Browser Standoff

[Svip]

 

You knew this was coming.

 

Okay folks, this topic was split off from the "members pic" thread in Forum Suggestions. Seeing as there was an interesting discussion/rant surfacing about browser superiority - a topic that pops up all the time around here - I felt that we should have a thread where all this sh*t gets settled, once and for all.

 

The entire debacle in the Members Pic thread was prompted by Svip's rudimentary bashing of Internet Explorer, and spiralled from there.

 

So - discuss. Which is the best browser, what do you favour? Where do you stand?

 

I'm interested in seeing the replies to this topic.

 

- Tsuro

BTW; kick ass, IE displays the page wrong!

 

What'd ya gonna do about it? Nothing, nothing at all.

 

If IE can't live up to W3C or simple Web Standards, it can burn in hell.

 

/me fries IE.

Edited June 24, 2005 by Tsuroki

[Tsuroki]

BTW; kick ass, IE displays the page wrong!

 

What'd ya gonna do about it? Nothing, nothing at all.

 

If IE can't live up to W3C or simple Web Standards, it can burn in hell.

 

/me fries IE.

I was waiting for a post like that from you.

[SWEETSAPRIK]

Meh, DigitalD posted this way back in march, so it's bound to have changed a little bit by now.

 

Still, I doubt that it's changed by a any large amount. And since the users of the site you guys are making is intended to be used by the same people that use this one, why would you piss in their cornflakes? I don't use the sh!ttiest browser on the planet IE, so I really don't care that much, but still, most (I'd guess that it's still around 80%) of the site users might. Also, anyone who uses IE probably won't know that it's their browser, they'll just think that your site is ugly, so why not just fix it? Anyway, just a thought.

[Svip]

Well... if they like browsering the web, maybe it's about time they trashed IE and woke up?

 

This site is going to be a slap in their face saying; "Hey, fa**ots, get out of bed, use Firefox or something else instead of IE!"

[MsNobody]

PC World says that the top product of 2005 is Firefox.

[SWEETSAPRIK]

PC World says that the top product of 2005 is Firefox.

I like firefox better too, but what the f*ck does that have to do with anything?

Please let's not have this turn into another browser whoring topic.

The point I was making is that many of the people that use this site, and many of the people that will use the other one, still use IE. So I just don't know why you'd purposely make their experience a sh!tty one. If it can't be done, fine. If it's way too much effort, fine. But the idea of saying that you don't like a browser so screw the majority of the people that use the internet just seems stupid, and childish.

 

But like I said, I use FF so I don't care.

[Tsuroki]

Topic split off from Member Pics one, moved to WD&P because it has alot to do with the browser's reliability and conformity with web standards...

 

 

Oh, and Svip, as I've told you countless times - you're a moron for trying to force users to change their software. Linux zealots do it, Firefox zealots do it. You're both. A decent web developer follows through on developing for the end user, and thus should design sites that work properly in IE, since it's dominant for Windows-based systems (which make up the majority of the user market).

 

Web designers and developers are supposed to design the website to make it easy for the client/viewer to use.

 

You're not supposed to design the website to work on a specific engine/browser, and then tell the viewers to either change their software or f*ck off.

[Chunky Lee Chong]

Well... if they like browsering the web, maybe it's about time they trashed IE and woke up?

You do realize that there are thousands of people who are perfectly capable of running Internet Explorer with no problems at all. Infact, the only real reason I upgraded to Firefox is the fact that I was told to do so on Sysnode.

 

Some of the things that I do like about Firefox is tabbed browsing so my taskbar is not cluttered up by porn and gtaforums windows. I also like the pop-up blocker and the pop-under option and all of the user-friendly options that Firefox has.

[SWEETSAPRIK]

Topic split off from Member Pics one, moved to WD&P because it has alot to do with the browser's reliability and conformity with web standards...

 

 

Oh, and Svip, as I've told you countless times - you're a moron for trying to force users to change their software. Linux zealots do it, Firefox zealots do it. You're both. A decent web developer follows through on developing for the end user, and thus should design sites that work properly in IE, since it's dominant for Windows-based systems (which make up the majority of the user market).

