Re: OT: CXS chart and machine-readable Unicode->CXS mappings

H. S. Teoh wrote:

>On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:04:37PM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>[snip]
>
>
>>To be fair, Netscape was in a big hurry to release 6 because they still
>>thought they had a shot at regaining their once-dominant position in
>>the market.  But it was too late; the long hiatus between 4.7 and 7,
>>engendered by the Mozilla project's decision to completely rewrite the
>>browser from scratch, had given IE all the extra boost it needed.
>>
>>
>
>Even when Netscape released 4.7, IE was already clearly gaining the upper
>hand, slowly, but surely. To the detriment of the WWW, IMNSHO. I stuck
>with NS 3 at the time, but it was becoming very clear that the Web has
>moved on, and it was no longer viable.
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>Not that it needed one, probably; simply being the browser that comes
>>with the OS was probably enough to guarnatee its eventual dominance.
>>But despite very high-quality browser products from other companies like
>>Opera, Netscape was the only one that ever had a real shot at competing
>>with IE.  A shot it lost by not releasing anything for too long.
>>
>>
>
>In my experience, Opera beats Netscape 6 & 7 hands down. Although the
>re-engineered Mozilla is an amazingly versatile platform, I've yet to see
>anything that beats Opera in terms of size/usability ratio. And speed. I
>am highly annoyed by the need to install 100MB (or however big Mozilla is
>nowadays) tarballs only to find out it takes 2 MINUTES to render a simple
>webpage on my old PII 333MHz. Especially when the same job is done better,
>faster, and with less resources by a browser like Opera.
>
>
>
Firefox(for Linux) is around 7MB.  It's also pretty damn fast, and
versatile.  Also good for displaying several character sets at once.
I'd like to recommend it.

Replies