Re: Mosaic Vs NetScape,

[Chris Pierce <pierccm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As always, I'm several HUNDRED messages behind.  So forgive me for
being tardy on my replies.

G JACKSON <G.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>
>Hi,
>	I just wanted to make a couple of small comments on the header subject.
>Someone (I *think* it was Tim ) said tha he found Netscape much better
>than Moasic. Aslo that Moasic was not being updated.
>
>Two points here.
>
>a) Netscape works so S---------L----------O-----------W---------L-------Y.
>
>Its easy to get fed up waiting for Mosaic to load something for you, only to
>find it can not access the graphics at the end of it! {sigh}
>
>Its FAR worse with Nescape.

Netscape is slow because your system is slow.  I run NetScape off a
SunSparc Station and it is VERY FAST!

I realize we can't all have real quick machines, but I think that the
HTML 2.0 stuff is worth the wait.

>b) Re: Mosaic not being updated. There is a 32 bit version of Mosaic, which
>is much better. The feeling at work here, among our computer buffs, is
>that it does not need to be updated anyway.	  

I disagree.  Since HTML 2.0 and later versions will be in full effect
soon (2.0 already is) then it DOES need to be updated (or everyone
needs to switch to NetScape).

>And in case it was not mentioned before. For command line only browing of www,
>there is a bit of software called "LYNX".  You do not get the images with
>lynx of course, but it works OK for most sites still.

Yes, LYNX is nice if you just want to get somewhere quick and don't
care about seeing images.  But it doesn't do HTML 2.0 stuff either, so
it loses some of the cool options...but it IS fast.

Chris