...

View Full Version : IE vs. Alternative Browser vs. Free Choice



missing-score
06-30-2006, 05:25 AM
This thread is meant to be a continuation of off-topic discussion from here (http://www.codingforums.com/showthread.php?t=88522).

Rather than summarize everything (its quite hard, as many different points have been made), I'm going to jump straight in and continue the discussion from here:


Technically, anything but IE is right. Esthetically, it's like asking which movie or book is best.

When I began using computers around 7 years ago, I had no idea what the internet was, and I could just about get around Windows. Once we got the internet, I still had very little understanding of it for a long while, however, I then started to get into web development on a basic level and as time went on became more advanced with what I did.

I remember trying out a much earlier Mozilla version, and also a Netscape version. I hated using Mozilla, and I hated using Netscape. I stuck with IE for a long while. It's not like I didn't give the browsers a try. I used Mozilla for a week to give myself time to get adjusted, and I just didn't like it. I knew Mozilla was more secure, and I had got infected from adware via. IE before as well, but I kept using IE becuase I really didn't like Mozilla.

Now of course, I really like Firefox so I don't have a need to use IE at the moment. I've also tried Opera, which I really don't like. If Opera released a version of their browser that I prefered to Firefox, I would switch, and then if Microsoft released a version of IE I prefered, I would switch again. Plain and simple.

The majority of people wont care about whether the browser is technically better. Most people will care about what they like. As I said in the previous thread, I know people who have tried alternatives and stick with IE and I also know people who have tried alternatives and stopped using IE. If I remember rightly, WA, The owner of this forum, uses both browsers regularly.

To summarise, I wouldn't ever like to attempt to block out some browsers from my site, becuase I know first hand that people using IE, Older browsers etc. May be doing so for a reason (they like the browser best, their system cannot handle the upgrade etc.), and blocking them out is extremely harsh.

DELOCH
06-30-2006, 07:15 AM
correction:

IE does not include itself in the old browser category, IE 4 and below does but 6 and 7 are both new

also, you missed out the real reasons: ActiveX usage, VBScript usage, VML usage, speed, and of course the support for almost everything(except for XHTML.xml(cant handle the doctype))

plus blocking people is not harsh, it is idiot-like

80% of people use Internet Explorer like me, none of them care whether FX is better, or anything, they might use FX sometimes and such

but everyone in toronto school uses Internet Explorer, they could not care less whether FX is better or anything...

FX is not better, it is close to IE but not beating yet because it does not support technologies many VB developers use

ActiveX, Vbscript, and VML(who uses this anyways?)

bcarl314
06-30-2006, 08:01 AM
Just out of curiousity, DELOCH, do you even know what you're writing from post to post? I think you've contradicted your self at least a dozen times throughout this and the previous thread. ActiveX is secure, then it's not, then it is?

And I've got to say, I love this line...


FX is not better, it is close to IE but not beating yet because it does not support technologies many VB developers use

Really? no! You're kidding! FF doesn't support VB? Why would I want to use a browser that supports Virus Blaster code? That statement is about as idiotic as saying "Most windows developers don't like Linux because it doesn't support .Net. Well, d'uh. Windows doesn't support MacOSX, nor *nix apps either. IE doesn't support coding standards, is a bloated codebase that is insecure, and survives today only because of Microsofts monopolistic tactics in the late 90s and today. If there was NO browser installed on new PCs, I can guarantee you FF / Opera would have much higher numbers (probably over 50% between the 2 of them). IE wouldn't survive in a competitive marketplace.

