New Internet Explorer

[Pangloss]

I guess that's why I have so many problems with Dreamweaver (I have MX, not MX 2004) when I output pages. They always look great when I view them in IE, but I have a lot of problems with overlapping or underlapping areas with Moz/FF. Macromedia must have set it up specifically so that it matches IE's compatibility "bugs". Sucks, but I guess I can understand why thy did that.

 

If I did more web work, I'd probably take the time to make my pages more compatible. It really irks me when I see my own web sites format incorrectly in Moz.

 

Bleh.

[Klaynos]

I guess that's why I have so many problems with Dreamweaver (I have MX' date=' not MX 2004) when I output pages. They always look great when I view them in IE, but I have a lot of problems with overlapping or underlapping areas with Moz/FF. Macromedia must have set it up specifically so that it matches IE's compatibility "bugs". Sucks, but I guess I can understand why thy did that.

 

If I did more web work, I'd probably take the time to make my pages more compatible. It really irks me when I see my own web sites format incorrectly in Moz.

 

Bleh.[/quote']

 

 

It used to be the other way around

 

take a look at nvu... http://nvu.com/

 

dreamweaver actually used to have a special function to unbreak all the broken html front page outputs </off topic>

[herme3]

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.

 

Stop worrying about standards that don't mean anything. Any group of people can get together and pretend they live in a fantasy world and they can make life perfect. The truth is that standards don't mean anything on the Internet. They don't mean anything to web site users because most web sites don't contain elements that don't work with IE. They don't mean anything to web site developers because most users couldn't access elements that don't work with IE. If anybody creates standards, it needs to be Microsoft and only Microsoft. Then they can make sure their standards are compatible with what most people are using.

 

Oh I see' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Ok... Why do you seem to think that IE is controlling your life?

 

Don't enroll in the local prison. Just try going to a mental hospital and tell them that your web browser is controlling your life. They will know what to do, but you might not like it.

 

I guess that's why I have so many problems with Dreamweaver (I have MX' date=' not MX 2004) when I output pages. They always look great when I view them in IE, but I have a lot of problems with overlapping or underlapping areas with Moz/FF. Macromedia must have set it up specifically so that it matches IE's compatibility "bugs". Sucks, but I guess I can understand why thy did that.

 

If I did more web work, I'd probably take the time to make my pages more compatible. It really irks me when I see my own web sites format incorrectly in Moz.[/quote']

 

This is exactly why I use IE. Another browser doesn't seem to be compatible with some web sites, which completely makes it useless as a web browser. They need to stop worrying about these standards, and just make sure it is compatible with the Internet!

[Rakdos]

Ok... Why do you seem to think that IE is controlling your life?

 

Don't enroll in the local prison. Just try going to a mental hospital and tell them that your web browser is controlling your life. They will know what to do' date=' but you might not like it. [/quote']

 

 

What Lance meant was you cannot use Windows with out using IE (the file explorer is IE an many Educated people on this forum will agree with me on)

[herme3]

What Lance meant was you cannot use Windows with out using IE (the file explorer is IE an many Educated[/b'] people on this forum will agree with me on)

 

Explorer isn't IE. IE is C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\IEXPLORE.EXE and you can prove it by clicking on the file from My Computer. When you click on it, it opens IE.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Stop worrying about standards that don't mean anything. Any group of people can get together and pretend they live in a fantasy world and they can make life perfect. The truth is that standards don't mean anything on the Internet. They don't mean anything to web site users because most web sites don't contain elements that don't work with IE. They don't mean anything to web site developers because most users couldn't access elements that don't work with IE. If anybody creates standards, it needs to be Microsoft and only Microsoft. Then they can make sure their standards are compatible with what most people are using.

Microsoft IS PART OF THE STANDARDS-CREATING GROUP, you idiot. *

 

Ok... Why do you seem to think that IE is controlling your life?

No, it's just that IE is so integrated with the OS that its security holes all affect the OS, even if you don't use IE.

 

This is exactly why I use IE. Another browser doesn't seem to be compatible with some web sites, which completely makes it useless as a web browser. They need to stop worrying about these standards, and just make sure it is compatible with the Internet!

How do you make it compatible without making a standard for all web pages to be built by?

 

 

*You deserved it. Sorry.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Explorer isn't IE. IE is C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\IEXPLORE.EXE and you can prove it by clicking on the file from My Computer. When you click on it, it opens IE.

It's the same basic program with the same basic holes, just modified to do files instead of internet.

[Dak]

Stop worrying about standards that don't mean anything. Any group of people can get together and pretend they live in a fantasy world and they can make life perfect.

