...

View Full Version : whats the best internet browser?



Crake
04-17-2005, 02:52 PM
vote on the poll below im wondering what to use!

JamieR
04-17-2005, 03:04 PM
IE shouldn't even be on the list. Although it is one of the widest-used browsers (still), it is insecure, out of date and lacking proper support for modern web standards.

I say firefox, however, Opera 8 will support SVG nativly, whereas firefox doesn't (I think)..

Opera is a good browser..secure, fast, and a good UI. However, it isn't exactly free as you have to buy a licence to shift the advertising banner.

_Aerospace_Eng_
04-17-2005, 04:18 PM
I'm going with FireFox on this one, about a month ago, I switched from IE to FF for my daily browsing. Me being a developer, I liked the add-ons for FF, like colorzilla, or the ruler to measure elements, or the web developer add on. It is more secure than IE. I still use IE only because I prefer the Microsoft Java Virtual Machine over the Sun Java plugin for FF.

JamieR
04-17-2005, 04:30 PM
I love the firefox web developer toolbar...its most helpful when I'm developing sites etc. I gotta agree with Aerospace here, I don't like Sun's Java runtime environment much....

Steve - please change the title of this thread to something a bit more descriptive:p

Jamie :)

rpgfan3233
04-17-2005, 04:36 PM
I voted for Fx because of the security and because of the Web Developer extension for it.

I love disabling JS with only 2 clicks and a refresh.



A random person: Disabling JavaScript!? What are you, crazy or something!? Half of the world uses JavaScript to make their sites work!
Me: If a person needs JavaScript to make an important part of their site work, they didn't design their page well enough.
Random person: But what about Internet Explorer!? It can't handle things the way most other browsers can!
Me: The answer is simple: do what you can with other browsers and fix it in Internet Explorer with JavaScript. If the site doesn't work for them, they need to change Web browsers.
Random person: But that defeats the purpose, doesn't it!?
Me: Yes, but it is inevitable if the site is meant to work in nearly any browser.
Random person: Do you realize that you just contradicted yourself by saying that JavaScript shouldn't be used, yet it should!?
Me: Yes, I know. Now quit SHOUTING!!!!!!!
Moral of the story: don't mess with me and we'll be the best of friends. :D (just kidding)

evo
04-17-2005, 04:42 PM
You should use what you deem best for your use. As for IE not supporting modern webstandards, if you don't care, then by all means use it. Over 50% of users (I can't remember how much) use IE. They don't care about web standards. Why should you? Realistically sites shouldn't be using features that IE cannot support.

I personally use a registered version of Opera - have done for the last three years. It is perfect for me.

As for this topic, you should have read the rules and guidelines before you posted.

tboss132
04-17-2005, 05:12 PM
I voted for Firefox cos I don't get crazy popups and some silly sites (whose owners think they are smart) installing silly spy/scam/rubbish ware on my system.

Crake
04-17-2005, 05:13 PM
i have changed the title and will name the topics relevent to the post in the future.

JamieR
04-17-2005, 05:17 PM
I would never go back to IE...I (honestly) get scared when I open it ..I only use it for windows/office update and for testing websites.

I personally recommend everyone using a browser which is more secure and doesn't allow the crap that IE doesnt to be loaded or installed (Active X controls are one example). Also, IE isn't BHO immune, whereas Opera, firefox etc are.

_Aerospace_Eng_
04-17-2005, 05:19 PM
lol I wonder who voted IE, guess they were too scared that us other browser users would rag on them or something, for as I dont see a post by them unless it was Crake :rolleyes:

Crake
04-17-2005, 05:24 PM
i dont know wich ones the best i want to know wich one to use i use both firefox and ie at the moment and wanting to know wich browser to use thats why i put a poll :thumbsup:

that answerd ure question?

JamieR
04-17-2005, 05:38 PM
i use both firefox and ie at the moment

Dude...
Use firefox (yes, firefox) for general web browsing, and then IE for windows/office update (as they require it) and testing web pages. Firefox is a lot safer and web-standards friendly than IE is at the moment.

Or...get yourself a copy of Opera. I use Firefox and Opera personally - they do me quite nicely:D

I don't know much about Netscape...in fact I have NEVER used it:p.


what the heck is Abel internet..I know they are a ISP, but didn't know they have a browser :confused:

_Aerospace_Eng_
04-17-2005, 05:51 PM
Netscape and FF use the same browser engine, what I've been told. My pages render the same as they do in FF and Netscape.

evo
04-17-2005, 06:10 PM
I'd say use Opera. Much better, smaller and faster than firefox. You have to pay for quality.


http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

KaZaK
04-17-2005, 06:32 PM
Well, my vote goes for Opera because it has much more features than Firefox, and installing extensions just make it buggy and slow. At least it does for me.

gsnedders
04-17-2005, 06:34 PM
Safari, even though it's not on the poll.

JamieR
04-17-2005, 06:45 PM
I've just installed K-meleon to see what it's like...bit limited as to it's functionality but nice to take a look at different less-used browsers.;)

ArcticFox
04-18-2005, 12:18 AM
1) IE 5.0~5.5: since MS removed the Chromeless trick in v6, I've stopped upgrading. I found a full copy of IE5.5 and I'm keeping it for future use!

2) Opera 5.12~8: Used for overall casual browsing, when I know I won't be visiting JS/DHTML heavy sites. But when I need to do some thick coding or will be visiting .jp sites (or my own), only IE will do. If I could get my versions 7.23 and 8b to even access the internet, I'd say more nice things about them...

3) Mozilla: I like it. Used when wanting to check sites or features on a Gecko Engine.

4) FFox: no experience, but I'll rate it above NS any day of the year!

5) Netscape: I refuse to use NS ever since the first browser wars. The browser has always been crap... do they even make NS anymore?

rpgfan3233
04-18-2005, 12:23 AM
5) Netscape: I refuse to use NS ever since the first browser wars. The browser has always been crap... do they even make NS anymore?
Yeah, there's a NS8 beta (http://browser.netscape.com/nsb/download/default.jsp). DL link for latest official release (NS72) is on the left of that page.

JamieR
04-18-2005, 12:25 AM
1) IE 5.0~5.5: since MS removed the Chromeless trick in v6, I've stopped upgrading. I found a full copy of IE5.5 and I'm keeping it for future use!

2) Opera 5.12~8: Used for overall casual browsing, when I know I won't be visiting JS/DHTML heavy sites. But when I need to do some thick coding or will be visiting .jp sites (or my own), only IE will do. If I could get my versions 7.23 and 8b to even access the internet, I'd say more nice things about them...

3) Mozilla: I like it. Used when wanting to check sites or features on a Gecko Engine.

4) FFox: no experience, but I'll rate it above NS any day of the year!

5) Netscape: I refuse to use NS ever since the first browser wars. The browser has always been crap... do they even make NS anymore?

So what browser do you use teh most?:D

ArcticFox
04-18-2005, 12:51 AM
So what browser do you use teh most?:D

Uhh...

REVOBILD - with an app that filters out profanity and anything having to do with Britney Spears or J.Lo :eek: :D

JamieR
04-18-2005, 01:52 AM
lol nice......firefox and opera suite me nice - but I tried K-Meleon earlier:D

PcMan
04-18-2005, 03:07 AM
what about the Avan Browser? I use that and love it....although i do like Firefox

rpgfan3233
04-18-2005, 03:54 AM
I've never used Avant, Maxthon or any IE-related browser other than IE. It seems Avant has the same features as Firefox but with ActiveX. I wonder how it compares to IE with standards support....

gsnedders
04-18-2005, 04:37 AM
I wonder how it compares to IE with standards support....
Identical.

Crake
04-18-2005, 07:47 AM
firefox is the best free browser
opera is the best paid browser
and IE is the browser wich is crappy

is that rite?

JamieR
04-18-2005, 12:41 PM
firefox is the best free browser
opera is the best paid browser
and IE is the browser wich is crappy

is that rite?

Well in effect, IE is a good browser, but the reason that it is shunned by many people is because it is less secure and lacks proper support for modern web standards. However, there are a lot of people who dont have a **** about web standards, so will use IE quite happily.

Opera is smaller and faster than firefox, which in effect makes it the best paid-for browser that I can see. However, the free version of opera is still as good as the paid version, just that it has a few advertising banners around.

Firefox is free and a small download, well a little bigger than Opera, but still fairly small compared to the likes of IEvil....Both opera and IE support XHTML and XML. Also, Opera 8 also supports SVG, whereas firefox doesn't.

Jamie.

evo
04-18-2005, 12:57 PM
If you are looking for a fast browser opera is good, but if you don't want adverts , go with mozilla, which is actually faster than firefox.

Crake
04-18-2005, 04:05 PM
firefox is mozzarila!?! :confused:

Talkfreelance
04-18-2005, 04:38 PM
My favourite browser is IE 6 :)

JamieR
04-18-2005, 04:57 PM
firefox is mozzarila!?! :confused:

There are two browsers from the Mozilla Foundation:

Mozilla Firefox
and
Mozilla - which is a whole suite of utilities.