Personally, I use Firefox out of preference and necessity. I develop primarily on Linux and as such, can't use IE (thank GOD!). When I'm on a Windows box the ONLY reason I use IE is for testing. And that's only when I don't feel like using browsercam.

marek_mar
06-30-2006, 01:19 PM
In my opinion the web browser is one of the most commonly used applications used by anyone who has internet access. From a users perspective it doesn't matter how many technologies a browser supports or how well it keeps to web standards. The more valuable thing is the ease of use/ergonomy or simply put that the program doesn't annoy you too much. :) As a user I won't care too much if some site is displayed differently than the author intended (I wouldn't even know if it is displayed incorrectly). Telling users to switch to another program to view some site isn't really solving the problem. If you do care about how your site looks in some browser it should be your duty to fix it.
I just might add that I don't believe that a browser may be a big security hole. I was using IE with success for a long time and I didn't catch ad-ware or things like that. I think it has a lot more to do with the user than the program itself. (Then again I may just be magical as I don't get any viruses and I'm not using any security software like firewalls or anti-viruses...)

drhowarddrfine
06-30-2006, 03:10 PM
IE does not include itself in the old browser category, IE 4 and below does but 6 and 7 are both new
Wrong. IE6 has not been updated, except for security, since 2001. IE7 only fixes non-standards compliance bugs that were in IE6 along with two new additions.

you missed out the real reasons: ActiveX usage, VBScript usage, VML usage, speed, and of course the support for almost everything(except for XHTML.xml(cant handle the doctype))Wrong again. ActiveX is a known security fault.
What if you don't use VBScript?
I don't recall but can IE properly handle SVG?
IE is NOT faster than other browsers. It's only advantage is in startup because it is built into the OS.
Support for everything else? NOT xhtml and not just because of the doctype. IE has NO recognition software for XHTML. IE has incomplete support for the DOM, CSS, all of HTML, and what support it has is buggy. Even Microsoft says this. Are you aware of the IEBlog?

After seeing some of your code on other posts, I am perfectly aware of your lack of experience and knowledge in web programming so gain some of both before you make comments like this.

drhowarddrfine
06-30-2006, 03:15 PM
I just might add that I don't believe that a browser may be a big security hole.
I think it has a lot more to do with the user than the program itself.
Oh, so it's OUR fault. No. Walking in dark alleys may get you mugged but walking in a nice neighborhood and getting mugged is not your fault. It's not always the browsers fault either.

I don't get viruses either but there is that one off chance I'll stumble into a trusted but infected site. That has happened.

gsnedders
06-30-2006, 05:18 PM
IE7 only fixes non-standards compliance bugs that were in IE6 along with two new additions.
All CSS2.1 selectors
Some CSS3 selectors
min/max-width/height

Woops… More than two…

IE has incomplete support for the DOM, CSS, all of HTML, and what support it has is buggy.
That can be said for any browser, not just IE.

jkd
06-30-2006, 05:24 PM
Just a note, even the IE7 user-agent string starts off with "Mozilla/4.0" - identifying itself effectively as a 4th generation browser. Opera (by default now), Firefox, and Safari all have Mozilla/5.0 in their user-agent string, as a more accurate representation of their abilities as a user-agent.

ralph l mayo
06-30-2006, 10:08 PM
"Most windows developers don't like Linux because it doesn't support .Net. Well, d'uh.
Linux supports .NET (http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page) :] Don't know why you'd do that to a perfectly good linux install though.

/derail

drhowarddrfine
06-30-2006, 10:08 PM
That can be said for any browser, not just IE.Wrong. Go to my "eight years" link below and compare IE to the other browsers. There is NO comparison. IE is light years behind every other browser.

gsnedders
06-30-2006, 10:15 PM
Wrong. Go to my "eight years" link below and compare IE to the other browsers. There is NO comparison. IE is light years behind every other browser.
Right. So let's take a look at Gecko… No support for CSS2's text-shadow. There's one example of something not being supported.

No browser is perfect. No browser supports everything. No browser is bug free.

Skyzyx
06-30-2006, 10:40 PM
Well, I can argue that standards-compliance DOES matter to end users -- they just don't know it. The more standards-compliant their browser is (and really all browsers are), the easier development is for front-end developers like me, so that we have the time to focus on features of websites or webapps that are more user-centered.

Also as a front-end developer, I can tell you that debugging in IE sucks. Firefox is better at that out-of-the-box with the DOM inspector and the JavaScript console. Throw in the Firebug and Web Developer Toolbar extensions, and I can do anything.

