Firefox? Opera? (anything but IE) - Page 5 - HTML Forums

afterburn · 09-15-2004, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HIQ
Oh, you can skin Opera too - View -> Skin -> Get skins. Download a skin that you like and apply it. You can also, unlike in Firefox, apply a color scheme to the skin (i.e. change its coloring): View -> Color Scheme -> [choose a color]. You can add own colors (in #hex) by editing an Opera INI file.

Does it have a cape and cowl too? My IE does!!

Juparis · 09-15-2004, 09:47 PM

Call me a jerk, but I'm still leaning towards IE. I can guarantee this won't apply to everyone, but I shall list how everything has been, using nilsmo's post as a guide.

Skins? I can't change the color scheme, but I wouldn't want to anyway; I'm fine with the ones I got.
Bloated? Never noticed any difference with or without IE--in speed or performance. Secure? This may be a problem for others, but I'm protected--this makes no difference to me. Cost? My IE was free... Slow? Hey; I'm still in the 50% of Americans using Dial-up. I couldn't care less if it opened up a second earlier or not; I got the patience! Innovation? I really don't care... Cluttered interface? Dunno what this means, so I'll leave this a *maybe*. Bad code handling? Ok, I gotta admit, many people have convinced me this is a big bad guy for IE. Still, most websites are designed for IE, and (even if they aren't) function perfectly normal (at least the sites I visit. I'm not sure what kind of sites I'd find these faulties...).

In conclusion: IE ain't so bad after all (for me at least). Maybe I say that cause I'm that annoying guy rooting for the big Microsoft company, or maybe I say that because (in my case) it's true!

I don't want to convince people to convert to IE (especially if they'd have to pay a hundred bucks, which.. I .. somehow.. avoided... ??), but I just want someone (for once) to acknowledge that IE can be the best solution for some. Whether it's included with the computer software, or if they downloaded it free, sometimes it's just easier to go with the flow.

Either way, I still plan to test both Firefox and Opera in the future. I just don't have the time to see all the features in each right now...

Josh · 09-15-2004, 09:53 PM

tabbed browsing alone is enough reason to switch to another browser, believe me.

Juparis · 09-15-2004, 09:59 PM

That's just when the computer suggests sites you've visited after you type in the first letter or so, correct?

I don't see the big deal of that. I've seen it used, I've tried using it, and it just annoys me. Not to the point of converting browsers, but enough for me to say it's not big enough a reason...

What makes the tabbing in Firefox/Opera so more special than IE?

Josh · 09-15-2004, 10:11 PM

no no!
Not at all!!!!

IE doesn't have anything even similar to tabbed browsing.

Tabbed browsing alows you to have multiple sites, that would normally be new windows in IE, open in one browser instance. Meaning you only have one icon in your taskbar thing at the bottom of your screen but can have multiple actual site open.

This makes browsing incredible easier and it saves RAM.

I would suggest trying this out.

HIQ · 09-16-2004, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by afterburn
Does it have a cape and cowl too? My IE does!!

Okay, so, what are you trying to say? The feature is completely useless because Firefox doesn't have it?

afterburn · 09-16-2004, 01:04 PM

No one is going to change the browser that they are comfortable with. So stop trying.

I can really care less about tabbed browsing. Used on Mozzila...

The security holes everyone is talking about. Are visible due to surface area. If 90% of the world used Mozilla, then they would be the ones getting attacked.

Changing the Colors, I can do that do, by changing my windows 2003 theme to any thing I want to... can even change the browser buttons.

And the cost of browser really doesn't matter when everyone gets it installed when they get a new computer its not like its extra money. Just Like Netscape selling 4.7 at BestBuy for $20, bet their sales did move much if any for it...

Opera didn't enter the market when IE and Netscape had already. NS uses a custom version of an Open Source project modified by thousands.
IE written by MS with millions to throw at it if something was wrong.

The rendering of IE arguement is just a horrible idea to validate using another browser. It was written that way for a reason. Because you have so many people that are using free software that know nothing about webdevelopment, putting up personal web pages that don't know how to edit it manually. Also before the standard was completed HTML was being used, so there are millions of pages that pre-date the standard out there. Mozilla and Opera will not view them correctly.

HIQ · 09-16-2004, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by afterburn
No one is going to change the browser that they are comfortable with. So stop trying.

