[QUOTE=NoteMe]Don't be amazed....I am always the #1 poster in any CC thread...;)
QUOTE]
Ohhh...and BTW..I guess I am the person with most ratings for this thread too...3 for now..:) First ratings in monts..:) Even if I tell people to **** off...:)
Printable View
[QUOTE=NoteMe]Don't be amazed....I am always the #1 poster in any CC thread...;)
QUOTE]
Ohhh...and BTW..I guess I am the person with most ratings for this thread too...3 for now..:) First ratings in monts..:) Even if I tell people to **** off...:)
"Best FireFox Extensions"
Added today to Download.com, Really cool stuff.
http://www.download.com/Best-Firefox...ml?tag=sptlt_s
I believe in posting quality and not quanity. Now if I post alot then its all quality. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Just remember you should not judge a book by its cover or its extras. ;) Just try IE 7 or wait for its final release. :)
I have five, making up about 10% of my total ratings value :)Quote:
Originally Posted by NoteMe
I tested the browser, but for the most part Microsoft has only been fixing some of the major flaws this far: standards don't work too well (ie. they haven't removed the "doctype not in the first line fallbacks into quirksmode in XHTML strict" issue). There are also some new weird textflow bugs: text reserves more space than there is available, thus goes out of the box... but I take it that is due to the beta nature. Yet Firefox was much more mature in its beta stage IE7 has ever been (for the rendering part), I've used Firefox since its Phoenix and Firebird days.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Still with the IEblog stating they're trying to keep as much "compatibility" as they can means that we can't expect as full standards commitment the other browser teams do. Or so I'm starting to feel with the information they provide. I first thought when I read about their plans a year or so back that they meant keeping compatibility of quirksmode, but it seems they're trying to keep their old standards mode compatibity as well... I'd love to get rid of using conditional comments for IE7 just to get the styles right. Conditional comments are a IE proprietary feature; we don't really need those in the other browsers as they get the standards right for the most part.
If IE7 doesn't fix the standards issues well enough and it still requires conditional comments fixes, that'll eventually mean that both Firefox and Opera fanboys keep on yelling how ****** IE is. With a reason.
Eat dirt and live FF!
http://www.vbforums.com/attachment.p...chmentid=45086
I dont think its fair to be judging IE so harshly when its new version is in Beta. We didnt pound on FF when it was in Beta. ;)
Wait for the final release and then see what they fixed and any other improvements too.
Nobody pound on FF when it was on beta because it was actually good all the time ;)
Anyways, you're now politely asking me to shut up: for what reason? I should have as much rights to tell my opinion and thoughts as you have. Atleast I reason my opinions and don't just rely on the regular fanboy level. I don't think it is at all unfair for IE. I didn't only talk about the beta or judge fully based on the beta.
I can take a look into Firefox 2 stuff if you like, but I probably wouldn't find much to complain about: not because it wouldn't have problems, but because what I could complain about? About the only thing you could complain about is that passing Acid 2 test doesn't come until Firefox 3. And that test as such is only a wish list of the most wanted "cool" features there are among the web developers. I also don't have much at all to complain about Mozilla's future views of their browser.
:D No, no, no. I wasnt directing my post like that at all. I just wanted to try to say that until IE 7 is officially released members shouldnt make a permenant decision about not liking or using it. This is a different situation then it was for when FF came out. I think MS is puting out IE beta before they really should be betas as an effort to do pre-marketing and appease users. This is their known practice but eventually they do get there. MS relaized that the Windows 95/98/ME platform was never going to get where they needed it to be so they let it die and focused on the NT platform as it was where they wanted and needed to be focused on for their future.
Uh, you didn't say that in the earlier post :) But I wasn't making permanent decisions there either as you're saying, merely sharing thoughts and coming up for an opinion until more is known. Actually count it just as a regular discussion, readers can make up what they want (minus the fanboys and the like who only take the good parts about what they like and the bad parts of what the don't like).
Ok just found another benefit of IE vs FF.
Intellisense on the address bar and a better graphic. :D
http://www.vbforums.com/images/ieimages/2006/02/1.jpg
Fx does the same thing out of your history.
What do you call this? :)
Autocomplete. ;)
Do you have a point? :confused:
It's exactly the same. Except IE gives you the title as well as the url. On different lines.
How can something be "Exactly the same" but "different..."?Quote:
Originally Posted by dglienna
Firefox gives you hundreds of pages that you visited IE gives me this:
It's been a while since I used IE at VBF, though.
My point is that it is not the same. They are different. :)
We get the cool icon in the url, though :)
Why do you need intelisense or autocomplete, when you can use a keyword in Fx...;)
I just write
v
and I will go to vbforums.com..;)...much faster...;)
- ØØ -
You mean keywords like they use in AOL :lol:
No, these ones are actually usable, and editable ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Never in my wildest dreams did I expect this thread to get this much attention, but, it certainly has been very enjoyable reading.
I think I'm going to try FireFox at home (I can't at work...locked into IE)
Noooooo! :lol: You need to also try IE 7 then. :D
Well, I do have more than one computer at home, and, both my company, and the company at which I'm doing onsite work for, have IE as their default, so at some point, I'm sure they will roll it out as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Never used AOL...I am not stupid..;) Keywords for bookmarks is the smartest thing ever...saves me so much time every day....espacialy for seraches on google...just one letter to do a search..;)
- ØØ -
We had a client (an attorney) that used AOL and it is terrible. Its like the internet for beginners, very beginners. Dont you use the Google search bar? just as easy and time saving.