 

Web designers and developers are supposed to design the website to make it easy for the client/viewer to use.

 

You're not supposed to design the website to work on a specific engine/browser, and then tell the viewers to either change their software or f*ck off.

I want to have your babies.

 

On-topic.

All of my previous posts were really about the upcoming site not FF, so here.

 

I personally use Firefox because:

1. I think IE sucks, I thought that before I even knew that there was an alternative.

2. The taskbar thing that CLC mentioned.

Having a bunch of boxes on there is annoying and ugly, but having only one that says "IE 14" is much worse. Tabs kick an unholy amount of @ss.

3. Extensions, I only have around 10 (Including the GTAF one.) but if I ever want more, they're there for me. Thay have an extension for everything. The Adblock, and PrefBar extensions also rock.

4. Not one piece of spyware since I started using it.

(EDIT)

And I even like the portable version of firefox more than IE. It lacks back button functionality, but that's because it runs off of a USB drive and doesn't save history or cookies. Being able to carry not just my bookmarks, but my browser, bookmarks, extensions, etc. in my poket to another computer is really useful.

Edited June 24, 2005 by SWEETSAPRIK

[G twenty-nine]

I love both Firefox and Epiphany. When I first started using computers, I thought IE was the only one, and I really didn't mind it. I was retarded.

 

<3 ubuntu

[MsNobody]

PC World says that the top product of 2005 is Firefox.

I like firefox better too, but what the f*ck does that have to do with anything?

Please let's not have this turn into another browser whoring topic.

The point I was making is that many of the people that use this site, and many of the people that will use the other one, still use IE. So I just don't know why you'd purposely make their experience a sh!tty one. If it can't be done, fine. If it's way too much effort, fine. But the idea of saying that you don't like a browser so screw the majority of the people that use the internet just seems stupid, and childish.

 

But like I said, I use FF so I don't care.

I was just supporting your statement:

 

 

Meh, DigitalD posted this way back in march, so it's bound to have changed a little bit by now.

[SWEETSAPRIK]

Yeah, now that they split the topic, this actually is the place for browser whoring, so feel free to ignore that. I just didn't want this argument to get started in there, and possibly derail the "Member picture site" from actually getting done. Sorry.

[Hynes]

I agree. The browser needs to be able to live up to SIMPLE STANDARDS.

 

Firefox all the way. Don't tell me otherwise.

[Tsuroki]

I agree. The browser needs to be able to live up to SIMPLE STANDARDS.

 

Firefox all the way. Don't tell me otherwise.

I use Firefox, I love Firefox. But I completely acknowledge the fact that if I'm going to make something that I want to reach as wide an audience as possible, I can't just develop for standards, but I must also develop for compatability.

 

You said it yourself - IE doesn't support standards. But look at the statistics; the majority still uses IE. Unless you're making a site just for Firefox users, you're going to need to take these statistics into account.

[Bond996]

I agree. The browser needs to be able to live up to SIMPLE STANDARDS.

 

Firefox all the way. Don't tell me otherwise.

I use Firefox, I love Firefox. But I completely acknowledge the fact that if I'm going to make something that I want to reach as wide an audience as possible, I can't just develop for standards, but I must also develop for compatability.

 

You said it yourself - IE doesn't support standards. But look at the statistics; the majority still uses IE. Unless you're making a site just for Firefox users, you're going to need to take these statistics into account.

I agree with your compatibilty and standards argument, yet neither Firefox nor IE live to either of these. Yes everyone, Firefox is NOT entirely W3 compliant. It has not passed the Acid2 test, and does not include every function and feature and element of all of the correct standards. It is true however, that it meets the majority of them and is far more compatible with them then many browsers. IE on the other hand does not meet as many, and it invents quite a few of its own for its use. It does not comply very well, and to make a page display correctly in IE often means to break standardized procedures. Pages that display correctly in IE sometimes don't in firefox. But the point is, Microsoft has the power to push standards on people. They're trying to do this with email ID's, a new form of RSS, many things in IE, and for a while even in Office. Luckily they're switching to open documented formats and are actually starting to follow some standards, but they design to however they want to design. And mozilla does design to standards, but only to a degree.

