This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
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. 18.104.22.168 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The hardware and iCab he's using are outdated.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)
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)