 

oooooooooooooooooooookay...

 

Imagine it like this. In america, it is a convention that everyone drives on the right, and stops at red lights.

 

Imagine a bus company who employ people who drive on the left and go through red lights, but stop on green lights.

 

What happens then? well, it becomes difficult to design descent road systems that will be compatible with cars and the busses, due to the fact that everyone will be doing a slightly different thing.

 

and so, conventions are adopted. and obeyed. and roads are designed with the assumption that everyone will follow these conventions, and the conventions are designed to facilitate the job of both the road desighners and the people who will use them, ie the drivers. and everyone drives on the right and everything works fine.

 

its like that with the w3c. conventions are defined, and then websites can be designed with these conventions in mind -- with the assumption that any users will 'drive on the right' and 'stop at red lights', so to speak, which gives web designers the possibility of desighning web sites that will actually be usable by everyone.

 

Then, microsoft comes along driving on the left and running red lights, and every thing stops working.

 

and the annoying thing is that microsoft actually thought that universally recognised conventions were a good enough idea that they actually agreed to abide by the w3c conventions, but then didnt.

 

Its really, really not that hard a job to see where we are coming from when we critisise IE for non-compliance with the standards.

 

The truth is that standards don't mean anything on the Internet. They don't mean anything to web site users because most web sites don't contain elements that don't work with IE. They don't mean anything to web site developers because most users couldn't access elements that don't work with IE. If anybody creates standards, it needs to be Microsoft and only Microsoft. Then they can make sure their standards are compatible with what most people are using.

 

no. microsoft only know whats best for microsoft. in theory, the w3c, being a collection of different people with interests in the web, should know whats best for everyone.

 

i doubt it works that perfectly, but its better than letting microsoft have the sole voice.

 

This is exactly why I use IE. Another browser doesn't seem to be compatible with some web sites, which completely makes it useless as a web browser. They need to stop worrying about these standards, and just make sure it is compatible with the Internet!

 

You know, if IE had actually adopted w3c standard (like they said they would), then 'web-site compatability' wouldnt be half as big an issue as it is. due to the fact that universal standards would probably exist.

[Dak]

Explorer isn't IE. IE is C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\IEXPLORE.EXE and you can prove it by clicking on the file from My Computer. When you click on it, it opens IE.

 

1/ there are many other valid locations for Iexplore.exe

 

2/ i believe the exact reason that ie cant be removed is that it is too closely integrated with the graphical user interfase for the windows operating system (ie windows explorer)*.

 

the reason this pisses people off is quite simply that it forses you to keep a program -- and its security flaws -- on your system even if you dont use it.

 

*might be wrong, but i think its something along these lines.

[calbiterol]

If anybody creates standards, it needs to be Microsoft and only Microsoft. Then they can make sure their standards are compatible with what most people are using.

Sometimes when I feel like killing someone, I do a little trick to calm myself down. I'll go over to the persons house and ring the doorbell. When the person comes to the door, I'm gone, but you know what I've left on the porch? A jack-o-lantern with a knife stuck in the side of it's head with a note that says "You." After that I usually feel a lot better, and no harm done.

 

You get the idea.

 

Ok... Why do you seem to think that IE is controlling your life?

 

It was a metaphor. A comparison. A good one, too.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You get the idea.

Ten points for calbiterol.

 

Herme3 seems to be of the ideology that "if everyone does it, even if it's not by the rules/standards/whatever, then the standards should be changed." Same as "everyone does heroin, even if it's against the law, so the law should be changed so it's legal."

[herme3]

How do you make it compatible without making a standard for all web pages to be built by?

 

The standards need to be for the largest group of Internet users, not the 10% that use something other than IE.

 

Imagine it like this. In america' date=' it is a convention that everyone drives on the right, and stops at red lights.

 

Imagine a bus company who employ people who drive on the left and go through red lights, but stop on green lights.

 

What happens then? well, it becomes difficult to design descent road systems that will be compatible with cars and the busses, due to the fact that everyone will be doing a slightly different thing.

 

and so, conventions are adopted. and obeyed. and roads are designed with the assumption that everyone will follow these conventions, and the conventions are designed to facilitate the job of both the road desighners and the people who will use them, ie the drivers. and everyone drives on the right and everything works fine.

 

its like that with the w3c. conventions are defined, and then websites can be designed with these conventions in mind -- with the assumption that any users will 'drive on the right' and 'stop at red lights', so to speak, which gives web designers the possibility of desighning web sites that will actually be usable by everyone.