[BenMillard]

 

Topic split off from Member Pics one, moved to WD&P because it has alot to do with the browser's reliability and conformity with web standards...

 

 

Oh, and Svip, as I've told you countless times - you're a moron for trying to force users to change their software. Linux zealots do it, Firefox zealots do it. You're both. A decent web developer follows through on developing for the end user, and thus should design sites that work properly in IE, since it's dominant for Windows-based systems (which make up the majority of the user market).

 

Web designers and developers are supposed to design the website to make it easy for the client/viewer to use.

 

You're not supposed to design the website to work on a specific engine/browser, and then tell the viewers to either change their software or f*ck off.

*standing ovation*

 

The current situation with browsers and CSS means that it is a slightly exotic medium because the reality is that deployment has been slow. Even several years after the XHTML 1.0 specification, few mainstream user agents support it at all and none support it completely. Indeed, more than a decade after IETF HTML 2.0 was introduced, many user agents mis-treat basic HTML elements (such as the IE series with it's proprietry extensions to <table> and ignorance of equivalent CSS). While naming names and pointing fingers, Mozilla's proprietry extensions to the CSS specification (while ignoring many other parts of it) is a somewhat brazen disregard of the standards.

 

Therefore mainstream web developers must create products which can be used by the mainstream. Private clubs and intranets can use exotic XML namespaces and simply deploy the required software to the machines on that network, but one cannot realistically expect to deploy a piece of software across the entire Internet promptly. Web developers who design for proprietry products should not put their work in the public domain where incompatible agents might view it. The understanding is that one should only distribute products to those who can actually use them.

 

 

However, those who undertake the creation of user agents must acknowledge the standards which are in place and make every effort to support them. Where they cannot support them there must be good provisions for graceful degredation so that standard documents can still be used in at least a limited capacity. Developers who create user agents which cannot offer this are at fault (through no lack of trying, though) and impeed proper use of the Web. Any application which does not recognise standardised computing practises is a serious problem due to the fragile and easily corrupted nature of electronic information.

 

In conclusion, we have a bit of a mess - although things are gradually improving. Developers of user agents are unable or unwilling to provide effective products to support standard formats. Developers of content are unable or unwilling to provide documents in standard formats. The solution must surely be for all developers to be educated, educated about the problems of inter-operability to ensure devices can access information, educated about accessibility so that humans can access the information as well as the devices and educated about the basic architecture of electronic systems so they can better appreciate what a delicate environment they are working with.

 

 

(EDIT) The Stack of Specifications, Sir Timothy Berners-Lee - gives a better idea about how technically demanding simply sending a web page from a server to a client really is. Add to this the complexity of parsing markup, combining stylesheets with correct adherence to cascading architecture and rendering complex visual elements containing images, text and other complex elements. It seems miraculous that the thing works at all!

Edited June 25, 2005 by Cerbera

[Svip]

True, when making a mainstream website, then yes, the site should be viewable under every mainstream browser.

 

However, the major reason why I am not fond of IE is because it's lack of Web Standards, if Microsoft did these standards OR, alternative, we made all people change to a far more web standard compitible browser, such as Firefox or Opera, then webdesigners would have a far easier job creating web sites, cause they just had to follow the rules given by W3C and they would know that the majorty of the Internet would display the site as they meant it to be displayed.

 

There exist 3 major engines today, Trident ( the engine IE runs on ), Gecko ( the engine created by the Mozilla foundation ) and KHTML ( that browsers such as Safari and Konqueror runs on ), there are of course another set of different engines, but e.g. Opera has it's own, and so does browsers such as Dillo and Amaya.

 

Each engine has it's own idea of how the web should look like, though Amaya is W3C's own browser, doesn't it mean in this case that it in fact follows the rules of Web Standards, which W3C themselves made, because the maintaince of the browser simply just lagged out and was forgotten 4 years ago.

 

There is no browser today that displays the web as it should be displays, sadly. There are browsers whom are close, but I am quite sure that we'll have to wait some time before a browser appears and displays all our pages as they were meant to be.