Well, why do people change from Internet Explorer to Mozilla, Opera, and many other browsers at all then? You may have tried other browsers and feel most comfortable with IE, well, that is ok. But most IE users have never tried any other browsers. Some of them don't even realize there are other browsers. They feel comfortable with IE but they cannot expect other browsers to give more; the reactions of many former IE users have been "how did I ever manage with IE?"

Quote:

Originally posted by afterburn
The security holes everyone is talking about. Are visible due to surface area. If 90% of the world used Mozilla, then they would be the ones getting attacked.

All browsers have security holes, also Mozilla, and Opera. Just go view them at Secunia. IE has way more though but the reasons are completely different. Firstly, IE supports ActiveX - the worst invention ever from Microsoft. Secondly, IE is very integrated to Windows itself. IE and Windows Explorer are basically the same thing, pretty much anything can be dragged and dropped from IE to any Microsoft program, as well as Windows, and back to IE. This makes IE much more vulnerable.

Quote:

Originally posted by afterburn
Opera didn't enter the market when IE and Netscape had already.

Opera was created back in 1992, it wasn't released publicly before 1995 though. But it has existed ever since, it just didn't have any much users back then, as there was no free version available before version 5.0 (only a 30-day trial version).

Quote:

Originally posted by afterburn
The rendering of IE arguement is just a horrible idea to validate using another browser. It was written that way for a reason. Because you have so many people that are using free software that know nothing about webdevelopment, putting up personal web pages that don't know how to edit it manually. Also before the standard was completed HTML was being used, so there are millions of pages that pre-date the standard out there. Mozilla and Opera will not view them correctly.

People should learn to code, browsers shouldn't learn to parse poor code. And how can you say that IE has countless rendering bugs, for a reason?? What logic is there in letting text-align center block level elements, returning an element based on its "name" attribute when using getElementById, displaying a file based on its content / file extension instead of its given Content-Type (MIME type), allowing invalid ECMAScript syntax to be used (such as redefining an existing function using function FunctionName(){ }), and tons of other completely unnecessary support for invalid code?

And please prove why Mozilla and Opera cannot display old standard coded pages? Have you got an example or something? Stone age HTML featured headings, paragraphs, images and anchors, that's pretty much it, how can you say Mozilla and Opera doesn't support such pages...? And why is that a reason for IE to support completely invalid code?

nilsmo · 09-16-2004, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by juparis
Call me a jerk, but I'm still leaning towards IE... Never noticed any difference with or without IE--in speed or performance.

Juparis, if you have dial up and or not involved in online transactions, Internet Explorer will be sufficient.
However, to clear up the issue for high speed internet users (i estimate that is 90% of the people in htmlforums):
My computer has a 1.8Ghz P4, 256MB of RAM, XP, and a 3mbps cable connection. I chose a random website which I had never visited before (paris.com). I typed paris.com in Internet Explorer right before an Internet Explorer supporter. He timed it with his watch and the loading page time was 5 seconds. I (and my friend) did the same thing with Mozilla. Paris.com loaded in 3 seconds. The experience mozilla and opera have had in tabbed browsing is very good, and saves tons of time. Mozilla will save you 30% of the time spent waiting on Internet Explorer (with a high speed connection). It is almost always worth it.

afterburn · 09-16-2004, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HIQ
Well, why do people change from Internet Explorer to Mozilla, Opera, and many other browsers at all then? You may have tried other browsers and feel most comfortable with IE, well, that is ok. But most IE users have never tried any other browsers. Some of them don't even realize there are other browsers. They feel comfortable with IE but they cannot expect other browsers to give more; the reactions of many former IE users have been "how did I ever manage with IE?"

How many people do you actually think switch vs how many people could care less about another program that does the same thing. Browse the web. People are happy with the program provided with their computer.

Quote:

Originally posted by HIQ
All browsers have security holes, also Mozilla, and Opera. Just go view them at Secunia. IE has way more though but the reasons are completely different. Firstly, IE supports ActiveX - the worst invention ever from Microsoft. Secondly, IE is very integrated to Windows itself. IE and Windows Explorer are basically the same thing, pretty much anything can be dragged and dropped from IE to any Microsoft program, as well as Windows, and back to IE. This makes IE much more vulnerable.

Thats a completely basisless arguement about ActiveX. Have you ever coded an ActiveX object? The holes are there because of the time didn't need security. As for IE and Drag and drop is just completely wrong and misleading. First off there is a windows event in C++ WM_DROPFILES, a programmer has to program for the event. Which means any issue between the browser and any other program is only what the developer of the other program created.

