[neosapience]

Quote

Oh, and talking about whining -- I don't see you do any better. Your so called proof pro-IE are just as bad as mine against it. If you call my reasoning bad, then yours is at least equally so. But anyway, I'm through with this. I won't bother telling you why, once again.. so.. this is my last sentence here.

This just proves that you can't read.

I never said IE was BETTER than any other browser. I've said SEVERAL times - if it works for you, use it! IE works better for me than Mozilla/whatever, period.

How the heck can I offer evidence against your whining? You're whining about IE sucking because it doesn't support CSS2+? OMFG, let me alert the press, IE doesn't make your pages look as pretty as FireFox.

Is that it? Is there something else? All I want is some example of why you don't like it. I've offered many examples of why IE works for me and why other browsers don't. Show me a website, ANYTHING that makes you look like more than a whiner.

[ButlerKevinD]

Can't we all just get along???? For the love of God, can't we all just get along?!?!?!?!

[SiMoNsAyS]

@DarkPhoenix it's a language problem, my sentences are not clear or you can't understand me.
what i want to say it's clear IE sucks and microsoft it's expending more time on fixing that buggy thing of browser than improving it features. i think we all miss the point and another time i will not give any more because we touch all of them here (+/-), i'll simply recommend u all to not use IE, go out and check alternatives!! that's what i did and after tests and reviews i have selected mozilla firefox (0.9 version and beats IE in most things) as the best (without quotes ) browser. i will not critize IE because of it's microsoft origin (although i don't like microsoft to much), i'll critize it because i need to go for a windows update every 15 days and if i want to use IE i need to update it, download google toolbar, download multitab support, download a lot of tools that i don't want to and because browsing the web takes me 100 f***** mb of system resources. that's the last time i post in this thread (i think) so hope this long-posts-thread help anyone. see u all in the net and god bless us

[Denney]

On the topic of security bugs and fixes, I'm sure, no, positive, that all the other browsers would have similar bugs.

The reason you have to update IE so much is because IE is hard pressed by all the crackers to find as many exploits as possible. Why? Because IE is the web browser that Joe Blo uses. If everyone started using FireFox, I'm sure crackers could find just as many exploits.

Edit: The only reason I keep posting here is because I LOVE debates. No insults meant at anyone btw.

[animosity079]

neosapience, on Jun 23 2004, 04:16 PM, said:

DarkPhoenix -
The W3C sets self proclaimed standards. They're no different than MS. Why should the web do as the W3C says? The internet isn't a place for regulation. Do you want the government taxing the internet? Do you want uncontrolable standards?

Okay.. Don't make this into something its not. In logical argumentation, we would call what you just stated a "Straw Man." Arguing that standards in web development are necessary cannot be refuted by saying that government taxation on the Internet is wrong. We aren't arguing that Internet taxation is wrong.

Quote

If you want MS to make a better browser, Mozilla and the others need to give people a real reason to switch. Start shipping those browsers with operating systems and new computers. I'm all for competition. I'm all for getting MS to improve IE. If you spent half as much time trying to sell Mozilla as you do bashing IE, you'd find out just how hard it is to make an IDEA work.

To start, the browsers ARE shipped with operating systems and new computers. They are shipped with most Linux distros, and you can get a brand-spanking new Linux machine from Wal-Mart's website. But do you think Microsoft would let some business man buy copies of vanilla Windows, package in OpenOffice.org, and Firefox, and turn around and sell them for a profit? Hell, no. That was the whole point of the monopoly litigation. Do you think Dell is going to risk losing the rate they get from Microsoft on Windows licenses, just because they think Firefox is better? Hell, no.

Quote

Actaully, I've programmed entire sites using CSS and I've had no problems. I can design a professional site without any fancy tricks or scripting. Maybe you need to upgrade your skillz? Personally, when I visit a website, I couldn't care less what it looks like. So long as it's well designed and the layout is good, I'll like it. Eye-candy only eats up bandwidth and page space. Websites are NOT video games, so don't try to compare them.

Well, I'm glad you can dish out CSS like its no big deal. Many developers would consider creating a site that uses all CSS and no tables to be a pretty difficult task. But on the rest of your point, I agree ENTIRELY. You and I don't care about bells and whistles. As a matter of fact, I'm starting up a for-profit website as we speak, and one way that I'm striving to be competitive is to reduce overhead, and holding readers attention by providing a simple, streamlined page. But, you and I like it one way, My teenage sisters value something completely different in a web page.

Quote

people don't code for Mozilla or the W3C, they code for Internet Explorer. Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't make it wrong.

Ahh, yes. You are correct, but don't imply that your point is any more valid, simply because a majority of people other than him disagree.

