Advertisement
Discuss this Article 795
Paul, I don't know if you have any control over this, but some of your adverts crash firefox if JavaScript is enabled.
This problem has existed for like a month or more, and i've sent them those feedback things with details, so I do wonder why it keeps happening.
Thanks for ruining the best on-topic discussion this site has seen in months with your pro-Apple, anti-Microsoft crap. Take the childish stuff elsewhere, and stick to the subject at hand.
I don't think Paul understands what he's talking about. I'm not aware of any browsers that pass the Acid2 test at this point (Firefox included). By Paul's logic, I guess we should boycott web browsing entirely.
"Totally agreed... As sites can recognize the OS of the client computer, they should (and they can) recognize the Browser Platform and translate it..."
Yes and no.
We web programmers (at least myself) have use my every effort to make sure my page will run on IE and Mozilla based browsers (Safari not test because we have no Mac to run it) But as you can see by "view source" on those "cross browser" web site's pages, you can see there's signiciant amount of "user unnoticable codes" written to achieve this goal, and of course it takes time, and time means money.
I can't remember how many times I have to fight back my manager's attempt to "cut other web browser's support and support IE only". It'll certainly make my life easier if the browers just follow "standards" and let us simply remove those "non productive" codes.
And don't tell me to just drop support for other browsers. We have good 15% of customer using those non-IE browsers and dropping support for that could bring me into another complaint nightmare.
Gee, so many people sit here and say, well, it isn't Microsoft's fault that these sites aren't compliant. For a matter of fact, you are dead wrong, it IS their fault. And here is why, they have held onto an over 90% market share of browsers for some time. In doing so, they pushed their technologies, and developers have used that technology. I don't fully blame the developers, but they should have been still writing for standards and ignoring Microsoft's proprietary stuff. But, that would have landed most of them out of work. They were writing for what people were using. People either don't know that there were other browsers out there, (most of them), and the rest, just got driven off of the alternatives by lazy developers, that quit writing MS version, and standards versions of their sites. Again, I can't completely fault developers for not wanting to create a site twice. Microsoft using its monopoly of browsers DID create this situation.
If I had someone fire bullets at my head for every stupid comment posted here, I would more-or-less be headless.
It's amazing to me how so many of you think that by posting things we've already read on Slashdot.org, you're somehow helping humanity or some other BS. This may shock you, but some people here visit slashdot on a regular basis.
It's interesting you guys attack Microsoft (rightly so) for the lack on innovation, but you have no problem being uninnovative with your own damn comments. Have your own damn thoughts and think for yourself, or eat dick.
It is amazing to see how many end-user only types sit here an spout off about why it doesn't make a difference. Well, to you it doesn't, so frankly, STFU!!!! Your opinion doesn't mean a damn thing. This discussion is for developers and people that have a clue as to how the web works. Microsoft has totally broken the idea of the Internet here. The Internet IS to be standards compliant. It is to be OS and application neutral. It was until MS decided they needed to kill Netscape. Have you ever written a complex website? Have you ever tried to setup ecommerce? It's a f***ing nightmare. Why? Because MS screwed the pooch on standards. You support them, or the rest of the world, doing both is like trying to change the orbit of the moon. And shouldn't be, and the Internet was designed so it didn't have to be. The web belongs to us not MS.
You take a topic and go on Blah blah about it. face it! everything and everybody has problems..so..viewpoints differ. I've been using IE all my life and have been using IE7 for about a week and a half and think its cool. I dont care about standards since I use Flash. Thats my viewpoint!
I am happy that someone is taking the time to actually admitt some of the flaws of IE and Windows. Without the ability to addresses changes to the core architecture neither product can grow. It is somewhat ironic that Microsoft users and programmers are trying into blind obidence to system, much like a typical Mac user. This is not like us, we must be ashamed of ourselves, and redress the issues that need to be solved without the usually propapanda of blind lemmings.
Fact - No "publicly released" browser is 100% ACID2 compliant. Supposedly, some are compliant if you grab the source of the latest work-in-progress version.
Also, many of these standards came out or were being worked on after IE 6 was released. In fact, isn't CSS 2.1 still a working draft?!