 

Then, microsoft comes along driving on the left and running red lights, and every thing stops working.[/quote']

 

In your example, IE users would be the people that are driving on the right and stopping for red lights. The few people that are running red lights and driving on the wrong side of the road would be the small amount of people that use something else. Nobody can deny that IE users are the majority of people that use the Internet.

 

erme3 seems to be of the ideology that "if everyone does it, even if it's not by the rules/standards/whatever, then the standards should be changed."

 

The Internet standards have absolutely no authority. They were supposed to be created to help the majority of Internet users. They might have been created to work with Netscape, which was the main browser a long time ago. Now IE is the main browser, so the standards need to be changed.

[Pangloss]

I disagree. Standards are a very good idea. I may be cynical about how how real people in the real world decide to impose standards, and about how people come to the decision that it's time for standards, but in the end, the creation of standards is a very good thing.

[calbiterol]

The standards need to be for the largest group of Internet users' date=' not the 10% that use something other than IE.

[/quote']

This is less than half of the non-ie market share.

 

In your example, IE users would be the people that are driving on the right and stopping for red lights. The few people that are running red lights and driving on the wrong side of the road would be the small amount of people that use something else. Nobody can deny that IE users are the majority of people that use the Internet.

Wrong. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with IE users! This has to do with BROWSERS. Forgive me if I sound mad. I'm really tired right now, and I do not feel the need to hide my anger at your ignorance. Yeah yeah yeah go whine about it.

 

IE is ONE browser. There are many, many browsers in existance. IE is the one browser on the left. ALL of the others, except the older versions, are the ones on the right side of the road.

 

And, as for the the majority of internet users using the IE browser,

"The truth is not always the same as the majority decision."

-Pope Jean Paul

 

The Internet standards have absolutely no authority.

This is total bull. The standards are not enforced as well as they should be because web designers, on the whole, are not jerks. If they weren't so nice, almost all of the websites out there would conform to the standards, and they wouldn't be viewable in IE. Everything else, however, would display them perfectly. And so, people would stop using IE, and that would force m$ to shape up, at least with IE.

 

They were supposed to be created to help the majority of Internet users.

They were. And all of the web designers. And everyone with any kind of interface with the 'net at all. Not "were supposed to," but were. And they did, for those who comply to the standards. Yes, the very same standards that m$ AGREED TO ABIDE BY, which they now COMPLETELY IGNORE.

 

They might have been created to work with Netscape, which was the main browser a long time ago.

Might have means nothing; this is speculation. Come back when you have your facts straight. Then we can talk business. Oh, and this is archaic. We aren't talking about 5 years ago. We are talking about today, here and now. The W3C standards are dynamic. They get updated frequently to accomodate issues, unlike m$ products.

 

Now IE is the main browser, so the standards need to be changed.

You know, if you had a nuclear weapon in your posession, I might be more inclined to listen to you. I can declare myself the riteous emporer of Earth if I so desire, and demand that the "standards," otherwise known as order and law, be changed. Is this a very likely thing to occur? NO. Neither are the w3c standards being changed because ONE browser does not comply after EXPLICITLY, UNCONDITIONALLY agreeing to abide by them. What you are saying is like the b@stards here in America who think that, because we are the "chosen nation," we can nuke the entire middle east, as well as anyone that doesn't agree with us, and that's okay, because hey, we're the almighty U.S. of A. That's bull. So is what you're saying should be done.

 

Like I said, sorry for the snappyness, but it needed to be said by someone.

[Dak]

In your example, IE users would be the people that are driving on the right and stopping for red lights. The few people that are running red lights and driving on the wrong side of the road would be the small amount of people that use something else. Nobody can deny that IE users are the majority of people that use the Internet.

 

No. MS agreed to abide by the standards, which are there for the convinience of all. then they didnt abide by them. thusly, IE is more like the driving-on-the-left people.

 

I feel its thoroughly rediculouse that someone who can barely wright HTML (me) has a better grasp on this than someone who is a web-master (you)

[herme3]

IE is ONE browser. There are many, many browsers in existance. IE is the one browser on the left. ALL of the others, except the older versions, are the ones on the right side of the road.

 

That does not matter. A browser isn't important if only a few people use it. Imagine a giant monster-truck chained to about 10 little go-carts. The monster-truck will win against all the go-carts in a game of tug-of-war.

 

This is total bull. The standards are not enforced as well as they should be because web designers, on the whole, are not jerks. If they weren't so nice, almost all of the websites out there would conform to the standards, and they wouldn't be viewable in IE. Everything else, however, would display them perfectly. And so, people would stop using IE, and that would force m$ to shape up, at least with IE.

 

The web designers aren't trying to be nice, they are being smart. Why lose most of their visitors so they can follow some standards that work with about 10% of browsers?

