Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

eddiecatflap · Feb 18, 2003, 05:30 AM

..it crashes , it hangs , it loops , it bangs..

..it's hopeless , it's trash , it's useless , it's crap..

..it makes me weep when my mac goes to sleep..

..and makes a bang when my mac starts to clang..

..what is it i speak of ?

..what is this that's so naff ?

..why microshaft's exploder and its broken my mac..

..when will m$ get their act together and optimise this piece of garbage for os-x ?

GRRRR..

iRebound · Feb 18, 2003, 05:41 AM

shut up

eddiecatflap · Feb 18, 2003, 05:52 AM

..nice constructive reply , i must say..

..where's me old mate's simon and cipher when they're needed ?

OptimusG4 · Feb 18, 2003, 05:55 AM

I thought you meant the Finder.

eddiecatflap · Feb 18, 2003, 05:56 AM

..your site's useless ( irebound.com) - nothing works on it..

..or is that IE too ?

Mediaman_12 · Feb 18, 2003, 06:04 AM

Yes it crap.
Just Use one of the other browsers form the miriad of choices available.
Chose from
Safari
Chimera
Mozilla
Netscape Navigator
Phoenix
and OmniWeb
Visit http://darrel.knutson.com/mac/www/browsers.html for a full list.

MacGorilla · Feb 18, 2003, 07:45 AM

I ditched IE when Safari came out. I still keep IE around, for certain situation where safari doesn't work properly.

eddiecatflap · Feb 18, 2003, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Mediaman_12:
Yes it crap.
Just Use one of the other browsers form the miriad of choices available.
Chose from
Safari
Chimera
Mozilla
Netscape Navigator
Phoenix
and OmniWeb
Visit http://darrel.knutson.com/mac/www/browsers.html for a full list.

..now that IS a grate site!

:kewl:

Simon · 09:27 AM

Originally posted by eddiecatflap:
..where's me old mate's simon and cipher when they're needed ?

Here I am, only four hours to late.

Yes indeed, IE is one hell of a slow, ugly POS browser. I'd say it is just a little bit better than XP's Explorer which is for certain one of the greatest dumps that programmers have ever taken on the human race.

MS, you all deserve to be hung up by your toes for IE.

But, while we let the MS people dangle from their toes, I'd really advise you to go with Safari or Chimera. I think actually they are very similar for most sites. Safari is maybe a tad faster, but lacks tabs. Chimera has tabs, but is maybe a tad slower. They are both great products. There seem to be some sites which people claim can only be rendered in IE. I have never come across a site I can't render with Safari, Chimera, OmniWeb, iCab or Mozilla. But if there is one, I think it deserves to be ditched and never visited again. Even if it's your internet banking site. Switch the bank.

Eddie, just call when you need any more curtain fire.

bradoesch · Feb 18, 2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by eddiecatflap:
..your site's useless ( irebound.com) - nothing works on it..

..or is that IE too ?

I don't understand it either. I mean, I'd do something like that if I had free hosting and domain name, but I don't understand this.
iRebound, please explain! I must know.

mrfrost · Feb 18, 2003, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by OptimusG4:
I thought you meant the Finder.

My thoughts exactly.....

Developer · Feb 18, 2003, 10:17 AM

When Internet Explorer 5 was first released 3 years ago or so it was actually a fast, most standards compliant, good looking browser with lots of user interface innovations (in fact most of what's new in the Aqua user interface was pioneered in Internet Explorer 5/Outlook Express). Unfortunately it stagnated since then.
I'd really love to see an Internet Explorer 6 for Mac. Those guys at Microsoft really know how to write great software, if you let them.

ntsc · Feb 18, 2003, 11:05 AM

in fact most of what's new in the Aqua user interface was pioneered in Internet Explorer 5/Outlook Express

Are ya sure Apple just didn't show MS the internal version of Aqua and they did just copy it to get on the whole futuristic (as it was then) bandwagon?

I would be willing to bet that was the case and I'd also say that now that we're in OS X it would be nice if they updated the UI to actually use the Aqua elements the tried to copy properly or in fact use the proper ones.

Developer · Feb 18, 2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by ntsc:
Are ya sure Apple just didn't show MS the internal version of Aqua and they did just copy it to get on the whole futuristic (as it was then) bandwagon?