A boycott is the best solution. I have been developing websites for corporations and government departments for years and they have all had in place a policy of making sure their sites have been compliant with W3C guidelines (especially accessibility). Microsoft has always been aware of what they were doing, it's a practice born out of the early days of browser wars where browsers would try to do add features to the HTML set that only work on their own browser and so entice people to only use that browser. By refusing to make IE fully standards compliant they perpetuate sloppy website practices and so the uninformed people out there who try another browser and see their favorite websites suddenly look wrong then they go back to using IE. The problem for web developers has been to design sites that take account of the bugs and problems and use workarounds to make a site look the way the client wants in IE, in doing so however this often means the work arounds cause problems in other browsers. The bottom line is once ALL browsers function the same and support the same standards to the same level only then will their be a level playing field for users to decide on a browser that they like. It will also mean much less hassle for developers trying to adhere to web standards AND retain the look & functionality within IE (not always an easy task). The web is full of poorly made websites as is it, and Microsoft's continuing to deliberately not support full standards (only partially supporting them instead) just helps to clutter the web. A clean web starts with clean sites viewable in clean browsers. Microsoft its time for you to grab a broom.
Who the hell gave him a permission to write on IT *PROS* ? The author is just insane or very stupid.
IE6 is one of the most compliant browsers ever with couple of bugfixes in IE7 beta 2 it will become the best.
All these 'mox model' problems and other has been fixed in IE6 for years. It's sad people still don't know difference between standard ir quircks mode.
pfuuh , what a statement , but its true . i havn't used ie for years now , and not a problem at all .
To the person who posted this:
"If a website doesn't meet web standards in how it is HTMLed and coded, is that Microsoft's fault?
It is up to the website owners to make sure that their public websites are coded to public standards. MSIE offers many technologies that as "extras", but thoses were really meant for "in house" use.
When a company designs a website and CHOOSES a non-standard technology for that website, who's fault is that? IBM's? RedHat's Microsoft's Apple's ?"
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Do you know what browsers do? Do you know what CSS/XHTML are and what validation is? Judging by your ignorant post, you don't. Please research this stuff before making comments.
I understand that the latest Netscape (NS) has a split re: engine.
When a web page is accessed and it appears to be a Web standards built page, NS launches the Mozilla engine to render.
If the page appears to be MS proprietary, it launches a IE-type engine to render.
If NS can support the duality, presumably until the non-standard one DIES, why can't MS, with their generous market share, support the duality in a similar manner?
Don't tell me that they don't want to bear the cost.
How cheap (quatlity) do you want a product before you refuse to pay for it because it is not equally cheap (price)?
"I dont care about standards since I use Flash. Thats my viewpoint!"
Ok, you can use Flash for all web pages, and people without broadband connections will have to wait forever for your pretty charming Flash movie to load. And hey, search engines cannot get words from Flash and cannot give you Flash page a good rank for relevence.
HTML based page will load much faster given those code for "brower compatibility" included.
"You are arguing over a dead platform - who cares. Browsers are good for reading crap. As an application platform - they suck ***. Notice that 'REAL' applications are not written in browsers - correction - REAL applications that do not suck - are not written in browsers. Please do us all a favor and quit trying to put complex GUIs and apps that require interaction with data in a browser. They ALL SUCK. Just because you are too lazy to deploy REAL software and think all the extra time you spent shoehorning a complex app into a browser was worth the time you saved in deployment, but instead you delivered a steaming pile of **** with cool graphics - kudos to you. Quit using the wrong tool for the job!!! The browser makes for the lousiest user experience Ive ever had. I want a 3270 or Telnet session back - they work better for anything useful. Talk about a bad idea gone amuck - this must be stopped!!! If you are a web developer writing applications that people actually have to use in their jobs, you should be stopped and lobotimized."
Not agreed.
Should web browers be so "non-fault tolerant" that any malformed HTML code will not render, all web developers will be force to write good codes or they'll be wasting their time. And WEB will be as good a platform as JAVA for applications.
Just because there's so much "standards" exist, browsers are made to tolerant "buggy codes", and therefore people found "buggy codes" are ok and continue to use them, and brower developers later finds out if they don't support "buggy code", a lot of site will not work, and... I'll say that it's wrong at the beginning and if web "standards" cannot be "standardized" web simply won't make it for reliable computing.