 

W3C standards are dynamic. They get updated frequently to accomodate issues, unlike m$ products.

 

They certainly did a bad job accommodating the issue that their standards aren't compatible with the browser that most people use!

 

Microsoft invented Internet Explorer. Now most people have chosen to use it. Why would a web designer drop IE compatibility just for the standards that only a few people think are important?

 

 

I can declare myself the riteous emporer of Earth if I so desire, and demand that the "standards," otherwise known as order and law, be changed. Is this a very likely thing to occur? NO. Neither are the w3c standards being changed because ONE browser does not comply after EXPLICITLY, UNCONDITIONALLY agreeing to abide by them.

 

It doesn't matter that IE is one browser. The important fact is the number of users that have it. Why can't you understand this? A web site designer can look at his statistics and say, "Ok, 85% of my visitors are using Internet Explorer. Now, 5% is using FireFox. Another 5% is using Netscape. 2.5% is using Safari. The other 2.5% is using SuperBrowser." If Internet Explorer does everything one way, and the rest of the browsers do things another way, the web site designer needs to be more concerned about how Internet Explorer does things. This is because most of his visitors are using Internet Explorer.

 

No. MS agreed to abide by the standards' date=' which are there for the convinience of all. then they didnt abide by them. thusly, IE is more like the driving-on-the-left people.

 

I feel its thoroughly rediculouse that someone who can barely wright HTML (me) has a better grasp on this than someone who is a web-master (you)[/quote']

 

It doesn't matter that MS broke their promise. The fact that IE doesn't work with the standards says that the standards need to be rewritten for Microsoft.

 

Everyone elected Microsoft as the King of the Internet, and possibly the entire computer industry. Everyone made their votes when they bought Windows.

[ydoaPs]

The web designers aren't trying to be nice' date=' they are being smart. Why lose most of their visitors so they can follow some standards that work with about 10% of browsers?

 

It doesn't matter that IE is one browser. The important fact is the number of users that have it. Why can't you understand this? A web site designer can look at his statistics and say, "Ok, 85% of my visitors are using Internet Explorer. Now, 5% is using FireFox. Another 5% is using Netscape. 2.5% is using Safari. The other 2.5% is using SuperBrowser." If Internet Explorer does everything one way, and the rest of the browsers do things another way, the web site designer needs to be more concerned about how Internet Explorer does things. This is because most of his visitors are using Internet Explorer.[/quote']

73.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot

[Pangloss]

73.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot

 

You made that up!

[herme3]

73.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot

 

IE still has more users than all of the other browsers combined! Look at these stats from a few of the web sites that I manage. These are all real stats, and they were taken from a variety of web sites that I own. I own many web sites, and I'm a professional web site designer. These stats show an Internet marketing site, a poetry site, a ghost picture web site, a baseball web site, and my web site design company's site. Therefore, these stats should give you a good idea of the browsers that all different types of people are using.

 

[calbiterol]

That does not matter. A browser isn't important if only a few people use it. Imagine a giant monster-truck chained to about 10 little go-carts. The monster-truck will win against all the go-carts in a game of tug-of-war.

More than 80 million people is just a few?

 

The web designers aren't trying to be nice, they are being smart. Why lose most of their visitors so they can follow some standards that work with about 10% of browsers?

Of all of the current browser versions, very few do not comply with the w3c standards. In reality, more like 80% or 90% of the browsers work with the standards. There is no other way around. Standards do not work with browsers. Browsers either abide by the standards or they don't. Either there is order or there isn't. Yes, they are being smart, but coming from a web designer's point of view, I use php to write a separate, downgraded (read: looks a lot worse) version of all of my sites for IE, specifically because it does not support standards and functionality that almost all other browsers do. This is what I mean by being nice - they make the sites equal. I, on the other hand, side with the w3c, and don't make it equal for browsers whose makers are self-riteous enough to ignore standards.

 

They certainly did a bad job accommodating the issue that their standards aren't compatible with the browser that most people use!

STANDARDS DO NOT ACCOMODATE FOR BROWSERS! BROWSERS ACCOMODATE FOR STANDARDS! ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY HAVE PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO DO SO! How many times must we repeat this for you to accumulate understanding through your pachydermic skull?

 

Microsoft invented Internet Explorer. Now most people have chosen to use it. Why would a web designer drop IE compatibility just for the standards that only a few people think are important?

I would be willing to put money on my VERY firm belief that the one and only reason this is the case is because IE ships with windows. If IE did not ship with windows (and was not an integral part), then the numbers would be reversed. And as for the "few people" that think standards are important... I am afraid that you are gravely mistaken. Any and every web designer out there who has any sense of self-preservation and any idea what they are doing knows the importance of standards.

