New Internet Explorer

[calbiterol]

It will be interesting to see what happens when volumetric displays get into mainstream usage - and they will - because IMHO, the first browser/OS to accomodate for cheap, accessible 3d displays will have a HUGE headstart on all the others. That's quite off topic, though.

 

Personally, I'd used IE all my life, and then, as soon as I started using FF, I loved it - and now I despise IE for it's lack of support for the standards. One plus of FF not being owned by a multibillion (multitrillion? how big exactly is m$ these days?) corporation: bug fixes, etc are generally put out a heck of a lot faster.

[Pangloss]

I agree about tabbed browsing. Isn't it funny how sometimes the simplest little thing, something that probably sounded like a really STUPID idea in planning sessions ("uh, why can't they just open a new browser window, chief?"), but turned out to be a real useful little trick.

 

See that's the great thing about competition. The goal here is not to slay the Microsoft behemoth, but to build a better mouse trap. When competition exists, we all win. It goes *both* ways, and when the Mozilla org get bogged down and bloated, we NEED to have Microsoft available, to hold up and say "we want that, give it to us right now or we walk".

 

THAT's how you win.

[ydoaPs]

competition is good. if more people used other browsers like Mozilla, FireFox, or Opera, we would eventually have a better IE. if more people used Linux, Unix, or Mac, we would eventually have a better, cheaper Windows OS.

[Kermit]

To all Microsoft products, i'll just say this:

 

http://www.microsuck.com/

 

Next computer i'm getting is definately going to be a Linux.

 

Microsoft is nothing but a bunch of rushed products with so many security holes that they can only justifty with free updates to you, the consumer, who they're screwing with for even more money.

 

Watch Bill Gates suddenly nuke my house from several hundred miles away now.

[ydoaPs]

To all Microsoft products' date=' i'll just say this:

 

http://www.microsuck.com/

 

Next computer i'm getting is definately going to be a Linux.

 

Microsoft is nothing but a bunch of rushed products with so many security holes that they can only justifty with free updates to you, the consumer, who they're screwing with for even more money.

 

Watch Bill Gates suddenly nuke my house from several hundred miles away now.[/quote']

he is wanting to make us pay for updates once Vista comes out

[Aeternus]

Browsers damn it! Specifically IE7, its advantages and reasons you may or may not use it (possibly including reasons for alternatives). Please don't start with the Linux vs Windows stuff again, its been done in another thread and that was closed down for good reason, it never goes anywhere.

[Pangloss]

competition is good. if more people used other browsers like Mozilla, FireFox, or Opera, we would eventually have a better IE. if more people used Linux, Unix, or Mac, we would eventually have a better, cheaper Windows OS.

 

 

Well put.

[bloodhound]

The main problem with IE is that it's sorta part of Windows. Generally speaking it's not such a good idea to link something with so many holes to your OS. And yes Firefox has "some" issues, but nothing on the scale of IE. Having used IE, Firefox, Opera, I only go back to IE for my windows updates. Upto now I have encountered only ONE site which won't work with firefox.

 

On top of that add the many extensions which dramatically increase the productivity of web browsing/development, I don't see a reason to continue using IE. Oh yeah, many people ask what the big deal is about tabbed browsing. You can only understand it after you have tried it .

 

I have read that IE7 will NOT have tabbed browsing as the "demand" is not there. :\ load of bollocks, with that attitude there wouldn't be any progress in the world.

 

On the cosmetic side, it seems IE7 will not include skinning features. I personally like to apply a really slim, minimalistic theme so that I can maximise my browser workspace.

[calbiterol]

On the cosmetic side, it seems IE7 will not include skinning features. I personally like to apply a really slim, minimalistic theme so that I can maximise my browser workspace.

 

Yep. I agree. On the other hand, how many times has m$ said they'd do something and then completely ignored their word? Case in point: w3c standards.

 

There's gotta be an extension for FF that gives you skinning features.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'd like to know, that while Firefox is protected by its small userbase, it is also protected by the fact that the Mozilla foundation releases a patch for any large hole in just a few days. At last count, Exploder had 30-some UNPATCHED holes in it (by Secunia's count, anyways). Firefox had perhaps three.