Quote

If Mozilla suddenly became the dominant browser, how long would it remain secure? My guess is, not very long. It's not that other browsers are that much more secure, it's that nobody's looking for their flaws. Heck, if Firefox had been one of the first browsers, instead of IE, it wouldn't be nearly as secure as it is now.

Woah.. that is a completely baseless argument. Its an "Appeal to Consequences." You are saying that "Hey.. there are an abundance of security flaws in IE, but not as many high-profile flaws in Mozilla. It must be because IE is the market leader." Not so. You can't argue a point you can't POSSIBLY support. The fact is, Microsoft IS the market leader, and IE DOES have security problems. You can't transfer any conclusions over to Mozilla/Opera/etc. And to further refute your argument, people ARE looking for their flaws. Those people are all over the open source development community. Go to http://bugzilla.mozilla.org and click on the "view bugs already reported today." When I checked, 66 had been reported today. How can you possibly argue that nobody is looking for flaws?

Quote

If any of the newer browsers are safer, it's because they avoided Microsofts failings. Who would you rather have fixing your browser flaws - A huge, multi-billion dollar company, or Mozilla? The fact of the matter is, MS has addressed almost EVERY single security issue that IE has had.

Okay, yet another fallacy here. This is an appeal to authority. Simply because Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar corporation says NOTHING about their prudence in tracking down bugs and security flaws. Who would I rather have? Personally, I would rather have someone who cared, tracking down bugs. I'm not saying Microsoft doesn't care. I'm just saying that that is my preference. Besides, you are applying the entire wealth of Microsoft to the IE browser. Just because they have hundreds of developers, and billions of dollars does not mean that all of those resources are allocated towards making IE a better browser. And addressing "EVERY singe securtiy issue" doesn't mean a thing. That just means that known bugs are fixed. Furthermore, that is implying that other browsers just don't care about security issues in their browsers. That isn't the case either.

Quote

Poof, Mozilla is now the dominant browser. OMFG, every web developer now has to alter their websites to be compliant. Can you even imagine how much work is invloved in that? How much trouble that would cause? Change is great, but you can't just snap your finger and expect people to use your browser just because it's 'more compliant' with W3C standards. Real life is more important than ideas.

I'm not heartless. I'll tell you when I agree with something you say, and this is one of those cases. Better compliancy does not equate to a better browser for the masses. And, if your development methodology is to develop for the market share, then yes.. that is a massive task.

Quote

I'm still waiting for examples of why Mozilla/ect.. is better than IE. Anyone can talk smack, let's see some proof.

I didn't say you were wrong for using IE. And examples have been given. If you want examples of how Mozilla is better than native IE, just look at the tabbed browsing, and built in pop-up blocking and Google bar. Sure, there are probably things you can argue that set IE ahead of Mozilla, but it you wanted proof... well.. there it is. And don't cite the enhancements as a source. We are talking about the native browsers here.

Quote

You aren't changing anything by stating the obvious. It's all about competition. If you want MS to make IE better, you have to compete with them. If you don't like them, don't support them. It's hard to do, but it's the only thing that's going to work.

As I said before, Microsoft won't allow competition within the Windows arena.

Quote

Actually, I have used FireFox's, and I hate it. Bookmarks are contained in a single, NON EASY to use file. I can't browse them in explorer, I can't use my programs to parse them like an INI file, I can't apply conext menu handlers to them, I can't do ANYTHING useful with FireFox's bookmarks.

Okay, so I inserted a little editorial comment. You are right. You like what you like, I like what I like. Point taken.

Quote

I hate to tell you this, but Linux has many major security flaws, as well as OSX.

This is true, but your statement doesn't lend any credibility to your argument. The facts are 1.) There are tens of thousands, if not more, viruses/trojans/etc for Windows. 2.) According to the CEO of a top Linux antivirus company, there are less than 100 known viruses for Linux. So, inarguably there are more security issues with Windows. You can't claim that its because Microsoft is more popular. That point isn't supportable. Maybe thats the case, but maybe Linux is just more secure. Or, maybe people don't want to write viruses for Linux. Or maybe its weather patterns.. who knows?

Quote

Personally, I use OpenOffice.org and The Gimp, mainly because they're free. MSoffice and Photoshop are for professionals, I don't run an office or create graphics for a living. I've tested (and continue to test) THOUSANDS of programs. I ran a free software site for years and I'm all for alternative programs. I've said it once and I'll say it again - If you find that a program works better for you, USE IT. Personally, I find IE and Windows to work better for me than anything else.

Bravo. I applaud that. I agree that software choices are wholly personal.

Quote

The problem with MS is that people need someone to hate. There's ALWAYS some company or some organization that doesn't do what we want. Even if IE was 99% as good as the other browsers, people would complain about that 1%, just because they like to complain.