 

It doesn't matter that IE is one browser. The important fact is the number of users that have it. Why can't you understand this? A web site designer can look at his statistics and say, "Ok, 85% of my visitors are using Internet Explorer. Now, 5% is using FireFox. Another 5% is using Netscape. 2.5% is using Safari. The other 2.5% is using SuperBrowser."

I have already told you to get your facts straight. These are made-up and/or faulty statistics.

 

If Internet Explorer does everything one way, and the rest of the browsers do things another way, the web site designer needs to be more concerned about how Internet Explorer does things. This is because most of his visitors are using Internet Explorer.

I believe you mean if all of the browsers do things one way, and IE does them another, then the web designer gets very pissed at IE because more people are using IE than the other browsers. This, by the way, is NOT any kind of indicator over which browser is better.

 

It doesn't matter that MS broke their promise. The fact that IE doesn't work with the standards says that the standards need to be rewritten for Microsoft.

First, it was an agreement, not a promise. There is a large difference. And for the last time, not only did m$ agree that IE would be written around the standards (as it should be), but standards are not written to browsers. Browsers are written to standards.

 

Everyone elected Microsoft as the King of the Internet, and possibly the entire computer industry. Everyone made their votes when they bought Windows.

OI! This is horse sh!t. First, you are bringing in the OS argument, and thereby becoming a complete hypocrite. Second, OS's do NOT do the job of browsers, and OS's do NOT need to comply to w3c standards. Browsers do. There is a HUGE difference. And plenty of people do not buy windows, they buy computers which have been preloaded with windows, because they cannot buy good pc's without windows loaded unless they are buying a mac.

 

 

 

And those statistics do not represent the entirety of the web.

[Sayonara]

I visit sites all the time that won't display properly in Firefox/Mozilla. Sometimes it's not immediately obvious, because a feature may be covered up and you don't realize it, or you don't know how it's supposed to look. I really wish they'd fix that, because it's very annoying. I wish I didn't have to ever use IE at all.

That's not Firefox's "fault". It's because those sites use poorly-coded, platform-locked (and let's face it, probably only tested under one browser) CSS.

 

No browser is ever going to "work with all sites" while there are people who ignore the standards. Unless it's one built by pixies and powered by magic.

 

 

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.

That's because "regular WYSIWYG" is shite. Dreamweaver does not understand the philosophy of page design; it can only paste code in positions determined by regular expressions.

 

 

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.

And that is precisely why Microsoft's deliberate (and, annoyingly, successful) ploy to break the purpose of the standards pisses people off.

 

 

When they call me because it won't display a site correctly I look like an idiot. That totally blows chunks. There's no excuse for it.

They call you because their browser doesn't understand someone else's pants code? And that makes you feel like an idiot? How weird.

 

 

And Firefox is more secure than IE, but in large part that's because it's protected by a lower user base that makes it not worth a hacker's while to hack it. That's what makes it more secure.

I suspect that if Firefox were as insecure as IE, we'd have seen some major attacks by now. Imagine the kudos of hitting Firefox users hard.

 

Also recall that there is no shell integration with Firefox, unlike IE.

 

 

Even worse, Mozilla (I'm not sure if this applies to Firefox) was a crash maven of the very first order

I think I had a crash with the Firefox beta version once, but not a single one since 0.8.

 

 

As its popularity grows, people start to work around its "security".

Which is the nature of the arms race, not a property of the browser. Where are you going with this? You seem to be saying that people should not bother innovating.

 

 

Modern web browsers just plain suck in general. There's no point in acting like Firefox is god's gift from heaven and IE is a red-headed stepchild. I know herme3 is a Microsoft fanboy, but those of us who have to survive in the real world know that Firefox is just not a complete answer yet. I hope it will be soon, but it's not there yet.

I haven't seen anyone evangelising in this thread. Every mention of Firefox or Opera has been an illustrative comparison of IE's features with those of other browsers on the market.

 

I hope you are not going to do in this thread what you did in that Windows & Linux thread.

 

 

EVERYBODY! LISTEN TO MY NEW GREAT STANDARDS FOR COMPUTER MONITORS!

What the hell are you drivelling about?

 

The w3c is headed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee. He invented the web, in case you didn't know. If he says "this is a recommended practice", and the WW working groups agree, everyone follows suit. Everyone except Microsoft, who are leeching off the success and popularity of his creation without doing him the courtesy of treating it as the resource he intended it to be.

 

Every time you open your mouth an argument from ignorance drops out.