[bloodhound]

There's gotta be an extension for FF that gives you skinning features.

you misunderstood me. my point was that i would like that feature IF i used IE. FF already has skins. plus you can edit the userchrome.js for advanced skinning.

[herme3]

usually, when they dont it's due to the fact that the site requires an active-x in order to work, and FF doesnt support active-xs

 

That is a huge problem with FireFox. I know tons of web sites that use Active-X. Many company databases that keep track of customer information online use Active-X. Now, how come everyone here seems to think it is ok for FireFox to get away with not being compatible with Active-X? However, everyone goes crazy over the fact that IE isn't compatible with things that most people have never heard of?

 

The standards argument bugs me for another reason: I make sites all the time in Dreamweaver using regular WYSIWYG techniques that look great in IE but get all messed up in Firefox or Mozilla. I don't know who's fault that is, but I really don't appreciate having spent a lot of money on a fancy web design product only to have to constantly adjust my code for multiple web browsers. I mean it's 2005, for crying out loud, not 1995.

 

Exactly. Who cares about the standards when designing a web site? Web site designers only need to make sure that their visitors can see their web site. Just make sure that IE users can see your site. Then if someone can't see your site, it is their responsibility to open IE because it should still be on their computer even after they install another browser.

 

This is a great shame in my oppinion esspecially for the people like Herme3 who refuse to open their eyes to the alternative, or don't get a chance to use the alternatives.

 

I have used several other browsers. I used FireFox for a little while. I had Netscape installed on my computer for over a year. I liked Netscape at first. I just got tired of certain web sites not working correctly, so I went back to IE.

 

how big exactly is m$ these days?

 

They make about $30 billion a year.

 

if more people used Linux, Unix, or Mac, we would eventually have a better, cheaper Windows OS.

 

Why did you feel the need to start talking about operating systems? It seems like you start talking about Linux vs Windows in every computer thread!

 

he is wanting to make us pay for updates once Vista comes out

 

STOP TALKING ABOUT OPERATING SYSTEMS!!!!!!!

 

Please don't start with the Linux vs Windows stuff again, its been done in another thread and that was closed down for good reason, it never goes anywhere.

 

Exactly. Browsers and operating systems are completely different things. You can install different browsers on the same operating system. It really doesn't make sense to say that IE and Windows are the same. That would be like saying a Sony DVD player and a Sony telephone are the same thing.

 

The main problem with IE is that it's sorta part of Windows.

 

No. IE comes with Windows, but it isn't part of Windows. You can also install IE on a MAC computer.

 

I'd like to know, that while Firefox is protected by its small userbase, it is also protected by the fact that the Mozilla foundation releases a patch for any large hole in just a few days. At last count, Exploder had 30-some UNPATCHED holes in it (by Secunia's count, anyways). Firefox had perhaps three.

 

I'm sure that FireFox has more than three holes. There are just more people looking for holes in IE. The FireFox holes have yet to be discovered. Also, Microsoft seems quick at releasing patches. I've never heard the news say there is a security hole in IE without saying there is a patch available.

[Lance]

Exactly. Browsers and operating systems are completely different things. You can install different browsers on the same operating system. It really doesn't make sense to say that IE and Windows are the same. That would be like saying a Sony DVD player and a Sony telephone are the same thing.

 

 

 

No. IE comes with Windows' date=' but it isn't part of Windows. You can also install IE on a MAC computer.

[/quote']

 

Have you tried uninstalling IE? Its no small feat.

 

If sony started chaining crappy phones to an already crummy dvd player I think you would see a similar reaction.

[Aeternus]

usually' date=' when they dont it's due to the fact that the site requires an active-x in order to work, and FF doesnt support active-xs[/quote']

 

 

That is a huge problem with FireFox. I know tons of web sites that use Active-X. Many company databases that keep track of customer information online use Active-X. Now, how come everyone here seems to think it is ok for FireFox to get away with not being compatible with Active-X? However, everyone goes crazy over the fact that IE isn't compatible with things that most people have never heard of?