Jamie.

craigt56
04-19-2005, 02:22 AM
Firefox hands down! Very secure, very fast. If I was a Mac user my choice would be Safari...

JamieR
04-19-2005, 02:55 AM
Firefox hands down! Very secure, very fast.

Mozilla is faster than firefox - although I prefer firefox to mozilla anyday :p

NeilKelty
04-19-2005, 04:02 AM
Ok, guys need some help here...I've tried for 2 months to convert my dad from IE to Moz. I change Moz FF to the default and he switches it back to IE. Any ideas on how to convert him?

_Aerospace_Eng_
04-19-2005, 04:48 AM
I would take your dad to a site that tries to install active X controls. Do this first in IE, then do this in FF. Show him what FF does. Then tell him that IE is prone to more security loopholes that are open doors for hackers and viruses. Tell him FF is a browser that is meant to stop a lot of these security issues. If that doesn't work, then may we ask what type of business is your dad in? Personally I think FF is a browser meant for web developers only because of the extensions available to help us developers out.

gsnedders
04-19-2005, 05:16 AM
I take it you've disabled ActiveX in IE?

hemebond
04-19-2005, 05:43 AM
Ok, guys need some help here...I've tried for 2 months to convert my dad from IE to Moz. I change Moz FF to the default and he switches it back to IE. Any ideas on how to convert him?Slap him upside the head and then ask him why he keeps switching back. You could also rename iexplore.exe.

tboss132
04-19-2005, 10:43 AM
Go to tools > Internet options > Programs tab in IE and uhcheck the "Internet explorer should check to see whether it's the default browser" This will make IE stop enabling itself. It doesn't mean he still can't use it when he wants. If you use a proxy server, you can go remove the settings in IE or you can put some wrong settings in there so IE won't browse.
The best option would be to enlighten him on the dangers and risks of IE vs Firefox. That way, he'll be only too glad to switch

codegoboom
04-19-2005, 10:59 AM
At the same time, the security settings could be elevated...

I don't think any browser is bad, per se (anymore); just depends on which one(s) meet your needs; For me, IE seems to be the most accessible/configurable (not that I've succeeded in trying them all). :)

Dunna
04-19-2005, 05:58 PM
Firefox - has all the functionality you really need for a browser (including security against activex and such), and is free.

JamieR
04-19-2005, 07:06 PM
For people who still want to use IE, installing XP's SP2 and disabling activex etc etc is a must, as that is one of the things which can be used to install sh*t on your computer ;).....or a easier solution, get a browser like firefox or opera :p

Crake
04-19-2005, 07:17 PM
agre with jamie!!! :D firefox rules ie drules!:D:D :D :D :D :D

JamieR
04-19-2005, 07:21 PM
agre with jamie!!!

LOL Steve! - All hail Jamie :D:D

hemebond
04-19-2005, 10:09 PM
For me, IE seems to be the most accessible/configurable (not that I've succeeded in trying them all). :)Can I ask why you think IE is more configurable than Firefox? Actually, can you give us (me) more detail on why exactly you use IE?

JamieR
04-19-2005, 10:19 PM
Can I ask why you think IE is more configurable than Firefox? Actually, can you give us (me) more detail on why exactly you use IE?

In IE you can add extra toolbars from god-knows-where whereas firefox is rock solid, so you can't < could be one of the reasons ;)

codegoboom
04-20-2005, 05:24 AM
Can I ask why you think IE is more configurable than Firefox? Actually, can you give us (me) more detail on why exactly you use IE?

Sure, Internet Explorer is more configurable (for me) simply because of the Platform SDK: essentially, it provides a framework for whatever I can imagine... ;)

hemebond
04-20-2005, 05:31 AM
Sure, Internet Explorer is more configurable (for me) simply because of the Platform SDK: essentially, it provides a framework for whatever I can imagine... ;)Have you looked at Mozilla as a platform? XUL, XPCOM, XPI, GECKO?

codegoboom
04-20-2005, 05:54 AM
Yes, transiently; I'm sure it has potential... :)

hemebond
04-20-2005, 06:47 AM
That still doesn't explain why you would use IE for basic web browsing. Which is the goal of Firefox.

codegoboom
04-20-2005, 06:50 AM
What do you want me to say? :D

hemebond
04-20-2005, 06:56 AM
I'm just curious to know why you would put up with all its problems when there are better browsers available. As a web developer, I'm usually expected to support old/poor browsers like IE, and that takes a lot of time and effort. And as a user it really doesn't make any sense to me that someone would want to use IE.

codegoboom
04-20-2005, 07:15 AM
I'm not putting up with any problems; IE performs very well for my purposes... :cool:

JamieR
04-20-2005, 12:48 PM
I'm not putting up with any problems; IE performs very well for my purposes... :cool:

What? Even though IE doesn't support modern web standards properly and has loads of security holes in it, you'd still rather use it than firefox or another browser which pays an active part in supporting web standards as well as being secure?

I see your point with it being configurable, but I'd still use browsers like opera and firefox, as they serve me well and deliver what I need in a browser - speed (ok, yeah I known firefox isn't as fast as Mozilla and Opera), security and support for web standards ;)

Crake
04-20-2005, 03:53 PM
words of wisdom from weazel :D :thumbsup:

JamieR
04-20-2005, 05:59 PM
words of wisdom from weazel :D :thumbsup:

All hail me :D:D

Crake
04-20-2005, 06:06 PM
lol
i have to say that both weazel and chilipie and evo are 3 of the best characters that help make codingforums what it is
thanks all 3 of you. :thumbsup:

JamieR
04-20-2005, 06:09 PM
lol
i have to say that both weazel and chilipie and evo are 3 of the best characters that help make codingforums what it is
thanks all 3 of you. :thumbsup:

Cheers ;)

but..but...what about the 20,000+ other members who are all part of the CF community? :D

codegoboom
04-20-2005, 06:14 PM
What? Even though IE doesn't support...
Sorry, I don't subscribe to Mindset upgrade campaign (http://www.disenchanted.com/dis/technology/mindset-upgrade.html)s... :rolleyes:

Crake
04-20-2005, 06:17 PM
well everyone on codingforums is cool its a good forum
but lets not go off topic....

JamieR
04-20-2005, 09:47 PM
heh :) I want Apple to release a windows version of Safari..but I suppose it's a Apple product and one of the main selling points of Apple stuff :eek:

Although they did release a windows version of iTunes, but I suppose that was for the iPod amongst other thing :p

gsnedders
04-20-2005, 10:09 PM
Do you know the sheer amount of work involved in porting a Cocoa Obj-C application to Windows?

JamieR
04-20-2005, 10:19 PM
Do you know the sheer amount of work involved in porting a Cocoa Obj-C application to Windows?

Yeah..

well, time for me to get a new mac :p


(well I don't know really...but I'll just agree) :p

Mhtml
04-24-2005, 04:36 AM
Well I only just glanced at the first page in this thread, and the fact that Evo posted probably means my point has already been made but what the hell-

IE is definitely the best browser. However I find the question far too ambiguous to really derive any answer that has any actual gain in knowing it.

The combination of straight forward ease of use, well documented and supported not to mention somewhat ergonomic design (it isnt abstract to look cool like a lot of newer browsers) provide more than half the internet's users' with a browser that will corretly display pretty much any page on the internet (don't fool yourself, I doubt any of your little xhtml/css2 compliant sites even count for a single percentage of internet sites). The fact that it is tightly integrated into the rest of the OS is another plus for IE, I doubt any of you young-ins know jack about programming for Windows but if you did you'd know what I'm talking about if you wanted to implement the ability to display a html page in your applications.

And of course we can't possibly miss the issue of product marketing here, it is nigh impossible for any other browser to take on IE. I see all you newbs running around debating how FF is going to replace IE in the masses, but you really don't understand that Microsoft hasn't even flexed it's muscules yet... and when it does you can bet they're gunna need a new shirt and Mozilla supporters, like you, who do not understand the motive behind direct market competition, you'll probably need some new pants...

Run a search with a reasonably open mind and you will see that your view of Mozilla superiority is fairly unfounded, it's not wise to simply retort another's view with something you've read and not understood completely or not considered against other possibilities.

-Mikey

Mhtml
04-24-2005, 04:53 AM
Do you know the sheer amount of work involved in porting a Cocoa Obj-C application to Windows?
If you were responding to the porting of Safari to Windows, you really do not have any clue how the production of a large project such as that occurs so don't try to act like you know.