 

 

That is a huge problem with FireFox. I know tons of web sites that use Active-X.

Then you should be avoiding them. ActiveX was a great idea on paper, but a diabolical mess in practice. It's one big vulnerability and it's sitting in your operating system's shell - not only that, but it doesn't really serve any purpose now that its functionality can be provided more easily and more safely with different technologies. The decision to not support it by various browser's development panels is a sensible one.

 

 

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

False dilemma rubbish, and - I suspect - factually inaccurate.

"Some people don't understand what the best tool for the job is" is not a very good argument for supporting ActiveX.

 

 

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

It's not that FireFox is "not compatible", as if that's some terrible failure that keeps programmers up at night. See Aeternus's post.

 

 

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.

Yes, and they do this by adhering to interoperable standards, you flaming idiot. Do you think anyone would give a crap about W3 standards if your half-baked crackpot opinions were anywhere near approaching reality?

 

 

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.

a) It is not the responsibility of a web designer to dictate what software the end user must have installed,

b) Failure to create cross-compatible and interoperable documents is business suicide.

 

 

Browsers and operating systems are completely different things. You can install different browsers on the same operating system.

Funny you should bring this up. The inverse case is that you can install the same browser on different operating systems. Well, you can with Opera, Mozilla, Firefox etc. Microsoft only extended the reach of IE to the Mac, and even they recognised Mac IE5 was so utterly dreadful that they have halted development.

 

 

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.

Nobody said they are "the same" - they said that IE is part of the windows shell, which is a major problem and completely unnecessary (in fact it was done purely to keep IE "locked in" on OEM sales of Windows, which sparked one or two very high profile antitrust cases of which I am certain you are completely ignorant).

 

 

No. IE comes with Windows, but it isn't part of Windows.

Factually incorrect.

 

 

You can also install IE on a MAC computer.

If you did so now, it would be unsupported. Mac IE is an extinct product that had a miserable life and a painful death.

 

 

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.

Rubbish. There are as many people who'd like to see FF fall on its arse as there are Microsoft haters.

 

 

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.

You obviously don't read the news very often then.

 

 

Have you tried uninstalling IE? Its no small feat.

In fact, the "uninstall IE" function basically removes some of the shortcuts, and that's it.

 

 

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).

Anything he doesn't understand, he will ignore.

 

 

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

Whoop de doo. Learn some history instead of picking out "facts" that you think support you.

 

I might have delivered a baby once but it doesn't mean that eating children is forgivable.

 

 

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

For a start, this is largely a discussion about IE and Firefox. Now Firefox didn't exist in 2001, and had full CSS support from its birth, so your comparison is fallacious.

 

Secondly, what IE did support with regards to CSS in the past is not really relevant to what it does NOT support now. It's part of a strategy of standards-hijacking that Microsoft adopts wherever it sees a potential market. It's a brilliant business strategy, don't get me wrong, but from the point of view of web designers it is frustrating and very very damaging.

 

Thirdly, "support for some things" is hardly anything to orgasm over. NN was the first proper browser, for goodness sake, but you don't see me advocating it on that basis.

 

 

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?

Remain compliant.

 

I'd like to see some of your pages. I would bet a lot of money they don't even declare doctypes.

 

 

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

Seems to me that was a post about marketing.

 

 

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.

Yes, it's best to wait and see. I think most people here though are just saying they are preparing to be disappointed, based on past experience.

 

 

I guess that's why I have so many problems with Dreamweaver (I have MX, not MX 2004) when I output pages. They always look great when I view them in IE, but I have a lot of problems with overlapping or underlapping areas with Moz/FF. Macromedia must have set it up specifically so that it matches IE's compatibility "bugs". Sucks, but I guess I can understand why thy did that.

Despite what I said earlier, there are tweaks and settings combinations that will help - I'd recommend exploiting the knowledge on Macromedia's web site to the fullest extent as there are some great developers who post on there.

 

The bottom line though is that while standards are not supported or implemented in the same way across all platforms, software like Dreamweaver just can't cope. It's like a mother trying to control a car full of screaming children.

All the code that DW outputs needs to be checked (quick way is obviously to test the page in all major browsers, and hunt the cause of any problems), and to do that the standards and their purpose needs to be understood. That's another big problem with WYSIWYG - it creates a pool of novice output (not that I'm calling you a novice) that can be churned out rapidly with no knowledge of, or regard for, the problems it creates.

 

 

If I did more web work, I'd probably take the time to make my pages more compatible. It really irks me when I see my own web sites format incorrectly in Moz.

