 95% + of the market. in the end it does not come down to which browser is more "standards compliant". it comes to which browser can display the site properly, quicker, using less ram/resources - and that browser is IE.

Yes, like how they make standards for OS...you see how well that works out. Microsoft knows all, bow before your Microsoft...

Also, I've had less problems with Mozilla in loading some sites than I have with IE. CNN and ESPN come to mind.

And as for more resources...I'm running Mozilla with 3 tabs open. I just opened 3 IE windows. IE came to a total of 28mb used, Mozilla 24. Albiet, I can admit that the IE program loads slightly faster, opening a new window takes longer than opening a new tab.

PS: i seriously doubt xhtml will be the next generation in webpage creation - the last i saw a xhtml page the source was much larger then the mirrored html version. website designers will code for speed and bw usage, so they will choose html

Yeah, that's because you don't work in web development, and don't know what your talking about. See post above for clarification.

[Wickedkitten Veteran]

Originally posted by VaxoP

it is d*mn okay to not follow standards. if anything, it should be microsoft making the standards if they control 95% + of the market. in the end it does not come down to which browser is more "standards compliant". it comes to which browser can display the site properly, quicker, using less ram/resources - and that browser is IE.

The only reason that Microsoft owns 95% of the browser market is because of the fact that AOL started including it in their software and the fact that Netscape Communicator 4 was so crap people started switching to it.

Btw AOL has switched to Gecko in their OSX client and if thats well received they will be switching in their Windows client as well.

Give MS a set of standards and they will find the cheapest way to implement them. Thats why IE/Outlook have so many damned security holes now

[parrots]

Originally posted by twist

mozilla does not follow the standards, it adds as much proprietary crap as ie.

I think you are refering to Netscape 6. Netscape adds all the stupid stuff that they want. However, the Mozilla browser does not add any "proprietary crap" to the browser. Want proof? Try to go to domain name that doesn't exist in IE and Mozilla. Mozilla tells you it doesn't exist, as it should. What does IE do? It takes you to a MSN search page where your request was tracked and you are now presented with MS's search engine. Let us also not forget the ever so wonderful Smart Tag idea that MS had in the origional versions of IE 6.0. If Mozilla adds as much "proprietary crap" as IE, then why is it that Mozilla never tried to do something stupid and illegal like that?

I have to ask you, where do you get the idea that Mozilla does not follow standards?? The entire project was built around DTDs and W3C standards. Go to any CSS site that gives you a listing of what CSS commands IE and Mozilla support. Mozilla wins, hands down.

[VaxoP]

and why shouldnt ie make the standards?

if 95% of the people are using ie, then obviously what ie says it what goes..

if a webpage displays well in ie and not mozilla, then its mozilla that needs to be changed, not ie.

and wtf is everyone talking about ms only caring about our money? the only app i remember "buying" is windows xp - absolutely the best os ive ever used by far, stable, fast, and extremely efficeint with games, ram and cpu. and i got with it , windows media player, msn messenger, internet explorer, direct x, sideshow, etc etc etc. as well, with the one thing i bought from microsoft, i can download hundreds of thousands of applications that do anything and everything. all this for $180?? pretty damn good deal i must say.

and whether you like it or not, ie DOES set standards. i know soooo many people that code for ie only, including me. i dont have the time or need the frustration of getting the page to work in mozilla. i just have a nice link on all my pages pointing to IE that if the page isnt displaying right, get a real browser.

microsoft owns the market, it owns computers, and is doing an absolutely AMAZING job at how much its accomplished and what the computer world is now. dont be mad at them for kicking every other companies a$$, dont be mad cause you arent microsoft, dont be mad that only one company is making all the cash. i dont see why people cant simply accept the fact of what microsoft is, they always want to trash it. microsoft makes oses and a few software apps. that allows people with BRAINS to code applications, create hardware, make games for the os that is used by hundreds of millions of people. companies like macromedia, nvidia, ea, etc etc etc were smart enough to accept the fact of what microsoft is, coded for its os, and look at them now - racking in millions of dollars..

and then theres linux/mozilla..

lol

[giantsnyy2002]

im ****ing getting mad now at people's ignorance... If you like IE, good for you, **** off and leave us alone. Dont create stupid threads like this that cause flame wars.

Its times like this where i wish i was a mod so i could lock this thread, or better yet, delete it.