Google automaticaly pics up your IE and see where you are in the world...Since I am in Switzerland and not German speaking as they think I am, a the search bar gives me Google in German, with lots of german results....see where I am going with this...;) Keywords is the way to go...;)
- ØØ -
Yes, but it just doesnt seem right :lol:
Then get new glasses and , some hearing aid, then we can talk again..:)
What is it with them? My wife is an attorney, and the firm she was with for many, many years used AOL for their internet and corporate email. She hated it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I'm doing a new site design for my homepage. I decided to try some alpha PNGs, thus I needed a trick to get it right in IE6 and IE5.5. I also ended up choosing to use an XML prolog, meaning even IE7 doesn't understand margin : 0 auto; ... and here I am, I need CSS fixes for every IE that exists to this day. I also decided I'll have fun with IE4 and make it useable as well, since it supports enough CSS and I have it installed.
So... the page is at http://merri.net/index.html at the moment.
The problems:
- All IEs: do not understand margin : 0 auto; to center a block element due to entering into quirksmode rendering (this should be fixed in IE7 final). IEs also display <img> alt attribute as tooltip, other browsers show the title attribute.
- IE 6.0 and IE 5.5: partial alpha PNG support done via JavaScript and an unofficial filter CSS trick. Effects only <img> tags. Use non-alpha PNGs for CSS defined images.
- IE 5.0: since no alpha PNG support, make a big light blue box for the menu so it looks atleast a little better.
- IE 4.0: since can't set list items horizontally via CSS only, the menu is scrollable... not easy, but bearable. Several other layot fixes. IE4 check is done via JavaScript browser detection :( I also had to include meta content-type as IE didn't understand XML prolog at all and IE4 didn't understand if included using document.write.
In the source:
As far as I know, other browsers get it mostly right, although I haven't been able to test with Firefox 1.0.7, Konqueror and Safari. Opera 7.54u2 doesn't show the menu horizontally and there is only one item visible, but I don't bother to figure out how to detect it... one nasty JavaScript detection is enough. Oh well... atleast shows that Firefox and Opera work with the standards while IE requires some extra work.Code:<!-- to fix the issues of Internet Explorer 7, 6, 5.5, 5.0 and 4.0 -->
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<!--[if IE]><style media="screen" type="text/css">@import url('/ie_all.css');</style><![endif]-->
<!--[if lt IE 7]><style media="screen" type="text/css">@import url('/ie_png.css');</style><script defer src="/ie_png.js" type="text/javascript"></script><![endif]-->
<!--[if lt IE 5.5]><style media="screen" type="text/css">@import url('/ie_5.css');</style><![endif]-->
<script src="/ie_4.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Designwise comment: I really need to read about visual design some day so I could do a design that looks fully unique by style.
Other comments: wanted to bring up some practical issues that bother with IE when making websites. I've learned to avoid many things in CSS that would be nice if they worked with IE, position : fixed; would be great for an example.
Edit: btw, the Tetris page works, try it: it is done with a nice CSS and JavaScript combination, each thing doing what it should be doing.
Firefox Question: Opera has a very nice feature "Fit to window width". When you click this button, it resizes the page so that it fits it selfaccording to window width. Very usefull for 800x600 users like me.
Anything similar in Firefox ?
Sorry Hack. This is probably not the right place to ask, but all Fx lovers gather here. So... :D
@Merri,
I have played your Tetris game. It is great. :thumb:
I'm happy to report that the page looks fine in Konqueror 3.5.
also looks great in Fx 1.0.7 (posting from Ubuntu livecd).Quote:
Originally Posted by CornedBee
Try www.browsershots.org. It takes a few hours (to a day or two) but you end up with pictures of a site in most of the major browsers (not including Fx 1.5).
Merri I think illustrates why most web designers hate IE. If you want to use CSS (and many others things) for more than just the basics, there are so many extra things you have to do to get a website working correctly. Probably all non-trivial sites could be made so much simpler code-wise if they didn't have to work in IE. Users don't notice, and most IE users wouldn't know, because sites that they see look fine - they don't realise the additional effort that goes into getting them that way.
Then again, many pages use old-school techniques like table-based layouts and presentational elements, and their coders probably don't see any problems with IE because of that.
Don't think so, you can decrease the text size using Ctrl+- but that's about it... Unless the page uses fixed widths then it should resize with your window anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by iPrank
I think because they are very knowledgeable in Law and not in Tech stuff they are afrad to try to learn and stick with the kiddy level of surfing the web - AOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack
Always problems with them and email or just network connection, etc. Boooo! AOL SLAP :D
There is some updated info on what has been fixed in IE7 beta 2 compared to IE6 at Quirksmode. CSS compatibility table is an interesting read.
Not only that but if all pages whre following the W3C standards, it would me much easier to optimize a browsers renderer, and pages would render faster then they do these days...I don't want to think about all the extra IFs that goes into a browsers code just because of this...Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
- ØØ -
Well, atleast all of the modern browsers have "standards compliant mode" and "quirksmode" to ease that issue a good bit. Of course, if a browser could be sure it always gets valid data, it could be a lot faster. That is a fantasy in real life though, can't ever expect users to give valid code... and a browser often gets the blame even if the user (= someone who made the page) made the error :/
Microsoft's IE7 browser preview fails to impress
I don't think it's fair to write off the product before it's released, but I do think it's fair to say it's not shaping up to be anything more than mediocre at this point in time. It's good what they are doing to it but as I wrote on another forum they are really wasting their time with this release. They would be better served rewriting the rendering engine altogether - the codebase is old and can't cope with modern features. I guess they need something quickly to combat Firefox/Opera, but it is just going to set them back even more at this rate.