The great thing about writing cross-compatible, standards-compliant code is that it is a lot easier, and much faster, than most WYSIWYG. Definitely worth investing the time in researching it, even if you just dabble.

 

 

Stop worrying about standards that don't mean anything.

This is simply wrong.

 

 

The truth is that standards don't mean anything on the Internet

I think your computer's ability to use the TCP/IP protocols says otherwise.

 

 

They don't mean anything to web site users because most web sites don't contain elements that don't work with IE.

Or, to put it another way, they do mean something to most web users because they allow those users' browsers to display anything at all.

 

 

They don't mean anything to web site developers because most users couldn't access elements that don't work with IE

I suggest you check out http://www.alistapart.com - it's the design site for real web developers. Prepare to be embarrassed.

 

 

If anybody creates standards, it needs to be Microsoft and only Microsoft. Then they can make sure their standards are compatible with what most people are using.

Please justify that.

 

 

Ok... Why do you seem to think that IE is controlling your life?

That is demonstrably not what he said.

 

 

They need to stop worrying about these standards, and just make sure it is compatible with the Internet!

Statements like this make you look like you have mental problems.

 

In the first place, browsers don't show you "the internet". They show you the web, which is a super-collection of DOM-specified documents transported across the internet using specified protocols. It's that DOM and those protocols that are important in actually letting it all work, and to suggest developers "stop worrying about them" is symptomatic of a brain that is completely devoid of any comprehension of the topic.

 

Secondly, as has been pointed out to you time and time again, these browsers are not "incompatible" with the pages. They fail to render the pages correctly because the pages are written using SHIT CODE. That is not the browser's fault.

 

 

The standards need to be for the largest group of Internet users, not the 10% that use something other than IE.

Since the release of the Firefox beta, web usage figures for Internet Explorer have dropped by almost 20%.

 

If - for the sake of argument - Firefox gains the largest share of the browser breakdown, I assume you would then advocate the standards be changed again to match the Mozilla way of doing things?

 

Think carefully before you reply, for one answer makes you a hypocrite and the other makes you an idiot.

 

 

In your example, IE users would be the people that are driving on the right and stopping for red lights.

They qualifiably would not. The metaphor is about who follows established standards, not who is in the majority.

 

Listen, the fact that you do not understand the need for the standards does not mean they have no purpose, and it certainly does not mean they can be abandoned at the drop of a hat.

 

 

The Internet standards have absolutely no authority. They were supposed to be created to help the majority of Internet users.

Again, I don't know how you expect to be taken seriously when you don't even know the difference between the internet and the web. If it wasn't so depressing I would be ROFLing at you.

 

 

I feel its thoroughly rediculouse that someone who can barely wright HTML (me) has a better grasp on this than someone who is a web-master (you)

Bear in mind that any opinionated, ignorant, angsty teen Martinet can be a "webmaster".

 

 

That does not matter. A browser isn't important if only a few people use it.

Wrong, and also not for you to decide.

 

 

Imagine a giant monster-truck chained to about 10 little go-carts. The monster-truck will win against all the go-carts in a game of tug-of-war.

That's truly meaningless in this discussion.

 

 

The web designers aren't trying to be nice, they are being smart. Why lose most of their visitors so they can follow some standards that work with about 10% of browsers?

It's clear from this that you don't (a) know any real web designers, (b) take part in any web working groups, usenet discussions, or design communities, or © have any clue about current web design philosophies.

 

In short, you are talking out of your arse in the vain hope that everyone here will be more ignorant on this subject than yourself. Hard luck.

 

 

They certainly did a bad job accommodating the issue that their standards aren't compatible with the browser that most people use!

Typically the browser is specced out and designed after the recommendations of the WCAG become a standard. Recommendations, I might point out, that Microsoft themselves have a hand in discussing as part of the working groups.

 

Your grasp of cause and effect is pretty bad.

 

 

Microsoft invented Internet Explorer. Now most people have chosen to use it. Why would a web designer drop IE compatibility just for the standards that only a few people think are important?

A proper web designer wouldn't. They'd accomodate it.

 

 

Check out the web site, http://www.thebeathut.com - I built this for a friend (I realise it's not very pretty; I didn't get paid enough to do fancy graphics. But that's not important to my point).

 

This site is compatible with:

 

IE5 PC, IE6 PC, IE5 Mac, Firefox Win & Lin, Opera Win & Lin, Netscape, Mozilla Win & Lin, Links, Lynx, Konqueror, Safari.

 

It appears the same in each of those browsers, automatically scales back to accommodate smallscreen devices like PDAs and phones, supports full user control of text size, meets WAI-AAA accessibility requirements, automatically generates a printable verison of any page, collapses gracefully on lack of CSS and/or JavaScript, and collapses to anchored text on demand.