True, but don't imply that its Microsoft's clout that is making them the scapegoat. It could be anything.

Quote

I'm done arguing about this. If you don't agree with me, I really don't care. Unless you can provide me with some evidence to support your complaints, I'll pass you off as a whiner.

AAAAHHH!!! Now, pay attention!! This is where I really have a problem. This is exactly why we need to argue. Its the best thing we can possibly do. The Internet has a memory. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but someday some Microsoft exec or some Mozilla programmer may read this post, and get some good ideas on how to advance the industry. We need to saturate the Internet with discussions like this to let the people who develop our software know that we aren't content. They will realize what we are complaining about, and we'll find new things to complain about. Its natural, and its necessary.

[animosity079]

I thought I had something else to say... guess not.

[neosapience]

Quote

Okay.. Don't make this into something its not. In logical argumentation, we would call what you just stated a "Straw Man." Arguing that standards in web development are necessary cannot be refuted by saying that government taxation on the Internet is wrong. We aren't arguing that Internet taxation is wrong.

It was more of an analogistic statement. My points was, that web standards are not something that should be regulated. Regulation leads to compliance and support of unchangeable content. What if MS had a better idea than CSS? What if Mozilla tried something new? Uh-oh, you can't do that because you wouldn't be standards compliant! You can take regulations and shove em...

Quote

To start, the browsers ARE shipped with operating systems and new computers. They are shipped with most Linux distros, and you can get a brand-spanking new Linux machine from Wal-Mart's website. But do you think Microsoft would let some business man buy copies of vanilla Windows, package in OpenOffice.org, and Firefox, and turn around and sell them for a profit? Hell, no. That was the whole point of the monopoly litigation. Do you think Dell is going to risk losing the rate they get from Microsoft on Windows licenses, just because they think Firefox is better? Hell, no.

You seem to have something backwards here. Dell regulates how much MS makes, not the other way around. If Dell doesn't distribute Windows, MS loses out, period. MS is not going to pull their OS because someone decided to put a different browser on their systems. In fact, I've seen PC distributors put several browsers on one system before. This whole issue was in court if you don't remember. Microsoft plans to pull IE altogether eventually, and use MSN explorer as it's new browser platform.

Quote

But, you and I like it one way, My teenage sisters value something completely different in a web page.

So your teenage sister visits websites just to look at the pretty site designs?

Oh, I see, you're saying that someone might go to one website over another just because it looks 'better'. Sorry, but you can't say that a site would look better to someone just because it uses CSS3 and not CSS1. Taste isn't that easy to define.

Quote

Woah.. that is a completely baseless argument. Its an "Appeal to Consequences." You are saying that "Hey.. there are an abundance of security flaws in IE, but not as many high-profile flaws in Mozilla. It must be because IE is the market leader." Not so. You can't argue a point you can't POSSIBLY support. The fact is, Microsoft IS the market leader, and IE DOES have security problems. You can't transfer any conclusions over to Mozilla/Opera/etc. And to further refute your argument, people ARE looking for their flaws. Those people are all over the open source development community. Go to http://bugzilla.mozilla.org and click on the "view bugs already reported today." When I checked, 66 had been reported today. How can you possibly argue that nobody is looking for flaws?

Ok, my statement was a bit generalized. The fact is, there are [insert bogglingly large number here] more people looking for flaws in IE than there are in any other browser. Security experts agree with me on this one - no browser is secure. Saying that any other browser is more secure than IE is just as unfounded. No browser has been hacked/scrutinized/used/abused as much as IE, how can you ignore that fact?

Personally, I can't wait for some other browser to become dominant. If not only so I can laugh at all the people that think other browsers are so secure.

Quote

I didn't say you were wrong for using IE. And examples have been given. If you want examples of how Mozilla is better than native IE, just look at the tabbed browsing, and built in pop-up blocking and Google bar. Sure, there are probably things you can argue that set IE ahead of Mozilla, but it you wanted proof... well.. there it is. And don't cite the enhancements as a source. We are talking about the native browsers here.

Actually, I was talking more about the browsers site rendering, not the UI. Personally, I love the fact that people make addons and interfaces for programs. It shows community support and allows the original programs developers the chance to focus on the program and not the fluff.

Quote

AAAAHHH!!! Now, pay attention!! This is where I really have a problem. This is exactly why we need to argue. Its the best thing we can possibly do. The Internet has a memory. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but someday some Microsoft exec or some Mozilla programmer may read this post, and get some good ideas on how to advance the industry. We need to saturate the Internet with discussions like this to let the people who develop our software know that we aren't content. They will realize what we are complaining about, and we'll find new things to complain about. Its natural, and its necessary.