[threetonesun]

Originally posted by VaxoP

microsoft owns the market, it owns computers, and is doing an absolutely AMAZING job at how much its accomplished and what the computer world is now. dont be mad at them for kicking every other companies a$$, dont be mad cause you arent microsoft, dont be mad that only one company is making all the cash. i dont see why people cant simply accept the fact of what microsoft is, they always want to trash it. microsoft makes oses and a few software apps. that allows people with BRAINS to code applications, create hardware, make games for the os that is used by hundreds of millions of people. companies like macromedia, nvidia, ea, etc etc etc were smart enough to accept the fact of what microsoft is, coded for its os, and look at them now - racking in millions of dollars..

AMAZING is far from describing Microsoft. If you knew anything about the history of computers, you'd realize that they got here by lucky chance and the failings of their competitors, not their own brand of ingenuity. And now their just the big dumb giant, they have controller over everything because of their size, but can barely control it because of their foolishness. Yes, XP is a wonderful operating system, but it took MS how long to get here? And IE and Outlook still suffer from numerous security holes after how long? And for anyone who uses Microsoft Office...God only knows how many revisions of that have come out, and it's still garbage. But, it's massively accepted garbage. Just like IE.

I'm not mad at Microsoft for making money. I'm mad at the fact that they bascically control everything that happens in the PC world, yet haven't changed in the last 10 years. They're stuck, and at some point, a competitor will over take them. It's just that up until now every competitor (Netscape, Linux...Apple, to some extent) has had as many internal problems as MS.

[BroChaos Veteran]

wow....i'm speechless. the ignorance is unbelievable. hey if you like getting screwed by MS, more power to you. you really strive for the bottom of the barrel.

microsoft owns the market, it owns computers

you forgot to add microsoft owns you.

[parrots]

Originally posted by VaxoP

and why shouldnt ie make the standards?

if 95% of the people are using ie, then obviously what ie says it what goes..

if a webpage displays well in ie and not mozilla, then its mozilla that needs to be changed, not ie.

Just because a product is used more doesn't mean that it sets the standards. It, as with any other application, should be written to follow standards. W3C, as I said, was crete to set the standards. Throughout your argument you have admited that IE does not follow these standards (through statements like "and why shouldnt ie make the standards?", implying that they don't make them, and don't follow them), so it is IE that should change to follow the standards. Until it is changes, 95% of the population will be using a poorly coded, non-standard browser.

Originally posted by VaxoP

and wtf is everyone talking about ms only caring about our money? the only app i remember "buying" is windows xp - absolutely the best os ive ever used by far, stable, fast, and extremely efficeint with games, ram and cpu. and i got with it , windows media player, msn messenger, internet explorer, direct x, sideshow, etc etc etc. as well, with the one thing i bought from microsoft, i can download hundreds of thousands of applications that do anything and everything. all this for $180?? pretty damn good deal i must say.

Of course they only care about money. They are a business. Very business of that size cares about the bottom line. If they didn't, they wouldn't charge $200 for an OS. Plus why are you braging about getting Media player, MSN, Direct X w/ XP. You didn't pay for them. You can get them free. Also, I wouldn't be pround to have an app that has spyware on it (WMP7)

Originally posted by VaxoP

and whether you like it or not, ie DOES set standards. i know soooo many people that code for ie only, including me. i dont have the time or need the frustration of getting the page to work in mozilla. i just have a nice link on all my pages pointing to IE that if the page isnt displaying right, get a real browser.

The only standards it sets is the standard or lazyness. If you code for IE only, you are not following well-formatted XHTML/HTML rules. If you weren't lazy and followed the standard, you wouldn't have issues with making a page render in Mozilla, it would work in both browsers, first try.

Originally posted by VaxoP

microsoft owns the market, it owns computers, and is doing an absolutely AMAZING job at how much its accomplished and what the computer world is now. dont be mad at them for kicking every other companies a$$, dont be mad cause you arent microsoft, dont be mad that only one company is making all the cash. i dont see why people cant simply accept the fact of what microsoft is, they always want to trash it. microsoft makes oses and a few software apps. that allows people with BRAINS to code applications, create hardware, make games for the os that is used by hundreds of millions of people. companies like macromedia, nvidia, ea, etc etc etc were smart enough to accept the fact of what microsoft is, coded for its os, and look at them now - racking in millions of dollars..