ArcticFox
04-24-2005, 06:31 AM
Well I only just glanced at the first page in this thread, and the fact that Evo posted probably means my point has already been made


“Well I only just glanced at the last page in this thread, and the fact that Mhtml posted probably means my point has already been made...” :D

I couldn't have said that any better - and not much can be said to top that, for sure! Some screwball got it in their head that they could out-anything Microsoft and now we have a bunch of little thirteen~fifteen year old web "masters" that think it's cool to bash MS. Valitations, Code Compliant, CSS only sites; give me a break. It's almost funny, I'm starting to notice a pattern in all this: IE Bashers = Webloggers = Validators = "boring sites".

You kids don't have a clue as to what you're doing. It use to be IE/NS, but now I have to check code for a half dozen different minority browsers and at least 4 OSs. Years ago I stopped coding for NS because the original codes that worked for NS4 completely stopped working in NS6. And now with all these other browsers that don't work on my site - TRASH THEM! You're not rebels or internet heros, you're knocking your heads against the Microsoft walls.

tboss132
04-25-2005, 08:09 AM
If you were responding to the porting of Safari to Windows, you really do not have any clue how the production of a large project such as that occurs so don't try to act like you know.
So, do you have a clue? Or you are also trying to act like you know?

whackaxe
04-25-2005, 11:50 AM
who cares about whos got a clue? is this a thread about who knows more about porting applications? zen :)

my browser of choice is Firefox. i find its become a bit bloated as of late and wron't be upgrading anymore (apart from bug fixes). i'm waiting to see what IE7 has got to show for itself

hemebond
04-25-2005, 10:28 PM
The combination of straight forward ease of use, well documented and supported not to mention somewhat ergonomic design (it isnt abstract to look cool like a lot of newer browsers)And Firefox's interface is a Picasso? What about the fact that it looks much like Internet Explorer in its default configuration? Or that you can customise it far more than you can IE?
provide more than half the internet's users' with a browser that will corretly display pretty much any page on the internet (don't fool yourself, I doubt any of your little xhtml/css2 compliant sites even count for a single percentage of internet sites).Most of those using IE don't have a clue what they're using. You can't use ignorance as positive reinforcement. The second part is because of ignorant, short-sighted web developers. Nothing more.
The fact that it is tightly integrated into the rest of the OS is another plus for IEYes. Nothing like drive-by spyware getting right to the heart of your computer to brighten up your day. Good programmers promote/enforce sandboxing. Not rampant spagetti dependancies.
I doubt any of you young-ins know jack about programming for Windows but if you did you'd know what I'm talking about if you wanted to implement the ability to display a html page in your applications.There are many free HTML parsers/libraries out there. Fairly poor practice to make your application dependant on something the user can't really control or upgrade if they don't have the specific version your application requires.
And of course we can't possibly miss the issue of product marketing here, it is nigh impossible for any other browser to take on IE. I see all you newbs running around debating how FF is going to replace IE in the masses, but you really don't understand that Microsoft hasn't even flexed it's muscules yet... and when it does you can bet they're gunna need a new shirt and Mozilla supporters, like you, who do not understand the motive behind direct market competition, you'll probably need some new pants...Right. I'm going to soil myself as Microsoft continues to take advantage of users ignorance, because it means the product I use simply must be inferior. You IE users wouldn't have nothing to look forward to if it wasn't for Mozilla. The company who makes your browser doesn't give a rats-arse about you, or about developers.

For me, the browser that does more things properly is the best browser.

Mr Deck
04-25-2005, 11:42 PM
I have Opra,Ie and FF. I now use FF to brows, the others anre installed to to check any web pages I make work with that browser.

Firefox is the best so far I feel,but what will come along next? Providing there free with no banners or popups and hard sell mail i'll try them out and Donate to the site whenever I can.

While on the subject of free I also have HTML EDITOR and that has all kinds of lugins. html kit (http://www.chami.com/html-kit/download/) .

It does all types of editing like php,css ect.

Kind regards Pat

JamieR
04-25-2005, 11:49 PM
I don't like IE, so use it less as possible..but I have to use it for windows update etc which requires IE because of it's active x controls :eek:

Jamie.

Graft-Creative
04-26-2005, 12:31 AM
im wondering what to use!

Aaaaanyway, back to Steve's original question - When all the skirt-flicking FF Vs IE hissyfits are done, one stands out: Opera. I've been using it for about three years now, and despite all the propoganda from the Firefox camp, everything else just simply falls way, way short, from a browsing point of view that is. Opera makes browsing fun and easy - the Opera developers seem to have a second nature grasp on what makes a good browsing experience.....how I miss mouse gestures when using Firefox etc etc etc etc.

Gary

hemebond
04-26-2005, 01:07 AM
how I miss mouse gestures when using Firefox etc etc etc etc.*sigh* All-in-one Gestures 0.14.1 (http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?showtopic=5) Mouse Gestures 1.0, Control your browser by drawing gestures (http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?showtopic=68) easyGestures 3.0, Perform mouse gestures in a circle UI (http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?showtopic=38)I used Opera for months before switching permanently to Phoenix, and while I do admire the effort behind it, it's not as developer friendly as Firefox. For instance, the files I've attached to this post look completely different when viewed in Opera when compared to Gecko, and the script doesn't seem to work at all. There's not even an error. If someone can show me what I've done wrong I would appreciate it. Honestly.

linainverse
04-26-2005, 05:15 AM
I use firefox most - mainly the great adblocker (gee, that image just gets on my nerves. It's not even an ad, but ADBLOCK!) and the tab system has to be the best out of any of 'em.

Opera is my secondary browser...

I'm wondering what the features of Safari are. I wish I could test my sites in it, but I have a PC....

Internet Explorer I only use grudgingly.

JamieR
04-26-2005, 04:13 PM
Let's settle this ....:D

Internet Explorer is a good browser, but there are causes to use alternative browsers. For one, as you lot already know, Active X is a rather controversial technology, with a lot of security flaws etc. However, Active X is only one of the reasons that people who are interested in the 'net - developers, serious internet users etc would want to change browsers -

Firefox and opera have better support for web standards than IE. IE doesn't support XML, supports xhtml without the xml prologue. XHTML is supposed to be served as application/xhtml+xml whereas it is only supported in IE as being parsed as text/html. That defeats the point of XHTML in a way.

Conclusion:
IE is in effect a good web browser, but alternatives are favoured because of its lack of proper/any support for modern web standards. Having said that, a lot of people don't give a t**s about web standards, so would use IE quite happily. Also, as I have already said, from a security point of view, alternative browsers - firefox, mozilla and opera are amongst the most favoured amongst PC users, are safer to use than IE.

Jamie. :)

bcarl314
04-26-2005, 05:34 PM
Netscape and FF use the same browser engine, what I've been told. My pages render the same as they do in FF and Netscape.


My understanding of renedering engines is as follows:

Gecko -
Mozilla, Firefox, Netscape

KHTML -
Opera, Safari, Konqueror

Triton (IE)
IE, IE, and uh, IE

If you test on each rendering engine, you should be nearly 100%! Unless I'm wrong here. And I don't include IE5.2 on a Mac for anything any more, that's a useless POS.

Bill Posters
04-26-2005, 05:47 PM
And I don't include IE5.2 on a Mac for anything any more, that's a useless POS.
Have you ever done a professional/serious site aimed broadly at the design industry/community? (honest question)

JamieR
04-26-2005, 06:08 PM
There isn't much point developing or tweaking your websites to view properly on IE 5.* Mac, as Safari has such huge domination on the mac side of browsers......

IE 5.* Mac is just about dead now :D

Bill Posters
04-26-2005, 07:02 PM
Have you ever done a professional/serious site aimed broadly at the design industry/community? (honest question)

There isn't much point developing or tweaking your websites to view properly on IE 5.* Mac, as Safari has such huge domination on the mac side of browsers......

IE 5.* Mac is just about dead now :D

I'll take that to mean that you haven't either, then. ;)

That might be true of OS X Jag+ users, but, unfortunately, OS 9 and other pre-Panther versions of Mac OS are still shamefully popular (in terms of usage) in certain sectors of the design industry.
For them, MSIE is still the default browser, and as such, any site that is serious about reaching as much of the design [and associated] industries as possible should probably still be listing it amongst those browsers that are popular enough (amongst the target audience) to warrant support.
(It's something that often gets overlooked by those with a very web-centric experience of design.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm aware that support and development for MSIE/Mac has been discontinued, but as much as I don't like it, if a site is aiming to reach a broad cross-section of the design/… industries, then MSIE/Mac support is pretty much a must.
This is foremost an issue for b2b sites aimed at the design industry, but working in support for MSIE5/Mac isn't too hard and is achievable for other sites too with a reasonable amount of effort and planning (though there are some non-disfiguring issues which developers simply have to live with).


But anyway, all this is a side-issue. :)

JamieR
04-26-2005, 08:44 PM
Yeah I get that, but if I was doing a site aimed at the design community, I am fairly sure that a large part of them would have invested in fairly new macs apart from some who choose windows as their primary OS.

hemebond
04-26-2005, 10:21 PM
IE doesn't support XMLYes it does.
supports xhtml without the xml prologue. XHTML is supposed to be served as application/xhtml+xml whereas it is only supported in IE as being parsed as text/html. That defeats the point of XHTML in a way.IE will now (because of SP2 I believe) accept application/xhtml+xml documents. However they are not parsed as XML.
Having said that, a lot of people don't give a t**s about web standards, so would use IE quite happily.Which is why serious developers hate it so much.

