Don't know if anybody else has read the March 12 issue of PC Mag (yes unfortunately my company pays for my subscription to it) but it completely blasts Web Explorer 1.03. The article is comparing all the Web Browsers on the market. Of course Netscape 2.0 wins with M$'s Internet Explorer 2.0 coming in second.
Just thought I would give all you folks a geeze at what junk PC Mag is (not that you don't already know it).
Actually I don't understand how the editor allows such misreported information to be published.
I am writing a letter to the editor and hopefully every else will as well.
The following is reproduced without Ziff Davis' permission
"...Regardless of how you connect, Web Explorer is a noticeably slow browser. It must fully retrieve graphics before displaying them and will not allow you to scroll through a document before it is completely rendered. Although such slowness is mitigated by an extensive set of status indicators (retrieval of text and individual graphics are monitored), several holes in the Web Explorer design prove irritating. Web Explorer's collection of convenient navigational buttons includes most of the usual suspects, but you will not be ableto select a new hypertext link while a page is loading. To make matters worse, the stop function is the only menu item-other than help-that you can choose during document retrieval. While a massive .GIF or audio file is being retrieved, you can do little more than stare at your monitor..... ...If you are looking for complex viewing options and built in multimedia support, you won't find true satisfaction in Web Explorer. It can read .BMP, .GIF, JPEG, and TIFF files and supports HTML 2.0 but offers almost nothing beyound standard browsing functionality. Since Web Explorer does not support frames, blinking text, or Java, many pages will not look as they were inteded to look, The browser does support a wide variety of helper applications but you will have to find and incorporate them on your own; when first installed, Web Explorer does not even include so much as an .AU reader. Web Explorer also tends to render its graphics separately and divide them into individual compartments. Consequently, a collage of graphics will usually shows up as an extremely disjointed image. Although IBM rounds out Web Explorer with built in support for e=mail, FTP, Gopher, news and telnet, such perks don't make up for its Web inadequacies. Even with OS/2 on your destop, you may prefer to run a 16-bit Windows browser. - CADE METZ"
fes...@panix.com (Peter Fastovsky) writes: >Hey there, >Don't know if anybody else has read the March 12 issue of PC Mag (yes >unfortunately my company pays for my subscription to it) but it >completely blasts Web Explorer 1.03. The article is comparing all the >Web Browsers on the market. Of course Netscape 2.0 wins with M$'s >Internet Explorer 2.0 coming in second.
Not suprised...
>Just thought I would give all you folks a geeze at what junk PC Mag is >(not that you don't already know it). >Actually I don't understand how the editor allows such misreported >information to be published. >I am writing a letter to the editor and hopefully every else will as well.
Although this is PC Mag we are talking about, they are not too far off. I have been quite critical of WebEx for many of the reasons they are reporting on. In fact, there is very little wrong with their review. Saying that it is "slow" may be vague/misleading, but it does lack much of the functionality of Netscape. It does occasionally screw up graphics, and then there are the URL's that crash WebEx but not other browsers (see c.o.o.networking.www for various posts about this). WebEx 1.03 still floods my swapper.dat after about 10 minutes of usage. And then there is my list of smaller complaints... :(
It is possible for PC Magazine to be _a_bit_ right about something. Even OS/2 related. WebEx needs _vast_ improvement for it to be a serious app.
Personally, I am confused about why WebEx must crash when it tries to load a buggy HTML. Why can't it just display a "Hey, this page is screwed up" message? One person's HTML mistake shouldn't crash my browser.
>The following is reproduced without Ziff Davis' permission > [copyright violation snipped]
By the way, this article appears (legally) on the Ziff Davis web site (somewhere, don't ask me where).
-- /------/\(__) _Alan Garrison_ agar...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu <-PGP key / |Q Cow| (QQ) What do *YOU* use those free-by-mail AOL disks for??? * ||---|| \/ You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. ===^^===^^===== http://www.cs.bgsu.edu/~agarris/home.html _OS/2+Linux_
In <4g900o$...@panix.com>, fes...@panix.com (Peter Fastovsky) writes:
The following is reproduced without Ziff Davis' permission
> "...Regardless of how you connect, Web Explorer is a noticeably slow >browser. It must fully retrieve graphics before displaying them and will >not allow you to scroll through a document before it is completely >rendered.