 

This isn't that other browsers don't support the functionality of ActiveX, they simply don't do it in the same way or under the Umbrella Object Setup of ActiveX (for example XMLHttpRequest functionality in all other browsers is part of the JS DOM, whereas IE has it as an ActiveX object). This isn't a failing per say, in fact, it is often considered one of the advantages due to the fact that a more than fair share of Internet Explorer's problems with security and (Ad|Spy)ware have been due to problems with ActiveX, which is why alot of people disable it either completely or for all but a few sites (Wiki).

 

You talk about IE only missing features that no-one has heard or cares about.... does that make it better somehow? Just because no-one has heard of them, it doesn't mean they aren't beneficial, it just means public awareness of such features hasnt been raised. If all you want is the features IE currently has and that people are well aware of then IE wouldn't have a point in improving if we followed your logic (why would we want something weve never heard of) and therefore the features they are thinking of including in IE7 (which by no means overshadow functionality in other popular browsers, not by a long shot) would be pointless as apparently you wouldnt use them. I know its nice to just say, "No-one uses the features" that other browsers claim support for, the point is there are some really cool things that web developers could do with CSS2 and CSS3 if IE would just fully support CSS2 properly and start work on CSS3, pages could be much more rich and much more customisable.

 

Please don't try the argument that no-one would use them, as that simply isn't true (just consider the adoption of CSS in general and the interest in further advancements etc).

 

While IE is a nice enough browser, it simply isn't enough for some people, they want more than simply sufficient, they want the additional features and compliance (*See Below) that other browsers offer. This may change with IE7, it may not, we will see (I honestly hope it does as this is additional competition which will make Firefox, Opera etc strive to improve their browsers even more so).

 

--------------------------------------------

 

* You mention that standards compliance isn't necessary and that everyone should simply make sure things work with IE. Well the point is MS say that IE conforms to W3C standards and that they plan to meet these standards. This is mostly true when the browser is knocked into Strict mode rather than Quirks. Quirks mode will not display various CSS properties correctly in Quirks mode and so following standards and making sure that the page is written properly can also be needed when writing for IE.

 

Also any good developer knows that a) if you can avoid alienating other users, do (simple standards compliant code will work on both IE and other browsers such as Firefox and Opera who are not a neglible user base as you have yourself proven), b) Market trends change, this has been seen in the growth of Firefox's user base, and in the previous generations death of Netscape. Writing standards compliant code means that whoever wins, your page works. You may moan about the lack of ActiveX but ActiveX very very rarely needs to be used IF AT ALL as the vast majority if not all of its functionality is available in the basic DOM for JS in other browsers.

[bloodhound]

Now, how come everyone here seems to think it is ok for FireFox to get away with not being compatible with Active-X?

Most obviously being that Active-X is NOT a web standard. Could you tell me what exactly do you use Active-X for (except windows updates).

Exactly. Who cares about the standards when designing a web site? Web site designers only need to make sure that their visitors can see their web site. Just make sure that IE users can see your site. Then if someone can't see your site' date=' it is their responsibility to open IE because it should still be on their computer even after they install another browser.[/quote']

That kind of attitude isn't very helpful. Standards are there to discourage sloppy coding and encouraging productivity. You can do wonderful stuff in CSS, which would look absolutely ugly in IE which then requires a hack to make it look decent in IE, which is a big headache for web devs.

No. IE comes with Windows' date=' but it isn't part of Windows. You can also install IE on a MAC computer.[/quote']

I am pretty sure it is, I will see if I can dig up the links. Also there is no point talking about MAC's cos that's a completely different matter.

I'm sure that FireFox has more than three holes. There are just more people looking for holes in IE. The FireFox holes have yet to be discovered. Also' date=' Microsoft seems quick at releasing patches. I've never heard the news say there is a security hole in IE without saying there is a patch available.[/quote']

Or maybe that since firefox is open source, there are just more people devoted to finding holes in firefox and fixing them up. I lol'ed at "MS quick at releasing patches". Because you never heard the news doesn't mean they don't exist, there have been widespread reports/articles about corporates/personnel warning MS of holes and MS releasing a patch after 3 months only after the hole has been explioted and was deemed a significant security risk.

