Whistler discussion

[ThC 129 0]

Well i just installed WinWhistler 2257. I used 2250 and this is even better than that. I cant wait to start making my own skins for the OS. Anyone else gotten napster to work on it i try to install it and all i get is errors.

[jdulmage 0]

yes....what is strange about it THC, is that Beta 5 of napster works, beta 7 is a no no...I don't know why...possibly the port 6699 or whatever that napsters uses or something...I don't know, but I have submitted the bug to MS already....*me hints that i'm a tester*

 

anyways...

 

that is a strange one

 

P.S: Atomic clock features in Whistler rule!!!!!

[EddiE314 0]

damnit jdulmage, why didn't you tell me about that before i formatted my hdd, i wanted to see some cool sh1t.

[jdulmage 0]

lol...

 

sorry

[CM 1]

Whistler is no longer necessary

 

Quote:

Whistler skin Posted Saturday, September 16, 2000

There is a new skin for WindowBlinds available which make your current system look like Whistler.

 

I need only WindowBlinds

[jdulmage 0]

wtf are you talking about? whistler is going to be more than just skins, it's already on average benchmarked faster than windows 2000, there are a whole pile of custom features and new features such as built in Firewalls, Atomic Clock settings, etc.

 

Whistler is going to be the home/consumer STABLE operating system. It has more to do than with just changing the way it looks.

 

 

 

 

------------------

-------------------------

Because I can.....

-------------------------

[CM 1]

LOL.. Sorry, this was only one of my bad jokes

 

Did't you saw that wink smilie?

[EddiE314 0]

yea, and do you know how fast Whistler 2257 boots? its like 3-4 times faster that win2k 2195. But thats just startup wait till you see how fast the rest of the OS is.

[DosFreak 2]

??? Windows 2000 Advanced Server boots up in 1m 5s from the time I press the Power button until it asks me to press Ctrl+Alt+del. Whistler 2250 didn't seem to boot up any faster.

[jdulmage 0]

Windows 2000 Professional takes me 40 seconds to boot from power on to "ready to use"...

 

in whistler professional, it takes me 15 to 20 to do the same thing

[EddiE314 0]

my bootup times almost match jdulmage's

37sec win2k, 19sec whistler 2257.

[Down8 0]

Quote:

Originally posted by Four and Twenty:
Also it makes it a real pain to veiw posts when all of those pics are loading you loose your place cause everything gets shifted down as you are reading.

Not if you use Netscape...

[Four and Twenty 0]

Wow I was not aware that netscape fixed that problem. Too bad it sucks ass or I might use it.

[Down8 0]

Netscape has NEVER had that problem . I used it way back in the Netscape Gold [3.x] days, and it always marks the size of the picture before loading the rest of the page.

 

That being said, I use I.E., because I hate Netscapes [non]implementation of CSS . I will be going back, though, once they release NS6, whenever that is .

 

-bZj

 

PS: Sorry this is off topic.

[EddiE314 0]

Netscape 6 didn't impress me at all, i thought it was crap compared to Netscape 4.x. i didn't like the interface either, it seemed slow in response time.

[jdulmage 0]

your not the only one, it is slow in response time, plus it's becoming less and less used...

 

my site brings in 90 % IE, 7 % other and 3 % netscape.

 

Oh oh, had to edit this to include that Netscape doesn't know how to load scripts properly either....my demo site on my computer was uploaded last month, every browser worked with it except Netscape. It doesn't impress me neither, it's bloated. Netscape Typical install includes too much extra, useless software.

 

[This message has been edited by jdulmage (edited 20 September 2000).]

[Down8 0]

Well, like I said, I do use I.E., but I must play advocate to Netscape [it did start it all, remember]:

 

1) The only NS releases are not even beta releases; it is missing plenty right now [like keyboard shortcuts, for one, which I cannot live without]. So don't judge until the final release [yes, I realize this goes both ways].

 

2) NS 4.x sucked majorly in comparison to the 3.x versions, to much bloating, which is why they are moving away from this, by allowing you to not install things like the e-mail client if you don't want to. Although, the newsreader is a lot better, being that you don't nead to start a second program to read news and surf the web [should I mention that I hate Outlook here?]. I don't know why anyone would not do a 'custom' install anyway.

 

3) Just because something is becoming less and less used, doesn't necessarily mean it has no use [personal examples, feel free to disagree: the death penalty, prayer in schools, shirts-by the guys who live in the next building over and cannot seem to keep their windows closed].

 

4) NS INVENTED scripts! If something doesn't work right, then it is a problem on I.E.'s side. The W3C is not law, and besides, NS will be closer to their standards than I.E. [or Opera, for that matter] than any other browser available today. Hell, they went so far as to invent another language that allows for the 'skinning' of a person's browser.

 

5) It would be the same speed as I.E., if it was embedded in the O.S. too.

 

OK, I got my rant out. I hope no one is too upset that this isn't necessarily an NT post, but this is the 'Other' category.

 

Flamebaitfully yours,

-bZj

 

[edit]

Woo-hoo! My 100th post. Do I get a prize?

[/edit]

 

[This message has been edited by Down8 (edited 20 September 2000).]

[Four and Twenty 0]

Hate to burst your bubble but i have netscape 6 and it sucks ass like all the rest of them. Also the CSS is no better than in previous versions.

[Down8 0]

OK, follow me on this one...

 

That is a pre-release. It isn't even a beta yet. It is there for you to help with the code, not to use as your primary browser.

 

And, NS's CSS is completely complaint with CSS 1.0, and most of 2.0.

 

Also, NS install is less than 80MB [which will shrink to even less when 6 is released], while a comparable install of I.E. is well over 100MB, but you don't notice that, because it is embedded in your OS.

 

-bZj

 

[edit]

The strangest thing is that the Mac version of I.E. is the best available browser right now...

[/edit]

 

[This message has been edited by Down8 (edited 20 September 2000).]

[Four and Twenty 0]

I don't care what kind of CSS compliance it says it has the fact is it doesn't work right and the browser is slow. Also what makes the mac IE better than 5.5 for windows?

[jdulmage 0]

exactly...

 

let's think here...

 

Internet Explorer, Opera, NetPositive for BeOS, and many more of the other name browsers seem to load my pages up just fine, but yet in Netscape...hmm...page has errors...I think Netscape needs to think twice before releaseing Netscape 6...

 

hmm, Netscape 6?? What happened to NS 5? Well for those that wish to know, NS 5 was so crappy and full of bugs that NS never really released it. Another example right there..

 

I rather use a browser that loads page properly, non-bloated (MSN Browser isn't even bloated compared to Netscape, and I like MSN Browser as well)..

 

Face it, NS cannot keep up with today's standards for two reasons

 

1) It has always sucked

2) AOL owns them

 

Enough said..

 

 

 

 

------------------

-------------------------

Because I can.....

-------------------------

[Down8 0]

I would never expect a pre-release to be perfect, maybe I'm wierd. Whistler users out there, let me know if everything works perfectly.

 

I.E. for the Mac has the best support for CSS and DOM compliance to date. Could it be because they got to start from scratch and didn't have to embed the program in the OS? Maybe.

 

I seem to get the opposite problem: I.E. will tell me that a page doesn't exist, when i was just there, but NS finds it just fine. I wish I had gotten a sreenshot of the day I.E. told me that Yahoo! didn't exist. I would rather get a slightly skewed page, than no page at all.

 

One thing that is currently wrong with the Mozilla project is the fact that too many people are working on it and there is no leadership [sorry Opensouce Advocates], and NS6 may never get released.

 

As for the MSN browser... I don't know where to begin. That's is the WORST EXCUSE FOR A BROWSER I HAVE EVER SEEN. I would rather use Lynx. It is small because it has no functionality. Besides, NS6 promises to be a 10MB install.

 

To say that Netscape has "always sucked", is to say that all browsers have always sucked. Every browser out is based on NCSA Mosaic, which was Netscape 1.0. [Re: Help > About I.E.]

 

A reason I.E. is becoming standard, is because MS forced it upon people [Re: MS vs. DOJ]. My school [uSC, one of the backbones of the Internet (if you send e-mail on the West Coast, it goes through us or Stanford)], used Netscape exclusively, until they were forced to change, because MS embedded their browser in their OS. Besides, it was nice to sign on in the lab and have a browser and your e-mail all right there.

 

The last point about AOL has a lot of merit. How does it go? "My only love sprung from my only hate," or something like that. But, just wait, soon it will be MSAOLDisney, and we will never need another company to compete with them, because they will be the best, and all others will be exterminated/assimilated.

 

-bZj

 

[edit]

I forgot to reply to the NS 5 comment: There was no NS 5, or rather 6 is 5. The number jump is a pure marketing ploy, to imply that they are further along than I.E. 5.x.

[/edit]

 

[This message has been edited by Down8 (edited 21 September 2000).]

[Four and Twenty 0]

You are right in that netscape has not always sucked. I used a mac / netscape combo when it was the best. Now win2k and ie 5.5 are the best combo so that is what I use. But I am quite aware of what is out there and I have tried pretty much all of it and the conclusion that I have arived at is that netscape sucks and ie 5.5 is the sh1t nuff said.

[jdulmage 0]

It's funny how he says "Previews aren't perfect"...but then he goes and says "MSN Browser is crap"

 

isn't he eating his words? he just defended previews, but yet in another sentence he puts down previews. What a hipocritical guy

 

 

 

------------------

-------------------------

Because I can.....

-------------------------

[EddiE314 0]

I never thought that i would say this 2 years ago, but i love IE, I used to use Netscape back in the 3x and 4x days when it actually worked ok, but i slowly started to move to IE, not because i was forced to or because it was built into the OS but because it loaded pages faster, looked better, loaded faster (built into OS..i know) and to be honest, i hated having to install it when i saw little or no difference over IE, besides, i like using OE too. I admit, i do kinda like Netscape mail (3x and 4x) better that OE, but hey, its built in, sorry if i am rambling but i just got up. PS, i do afree that 4x was too bloated in comparison to 3x. I think my fav version was 3.1 Gold or something like that, and if i can still find a website to download it, i would, just for nostalgic (sorry spelling) reasons.

 

[This message has been edited by EddiE314 (edited 21 September 2000).]