Yes the IE7 team did fix several standards-compliance bugs in their CSS support. Not nearly all of them, but several of the most pressing ones. It's all been documented at the IE Blog.

And I think that Error 404 was misunderstood. All he's saying is that no browser is perfect -- and he's right. Some are better than others (Firefox is superior in many ways over IE), but perfection has not yet been achieved by anyone.

Nobody who is serious about web development relies on ActiveX, VBScript, or VML, and they certainly don't build for IE-only. People who are proud of their IE-only app are like monkeys who are proud of their ability to peel a banana. They've shown that an IE-only world is all they see, and they're essentially still living in the dark ages of the web. The only people using these archaic technologies are people who haven't taken the time to trade-up to more cross-browser, cross-platform technologies. It can also be argued that the security issues with ActiveX far outweigh any benefit they may bring.

Either way, I can't help but feel sorry for people who are hard-core IE. If you use it because you prefer it, that's perfectly fine. But don't say it's because you "have 100,000 reasons to stick to IE" because that's simply ludicrous.

_Aerospace_Eng_
06-30-2006, 10:55 PM
Well, I can argue that standards-compliance DOES matter to end users -- they just don't know it. The more standards-compliant their browser is (and really all browsers are), the easier development is for front-end developers like me, so that we have the time to focus on features of websites or webapps that are more user-centered.

Also as a front-end developer, I can tell you that debugging in IE sucks. Firefox is better at that out-of-the-box with the DOM inspector and the JavaScript console. Throw in the Firebug and Web Developer Toolbar extensions, and I can do anything.

Yes the IE7 team did fix several standards-compliance bugs in their CSS support. Not nearly all of them, but several of the most pressing ones. It's all been documented at the IE Blog.

And I think that Error 404 was misunderstood. All he's saying is that no browser is perfect -- and he's right. Some are better than others (Firefox is superior in many ways over IE), but perfection has not yet been achieved by anyone.

Nobody who is serious about web development relies on ActiveX, VBScript, or VML, and they certainly don't build for IE-only. People who are proud of their IE-only app are like monkeys who are proud of their ability to peel a banana. They've shown that an IE-only world is all they see, and they're essentially still living in the dark ages of the web. The only people using these archaic technologies are people who haven't taken the time to trade-up to more cross-browser, cross-platform technologies. It can also be argued that the security issues with ActiveX far outweigh any benefit they may bring.

Either way, I can't help but feel sorry for people who are hard-core IE. If you use it because you prefer it, that's perfectly fine. But don't say it's because you "have 100,000 reasons to stick to IE" because that's simply ludicrous.
Well said. ;)

marek_mar
06-30-2006, 11:17 PM
Well, I can argue that standards-compliance DOES matter to end users -- they just don't know it. The more standards-compliant their browser is (and really all browsers are), the easier development is for front-end developers like me, so that we have the time to focus on features of websites or webapps that are more user-centered.

You just said how much standard compliance matters to the developers and not the users. :)



Either way, I can't help but feel sorry for people who are hard-core IE. If you use it because you prefer it, that's perfectly fine. But don't say it's because you "have 100,000 reasons to stick to IE" because that's simply ludicrous.

Having thousands of reasons is like having no real reason.


Oh, so it's OUR fault. I still wonder who the "we" are. If the "we" should stand for those who use web browsers (that would include me) then I would restrain myself from doing that as you are in no position to speak in my name (and probably many others).

Skyzyx
06-30-2006, 11:38 PM
You just said how much standard compliance matters to the developers and not the users. :)

My point is that "standards-compliance" as a concept is only valuable to developers. But the part that IS valuable to end-users are the benefits of web standards.

* Faster loading pages (due to less code)
* More responsive pages (due to less complicated code)
* (Potentially) more/better features (due to the developer having more time to work on them).
* Other stuff I can't think of right now. ;)

Web standards are better for both developers and end-users... only the developers are aware of them and end-users aren't.

oracleguy
06-30-2006, 11:44 PM
Either way, I can't help but feel sorry for people who are hard-core IE. If you use it because you prefer it, that's perfectly fine. But don't say it's because you "have 100,000 reasons to stick to IE" because that's simply ludicrous.