JamieR
04-26-2005, 10:30 PM
Yes it does.IE will now (because of SP2 I believe) accept application/xhtml+xml documents. However they are not parsed as XML.Which is why serious developers hate it so much.

O sweet - I'll have to try it out, although we can't say it has SERIOUS support for it then, as I believe there are still a good number of people who don't use XP or have XP but don't use SP2.

As for my XML quirk...what I mean was that it doesn't have proper support for it then ~ look at RSS, XHTML etc - it has *some* support for it, but not proper support.

Anyhoo..I think thats right :D

BaldEagle
04-28-2005, 06:51 PM
I only picked Netscape because it didn't have any votes. In reality I don't have a preference. They are all here and as a developer I have to deal with all of them. I grew up with IE. But I have come to appreciate FF and sorry to the opera folks, I can't quite say the same. Netscape I really never use even though I have it installed for testing. FF has done the best in my opinion to correctly implement standards, and I wish that MS would get off their butts and follow suit. That is not to say I dislike IE. All the browsers have good and bad and idiosyncrasies which sometimes drive me crazy trying to figure them out. Some of the problem is that I first starting developing for IE and may have learned some things incorrectly and now have to transition to the correct way of doing those things. Unfortunately the "Law of Primacy" is a hard law to break (for those unaware, the law of primacy states that the way you first learn to do something is the way you will tend to remember how to do it, even if it is wrong). I can't help but believe that much of the anti-MS stuff is all about hating the Big Guy. While some may be justified, we should never forget that MS did a lot for us (as well as themselves). To say that MS took most of it's knowledge from others and re-implemented it a little differently is what makes them bad is just plain silly. If this was bad then every Amercian car manufacturer should be castigated for copying Henry Ford. They are all still automobiles, they just look and act differently. My personal perfect browser would be a combination of all of them. Of course in order to do that W3C would also have to change their standards.

In the end we can all say "I do what I like, and I like what I do" and no one is qualified to say you're wrong (unless you like murdering, raping and other unseemly activities).

My real vote is: IE/FF today and FF/IE tommorrow. As for the day after that, well, it is just to far in the future to predict.

I really love this forum. You all have taught me more in the few weeks I have been here than all the self study I've done for the past year.

BaldEagle

Velox Letum
04-28-2005, 07:12 PM
My vote is to Firefox. Firefox is a browser in active development, and any major bugs are usually fixed with 24 hours. Not only that, but the extensions, support of web standards, and the fact it is free definately captures my vote.

Crake
04-28-2005, 07:13 PM
I really love this forum. You all have taught me more in the few weeks I have been here than all the self study I've done for the past year.

BaldEagle

well codingforums is here to help people not only does codingforums give you the chance to help people it gives you the chance to be helped. :D

Crake
04-28-2005, 07:16 PM
well i actually voted internet explorer but the only reason i did was because ie is faster than firefox ( for me. )
but i have been using firefox for the last week and a half and not only is it nice to use the sites i browse look better in FF than ie.

evo
04-28-2005, 07:49 PM
In regards to MHtml's post. What he says is entirely correct. TBoss, I would defend MHtml's right to death. He knows his stuff. Microsoft have not budged and they still own the lions share of the browser market. More importantly, they run the Internet for business. That is where the money comes in. Businesses will definately not switch to Firefox, though switching to Opera would not be out of question (free licenses on offer for education facilities/organisations are apparently being snapped up quite steadily).

As for the comment suggesting that Microsoft do not care about their visitors, that statement is so wrong it circles the earth and is on the verge on becoming right. Microsoft do care about what the users of Internet Explorer think, they do care what their customers think (face it you are paying for Internet Explorer). Although for them, it is not feasible to release a new patch, or security upgrade every other day - businesses cannot afford to continuously upgrade software. They have their MSDN community set up for it and believe me, it is far larger than all the Mozilla/Firefox and Opera communities put together. If they did not care, then the existance of MSDN could not be justified. It would not exist. What would exist would have been a cut off closely guarded haze that no one could see into.

As for those who say Firefox is secure. Far from it, it is being updated every single day, not to protect itself from new flaws, but to fix existing flaws. It is proven, it is available for everyone to see. Everyone can see the holes in the software, it is up to them if they want to patch it up, or expose it for what it is worth.

Weazel, you seem to have a distaste for ActiveX. If you disable ActiveX in IE, you'd come close to matching the security of Firefox. But if you were clever, you'd already have had set the registry to prevent any alterations to be made from IE. No more Spyware, no more mal-ware. You also completely negate a comment you made by saying "IE didn't support it then". Firefox/Mozilla/Opera did not support a lot till it was added on. Mind, no one is blasting them on features that they did not have at one point.

Hemebond states: "You IE users wouldn't have nothing to look forward to if it wasn't for Mozilla." Incorrect, Mozilla grew from ideas created by Opera. Mozilla implemented features to provide an open-source no cost alternative. Developers shouldn't hate IE, I certainly don't. It just makes my job a lot easier when it comes to creating something for an internal site running IE5.5/6. There is no point testing other browsers if they will always only use IE. When costs are mentioned to get it cross browser friendly or future proof (more hours == more money), companies tend to stick with what they want for what they have.

The fact that Firefox and Opera have better support for web standards is a poor basis on which to state a browser is superior over another. Web standards have nothing to do with the workings of a browser. Regular users do not care, tables or no tables. XHTML or framed 4.01. The working of the site is what is important.

Consider this though. In that case, Firefox and Opera would be deemed bad. Web standards won't work for everyone and will get chucked out the window. W3 are not opening the web, they are shutting it off to those who can install the latest software - not something everyone can do or afford. They are trying to get the web to reach its potential. Progress evolves around cost and sacrifice. Alienating those with Windows 98/OS9 or less is just that.

Velox Letum, all browsers are constantly updated, it is whether the updates are reflected onto the users. The majority do not have time to update software every 24/48 hours.

Crake, thank you for the comment and BaldEagle it is good to see that you do appreciate the help provided. Although I'd have to say that gratitude should be handed to WA who funds the servers that CodingForums.com are run on.

JamieR
04-28-2005, 07:54 PM
I find it nice when someone gives you gratification and actually says thankyou for you helping them, although CF does give me the chance to help people and receive help.

Now I'm just going off topic..:D

hemebond
04-28-2005, 11:29 PM
Microsoft have not budged and they still own the lions share of the browser market.I don't see anyone claiming its sudden downfall, but IE has lost ground to Firefox (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/28/_ie_firefox/)
More importantly, they run the Internet for business. That is where the money comes in. Businesses will definately not switch to FirefoxReally (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=74&e=9&u=/cmp/20050427/tc_cmp/161600503)? No one at all (http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/120604firefox.html)? Not even little ol' IBM (http://news.com.com/IBM+hiring+Firefox+programmers/2100-1032_3-5669519.html)? Any business that doesn't switch has probably locked itself into using IE because of short-sighted stupidity by creating applications that only work with IE. IBM ran into this very problem.
As for the comment suggesting that Microsoft do not care about their visitors, that statement is so wrong it circles the earth and is on the verge on becoming right. Microsoft do care about what the users of Internet Explorer think, they do care what their customers thinkMost IE users don't know there are better applications out there. The blue-screen-of-death is famous, even amoungst relative newbies, because of Microsoft.
(face it you are paying for Internet Explorer).No I didn't. No-one did. Remember the anti-trust law-suits? Nobody chooses to install Internet Explorer, it's always there.
Although for them, it is not feasible to release a new patch, or security upgrade every other day - businesses cannot afford to continuously upgrade software.That's their own fault. They added application specific code.
They have their MSDN community set up for it and believe me, it is far larger than all the Mozilla/Firefox and Opera communities put together.Or it could be because Microsoft have been around 3 times longer than Mozilla.
If they did not care, then the existance of MSDN could not be justified. It would not exist. What would exist would have been a cut off closely guarded haze that no one could see into.It's not because they care, it's just business. Making it easy for people to develop for your software, makes it more likely they will. Which plays into Microsoft's lockin plans. This is why IE stagnated. An open-standards compliant browser would reduce Windows importance. If software can be run on anything, why use Windows? This is why they are developing new technologies such as Avalon instead of working with open standards.
As for those who say Firefox is secure. Far from it, it is being updated every single day, not to protect itself from new flaws, but to fix existing flaws. It is proven, it is available for everyone to see. Everyone can see the holes in the software, it is up to them if they want to patch it up, or expose it for what it is worth.So wait. Because they're patching asap and not denying or hiding flaws, and offering money to people who find flaws, this means their software is less secure? You've swallowed too much MS fud.
Weazel, you seem to have a distaste for ActiveX. If you disable ActiveX in IE, you'd come close to matching the security of Firefox. But if you were clever, you'd already have had set the registry to prevent any alterations to be made from IE. No more Spyware, no more mal-ware.And what about your average user? You know, one of Microsofts target customers? Instead of "secure by default", MS has chosen "can be secure but only if you do one of our MSCE courses".