Quote:

Originally posted by HIQ

Opera was created back in 1992, it wasn't released publicly before 1995 though. But it has existed ever since, it just didn't have any much users back then, as there was no free version available before version 5.0 (only a 30-day trial version).

By that time it had already lost the browser wars. In 1993 when AOL changed from NS to IE for a browser it was over.

Quote:

Originally posted by HIQ

People should learn to code, browsers shouldn't learn to parse poor code. And how can you say that IE has countless rendering bugs, for a reason?? What logic is there in letting text-align center block level elements, returning an element based on its "name" attribute when using getElementById, displaying a file based on its content / file extension instead of its given Content-Type (MIME type), allowing invalid ECMAScript syntax to be used (such as redefining an existing function using function FunctionName(){ }), and tons of other completely unnecessary support for invalid code?

Were you even alive during the browser wars? Seriously most of that stuff was because each was fighting the other for support of new features, IE 3.02 supported a smaller subset of what now IS CSS1. NS 3 supported events triggering at page level. Together in the next version each had what the other had created, making it DHTML.

As for the Content-Type, thats the servers fault also. Server are suppose to return the content type correctly if they don't know they feed the binary stream to the browser which its suppose to figure out.

ECMAScript, wasn't a standard when IE started its thing. Besides that fact. You need to open a book of OOP and C++ and see that its done all the time. And it really doesn't matter how many times in a script you redefine it javascript has no definition on how to handle functions with the same name nor does it have any type of overloading so its needed.

Your telling me that mom and pop store down the road who doesn't want to use a computer, much less learn a language how to code HTML 3.02,4.01 and XHTML? Thats a bunch...

Quote:

Originally posted by HIQ
And please prove why Mozilla and Opera cannot display old standard coded pages? Have you got an example or something? Stone age HTML featured headings, paragraphs, images and anchors, that's pretty much it, how can you say Mozilla and Opera doesn't support such pages...? And why is that a reason for IE to support completely invalid code? [/b]

Look above for the same reason...

afterburn · 09-16-2004, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nilsmo
Juparis, if you have dial up and or not involved in online transactions, Internet Explorer will be sufficient.
However, to clear up the issue for high speed internet users (i estimate that is 90% of the people in htmlforums):
My computer has a 1.8Ghz P4, 256MB of RAM, XP, and a 3mbps cable connection. I chose a random website which I had never visited before (paris.com). I typed paris.com in Internet Explorer right before an Internet Explorer supporter. He timed it with his watch and the loading page time was 5 seconds. I (and my friend) did the same thing with Mozilla. Paris.com loaded in 3 seconds. The experience mozilla and opera have had in tabbed browsing is very good, and saves tons of time. Mozilla will save you 30% of the time spent waiting on Internet Explorer (with a high speed connection). It is almost always worth it.

determining the speed of rendering would have to occur at a lower level that what your doing. You would have to be between the render and the socket to start and stop the time correctly. Besides that your also timing DSN lookup with each of the respective providers servers and any latency with each connection.

HIQ · 09-17-2004, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by afterburn

How many people do you actually think switch vs how many people could care less about another program that does the same thing. Browse the web. People are happy with the program provided with their computer.

Why do people switch then? Yes, all browsers do the same thing, browse the web. Browsers other than IE just do it better. As I said, people may be happy with IE, but if they're encouraged to try another browser, Opera or Firefox maybe, I'm sure most of them get addicted to the many new features and could never go back to IE.

Quote:

Originally posted by afterburn

Thats a completely basisless arguement about ActiveX. Have you ever coded an ActiveX object? The holes are there because of the time didn't need security. As for IE and Drag and drop is just completely wrong and misleading. First off there is a windows event in C++ WM_DROPFILES, a programmer has to program for the event. Which means any issue between the browser and any other program is only what the developer of the other program created.

Do you really think it was a good idea to implement ActiveX in a web browser? It is very risky that a browser, which can display content from anyone around the world, can give anyone tools to pretty much full system access. Many security holes in IE feature a way to run code in the trusted zone, which means ActiveX can be run without any prompting. This is really dangerous. And worst of all, a technology like ActiveX in a web browser is completely useless! Who needs a web page to be able to do anything like that?