I agree; in fact I've been kind of wondering what the 50k reasons not to use firefox and the 100k reasons to use IE were... DELOCH?

drhowarddrfine
06-30-2006, 11:51 PM
Right. So let's take a look at Gecko… No support for CSS2's text-shadow. There's one example of something not being supported.And if you look in the other column you will get my point. IEs support for CSS, the DOM and other things is abysmal at best. And that's a compliment. Don't compare IE to the other browsers and say "no browser is perfect". By itself that statement is true. But saying my 10-year old nephew can throw a baseball does not make him a major league player. A 5-year old browser, which IE is, can't hold a candle to any other browser including the new Flock.

missing-score
07-01-2006, 06:47 AM
And if you look in the other column you will get my point. IEs support for CSS, the DOM and other things is abysmal at best. And that's a compliment. Don't compare IE to the other browsers and say "no browser is perfect". By itself that statement is true. But saying my 10-year old nephew can throw a baseball does not make him a major league player. A 5-year old browser, which IE is, can't hold a candle to any other browser including the new Flock.
I dont think anyone (except DELOCH) is trying to argue that IE has better support than Firefox, however saying "IE has an incomplete DOM implementation" when the same can be said for all browsers is hardly fair argument.

DELOCH, Anyone who uses VB on the web is mad. I would never allow IE to run VBScript, and I can't say i've ever needed ActiveX. It does sound insecure, but I can't really comment.

Also, remember that becuase we are only starting to move out of an age were people designed for IE only, there are still many older websites that use bad code and won't render well in Firefox. Unfortunatley, it is one of these websites that has stopped one of my friends dads from switching. In his eyes, the fact that Firefox displays it wrong is Firefox's fault. I tried to explain that IE is behind the times and the way Firefox shows the page is how it should actually look, but thats hardly the problem... He wants to visit the website and view it properly.

jkd
07-01-2006, 04:22 PM
however saying "IE has an incomplete DOM implementation" when the same can be said for all browsers is hardly fair argument.

Maybe, but when one says IE has an incomplete DOM1 implementation (and nothing else), versus Opera's complete DOM1, DOM2 Core, DOM2 Range, DOM2 Traversal, DOM2 HTML, DOM2 Style, and incomplete DOM2 CSS, as well as incomplete support for several DOM3 interfaces (basically the same with Firefox as well), then the argument becomes a lot more fair.

It's the degree of incompleteness which is the argument, not the simple fact thereof.

drhowarddrfine
07-02-2006, 04:00 AM
saying "IE has an incomplete DOM implementation" when the same can be said for all browsers is hardly fair argument.Ok, I'll reword it. IE has not updated its DOM support since 1998 while Firefox is current through 2005, last I checked.

DELOCH
07-02-2006, 06:57 AM
I will just answer this in couple of things

1) I use C++ syntax, and VB Syntax, thus I use ActiveX at times since it is fun at occasions

2) I use IE6 for 2 reasons
a) IE7 has tabs
b) Win98 does not support it

3) Firefox to me is just a tool to display XHTML, nothing more
a) it has tabs
b) does not support activeX
c) a web browser is made to browse web! not to be fancy!
d) Firefox is the old Bon Echo, if you forget, which is bad too since it does not have an IE tab
e) IE tab is slower than IE
f) too slow
4)
IE6 has lots more modules than FX and is faster than FX

Yeah

Please do not respond for this is all facts I have faced and I need no comments on that, I couldn't care less if you use IE, or FX they are both navigators for web, for all I care I can make my own web browser right now with Visual Basic/C#/C++ but I dont wan't to since there is not point at the time

.:: DELOCH SIGNING OFF ::.

drhowarddrfine
07-02-2006, 05:14 PM
Then, like I said, you are beyond helping. Your lack of knowledge of these things is evident and you refuse to be instructed. Therefore, because you refuse help and reject it, there is no need to acknowledge or respond to your posts.

rpgfan3233
07-02-2006, 08:28 PM
a) IE7 has tabs
What do you have against tabbed browsing? As a C++ programmer, you should be grateful that tabs use less memory than a whole new window.

b) Win98 does not support it
What kind of reason is this? Just because Win98 doesn't support IE6, you use IE6?