I stating a simple fact - Anyone can complain. Complaints do nothing without some kind of proof showing what's wrong. I detest whining and moaning, which is why I have become so pee'd off about this post. All I ask for is some simple example of what's causing you to hate IE so much. I can understand bugs and security, but aesthetics? Please...

[animosity079]

neosapience, on Jun 23 2004, 11:35 PM, said:

I stating a simple fact - Anyone can complain. Complaints do nothing without some kind of proof showing what's wrong. I detest whining and moaning, which is why I have become so pee'd off about this post. All I ask for is some simple example of what's causing you to hate IE so much. I can understand bugs and security, but aesthetics? Please...

Alright... I do think we are getting closer to an agreement. I believe that you are an intelligent person, with a firm grasp on the IT industry. However, you aren't going to convince me, and I won't convince you, which is probably the way its supposed to be.

Quote

It was more of an analogistic statement. My points was, that web standards are not something that should be regulated. Regulation leads to compliance and support of unchangeable content. What if MS had a better idea than CSS? What if Mozilla tried something new? Uh-oh, you can't do that because you wouldn't be standards compliant! You can take regulations and shove em.

Well, cool. I appreciate your opinion on regulations, but protocols are entirely different from legal regulation.

Quote

You seem to have something backwards here. Dell regulates how much MS makes, not the other way around. If Dell doesn't distribute Windows, MS loses out, period. MS is not going to pull their OS because someone decided to put a different browser on their systems. In fact, I've seen PC distributors put several browsers on one system before.

Ehh... I see your point. And I agree to an extent. Maybe Dell was a poor example. Microsoft can leverage a company pretty hardcore. If I was assembling computers here in St. Louis, and selling them, and Microsoft found out that I was disabling IE and putting Mozilla on instead, Microsoft could EASILY come in and say.. "fine.. we'll rise your license price to $200 for not disabling IE." They would put me out of business. And I believe they would. They have bought out, and forced under so many companies its rediculous. Hell.. they went after poor Mike Rowe, guns a-blazin, for starting mikerowesoft.com. And now they are trying to patent everything under the sun. I wouldn't put it past MS to lean on a company to NOT include other browsers. Maybe they wouldn't put a company out of business. Maybe they wouldn't make the price rediculous. But, I'm guessing they would make the distributer's life a little more difficult. I'm generalizing a bit here, but I'm presenting a situation in which Microsoft could leverage a company to package their software exclusively. I know I'm trying to plea to everyone's emotion by arguing that putting companies out of business is a fault of Microsoft's, and thus they would be evil in their pricing schemes. But, I'm presenting an opinion and a hypothetical situation here.

Quote

Oh, I see, you're saying that someone might go to one website over another just because it looks 'better'. Sorry, but you can't say that a site would look better to someone just because it uses CSS3 and not CSS1. Taste isn't that easy to define.

Umm.. You are confusing my arguments with someone else's. I haven't breathed one word about CSS3 vs CSS1. People like bells and whistles like text glow. My sisters wouldn't appreciate a fast-loading slick design like I would. Thats my point. You and I would probably both hate MIDI files playing in the background, blinking text, etc. My sisters wouldn't care, as long as they got some gossip on why Mary-Kate Olsen is anorexic.

Quote

Ok, my statement was a bit generalized. The fact is, there are [insert bogglingly large number here] more people looking for flaws in IE than there are in any other browser. Security experts agree with me on this one - no browser is secure. Saying that any other browser is more secure than IE is just as unfounded. No browser has been hacked/scrutinized/used/abused as much as IE, how can you ignore that fact?

I can ignore the "fact" because its not a fact. You can't really compare the scrutiny of one browser over another (and I never claimed to. I just refuted the claim that Mozilla isn't scrutinized.) Fundamentally, IE is NOT open source. Mozilla IS. So, the process of discovering bugs is a little different, and we can't claim that one method of revealing bugs is better than the other, because we have no evidence. With Mozilla you could test compiled functionality, AND scrutinze the code. IE you can only test compiled functionality. Does the mass of people testing the compiled functionality of IE give better results? Perhaps. And perhaps not.

Quote

Personally, I can't wait for some other browser to become dominant. If not only so I can laugh at all the people that think other browsers are so secure.

On the other side, I can't wait for the same thing, so we can prove that a focused open source software project can produce a better product than a corporate funded project. But, thats all just speculation.

Quote

Actually, I was talking more about the browsers site rendering, not the UI. Personally, I love the fact that people make addons and interfaces for programs. It shows community support and allows the original programs developers the chance to focus on the program and not the fluff.