(I know that the story don't actually goes like this, but my point of view stands)
Let’s get into standards now. Guess what, Paul? Your site, winsupersite.com currently has 124 validation errors, according to the W3C’s Markup Validation Service. Even worse, the page which contains your “Boycott IE” story currently has 207 validation errors.
http://www.extended64.com/blogs/rhoffman/archive/2005/08/02/1118.aspx
One word : Firefox.
I just can't see even bothering with IE anymore.
I mean come on! Its about the stinkiest security whore of any software ever made.
Quick clarification: Perhaps those who develop standards *are* software developers, I don't know, but the point is they aren't the ones writing the browsers.
TO: "Normally I don't jump on the 'bash MS' bandwagon - I usually attempt to view any issue"
A website *can* be 100 % standards compliant and be useable by Internet Explorer - it's called testing. Just make sure that any part of the standard that IE doesn't meet doesn't get used.
You don't have to leave the web standards to do that. You thereby encourage everyone, including Microsoft, to be standards compliant.
But these websites use *non-standard* HTML and code - this is clearly not Microsoft's fault. They could have used standards HTML but didn't. Yes, they may not have been able to use every current feature of the standard - but they don't have to *leave* the standard to use non-compliant html and code [and they often do so just for gimick's sake].
But they CHOOSE to leave the standard entirely of their own volition - this is CLEARLY not Microsoft's fault at all.
So if a website isn't HTML 4 safe - don't blame Microsoft - it's not their doing.
Change the Record!!!
There is a pa(ul thu)rrott in here...
There is an echo in here
Safari's WebKit is the only renderer to pass Acid2. Once again, Apple is kicking Microsoft's butt and leaving them far behind, and the Windows ship are happy to eat our dust.
"Internet Explorer is a cancer of the web."
"OS X is simply better than Windows. Especially for power users."
"Longhorn is a trainwreck."
Are you guys sure this is a pro-Windows site? :)
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS!
...
"Apple Safari (Macintosh only) and Opera 8 are both worth considering as well."
HAVE YOU EVER USED SAFARI??? Its poor rendering quality and inaccuracy is infamous between web designers. What a surprise.
Whether or not IE complies with all mighty standards committee is irrelevant. Consumers will choose which browser they prefer, and companies will have to comply, it’s as simple as that.
MS didn’t monopolize the software market against the will of consumers. And you still have the option to go with all sorts of various Linux distributions if you wish. The social taboo of sticking up for a Microsoft product in the software world seems to stem from the self boasting of people who believe computing ought to be hard. It’s no wonder why consumers are not exercising this option.
I like firefox and promote it heavily. But I will never switch from IE. Why?
IE is a file manager. You can type a path to a directory in IE or a URL in Explorer and it will load it. I need to type directory paths, and to switch back and forth between file manager an Web browser.
I will never use a Web browser that isn't a file manager.
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........
I only have to say one thing...The only thing that Microsoft will make that doesn't suck, is a vacum. If you have to think about that deeply, you need help that no human can provide.
The defacto standard is "however Microsoft does it." There is no point in asking a company with over 90% market share to be more "standards compliant." The W3C is almost as big a joke as the UN.
The fact that IE standarts support is so outdated (years!!), makes web developers waste time (and money) with awful workarounds. You don't need to be a Penguin cealot to understand it.
After so much time without IE updates I expected quite better standart support. Aren't standarts as important as security flaws?
IE7 features tabs, search bar, security fixes and a few css patchs... I wait for quite more from the next beta.
Hmmm, all interesting stuff. I must say that IE can be very frustrating. As a web developer, trying to make sites cross browser compatible can be a nightmare.
What I find interesting is the way IE renders is very hit and miss, I've found Firefox to be the most consistent with the way it renders pages. IE can be very hit and miss.
As for boycotting it, well I think it's to entrenched for that, rather than boycott, shouldn't we just be encouraging them to make the browser as compliant as possible.
"It's a web developer work to keep is't site sandardized, not microsoft's one!"
Indeed it's the web developers work to keep is't site standardized TO THE STANDARDS, not microsoft's one!