3) Firefox to me is just a tool to display XHTML, nothing more
True, but you could say the same about any U/A, not just Firefox and certainly not just Web browsers.


a) it has tabs
Already been addressed.


b) does not support activeX
You can add it in as an extension. How many times has this been stated?

c) a web browser is made to browse web! not to be fancy!
"fancy" is not a reason to discredit a browser. A browser's performance due to the "fancy" would be a decent reason, not the "fancy" itself. Also, one could argue that you prefer to use a command-line OS only. After all, MS-DOS could use colours by "talking" to the video card, and what good are colours to someone who just wants to run an application? Oh, wait, if colours in operating systems are a bad thing, then wouldn't that mean any OS that is not used for games (e.g. the OS/engine of the old Atari 2600) is "fancy", which is not useful.

d) Firefox is the old Bon Echo, if you forget, which is bad too since it does not have an IE tab
Please elaborate.

e) IE tab is slower than IE
Yeah, because you are embedding an application inside another application.

f) too slow
IE is slower. The whole point of Firefox was to be fast, and it is still fast, provided your system can handle the extensions that are running (which you choose yourself). Try disabling themes and extensions by running Fx in safe mode. You should find the default installation fast.

IE6 has lots more modules than FX and is faster than FX
Define "module". Also, when you refer to Fx, you refer to the browser itself, encompassing ALL versions of Fx (v0.8 through v1.5.0.4, excluding the nightly builds which have extensions solely for those builds).

Your main problem is that you do not provide enough support for your arguments.

DELOCH
07-02-2006, 11:24 PM
1) I used window browsing for 10 years It is easier using new windows because you know which one has what and tabs are annoying, too colourful, and for a fact complex to close... while IE opens a new link in a new window where you got used to press the x... I couldnt care less about memory, I only use intenet in one wnidow, I never use Internet and other things except for notepad

2) on win98 you CAN use IE, while IE7 requires windowsXP

3)I am not going to argue on this, this is solid

4) skipping...

5) I have tried many extensions and only IE tab worked and it is slower than IE

6)MS dos times passed, the computers are not Dosses anymore, while it is still used in dos prompt/ dos restart mode

7) Bon echo is going to be the next generation FX that is what Mozilla promised

8) If Mozilla had the following I would use it, otherwise no
a) fast IE tab/ActiveX reader
b) a checkbox: use tabs(I feel more comfortable this way)
c) load fast!

9)
It is hard to explain, never talked about modules, I know for a fact that it has more modules

10)

Main reasons for hating firefox:
a) too slow
b) tabbing is annoying
c) harder to install software (since it asks if you want to instead of Ie-like small prompt)
d) low support for: ActiveX, VML
e) too strict(CSS, XHTML is suppose to be strict)
f) I must agree that it is faster than Netscape, but slower than Opera
g) Opera does not support java... I dunno why though :D

Yeah pretty much it :D

oracleguy
07-03-2006, 01:24 AM
Main reasons for hating firefox:
a) too slow
b) tabbing is annoying
c) harder to install software (since it asks if you want to instead of Ie-like small prompt)
d) low support for: ActiveX, VML
e) too strict(CSS, XHTML is suppose to be strict)
f) I must agree that it is faster than Netscape, but slower than Opera
g) Opera does not support java... I dunno why though :D


a) Well it isn't integrated into the operating system, so of course it is going to be a little slower loading but I find it no different than internet explorer speed wise during use.
b) Then don't use them if you don't like them. Its not like it forces you to use them.
c) What software? Spyware? lol
d) If people actually used ActiveX anymore it would be a problem but there are very few people that do for reasons that have been stated so many times already I'm not going to waste my time.
e) Too strict? hardly, IE is too lax. You said you use C++, what if you could just sorta get it right and the compiler would guess what wanted to do? You forget to return a value on a function so it goes "yeah, I think you might of wanted to return x here so thats what i'm gonna do" That could cause lots of problems. For any developer to complain about having to write valid HTML is a joke.