I see your point. Red is red. Blue is blue. A form field is a form field. You can't really make one render THAT much better than the other. I know that Firefox (and others) on Linux will render anti-aliased fonts, which look remarkable, but one could argue that is because its on Linux, and if IE were there, the fonts would be AA as well. So, I'm not going to argue that point.

Quote

I stating a simple fact - Anyone can complain. Complaints do nothing without some kind of proof showing what's wrong. I detest whining and moaning, which is why I have become so pee'd off about this post. All I ask for is some simple example of what's causing you to hate IE so much. I can understand bugs and security, but aesthetics? Please...

I REALLY hope you don't think I've been whining, because I haven't told anyone to consistantly use one piece of software over another (only to try others.) I hope you see that I've pointed out numerous flaws in the reasoning behind using IE. Okay, so people have argued against bugs and security. You want to know about aesthetics? Firefox is unbelievably simple to skin, and make it aesthetically pleasing to the user. Is that what you are getting after, or do you want to know about web page aesthetics? Well, if you were to view the page in Firefox on Linux, you would get antialiased fonts. Other than that, sure a text box would look like a text box. But what about the future? Alright, so thats not really an argument, but if you aren't developing for the future, the aesthetics won't get any better. Let me flip this around. Whats wrong with Firefox aesthetically? What gets rendered properly, I think, we've argued is moot.

I've got issues with IE and with Windows in general. As I've said before, I'm a Firefox 0.9 and RedHat 9.0 (soon to be Fedora 2) guy. But, a great deal of why I like those things aren't things I could argue that are the best thing possible across the board. I don't want to taint my arguments here with my personal bias. I've used just about every OS and every GUI out there, and I have developed opinions on what is the "best." But, my Grandma may not agree, so I'm not going to attempt to sweepingly convince you folks.

I'm going to refer you to an article that was recently posted on slashdot. Now, I'm not the kind of guy who believes everything that is printed, but I think this guy makes some great points. Here is the link.

All I've EVER asked is what I asked in a previous post. If you LOVE IE, and don't understand why some of us LOVE Mozilla/Firefox... just try it. I've tried IE. I use IE every day as a matter of fact. There is a part of me that can't put to words why IE makes my skin crawl, so I won't burden you with transparent arguments.

I'm a Linux geek.. period. I probably always will be. Open Source has got to be the greatest thing ever. I remember "Public Domain" software from my old Apple days, and its basically the same thing. The reason I say that is so that you can all take what I say, analyze it, and decide for yourself if I'm full of crap or not. Just because I'm pro-Linux and anti-Microsoft does NOT mean that I HATE Microsoft. I respect Bill Gates more than most people in this world (just under the ever-humble Linus Torvalds) Gates is a fantastic humanitarian and philanthropist, and he has advanced the computer industry far beyond what it would have been had it continued down the path it was on before Bill Gates. Again, I only say this so you all can decide if I'm worth listening to or not.

I hope you all continue this conversation. I'll put in my two cents.. or 4 or 5 or $6,238. I just want it to be productive.

[CypherBit]

neosapience, on Jun 23 2004, 06:27 PM, said:

How the heck can I offer evidence against your whining? You're whining about IE sucking because it doesn't support CSS2+? OMFG, let me alert the press, IE doesn't make your pages look as pretty as FireFox.

Is that it? Is there something else? All I want is some example of why you don't like it. I've offered many examples of why IE works for me and why other browsers don't. Show me a website, ANYTHING that makes you look like more than a whiner.

Here r a few reasons y I don't like IE (and y I like Firefox):

http://www.xulplanet...ts/reasons.html
http://channels.lockergnome.com/news/archi..._explorer.phtml

I browse quite a bit (several hours a day) and the vast majority of sites I visit work great in Firefox if I come accross a site that doesn't I e-mail the webmaster telling them their site isn't w3c compliant and if they could fix that (btw not every1 uses Wins and IE, more and more ppl r on *nix,... these days)...y should it be w3c compliant well for one thing look at the members list here http://www.w3.org/Co...ium/Member/List as u might notice Microsoft is also on that list, so IE should be standard compliant as well but as proven time and time again it is not.
The only thing that I miss in FF is .mht support but something similar to that is being worked on...slowly but it is.

I think FF is the best browser out there for several reasons security, features, speed, doesn't eat up a lot of resources, standard compliance,...

I told tons of my friends about FF some embarced it some didn't and I asked the ones that didn't y they stuck with IE...most replies were cause I'm used to it.
I serioulsy can't fathom y ppl r still using IE.

[neosapience]

Quote

Microsoft can leverage a company pretty hardcore. If I was assembling computers here in St. Louis, and selling them, and Microsoft found out that I was disabling IE and putting Mozilla on instead, Microsoft could EASILY come in and say.. "fine.. we'll rise your license price to $200 for not disabling IE." They would put me out of business. And I believe they would.