If microsoft IE fully supported the standards what would happen??well certainly they would lose a big share of their user base(they would be competing at same level with other browsers in this case)...by not following standards they force users to use/(or should I say buy) that piece of crap...many web sites are IE oriented only(once more because they "follow" web "standards")...
Agree 100%.
Developing websites and always hacking and tweeking for the IE users is hell.
I can't understand why they don't implement all the standards. They are clearly written down, so all they need is to out them in the IE code.
But on the other hand, its fun to watch all the angry discussions about this issue. But its not fun to work, cause the IE causes more houres at work.
A boycott is only effective in a competitive marketplace. The proof that Microsoft is a monopoly is that Windows is virtually a sellers' market. The balance of power between Microsoft and its customers is overwhelmingly on Microsoft's side.
Up to a point, it simply doesn't matter how bad IE7 is. An IT manager and decision-maker could very well decide very rationally that the pain of IE7 is lower than the pain of departing from the Microsoft fold.
The courts found that Microsoft is, in fact, a monopoly. That's what being a monopoly means. The government could have taken effective enforcement action against Microsoft, but elected not to do so. So, enjoy your IE7, because boycotting it is not going to have any noticeable effect.
Actually the full phrase was
"Web developers are hamstrung into developing for IE at the expense of established standards that work well in all other browsers"
The key there is work well in all browsers. And the author did NOT use the phrase "equally well". That was your assertina.
1. No browser is 100% standards compliant, nor will it ever be since the "standards" are ever changing.
2. I use IE7 and other than the ACID-2 test page, I have not had a single problem viewing any page.
3. MS responded to customers and added features like tabbed browsing (granted, MS wasn't first) and a much improved UI.
4. No browser has been without security flaws although MS has been the biggest target (but not the least secure).
It would be nice if people who offered their opinion actually knew something about web programming and development. A feature missing in the current version of Paul Thurrott.
Yes! Boycott it! And if your a webdeveloper, dont cater your sites to IE. Force users to make the switch.
Maybe you should have read the IE blog again before posting this - MS are shooting for CSS 2.1 Compliance in IE7. Your article is completely out of line, as it seems that surprisingly MS are doing the right thing this time.
I think (not something I'm used to) that the web developers could help the change. They could do this by coding pages that work for both IE and everyone else, but on the IE pages, indicate that the code is different because of incompatibilities with IE.
All the important stuff I do on the Web (research, banking, shopping) can be done with Firefox. If a site insists I use IE, it's not worth pursuing. I only use IE on my intranet at work. I've been doing this for nearly 3 years and my on-line life feels in no way impoverished!
WE NEED SIDEBAR , FOR SURE IT HELPS US A LOT.
SILLY TO BLAME IF FOR "OCCUPY" SPACE IN MY HUGE WIDESCREEN. WE NEED SIDEBAR. Paul why do you need to boycott IE 7 if you dont like Sidebar. You should boycott Sidebar(just turn it OFF) and so PAUL,PLEASE DONT MISLEAD THE USERS.
"BY ANY MEASURE, having the 90+% market share, internet explorer IS THE STANDARD, SETS THE STANDARD"
Not really. Microsoft is one of the major participant/member of W3C. If Microsoft have agreed it's "standard", there's no reason it's not "standard". If there's anything in W3C standard that Microsoft doesn't like, Microsoft should have banned it to be "part of standard". And if Microsoft is involved in the formation of "standard" and doesn't follow "standard", then Microsoft is to one to be blamed.
The logic is clear: If you have agreed something to be "rule of the game" and doesn't follow the rule when you're playing the game. You're the one to be blamed but not the others.
Just a niggling little detail, because I agree with the push to leave IE behind, but Firefox doesn't pass Acid2, either. I'm using 1.0.6 on Windows 2000 and it doesn't render the test correctly.
IE is a pain for web developers. I used to work with it.
If you use IE, you will spend a lot of time to make everything working for others browsers. That's because IE is full of bugs, and your bugging website will work only with IE.
Now, if you don't use IE at all, you will see that you will be making better web code. Maybe bugs free.
Tips for web developers: do not use IE.
Because some users do not use Windows, so can't use IE.
Means websites build with IE and made to work only with it are not "portable".
Indeed, if your website is not working with IE, you can say to everyone to "use anything else" and it will work.
You can trust Mr Hoover!