DELOCH
07-03-2006, 04:31 AM
i am just not going to argue. but I am going to say for the final time

I do not exactly use C++, I use Visual C++ Express Edition, but only the basic things, I can easily make a web browser from a web browser control and buttons which Is going to be much faster... but I am not a pro, only used C++ for a month maximum, and most likely for like 5 days in total time

anyways I download stuff like code samples and such...

ActiveX is still being used

plus C++ is strict, but C++ express is simpler...

rpgfan3233
07-03-2006, 04:49 AM
If you can't deal with the real language, or rather, deal with a platform-dependent language (VC++ EE requires .NET, which is for Windows only), whereas true C++ coders enjoy other platforms (Linux distributions are popular), and even prefer other platforms quite often.

jkd
07-03-2006, 07:00 AM
Just leave DELOCH alone, for once I must agree fully with drhowardfine :) and instruct everyone to ignore the inane, nonsensical posts. This was a somewhat interesting thread beforehand, I would like to see it veer back towards that instead of addressing bizarre bulleted lists. I won't delete anything up until this point, but be forewarned subsequent posts along the same lines as the last few will be deleted to keep this thread somewhat educational.

_Aerospace_Eng_
07-03-2006, 07:14 AM
I think the people who use IE have never been introduced to something different which is why they use IE as their primary browser. I've converted my family to Firefox kind of in a sneaky way. I left the original IE icons but changed the shortcuts to open Firefox instead. Its been said before, if IE wasn't installed by default, then Firefox might have more people using it. Similar think on a Mac. I believe Safari is installed by default so people use it.

gsnedders
07-03-2006, 11:23 AM
Similar think on a Mac. I believe Safari is installed by default so people use it.
There are many flaws with Fx on Mac OS X, and nothing that wrong with Safari, and there are for a fact a large proportion of people who choose to use Safari over other browsers.

rpgfan3233
07-03-2006, 05:12 PM
Similar think on a Mac. I believe Safari is installed by default so people use it.
Probably true. I think the folks at Mozilla have in the past recommended Camino as the Mac browser and Firefox as the PC browser due to the slow performance of Firefox on a Mac.

oracleguy
07-03-2006, 05:59 PM
I've converted my family to Firefox kind of in a sneaky way. I left the original IE icons but changed the shortcuts to open Firefox instead. Its been said before, if IE wasn't installed by default, then Firefox might have more people using it.

It wasn't hard to get most of the people in my family to convert, I just installed it and said use this and I removed the internet explorer icon. So now most of my family and most of my friends use Firefox. And I even know some of my non-techie friends have gotten some other people in their family to convert.

Since most people now days have heard of spyware, they might not know what it is exactly or how you get it but they know its bad, that is one method I used to get people to convert. That and adblock and tabbed browsing, lol.

DELOCH
07-03-2006, 06:06 PM
Whatever, lets just stop flaming...

I will just translate it into a non-conversational form:

I feel more comfortable using IE for browsing, and FX for XHTML

And also that I will not stand for people dissing me for using IE because It works fine for me..

Some people like Oranges, Some people like Apples, you cant compare apples to oranges

the only thing that makes FX better than IE(in a way) is web standards, without the W3C... which without we wouldnt have web...

we would(have no web lol) but if they would not make standards for XHTML then people would use IE

it is only a fact that IE is a super-old browser while FX is being upgraded every week :\ how can you beat this eager group "Mozilla"

case closed:

VIPStephan
07-04-2006, 01:44 PM
I've recently downloaded IE7 beta for testing the "forward compatibility" of my web pages (meaning test if they work in IE7) and I must say that I'm really disappointed of the still missing support of anything useful as far as XHTML/CSS support goes. I couldn't believe when people were always saying that IE7 still sucks and so on but now I know it really does suck. OK, it supports the CSS 2.1 selectors and some other stuff but I still need a thousand fixes to get things working correctly while every other browser is getting it right away.