========
PC Magazine obviously reviewed an old version of the Web Ex. browser. The 1.03 version displays graphics as they download -- you have to go back to 1.0 version (or earlier) to get the behavior they talked about.
> Web Explorer's collection of convenient navigational buttons includes >most of the usual suspects, but you will not be ableto select a new >hypertext link while a page is loading. To make matters worse, the stop >function is the only menu item-other than help-that you can choose during >document retrieval.
I agree this is a nice feature. However, when Netscape introduced their "click and load a link while a current link is being sent," they forced server writers to handle an error condition (that many server packages weren't ready for).
>....If you are looking for complex viewing options and built in multimedia >support, you won't find true satisfaction in Web Explorer. It can read >..BMP, .GIF, JPEG, and TIFF files and supports HTML 2.0 but offers almost >nothing beyound standard browsing functionality.
Hmm, sounds like they didn't load the multitmedia functions as they were supposed to.
>Since Web Explorer does not support frames, blinking text, or Java, >many pages will not look as they were inteded to look,
I agree Frames, and other non-HTML 3.0 compliant features would be nice, but complaining about Java -- when the only code available is beta?
However, if you are honest, you have to admit that the facts below are correct: No HTML2 support, no gif, tiff, ... support, ...
It is not really slow. You can't interrupt things by clicking a new button. Well ... you can. Esc ---- unfortunately Esc puts you to the top of the current page. If a web browser is important for you: WebExplorer is just not the best - right?
I always hoped IBM would convince netscape to develop for OS/2.
: Don't know if anybody else has read the March 12 issue of PC Mag (yes : unfortunately my company pays for my subscription to it) but it : completely blasts Web Explorer 1.03. The article is comparing all the : Web Browsers on the market. Of course Netscape 2.0 wins with M$'s : Internet Explorer 2.0 coming in second.
: Just thought I would give all you folks a geeze at what junk PC Mag is : (not that you don't already know it).
: Actually I don't understand how the editor allows such misreported : information to be published.
: I am writing a letter to the editor and hopefully every else will as well.
: The following is reproduced without Ziff Davis' permission
: "...Regardless of how you connect, Web Explorer is a noticeably slow : browser. It must fully retrieve graphics before displaying them and will : not allow you to scroll through a document before it is completely : rendered. Although such slowness is mitigated by an extensive set of : status indicators (retrieval of text and individual graphics are : monitored), several holes in the Web Explorer design prove irritating. : Web Explorer's collection of convenient navigational buttons includes : most of the usual suspects, but you will not be ableto select a new : hypertext link while a page is loading. To make matters worse, the stop : function is the only menu item-other than help-that you can choose during : document retrieval. While a massive .GIF or audio file is being : retrieved, you can do little more than stare at your monitor..... : ...If you are looking for complex viewing options and built in multimedia : support, you won't find true satisfaction in Web Explorer. It can read : .BMP, .GIF, JPEG, and TIFF files and supports HTML 2.0 but offers almost : nothing beyound standard browsing functionality. : Since Web Explorer does not support frames, blinking text, or Java, : many pages will not look as they were inteded to look, The browser does : support a wide variety of helper applications but you will have to find : and incorporate them on your own; when first installed, Web Explorer does : not even include so much as an .AU reader. Web Explorer also tends to : render its graphics separately and divide them into individual : compartments. Consequently, a collage of graphics will usually shows up : as an extremely disjointed image. : Although IBM rounds out Web Explorer with built in support for e=mail, : FTP, Gopher, news and telnet, such perks don't make up for its Web : inadequacies. Even with OS/2 on your destop, you may prefer to run a : 16-bit Windows browser. - CADE METZ"
: : Don't know if anybody else has read the March 12 issue of PC Mag (yes : unfortunately my company pays for my subscription to it) but it : completely blasts Web Explorer 1.03. The article is comparing all the : Web Browsers on the market. Of course Netscape 2.0 wins with M$'s : Internet Explorer 2.0 coming in second. : : Just thought I would give all you folks a geeze at what junk PC Mag is : (not that you don't already know it). : : Actually I don't understand how the editor allows such misreported : information to be published. :
Oh, of course! It's absolutely UNTHINKABLE that PCMag actually tested WebEx and found it inferior to the competition, right?
: Peter Fastovsky -- Jerry J. Shekhel je...@cybercom.net , , , "Is maith liom Mi Mheain an tSamhraidh." - M. Ni Chobhthaigh
elar...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu wrote: >>Since Web Explorer does not support frames, blinking text, or Java, >>many pages will not look as they were inteded to look,
>I agree Frames, and other non-HTML 3.0 compliant features would >be nice, but complaining about Java -- when the only code available >is beta?
This is the exact reason I do not read Pretty Cheap Magazine. Because, that's all you get. Cheap, petty articles from authors who don't know what they're talking about.
Should this magazine really be renamed to MS Magazine (Mucho Sh*t Magazine)?
I myself find that Web Explorer v1.03 loads graphics FASTER than Netscape. I DO agree that being able to click on other links as the web page is downloading is a nice feature. However, I never knew about the errors that it caused until I read you're followup. Interesting!
Let's just hope after all the messages going around about IBM's pulling the plug of OS/2 on the consumer market that they don't alienate people still using it (like us!) I'm anxiously awaiting the next version of Web Explorer. It keeps getting better all the time.
In <3128dda2.2034...@news.indy.net>, bol...@indy.net (Ivan Samuelson) writes:
>I myself find that Web Explorer v1.03 loads graphics FASTER than Netscape. >I DO agree that being able to click on other links as the web page is >downloading is a nice feature. However, I never knew about the errors that it >caused until I read you're followup. Interesting!
===========
Netscape's bound to realize that OS/2 represents tens of millions of potential users that are *never* going to run MS's browser. I'll be really shocked if we don't see a Netscape browser for OS/2 within a year.
I think you're letting your anti-Ziff bias get the most of you. The fact of the matter is that both Netscape 2.0 and MS Internet Explorer are immensely superior to Web Explorer in a number of ways. IBM, as usual, has only itself to blame -- they haven't publicly released any updates to Web Explorer -- not even beta -- since August 1995.
PC Magazine is hardly biased here. This should be a wake up call to IBM to get on the ball and do something. Perhaps IBM may have been working on updates all this time, but it's nothing any of us or the press has seen to date.
>Hey there, >Don't know if anybody else has read the March 12 issue of PC Mag (yes >unfortunately my company pays for my subscription to it) but it >completely blasts Web Explorer 1.03. The article is comparing all the >Web Browsers on the market. Of course Netscape 2.0 wins with M$'s >Internet Explorer 2.0 coming in second. >Just thought I would give all you folks a geeze at what junk PC Mag is >(not that you don't already know it). >Actually I don't understand how the editor allows such misreported >information to be published. >I am writing a letter to the editor and hopefully every else will as well. >The following is reproduced without Ziff Davis' permission > "...Regardless of how you connect, Web Explorer is a noticeably slow >browser. It must fully retrieve graphics before displaying them and will >not allow you to scroll through a document before it is completely >rendered. Although such slowness is mitigated by an extensive set of >status indicators (retrieval of text and individual graphics are >monitored), several holes in the Web Explorer design prove irritating. > Web Explorer's collection of convenient navigational buttons includes >most of the usual suspects, but you will not be ableto select a new >hypertext link while a page is loading. To make matters worse, the stop >function is the only menu item-other than help-that you can choose during >document retrieval. While a massive .GIF or audio file is being >retrieved, you can do little more than stare at your monitor..... >...If you are looking for complex viewing options and built in multimedia >support, you won't find true satisfaction in Web Explorer. It can read >.BMP, .GIF, JPEG, and TIFF files and supports HTML 2.0 but offers almost >nothing beyound standard browsing functionality. > Since Web Explorer does not support frames, blinking text, or Java, >many pages will not look as they were inteded to look, The browser does >support a wide variety of helper applications but you will have to find >and incorporate them on your own; when first installed, Web Explorer does >not even include so much as an .AU reader. Web Explorer also tends to >render its graphics separately and divide them into individual >compartments. Consequently, a collage of graphics will usually shows up >as an extremely disjointed image. > Although IBM rounds out Web Explorer with built in support for e=mail, >FTP, Gopher, news and telnet, such perks don't make up for its Web >inadequacies. Even with OS/2 on your destop, you may prefer to run a >16-bit Windows browser. - CADE METZ" >Peter Fastovsky >fes...@panix.com
>Peter Fastovsky (fes...@panix.com) wrote: >: >: Don't know if anybody else has read the March 12 issue of PC Mag (yes >: unfortunately my company pays for my subscription to it) but it >: completely blasts Web Explorer 1.03. The article is comparing all the >: Web Browsers on the market. Of course Netscape 2.0 wins with M$'s >: Internet Explorer 2.0 coming in second. >: >: Just thought I would give all you folks a geeze at what junk PC Mag is >: (not that you don't already know it). >: >: Actually I don't understand how the editor allows such misreported >: information to be published. >:
>Oh, of course! It's absolutely UNTHINKABLE that PCMag actually tested WebEx >and found it inferior to the competition, right?
I am John Ominor, The Inhuman. What is unthinkable is that yet again, PC Magazine released a review that contained errors.
The WebExplorer does allow one to view articles while they are being loaded unlike PC Magazines's statement.
The WebExplorer doesn not need to support an .AU viewer since this viewer is included in the multimedia viewer that is part of the Bonus Pack. The Bonus Pack, of course is included with OS/2 Warp.
Of course, while stating that the WebExplorer was slow, no mention was made of the fact that a user can chose the number of threads that the WebExplorer utilizes, up to eight.
What is truly unthinkable is that Ominor finds you even less impressive than he did days ago. ____________________________________________________________________ John Ominor dmc...@mailhost.mnsinc.com
Deep in your hearts you realized that you are wrong and Ominor is correct.
The Inhuman's Lair located at http://dmccoy.mnsinc.com 7-11pm EST ____________________________________________________________________
Both Netscape and Internet Explorer have Java support. Both allow you to select a new link while the current page is downloading. Why doesn't WebEx? IBM should be very concerned about how WebEx compares to other browsers. WebEx has some nice features but pales in comparison to Netscape and Internet Explorer. I hope IBM does something about this soon.
In <4gaug1$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, elar...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >In <3128dda2.2034...@news.indy.net>, bol...@indy.net (Ivan Samuelson) writes:
>>I myself find that Web Explorer v1.03 loads graphics FASTER than Netscape. >>I DO agree that being able to click on other links as the web page is >>downloading is a nice feature. However, I never knew about the errors that it >>caused until I read you're followup. Interesting! >===========
>Netscape's bound to realize that OS/2 represents tens of millions of >potential users that are *never* going to run MS's browser. I'll be >really shocked if we don't see a Netscape browser for OS/2 within a >year.
Jerry Shekhel <je...@cybercom.net> wrote: >Oh, of course! It's absolutely UNTHINKABLE that PCMag actually tested WebEx >and found it inferior to the competition, right?
>select a new link while the current page is downloading. Why doesn't WebEx? >IBM should be very concerned about how WebEx compares to other browsers. >WebEx has some nice features but pales in comparison to Netscape and Internet >Explorer. I hope IBM does something about this soon.
In <agarris.824724...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu>, agar...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu (Coffee 'n Donuts) writes:
>Although this is PC Mag we are talking about, they are not too far off. >I have been quite critical of WebEx for many of the reasons they are >reporting on. In fact, there is very little wrong with their review.
Very little wrong? Well let's see. How about this:
"It must fully retrieve graphics before displaying them and will not allow you to scroll through a document before it is completely rendered."
This is wrong as WE 1.03 will display both GIFs and Jpegs while they are being downloaded. WE will also allow you to scroll through a document while it is being downloaded.
Here is another one.
" ....If you are looking for complex viewing options and built in multimedia support, you won't find true satisfaction in Web Explorer. It can read .BMP, .GIF, JPEG, and TIFF files and supports HTML 2.0 but offers almost nothing beyound standard browsing functionality. Since Web Explorer does not support frames, blinking text, or Java, many pages will not look as they were inteded to look, The browser does support a wide variety of helper applications but you will have to find and incorporate them on your own; when first installed, Web Explorer does not even include so much as an .AU reader."
WE 1.03 also supports the HTML 3.0 spec. Why is there no support for frames and blinking text? Because they are not a part of HTML 3.0. WE does not have support for Java either but how many Windows browsers do? The Java beta version has been ported to OS/2 and there was a leaked OS/2 HotJava browser going around. I would not doubt that the next version of WE has some kind of Java support. As for helper applications, you don't have to look anywhere for them. There are apps on the Warp Bonus Pack CD that will handle the majority of the file formats available on WWW. All you have to do is install them.
>Saying that it is "slow" may be vague/misleading, but it does lack much of >the functionality of Netscape. It does occasionally screw up graphics, >and then there are the URL's that crash WebEx but not other browsers >(see c.o.o.networking.www for various posts about this). WebEx 1.03 still >floods my swapper.dat after about 10 minutes of usage. And then there >is my list of smaller complaints... :(
>It is possible for PC Magazine to be _a_bit_ right about something. Even >OS/2 related. WebEx needs _vast_ improvement for it to be a serious app.
The review does point out the bigger complaints about WE but to say that it is not far off and that there is very little wrong with the review is a little too much. I have shown that there is a good bit wrong with the review and more importantly, what he did get wrong could create the wrong picture about WE. It almost seems to me as if he is using a much older version of WE. What kind of impression would people get if he reviewed an older version of Netscape that did not support HTML 3.0, Plug-In applications, or Java? Yes, Netscape Navigator does contain more functionality than WE. What do you expect? Netscape has been working on theirs longer and I am sure they have more people working on it. The last I heard there were only four people on the WE team. They also had to endure a move to Austin(?) around the end of last year due to IBM consolidation which is probably one reason why there hasn't been a new version of WE in a while. I agree that WE needs improvement but not _vast_ improvement.
>-- > /------/\(__) _Alan Garrison_ agar...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu <-PGP key > / |Q Cow| (QQ) What do *YOU* use those free-by-mail AOL disks for??? >* ||---|| \/ You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. >===^^===^^===== http://www.cs.bgsu.edu/~agarris/home.html _OS/2+Linux_
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // // Randy Bagwell // rbagw...@HiWAAY.net //
>>Don't know if anybody else has read the March 12 issue of PC Mag (yes >>unfortunately my company pays for my subscription to it) but it >>completely blasts Web Explorer 1.03. The article is comparing all the >>Web Browsers on the market. Of course Netscape 2.0 wins with M$'s >>Internet Explorer 2.0 coming in second.
> Not suprised...
>>Just thought I would give all you folks a geeze at what junk PC Mag is >>(not that you don't already know it). >>Actually I don't understand how the editor allows such misreported >>information to be published. >>I am writing a letter to the editor and hopefully every else will as well.
>Although this is PC Mag we are talking about, they are not too far off. >I have been quite critical of WebEx for many of the reasons they are >reporting on. In fact, there is very little wrong with their review. >Saying that it is "slow" may be vague/misleading, but it does lack much of >the functionality of Netscape. It does occasionally screw up graphics, >and then there are the URL's that crash WebEx but not other browsers >(see c.o.o.networking.www for various posts about this). WebEx 1.03 still >floods my swapper.dat after about 10 minutes of usage. And then there >is my list of smaller complaints... :(
>It is possible for PC Magazine to be _a_bit_ right about something. Even >OS/2 related. WebEx needs _vast_ improvement for it to be a serious app.
>Personally, I am confused about why WebEx must crash when it tries to >load a buggy HTML. Why can't it just display a "Hey, this page is >screwed up" message? One person's HTML mistake shouldn't crash my >browser.
>>The following is reproduced without Ziff Davis' permission >> [copyright violation snipped]
>By the way, this article appears (legally) on the Ziff Davis web site >(somewhere, don't ask me where).
>-- > /------/\(__) _Alan Garrison_ agar...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu <-PGP key > / |Q Cow| (QQ) What do *YOU* use those free-by-mail AOL disks for??? >* ||---|| \/ You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. >===^^===^^===== http://www.cs.bgsu.edu/~agarris/home.html _OS/2+Linux_
I've been on the web for over a year, have never had the experience that you are having with the Explorer. I spend approx 40 hrs a month on the web.
rbagw...@HiWAAY.net writes: >In <agarris.824724...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu>, agar...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu (Coffee 'n Donuts) writes:
>>Although this is PC Mag we are talking about, they are not too far off. >>I have been quite critical of WebEx for many of the reasons they are >>reporting on. In fact, there is very little wrong with their review. >Very little wrong? Well let's see. How about this: > "It must fully retrieve graphics before displaying them and will >not allow you to scroll through a document before it is completely >rendered." >This is wrong as WE 1.03 will display both GIFs and Jpegs while they are being >downloaded. WE will also allow you to scroll through a document while it is being >downloaded.
It _can_ to this as an option, however some people have to disable this to slow down the swap file flooding (it still happens to some people, like ME!) I still think my video card drivers have something to do with it...
>Here is another one. > [partial copyright violation snipped] >WE 1.03 also supports the HTML 3.0 spec. Why is there no support for frames and >blinking text? Because they are not a part of HTML 3.0. WE does not have support >for Java either but how many Windows browsers do? The Java beta version has
A few more than OS/2...
>been ported to OS/2 and there was a leaked OS/2 HotJava browser going around.
If you count "leaked" software.
>I would not doubt that the next version of WE has some kind of Java support. >As for helper applications, you don't have to look anywhere for them. There are apps >on the Warp Bonus Pack CD that will handle the majority of the file formats available >on WWW. All you have to do is install them.
Which leads to another set of complaints: MMPM/2 performance is still terrible. I don't even bother anymore with MMPM/2. Hopefully Merlin will improve on this.
>>Saying that it is "slow" may be vague/misleading, but it does lack much of >>the functionality of Netscape. It does occasionally screw up graphics, >>and then there are the URL's that crash WebEx but not other browsers >>(see c.o.o.networking.www for various posts about this). WebEx 1.03 still >>floods my swapper.dat after about 10 minutes of usage. And then there >>is my list of smaller complaints... :(
>>It is possible for PC Magazine to be _a_bit_ right about something. Even >>OS/2 related. WebEx needs _vast_ improvement for it to be a serious app.
>The review does point out the bigger complaints about WE but to say that it is not >far off and that there is very little wrong with the review is a little too much. I have >shown that there is a good bit wrong with the review and more importantly, what >he did get wrong could create the wrong picture about WE. It almost seems to me >as if he is using a much older version of WE. What kind of impression would people get >if he reviewed an older version of Netscape that did not support HTML 3.0, Plug-In >applications, or Java?
Then the reviewer would completely barf over the then-current version of WebEx. It wasn't fun using WebEx 1.01 and trying to view a HTML table.
> Yes, Netscape Navigator does contain more functionality than >WE. What do you expect? Netscape has been working on theirs longer and I am >sure they have more people working on it. The last I heard there were only four >people on the WE team. They also had to endure a move to Austin(?) around the >end of last year due to IBM consolidation which is probably one reason why there >hasn't been a new version of WE in a while.
Then IBM needs to hire _me_. :) I need a job after I graduate.
> I agree that WE needs improvement but not _vast_ improvement.
I still say _vast_. Of course this is vague, but there are so many aspects of WebEx that I would like to see changed. Better said, there are so FEW aspects of WebEx that I like.
>///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >// >// Randy Bagwell >// rbagw...@HiWAAY.net >//
-- /------/\(__) _Alan Garrison_ agar...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu <-PGP key / |Q Cow| (QQ) What do *YOU* use those free-by-mail AOL disks for??? * ||---|| \/ You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. ===^^===^^===== http://www.cs.bgsu.edu/~agarris/home.html _OS/2+Linux_
>Peter Fastovsky (fes...@panix.com) wrote: >: >: Don't know if anybody else has read the March 12 issue of PC Mag (yes >: unfortunately my company pays for my subscription to it) but it >: completely blasts Web Explorer 1.03. The article is comparing all the >: Web Browsers on the market. Of course Netscape 2.0 wins with M$'s >: Internet Explorer 2.0 coming in second. >: >: Just thought I would give all you folks a geeze at what junk PC Mag is >: (not that you don't already know it). >: >: Actually I don't understand how the editor allows such misreported >: information to be published. >:
>Oh, of course! It's absolutely UNTHINKABLE that PCMag actually tested WebEx >and found it inferior to the competition, right?
There is nothing wrong with that at all since many acknowledge that WE is inferior to Netscape in several ways. What is wrong, however, is that the reviewer made many errors in reporting the features. If you read the review thoroughly and had experience with the latest version of WE then you could easily see this.
>: Peter Fastovsky >-- >Jerry J. Shekhel >je...@cybercom.net > , , , >"Is maith liom Mi Mheain an tSamhraidh." - M. Ni Chobhthaigh
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // // Randy Bagwell // rbagw...@HiWAAY.net //
In article <4gbh6v$...@sam.inforamp.net>, vi...@inforamp.net wrote: >Both Netscape and Internet Explorer have Java support. Both allow you to >select a new link while the current page is downloading. Why doesn't WebEx?
What's Internet Explorer? I've never heard of it before? UNIX? As for WebExplorer, IBM is apparently working on it. I'd like it out as much as anyone, especially as I'm teaching myself Java. I hope the next version of WebExplorer has some significant improvements. Right now I've gone to using Netscape for most of my web browsing. It's nicer than WebExplorer in many respects, but it has an unfortunate habit of crashing (GPFs).
>IBM should be very concerned about how WebEx compares to other browsers.
I agree.
>WebEx has some nice features but pales in comparison to Netscape and Internet >Explorer. I hope IBM does something about this soon.
Again, I agree. Hopefully we'll see something good soon.
-- "You are elevating futility to a high art. There is nothing you can do to prevent the catharsis of spurious morality."
The Valeyard to the Doctor, Doctor Who: Trial of a Timelord - The Ultimate Foe --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael Lavallee | E-Mail: mlava...@ViaNet.on.ca | North Bay Ontario Team OS/2 Canada | http://tnt.ViaNet.on.ca/pages/mlavalle | -=[C A N A D A]=-
In <4gbh6v$...@sam.inforamp.net> vi...@inforamp.net writes: >Both Netscape and Internet Explorer have Java support. Both allow you to >select a new link while the current page is downloading. Why doesn't WebEx? >IBM should be very concerned about how WebEx compares to other browsers. Yes >WebEx has some nice features but pales in comparison to Netscape and Internet >Explorer. I hope IBM does something about this soon.
Your colour palette needs adjusting. Do the others have "DragnDrop" for example? Blinking text should have been murdered in its birth bed, or as an author of a book on HTML says, users find it very annoying. Frames would be nice. Java aint used yet (How many java servers are there?), Selecting a new link is nice but hardly a major problem. The stop button is not that difficult. The tendancy to go back to the top of the page all the time is more annoying. The horrendous slowdown on bad HTML is nore annoying. Swap growth is annoying. I find Netscape often tends to go to sleep on downloading pages, pages which WE has no trouble with doing quickly. Multi threads are nice.
Netscape and IE tend to hype new features that they invent. Sometimes they are good, sometimes garbage. Do you really think IBM should do the same- inventing new HTML (HTML8.0 features perhaps)? No, WebEx isn't perfect. But it is hardly horrible either. (Where was their review of Mosaic for example?) -- Bill Unruh un...@physics.ubc.ca
In <4g900o$...@panix.com>, fes...@panix.com (Peter Fastovsky) writes:
>Hey there, .. >To make matters worse, the stop >function is the only menu item-other than help-that you can choose during >document retrieval. While a massive .GIF or audio file is being >retrieved, you can do little more than stare at your monitor.....
..
Why didn't they just open up another copy of Web Explorer? Running two copies of WebEx is a great way to surf the net. Can multiple copies Netscape and Internet Explorer be run concurrently?
>>Both Netscape and Internet Explorer have Java support. Both allow you to >>select a new link while the current page is downloading. Why doesn't WebEx?
>What's Internet Explorer? I've never heard of it before? UNIX? As for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Internet Explorer is Microsofts Web Browser. They have a Win95 and Win3.x version.
> The Valeyard to the Doctor, > Doctor Who: Trial of a Timelord - The Ultimate Foe >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >Michael Lavallee | E-Mail: mlava...@ViaNet.on.ca | North Bay Ontario >Team OS/2 Canada | http://tnt.ViaNet.on.ca/pages/mlavalle | -=[C A N A D A]=-
>>Both Netscape and Internet Explorer have Java support. Both allow you to >>select a new link while the current page is downloading. Why doesn't WebEx? >>IBM should be very concerned about how WebEx compares to other browsers. >Yes >>WebEx has some nice features but pales in comparison to Netscape and Internet >>Explorer. I hope IBM does something about this soon.