You IE users wouldn't have nothing to look forward to if it wasn't for Mozilla.Incorrect, Mozilla grew from ideas created by Opera. Mozilla implemented features to provide an open-source no cost alternative.Opera software didn't cause Microsoft to reassemble their browser developer team. Opera didn't even dent IE's market share.
Developers shouldn't hate IE, I certainly don't. It just makes my job a lot easier when it comes to creating something for an internal site running IE5.5/6.The web is much bigger than some little internal sites. And locking yourself into one application on one platform is stupid and bad business. Simple. As a developer, I hate IE. I put a lot of effort into helping people on these boards, and a lot of effort into making sure I follow web standards when creating solutions for people. Yet people dismiss many of my submissions because IE doesn't understand it.
There is no point testing other browsers if they will always only use IE. When costs are mentioned to get it cross browser friendly or future proof (more hours == more money), companies tend to stick with what they want for what they have."Cross-browser friendly" is future proof. Locking yourself into one platform is a poor business decision.
The fact that Firefox and Opera have better support for web standards is a poor basis on which to state a browser is superior over another. Web standards have nothing to do with the workings of a browser.Of course it does. Standards support is built into the browser. It doesn't learn it. And it's not just standards that these browsers have over IE. It's features too.
Regular users do not care, tables or no tables. XHTML or framed 4.01. The working of the site is what is important.They may not know they care, but they do. Every time a sight doesn't work, they don't know or care why but that's lack of standards adherence working against them.
Consider this though. In that case, Firefox and Opera would be deemed bad. Web standards won't work for everyone and will get chucked out the window. W3 are not opening the web, they are shutting it off to those who can install the latest software - not something everyone can do or afford. They are trying to get the web to reach its potential. Progress evolves around cost and sacrifice. Alienating those with Windows 98/OS9 or less is just that.Of course standards work. That's what they're for. Browsers that don't support the standards are the problem. Standards do not shut people out, they provide rules so that everyone can play together.
Velox Letum, all browsers are constantly updated, it is whether the updates are reflected onto the users. The majority do not have time to update software every 24/48 hours.Microsoft Windows has automatic update and requires no user interaction. Their browser should be top of the freakin pile but it's not.

JamieR
04-29-2005, 12:00 AM
Weazel, you seem to have a distaste for ActiveX. If you disable ActiveX in IE, you'd come close to matching the security of Firefox. But if you were clever, you'd already have had set the registry to prevent any alterations to be made from IE. No more Spyware, no more mal-ware.



Yes well, I know the security flaws that ActiveX has, and the ones which have been patched. However, I bet there are still security holes in ActiveX, which was controversial enough when it came out, let alone now.

IE is now more secure because of XP's SP2, which I find excellent, however as a developer, I hate IE for obvious reasons.

Hemebond brings up a valid point. What about all the average home users who don't know what to modify to make IE more secure? I know SP2 adds more features to IE security wise, but whats the point whn you can have a whole new browser which is very small in download size and less hassle than changing loads of security settings in IE?

There are a lot of users out there who don't know, as Hemebond said, the range of alternative browsers to use. Personally (and I'm not ashamed to admit it), I didn't know the alternatives until I got into web development just over 2 1/2 years ago. Now I know the advantages of using another browser like Firefox or Opera over IE, so stick by my knowledge of this and use the best browser for me.

I know Microsoft still rule the roost in many ways, but more and more people ARE converting to alternative browsers because of what they know about IE and the potential hazards there are using it. I know Microsoft do care about what their customers think, if they didn't then I doubt that they would have got to where they are today. Although I am not much of a IE fan, and you know that, I am excited by the announcment of IE7 because of how much an improvement that it is going to be over previous versions.

Jamie.

codegoboom
04-29-2005, 12:32 AM
"Did I hear 'active objects' ?" (http://www.vijaymukhi.com/vmis/axo.htm) :eek:

evo
04-29-2005, 02:23 PM
I don't see anyone claiming its sudden downfall, but IE has lost ground to FirefoxAt no point did I state that Microsoft have not lost ground to Firefox. They lost users, but still own the lions share of the market. Period.


Any business that doesn't switch has probably locked itself into using IE because of short-sighted stupidity by creating applications that only work with IE. IBM ran into this very problem.And yes, they are having to invest millions. Not everyone can afford to do that.


Most IE users don't know there are better applications out there. The blue-screen-of-death is famous, even amoungst relative newbies, because of Microsoft.That is only pre XP. Therefore rather irrelavent to this conversation. It no longer exists and I have not seen Internet Explorer cause it. The fact that that error screen exists has nothing to do with Internet Explorer whatsoever.


No I didn't. No-one did. Remember the anti-trust law-suits? Nobody chooses to install Internet Explorer, it's always there.Therefore it is a part of the package you paid for. Not an addition, a part of Windows. You pay for windows, you pay for everything that comes with it, from Mine Sweeper to Internet Explorer. Law or no law, you buy it with Windows whether you like it or not.


Or it could be because Microsoft have been around 3 times longer than Mozilla.Irrelevant.


It's not because they care, it's just business. Making it easy for people to develop for your software, makes it more likely they will. Which plays into Microsoft's lockin plans. This is why IE stagnated. An open-standards compliant browser would reduce Windows importance. If software can be run on anything, why use Windows? This is why they are developing new technologies such as Avalon instead of working with open standards.Because it is business, they have to care. Therefore they do care. People do not use Windows just for the Internet. Whether IE was a part of it or not, it would not dent the importance of Windows. Either way, the position of Windows is not relevant either.

As for Avalon, I've not heard of it so I won't comment on it, but would like to see a url so I can see what they are doing. :)


So wait. Because they're patching asap and not denying or hiding flaws, and offering money to people who find flaws, this means their software is less secure? You've swallowed too much MS fud.
IE is not secure in it's standard form, agreed. However, Firefox being open makes it less secure, people know how it works perfectly, you do not deny that people can choose to exploit existing issues? The software is not as secure as it can be. I'm not saying it is less secure than Internet Explorer, I am saying it is not completely secure. It is not this flawless application that you seem to be portraying it to be. I think you have had too much Mozilla propoganda.


And what about your average user? You know, one of Microsofts target customers? Instead of "secure by default", MS has chosen "can be secure but only if you do one of our MSCE courses".You have a manual that comes with every purchased copy of Windows, it is not Microsoft's problem that the user chooses not to use it. Everyone should have one and should have read it before using it. If they have an illegal copy of an OS and hence do not have one, then they don't deserve to be on the Internet and I couldn't care for them, no matter how many there were.


Opera software didn't cause Microsoft to reassemble their browser developer team. Opera didn't even dent IE's market share. Where did I mention Opera were denting/did dent their position? It influenced the creation of Mozilla. Opera invented tabbed browsing amongst other things. They were the beginning of the chain reaction creating a browser in 3.6MB. And well, it looks like Firefox is following Opera's footsteps and well not doing a good job at it either. At over 4mb it is a warthog for what is solely a browser.


The web is much bigger than some little internal sites. And locking yourself into one application on one platform is stupid and bad business. Simple.The web is bigger, indeed. Good business costs money. But to the majority of business, the Internet is closed to their Internal networks. Therefore that point is also entirely irrelevant.


As a developer, I hate IE. I put a lot of effort into helping people on these boards, and a lot of effort into making sure I follow web standards when creating solutions for people. Yet people dismiss many of my submissions because IE doesn't understand it.You shouldn't be using something that Internet Explorer doesn't understand, knowing that IE users would experience problems. Code that you do produce should work with IE, (granted margins don't) but what you do make should work. Again, there is no reason for you to hate IE, dislike maybe. Whether you like it or not, you should play ball with it. I won't comment further on that point.


"Cross-browser friendly" is future proof. Locking yourself into one platform is a poor business decision.I agree. But as I said, future proofing costs money. Not everyone can afford to pay for it or the invest in the hours that it would take. ISO compliances are not handed out to everyone for a reason.


Of course it does. Standards support is built into the browser. It doesn't learn it. And it's not just standards that these browsers have over IE. It's features too. But it isn't built into older versions. That is my point. As for features, and support, I never said that IE comes tops on that front or really any other front. I am no fan of IE, I have used Opera for near 4 years.


They may not know they care, but they do. Every time a site doesn't work, they don't know or care why but that's lack of standards adherence working against them.And when it means that they have to buy a new computer or a new version of an OS so that they can have the latest version of the latest browser supporting the latest standards, I think they would be quite against it. Not everyone has that much disposable cash. Older browsers don't support new standards, they never will. Still, W3 standards are alienating all those who use those older browsers.