 

edit: don't take me as a ms-basher. I use windows myself.

[Dak]

That is a huge problem with FireFox. I know tons of web sites that use Active-X. Many company databases that keep track of customer information online use Active-X. Now, how come everyone here seems to think it is ok for FireFox to get away with not being compatible with Active-X? However, everyone goes crazy over the fact that IE isn't compatible with things that most people have never heard of?

 

Its not a problem, its a feature

 

Seriously, the difference between FF not supporting active-x and IE not complying with w3c standards is that theres a perfectly valid reason for FF not to support active-xs, and that is one of security: active-xs just allow too great privelages to downloaded programs... they make it easy to become infected, and amplify the severity of any security holes in the browser.

 

Dont get me wrong, I agree that its a pro/con type thing; on the one hand, you gain extra security (especially for the "oooooooooooooooh, a button has just popped up, what does it do clicketty-clicky" type user), but on the other hand you loose, well, the ability to use active-xs and any websites that rely on them.

 

But, like i said, theres a valid reason to not use active-x.

 

IE, afaik, has no valid reason to refuse to adopt the w3c conventions.

 

btw:

 

Many company databases that keep track of customer information online use Active-X

 

Arent you thinking of cookies? I wasnt aware that active-x was commonly used for that purpose (at least, not legitimately).

 

[edit]sorry, the previouse two posts werent there when i started typing [/edit]

[ydoaPs]

Why did you feel the need to start talking about operating systems? It seems like you start talking about Linux vs Windows in every computer thread!

 

 

 

STOP TALKING ABOUT OPERATING SYSTEMS!!!!!!!

guess what, herme3. it is quite obvious those weren't about OSs.

[Klaynos]

Exactly. Who cares about the standards when designing a web site? Web site designers only need to make sure that their visitors can see their web site. Just make sure that IE users can see your site. Then if someone can't see your site' date=' it is their responsibility to open IE because it should still be on their computer even after they install another browser.[/quote']

 

This is a STUPID and neive view. It is impossible for me to open IE.

 

All the professional web designers and programmers I know (around 20 - 30 of them from a couple companies I've had dealings with over the years) would just laugh at you for suggesting that standards are not imporant.

 

Standards accross everything in my opnion are important. What if you bought a CD that wouldn't play in your CD player as it didn't confrom to the redbook standard?

 

No. IE comes with Windows' date=' but it isn't part of Windows. You can also install IE on a MAC computer.

[/quote']

 

IE as I understand it is an INTEGRATED part of the windows system now adays.

 

I'm sure that FireFox has more than three holes. There are just more people looking for holes in IE. The FireFox holes have yet to be discovered. Also' date=' Microsoft seems quick at releasing patches. I've never heard the news say there is a security hole in IE without saying there is a patch available.[/quote']

 

MS are NOT quick in releasing patches please see the website I've shown you before from a security company who monitor both IE and FF, please note the number of unpatched security issues with IE.

 

http://secunia.com/graph/?type=sol&period=2005∏=11

 

http://secunia.com/graph/?type=sol&period=2005∏=4227

 

This graphs are for stastics for 2005.

 

There are large numbers of people working around the world for both. These are statistics for patches for KNOWN security bugs.

 

Any chance we can get back to anticipation for IE 7, or lack of it I genuinly hope they deal with at least some of the issues and from what I've seen it's not much closer than IE 6

[Pangloss]

I agree with Aeternus's post above.

[herme3]

Have you tried uninstalling IE? Its no small feat.

 

Why would you uninstall IE? There is no point. It won't cause any trouble with other browsers.

 

the point is there are some really cool things that web developers could do with CSS2 and CSS3 if IE would just fully support CSS2 properly and start work on CSS3, pages could be much more rich and much more customisable.