Of course I'm not sure, but I doubt Apple showed it Microsoft over half a year before they publicly showed Aqua at the WWDC. And then Microsoft would have to been really fast at copying it. I think Steve even explicitly said they didn't show it to Microsoft, "and yet Carbon Internet Explorer automatically runs with the Aqua interface now."
The WWDC build didn't have a customizable Finder toolbar, while the toolbar we have now is almost a 1:1 copy of the Internet Explorer toolbar. Sheets are another thing that have been first in Outlook Express. Internet Explorer also makes use of drawers (though we have seen this in other software before).
This has been a very innovative release.

iRebound · Feb 18, 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by bradoesch:
I don't understand it either. I mean, I'd do something like that if I had free hosting and domain name, but I don't understand this.
iRebound, please explain! I must know.

maybe it's not finished?

rytc · Feb 18, 2003, 02:47 PM

Simple, as people have said don't use it

ratlater · Feb 18, 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by OptimusG4:
I thought you meant the Finder.

That's what I thought. Since I don't use IE, the only crap software I have on my Mac is the Finder, and boy does it suck.

-matt

Pepi Picklefoot · Feb 18, 2003, 03:18 PM

...

Pepi Picklefoot · 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Developer:
When Internet Explorer 5 was first released 3 years ago or so it was actually a fast, most standards compliant, good looking browser with lots of user interface innovations (in fact most of what's new in the Aqua user interface was pioneered in Internet Explorer 5/Outlook Express). Unfortunately it stagnated since then.
I'd really love to see an Internet Explorer 6 for Mac. Those guys at Microsoft really know how to write great software, if you let them.

I see Developer here is trying to make everyone believe that MS inspired Apple with the their version of the Aqua interface. This however is the real story ...

...OS X DP3 was shown in January of 2000, IE 5 was released in March of 2000.

Not only was DP3 shown before IE 5 for OS 9 but it's also more believable that work on Aqua had to be started way before IE 5's version of Aqua because of it's complexity compared to IE 5's last minute hack job to make the browser look like what Steve Jobs introduced 2 months before.

OptimusG4 · Feb 18, 2003, 03:59 PM

Actualy, the MacBU had a flash demo site and screenshots of IE 5 way before Aqua came out. And OE 5 was introduced in October of '99.

Developer · Feb 18, 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by OptimusG4:
Actualy, the MacBU had a flash demo site and screenshots of IE 5 way before Aqua came out. And OE 5 was introduced in October of '99.

I remember IE5 being out before Aqua was demonstrated (since it was demonstrated with running a Carbon IE 5). And the OS X toolbars came even later than dp3.
Sheets definitely have been Microsoft's idea. They couldn't possibly rush this into Outlook Express in just a month.

Millennium · Feb 18, 2003, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Developer:
I remember IE5 being out before Aqua was demonstrated (since it was demonstrated with running a Carbon IE 5). And the OS X toolbars came even later than dp3.

Aqua was formally introduced to the world about three months after IE5/Mac's release.

It would seem perfectly reasonable, given this timetable, that Microsoft had seen at least design documents for Aqua, which had been in the works at Apple since not long after Rhapsody DR2 (the release before OSX DP3) came out. That's at least a year's worth of junp-start.

Sheets definitely have been Microsoft's idea. They couldn't possibly rush this into Outlook Express in just a month.

Why not? It took the Phoenix guys just a week to get them in there, and they were using nothing but XUL and JavaScript.

ZackS · Feb 18, 2003, 04:20 PM

Is it impossible that the MacBu had inside info? Why does everything always have to be copied from something else?

Also, if I recall correctly, the UI if the IE 5 toolbar looks like a simulation of the iMac cases it was supposed to match. Come to think of it, the color schemes are actually named after the iMac/iBook colors.

Stop trying to make a big deal out of nothing.

Developer · Feb 18, 2003, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Aqua was formally introduced to the world about three months after IE5/Mac's release.

It would seem perfectly reasonable, given this timetable, that Microsoft had seen at least design documents for Aqua, which had been in the works at Apple since not long after Rhapsody DR2 (the release before OSX DP3) came out. That's at least a year's worth of junp-start.

I remember Steve Jobs explicitly saying that Microsoft did not see Aqua before. I didn't suspect him lying about that. If anybody has a link to the keynote I'll search the place where he said that.

Why not? It took the Phoenix guys just a week to get them in there, and they were using nothing but XUL and JavaScript.

Because of QA, localization, documentation. This is something the Phoenix guys don't have to bother with.

Originally posted by ZackS:
Also, if I recall correctly, the UI if the IE 5 toolbar looks like a simulation of the iMac cases it was supposed to match. Come to think of it, the color schemes are actually named after the iMac/iBook colors.

Stop trying to make a big deal out of nothing.

I'm not talking about the striped pattern. I mean stuff like the overflow triangles and the way it's customized via drag & drop from an in window pane (still in Finder later changed to a toolbar sheet). This is a direct copy of what Microsoft did first.

Ron Goodman · Feb 18, 2003, 08:37 PM

Why are you even bothering to complain about IE--just delete it.

Coxy · Feb 18, 2003, 08:57 PM

As far as features go, IE is unmatched by any browser on the platform.
As far as bugs go, IE is unfortunately plagued by the worst ones of any browser.

If it weren't for the 2 annoying bugs, I'd leave Safari for IE, definately. Any speed advantage Safari has is more than offset by the fact that it has to download widgets from the server all the freaking time, due to the extremely small, non adjustable cache size.

Pepi Picklefoot · Feb 18, 2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Developer:

I'm not talking about the striped pattern. I mean stuff like the overflow triangles and the way it's customized via drag & drop from an in window pane (still in Finder later changed to a toolbar sheet). This is a direct copy of what Microsoft did first.

For the last time...IE5 and OE5 were released *after* DP3. It takes a whole lot longer to implement a working NSToolbar and a system-wide Aqua GUI than a in-app toolbar and in-app Aqua-like GUI.

Apple didn't scramble to create Aqua and the NSToolbar we have in OS X after seeing screenshots of IE5. It's more believable that MS had a sneak peek of OS X DP3 copied what they saw from OS X DP3.

End of story.

Developer · 09:54 PM

Originally posted by Pepi Picklefoot:
For the last time...IE5 and OE5 were released *after* DP3.

Internet Explorer 5 was released before dp3!

End Of Story!

Edit:
And yeah, the toolbar as we know it now was available since 10.0 only. Don't tell me Apple showed Microsoft prototypes of what actually came more than a year later!

AKcrab · Feb 18, 2003, 09:51 PM

IE 4 was released before IE 5. End of story.

Cipher13 · Feb 18, 2003, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by eddiecatflap:
..nice constructive reply , i must say..

..where's me old mate's simon and cipher when they're needed ?

Sorry, little late.

Yeah, IE5 pretty much sucks. On OS9 it was awesome, but on OSX it just... well, isn't.

I use Chimera, which is superb; well, considering the other offerings anyway.

I've found Opera and Chimera good. OmniWeb is way too damn slow, and IE is... well, IE is IE.

Unfortunately, you're gonna have to either live with it, or pick a different browser... I'd suggest Chimera.

Originally posted by iRebound:
shut up

Wow. I'm lost for words. I can't even think of anything to call you... it wouldn't be enough. How lame.

Pepi Picklefoot · 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Developer:
Internet Explorer 5 was released before dp3!

End Of Story!

Edit:
And yeah, the toolbar as we know it now was available since 10.0 only. Don't tell me Apple showed Microsoft prototypes of what actually came more than a year later!

If you brushed up on your reading comprehension instead of looking like an idiot, you wouldn't be in this mess you're trying to fix.

Unveil != release

Do you even remember downloading IE5 after that MacWorld? No. It was released in March.

http://www.macobserver.com/news/00/m...0327/ie5.shtml

You can also keep google searching and you'll notice that all the other sites have it listed as a March release if you don't believe me.

Oh yeah...and sheets and NSToolbar existed in DP3. If you're refering to the Finder not having a toolbar until 10.0 then you're right...it didn't. But then again, it's a Carbon app and couldn't have NSToolbar.

Now...kindly step away from the computer before you hurt yourself.

Developer · Feb 18, 2003, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Pepi Picklefoot:
Do you even remember downloading IE5 after that MacWorld? No. It was released in March.

Oh my god, it wasn't January, it was March! That surely makes me look like an idiot.

Now have a look at what we had in March of 2000:

Now tell me how Microsoft could have copied something (the toolbar in this case), that didn't even exist yet!

Pepi Picklefoot · 11:20 PM

The Finder is Carbon... Cocoa apps could use NSToolbar if they wanted to...but at the time Apple hadn't had the time to hack up a toolbar for their Carbon Finder.

lookmark · 11:50 PM

Developer is quite right, for the most part.

Apple took a good look, post Public-Beta, at a several of the most innovative features in IE 5 -- esp. the toolbar UI, being so user-customizable -- and worked them into OS X 10.0.

One point of disagreement, though. I would not call the use of the toolbar interface from IE 5to OS X a direct copy. Apple took a very nice implementation in IE 5 from the Mac BU and turned it (IMO) into an even better implementation -- across the entire OS.

Implementing a good interface feature from one app across an entire OS (and making it a HUI guideline, practically) isn't a piece of cake. That takes foresight and vision.

Sheets I'm not sure about. We all know that Aqua was in development for two years, and, if memory serves me right, sheets were in the PB...

lookmark · Feb 18, 2003, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by Pepi Picklefoot:
The Finder is Carbon... Cocoa apps could use NSToolbar if they wanted to...but at the time Apple hadn't had the time to hack up a toolbar for their Carbon Finder.

Apple seriously reworked NSToolbar in the space bewteen the PB and 10.0. It wasn't until 10.1 (or 10.2 even) until the toolbar as we know it was a standard among nearly all Apple apps.

You'll notice, I'm sure, that Apple is promoting a rather different UI paradigm in a number of their latest (and very focused) apps -- Address Book, the iApps, and Safari all spurn toolbars in favor of more tightly controlled UIs.

Developer · Feb 19, 2003, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by lookmark:
One point of disagreement, though. I would not call the use of the toolbar interface from IE 5to OS X a direct copy. Apple took a very nice implementation in IE 5 from the Mac BU and turned it (IMO) into an even better implementation

Maybe they improved a little bit (made the customization panel a sheet), but if you'd customize the Internet Explorer toolbar and the Finder toolbar and compare the windows side by side, you'll see that Apple's implementation is a direct 1 to 1 copy.
Internet Explorer 5 was a great release and very innovative by the time. Lets not only talk about those features that made it into Aqua, but also things like the scrap book, auction manager, site subscriptions etc.
Unfortunately it stagnated since then, so yes, I'd love to see what Microsoft could do with Internet Explorer 6. (I'm repeating myself, but that was my point on the topic).

lookmark · Feb 19, 2003, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Developer:
Maybe they improved a little bit (made the customization panel a sheet), but if you'd customize the Internet Explorer toolbar and the Finder toolbar and compare the windows side by side, you'll see that Apple's implementation is a direct 1 to 1 copy.
Internet Explorer 5 was a great release and very innovative by the time.

You're right. I hadn't used Explorer in some time. The toolbar customization is a stunningly direct copy, although I maintain a very smart copy that was carried out with panache and style across the OS and an entire range of Apple-supplied applications.

Credit where credit's due.

There are some quirky (and annoying) interface decisions in IE too, but it is true and sad to see just to what degree the MacBU has been prevented to taking IE further than its current state.

Superchicken · Feb 19, 2003, 12:58 AM

The Mac BU sometimes makes good apps... the problem is they havn't released any in a LONG TIME. And they pissed everyone off with 5.2 changing your home page!

In all honesty if IE came out with version 6 tomorow I'd be like sweet I'll try it, and if they use a good accurate rendering engine I'll be happy with it. I might even use it over safari. The problem is that the Mac BU aside form MSN messenger hasn't made a decent update in a LONG Time. Acctually I heard about an app called 3 degrees it's like a community app built for teens. If the mac BU makes a client for that then I'll acctually be very respectful of em for it. But I have a feeling it'll come late.

I'd acctually like to see apple make iChat compatable with that in some way, or apple rip off the ideas behind it with AOL and then like all the other companies want them to do, make it cross platform.
In all honesty I would really REALLY like AOL to for goodness sake just sit down with Microsoft and hammer out a GOOD IM standard and then run with that. And I'm talking an open source one! Not some sorta proprietary one that they're gona chuck to the users, make it so it's like e-mail, heck do it by e-mail addy, make it so that if you have a script on your server you can use your @domain addy. Build in a feature where people put the name in, then behind it, have say for AOL clients default to AOL user, then after that hotmail user, then after that other. And then have it so that people can add in the @ whatever domain name behind the SN.
That way you stop the tech from going so stangant! M$'s department working on the 3 degree thing honestly when I read what they had planned, I had trouble believing M$ had anyone working on anything that inovative I woulda sworn it was info comming from one of Steve's keynotes. IM is a very teen centric tech and M$ and AOL can always hold onto their market shares by adding coustom features from one client to another. And other add in.

Yeah... my lil rant.