 

Still, I hope that Windows XP N will allow you to download another set of browser than IE.

[rottenass]

Svip, next time moan to m$, not us poor simpletons.

They are almost done with development of IE7, but I'm sure if they missed anything, they'd be happy for feedback. Things get done if you tell the person making it what you want, opposed to just bitching about it.

 

Also, f*ck w3c. they say its standard so now it is?

When I started webcoding, we didnt have that sh*t, we didnt need that sh*t. and the same can be said now.

 

Almost every website I design can be viewed exactly the same on any browser (except text based) around. I don't need to state "you suck, use FF to view my site because im an idiot who cannot code properly" it states "i code something that people can use, because im clever"

 

on a side note, tsuroki, you got it in one mate.

[Svip]

 

Svip, next time moan to m$, not us poor simpletons.

They are almost done with development of IE7, but I'm sure if they missed anything, they'd be happy for feedback. Things get done if you tell the person making it what you want, opposed to just bitching about it.

 

Also, f*ck w3c. they say its standard so now it is?

When I started webcoding, we didnt have that sh*t, we didnt need that sh*t. and the same can be said now.

 

Almost every website I design can be viewed exactly the same on any browser (except text based) around. I don't need to state "you suck, use FF to view my site because im an idiot who cannot code properly" it states "i code something that people can use, because im clever"

 

on a side note, tsuroki, you got it in one mate.

W3C makes it standard.

 

W3C has been there since the Web started, so I would assume when W3C says it's standard, IT f*ckING IS STANDARD.

 

And true webdesigners know of W3C.

 

EDIT: Yes, I normally code my websites so every browser fits them, I was about to do that with anuj's layout, however, I'd thought I comment on it, but since my brain glipped when I commented, it turned out to be an IE bashing instead of just refereeing to the fact of the lack of Web Standards in IE, thus making it hard to code.

Edited June 25, 2005 by Svip

[Tsuroki]

we made all people change to a far more web standard compitible browser, such as Firefox or Opera,

 

That's the main problem I'm seeing from your end for browsers and OS debates. Rather than trying to get people to put pressure on Microsoft to improve it's software, you're trying to get people to abandon these products altogether and use something else. The same can be said for Windows and Linux distrobutions - rather than getting people to put pressure on Microsoft to make their product more stable/secure/whathaveyou, your advice always seems to be to drop it completely and use something else.

 

 

 

There is no browser today that displays the web as it should be displays, sadly

 

That's a bit of a paradox. Web browsers determine how the internet is displayed. The same way the world is perceived differently depending on the person, the internet is displayed differently depending on the browser. You can't say that there's a single "right way" to display the web. Sure, you may believe a particular way is the right way, but that doesn't mean it is.

 

Sorry if I'm being somewhat confusing, I have sh*t going on right now that's distracting me.

[SWEETSAPRIK]

Well, regardless of how bad IE is, some people will never give up on it. It actually has a few staunch supporters, although I can't imagine why. But that's not even the main reason. The real reason is the fact that there are millions of people that will never download a second browser when they already have one on their PC. I'm willing to bet that some people are still running IE 3.0.

 

Even if MS totally gave up on advancing IE any further, there would be people who would continue to use it for years afterward. Some people actually like it, and others are just too stupid to know the difference. So as bad as it is, people still have to make their sites so that they show up well in it. So I agree with Tsuroki on that one point, forcing MS to make IE better is really the only option.

[G twenty-nine]

I agree, forcing your opinion upon others will get you nowhere. Now, if you just bring up it's good points, and maybe some of other browsers bad points, you'll get farther than an "IE is stupid and firefox is better." Maybe say for them to try it, if they like it then use it, if not don't, simple as that! Bashing microsoft (although they use dos =P) is horrible too. I use ubuntu, and windows. If you just tell people that linux is better than windows, and windows users are stupid, again you're going nowhere.

 

Back on browsers.. Epiphany and firefox are my favorites (as said before), but does anyone know if I could make it so that they can share history and bookmarks and all? That would really wicked.