Printable View
Yes, so far the rendering engine of FF is about the only thing that I have seen that is a positive for FF'ers. :)
But that is not to say that IE will never catch up or implement a better engine either but as of now (IE 6 and possibly 7) its lacking in its rendering features to include support for some of the standards I suppose.
NoteMe - let's bring this statement of yours back into topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoteMe
I'm not expert enough to understand how the issues you mention work...
But why do you think that MS - or IE for that matter - is ignoring handling these issues? Are they part of a standard that MS and the rest of the browser community has agreed to?
i know plenty of people that would consider this a reason to not use windows... but then they wouldn't use anything that isn't licensed under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license. :afrog:Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
And you feel this has something to do with the topic of this thread in what regard? What part of the "Why is IE Better" does this pertain to?Quote:
Originally Posted by tr333
I was looking for a much more technical analysis of the reason - at least historical or specific...Quote:
Originally Posted by tr333
To re-iterate, lets keep this thread On-Topic as I would hate to Close it when there are some good points being made backed up with evidence.
So anyone have any more reasons why IE is better? I think we left off at #7?
I personally don't have much use for most of the firefox extensions. Other than tabbed browsing, I don't really use many of the "bells and whistles" that firefox has. One thing I will say that contributed to why I made the switch is the speed. Firefox will load a page much quicker than IE. I am certainly a Microsoft supporter and realize that despite their image of being the three-hundred pound gorilla, we all owe them for the innovation they have provided.
With that said, the fact of the matter is, Microsoft got lazy with the development of their browser. Since IE is bundled with Windows they could afford to be lazy. However, after many changes to Windows, IE remained fairly unchanged. Now Microsoft is being forced to play catch-up, something they are not accustomed to doing. There is no doubt that the only reason IE 7 is going to have the new features is because of Firefox. In the end, that is exactly what all of us should desire in our free market system. Like firefox or hate it, it is competition and competition forces companies like Microsoft to continue to innovate and we all benefit.
great point. without competition, microsoft would have no incentive to upgrade their web browser. if only all browsers would stick to web-standards without "embracing and extending", (IE/Netscape being the main perpetrators) then designing web-pages would be much easier.Quote:
Originally Posted by nothingofvalue
disclaimer: Fx also has browser extensions (XUL, etc.), but does not have the same market share as IE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) standarizes everything on the web. (X)HTML, CSS, and so on. The inventor of WWW is leading it. He used to work here at CERN, where he and some Technical students like me made the WWW. THen he moved on to W3C to standarize the web, so we can have a web standard. Most browsers follow this standarisation, except IE. They are WAY behind. As I have said a million times by now.
You can read about the history here:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/history
If you still don't get it. Here is a VB history for you. The standards are like VB 2005 right now. Most browsers stribes to get there. IE does not. ANd have lived on VB 4 standards for a decade, and doesn't seem to even try to catch up. They are getting furuther behind every day that passes by. And they don't even anounce that they want to catch up. The world moves on, IE doesn't follow.
- ØØ
just out of interest, can anyone view the MineHunter demo properly in IE? it is a version of minesweeper developed using only Web Standards. I am using a mac computer, and (as expected) it doesn't work in IE:Mac.
When IE:Mac was released it was the most standards-compliant browser available. It also had some great features such as the "Auction Manager" for automatically tracking online auctions (like eBay).
Noteme - thanks for that info...
Do you have a clue as to why MS feels no need to be a leader in this area?
They lead in other areas - MS SQL Server is one example that I live and breathe every day. For that they go way beyond the ANSI-standard SQL syntax - T-SQL has so much more flavor and depth.
So why does MS neglect the W3C standard?
I think quite honestly the success of the more standards compliant Mozilla took them by surprise. They were overtaken very quickly. Now they are rushing to finish CSS 1 compliance for IE 7 and start work on CSS 2.1 for future versions (beyond 7). Mozilla are already working on CSS 3. IE's Trident rendering engine is very old, and will really need recoding to handle anything newer than CSS 1 and (very) basic 2.1.
Opera has also been more standards compliant for a long time but never had the popularity Firefox does now, at any one time. I guess MS didn't feel they were such a threat.
Because it doesn't really need to. IE is the most popular browser out there simply because it comes with Windows. In order to reach larger audiences, a web developer only needs to ensure that his site works with IE. This means that IE can loosely follow standards and introduce some of its own, without backlash.
This is a thought from years ago.
The IE team has recognized the need for standards support, and they have now started working towards it.
