Re: CHAT: browsers

En réponse à "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@...>:

>
> Hmm. I've never actually used any browser-integrated mail apps. I'm
> strictly a command-line freak when it comes to mail.
Not an easy thing to do under Windows :))) .

 The only exception
> is
> with work-related mail, which I read on Outlook just 'cos that's what
> my
> employer setup when I got the job, and I haven't had the
> time/motivation
> to replace it. (I probably will, since there has been several virus
> scares
> recently... most of my work is logging in to Solaris servers anyway,
> so
> the Windows desktop is pretty much useless to me.)
>
At work we're lucky enough to get dual boot. That's quite necessary as all the
computers we have with ports to get data from the different set-ups we have are
under Windows (a requirement from the companies that sell us the material), but
most of the programs needed to analyse the data or do simulations are under
Linux :)) . It's quite a schidzophrenic situation sometimes :)) .

>
> I have a 333MHz processor, so having more memory doesn't seem to help
> much.
At work my Pentium III is 400Mhz, and adding memory did help a lot (it went
from just bloking the computer to tolerable if exaggerated slow pace).

 I've tried disabling all unnecessary functions in Mozilla to try
> to
> make it more tolerable, but it's just slower than a frozen elephant, so
> I
> gave up.
LOL. I know what you mean :) .

 I mean, I can literally see it repaint the screen when I load
> a
> new page. And I thought we've come out of the Motorola 6502 days
> already...
>
I've had that too when my computer still had only 64Mb.

>
> Bigger doesn't mean better. The bigger they are, the slower they
> crawl.
> On the contrary, *smaller* is better.
>
Yep. Simple is beautiful :) .

>
> Hmm, I'm not sure... is this even something supported by the official
> HTML
> standards?
>
Yep. It was non-standard in HTML 3.2 (a time when all browsers supported the
feature, including Netscape) but became standard in HTML 4.0 (at which time
most browsers except IE ceased to support the feature. Talk about nonsense
behaviour!). Now I know that under Linux you can make it so that Opera and
Mozilla-like browsers support Symbol fonts again, but I couldn't find yet the
same trick under Windows...

>
> Mouse gestures are *awesome*. Also, Opera 7's keyboard navigation (shift
> +
> arrow keys) is something I've always wanted. Now you can browse
> without
> that miserable rodent! Imagine that! :-)
>
Hehe, I didn't look much into the keyboard shortcuts. Both at work and at home
the disposition is such that it's faster for me to grab the mouse than to reach
the keys.

>
> So far, the ad hasn't appeared on my Opera 7 yet. I probably won't
> mind
> it; they've made it as unintrusive as you can probably get without
> scaring
> advertisers away. On another note, though... if I can only figure out
> how
> to pay without needing a credit card, I'd probably just buy my copy of
> Opera instead.
I'm thinking of it too, especially if I can get the student price (after all,
my title in English is "Ph.D. *student*" :)) . But without a student card (I
have none, here the status is closer to junior scientist than to student), I
don't know if it's gonna be possible...

 I think it's worthwhile to support *good* software (as
> in,
> good from the user's POV, not from marketing dept's POV, like in
> *cough*micros~1*cough*).
>
LOL. True. But an ad-supported Opera is not a problem to me, as long as the ad
doesn't slow down the whole thing...

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.

Reply