World: r3wp

Mozz bloat? :-) I wonder I talk to developer now. So what is IE's 
installation cabinets size? 80MBs? Mozilla? 12MB zipped? Where's 
the bloat?

Actually I am glad SeaMonkey is back, complete browser + mailer ...

SeaMonkey is no better than Mozz in my experience.

The idea of combining the browser, email, newsgroups, etc, has failed 
miserably in every application that I've seen.

the unix idea is better ..multiple dedicated applications.

SeaMonkey is Mozilla :-) They stopped Mozilla suite some time ago, 
but way too many ppl objected ...

The funny thing to me is that I can trust Outlook Express to deal 
with huge (10's of thousands) email/newsgroup archives than ANY other 
mail application that I've used.  Mozzila, Thunderbird, etc.  Every 
one of them except Outlook have just failed funtion or function so 
much slower than OE that I just can't use them.

FF is good idea, but I am not sure. I was used to have mail + web 
under one roof. And I did not like the need to download usefull extensions 
for FF ...

Ammon - it now seems to me, that you guys try to provoke pointless 
discussion :-))

As do you Pekr, as do you. ;-)

We've got 3 Outlook damaged mailboxes in last 3 years, we moved ALL 
of our pop3 to mozilla format. You know why? Because it is plain 
text and there is NOTHING to corrupt ...

Who cares if there's nothing to corrupt?  If its so damn slow that 
it's unusable then it might as well ALL be corrupt to begin with.

The only one reason why it stopped to work (Mozilla) was FAT32 fs 
limit, when one folk's mailbox reached 2GB limit :-) renamed Inbox 
to inbox.old restarted mozilla, voila, running ...

Do you run 486 or so?

No.  That's why I can't believe that Mozzila, etc have failed so 
badly.

Should I take video of mine 650 Duron running mailbox with tens of 
thousands of messages? You got kidding me now ....

Well, but maybe I am just patiend, dunno :-)

I'm using an AMD Athlon64 3.4 GHz with 1GB RAM and its just too damn 
slow.

I  some two years back heard my friend telling me it is slow, for 
me, it was real time, for him, it was slow .... he was former amigan 
... I asked him what is fast, and he told me nothing under Windows, 
so :-)

Well, he is right.

OK, then I am glad things feel fast enough for me ....

The only thing I find slow about Mozz products in general is its 
load time ... but then I run browser running all the day, so I start 
just once ...

As for correctly displaying, I would break hands of ppl still using 
IE crap ... those are the reason why web is being held backwards 
... and I would break legs of those developers, preferring IE :-))

They ALL have their problems but the biggest problem of all is that 
they won't agree on what problems to have. ;-)

how is that? :-)

Just run some W3C tests .... look into css support, etc ... see who 
has the most problems ...

Actually MS is even making situation worse with IE7 ... they will 
not backport to W2K (not to mention W98), still large install base 
of WinOS, so one other "platform" for developers to support ...

I read most discussion boards comments carefully, once some article 
about browser X, company Y is published somewhere ...

The web standards annoy me.  They are supposed to help make things 
more compatible but this isn't the case.  It is easy to build a webstandard 
complient web site that doesn't look ANYTHING like it should according 
to the standard in ANY browser.

yes, maybe it is impossible at all, with what HTML and related technology 
bloat evolved into ...

but there is still some common ground to support, where MS behaves 
like total morons ...

I use Opera and Mozilla each equally, and they work fine for me.

Firefox, I like the look of, but I had some trouble with -- but there 
are some good reports that the latest release fixes their main memory 
leak problems.

how, we have been trying to put Opera on Mac, and nothing but problems. 
 After 5 tries, have not even been able to download a full copy. 
 The website hangs, very odd.

Which is as good a reason as any to be happy that there is more than 
one browser to chose from.

mMesssages are coming in at about 1 per second.

Oops, sorry that was for a dif group.  I like choice, and I need 
to DL Opera so we can make sure we are compat, but it is really fighting 
us.

As a backstop, you could try getting some older versions of Opera 
from a browser vault:
http://browsers.evolt.org/?opera/mac

Maybe then an old version of Opera will update itself to the latest 
for you....

guys, you are unbelievable bashers of Mozilla
 I'm not! ;)


I've been testing four different browsers on my Mac (Safari, Opera, 
Firefox and Firefox PPC - http://www.furbism.com/firefoxmac/) and 
while the PPC build is 9.5MB compared to Opera's 5.5MB (which also 
includes M2 mail), it is noticeably faster than the other browsers 
and has not crashed once since I installed it 2 weeks ago. The only 
problem I've encountered is with my !@#$%^& bank's IE-only site (even 
with Opera I have to change spoof modes depending upon which particular 
page of the site I'm at, and Safari works fine except when the site 
tries to open a PDF statement within the browser using an Adobe Reader 
plugin – never mind the fact that Mac handles PDF natively ... !@#$%&).

Thanks Sunanda, I will try that. 
Ashley, yeah, we have been testing IE 7, same thing, Banks!

Go to agree with Petr .... Firefox works fine for me ... even my 
banking sites .... I cant remember tha last time I had to fire up 
IE.

I mostly use Safari on Mac these days. It works with my bank too. 
:-) When I'm on Windows, I mostly use Opera. I used to use Mozilla, 
and I still use Firefox from time to time, both under Windows and 
Mac. I very very rarely use IE. Safari can be used for 99+% of the 
sites, I visit. Today I had a problem, because I wanted to watch 
the 2 danish Superbowl updates, our reportes sent from the US. And 
a danish tv channel TV2 Sputnik require IE6 under Windows to run, 
and only that. Argh!

geomol, have you tried flip4mac yet? it works impressively with WMV 
video

though not TV2 Splutnik

Nope, haven't tried that one.

Has anybody experimented with emulating web continuations in Rebol 
? some info on ruby approach is here (http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?Continuations) 
and Factor (http://factorcode.org/cont-responder-tutorial.txt)

http://lisp.tech.coop/Web%2FContinuation for lots of reference info 
on the topic

The technique came from Scheme. But for this technique to work you 
need that the language suports continuations them natively. REBOL1.0 
was able, but continuations were removed in 2.0, maybe 3.0 will have 
them again. We hope to be able to incorporate them in Orca, with 
addition of tail recursion, and other goodies ;-)

Yes,  we took them out. REBOL ran a lot faster as a result.  I used 
to be a huge fan of continuations 20 years ago. But, continuations 
do not provide enough benefit for the performance hit on evaluation 
speed and memory usage.  (Stop and think about what is required internally 
to hold in an object for any period of time the entire state of evaluation.) 
 It's more of a programmer play toy than a useful extension.

I believe this the paper with the original work. 'Modeling Web Interactions 
and Errors'

http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/kfgf-model-web-inter-error/paper.pdf

Are continuations base for tasking/threading?