From: thanatoid on
"Esra Sdrawkcab" <admin(a)127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:op.vg4s3utkhswpfo(a)dell3100:

> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 21:49:01 +0100, 98 Guy <98(a)guy.com>
> wrote:

<SNIP>

>> I don't use Opera - never have.

> Why not? at least for comparison?

He's a bit of a retard.

>> Firefox version 2.0.0.20 was the last version that can run
>> on a standard installation of win-98. I think it's about
>> 1.5 years old.

<SNIP>

>> And no, you don't need a lot of plugins to use firefox.
>> Anyone who says that is a hemorrhoid.
>
> Pre-emptive abuse? Llap goch!

A favorite weapon of the mentally challenged. Check out the
innovative modification of my nick.

>> But I find that Firefox 2.0.0.20 works just fine on 99% of
>> the sites I surf.
>
> Yup, Off-by-one is a bit limited these days.

Yes, to the actual worthwhile content. It is a great pity most
peoploids consider web design the equivalent of what people went
to art galleries and read books for.

> Chrome is super, but sadly OT as it's not w98 compatible.

Maybe. O and O rule.



--
Any mental activity is easy if it need not be subjected to
reality.
From: 98 Guy on
thanatoid wrote:

> You should try it and /then/ speak.

Same goes for you.

Or - can't you answer this question:

> > What does Opera do differently, or better, then Firefox?

Well?
From: Esra Sdrawkcab on
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 06:14:52 +0100, 98 Guy <98(a)guy.com> wrote:

> thanatoid wrote:
>
>> You should try it and /then/ speak.
>
> Same goes for you.
>
> Or - can't you answer this question:
>
>> > What does Opera do differently, or better, then Firefox?
>
> Well?

It seems that this is all a well-trodden path descending to flames.
Why not compare available browsers and then have an informed discussion?


Oh, I missed Safari on Macs or under XP. and there's Mozilla Seamonkey.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers

shows only 1 browser where the latest version works on W98.


--
"Nuns! NUNS! Reverse! Reverse!"
From: 98 Guy on
Esra Sdrawkcab wrote:

> >> > What does Opera do differently, or better, then Firefox?
> >
> > Well?
>
> It seems that this is all a well-trodden path descending to
> flames. Why not compare available browsers and then have an
> informed discussion?

Because any comparison will still end up in flames.

Because so many aspects of browser functionality is subjective.

I'm not saying that Firefox (version 2.0.0.20 or higher) is better (or
worse) then Opera (current version) for win-9x/me users.

I will say that:

- Firefox 2.0.0.20 *IS STILL* a valid option for win-98 users
- Firefox should have been used by Win-9x/me users instead of
IE6 for the past 4 years
- If not Firefox, then I don't know what. Perhaps some version
of Netscape Navigator 7/8/9.
- It's my impression that Opera as a browser wasn't very good
4 years ago.

Anyone running win-9x/me and just now moving away from IE6 today could
go to Firefox 2.0.0.20 or what-ever version of Opera will run on
win-9x/me. Or they could install KernelEx and run Firefox 3.x.
From: thanatoid on
98 Guy <98(a)Guy.com> wrote in news:4C6079CC.57632CFD(a)Guy.com:

<SNIP>

> I will say that:
>
> - Firefox 2.0.0.20 *IS STILL* a valid option for win-98
> users - Firefox should have been used by Win-9x/me users
> instead of
> IE6 for the past 4 years

Totally agreed.

> - If not Firefox, then I don't know what. Perhaps some
> version of Netscape Navigator 7/8/9.

I like Opera, you don't. Fine.

> - It's my impression that Opera as a browser wasn't very
> good 4 years ago.

Perhaps you should try a current (10.00 or above version and
then criticize it.

> Anyone running win-9x/me and just now moving away from IE6
> today could go to Firefox 2.0.0.20 or what-ever version of
> Opera will run on win-9x/me. Or they could install
> KernelEx and run Firefox 3.x.

Correct. And IMHO, Opera is the best option.

Now, back to the KF you go, buddy. Cheers.


--
Any mental activity is easy if it need not be subjected to
reality.