 

Just to remind you that IE was the first browser to support CSS:

 

2000-03-27 Microsoft shipped Internet Explorer 5 for the Macintosh. It apparently supports full CSS1, the first browser to do so.

 

2001-12-19 Microsoft released Internet Explorer for the Mac 5.1, with bug fixes and improved performance. Supports full CSS1 and partial CSS2. (Mac IE 5 was the first browser to reach better than 99% support for CSS1, in March 2000.)

 

How come nobody is pointing out the fact that IE had support for some things before the other browsers?

 

That kind of attitude isn't very helpful. Standards are there to discourage sloppy coding and encouraging productivity. You can do wonderful stuff in CSS, which would look absolutely ugly in IE which then requires a hack to make it look decent in IE, which is a big headache for web devs.

 

I am a web site developer and I can make a very nice looking site that works fine with IE. What exactly can you do with FireFox that you can't do with IE?

 

guess what, herme3. it is quite obvious those weren't about OSs.

 

You made a post that just talked about Vista charging money about updates:

 

he is wanting to make us pay for updates once Vista comes out

 

That was your entire post. It had absolutely nothing to do with the topic. You never used it as an example to say anything about browsers. You just wanted to start another argument about operating systems.

 

Any chance we can get back to anticipation for IE 7, or lack of it

 

I agree. Microsoft already said they will be making major security updates for IE7. So, how can anyone say it will have the same security problems as IE6? Everyone that's used IE7 used a BETA version. It is incomplete and doesn't have all the security protection. That is why is has the same security holes as IE6. Of course, many security holes in IE6 can be fixed by downloading updates. If you have Windows, just install Service Pack 2.

[ydoaPs]

You made a post that just talked about Vista charging money about updates:

 

 

 

That was your entire post. It had absolutely nothing to do with the topic. You never used it as an example to say anything about browsers. You just wanted to start another argument about operating systems.

try looking at context before making accusations.

[Aeternus]

 

Have you tried uninstalling IE? Its no small feat.

 

Why would you uninstall IE? There is no point. It won't cause any trouble with other browsers.

 

the point is there are some really cool things that web developers could do with CSS2 and CSS3 if IE would just fully support CSS2 properly and start work on CSS3' date=' pages could be much more rich and much more customisable.

[/quote']

 

 

Just to remind you that IE was the first browser to support CSS:

 

2000-03-27 Microsoft shipped Internet Explorer 5 for the Macintosh. It apparently supports full CSS1' date=' the first browser to do so.[/quote']

 

 

2001-12-19 Microsoft released Internet Explorer for the Mac 5.1' date=' with bug fixes and improved performance. Supports full CSS1 and partial CSS2. (Mac IE 5 was the first browser to reach better than 99% support for CSS1, in March 2000.)[/quote']

 

 

How come nobody is pointing out the fact that IE had support for some things before the other browsers?

 

Simply because it doesnt matter. Who really cares who was the first to implement something that is now in every browser under the sun. Fair enough, give them their credit and move on. The point is there are lots of features now that Internet Explorer doesnt have and other browsers have got the head start on IE. It's like an old man saying "back in the day", its no longer "the day". The point is, IE offered CSS1 support and then decided it was ok to stop for several years, only offering partial CSS2 support in the mean time. In those years other browsers have caught up and exceeded its support for features. This is why many of us are looking with hope at IE7, longing for it to show us something new.

 

That kind of attitude isn't very helpful. Standards are there to discourage sloppy coding and encouraging productivity. You can do wonderful stuff in CSS' date=' which would look absolutely ugly in IE which then requires a hack to make it look decent in IE, which is a big headache for web devs.[/quote']

 

 

I am a web site developer and I can make a very nice looking site that works fine with IE. What exactly can you do with FireFox that you can't do with IE?

 

You may be able to create a nice looking site but that doesn't mean your site mightn't look better or mightn't work better if you had the full use of CSS2 or partial use of CSS3 features.