This is exactly why MS was in court. If you didn't disable IE, and instead just installed other browsers as an alternative, I don't see how MS could do anything about it. If they threatened to increase your license cost, I'd threaten to take them to court and sue them for unfair business practice (since you aren't doing ANYTHING to their OS, they really don't have a leg to stand on). People have to stand up to MS and prevent their monopolistic ways.

Quote

Umm.. You are confusing my arguments with someone else's. I haven't breathed one word about CSS3 vs CSS1. People like bells and whistles like text glow. My sisters wouldn't appreciate a fast-loading slick design like I would. Thats my point. You and I would probably both hate MIDI files playing in the background, blinking text, etc. My sisters wouldn't care, as long as they got some gossip on why Mary-Kate Olsen is anorexic.

I assumed you were taking up DarkPhoenix's point of view. At any rate, the media content of a website is hardly restricted by the differences between IE/Mozilla/Whatever.

Quote

I can ignore the "fact" because its not a fact. You can't really compare the scrutiny of one browser over another (and I never claimed to. I just refuted the claim that Mozilla isn't scrutinized.) Fundamentally, IE is NOT open source. Mozilla IS. So, the process of discovering bugs is a little different, and we can't claim that one method of revealing bugs is better than the other, because we have no evidence. With Mozilla you could test compiled functionality, AND scrutinze the code. IE you can only test compiled functionality. Does the mass of people testing the compiled functionality of IE give better results? Perhaps. And perhaps not.

The fact that something is open source actually makes it less easy to test and more prone to problems. Let's say that someone modified Linux for their own business and coded a nice, big security hole right into it. With only a very small number of people testing it, the system could remain non-secure for a very long time. Remember, non open source simply means that the source can't be modified/reverse-engineered/etc.., it doesn't make it any harder to test or scrutinize.

Quote

I REALLY hope you don't think I've been whining, because I haven't told anyone to consistantly use one piece of software over another (only to try others.) I hope you see that I've pointed out numerous flaws in the reasoning behind using IE. Okay, so people have argued against bugs and security. You want to know about aesthetics? Firefox is unbelievably simple to skin, and make it aesthetically pleasing to the user. Is that what you are getting after, or do you want to know about web page aesthetics? Well, if you were to view the page in Firefox on Linux, you would get antialiased fonts. Other than that, sure a text box would look like a text box. But what about the future? Alright, so thats not really an argument, but if you aren't developing for the future, the aesthetics won't get any better. Let me flip this around. Whats wrong with Firefox aesthetically? What gets rendered properly, I think, we've argued is moot.

I wasn't saying that you are whining. I was reffering to other people in this post. As for my comment on aesthetics, I was trying to say the opposite, aesthetics is not a part of function and shouldn't be part of this discussion. But so far, most people have simply pointed out that FireFox makes their pages 'look better' than IE because it supports CSS2+, etc... Which I find almost utterly meaningless given the fact that things like DHTML can easily surpass CSS in aesthetic content.

And I do appreciate your views animosity079, please do continue the conversation.

[neosapience]

Quote

Here r a few reasons y I don't like IE (and y I like Firefox):

http://www.xulplanet...ts/reasons.html
http://channels.lock..._explorer.phtml

I browse quite a bit (several hours a day) and the vast majority of sites I visit work great in Firefox if I come accross a site that doesn't I e-mail the webmaster telling them their site isn't w3c compliant and if they could fix that (btw not every1 uses Wins and IE, more and more ppl r on *nix,... these days)...y should it be w3c compliant well for one thing look at the members list here http://www.w3.org/Co...ium/Member/List as u might notice Microsoft is also on that list, so IE should be standard compliant as well but as proven time and time again it is not.
The only thing that I miss in FF is .mht support but something similar to that is being worked on...slowly but it is.

I think FF is the best browser out there for several reasons security, features, speed, doesn't eat up a lot of resources, standard compliance,...

I told tons of my friends about FF some embarced it some didn't and I asked the ones that didn't y they stuck with IE...most replies were cause I'm used to it.
I serioulsy can't fathom y ppl r still using IE.

Ok, the first links shows 100 examples of things that I've been doing with IE long before FireFox was even around. I've already stated that there have been alternative programs that allow IE to behave similar or better than FireFox in many ways. Look back a few pages in this post.

The second link is quite funny to me, because I actually emailed Daniel Miessler and we discussed the very issues we are now.

As for security, I've already stated that IE can be made very secure. Simply update it via windows update and turn off activeX. Poof, IE is now almost every bit as secure as FireFox.

And don't talk about system resources, that statement is dead wrong. IE6 actually uses about the same amount of resources as FireFox, sometimes less.

[SiMoNsAyS]

i promised to me to not write again in this spam thread but i can't read this and be quiet

Quote

Ok, the first links shows 100 examples of things that I've been doing with IE long before FireFox was even around. I've already stated that there have been alternative programs that allow IE to behave similar or better than FireFox in many ways. Look back a few pages in this post.

well, well... have u done the 100 examples with IE?? you're very very funny because one of the firsts (multitab) can't be done with any external-support and that it's the obvious there are 99 more.

Quote

As for security, I've already stated that IE can be made very secure. Simply update it via windows update and turn off activeX. Poof, IE is now almost every bit as secure as FireFox.

another time a joke, that was exactly i said some posts ago and another time if i need to go WU every 15 days and download MBs i can't belive how you can defend that piece of s*** of browser.

Quote

And don't talk about system resources, that statement is dead wrong. IE6 actually uses about the same amount of resources as FireFox, sometimes less.

and the final joke, yes of course it takes a little more resources than firefox but without multitab!! that means that every window you open of IE will take x2 the resources. don't discuss this because everyone in your one PC can test it (and i will not talk about that sometimes when you access a web from explorer it load thread processes from IE and when you leave it they're still resident!! ).

@neosapience i remember you that we're discussing a vanilla IE (without enhancements, addons, resident programs... and it sucks!!). i think none will take nothing clearly, you won't win R-E-S-P-E-C-T from micr0s0ft and IE will not be better without external help.

[neosapience]

Quote

well, well... have u done the 100 examples with IE?? you're very very funny because one of the firsts (multitab) can't be done with any external-support and that it's the obvious there are 99 more.

When comparing browsers I tend to not care about the UI much. Why? Because addons and 'external-support' is a good thing. FireFox wouldn't even HAVE tabbed browsers if NetCaptor hadn't made them for IE first.

Quote

another time a joke, that was exactly i said some posts ago and another time if i need to go WU every 15 days and download MBs i can't belive how you can defend that piece of s*** of browser.

The fact that MS releases updates frequently is a good thing. I'm sorry to say this, but any browser that wants to stay secure is going to require regular patching. If you don't want to be bothered with it, then click off your internet connection and go do something useful. You obviously aren't doing anything useful here.

Quote

and the final joke, yes of course it takes a little more resources than firefox but without multitab!! that means that every window you open of IE will take x2 the resources. don't discuss this because everyone in your one PC can test it (and i will not talk about that sometimes when you access a web from explorer it load thread processes from IE and when you leave it they're still resident!!  ).

This is exactly why I use MyIE2 for IE. It give you tabs that allow you to browse just like FireFox and they use about the same amount of resources. Yes, IE by itself is quite bare and offers few options. MS hasn't updated it in a while, but it doesn't mean that I can't make IE perform just as well as FireFox. In fact, it's just as easy for me to download and install a few things for IE as it is to download and install FireFox.

As far as I can tell, people hate IE simply because they have no idea how to cope with it. It's like when my son gets water up his nose, he freaks out and says 'I hate that!'. Grow up, deal with it, quit whining and try something useful. I don't quit on something just because it gives me a few problems, I find ways to FIX them.

[Drewdatrip]

My reason for dislikeing Ie is very simple.
Its not secure and its very prone to adware, mal ware and homepage take over.
I work as a computer tech and i see so many Cool web search based home page takeovers and hostile auto install apps that get even advanced users simply casue Ie is very Susceptible.

Meanwhile i dont have any issues with months of hardcore browsing useing firefox

|Drew|

[DarkPhoenix]

neosapience, on Jun 24 2004, 09:38 PM, said:

I wasn't saying that you are whining. I was reffering to other people in this post. As for my comment on aesthetics, I was trying to say the opposite, aesthetics is not a part of function and shouldn't be part of this discussion. But so far, most people have simply pointed out that FireFox makes their pages 'look better' than IE because it supports CSS2+, etc... Which I find almost utterly meaningless given the fact that things like DHTML can easily surpass CSS in aesthetic content.

I said I was done in this thread, but I really have to comment on this. You say that aesthetics should not be part of this discussion. If you take a close look, that is what I based my initial post on, and so it should have a great deal to say in this discussion. It was others who actually started talking about functionality and security issues. I initially only wanted to discuss the way a browser renders a page. It's what concerns me the most. I love looking at things that look good, be it a lovely drawing, a pretty 3D-model, or.. a good-looking web page.