Not that I know anything of the processes behind IE but how hard can it be to create a standards compliant browser? And espcially how hard can it be for a multi-million dollar company to create a standards compliant browser when every other company (or foundation) can?
And why does it take years for a lame upgrade of IE while there are constantly updates for Fx available?

The bad thing is that we'll still have to code for IE 6 for a couple o'years 'cause it will still be used by a consideralbe amount of people for some time.
And I'm convinced if Fx was the default browser of Windows everybody would use Fx so it's not the superiority of IE that makes it widely used but just the sheer disinterest of the average user to look for something else (why would they if they're just browsing for online shopping and/or porn sites?). We can't blame the average Joe for using IE, we can only advertise any alternative as much as possible (and spam Microsoft with hate mails about IE that they hopefully get their asses in gear).

gsnedders
07-04-2006, 03:32 PM
Not that I know anything of the processes behind IE but how hard can it be to create a standards compliant browser? And espcially how hard can it be for a multi-million dollar company to create a standards compliant browser when every other company (or foundation) can?
For the simple reason that it takes far more effort to update a browser that hasn't been updated in 5 years, than it is to update a browser that has been updated earlier the same day.

That said, the speed of new standards becoming recommendations has massively slowed for lack of there being much point till the major browser on the market supports the current ones. For this reason alone, Tasman 0.9 from 2003 still massively eclipses Trident V's support.

_Aerospace_Eng_
07-04-2006, 08:11 PM
I've recently downloaded IE7 beta for testing the "forward compatibility" of my web pages (meaning test if they work in IE7) and I must say that I'm really disappointed of the still missing support of anything useful as far as XHTML/CSS support goes. I couldn't believe when people were always saying that IE7 still sucks and so on but now I know it really does suck. OK, it supports the CSS 2.1 selectors and some other stuff but I still need a thousand fixes to get things working correctly while every other browser is getting it right away.
Which beta did you download? Beta 3 has fixed some of the more important ones like min-height and min-width.

DELOCH
07-04-2006, 10:46 PM
Microsoft might be a multi-million company, but they only get the money by making bug-filled products that are really comfortable and easy to use, which can create great results

for example: IE, it might be not standards complient , but it is easy to use and it is comfortable to use

so is ActiveX since it causes great bugs on the web, but is easy to control

yep :D

VIPStephan
07-05-2006, 11:41 PM
Which beta did you download? Beta 3 has fixed some of the more important ones like min-height and min-width.

Beta 2. But that doesn't matter as it is the... what was it called? The "layout complete" version? Well, I know about min-height and stuff. Those are the properties I almost never use(d). It's not even so much about supported or not supported properties but about the general handling which is very close to IE6. I still need conditional comments, now sometimes two, one for IE6 and one for IE7 since some things work in IE7 that don't work in IE6 (and lower) and some things still don't work in IE7 that work everywhere else.

I can't check right now but I remember some weird float/positioning issues with images being cut off if they're positioned over the edge of the div they are contained in. And I believe IE7 still has issues with margins on floated elements (not the 3px thing but margins for positioning the element).

Those few properties that IE7 is supporting now aren't making up for the rest that it still doesn't support.

DELOCH
07-06-2006, 03:01 AM
last I checked it was beta 3

I hope it becomes IE7 soon... but with an option open in sepperate window :\

note: What do you expect from a browser that is being tested... why do you expect it is tested?

thing get tested to check if it has bugs, and then to fix them

if it was IE7 I bet it would surely not have as much errors... or at least support DTD :\

_Aerospace_Eng_
07-06-2006, 12:02 PM
IE7 Beta 3 already has the option to open new windows rather than tabs. Again it seems that you have no idea what you are talking about. The fixes made in IE7 for CSS support will only occur if you do use a full valid doctype so I'm sure what you mean by "support DTD". It has fixed a lot of the major bugs. VIPStephan, sites I've done really haven't had any problems in IE7. Its those double margin bugs that usually occur in IE6 that I need to fix.

ubik
07-06-2006, 12:55 PM
It sucks to see that developers out there contribute their time and expertise to develop a modern, secure, standards-compliant, open-source web browser for free and there are still so many people out there that refuse to make the switch? I mean.. these new browsers were developed for a reason right?

