SillyDog701

[Don_HH2K]

No problem, fixed those links just now.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060729 Donzilla/1.0.1 (wml/1.3)

[Fulvio]

I got Swift installed with no gripe after installing the Visual C++, vcredit 86.exe (moree or less),. The link is available at the WebKit newsgroup.
Swift works, in a primitive fashion, and there is some strange lettering, which I can't reproduce. I will keep an eye on Swift.
I think that this was mentioned somewhere. The is no place to enter a password, so, not much luck in using Swift , for anything worthwhile. I would call it a version 0.02.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1b1) Gecko/20060804 SeaMonkey/1.1a

[Zim]

Hope this isint a bump of too much. I'm going to be spending a bit of time porting some small stuff over to win32 in the WebKit code. One feature ported tonight, is UserAgent Minuplitation.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)

[ghall4834]

The Swift MSI installer sucks becuase not everyone has a version of Windows that uses MSI Installer only Windows Millenium or newer(XP) uses the Microsoft Installer. And do not tell me to install the Microsoft Installer so that I can use Swift. I won't install any browser that uses the Microsoft Installer. Including browsers based on IE that use the MSI Installer which is stupid becuase IE 6.0 SP1 and earlier are not installed with MSI Installer.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060910 K-Meleon/1.0

[Don_HH2K]

What's wrong with just downloading Windows Installer, or getting it through Windows Update for that matter?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060729 Donzilla/1.0.1 (wml/1.3)

[ghall4834]

Becuase I do not want the MSI Installer and I will not install it on windows 98 just to the switft Browser. As as I am concerned anyone who thinks using the MSI Installer is a good idea has a few screws loose. I have visted many sites that have basically or explictedly stated the MSI Installer sucked or sucks. And the Microsoft Installer has caused many problems with the Windows OS and sometimes solving the problem was nearly impossible you could not unistall and then reinstall the MSI Installer is tied to windows just like MicroSucks bonehead idea of integrating IE into the OS. Which MicroSucks by doing so basically said "All Computer Viruses are Welcome Here."

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060711 K-Meleon/0.9

[Mandrake]

Wow. You called Microsoft "Microsucks". Are we meant to find such immaturity amusing? If you want to rant about Microsoft, I'm sure you can find somewhere more appropriate to do it. I'll put you on notice; make sure your posts in this thread remain on-topic and relevant to the issue or I'll remove them.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506)

[Antony]

I agree with ghall4834 on the MSI thing. There are standard way to install applications to Windows. I really don't understand the need of MSI installer.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061010 Firefox/2.0

[Don_HH2K]

There are standard way to install applications to Windows. I really don't understand the need of MSI installer.

An MSI installer is considered the standardized way to install something, kind of like an RPM on Red Hat and others or a .deb file on Debian. Some uses include patching (i.e. distributing changed files rather than the entire thing), the ability to restore an app back to its condition when it was installed, running a program from an external source rather than the local machine, installing features on first use, and so on.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061030 BonEcho/2.0 (mmoy CE K8N-X02)