Ok, you always tell us that you want proof why Mozilla (or any other browser) is better than IE.. I'll put it the other way around for you. I claim that (for instance) Mozilla, which I use, offers me the same amount of functionality and ease of use as IE does and IN ADDITION it gives me support for good looking CSS-sites. Not to mention that it has a correct DOM parser (both for Javascript and for (X)HTML). So why go for only half the deal, when you can get it all from a better browser?

As for DHTML, I doubt it can surpass CSS. You know what DHTML is? It's very good for those who don't have any disabilities, and can use a visual browser without any concern. But for those who cannot see, or have trouble seeing, or have trouble using a mouse or have any other disabilities, CSS and pure structural (X)HTML is the only way to go. With IE, you can't go far with that. So you'll most likely either have a rather boring page, or a rather inaccessable. However, using proper CSS and (X)HTML, you can make the site look really pretty to those with no disabilities (assuming of course they use a good browser), while keeping it perfectly useable for those who have disabilities.

[CypherBit]

neosapience, on Jun 24 2004, 06:36 PM, said:

As far as I can tell, people hate IE simply because they have no idea how to cope with it. It's like when my son gets water up his nose, he freaks out and says 'I hate that!'. Grow up, deal with it, quit whining and try something useful. I don't quit on something just because it gives me a few problems, I find ways to FIX them.

Can't say anything else but dead wrong (like we r all n00bs), won't even be drawn into a discussion with u since anything I or any1 else says about the benefits Firefox offeres as compared to IE is ignored by u...happy browsing.

[neosapience]

OK, I'm done quoting, so I'll just say what's on my mind and sum up this post.

First, I can make almost any visual effect using DHTML that you can with CSS, period.

Second, I have used FireFox to browse hundreds of websites, and ya know what? Compared to my configuration of IE, it's not any better. In fact, there are many things I can do with IE that I cannot do with FireFox (as I already stated), period.

It's not my fault you can't figure out how to make IE work. It's not my fault you can't stop yourself from getting mad and complaining about something you can't make work for you. Do you get that upset when your car breaks down? Do you tell everyone to stop driving that brand of car just because you're not a mechanic and don't know how to fix it?

Personally, I like FireFox. But is it better for browsing the web than IE? No, simply because most sites are not designed for Mozilla based browsers. Is FireFox more secure? It's almost impossible to say, since most hackers don't bother trying to crack a piece of software that almost nobody uses (relatively speaking). I know that FireFox was coded to specifically avoid many of IE's security issues, but that does not mean it's hack proof (and I feel sorry for the people that let their guard down because their 'shiney new browser' gives them a false sense of security).

Heck, I'd use FireFox if they just changed a few things, and if most of the internet didn't balk at me when used it.

I just wanted someone to give me a real and important reason to use FireFox over IE. Something that warrented all the problems it would cause for me. I've never had any security issues with IE, because I know how to fix the issues and I keep IE /Windows up to date. I've never had so much as one spyware app or even a script exploit happen. And for someone that's spent 6+ hours a day for the last 10 years online, that's saying a lot.

I guess it just comes down to one thing - user abilities. I've seen many people with tons of spyware and trojans on their systems. How did they get there? The person using the PC was usually computer illiterate, or just plain stupid.

I can't say that IE is great, it's not. It let's problems happen way to easily. But that's part of software development, nothing's going to be perfect. MS does indeed need to get on the ball and update IE. Oh, wait, they are in XP SP2 and are even going to release IE7 and then switch to MSN Explorer.

If you can't stand IE, don't use it. But just because you think you've switched to something better, it doesn't mean that you did.

[DarkPhoenix]

neosapience, on Jun 26 2004, 05:32 AM, said:

First, I can make almost any visual effect using DHTML that you can with CSS, period.

Yeah, so can I, but eh... let me quote myself. I think you missed something that I find very important.

Quote

You know what DHTML is? It's very good for those who don't have any disabilities, and can use a visual browser without any concern. But for those who cannot see, or have trouble seeing, or have trouble using a mouse or have any other disabilities, CSS and pure structural (X)HTML is the only way to go. With IE, you can't go far with that. So you'll most likely either have a rather boring page, or a rather inaccessable. However, using proper CSS and (X)HTML, you can make the site look really pretty to those with no disabilities (assuming of course they use a good browser), while keeping it perfectly useable for those who have disabilities.

Take a good look at that. It might be that you don't think all men are created equal, but in my opinion, they are, and so should have equal opportunities, even on the web.

In any case, I can't reply here in over a week, since I'm going on vacation, so have a nice time everyone.

[Drewdatrip]

neosapience and DarkPhoenix Bickering in open topic will not be tolerated here at MSFN. IF you cannot be decent to eachother, then do not speak at all.
Plz review the rules here:
Msfn.Org Community Rules

This topic is Closed to stop the flaming that cerianly will insue.
Thank you for your time.

|Drew|