I will admit that MS has done a good job controling the market. Bill is a very wise business man, but no more. You seem to think that just because they have the money or control the market that they have a superior product. If that is so, then why is there a new IE security hole every week, and a new IIS worm every month...but you don't hear about Apache or Linux needing security updates every week. And I, and I am sure the people and Nvidia, would like to think that they are making money because they have a superior product, not because they coded for windows. And also, if you were to look into it, you would see that NVidia has drivers for linux too. Another reason they are a good company...not because they have the money, or because they went with MS, but because they care about what they make, and the support they give for it.

Originally posted by VaxoP

and then theres linux/mozilla..

lol

Yes, there is, and it rules ;)

[Wickedkitten Veteran]

Originally posted by VaxoP

microsoft owns the market, it owns computers, and is doing an absolutely AMAZING job at how much its accomplished and what the computer world is now. dont be mad at them for kicking every other companies a$$, dont be mad cause you arent microsoft, dont be mad that only one company is making all the cash. i dont see why people cant simply accept the fact of what microsoft is, they always want to trash it. microsoft makes oses and a few software apps. that allows people with BRAINS to code applications, create hardware, make games for the os that is used by hundreds of millions of people. companies like macromedia, nvidia, ea, etc etc etc were smart enough to accept the fact of what microsoft is, coded for its os, and look at them now - racking in millions of dollars..

and then theres linux/mozilla..

lol

and people talk about Steve Jobs living in a reality distorsion field.......

He's got nothing on VaxoP

[VaxoP]

Originally posted by threetonesun

AMAZING is far from describing Microsoft. If you knew anything about the history of computers, you'd realize that they got here by lucky chance and the failings of their competitors, not their own brand of ingenuity. And now their just the big dumb giant, they have controller over everything because of their size, but can barely control it because of their foolishness. Yes, XP is a wonderful operating system, but it took MS how long to get here? And IE and Outlook still suffer from numerous security holes after how long? And for anyone who uses Microsoft Office...God only knows how many revisions of that have come out, and it's still garbage. But, it's massively accepted garbage. Just like IE.

I'm not mad at Microsoft for making money. I'm mad at the fact that they bascically control everything that happens in the PC world, yet haven't changed in the last 10 years. They're stuck, and at some point, a competitor will over take them. It's just that up until now every competitor (Netscape, Linux...Apple, to some extent) has had as many internal problems as MS.

really? i beg to differ. if they got here by other companies foolishness, why isnt mac/linux/unix the kings of computers? it didnt take ms that long to get here.. i think dos was first out in 82?? a few years later, microsoft revolutionizes the computer world with windows.. few years after that came 2 other huge breakthroughs - 95 and 98. soon after came 2000, a hell of a os, after that came xp. pretty damn fast if u ask me.. and i agree office sucks for its price, i wont argue there. the only reason ie/outlook has so many holes is that is uses 20x more than linux. which is why approx 5x more holes are found in outlook/ie as compared to *nix/mozilla. *nix is meant to be a server, windows xp is not. if u want to compare security holes, compare .net with *nix.

what are u talking about havent changed in the last 10 years? hmm, 10 years ago we didnt even have win95.. if anyway, *nix has not changed in the last 10 years. *nix is a os that has been worked on i think 20 or more years before dos came out. and its still basically the same. after 40 years, look at *nix now. after only 20 years, look at MS now. give ms another 20 years and see what it will create in the same amount of time as *nix did. havent changed in the last 10 years - thats hilarious. its because of microsoft that we now have 2.5 ghz cpus and gigs of ram as compared to a 386. "They're stuck, and at some point, a competitor will over take them. " - right... just like a competitor has over took them since theyve started 20 years ago. they are not stuck, and will never be overtaken.

[VaxoP]

Originally posted by giantsnyy2002

im ****ing getting mad now at people's ignorance... If you like IE, good for you, **** off and leave us alone. Dont create stupid threads like this that cause flame wars.

Its times like this where i wish i was a mod so i could lock this thread, or better yet, delete it.

and im getting ****ing mad at people like you. if you dont like reading debates, go in the corner and cry. i dont know how youd survive in the real world (OH MY GOD!! He yelled at him!! Stop it !! STOP IT!!!).

this is a lively debate, and its interesting. you dont like reading it, go back to your dream world where everyone has the same opinion and everything and differences in opinion do not occur.

[AgEnTsMiTh]

Well, I guess its time for me to put in the facts. Wouldnt you say so Deadzombie?

Here is a cut and paste of my post from the discussion a few weeks ago.

Why Mozzila is the best.