Of course standards work. That's what they're for. Browsers that don't support the standards are the problem. Standards do not shut people out, they provide rules so that everyone can play together.Where did I deny that standards do not work? W3 has created an environment where the fittest only survive. The fittest only play ball and they decide who to play with. Not all older versions of browsers support standards. Therefore they do shut people out whether those users like it or not. W3 provide rules so the elite can play - alone.


Microsoft Windows has automatic update and requires no user interaction. Their browser should be top of the freakin pile but it's not.Agreed, but it isn't feasible to have dialup users download file sizes that are so large so often. IE is huge. Would you want to download it over and over every other day or week? I won't think you would, especially on dialup.


Oh and yes, for everything I create, they are standards compliant and I am not contradicting my views by cohering to standards. I know that in doing so, I'd prevent a lot of users from viewing what I create correctly.


I won't comment further as this topic has gone quite astray as it is.

Crake
05-01-2005, 05:29 PM
not to be dumb but what does astrate mean

JamieR
05-01-2005, 05:55 PM
not to be dumb but what does astrate mean

Don't you mean astray?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=astray

Crake
05-01-2005, 10:08 PM
oops yes i do my bad...

Gavin Crumpen
06-04-2005, 09:41 PM
I agree that that IE is not as good as Firefox. Firefox has alot more features than IE, and it has the capability to open more than one window inside it, (which IE doesn't feature). But, because Microsoft own IE,all of their updates require it to download, and for me that just gets anoying!

One thing that I hate about Firefox is that you get regular update. I download an update, then a few days later I hate to update it again. Does anyone know what these updates are for, as I have not seen any differance on the main window.

gsnedders
06-04-2005, 10:15 PM
One thing that I hate about Firefox is that you get regular update. I download an update, then a few days later I hate to update it again. Does anyone know what these updates are for, as I have not seen any differance on the main window.
Look at http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/releases/

JamieR
06-04-2005, 10:20 PM
The updates are mainly for security and bug fixes Gav. http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html tells you about the security flaws and which ones have been fixed etc.

Jamie.

Crake
06-04-2005, 10:58 PM
does IE has that service? :D

JamieR
06-04-2005, 11:15 PM
does IE has that service? :D

Well MS patch all the bugs they find in IE as soon as they find them, but why take the risk and leave yourself exposed to the dark side of the internet through IE's defaults when you can use Firefox? :)

Crake
06-04-2005, 11:43 PM
exactly! :thumbsup: :D

hemebond
06-05-2005, 03:50 AM
Well MS patch all the bugs they find in IE as soon as they find themOh really? (http://secunia.com/product/11/#advisories)
One thing that I hate about Firefox is that you get regular update. I download an update, then a few days later I hate to update it again. Does anyone know what these updates are for, as I have not seen any differance on the main window.It depends. There are 3 different types of updates. There are critical browser updates (red), regular browser updates (blue I think) and extension updates (green I think). Right now Mozilla's patching system is utter ****e. They're working on it, and it should be fixed for Firefox 1.1.

JamieR
06-05-2005, 09:47 AM
Oh really? (http://secunia.com/product/11/#advisories)

Well they are pretty good with patching major OS exploits.....Although MS are a big company and have a lot of work to do when writing a new OS, I still don't see why they don't sit down when they write different bits of the OS and see how they could possibly be exploited before it is released.

enumerator
06-05-2005, 10:07 AM
Surely they do. It must be incredibly difficult to design software that is both powerful and secure, among other things.

IE remains the most powerful browser.

(I blame those who stop at nothing to exploit vulnerabilities, not Microsoft, although it could be a better application in some respects).

JamieR
06-05-2005, 03:29 PM
Maybe I'm just being dumb here, but surely MS must know whether a piece of code would have a possible security hole in it.....like their developers when they are writing different libraries and application code for IE for example, they must know that they are coding possible security holes :confused:

However I agree with the point that enumerator made above about it being difficult to create highly functional, power *and* secure software.

enumerator
06-05-2005, 03:56 PM
surely MS must know whether a piece of code would have a possible security hole in it.....like their developers when they are writing different libraries and application code for IE for example, they must know that they are coding possibe security holes :confused:
To a certain extent, yes, because they disclose potential security issues in the Internet Development SDK. Developers are responsible for utilizing the technology in the best interest of users. Unfortunately, some (intentionally) do not, for whatever reason.

Bill Posters
06-05-2005, 07:13 PM
IE remains the most powerful browser.
Pardon my ignorance, but how can that be the case given that it's possibly the most under-featured in terms of the competition and is still some way off from being ther fastest?

Or by 'powerful', were you talking in terms of influence and dominance rather than a technical sense?

JamieR
06-05-2005, 07:28 PM
I think he was meaning it out of dominance in the current browser markets. IE remains one of the most used browsers :mad: and I think will remain that way for a long time to come...

Crake
06-05-2005, 07:28 PM
what i realy want to know is how come firefox is slower than ie i mean there logo is bring back the web shouldent that mean it is better than ie meaning that ie :confused:

JamieR
06-05-2005, 07:30 PM
IMO, Firefox is far superior to IEvil because of it's support for modern webstandards, tabbed browsing, RSS, XML etc whereas IE is left helpless.

However there are those many millions of people who use it freely and happily....:eek:

Crake
06-05-2005, 07:39 PM
my final opinion is.....

firefox is best for developers wanting to see proper code rather than what ie wants to see for older people like my parents who want to find infomation on property on news etc are better using IE as it is faster for them and they are not botherd what browser they use as long as its fast as it can be :eek:

_Aerospace_Eng_
06-06-2005, 03:56 AM
IE shows you what it thinks you want to see, where as Firefox shows you what you code. I use IE still also, but not for my everyday browsing.

Single Paradox
06-06-2005, 05:18 AM
I have to say that coding for IE is muuuuuch easyer than Firefox... besides the whole alpha png shindig.

Crake
06-06-2005, 07:21 AM
I have to say that coding for IE is muuuuuch easyer than Firefox... besides the whole alpha png shindig.

the only reason ie is easier it because if your coding is wrong or has errors ie displays them without the errors etc
firefox displays exactly what you code thats why most developers love firefox so they can see what they code not what ie wants to show in your code :thumbsup:

WA
06-06-2005, 12:27 PM
Ok, I've removed all the flaming that started with Willy, through no provocation decided to flame someone. Please Willy, if you can't contain your emotions with regards to this particular subject, don't post in it.

I'll keep this thread going as long as it's civil.

Crake
06-06-2005, 10:04 PM
:D thanks george :thumbsup:

firefox has most votes clearly!

Scootertaj
06-06-2005, 10:39 PM
I still prefer IE for everyday browsing, as it seems to be much faster than FF. When it comes to testing web sites, I use both IE and FF.

enumerator
06-07-2005, 12:38 AM
Pardon my ignorance, but how can that be the case given that it's possibly the most under-featured in terms of the competition and is still some way off from being ther fastest?

Or by 'powerful', were you talking in terms of influence and dominance rather than a technical sense?
Not unless you mean 'under-featured' in terms of something other than its arsenal of technology (take a good look... or don't; it's all good).

_Aerospace_Eng_
06-07-2005, 06:12 AM
lol, why doesn't anyone talk about netscape? Well seeing as how the Mozilla UA is based of the NS UA they are kinda the same especially NS8 which almost exactly like FF.

Bill Posters
06-07-2005, 09:40 AM
Not unless you mean 'under-featured' in terms of something other than its arsenal of technology (take a good look... or don't; it's all good).
Given that I've already copped to being somewhat ignorant of its features, please feel free to elaborate.

whackaxe
06-07-2005, 09:50 AM
the first thing that springs to mind when i hear "Netscape" is "Late to the party" People who know enough to get Netscape probably know about Firefox and don't see any advantages in Netscape(feel free to prove me wrong, i haven't tried NS8).

JamieR
06-07-2005, 12:22 PM
I've never used NS, and I don't plan to start now :D

Crake
06-07-2005, 05:43 PM
I've never used NS, and I don't plan to start now :D

me either im far more than happy using ie and firefox :thumbsup: :D

raf
06-08-2005, 12:23 AM
Opera is without any doubt my prefered browser for regular browsing.
For development-use, Firefox is my standard browser.

IE could have been a more standard compliant browser ages ago, but Microsoft is simply to scared that making IE more standard-compliant will cause problems when users load badly written pages. If a user can now browse his favorite sites perfectly with the current IE, and he get's all sorts of javascript, layout etc problems with a tidier IE, who do you think he'll blame it on? Microsoft or the bad coder who wrote sloppy code or who made all sorts of IE-hacks?
IE was/is the de facto standard that almost all developpers follow: it also needs to work/look good in IE, athough IE has some flaws that require special attention etc. And it's precisely because of all this pampering and special attention that IE got for years from most developpers, that it can't be really fixed anymore. And it cant simply be replaced by a more tidy version, because this new IE would need to be somehow downward-compatible so that all existing content can still be rendered.