 

How did I do that? By following standards to the ****ing letter. It was easy and simple.

 

The only place where I had to differ from standards was when I employed several well-used css hacks for IE, which exist because IE is the only browser to have deliberately and nastily diverged from the standards it once embraced.

 

You're very much cheering for the wrong team here.

 

 

A web site designer can look at his statistics and say

This is a minor point in this discussion, but you need to know it: Typically, webmaster's stats cannot be relied on for that information.

 

 

If Internet Explorer does everything one way, and the rest of the browsers do things another way, the web site designer needs to be more concerned about how Internet Explorer does things.

And any designer worth their salt will, but not at the cost of abandoning standards, and not to the detriment of non-IE users.

 

 

It doesn't matter that MS broke their promise. The fact that IE doesn't work with the standards says that the standards need to be rewritten for Microsoft.

Yes it does matter, and no it does not mean that.

 

 

Everyone elected Microsoft as the King of the Internet, and possibly the entire computer industry. Everyone made their votes when they bought Windows.

Errr... no. Jesus, this is coming from someone who doesn't even know what differentiates the internet from the web.

 

One could make the argument that Microsoft was "elected king" (even though kings are not elected) of the operating system market, but the claim that this gives them any authority over a bunch of protocols that they don't own is just stupid.

 

 

a ghost picture web site

Ah yes, I forgot about that. Ha ha, "View source" coming up.

 

 

 

You have demonstrated time and again, in this thread and others, that you will evangelise about a topic despite having little or no comprehension of the topic. You are ignorant and naive, and your arguments are packed with logical fallacies.

 

I would urge you to think very carefully before replying to this thread again, because I am not going to waste my time policing all the other members just because you can't be bothered to research the very area in which you claim to have expertise.

 

If you have not already done so, please read this page from the Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Internet_Explorer

 

Also visit http://www.alistapart.com and read a cross-section of their articles and the subsequent discussions.

[Sayonara]

It has to be said, the source for gettysburg.homestead.com is not as terrible as I had feared. Most of the garbage is inserted by Homestead.

 

Some thoughts though:

 

- Remove all deprecated tags such as <font />,

- Ensure WAI accessibility checkpoints are met,

- Pull your inline styles out and take the time to create a stylesheet that does the same job. That will save you time and filesize in the long run,

- Stop using bloated colour codes,

- Use Dublin Core metadata,

- Reconsider using an image with no "alt" attribute as your only <noscript /> content.

[Klaynos]

Very well said Sayo...

 

For browser stats a better source is (hey look it's w3c again!):

 

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

[Pangloss]

I appreciate the feedback, Sayo.

 

That's not Firefox's "fault". It's because those sites use poorly-coded' date=' platform-locked (and let's face it, probably only tested under one browser) CSS.

 

[u']No browser[/u] is ever going to "work with all sites" while there are people who ignore the standards. Unless it's one built by pixies and powered by magic.

 

(chuckle) Yup, I agree. That's one of the reasons I support standards.

 

 

That's because "regular WYSIWYG" is shite. Dreamweaver does not understand the philosophy of page design; it can only paste code in positions determined by regular expressions.

 

Interesting.

 

 

They call you because their browser doesn't understand someone else's pants code? And that makes you feel like an idiot? How weird.

 

Well no, it doesn't make me feel like an idiot, it makes me look like one. (grin) I'm being a pragmatist here. (BTW, what does "pants code" mean?)

 

But just to be even more of a pragmatist for a moment, I have realized for some time now that if I'm going to do any more web work I'm going to have to either find a better tool than Dreamweaver, or work out why it wasn't fully compatible with Moz/FF. I love Moz too much to let that problem continue to slide, and since I've recommended Moz (and now FF) to customers, it's just a bad idea not to address the issue.

 

So I've found this thread to be quite helpful, even though at the moment I'm mainly focused on school work rather than web design.

 

 

I think I had a crash with the Firefox beta version once, but not a single one since 0.8.

 

Yeah I've heard a couple of people say that. I've just been really hesitating to leap from Moz to FF. I tried an EARLY FF beta and did not like it, and I really love Moz, so I've been loathe to switch. But I'll make the change eventually.

[Dak]

(BTW, what does "pants code" mean?)

 

pants, in britain, = underpants. also slang for 'not good'. hence, pants code = rubbish code.

 

nothing to do with your trousers

 

id go to the effort of making an analogy about sayos wording being inconpatably with your ability to read 'cos he didnt follow universal standards, if i thought that herme would actually make the effort to understand.