Dragging and dropping between anything MS made was just an example of how all MS programs are integrated to each others. And to be exact, WM_DROPFILES is not an event in C++, it's an event in the Win32 API, so any programming language using the API can use WM_DROPFILES.

Quote:

Originally posted by afterburn

By that time it had already lost the browser wars. In 1993 when AOL changed from NS to IE for a browser it was over.

So why is it not possible for people to change browsers anymore?

Quote:

Originally posted by afterburn

Were you even alive during the browser wars? Seriously most of that stuff was because each was fighting the other for support of new features, IE 3.02 supported a smaller subset of what now IS CSS1. NS 3 supported events triggering at page level. Together in the next version each had what the other had created, making it DHTML.

As for the Content-Type, thats the servers fault also. Server are suppose to return the content type correctly if they don't know they feed the binary stream to the browser which its suppose to figure out.

ECMAScript, wasn't a standard when IE started its thing. Besides that fact. You need to open a book of OOP and C++ and see that its done all the time. And it really doesn't matter how many times in a script you redefine it javascript has no definition on how to handle functions with the same name nor does it have any type of overloading so its needed.

Your telling me that mom and pop store down the road who doesn't want to use a computer, much less learn a language how to code HTML 3.02,4.01 and XHTML? Thats a bunch...

But why was there a need to support something that was against the specs. I realize that browser manufacturers have invented new things whereof parts have been implemented in standards, but why support something that is completely wrong, not new - like the text-align issue I mentioned? Or being able to give dimensions to inline elements? All in all, this just causes lots of troubles. Pages that have been poorly coded like this, and only tested in IE, render wrong in standards compliant browsers.

CSS was also not invented by any browser manufacturer, it was proposed by a member of the W3C, who nowadays works for Opera Software.

The Content-Type issue is certainly not the server's fault. Just try serving a regular HTML file with a text/plain content-type; IE will render it as HTML, other browsers will correctly display it as text. The protocol for HTTP 1.1 states:

If and only if the media type is not given by a Content-Type field, the recipient MAY attempt to guess the media type via inspection of its content and/or the name extension(s) of the URI used to identify the resource.

IE's exceptional behaviour only causes troubles, for instance, to vBulletin users (ask me more if you want)

ECMAScript (LiveScript / JavaScript / JScript) hasn't always had a standard but it now has.

And that is not a reason for IE not to implement the W3C DOM core functions properly. Why does getElementById get elements by their name, why does IE allow identical ID's to be used although ID's should be unique?

afterburn · 09-17-2004, 02:29 PM

JScript is not standard. It's microsofts version of Javascript.

Then why implement Java Applets,Plug-ins... the list goes on. They all expose the same amount of risk as the others.

WM_DROPFILES is an Win32 API event. and to be exact it was written in C/C++.

A table is an inline element, it can have a width and height. That is your dimensions and that is your inline element. blah!

Quote:

IE's exceptional behaviour only causes troubles, for instance, to vBulletin users (ask me more if you want)

what are you talking about and who are you talking to??? This is a vbulletin... and I am using IE 6.0 on windows 2003 enterprise edition.

Quote:

And that is not a reason for IE not to implement the W3C DOM core functions properly. Why does getElementById get elements by their name, why does IE allow identical ID's to be used although ID's should be unique?

Are you suggesting that it shouldn't render the page at all because of an ID issue, like NS with close table tags? thats a bogus idea...

I have created an ASP page with content-type of text/xml, displays fine. with image/jpg still fine. Don't see the issue with that.

putts · 09-17-2004, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Josh
tabbed browsing alone is enough reason to switch to another browser, believe me.

well.....not everyone likes that.

Sometimes, I just prefer to have separate windows because I live and die by Alt+tab and i'm guessing Firefox uses Ctrl+tab like all other multi-windowed or tab oriented apps, but I don't like that because you usually have to flip through all the pages until it brings you to the one you want.

Just preference, but it's mine, and I like it.

I still like Firefox, but for different reasons I also like IE - all depends on what I need at that point in time.

If I had to choose only one to use, it'd be IE cause I wouldn't want to limit myself by going with just Firefox.

nilsmo · 09-17-2004, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by afterburn
determining the speed of rendering would have to occur at a lower level that what your doing. You would have to be between the render and the socket to start and stop the time correctly. Besides that your also timing DSN lookup with each of the respective providers servers and any latency with each connection.

Well, afterburn, I am not that skilled but I am almost sure Mozilla is faster.