Interesting blog
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/04/22/410963.aspx
actually a google for "why does ms ie ignore w3c?" brings up lots of links...
this one is entertaining: http://www.alttags.org/archives/2004/04/29/33/
I know I don't like listening to a grumpy customer I might have tell me how a click in my app should sort a column - or what color might be better for a highlight - I'm glad I don't have to listen to a consortium :eek2:
I can show you some *HTML/CSS code that renders completely differently in Firefox, IE, and Opera. Is that the way the web should be? No, so that's why we have standards in the first place.
That article on alttags.org was actually quite well-written, a lot of good points.
i agree... but since it was written in april 2004, it is little bit out of date. it mentions that the microsoft website doesnt validate and has no doctype. i can verify that that www.microsoft.com correctly validates as HTML 4.0 Transitional (not sure why they don't use at least HTML 4.01).Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
I think most points are already covered here already. They don't need to, because everyone is using it. And the same happend back in the days before Netscape. Nothing new happend on the web. Then Netscape came along. And pushed IE furuther. The best thing that has ever happend to the web (at least my point of view). Now the web has been standing still nearly the last 10 years again. And things happen. And once again, MS feels that they need to push forward. Competition is always good. Costumers never benefit from no competition in a market segment. Then nothing new will happen. It is like if there was only one car company. Then we would still all drive around in a T-Ford. Now Fx and Opera is pushing IE again. And the only way they can do that is because they get users. If they had a really great browser but no users. MS would never come out with IE 7 at this point. So as long as there is more then one popular browser out there, one will always be better, and then the next one should try to catch up. Only that way we will go forward in this life.
And I guess a difference that only just fully dawned on me now - there is not really any money in it.
MS SQL 2005 (for example) has a ROI for MS that is huge - they certainly want to lead on this front.
IE 7/8/9 and so on simply serves the web community.
It used to be money in it. Netscape based all it's income from their browser. Then MS did the trick of starting to have IE for free, and then send IE out with Windows. Netscape went from a million dollarcompany based on the income of their browser to ZERO. Their developer didn't get any money anymore. DIdn't know where to get money from. And suddenly no one came to work anymore. After that IE has not pushed forward at all. They had no one to comepte with. Hence no action in that department.
Now it is different. Opera manage to get money out of their browsers. Mozilla, and Fx and so on do it more or less for free. Now the real cometition can start all over again.
- ØØ -
I stopped using Internet Explorer in 1998, mainly due to the security issues and lack of website control. I realised how much faster web browsing could be when I found myself on a MAC using Safari.
I started off using Netscape and then moved to Friebird which, is now Firefox. On Windows 2000, IE does not allow popup blocking, is slow and most imporantly does not have a tabbed browsing facility.
So I would recommend Firefox. Sorry for being such a brainless BORG ..... ;)
As a note, Mozilla Corporation has some employees working on Firefox and Thunderbird. They get enough money in various ways to keep it up. They don't need tons of developers like Microsoft though, because open source has shown it works well enough for this kind of project despite most developers don't get paid in money.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoteMe
But the main point is: there are some centralized developers who take care of the directions and can work on the project in a long term. A common problem in open source projects is that there is a lack of a person who can do it nearly every day in his (or her) life.
I just saw this post by NoteMe and though it was good for this thread of giving another reason why IE is better:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoteMe
Which, whether it's true or not, supports a bit of RobDog's 3 points for why IE is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merri
I get the same kind of reaction to my shop selling my product to a large enterprise. Some of my competion is big-time companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Unfortunately the merits of any product is never measured on it's capabilities alone.
Hmm, maybe it may be easier to see why IE is better if we compile a side by side list?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Errr...why? Because they don't follow the same standard when it comes to Ajax as all other browsers do? Or that Fx found a memory leak, and they are fixing it for the next update??
- ØØ -
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I don't think it is possible to be honest. Just out of the same reason this thread will not go anywhere, and we will never agree. Because you can say that since it is made by MS, it is a PRO. Then I can say that it isn't and if fact more of a negatie effect.
Then again I can say that Extensions in Fx is really PRO, then you can call them wistles and bells.
It is all about preferences. But the only fact on the table is that Fx is more standarized browser then IE is and has been the last 10 years..and will be the next few years...
- ØØ -
But you have to notice, as I proved before the problem sentence, this does not affect Firefox as it has paid developers who can spend each day of their life on development and planning :) Open source's advantages are also greater if compared to closed source, but I guess you start saying this goes to offtopic as it has nothing to do why IE is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
RobDog888: how IE can become better if there is an issue in Firefox? No program can become any better in itself from bugs or problems found in another program.
I find this an issue in these topics: people lose track on what actually makes something better from what it actually has. Comparable better is almost always arguable.
