OT: Stop IE

[wilhil]

Internet Explorer - Slow or Fast?
Despite being bloated, standards uncompliant, buggy and dangerous, Microsoft's Internet explorer is fast. It is fast however due to the simple fact that it is integrated into windows and because it has a stone-age, limited rendering engine.

// I have NEVER had speed problems

So, even though being technically fast,
// OH, SO THEY WENT BACK ON THEIR FIRST POINT???
it does not render the page well. You may not be able to read the text correctly, or have some other problem due to its rendering. So in reality - it can be slow.
//BS! I am a internet junky! I go on so many news sites daily, forums, and a whole load more, I HAVE NEVER had a rendering problem, and I have a 8mb/s connection, my connection is never slow, the truth with pictures and others coming is deep in mozilla code, it has a minimum of 8 connections to a webserver, which in actuall facts, when a webserver is having 1000 clients connecting to a image heavy site, this is the equivilant of 8000 connections, slowing down a webserver, so it can be quicker, where as IE has a default of I think 2, this can be changed in the registry. This setting is more generous to webservers, and if changed, the speed can be improved


Tabbed browsing - Seems quicker
Tabbed browsing allows the user to open and view many pages at once, across many different websites. You can open a link 'in a new tab', and while it is loading, you can continue reading the page you are on.
//I agree, tabbed browsing is great, but it makes no diffrence to shift clicking and opening a new window, then alt tabing back.


This definitely (for dial-up users anyway) makes the internet seem faster. Tabbed browsing is a feature that IE does not support.
// It does with addons. If you are using dial up in 2005, you really only have yourself to blame!

However, the alternatives do.

Standards resistance = slower internet
Because Internet Explorer doesn't support CSS properly (faster download, because a page's design must only be loaded once, then just content), programmers and web designers must use 'hacks', or old or invalid code (takes longer to load). This means IE is slowing the entire Internet down significantly!
//I have not got a lot of experiance with css, but I would of thought that the css file would need to be downloaded each time you go to a diffrent page, so hows this diffrent, css is mainly a way for web developers to easily update mass sites in one go, with fonts and stuff, it makes no diffrence to the user if the site is css or not, I could be wrong here, but I do not really 100% understand the new css, I use the old css, and it works fine!


Web developers must go to extra lengths to make PNG alpha transparency, drop-down menus, and many other nice features work in Internet Explorer.
//ahh, BS, I use JPG, works great!

Internet Explorer: Increased costs for all
Because web designers need to charge higher prices to ensure that pages work in Internet Explorer, their clients must pay extra. These costs are then passed down to you, the consumer.
//nope, just use visual studio.net 2003 for asp.net or frontpage for normal html and asp, it works great, and always compatible with IE, view my last part in my last post.


Speed up the Web? Get rid of Internet Explorer
Get an alternative to Internet Explorer. You'll be saving money for people, and speeding up the web for yourself and others.
// sounds like someone just hates microsoft.

[wilhil]

General Woundwort said:
I switched to Firefox 6 months ago. I've had a few problems loading some websites in Firefox, but nothing to make me regret the switch.

Just doing my bit to undermine the Microborg...

but what problems did you have in IE to warrent the switch?

hasnt anyone figured out, there always has been, and always will be companies like microsoft, what happened if I, today, and everyone switched to mozilla?

as free as it is, banners, or google sponsered top, they would then own 100% of the market, and be just a target for hackers as IE is today and then will people be saying switch to IE?




People who go on, and try and convert others are frankly no better than people on streets with megaphones saying convert your religeon, yours does xxx and ours does yyy.

[Fyron]

over half the sites out there are probably not w3c fully compatible, but look, the internet is not shuting down, failing, or anything. IT WORKS! get used to it!

Ok, let me give you this power adaptor for your PC. I am MS, so I ignore standards. Unfortunately, your house was built with standards in mind, so the adaptor shorts out and burns down your house. Now do we see why standards are important?

...if png was THAT popular for websites, I am sure everyone would start using it, and then microsoft would make it compatible...

PNG is a popular format, and is rising all the time. It will never be ubiquitous, and never should be. For images with low numbers of colors, GIF is better because it creates smaller files with no quality loss.

The problem is alpha transparency (blended level transparent pixels for smooth integration with the background instead of the on/off of traditional transparency). This is an awesome feature of PNG that web designers can not use because IE still can not render it after half a decade. Once again, the crappiness of IE stifles innovation. This is a huge problem... There are many excellent features of the w3c standard sets for CSS, HTML, XHTML, etc. that we can not use because IE is poorly implemented.

I see you did not quote el_phil saying:
Frankly if the site doesn't support IE it's the sites problem, not the browser. If you don't support the 85%+ market leader your stuborn or stupid.

Actually, I did. Please refer back a few posts.

do I really care about designing for w3c standards, NO! I will develop for what is popular, and as long as that is internet explorer, I have no reason to change.

This is frankly a rediculous argument that always comes up, I have no problem with IE, and why should I change something that works fine, and I have no problems with, just because you are saying IE does not comply with standards that I do not need to use as my site works with IE, and other useless points...

*cringe* There is little point in addressing the rest of this (especially since you missed the point entirely and I would just be repeating myself). Please do the world a favor and stop designing buggy web sites. Thank you.

[Fyron]

I HAVE NEVER had a rendering problem...

Because site designers are forced to use terrible hacks to work with IE bugs. That's the whole point... HTML code should work identically in all browsers WITHOUT special hacks. Thus, the w3c standards.

...mozilla code... a minimum of 8 connections to a webserver

More like 2...

//I agree, tabbed browsing is great, but it makes no diffrence to shift clicking and opening a new window, then alt tabing back.

This is true. However, it is very messey to have 8 or 9 windows open. Tabs are an excellent organizational tool.

...If you are using dial up in 2005, you really only have yourself to blame!

How elitist of you.

//I have not got a lot of experiance with css, but I would of thought that the css file would need to be downloaded each time you go to a diffrent page

Not at all. The browser cache stores 1 copy of the CSS file that does not need to be downloaded over and over again. It makes a huge difference in bandwidth and loading times.

Web developers must go to extra lengths to make PNG alpha transparency, drop-down menus, and many other nice features work in Internet Explorer.
//ahh, BS, I use JPG, works great!

Wow... just wow. Yay for stifling innovation!

//nope, just use visual studio.net 2003 for asp.net or frontpage for normal html and asp, it works great, and always compatible with IE, view my last part in my last post.

Front Page is one of the worst web page design tools out there. It creates bloated, buggy code. It most assuredly does not produce "normal HTML."

Speed up the Web? Get rid of Internet Explorer
Get an alternative to Internet Explorer. You'll be saving money for people, and speeding up the web for yourself and others.
// sounds like someone just hates microsoft.

Umm... no, it doesn't.

[wilhil]

ok, now then...

if microsoft designed a power adapter and burnt down my house, I would be annoyed, but when it comes down to it, I do not design my websites with standards in mind, I design for what works in IE, and it also works in mozilla, so why should I care if it is a standard or not when it works? Why should I comply to a standard when it already works in multiple browsers? something like a power adapater, fine! it can go wrong if you do something wrong and do not comply to standards, but as I said, internet is not shuting down because people do not comply to standards as most people use IE and there is no problem, which is why I simply said, why not make a new standard called IE compatible? already there is more websites who have this standard than w3c, and then make mozilla and other browsers IE compliant!?

I do not see why I should stop designing my websites with IE in mind, IE is a huge % of the internet, and frankly, my sites work in mozilla and other browsers, my site is not w3c standard. I created it in visual studio, I copied to my webservers, it works in both IE and mozilla, but is not w3c standard.

I feel we are moving away from the main point here, and it is becoming more a flame war, the main thing I can say is, my non w3c standard site works in both IE and it works in mozilla, which means that mozilla supports not w3c sites, so in reality, how is this diffrent from IE?

[Thermodyne]

El_Phil said:
Ohh that's the kind of talk that attracts Thermodyne. Probably with some comment about how we all must change now, and you're a fool if you don't. Just a prediction

El_Phil, why don�t you just make your posts under my name? You seem to continuously try to put words into my mouth! Even though you don�t have a clue about me, as usual. You�re worse than an old mother-in-law.

Fact is that I recommend Firefox for personal use, although its popularity has caused it to become a target for exploits too. I was one of the early converts to Firefox. And I really don�t care what browser people use. IE holds the majority of the personal market and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. IE rules the business world, and will remained unchallenged as long as developers rely on activeX controls to make things work. IE 6.0.2900.2180 can be made quite secure on an XPsp2 system, but it is a constant chore to keep it locked down on a system used for random web browsing. Personally, I�m beginning to look for another obscure browser, one that will not have the install base to attract exploits.

Just to set the record straight, the core IE code that keeps being hacked is not even MS�s work. They licensed/bought the majority of it from outside sources.

[Captain Kwok]

All browsers have advantages and disadvantages.

For example, I've being using Firefox for the last year or so and I've experienced more problems with it than I did using IE before - particularily when it crashes and deletes all my bookmarks. I still prefer to use because most it's security features are on by default, so it means less fiddling for me.

I don't follow computer things too closely anymore, but I do find it ironic that many of the programmers who are putting together free software in their spare time are in a way destroying their own future job prospects if their programs take off and replace commercial programs.

[El_Phil]

Imperator Fyron said:
Ok, let me give you this power adaptor for your PC. I am MS, so I ignore standards. Unfortunately, your house was built with standards in mind, so the adaptor shorts out and burns down your house. Now do we see why standards are important?

Hence why MS does bugger all in hardware and long may that continue. Seriously though you have to provide the users a reason to switch. As has been shown no-ones bothered about how bodged it is or how much extra work it is for the web monkeys

So as a serious question, if all this CSS and XML could be fully implemented on websites what would I notice? Not behind the scenes or less bodges for the writers, but what you see upfront, because I genuinely don't know.

[Renegade 13]

wilhil said:
If you are using dial up in 2005, you really only have yourself to blame!

I'm sorry, but this is blatently untrue. Where I live right now, in the center of British Columbia, Canada, outside of a city, all we have access to is dial-up. Satellite: Maybe. Far far too expensive though. Cable: Nope. ADSL: Nope.

And I'm to blame for this...how?

[Fyron]

Compatibility with all browser and OS environments is the entire purpose of the w3c standards. IE is not a valid standard bearer.

I feel we are moving away from the main point here, and it is becoming more a flame war, the main thing I can say is, my non w3c standard site works in both IE and it works in mozilla, which means that mozilla supports not w3c sites, so in reality, how is this diffrent from IE?

IE supports part of w3c. You can design fully w3c-compliant web sites that work in both IE and the rest of the world. IE also has a lot of junk code that it supports that must be avoided. Do you at least run sites through http://validator.w3.org/ to avoid major errors?