One of my biggest concerns with IE is that they are moving too slow.. while they're over there trying to play "catch up" everyone else is developing the next big thing. lol.. It's a bit sad to say, but in a way.. Micro$oft has some control over the internet, for now atleast..

funny thread though:


Originally Posted by DELOCH
c) harder to install software (since it asks if you want to instead of Ie-like small prompt)
e) too strict(CSS, XHTML is suppose to be strict)



Originally Posted by oracleguy
c) What software? Spyware? lol
e) Too strict? hardly, IE is too lax. You said you use C++, what if you could just sorta get it right and the compiler would guess what wanted to do? You forget to return a value on a function so it goes "yeah, I think you might of wanted to return x here so thats what i'm gonna do" That could cause lots of problems. For any developer to complain about having to write valid HTML is a joke.


rofl "yeah, I think you might of wanted to return x here so thats what i'm gonna do"

DELOCH
07-06-2006, 02:42 PM
dude... seriously stop causing flame wars

NancyJ
07-06-2006, 03:59 PM
dude... seriously stop causing flame wars

o.O

but serious, I'd like to see you list all 50,000 reasons you have for not using firefox and all 100,000 reasons for using IE

Other than personal preferance (which is fine), I havent seen you come up with a single decent reason why IE is better.

rpgfan3233
07-06-2006, 04:35 PM
The fixes made in IE7 for CSS support will only occur if you do use a full valid doctype so I'm sure what you mean by "support DTD".
Does it matter for XHTML pages whether the XML prolog is at the top or missing?

In IE6:
Quirks Mode -

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>TITLE</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8" />
</head>
<body>
<div id="pageContainer">
</div>
</body>
</html>
(What has become known as) Standards Compliance Mode -

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>TITLE</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8" />
</head>
<body>
<div id="pageContainer">
</div>
</body>
</html>

That one little line before the DOCTYPE makes the browser have a fit, and it decides to visit its sick ancestor in the insane asylum known as IE 5.5 . . .

gsnedders
07-06-2006, 04:58 PM
Does it matter for XHTML pages whether the XML prolog is at the top or missing?
Nope, IIRC that was one of the main fixes in Beta 1 (but the XML prologue must be at line 1/character 1, as per the XML spec).

DELOCH
07-06-2006, 05:24 PM
<?xml?>
is only a standard way to make XHTML

although you can also not use html xmlns but then your code will not work fine as .xhtml... it will not display properly :\

marek_mar
07-06-2006, 06:10 PM
There is something weird going on with this thread... I wanted to reply to a post... and the thread vanished... now it's back but some posts are gone and replaced by others I don't remember...

jkd
07-06-2006, 06:56 PM
<?xml?>
is only a standard way to make XHTML

although you can also not use html xmlns but then your code will not work fine as .xhtml... it will not display properly :\

You can omit the <?xml?> prolog in XML 1.0 documents. DELOCH, don't accuse people of causing flamewars when in fact you have been behind most of them.

VIPStephan
07-13-2006, 05:44 PM
I wanted to follow the advice in this (http://www.codingforums.com/showthread.php?p=464351#post464351) thread to move any statement about IE vs. Fx over to this thread here.

To pick up on it:

tell me one security hole which cannot be fixed... :\


:sad: you're not even capable of asking relevant questions...

i've been one of the first to tell you that you needed to do your homework before posting arguments, and many others have made similar suggestion. but you don't seem to be capable to learn or to try out peoples advice. you also seem to be very inexperienced and unaware of everything that has to do with open/closed source, browsers, web-standards and internet security (non-limitative list). [...]

Just wanted to add: One good proof of Microsoft's general security issues was the "I Love You" virus spreading across the whole world, mainly because Outlook opened emails automatically when the user checked them. I think this was one point where many, many people started switching to different email programs.

questionable
07-16-2006, 05:04 PM
Hey since you guys know alot about FF. How do you can the print menu item in the right click menu?



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum