On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > So far you seem to be describing the way netscape 4 behaves, not > > mozilla. Your experience may of course be different. > > > I've also had these problems with netscape. I still see mozilla as slow > and instable, and while not downright ugly, certainly a screen hog.
Fair enough: You don't like mozilla. > > > When it's not working right it can not only crash itself, but > > > can/will crash the X session, put the processor into a loop, start > > > processes that refuse to be "killed," and crash the system, forcing > > > unhealthy reboots. > > > > So far, so netscape: I can't say mozilla has done this to me for a few > > months. > > It's been months since I've had it installed, so mayhaps it's been > fixed, although there were enough (what I call) design flaws to disuade > me from reinstalling it now at version 1.0. > For example? Well, the biggest thing that irked me was that a page > would have to _completely_ download before being viewed, and if I I don't see this behaviour. In fact, I have a (slow download) partially loaded page in front of me right now... You didn't tick off some random witch doctor while doing your install, did you? [snip: I won't test it but I assume Konq would be better] There are things I hate about mozilla, and I would be the first to rant about how bad they are, if provoked - I just don't happen to think your objections are, well, verifiably correct: Basically you hate mozilla, for whatever reason, good or bad, and refuse to compare it to anything similar. I think I'll walk away from this discussion now, my asbestos underpants are at the dry-cleaners... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