The fact that Firefox and Opera have better support for web standards is a poor basis on which to state a browser is superior over another. Web standards have nothing to do with the workings of a browser. Regular users do not care, tables or no tables. XHTML or framed 4.01. The working of the site is what is important.
:confused: i'm not sure what you view as web-standards, so maybe that's why eyes popped out...
webstandards are not about using tables for layout etc.
web-standards (W3C standards) are industry-wide standards that try to regulate how different, independent, party can get to an optimal result. And the browser-developpers are a very crucial part in this: their browser needs to be able to render the content as it was intended by the web-developper. the web-developper delivers standard-compliant xhtml, and the users browser turns it into a nice looking and wellfunctioning webpage that looks and works as the developper intended it. today, and in 10 years.
this would be impossible without web-standards --> they describe how the content needs to look + how it needs to be interpreted by the receiving UA . So i can't understand why "Web standards have nothing to do with the workings of a browser." --> the core function of a browser (rendering the page) requires the implementation of web-standards.
how else would a browser be able to deduct how the web-developper wants the page to look?
based on personal experience and from what i've read here and in other fora, i get the impression that IE more often fails to display a page as intended, simply because of it's incomplete and incorrect/sloppy implementation of html and css-standards. That a browser is capable to display a page as was intended by a web-developper and as could be expected based on the W3C standards, is a very good reason to call it a superior browser!
in the future, there will be far more user-agents on all sorts of hardware. the most succesfull UA's will be the ones that have best implemented the W3C standards on xhtml, XML, SVG etc.

whackaxe
06-08-2005, 10:44 AM
and 10 years is no understatment. considereing IE6 came out with XP (?) which has been nearly 5 years and the fact people will still be using it untill IE7 reachs the end of its supported life (in another roughly 5 years maybe?). Imagine IE7 is as poor on standards (the IE team barely acknowledge CSS1 as a standard!) and bugs as IE6, that means we'll be coding for a lame browser in.... 2016? ok ok, 10 years is a long time (especially in web time) but Microsoft have got to learn to make the cut somewhere (even though that would imply them admitting their late).

fingers crossed for IE7

Bill Posters
06-08-2005, 11:05 AM
For me, the issue of MSIE rendering sloppy code well and quality code badly are two separate issues. I could willingly forgive (or at least, acquiesce upon) MSIE's ability to render sloppy code if it was able to support and render quality code correctly and with some degree of completeness.
As far as I'm concerned, MSIE can implement all the extensions and other bolt-on goodies that it wants, just so long as those extensions were stacked upon a basis of web standards compliance.

I don't think that MS need necessarily stop be so forgiving of sloppy code just because they sort their standards compliance out. In fact, it would probably prove to be the best route for all involved if they continued to be so forgiving.
Bad developers and amateur web enthusiasts could crank out their pony code and enjoy the democratisation of the web, whilst professional developers who adhere to web standards could produce their compliant code - and both parties would be assured that their efforts will appear consistant and as planned on the browsers that matter to them.
I'd see that as as close as we're likely to get to having the best of both worlds.

JamieR
06-08-2005, 01:35 PM
One thing which I like about Opera 8 is that it has native SVG support. However I use firefox for my main browsing because I'm more comfortable with it and have been using it longer than I have Opera.

Jamie :)

enumerator
06-08-2005, 01:52 PM
Microsoft believes very strongly in Internet standards and the standards process, and is committed to implementing appropriate standards when driven by customer demand. However, standards compliance is part of a larger effort that includes many constituencies. By innovating, and driving customer requirements into Internet Explorer and then into the standards groups, we'll make the Internet a richer platform for all users.

- Microsoft Corporation

You may laugh, but they did submit a lot of those so called "goodies" to the standards commitee (or whatever it is)... anyway, IE does a good job with quality code, methinks (unless one believes pure CSS is the path to righteousness). :thumbsup:

Bill Posters
06-08-2005, 02:24 PM
You may laugh, but they did submit a lot of those "goodies" to the standards commitee (or whatever it is)... anyway, IE does a good job with 'quality code', methinks (unless one believes pure CSS is the path to righteousness). :thumbsup:
Not the path to righteousness, just the path to a better interweb, v-a-v the separation of content, structure and presentation.
I'd also reserve giving a thumbs up to MSIE's handling of quality code until after it learns to handle application/xhtml+xml mime-types, learns not to bug-out occasionally when working under a full HTML 4.01 Transitional DTD and learns not to trigger quirks mode (with its associated box model issues) when an xml prologue is present.
And then there's numerous other,well documented bugs from which it suffers which developers are left to labour against.
Add to that its lack of support for foo:hover non-anchor pseudos and numerous other elements of quality coding and we're starting to see just how good a job IE6 manages to do with quality code.

It's true that it's far better than its predecessor, but it's still far short of where it should be given the resources at MS's disposal.
If MS chose to devote some serious man-hours to getting MSIE/Win up to CSS3 (with as few bugs as possible), then it's likely that they'd instantly silence - possibly even win over - a large portion of those who criticise it so vociferously.
(I personally couldn't really care less about MSIE/Win's security shortcomings. I only really care that the quality code that I put effort into producing is going to appear as I intended it to in MSIE/Win. The rest (security, etc…) is the user's problem, not mine.

-

Incidentally, I'm still interested in knowing more about MSIE/Win's "arsenal of technology" to which you alluded in an earlier post.

gsoft
06-08-2005, 02:24 PM
Oh boy I hope thats some sarcasm. I dont remember them putting much in, I do remember they wanted to stop something forgot what it was a few months back.

enumerator
06-08-2005, 02:46 PM
Not the path to righteousness, just the path to a better interweb, v-a-v the separation of content, structure and presentation.
Not the only path... ;)


Incidentally, I'm still interested in knowing more about MSIE/Win's "arsenal of technology" to which you alluded in an earlier post.
Like I said, take a good look...

Bill Posters
06-08-2005, 03:03 PM
Not the only path... ;)
It's certainly the best route currently on the table.
If you think MSIE has a better route mapped out - do tell.


Like I said, take a good look...
I wouldn't know where to look or what I'm looking at. As an erstwhile msie/win user, there doesn't seem to be anything outstanding about MSIE's capabilities compared to other major browsers. Quite the reverse to my eyes.

I'd probably appreciate msie/win's finer points if they were related to me by someone who knows what they're actually looking at and talking about.
(But I guess you'll have to do.) ;)

enumerator
06-08-2005, 03:19 PM
Like everyone else, I'm only in it for the propaganda (didn't read the manual, or anything)... :confused:

rynox
06-08-2005, 03:30 PM
Firefox. IE a close second.

Not paying for a browser, sorry.

Bill Posters
06-08-2005, 04:20 PM
Like everyone else, I'm only in it for the propaganda (didn't read the manual, or anything)... :confused:
You've lost me a bit there. Was that the sound of you conceding that MSIE doesn't have an arsenal of technology and that you were, in fact, just bluffing your way through the thread? ;)

If there is any substance to the arsenal of technology statement, then I'm honestly interested in hearing about them.

enumerator
06-08-2005, 05:35 PM
It may have been the sound of sarcasm (up to you); none the less, there's a whole library of substance at your disposal: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/

Bill Posters
06-08-2005, 07:05 PM
Like I said, I'd need a translator. I'm not fluent in Geek.
I wouldn't know what's a unique (and outstanding) technology just from reading the blurb. I saw security mentioned a few times on the IE developers pages, but given the drubbing that IE regularly gets from those more in the know about such things than myself, I scrolled past looking for something more convincing.

When I compared it to other, competing browsers, I was referring to points of comparison that might make a noticeable difference to an average or above average user - what I would see as significant differences.

enumerator
06-08-2005, 07:25 PM
All a matter of perspective, I guess. Most of these "debates" revolve around issues other than usability, however.

Bill Posters
06-08-2005, 08:27 PM
All a matter of perspective, I guess. Most of these "debates" revolve around issues other than usability, however.

That's probably true and quite understandable, given that security is a more critical issue than usability and features. But this is not to say that usability issues don't come up often too. They usually aren't too far behind in any 'why I love/hate msie' debate.

Tabbed browsing - or lack thereof - is one issue that pops up with some frequency. Until SP2 popup blocking was another.
MSIE/Win's inability to resize text sized using px units is another significant usability thorn in msie/win's side and is continuing to poison many usability/accessibility-oriented developers' minds against the use of px units for text.
From a developers pov, certain notable absentees from msie/win's css and x/html support have an impact on a developer's ability to enhance the usability of their sites.