 

Wiki on IE's problem with Standards

Article discussing the Problems with IE5's CSS and image support (which is relevant as alot hasnt changed (such as the problems with PNG's and alpha channel transparencies))

Article comparing various features available in different browsers

Article showing various browsers compatibility with CSS3 (the features of which can be very useful as you can be alot more general or alot more specific with your styles for different elements and can select whole ranges of elements based on patterns or what an element type contains etc)

Article showing what CSS features certain browsers do and don't have (this doesnt include Firefox but does include Opera)

 

So one can use transparent png images that are of a far higher quality than GIF's, one can use things like :before and :after in CSS in other browsers which can make use of a stylesheet much easier when dynamic data is concerned (ie you dont know exactly what will be after an element), you can use the XMLHttpRequest object without fear that the user has quite reasonably disabled ActiveX due to security, you can use a variety of selectors in CSS based on tag properties which can be very helpful when writing JS applications as you can simply set an artitrary property and link a style to that property and its value in the stylesheet allowing your JS component to play nicely with others without having to overwrite the class property etc.... (*... takes a breath ....*)

 

Charts showing CSS Compatibility in a nicely laid out manner (Trident is IE's rendering engine)

 

Simply because you don't use a feature on your site, doesn't mean others don't and there are plenty of features in CSS2/CSS3 that I personally would love to see that allow for some really cool things to be done.

 

Sorry to turn that into a rant against IE6 but it does apply to IE7 in that these are things that it would be nice for IE7 to accomodate. The fact that IE6 doesn't support these features and that other browsers do is evidence that in terms of features IE is lagging behind and these are the reasons I use a different browser and the things I would like to see in IE7, that would give me good reason to begin using IE again.

 

Now back to pure IE7, found a nice little blog here listing some of the bugs theyll be fixing in IE7 and some of the new features. It's nice to see they are fixing these things and adding support for some of the things mentioned, brings a little hope .

[calbiterol]

First, http://www.firefox.com has official information on the coming of FireFox 2.

 

Now, onto my reason for posting:

Just to remind you that IE was the first browser to support CSS:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/

2000-03-27 Microsoft shipped Internet Explorer 5 for the Macintosh. It apparently supports full CSS1' date=' the first browser to do so.[/size']

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/

2001-12-19 Microsoft released Internet Explorer for the Mac 5.1, with bug fixes and improved performance. Supports full CSS1 and partial CSS2. (Mac IE 5 was the first browser to reach better than 99% support for CSS1, in March 2000.)

 

How come nobody is pointing out the fact that IE had support for some things before the other browsers?

 

Here, I have to put down my resignations and throw in a few words. Note that this is IE for MAC, which is vastly different from IE for windows. VASTLY different. If you follow your own links/research through, you will find this article, which is the w3.org's data source, which states:

 

Welcome to the CSS1 Leader Board, a score-based summary of the CSS1 Master Support Chart. The top-scoring browser is highlighted with a yellow background and a boldfaced score. Any browser which scores above 90% in one of the two categories is highlighted with a light yellow background. NOTE: The values on this chart are weighted. Please see the detailed explanation below for more information.

 

Windows95/98/NTMacintoshNotes Navigator 4 33.2% / 19.6% 33.1% / 15.2%

Navigator 6 98.5% / 93.5% 98.5% / 93.5%

Explorer 3 20.9% / 15.9% 10.1% / 8.0%

Explorer 4 69.0% / 66.3% 76.4% / 69.2% Mac column refers to IE4.5 Explorer 5 72.4% / 68.5% 99.4% / 98.9% (1)

Explorer 5.5 92.5% / 88.4% --

Opera 3 84.4% / 80.4% -- Refers to version 3.6 Opera 4 96.7% / 89.5% --

Opera 5 98.9% / 95.7% --

(1) In fact, IE5/Mac should be closer to 100 percent in both categories. Its rating is due to one "quirk" for float, related to some obscure bugs in its float code; and for the "P" and "N" found in text-decoration with regards to blink. Since blinking is not required in CSS1, IE5/Mac should not be penalized for this. However, since the rest of the numbers were calculated as though blinking were required, IE5/Mac is rated in the same way.