It?s a FACT that Mozilla supports more web standards then ANY other web browser. HANDS DOWN.

Fact It follows those compliances better then any other browser.

Any knowledgeable web programmer knows this to be a fact.

If an individual disputes that fact, they do not fit in that category thus does not have an accurate athoritive answer.

Browser Load speeds.. as far as surfing the web is concerned, Mozilla loads pages faster then IE does for proof on this, simply do a google search on this. Microsoft themselves have done benchmarks and in leaked emails stated that they needed to improve there performance of web caching and loading.

As far as application load time, and individual who would make this claim knows nothing about both the windows runtime environment and how explorer is loaded and boot up. Also they have probably have not installed the late beta versions nor the 1.0 release. This release has an optional boot time service that allows Mozilla to be loaded in memory the exact same way explorer is loaded into memory at boot up. This would lead to the exact same application load time as IE. Here is an exercise for those competent enough to take up this task. Remove all runtime components related to IE or use an optional shell that does not load explorer ?If your not educated enough to do this, then your not educated enough to give an authoritive answer to Mozilla abilities". Then I challenge you to record the new boot time vs. the old. Take the time difference from that and record how long Mozilla takes to run. You will see as I have seen that in most cases Mozilla actually runs faster.

Companies in considerable numbers are porting there plug ins to support Mozilla now that it is at 1.0, which is what software houses were waiting for.

If you want to find out more on this subject, do a google search on authoritive sites that discuss this. Obviously, many of the postings on this subject have been done so by individuals who have little or no insight of the facts. You can have your questions and or myths dispelled by a brief consideration of the MANY fine points brought out at the Mozilla web site. I encourage everyone to review that information before making any and all statements.

I am not trying to speak down towards anyone or what they think they know but I am trying to encourage people to get real insight into the facts via autoritive web sites who will support what I have posted.

[JK1150]

Originally posted by giantsnyy2002

im ****ing getting mad now at people's ignorance... If you like IE, good for you, **** off and leave us alone. Dont create stupid threads like this that cause flame wars.

Its times like this where i wish i was a mod so i could lock this thread, or better yet, delete it.

Don't be silly, Microsoft is ****ing amazing and has better software than anything else. Mozilla is faster though, but the interface sucks and IE is more managable, so I use both (mozilla for d/ling)

[parrots]

Originally posted by VaxoP

really? i beg to differ. if they got here by other companies foolishness, why isnt mac/linux/unix the kings of computers? it didnt take ms that long to get here.. i think dos was first out in 82?? a few years later, microsoft revolutionizes the computer world with windows.. few years after that came 2 other huge breakthroughs - 95 and 98. soon after came 2000, a hell of a os, after that came xp. pretty damn fast if u ask me.. and i agree office sucks for its price, i wont argue there. the only reason ie/outlook has so many holes is that is uses 20x more than linux. which is why approx 5x more holes are found in outlook/ie as compared to *nix/mozilla. *nix is meant to be a server, windows xp is not. if u want to compare security holes, compare .net with *nix.

what are u talking about havent changed in the last 10 years? hmm, 10 years ago we didnt even have win95.. if anyway, *nix has not changed in the last 10 years. *nix is a os that has been worked on i think 20 or more years before dos came out. and its still basically the same. after 40 years, look at *nix now. after only 20 years, look at MS now. give ms another 20 years and see what it will create in the same amount of time as *nix did. havent changed in the last 10 years - thats hilarious. its because of microsoft that we now have 2.5 ghz cpus and gigs of ram as compared to a 386. "They're stuck, and at some point, a competitor will over take them. " - right... just like a competitor has over took them since theyve started 20 years ago. they are not stuck, and will never be overtaken.

Ok, first of all, this is not a thread about MS vs The World. We are debating is Mozilla is better than IE. MS being better or not is not relivant to which browser is, from a technical standpoint, better. So far, we have determined that IE does not follow standards where Mozilla does. IE adds "propiatary crap" where Mozilla does not. Let us stay on the topic of the thread.

There is no reason to get emotional about all of this. I find it interesting that everytime a topic like this comes up, it starts as a discussion of facts, and then degrades to a "just because you don't like MS" or "don't be mad cause they are better" or "they are bigger, so they are better". I would like to see this discussion not go that route and for it to remain a factual, on topic discussion.

PS: Just for your referance...MS did not write DOS, they bought it from someone for $7k. And also, they did not invent windows, they got it from Mac. Look at Windows version 1 (look around, you can find some screen shots), it looks a lot like the first version of Mac Os, eh?

*Edit* Thank you AgEnTsMiTh for stating a wonderfuly written factual argument in favor of Mozilla...now lets keep it up ;)

[AgEnTsMiTh]

Originally posted by prasanth

Mozilla is way too slow to start. The XUL UI is slow and buggy. I think the only nice feature in mozilla is tabbed browsing, the rest IE does better.

When did you use Mozilla? back when it started?

There is no validation to that claim what so ever.

[giantsnyy2002]

Originally posted by VaxoP

really? i beg to differ. if they got here by other companies foolishness, why isnt mac/linux/unix the kings of computers? it didnt take ms that long to get here.. i think dos was first out in 82?? a few years later, microsoft revolutionizes the computer world with windows.. few years after that came 2 other huge breakthroughs - 95 and 98. soon after came 2000, a hell of a os, after that came xp. pretty damn fast if u ask me.. and i agree office sucks for its price, i wont argue there. the only reason ie/outlook has so many holes is that is uses 20x more than linux. which is why approx 5x more holes are found in outlook/ie as compared to *nix/mozilla. *nix is meant to be a server, windows xp is not. if u want to compare security holes, compare .net with *nix.

what are u talking about havent changed in the last 10 years? hmm, 10 years ago we didnt even have win95.. if anyway, *nix has not changed in the last 10 years. *nix is a os that has been worked on i think 20 or more years before dos came out. and its still basically the same. after 40 years, look at *nix now. after only 20 years, look at MS now. give ms another 20 years and see what it will create in the same amount of time as *nix did. havent changed in the last 10 years - thats hilarious. its because of microsoft that we now have 2.5 ghz cpus and gigs of ram as compared to a 386. "They're stuck, and at some point, a competitor will over take them. " - right... just like a competitor has over took them since theyve started 20 years ago. they are not stuck, and will never be overtaken.

first off... microsoft bought dos from a low level programmer in texas, so its not even theirs. Also, the graphical interface was stolen from apple (which stole the mouse idea from Xerox), so the idea for a graphical os isnt even microsoft's. Plus, 95 sucked, 98 1st edition was worse, 98Se got a little better, ME, that was just pure garbage. Windows 2000 was, amazing, however XP just sucks, as it contains all of Windows ME's bloatware. and "its because of microsoft that we now have 2.5 ghz cpus and gigs of ram as compared to a 386."... NO!!! ITS BECAUSE OF INTEL, AMD, and OTHER CHIP MAKERS. Linux supports 2.5Ghz CPU's and gigs of ram, so dont say that microsoft created processors and ram, so why dont you gain some intelligence, shut up, go into your little hole and cry.

[threetonesun]

Originally posted by VaxoP

really? i beg to differ. if they got here by other companies foolishness, why isnt mac/linux/unix the kings of computers?

Because of their foolishness. Linux had a shot a few years ago, but no one could decide on a standard, and the biggest company, Red Hat, had so many ecomomic issues it couldn't stand a chance. OS/2 could have had a shot, but MS lied to get people to buy into Windows instead. Apple, like I said, is sort of in the same boat. Major economic issues there, but they seem to have settled into the role of a niche market at this point.

it didnt take ms that long to get here.. i think dos was first out in 82?? a few years later, microsoft revolutionizes the computer world with windows.. few years after that came 2 other huge breakthroughs - 95 and 98. soon after came 2000, a hell of a os, after that came xp.

And the big difference between all of these OS is what? At least they finally moved past the DOS core now.

pretty damn fast if u ask me.. and i agree office sucks for its price, i wont argue there. the only reason ie/outlook has so many holes is that is uses 20x more than linux. which is why approx 5x more holes are found in outlook/ie as compared to *nix/mozilla.

I don't run linux, my point was that any e-mail client has less problems that outlook/IE. And if there are so many more people using IE, it's an even better reason to make is secure, don't you think?

havent changed in the last 10 years - thats hilarious. its because of microsoft that we now have 2.5 ghz cpus and gigs of ram as compared to a 386. "They're stuck, and at some point, a competitor will over take them. " - right... just like a competitor has over took them since theyve started 20 years ago. they are not stuck, and will never be overtaken.