Let's take an example.
IE fanboy says: "IE has ActiveX. This makes IE better than other browsers because they don't have it. ActiveX allows a lot of possibilities and functionality for websites. It is used for Windows updates for example."
Firefox fanboy says: "Firefox doesn't have ActiveX. This makes Firefox secure as ActiveX is known to be a very vulnerable technology and one of the biggest reasons for IE's security leaks. ActiveX only works on IE, it is rarely used and it isn't really a web standard."
A regular user says: "ActiveX? I don't know, I don't care as long as I can do what I need to do. If it is bad for me in some way then I don't want it."
Now, based on this: would ActiveX be a plus or a minus?
I think it is a big minus, because I think this from the point of a Firefox user and a regular user. Is this a biased opinion?
One could say the same about Firefox extensions and installing untrusted extensions on Firefox can have simialr consequences to running an unknown active x control.
It was for this reason that now, like IE, for the Install dialog to pop up, the extension must be from a trusted srource and, the timed dialog makes sure that you notice the big red letters "UNSIGNED" when you install it.
Its all subjective so like you say there is no definitive answer.
But its not "all about preferences" as if it was then the engine could be crappy and have great extensions and it would be considered the best. We know this isnt true and that the basics are what really matter.
FF has made some really good advances in its short lifetime as compared to IE but if something is already done then its easy to copy it and make it better. ;)
ActiveX is a security problem when it comes to the sites that take advantage of naive users by prompting them to install a control when they dont really need to and they do without checking the certificate. Then it goes and does harm to their system and then they hear about all this ActiveX security talk and think its true. I really doubt it that anyone has ever hasd an security issue with any of MS' ActiveX controls they installed.
I see ActiveX as a plus and a minus. It all depends on how its managed. I have never had an issue with it since I dont install things I dont need or arent from reputable sites.
Yea but then people don't set their security settings, go to all sorts of sites without thinking about whether they are "reputable" or not, and unwittingly install all sorts of crap. These aren't just MS controls.
Edit: I'm fairly sure IE, in stock configuration, does not prompt users before running ActiveX controls.
But the problem with ActiveX security issues are that there have been many that don't prompt the user. For example: spyware/malware did get into my computer when I used IE even though I never did anything really wrong. With Firefox this didn't happen anymore and haven't happened although I still browse the same sites. The same has happened to many other users who didn't use IE anymore. ActiveX wasn't the only reason for the spyware problems in itself, but it still causes this kind of problems.
For most of my friends exactly that has been the biggest reason for going to Fx from IE. Thanks for reminding me Merri..:)
- ØØ -
Well I think its the fact that IE hadnt been developed for the past couple years and FF took the ideas and wants of users and did something about it. Now IE needs to catch up. I wouldnt be surprised to see that IE 7 is just a quick fix to regain some of the market share while they are working on a complete re-write for a future major release.
So I guess it all boils down to the fact that inexperienced or unknowing users are making statements (in general and not in theis thread ;)) about FF being better when its mostly the fact that FF has more of its default settings set better for security.
And some IE users who haven't really read all that much about browsers, their history, how they work and so on claiming it is only security which makes people to switch into Firefox (and other browsers).
Really, that kind of statements are not worth anything and only make the thread go worse.
The core problem with the threads topic is that it tries hard to claim something that can't be reasoned to be true. IE defenders can mostly go into either seeking the few positive facts, making positive facts from "nothing" that doesn't really matter or go against the users of other browsers with provocative statements. Plus the hassle we see when people who don't really know enough mix the soup.
True. People switch for many reasons. Some reasons are valid and otehrs are just to jump on the bandwagon.
So I guess we were only able to list out a few reasons out of 150+ posts. It went better then I thought it would. :lol:
Then some more positive news: I was yesterday and today working with a new design for one of my Finnish sites and saw how much IE7 really had fixes in it. Too bad there is still one problem I couldn't solve without writing a few extra lines into the code so I left it in. But maybe it'll be fixed in the final version. Atleast the result was much better than IE6. The CSS problems are finally getting fixed and the web developer part of me is very happy about that.
Merri is coming over to the dark side :D
I thought I felt an earthquake! :eek:
Merri will soon be doing development for MS on the next version - IE 8. :thumb:
Nah, the Opera 9 in works seems much more impressive than IE7 and FF2 for now, but I guess I'll stay with Firefox for a longer while. I don't have a negative reason to switch from what I now use.
If you switch to IE permenantly then I will give you 10 Rep points! :D :lol:
See, that is how most users should think. If there is a valid reason to switch to a different browser then its justified and not because of the hype.
Maybe I should offer Reps to all that switch to IE permenantly :lol:
I've been trying all day to come up with a plus for IE and finally I have one. It supports display:inline-block whereas Firefox does not :D
Opera does though. So it doesn't really make IE better. Just a bug in Fx.
I still dont see why we cant create a IE vs FF list like I started. Plus, now we can add that Merri gives his honored stamp of approval on IE 7 :D
Try display : -moz-inline-block;Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Gecko supports it, but it isn't used at all because there is really no need for it. It has been removed from CSS because there is no need for it.
Oh, and I do have tons of negative reasons not to use IE6 and IE7B2 has far too many rendering problems for me to use it. I have it in my laptop but not my desktop. I guess some of you can guess the reason... (tip: I built this desktop computer myself)
How do you mean "removed" Is part of 2.1 spec right?
And yeah I've tried -moz-inline-block and -box and fiddling at the moment.
Afaik it was in the CSS specs before but then removed. Have they put it back again? I haven't read any "really knowing" stuff about it though.
It's listed in the 2.1 working draft.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CSS21-2...5/visuren.html
I don't know why they haven't pushed 2.1 to Recommendation yet...
Edit: What the hell is up with the W3.org page :confused:
afaik, -moz-inline-block; is not css, but is actually XUL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merri
-moz-inline-block is a very broken inline-block. -moz-inline-box is XUL but it works better than either of the other two. There is a thread in Bugzilla about it.
Because there aren't 2 complete and interoperable implementations, which is a requirement for a Candidate Rec to become a full Rec. In other words, there aren't 2 programs out there that both fully and correctly support CSS 2.1.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Scary, isn't it?
Very. It's a standard at least though. Should be full Reccomendation soon then when Gecko or KHTML or someone achieves full support.Quote:
Originally Posted by CornedBee
I am probably going to get banned for this. But just have to tell you.
I havn't been able to sleep one second all night. No idea why. Just didn't feel like sleeping. So I have thought about a lot of different things, read 100pages in my Java Script book and thought some more. Suddenly I realized (if my facts are strigt) this:
IE "lovers" Fx "haters":
- Robdog, Hack, szlamany....
- Americans over 30 years old.
Fx "lovers", IE "haters"
- NoteMe, Pengate, Merri....
- Non Americans under 30 years old.
Scary? True? Hmmm...
- ØØ -
THATS IT! YOUR BANNED! :lol: Ha ha. :D
Other then being slightly off topic and an FF'er I dont see why you would think you'd get Banned? At least I dont think you would.
Yes, maybe there is something to this small comparison you posted.
Maybe a poll with 4 options:
IE lover > 30; IE lover < 30; FF'er > 30; FF'er < 30. :D
Nice try Noteme - but if that suggestion was true...
Then why would I have a wide-screen laptop, be running OFFICE 2003 on every workstation in my office - already have SMALL BUSINESS SERVER 2003 on my server.
Purchased Sony Vegas and DVD Architect for editing...
Well - actually the Sony Vegas is very telling - and actually on topic.
5 years ago we had Fast DV hardware capture/render card - with Speed Razor NLE. Well - Fast went out of business - Speed Razor evaporated - the editing workstation died - leaving me with about $3000 worth of useless hardware (that would not work with the new workstation) and some video files encoded with a hardware codec that are now lost forever.
So in selecting a successor - I went with Sony nle and that software render engine and software codecs.
Over 30 years old? Yes - and we own your world :D
and already have MS SQL 2005 installed on a server...
and already using VS 2005 for production software...
Talk about going off topic.. :rolleyes: What does that have to do with it?? Nothing... :rolleyes:
PS: MartinLiss more years then you can count....american....IE lover...;)
- ØØ -
While it is true that I am an American over 30, I do not fall into the category of Fx hater or the category of IE lover. IE user, yes, but that is more because it is a standard at work than because it is my preference. hoo-wah :DQuote:
Originally Posted by NoteMe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack
That is why I added the "" around lover and hater....I don't think Merri is a Fx lover either. And I love more then just Fx. I am using Flock most of the time anyway....but you get my small humoristic point don't you??
- ØØ -
Sony=MS - purchasing from 800 pound gorillas is safer in the long run. But this point about IE has been expressed several times in the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoteMe
Actually I would use FF if it was already installed on all the workstations in my office. In order for me to do something like that I have to have time and desire. Time is short - way too busy - and the desire has not risen enough for FF yet.
Yes, hence the smiley :bigyello:Quote:
Originally Posted by NoteMe