 

Explanation

 

Here's how the numbers break down: the first value gives the percentage of property/value combinations (and so forth) which are supported by that browser, as a percentage of all the features which we track, as listed in the Guide's Master Support Chart. The second number shows the number of properties, pseudo-classes, and other CSS1 features which are fully supported. So, for example, if a browser supports all values of vertical-align, it counts toward the second percentage, but every supported value of that property counts toward the first. The first number is thus a better indication of overall support, while the second is a good measure of how far the developers have gotten in implementing the CSS1 specification.

 

Figure 1. Y2 Q1.5 P1 N0 B-1 In order to improve the accuracy of the Leader Board, a weighting system has been adopted. The weighting of the rankings on the Master Support Chart uses a point system. The points given for each ranking are as shown in Figure 1. The use of such a system, it is hoped, provides a much more accurate picture of CSS1 support among current browsers.

 

The weighting system has been altered as of the 29 November 2000 update. In the past, bugs were given a weight of -0.5; they are now weighted as -1. The reason for this change is the debut of several browsers which support practically all of CSS1 with few or no bugs. In such an environment, bugs are less tolerable than they might have been previously, and so they are penalized more severely.

 

Whether or not you read through the entire article, you have to remember a few things. First, be consistent. Firefox isn't even on this list. That's because it wasn't around then. IE, on the other hand, had been around for quite some time. AFAIK, FireFox 1.0 supported CSS1 just as well, if not better than, any of the browsers on the chart. That is a huge time difference. CSS1 standards were around for a chunk of time before IE supported them, FireFox supported CSS1 and parts of CSS2 from the beginning. And again, being consistent, you must be consistent with the OS you are referring to. IE on Mac is arguably better security-wise just because it's on a Mac, but that is bringing in the OS argument, which I refuse to do. On the subject of CSS1 support, look at the chart. For windows, Opera v4 and v5 and Navigator 6 all have more support than IE5.5 for windows. And the difference in support between IE5(mac) and it's closest contender, Opera 5, is only one half of one percent. In my opinion, that is too close to base an entire argument upon.

 

 

Sorry about the length.

[bloodhound]

Why would you uninstall IE? There is no point. It won't cause any trouble with other browsers.

 

 

 

Just to remind you that IE was the first browser to support CSS:

 

 

 

 

 

How come nobody is pointing out the fact that IE had support for some things before the other browsers?

 

 

 

I am a web site developer and I can make a very nice looking site that works fine with IE. What exactly can you do with FireFox that you can't do with IE?

 

 

 

You made a post that just talked about Vista charging money about updates:

 

 

 

That was your entire post. It had absolutely nothing to do with the topic. You never used it as an example to say anything about browsers. You just wanted to start another argument about operating systems.

 

 

 

I agree. Microsoft already said they will be making major security updates for IE7. So' date=' how can anyone say it will have the same security problems as IE6? Everyone that's used IE7 used a BETA version. It is incomplete and doesn't have all the security protection. That is why is has the same security holes as IE6. Of course, many security holes in IE6 can be fixed by downloading updates. If you have Windows, just install Service Pack 2.[/quote']

 

 

Sure IE was first to implement some stuff, but past is past, you wont move forward just by looking at the past. but that's like being a sore loser. you can't deny IE is lagging behind other browsers when it comes to support of standards at the moment.

 

If you wanna compare the inability of IE to render properly go to this site

http://www.yesy-fansubs.com/site/

with both firefox and IE, and look at the differences. Especially the pop ups on "info" and "download" which were done in css and whose support IE lacks.

 

for example you can create lovely drop down menus using purely css

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/horizdropdowns/

but then you will have to apply a fix to make sure it works in IE just cos it lacks support.

[Lance]

Why would you uninstall IE? There is no point. It won't cause any trouble with other browsers.

 

Oh I see, so you're saying I shouldn't have control over my computer as long as its good software. Maybe we shouldn't really have control of our lives either. As long as the person who controls my life does a good job who cares.

 

Why I'm at it why don't I go down and enroll at the local prison. As long as the cook does a good job keeping me fed they can keep me there against my will too.