Microsoft drives a very small part of the market. Processor speeds and memory keep going up because the hardware companies need to keep making money, and in the personal sphere, because of computer games more than because of Office. Everything that has changed has come about becaue of the internet and third parties...rarely any inovation is done by Microsoft. Hence, why I don't like them.

And as I said, all other OS aren't a good comparison, because they've all failed in their own ways. But, Microsoft will go at some point, we just need an Elvis of the OS world to get things shaking.

[parrots]

/me greatly fears another MS debate is on our hands. Read the topic people. :p

[VaxoP]

Originally posted by parrots

Just because a product is used more doesn't mean that it sets the standards. It, as with any other application, should be written to follow standards. W3C, as I said, was crete to set the standards. Throughout your argument you have admited that IE does not follow these standards (through statements like "and why shouldnt ie make the standards?", implying that they don't make them, and don't follow them), so it is IE that should change to follow the standards. Until it is changes, 95% of the population will be using a poorly coded, non-standard browser.

Hmm, if ie can display a page properly, i dont think anyone is going to care that when looking at the source, noticed a was missing. "YOU FORGOT THE !! YUO SHOULD BE PUNISHED!!!!!!!!!!!11111". Dear god. Once again, if ie can display a page properly and mozilla cant, should IE be changed or mozilla? its common sense really..

Of course they only care about money. They are a business. Very business of that size cares about the bottom line. If they didn't, they wouldn't charge $200 for an OS. Plus why are you braging about getting Media player, MSN, Direct X w/ XP. You didn't pay for them. You can get them free. Also, I wouldn't be pround to have an app that has spyware on it (WMP7)

you pretty much proved my point right there. if i "paid" $180 or so for xp, i got so much.. including media player, msn, messenger, directx, sideshow, ie and hudnreds of thousands of applications. if ms only cared about money, explain why they are giving away all these apps for free. i didnt just just get xp with the $180, i got all this too.

The only standards it sets is the standard or lazyness. If you code for IE only, you are not following well-formatted XHTML/HTML rules. If you weren't lazy and followed the standard, you wouldn't have issues with making a page render in Mozilla, it would work in both browsers, first try.

Hmm, even dreamweaver creates webpages that wont work in mozilla. i am not going to go thru the code to fix every niggly little bug when it works fine in 98% of the browsers. those other 2% already know why my page wont display correctly - they browser is sh!t. again, who cares about standards. its all about which browser can load the pages correctly.

I will admit that MS has done a good job controling the market. Bill is a very wise business man, but no more. You seem to think that just because they have the money or control the market that they have a superior product. If that is so, then why is there a new IE security hole every week, and a new IIS worm every month...but you don't hear about Apache or Linux needing security updates every week. And I, and I am sure the people and Nvidia, would like to think that they are making money because they have a superior product, not because they coded for windows. And also, if you were to look into it, you would see that NVidia has drivers for linux too. Another reason they are a good company...not because they have the money, or because they went with MS, but because they care about what they make, and the support they give for it.

There is a new security hole (as you claim) every week because 45x as many people use ie when compared to mozilla/*nix. im sure that if that many more people used mozilla/*nix, that those holes would be found there.. and these "holes" - they have not affected me in my 10 years of using microsoft products.. so i dont care if they exist, really. a simple firewall/antivirus program can stop anything those webpages throw at u :). and you say apache is stable.. apache has numersous flaws, just one was released recently with the huge security risk with flash. there are so many php/cgi exploits as well, dont even get me started. and tell me, how are all these pages being hacked if they so hole free? hmm? *nix has been working with servers for 40 years now.. microsoft like 10.. give microsoft 30 years and then compare its security with *nix as it is now. i am aware nvidia has drivers for linux, but it was designed for windows. the performance is much better on windows then linux.

[faeryking]

As a web designer I have had nothing but problems with Netscape since AOL bought them. They don't even support their own javascript anymore.

If I was on lynx I would choose Opera because it is light years ahead of Netscape. I will keep checking Netscape out every few months but it blows.

Why Netscape blows:

1. Can't run its own old javascript fully.

2. Ram hog.

3. Installs a ton of crap (unless you install a dev version):

Net2phone

Winamp

Realplayer8

AIM

4. Doesn't display some pages corretly.

5. Does nothing innovative like Opera as they spent 2 years rebuilding the browser.

6. AOL doesn't even use their own browser on AOL.

7. and the list goes on and on.

Ye ha Netscape has skins and tabs, I can get that in IE or opera if I really want it.

Over and out.

