Browser Testing

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:04:50 -0500, Don G <ma******@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Users with IE5 for Windows still common; browser questions]

Don't know about that bit, but no doubt other people do

I know that there are many browsers out there, and that each has it's own
quirks, but are the differences significant enough to merit installing one or
more additional alternate browsers? If so, which browser(s) would you
recommend testing with?

I can greatly recommend Opera[1]. Not only is it _the_ most standards compliant
browser for Windows afaik, it also gives you a box full of 'browsers' to play
with. It has all sort of views, like emulating a text browser or a browser with
large letters or high contrast.
[1]Not affiliated with them in any way; just a happy user.
--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

Jul 21 '05 #4

Don G

> If you can get your hands on a Mac, use that for testing as well. I was

given a 4 year-old Mac, and I was amazed at how messed up 2 of my sites
were when viewed in IE for Mac and Netscape/Mozilla for Mac.

Interesting... I don't suppose anyone has any clue as to why the
rendering for the same program would be different between the Mac and
the PC version.

Don

Jul 21 '05 #5

Adrienne

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Don G <ma******@yahoo.com> writing
in news:42**********@newsfeed.slurp.net:

If you can get your hands on a Mac, use that for testing as well. I
was given a 4 year-old Mac, and I was amazed at how messed up 2 of my
sites were when viewed in IE for Mac and Netscape/Mozilla for Mac.

Interesting... I don't suppose anyone has any clue as to why the
rendering for the same program would be different between the Mac and
the PC version.

Don

Because they are two completely different operating systems. There are
some things that IE Mac supports the IE Win does not, and vice versa.

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Jul 21 '05 #6

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:34:26 -0500, Don G <ma******@yahoo.com> wrote:

If you can get your hands on a Mac, use that for testing as well. I was
given a 4 year-old Mac, and I was amazed at how messed up 2 of my sites were
when viewed in IE for Mac and Netscape/Mozilla for Mac.

Interesting... I don't suppose anyone has any clue as to why the rendering for
the same program would be different between the Mac and the PC version.

Well, what if it is _not_ the same program?
--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

Jul 21 '05 #7

Don G

> I can greatly recommend Opera[1]. Not only is it _the_ most standards

compliant browser for Windows afaik, ...
How different is Opera's rendering from Firefox's? I am just getting
started, so I would like to keep things as simple as possible for the
time being. If the differences are significant, then I will need to
check it out though.
... it also gives you a box full of 'browsers' to play with. It has all
sort of views, like emulating a text browser or a browser with large
letters or high contrast.

These sounds like an interesting and useful features. I might end up
checking Opera out just for these features.

Thanks,

Don

Jul 21 '05 #8

Don G

> Well, what if it is _not_ the same program?

I guess this might very well be the case. I assumed that IE for Mac was
simply a port of IE for Windows. If that was the case, then the core of
the program would be the same, and only the parts specific to the
operating system would be different. I don't really know anything about
programming for Mac and Windows, so I don't know if this is really doable.

Don

Jul 21 '05 #9

Nico Schuyt

Don G wrote:

I currently have IE6 and Firefox installed on my machine, and I switch
between the two when testing web sites I am working on. It is my
understanding that IE5 is still pretty common. Is this correct?
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005...ry/browser.php (like most
statistics not so reliable :-)
Should I be testing my web site with IE5 as well? If so, does anyone
know where I might be able to download a copy? Is it possible to
install IE5 on a machine with IE6?
Yes (I have IE4, 5.01, 5.5 and 6 on my Win PC). Read:
http://labs.insert-title.com/labs/article795.aspx and/or
http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/20..._x_3/index.php
I know that there are many browsers out there, and that each has it's
own quirks, but are the differences significant enough to merit
installing one or more additional alternate browsers? If so, which
browser(s) would you recommend testing with?

IE 5.5 and 6; Firefox, Opera and Lynx (or Lynxviewer on
http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html)

--
Nico
http://www.nicoschuyt.nl

Jul 21 '05 #10

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:39:32 -0500, Don G <ma******@yahoo.com> wrote:

I can greatly recommend Opera[1]. Not only is it _the_ most standards
compliant browser for Windows afaik, ...
How different is Opera's rendering from Firefox's?

Very. :-)

Just kidding. Their rendering is mostly alike. The difference is largely that
Opera does more than FireFox, like correct rendering of the :before and :after
pseudo selectors. There are differences also (like the use of padding on lists
by FireFox, which neither Opera or IE use).
I am just getting started, so I would like to keep things as simple as
possible for the time being. If the differences are significant, then I will
need to check it out though.

With Opera being the superior Windows browser as far as conformaty to standards
goes, you do yourself a favour using _it_ to be your first browser for testing.
If a page is well written en has a good use of CSS and works fine in Opera,
chances are, it will work in most anything. Anything except IE for Windows that
is. For that silly old thing you will have to add a few hacks to you css.

... it also gives you a box full of 'browsers' to play with. It has all
sort of views, like emulating a text browser or a browser with large
letters or high contrast.

These sounds like an interesting and useful features. I might end up checking
Opera out just for these features.

<http://www.opera.com/download/> :-D
--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

Jul 21 '05 #11

Harlan Messinger

Don G wrote:

If you can get your hands on a Mac, use that for testing as well. I
was given a 4 year-old Mac, and I was amazed at how messed up 2 of my
sites were when viewed in IE for Mac and Netscape/Mozilla for Mac.

Interesting... I don't suppose anyone has any clue as to why the
rendering for the same program would be different between the Mac and
the PC version.

Because it's not the same program. It's a Mac program and a Windows
program both of which Microsoft labelzed "Internet Explorer".

Jul 21 '05 #12

Stephen Poley

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:04:50 -0500, Don G <ma******@yahoo.com> wrote:

I currently have IE6 and Firefox installed on my machine, and I switch
between the two when testing web sites I am working on. It is my
understanding that IE5 is still pretty common. Is this correct? Should
I be testing my web site with IE5 as well?
Depends a bit on what your site is, but probably for now, yes. At least
to make sure the site is readable. I wouldn't worry about getting the
layout beautiful. Note that 5.5 and 5.0 are rather different. 5.0 makes
a pig's ear of CSS, 5.5 manages to get a bit more of it right.

But note also that there is no single browser called IE 6.0. There is a
host of browsers calling themselves IE 6.0, all with a different set of
bugs. I've had a page which looked fine in my copy of IE 6.0 display two
different bugs in the browsers used by two colleagues, both of which
also claimed to be IE 6.0.
If so, does anyone know
where I might be able to download a copy?
http://browsers.evolt.org/
Is it possible to install IE5 on a machine with IE6?
According to Microsoft no, but some genius did find a way of doing it,
and I've got IE 6, IE 5.5 and IE 5.0 all on my machine. Unfortunately
I've now lost the link to the method of doing it, but a bit of googling
on the c.i.w.a.* hierarchy should find it.
I know that there are many browsers out there, and that each has it's
own quirks, but are the differences significant enough to merit
installing one or more additional alternate browsers?
Yes.
If so, which
browser(s) would you recommend testing with?

Opera; if possible Safari on the Mac. At least one text browser, though
you could use one of the Opera styles which does a good imitation of
that. I suspect IE 5.2 on the Mac can probably be ignored by now, but I
could be wrong.

If wide readability is important to you, you probably should check the
site is readable in Netscape 4, which still clings on in certain corners
of the Web, but don't bother about making it look good there. That way
lies madness.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

Jul 21 '05 #13

Alan J. Flavell

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Don G wrote:

I assumed that IE for Mac was simply a port of IE for Windows.

Absolutely not. Totally independent implementation.

Jul 21 '05 #14

Harlan Messinger

Stephen Poley wrote:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:04:50 -0500, Don G <ma******@yahoo.com> wrote:

According to Microsoft no, but some genius did find a way of doing it,
and I've got IE 6, IE 5.5 and IE 5.0 all on my machine. Unfortunately
I've now lost the link to the method of doing it, but a bit of googling
on the c.i.w.a.* hierarchy should find it.

http://labs.insert-title.com/labs/article795.aspx

Jul 21 '05 #15

WebMaster

"Don G" <ma******@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42**********@newsfeed.slurp.net...

If you can get your hands on a Mac, use that for testing as well. I was
given a 4 year-old Mac, and I was amazed at how messed up 2 of my sites
were when viewed in IE for Mac and Netscape/Mozilla for Mac.
Interesting... I don't suppose anyone has any clue as to why the
rendering for the same program would be different between the Mac and
the PC version.

Actually, and contrary to popular belief, it's just that they are not the
same version. You can very well implement the same functionality regardless
of the platform you are working on (although that might take considerable
efforts). But ie on mac just isn't the same version as ie on windows,
regardless of them having a same version number...
--

Rudy
http://www.rol.be
--
Toon mij een cynicus en ik toon u een teleurgestelde idealist.
Don

Jul 21 '05 #16

WebMaster

"Don G" <ma******@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42**********@newsfeed.slurp.net...

I can greatly recommend Opera[1]. Not only is it _the_ most standards
compliant browser for Windows afaik, ...
How different is Opera's rendering from Firefox's? I am just getting
started, so I would like to keep things as simple as possible for the
time being. If the differences are significant, then I will need to
check it out though.
... it also gives you a box full of 'browsers' to play with. It has all
> sort of views, like emulating a text browser or a browser with large
> letters or high contrast.

These sounds like an interesting and useful features. I might end up
checking Opera out just for these features.

only thing is, it's not free :-)
Well, you have a banner if you don't pay, that is :-)

Rudy
Thanks,

Don

Jul 21 '05 #17

Stan Brown

"Don G" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design:

If you can get your hands on a Mac, use that for testing as well. I was
given a 4 year-old Mac, and I was amazed at how messed up 2 of my sites
were when viewed in IE for Mac and Netscape/Mozilla for Mac.

Interesting... I don't suppose anyone has any clue as to why the
rendering for the same program would be different between the Mac and
the PC version.

IIRC, they're "the same program" only in name. My understanding is
that Mac IE5 and Windows IE5 were different code bases.

By the way, to answer another of your questions, I've been told
that you can't have two releases of IE on the same machine if one
of them is IE6. I haven't tested that myself.

As always, you should test in Lynx or another character-based
browser, and you should validate every page.
--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/

Jul 21 '05 #18

Previously in
comp.infosystems.http://www.authoring.stylesheets,alt...ng.site-design,
Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> said:

IIRC, they're "the same program" only in name. My understanding is
that Mac IE5 and Windows IE5 were different code bases.
More than that - they use completely different rendering engines.
By the way, to answer another of your questions, I've been told
that you can't have two releases of IE on the same machine if one
of them is IE6. I haven't tested that myself.

Depends who you ask. I have IE 4.01, 5.01, 5.5 and 6 all installed on
this machine here. It does have a few strange side-effects, but nothing
major - good enough for testing.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

Jul 21 '05 #19

Jonathan N. Little

Harlan Messinger wrote:

Stephen Poley wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:04:50 -0500, Don G <ma******@yahoo.com> wrote:

According to Microsoft no, but some genius did find a way of doing it,
and I've got IE 6, IE 5.5 and IE 5.0 all on my machine. Unfortunately
I've now lost the link to the method of doing it, but a bit of googling
on the c.i.w.a.* hierarchy should find it.

http://labs.insert-title.com/labs/article795.aspx

That is the link and the instructions work, I just added MSIE 4.0 (from
an old Win98SE Disk) and MSIE 5.01 (from my Win2K). All working with
MSIE 6.0.2 on my Win2K box. Will add 5.5 as soon as I locate a cd with it.

The article does not list the files required for 4.0, but I got it to
work with just these...

IEXPLORE.EXE
INETCPL.CPL
JSCRIPT.DLL
MSHTML.DLL
SHDOCVW.DLL
URLMON.DLL
VBSCRIPT.DLL
iexplore.exe.local (The zero byte file you create)
--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Jul 21 '05 #20

Previously in
comp.infosystems.http://www.authoring.stylesheets,alt...ng.site-design,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centralva.net> said:

That is the link and the instructions work, I just added MSIE 4.0 (from
an old Win98SE Disk) and MSIE 5.01 (from my Win2K). All working with
MSIE 6.0.2 on my Win2K box. Will add 5.5 as soon as I locate a cd with it.

Or you can download them (just the necessary files) from
http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/standalone

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

Jul 21 '05 #21

logic_earth

It is a good idea to test your site in every possible browser.....on
every os.

IE 4-6
Netscape 7 (gecko - this includes Mozilla)
Netscape 6 (beta-gecko)
Netscape 4
Opera 4-7
Lynx

Those are what I test in on my Winbox. I don't have Linux nor a Mac.
*sigh*
Signed, Thomas M. - GD-Studio.com

Jul 21 '05 #22

Previously in
comp.infosystems.http://www.authoring.stylesheets,alt...ng.site-design,
Mark Parnell <we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> said:

I have IE 4.01, 5.01, 5.5 and 6 all installed on
this machine here.

Whoops - forgot I also have IE3. The icon's different so I didn't notice
it.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

Jul 21 '05 #23

Previously in
comp.infosystems.http://www.authoring.stylesheets,alt...ng.site-design,
logic_earth <Th****@gd-studio.com> said:

Please quote the relevant parts of the post you are replying to. I
realise Google groups doesn't make that easy, but it is possible.

[Testing browsers]

IE 4-6
Make sure you include both 5 and 5.5 - there were some significant
differences between them, despite the same major version number.
Netscape 7 (gecko - this includes Mozilla)

Only Mozilla 1.0 or 1.1 IIRC. A more recent version would be a good
idea.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

Jul 21 '05 #24

logic_earth wrote:

I don't have Linux

No excuse.
http://www.knoppix.net/get.php

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 21 '05 #25

WebMaster wrote:

only thing is, [Opera]'s not free :-)

Browsers are still one arena where the best things aren't free.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 21 '05 #26

WebMaster wrote:

But ie on mac just isn't the same version as ie on windows,
regardless of them having a same version number...

That's not it. It's that they're not the same browser. They have 0 lines
of code in common. They are two completely different browsers with the
same name.

Same as if Mozilla had released a browser called "Mozilla Internet
Explorer".

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 21 '05 #27

Stephen Poley

On 2 Mar 2005 19:52:03 -0800, "logic_earth" <Th****@gd-studio.com>
wrote:

It is a good idea to test your site in every possible browser.....on
every os.

Always supposing you have unlimited resources. I suspect you haven't
looked at the contents page of http://browsers.evolt.org/ though.

The idea of standardising markup is that one should not need to do this.
(Do you seriously suppose that makers of telephone exchanges test them
with every model of telephone in use? Of course they don't. Yet
telephone exchanges manage a far higher degree of universality of access
than websites.)

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

Jul 21 '05 #28

seajays

Don G wrote:

I currently have IE6 and Firefox installed on my machine, and I switch between the two when testing web sites I am working on. It is my
understanding that IE5 is still pretty common. Is this correct?

More browser stats broken down by month (and screen size, OS platform
etc), here:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Jul 21 '05 #29

Chris Sharman

Toby Inkster wrote:

logic_earth wrote:
I don't have Linux

No excuse.
http://www.knoppix.net/get.php

I didn't get on with Debian (couldn't get my winmodem to work) - maybe
it's better now.

Currently using Suse 9.1 Personal (dual boot with w2k) - pretty good -
got everything except VPN working, and firefox & thunderbird share files
with their windows counterparts (with a little fiddling), so that
whichever OS I boot I've got the same mail & bookmarks. Kind of
redundant though, since I haven't bothered booting windows in months.

Chris

Jul 21 '05 #30

WebMaster

"Toby Inkster" <us**********@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pa***************************@tobyinkster.co. uk...

WebMaster wrote:
But ie on mac just isn't the same version as ie on windows,
regardless of them having a same version number...
That's not it. It's that they're not the same browser. They have 0 lines
of code in common. They are two completely different browsers with the
same name.

Never looked at the code, actually :-)

Rudy
Same as if Mozilla had released a browser called "Mozilla Internet
Explorer".

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 21 '05 #31

WebMaster

"Toby Inkster" <us**********@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@tobyinkster.co .uk...

WebMaster wrote:
only thing is, [Opera]'s not free :-)
Browsers are still one arena where the best things aren't free.

I'll settle for the next best thing then :-)
Besides that, I've tried it once (several years ago, that is), and I just
didn't like it... I like firefox more...

Rudy
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 21 '05 #32

Carolyn Marenger

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 22:13:09 +0100, Stephen Poley wrote:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:04:50 -0500, Don G <ma******@yahoo.com> wrote:
I currently have IE6 and Firefox installed on my machine, and I switch
between the two when testing web sites I am working on. It is my
understanding that IE5 is still pretty common. Is this correct? Should
I be testing my web site with IE5 as well?

Depends a bit on what your site is, but probably for now, yes. At least
to make sure the site is readable. I wouldn't worry about getting the
layout beautiful. Note that 5.5 and 5.0 are rather different. 5.0 makes
a pig's ear of CSS, 5.5 manages to get a bit more of it right.

But note also that there is no single browser called IE 6.0. There is a
host of browsers calling themselves IE 6.0, all with a different set of
bugs. I've had a page which looked fine in my copy of IE 6.0 display two
different bugs in the browsers used by two colleagues, both of which
also claimed to be IE 6.0.

So, if I understand you correctly, IE6 isn't. It is actually IESixxes...
Figures. Sure am glad I avoid the monopoly.

Jul 21 '05 #33

Carolyn Marenger

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:34:26 -0500, Don G wrote:

If you can get your hands on a Mac, use that for testing as well. I was
given a 4 year-old Mac, and I was amazed at how messed up 2 of my sites
were when viewed in IE for Mac and Netscape/Mozilla for Mac.

Interesting... I don't suppose anyone has any clue as to why the
rendering for the same program would be different between the Mac and
the PC version.

Don

It might have something to do with the numerous versions MS puts out...
multiple IE6s for windows alone. If they do that, how could they make the
'same' one for another OS?

Carolyn

Jul 21 '05 #34

Don G

> I'll settle for the next best thing then :-)

Besides that, I've tried it once (several years ago, that is), and I just
didn't like it... I like firefox more...

My opinion is similar. I find it difficult to imagine a web browser
being so good that I would be willing to pay for it. I also tried Opera
a few years ago, and it just didn't appeal to me. I can't remember
exactly what I didn't like, but I seem to remember it being too
different. I started off using NN, then moved to Mozilla when it came
out, and have now moved to Foxfire, so part of it is that it is just
what I am used to. If I had a good compelling reason to change
browsers, I would, but it would have to be a good reason.

That said, it is still worthwhile to test with browsers I wouldn't use
on a daily basis.

Don

Jul 21 '05 #35

Lauri Raittila

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Don G wrote:

I'll settle for the next best thing then :-)
Besides that, I've tried it once (several years ago, that is),
Well, several years ago it was only browser with something like tabbed
browsing (Opera's is just much better than just tabbed browsing)
and I just didn't like it... I like firefox more...

Opera has always been like that, you need to customize it by redusing
stuff you see, in FF, it is other way around.

Nearly all innovations in browsers lately have been first in Opera.
Tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, medium screen rendering (must on pages
with frames), sessions, quick setting, user stylesheets.
My opinion is similar. I find it difficult to imagine a web browser
being so good that I would be willing to pay for it.
Well, I paid for it. It is that good.
I also tried Opera
a few years ago, and it just didn't appeal to me. I can't remember
exactly what I didn't like, but I seem to remember it being too
different.
The thing is, you can't make browser that is lots better, whiout making
it different. If it was same, why would anyone buy it?
I started off using NN, then moved to Mozilla when it came
out, and have now moved to Foxfire, so part of it is that it is just
what I am used to. If I had a good compelling reason to change
browsers, I would, but it would have to be a good reason.

You had, inbetween Netscape and Mozilla.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.

Jul 21 '05 #36

Jim Royal

In article <42********@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Don G <ma******@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I know that there are many browsers out there, and that each has it's
own quirks, but are the differences significant enough to merit
installing one or more additional alternate browsers? If so, which
browser(s) would you recommend testing with?

My current suite of test browsers is as follows:

Windows 2000 or XP
----------
Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla 1.6
Firefox 1.0
Opera 7.5

Windows 95
----------
Internet Explorer 5.0
Internet Explorer 5.5

Mac OS X
----------
Internet Explorer 5.2.3
Safari 1.2.4
Firefox 1.0
Mozilla 1.7
Opera 7.5

Mac OS 9
----------
Internet Explorer 5.1.7
I run all of this on one Macintosh G4 using Virtual PC. I have given up
testing IE 4 and NS 4, and I look forward to abandioning IE 5.x --
hopefully in a year's time.

Which browsers you should test with can depend on your audience. If you
are developing an intranet for a corporation with a known configuration
on each desk, you might be able to save yourself some work. A
general-purpose web site needs to cover more bases. My personal site
has a much higher-than average percentage of Mac users, while IE 5.x
users are down to less than 2% of my visitors.

The differences between the most recent browsers are slight -- but it
is always good to check the site template at least once on all these
browsers before putting it into production. Once in a while, there is a
surprise. And it is better to hit that bump near the beginning of a
project rather than at the end.

--
Jim Royal
"Understanding is a three-edged sword"
http://JimRoyal.com

Jul 21 '05 #37

Don G

> Opera has always been like that, you need to customize it by redusing

stuff you see, in FF, it is other way around.
I think that might have been part of it. Opera was overwhelming with
all of the stuff turned on, and being new the the browser, I had no idea
that the stuff _could_ be turned off, so I dumped it. I like things
clean and simple, which isn't what I got the first time I loaded Opera.
Now that I know better, maybe I'll play with Opera again.
Nearly all innovations in browsers lately have been first in Opera.
Tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, medium screen rendering (must on pages
with frames), sessions, quick setting, user stylesheets.
I love tabbed browsing, and I don't know what medium screen rendering or
quick setting are. I couldn't care less about mouse gestures, session
or user stylesheets.
Well, I paid for it. It is that good.
What makes it so good that you are willing to shell out money for it? I
use Firefox, and I am content. There isn't anything that is nagging at
me each time I browse the web because Firefox doesn't do it.
The thing is, you can't make browser that is lots better, whiout making
it different. If it was same, why would anyone buy it?

Ok, maybe different was the wrong word. Maybe unfamiliar would be a
better word. Like I said before, the first time I started Opera, it
appeared to be cluttered, and that really turned me off.

I started off using NN, then moved to Mozilla when it came
out, and have now moved to Foxfire, so part of it is that it is just
what I am used to. If I had a good compelling reason to change
browsers, I would, but it would have to be a good reason.

You had, inbetween Netscape and Mozilla.

What do you mean?

Don

Jul 21 '05 #38

Nichola Collins

In article <03*************************@canada.com>,
Jim Royal <ji******@canada.com> wrote:

In article <42********@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Don G <ma******@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I know that there are many browsers out there, and that each has it's
own quirks, but are the differences significant enough to merit
installing one or more additional alternate browsers? If so, which
browser(s) would you recommend testing with?

My current suite of test browsers is as follows:

Windows 2000 or XP
----------
Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla 1.6
Firefox 1.0
Opera 7.5

Windows 95
----------
Internet Explorer 5.0
Internet Explorer 5.5

Mac OS X
----------
Internet Explorer 5.2.3
Safari 1.2.4
Firefox 1.0
Mozilla 1.7
Opera 7.5

Mac OS 9
----------
Internet Explorer 5.1.7

I would add Mac Internet Explorer 4.51 to the Mac OS 9 collection. That
is the browser that is part of America Online 5, the latest AOL client
available to Mac OS 9 users.

Jul 21 '05 #39

Jim Royal

In article <ma****************************@news.verizon.net >, Nichola
Collins <ma******@verizon.net> wrote:

I would add Mac Internet Explorer 4.51 to the Mac OS 9 collection. That
is the browser that is part of America Online 5, the latest AOL client
available to Mac OS 9 users.

I have not received a single hit on my site from IE 4.5 in the last few
months. I think this one can be safely relagated to the dust bin.

--
Jim Royal
"Understanding is a three-edged sword"
http://JimRoyal.com

Jul 21 '05 #40

Lauri Raittila

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design, Don G wrote:

Opera has always been like that, you need to customize it by redusing
stuff you see, in FF, it is other way around.
I think that might have been part of it. Opera was overwhelming with
all of the stuff turned on, and being new the the browser, I had no idea
that the stuff _could_ be turned off, so I dumped it. I like things
clean and simple, which isn't what I got the first time I loaded Opera.

Then you like emacs. Clean and simple, no menu, nothing. But you can do
everything. But that aproach is not going to work if you want new people
buy your product.

Nearly all innovations in browsers lately have been first in Opera.
Tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, medium screen rendering (must on pages
with frames), sessions, quick setting, user stylesheets.

I love tabbed browsing, and I don't know what medium screen rendering or
quick setting are.

Because they are either not implemented on other browsers, or not there
by default.
I couldn't care less about mouse gestures, session
or user stylesheets.
Mouse gestures make surfing much faster, if you use mouse (and Opera
happens to have best keyboard navigation as well.)

Session is very useful, you can close your browser and you get same pages
open again when you open browser next time (if you want). And same when
your computer crashes (so it is must on MS operating systems).

Userstylesheets are veryu powerful. You can easily fix any site using
them. But this is to people that know CSS, that are quite rare.

Can you give example of innovation made on some other browser?
What makes it so good that you are willing to shell out money for it? I
use Firefox, and I am content. There isn't anything that is nagging at
me each time I browse the web because Firefox doesn't do it.

But Opera is still better. I can do stuff faster with Opera than with FF.
I can install (new version of) opera in 30 seconds, including download
time, for FF I need to use at least an hour, and I might even not find
all parts, as they don't work with new version.

The thing is, you can't make browser that is lots better, whiout making
it different. If it was same, why would anyone buy it?

Ok, maybe different was the wrong word. Maybe unfamiliar would be a
better word. Like I said before, the first time I started Opera, it
appeared to be cluttered, and that really turned me off.

I have heard that they have cleaned default UI much. (haven't used
default UI, ever, last saw it when installing 7.2, I think...)

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.

Jul 21 '05 #41

Adrienne

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Lauri Raittila
<la***@raittila.cjb.net> writing in
news:MP************************@news.individual.ne t:

Mouse gestures make surfing much faster, if you use mouse (and Opera
happens to have best keyboard navigation as well.)

Session is very useful, you can close your browser and you get same
pages open again when you open browser next time (if you want). And
same when your computer crashes (so it is must on MS operating
systems).

I paid for Opera, too. I love it.

Firefox also has gestures, and they make a little red line on the screen,
kind of cute, but don't seem to be quite as quick as Opera's.

I don't know how many times Opera has saved my butt with sessions. I
come across a useful snippet of code and CRASH! With other browsers, I
would have to a) remember that I found the snippet, b) if I was looking
for it, have to remember what keywords I was using when I found it, c) if
I wasn't searching for it, what I was doing when I came across it. If I
bookmarked every page I thought was interesting, my bookmark file would
be bigger than my hard drive.

Oh, and skins! Can we talk? The best. I like Strange Truth because it
confuses people who try to use my computer, he he, go use someone else's!
--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Jul 21 '05 #42

kchayka

Lauri Raittila wrote:

(and Opera happens to have best keyboard navigation as well.)

Can you give example of innovation made on some other browser?

mozilla's type-ahead-find is a feature I can't live without. To me, it
beats just about any other form of keyboard navigation.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Jul 21 '05 #43

Lauri Raittila

in alt.html, kchayka wrote:

Lauri Raittila wrote:

(and Opera happens to have best keyboard navigation as well.)

Can you give example of innovation made on some other browser?
mozilla's type-ahead-find is a feature I can't live without.

Yes. It was only partly innovated by Opera... (Opera's inline find was
not that handy at first, but mozilla people made it much better.)
To me, it beats just about any other form of keyboard navigation.

But don't make them unnecessary, as it won't work well on form fields, or
if you are opening many links from same page...

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.

Jul 21 '05 #44

kchayka

Lauri Raittila wrote:

in alt.html, kchayka wrote:

mozilla's type-ahead-find is a feature I can't live without.
To me, it beats just about any other form of keyboard navigation.
But don't make them unnecessary, as it won't work well on form fields,

type-ahead-find coupled with the tab key are about all I ever use. Opera
doesn't tab to links, just form fields, so Opera's less useful to me
than mozilla browsers.
or if you are opening many links from same page...

something I rarely do.

YMMV, of course. Ain't choice a grand thing? :-)

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Jul 21 '05 #45

Darin McGrew

kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote:

type-ahead-find coupled with the tab key are about all I ever use. Opera
doesn't tab to links, just form fields, so Opera's less useful to me
than mozilla browsers.

Opera uses the "a" and "q" shortcuts to navigate from one link to the next.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"If you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the precipitate."

Jul 21 '05 #46

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 20:13:06 +0000 (UTC), Darin McGrew
<mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:

Opera uses the "a" and "q" shortcuts to navigate from one link to the next.

Never knew that. Learn something every day. Makes Opera even more attractive :-)

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

Jul 21 '05 #47

Stephen Poley

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:41:29 GMT, Adrienne <ar********@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Lauri Raittila
<la***@raittila.cjb.net> writing in
news:MP************************@news.individual.n et:
Mouse gestures make surfing much faster, if you use mouse (and Opera
happens to have best keyboard navigation as well.)

Session is very useful, you can close your browser and you get same
pages open again when you open browser next time (if you want). And
same when your computer crashes (so it is must on MS operating
systems).

Agreed.
I paid for Opera, too. I love it.

<AOL>
Me too.
</AOL>

Actually I tried out version 2 or 3 and wasn't very impressed at the
time, but I changed my mind with version 6.

The bits I like most are: zooming the page, switching images on/off with
a single key-stroke; quick switching on/off of styling and Javascript,
etc etc. Even the most appallingly designed sites [1] can be rendered
readable with Opera. (No guarantee they will contain anything worth
reading, of course.)

When you use IE, the author is in charge. When you use Opera, you - the
reader - are in charge. Firefox isn't bad, but from what I've seen so
far it's rather clunky compared to Opera.
[1] Well OK, not all of them. But a lot.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

Jul 21 '05 #48

kchayka

Darin McGrew wrote:

Opera uses the "a" and "q" shortcuts to navigate from one link to the next.

Yeah, I know. Opera uses different keys for everything. I can't remember
them all. With mozilla, it's just type and tab with F3 in there for
repeats. Easy peasy. :)

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Jul 21 '05 #49