As far as built-in usability features go, Opera probably leads the pack with quanitifiable features that users can readily benefit from, though FF probably surpasses Opera when augmenting its own built-in features with extensions. Box-standard MSIE is left looking somewhat out-dated in any direct comparison with either FF or Opera in their basic form.
RSS feed capabilities are built into both FF and Opera.
I understand that tabbed browsing and rss feeds are amongst those features scheduled to make their IE debut in v.7 later this year. Whilst this is a good thing, it highlights that MS is once again slow to react to user demands that other browser manufacturers have been quicker to recognise and respond to.

Fwiw, I tried IE+Avant for the first time a short while ago, and whilst the default Avant interface is a bit overloaded (imho) it does help bring IE/Win up to a more comparable position in terms of features and usability. Imho, it makes IE into a usable browser, though of course, still doesn't address any of its ongoing security issues.


Anyhoo, enough for now. :)
Stumbled on this article whilst double-checking certain aspects of IE's usability situation. It appears to be a fairly robust (and somewhat lengthy), but objective review of the major browsers - or possibly a distillation of several reviews.
Either way…
http://www.consumersearch.com/www/computers/web-browser-reviews/fullstory.html

Crake
06-14-2005, 07:24 PM
That's probably true and quite understandable, given that security is a more critical issue than usability and features. But this is not to say that usability issues don't come up often too. They usually aren't too far behind in any 'why I love/hate msie' debate.

Tabbed browsing - or lack thereof - is one issue that pops up with some frequency. Until SP2 popup blocking was another.
MSIE/Win's inability to resize text sized using px units is another significant usability thorn in msie/win's side and is continuing to poison many usability/accessibility-oriented developers' minds against the use of px units for text.
From a developers pov, certain notable absentees from msie/win's css and x/html support have an impact on a developer's ability to enhance the usability of their sites.

As far as built-in usability features go, Opera probably leads the pack with quanitifiable features that users can readily benefit from, though FF probably surpasses Opera when augmenting its own built-in features with extensions. Box-standard MSIE is left looking somewhat out-dated in any direct comparison with either FF or Opera in their basic form.
RSS feed capabilities are built into both FF and Opera.
I understand that tabbed browsing and rss feeds are amongst those features scheduled to make their IE debut in v.7 later this year. Whilst this is a good thing, it highlights that MS is once again slow to react to user demands that other browser manufacturers have been quicker to recognise and respond to.

Fwiw, I tried IE+Avant for the first time a short while ago, and whilst the default Avant interface is a bit overloaded (imho) it does help bring IE/Win up to a more comparable position in terms of features and usability. Imho, it makes IE into a usable browser, though of course, still doesn't address any of its ongoing security issues.


Anyhoo, enough for now. :)
Stumbled on this article whilst double-checking certain aspects of IE's usability situation. It appears to be a fairly robust (and somewhat lengthy), but objective review of the major browsers - or possibly a distillation of several reviews.
Either way…
http://www.consumersearch.com/www/computers/web-browser-reviews/fullstory.html


thanks for sharing the link very usfull and interesting

orwellian1984
03-07-2006, 10:45 PM
Yeah,It's true,Firefox is the best,but I heard that Bill Gates and company are working on a browser that is going to wipe Firefox off the Internet.Soon Firefox will be just like the Hansen singing group,Forgotten.(I forgot was it Hansen or Hanson?I dont remember)

JamieR
03-07-2006, 10:47 PM
Yeah,It's true,Firefox is the best,but I heard that Bill Gates and company are working on a browser that is going to wipe Firefox off the Internet.Soon Firefox will be just like the Hansen singing group,Forgotten.(I forgot was it Hansen or Hanson?I dont remember)

Wooooo.......

No.

Microsoft are developing Internet Explorer 7 at the moment, and the second technical beta is now out.

"Wipe Firefox off the internet"? What the...I think you've got that a bit wrong mate. Firefox isn't about to get "wiped off" the internet, anything but.

BaldEagle
03-08-2006, 12:58 AM
As expected FF wins this hands down. But I wonder how much differently the results would be if this poll were given to the general (non-developer) public. I am willing to bet there are people out there that have never even heard of FF or Opera or you name it except IE. I also understand why that is. Before I started working on my developing skills (and for a little after I started) I was totally unaware of the differences in the browsers. I am guessing I was not alone. Although I use IE out of familiarity I have come to appreciate FF and will no doubt one day make the shift as I find myself using it more and more. I am also understanding the loyalty it has gained over the years.

BaldEagle

mark87
03-08-2006, 03:01 AM
Yup I'm sure there's many people out there who only think there's one browser, and that's IE (anyone's parents by any chance? :P).

I've noticed how FF is continuing to increase in popularity with non-developer communities though, and often I see many people on other forums, totally unrelated to web design, mentioning it.

I guess the main 'selling point' of FF to non-developers/'techies' is that's it's safer to use than IE.

liorean
03-08-2006, 03:26 AM
Depends on what you want from your browser:

- The browser of my choice to develop for:
Opera, because it's got the best support for CSS and DOM, the fastest JavaScript engine. It's the least processor heavy and the least memory consuming of the modern browsers, and supports almost all worthwhile client side technologies.

- The browser of my choice to develop in:
Firefox, because it's got the best tools for developers by far, and is side by side with Opera on pretty much all other technologies.

- The browser of my choice for every day usage on OS X:
Opera. Because it lets me forget that I'm not on a PC without feeling like it's not a part of the Mac community, and it's got every feature that I need that Safari and Camino lacks.

- The browser of my choice for every day usage on WinXP:
I always have Firefox and Opera open. Opera is my "to read" browser, Firefox is my "to surf" browser. If I had to chose one though, it'd be Firefox, because I prefer it's UI and extensions to those provided by Opera on WinXP. (Not so on the Mac...)




- Why Internet Explorer isn't on the list:
Because it's slow, buggy, lacking in features and security, and has terribly bad support for DOM and CSS.

- Why Safari isn't on the list:
It's a cute little browser. It's got better CSS support than Firefox, being just behind Opera. But its JavaScript engine is the worst of the four browsers mentioned, it's DOM support is wider, but also quirkier, than Internet Explorer, and it's not got at all the developer tool repertoire I require of a browser. Also, the UI doesn't quite provide the tweakability I need.

raf
03-08-2006, 08:09 AM
it's rather scary that IE gets more votes as 'best browser' then Opera (IE=13 vs Opera=8).
I would have expected that our population here would be more tech savvy...

Mhtml
03-08-2006, 08:37 AM
So, do you have a clue? Or you are also trying to act like you know?
lol.. No really I do, I didn't study software design & business (that is design, not programming) for 3 years and walk away with nothing.

Far out this thread seems to have gone off on a lot of tangents and round in circles a few times since last I looked..


And Firefox's interface is a Picasso? What about the fact that it looks much like Internet Explorer in its default configuration? Or that you can customise it far more than you can IE?
No I was refering to the fact that IE has remained consistant through every version and is almost identical to the Explorer shell.


Most of those using IE don't have a clue what they're using. You can't use ignorance as positive reinforcement. The second part is because of ignorant, short-sighted web developers. Nothing more.
Precisely, they don't have a clue and they DON'T need a clue. The way the internet works, how they recieve their data and how it is displayed means nothing to these people.. They have no need to know, it will not make their lives any better. They are given a way to easily go about their lives without giving a second thought and that is my point.. Ignorance IS bliss.


Yes. Nothing like drive-by spyware getting right to the heart of your computer to brighten up your day. Good programmers promote/enforce sandboxing. Not rampant spagetti dependancies.
lol, true a good point indeed. However, my point is more related to that of my last response. I have no real rebutle for your point however, I do agree.


There are many free HTML parsers/libraries out there. Fairly poor practice to make your application dependant on something the user can't really control or upgrade if they don't have the specific version your application requires.
Hmm.. I do see your point, however the general need to display html data within an application mainly comes down to just raw data with very little actual concern to how this data is displayed more often than not. IE provides a very nice, portable (I don't mean cross OS, I just mean degradable) API base method for this. Leaving less work for the programmer.


Right. I'm going to soil myself as Microsoft continues to take advantage of users ignorance, because it means the product I use simply must be inferior. You IE users wouldn't have nothing to look forward to if it wasn't for Mozilla. The company who makes your browser doesn't give a rats-arse about you, or about developers.
lol. Well basically this just goes back to my third response.


For me, the browser that does more things properly is the best browser.
Well yes, that is how most developers would see it. But again, my third point.

I wish I had kept reading this thread, come back hemebond! Actually interesting conversation for once. Like I said, I agree with pretty much everything you have said. But I'm trying to come at this on a completely different angle in favour of the common moronic user here, without any influence of the developers mind. I'm sure you can see my point as well (or if you don't we can debate some more lol).. Which is really why this whole topic is pretty well pointless. Typically I would have just said what everyone has been saying, however I like to stir things up a little so hence my forced point of view for this thread.... Someone has to support the opposition otherwise people really can't see both sides, and they need to in order to decide on what is best for them rather than just seeing everyone agreeing.

-Michael



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum