Talk:ICab

Untitled
Wow, I'm surprised to see iCab still chugging along after all these years -- and still in beta. Does anyone know when the first publicly-available version of iCab was released? Garrett Albright 05:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks like late 1998 or early 1999. "In 1998 we had the idea to make a good internet web-browser which does what the user wants and needs" (http://www.icab.de/register.html).  "Feb 24, 1999: The iCab Company released iCab Preview 1.1 (US) via the Internet sometime yesterday" (http://www.advergence.com/newspage/1999/19990224_icab.shtml). --Gruepig 15:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added a note about this in the article -- Adam Nohejl 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It was 1998. I'm wondering if iCab holds a record for being in beta for the longest time, and whether we might be able to make a list of similar software. ProhibitOnions 14:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Bias?
Is it just me, or is the article a little too happy about iCab? I added some material here a few months ago (the sections about critisism and iCab's OS9 development) and someone has later on added extra suprelatives in my text. And arguments like "(...) reasons for loving iCab (...)" doesn't feel very neutral.

Actually, this article isn't neutral at all. There are downsides to this browser, like every other, and this article is a blatant advertisement. 70.48.97.51 23:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This needs to be made more neutral.  --Gruepig 03:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I did my best to make the article more NPOV (despite being iCab fan myself;)). -- Adam Nohejl 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have used iCab and my feeling was that it looked great but performance was abysmal, so bad in fact that it was practically unusable. There is a very interesting article on Mac browser performance at which seems to back this up (check out the "script speed" column for example) - however at the top of the page, the author asks that no one reference his article! Not sure what to do.Mattmm 20:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The hardware and iCab he's using are outdated. When I left iCab last year its performance was somewhat less than FireFox 1.5 (and FireFox 2.0 was out.) They're up to 3.0.3 now... or 3.0.4 beta? In any case, I was more unhappy with the stability. Potatoswatter 23:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * True - but don't forget some users will be on OS9, following Mozilla's advice to use the appropriate version of iCab in preference to other browsers. They should be aware that iCab will significantly underperform their other options such as IE5.5. Whether Wikipedia is the right place for them to be given this information is another question... Mattmm 12:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I seriously doubt, not to mention that little compatibility feature called CSS2. Any machine that runs 9 better than X is gonna have performance issues anyway. (I'm typing this on a 500MHz G3, Firefox is fast enough but not peppy.) Potatoswatter 10:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Introrewrite tag
I originally added the advert tag, but it was summarily removed. The lead section still sounds like an advertisement to me, but I let back a little and tagged it for what is really wrong: the lead section is unencyclopedic, not a summary, and grammatically marginal (it even has verb tense changes in the middle of paragraphs). It's therefore not surprising that the article went through a nomination for deletion.

Don't simply remove this tag. That lead section DOES need a rewrite; please clean it up so that the article looks like it belongs here. Todd Vierling (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're making a lot of effort to point out trivial faults rather than make trivial fixes. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rewriting a lead section usually isn't trivial, but I will try to help as is feasible. I don't use the product, so I'm not a subject matter expert; however, it currently reads like a fledgling software project's homepage (hence my original advert template choice), not an introduction summary.  Todd Vierling (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Tis done to the best of my research ability. I also updated a few bits of incorrect information in the summary, based on what the project website claims.  Todd Vierling (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Most recently developed browser for OS 9?
What about ? the infamous rmx (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I created a Classilla page and pointed this one to it. Skedaddle (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

>> On 7 June 2009, iCab 4.6, using the WebKit rendering engine, became the first desktop browser released to display a score of 100/100 and pass the Acid3 test. Apple's Safari 4 browser was released one day later and has been officially credited as being the first official release browser to pass the Acid3 test with a score of 100/100.

Maybe you mean first on Mac OS? Because first browser that passes Acid3 is an Opera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.81.24 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Discontinued
This is no longer discontinued, it was updated as recently as 12 Dec 2020
 * It was one of the few browsers still updated for the classic Mac OS prior to that version being discontinued after version 3.0.5 in 2008;:

http://icab.de/news.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.146.192 (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Classilla also no longer appears to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.146.192 (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this an ad for iCab?
I like iCab, but it feels like an ad, not an article in an encyclopedia. Sidenote, but InterWeb PPC and. . . nevermind, lost my train of thought for PPC and Classic Mac browsers. 199.127.116.26 (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)