>Your colour palette needs adjusting. Do the others have "DragnDrop" for >example? Blinking text should have been murdered in its birth bed, or as >an author of a book on HTML says, users find it very annoying. >Frames would be nice. Java aint used yet (How many java servers are >there?), Selecting a new link is nice but hardly a major problem. The >stop button is not that difficult. The tendancy to go back to the top of >the page all the time is more annoying. The horrendous slowdown on bad >HTML is nore annoying. Swap growth is annoying. >I find Netscape often tends to go to sleep on downloading pages, pages >which WE has no trouble with doing quickly. Multi threads are nice.
>Netscape and IE tend to hype new features that they invent. Sometimes >they are good, sometimes garbage. Do you really think IBM should do the >same- inventing new HTML (HTML8.0 features perhaps)? >No, WebEx isn't perfect. But it is hardly horrible either. (Where was >their review of Mosaic for example?) >-- >Bill Unruh >un...@physics.ubc.ca
Netscape and Internet Explorer have Drag and Drop. WebEx is OK. I think I have finally curbed the swapper.dat growth problem in my system. But Netscape is simply a far superior browser. Tables are great. Java is *neat* but has not impressed me yet. I can't believe that Netscape does not have an OS/2 browser. It is simply stupid. Being able to select a new link while the current page is downloading is nice. I could do without it if, as you said, WebEx did not shoot back up to the top of the page. All I know is that WebEx needs work and I think most people would agree.
As far as Mosaic is concerned, I thought WebEx was based on Mosaic. Yes?
In <4ge23r$...@shellx.best.com>, hanra...@best.com writes: >In <4g900o$...@panix.com>, fes...@panix.com (Peter Fastovsky) writes: >>Hey there, >... >>To make matters worse, the stop >>function is the only menu item-other than help-that you can choose during >>document retrieval. While a massive .GIF or audio file is being >>retrieved, you can do little more than stare at your monitor..... >...
>Why didn't they just open up another copy of Web Explorer? >Running two copies of WebEx is a great way to surf the net. >Can multiple copies Netscape and Internet Explorer be run concurrently?
Easy enough. In Internet Explorer when you enter a new URL you can choose to have it come up in a seperate browser window. In Netscape you bring up another browser window and enter the URL.
In article <4ge5g6$...@sam.inforamp.net>, vi...@inforamp.net wrote: >Internet Explorer is Microsofts Web Browser. They have a Win95 and Win3.x >version.
Ah, alright. Thanks very much for the info. :)
-- "The trouble with computers, of course, is that they're very sophisticated idiots."
The Doctor, Doctor Who: Robot --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael Lavallee | E-Mail: mlava...@ViaNet.on.ca | North Bay Ontario Team OS/2 Canada | http://tnt.ViaNet.on.ca/pages/mlavalle | -=[C A N A D A]=-
In <4ge23r$...@shellx.best.com>, hanra...@best.com writes: >In <4g900o$...@panix.com>, fes...@panix.com (Peter Fastovsky) writes: >>Hey there, >... >>To make matters worse, the stop >>function is the only menu item-other than help-that you can choose during >>document retrieval. While a massive .GIF or audio file is being >>retrieved, you can do little more than stare at your monitor..... >...
>Why didn't they just open up another copy of Web Explorer? >Running two copies of WebEx is a great way to surf the net. >Can multiple copies Netscape and Internet Explorer be run concurrently?
With netscape you can have a multiple windows I know. I don't know with internet explorer, couldn't stand it long enough to find out, you can ran netscape with internet explorer, but internet explorer gets a bit confused.
The problem is many people are impressed with catch words like "mulittaking" they just don't know enough to take advantage of them. People do stare at there screen during download. Hello, open a game of solitare, at least.
I personally prefer using webEx 1.03 over netscape 2.0. WebEx just needs a little polishing. Netscape needs a major overhaul in my opinion and internet explorer just makes me laugh, intil it crashes my system.
|