Chris

[threetonesun]

Originally posted by faeryking

As a web designer I have had nothing but problems with Netscape since AOL bought them. They don't even support their own javascript anymore.

Oh yes, Netscape is quite terrible. But I hope you haven't confsued it with Mozilla, which is not nearly as horrid :)

[VaxoP]

Originally posted by giantsnyy2002

Plus, 95 sucked, 98 1st edition was worse, 98Se got a little better, ME, that was just pure garbage. Windows 2000 was, amazing, however XP just sucks, as it contains all of Windows ME's bloatware. and "its because of microsoft that we now have 2.5 ghz cpus and gigs of ram as compared to a 386."... NO!!! ITS BECAUSE OF INTEL, AMD, and OTHER CHIP MAKERS. Linux supports 2.5Ghz CPU's and gigs of ram, so dont say that microsoft created processors and ram, so why dont you gain some intelligence, shut up, go into your little hole and cry.

youre a funny man. 95 sucked? it revolutionized the computer world. xp sucks? strange.. i see it as the fastest selling os so far. and no, its not because of chip makers that we have 2.5ghz cpus. if it were up to *nix, wed still be using 486's. microsoft revolutionized the computer world, and with its os came a great amount of applications and games, which demanded faster processors. these were made by the chip creators which resulted in microsoft releasing better oses which used more resources, gamse/apps were created for it and the chip makers created faster chips. and the loop continues. if it wasnt for ms, a 486 would still suffice if the os was *nix.

[parrots]

Originally posted by faeryking

As a web designer I have had nothing but problems with Netscape since AOL bought them. They don't even support their own javascript anymore.

If I was on lynx I would choose Opera because it is light years ahead of Netscape. I will keep checking Netscape out every few months but it blows.

Why Netscape blows:

1. Can't run its own old javascript fully.

2. Ram hog.

3. Installs a ton of crap (unless you install a dev version):

Net2phone

Winamp

Realplayer8

AIM

4. Doesn't display some pages corretly.

5. Does nothing innovative like Opera as they spent 2 years rebuilding the browser.

6. AOL doesn't even use their own browser on AOL.

7. and the list goes on and on.

Ye ha Netscape has skins and tabs, I can get that in IE or opera if I really want it.

Over and out.

Chris

As I said, yes, NS sucks, especially the 4.x series. However, we are talking about Mozilla, not NS. If you get Mozilla, you don't install AIM, Real, net2Phone, etc. And if you were to read recent posts on slashdot and neowin, you would see that the Geko engine (mozilla) is being used in the next version of AOL for OS X and is going to be implamented on Win32 soon.

As for the RAM issue...see the post by AgEnTsMiTh above. He has already explained this.

If you are a Web developer then you know that that only difference from Mozilla and IE is that Mozilla follows the standards more closley, and that is why it is sometimes a bit different than IE. And don't get Mozilla confused with 4.x...that just didn't display anything right.

[VaxoP]

Originally posted by threetonesun

And the big difference between all of these OS is what? At least they finally moved past the DOS core now.

Yes they have, but *nix is still using their dos-type core. kde,gnome etc etc all use that core.. but ms has passed that core. whats your point? if it works, use it.

I don't run linux, my point was that any e-mail client has less problems that outlook/IE. And if there are so many more people using IE, it's an even better reason to make is secure, don't you think?

agreed, ms should make it more secure. but.. have u ever been hacked by a webpage? i havent in 10 years of using windows. can you not afford the bandwidth to download a antivirus program or a firewall if youre so paranoid about these insignificant "holes"? I dnot use those programs, yet still im quite secure. please hack me if you like if u say ie is so insecure and windows is full of holes. ip is 24.65.218.104. come get me.

Microsoft drives a very small part of the market. Processor speeds and memory keep going up because the hardware companies need to keep making money, and in the personal sphere, because of computer games more than because of Office. Everything that has changed has come about becaue of the internet and third parties...rarely any inovation is done by Microsoft. Hence, why I don't like them.

a small part in the market? i think 98% market share for oses/browsers is not a small part. microsoft has opened the doors to everyone, and now almost everyone has a computer in their homes because of microsoft. those speeds go up because of microsoft and its os.

And as I said, all other OS aren't a good comparison, because they've all failed in their own ways. But, Microsoft will go at some point, we just need an Elvis of the OS world to get things shaking.

When microsoft goes down, so will the computer industry. all that will be left is weirdos using linux and gopher. (lol)