Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Applications > IE6 might be released at MWSanFrancisco

IE6 might be released at MWSanFrancisco (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Developer
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 07:00 PM
 
.
Nasrudin sat on a river bank when someone shouted to him from the opposite side: "Hey! how do I get across?" "You are across!" Nasrudin shouted back.
     
bgmccollum
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 07:02 PM
 
Originally posted by brainchild2b:
as far as i'm concerned microsoft has done a better job of setting "web standards" than w3 consortium. If you mean by the fact that pages look nicer, and that 90% of the entire world uses IE. IE is the standard and until it's percentage changes it will be what the internet experience is judge by. It also means you build your sites to LOOK BEST in IE not mozilla or gecko.

The team that does gecko engine obviously doesn't employee a great GUI expert or any one "artsy" mostly programming geeks. Read their own weblogs to see them bitching about it.

IE seems to think the GUI through and how pages should layout.

Besides "it's the standard" Chimera does a 70% good job render pages. Those of you who think it's awesome don't sift through some 100 + new sites everyday like those of us webdesigners have too :-(

IE on OS X is slow because it's a crappy port from an OS 9 app. Even Microsoft will tell you that.

Lets all hope macworld brings us IE 6, and that it rocks like the rumors say!
AMEN, can i get you a drink...

fellow web designer...

bg
     
bgmccollum
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 07:03 PM
 
Originally posted by JLL:
I know it SHOWS the pages, but there is a 10-15 seconds waiting time everytime it loads the menu - someting that doesn't happen on Windows.
would you rather have this?

and its not slow on my end. pretty snappy...

bg
     
JLL
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 07:03 PM
 
Originally posted by brainchild2b:
as far as i'm concerned microsoft has done a better job of setting "web standards" than w3 consortium. If you mean by the fact that pages look nicer, and that 90% of the entire world uses IE. IE is the standard and until it's percentage changes it will be what the internet experience is judge by. It also means you build your sites to LOOK BEST in IE not mozilla or gecko.
Well, you're the kind that would accept newspapers written in MS Text only readable by using MS Glasses - 'cause everyone else is using them.

It's not a standard if only one company (and basically only one platform) has access to the Internet.

That is not what the Internet is all about - that's what Gates tried to do with MSN seven years ago, and what he is trying to do again.
JLL

- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
     
JLL
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 07:04 PM
 
Originally posted by bgmccollum:
would you rather have this?
No, but that's because of the web developers' shitty browser check that thinks that anything not IE = Netscape 4.x.
JLL

- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
     
bgmccollum
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 07:05 PM
 
Originally posted by JLL:
Well, you're the kind that would accept newspapers written in MS Text only readable by using MS Glasses - 'cause everyone else is using them.

It's not a standard if only one company (and basically only one platform) has access to the Internet.

That is not what the Internet is all about - that's what Gates tried to do with MSN seven years ago, and what he is trying to do again.
when you say microsoft is using non standard HTML tags whatever in their browsers, did you ever stop to think that just maybe your browser of choice isnt standards compliant, and thats why it doesnt work for you???

of course not...your a damn zealout...

bg
     
bgmccollum
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 07:08 PM
 
Originally posted by JLL:
No, but that's because of the web developers' shitty browser check that thinks that anything not IE = Netscape 4.x.
and if browsers were compliant, we wouldnt have browser checks...problem is, most people are too stupid to upgrade to the newest version...leaving people still using IE 4.5 mac, and Netscape 4.7

ugh....
bg
     
bgmccollum
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 07:10 PM
 
JLL, look at your sig, you think im really going to take you and your views seriously?

bg
     
JLL
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 07:11 PM
 
Originally posted by bgmccollum:
problem is, most people are too stupid to upgrade to the newest version...leaving people still using IE 4.5 mac, and Netscape 4.7

ugh....
bg
The stop making NS4 versions then and concentrate on making them look better in NS7/Mozilla/Chimera/Phoenix.
JLL

- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
     
JLL
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 07:13 PM
 
Originally posted by bgmccollum:
JLL, look at your sig, you think im really going to take you and your views seriously?

bg
Humor isn't you thing I see.
JLL

- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
     
bgmccollum
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 07:16 PM
 
Originally posted by JLL:
The stop making NS4 versions then and concentrate on making them look better in NS7/Mozilla/Chimera/Phoenix.
i make it work in all browsers. i make it look right in IE. if it looks right in other browsers, its like a bonus...

seriously, less than 1 precent of my clients even use anything netscape/mozilla based...so if it looks goofy in any of those browsers, i could case less. i get paid, and the client is happy, and they dont even know the differenct.

and i never have made special versions for NS4 and any other browser, 1 version, thats all you get...

bg
     
bgmccollum
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 07:17 PM
 
Originally posted by JLL:
Humor isn't you thing I see.
and i guess irony is your thing...well, maybe...

bg
     
JLL
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 07:18 PM
 
Originally posted by bgmccollum:
when you say microsoft is using non standard HTML tags whatever in their browsers, did you ever stop to think that just maybe your browser of choice isnt standards compliant, and thats why it doesnt work for you???

of course not...your a damn zealout...

bg
You could at least learn how to spell, if you're going to call me names.
JLL

- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
     
Adam Betts
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North Hollywood, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 07:52 PM
 
Originally posted by bgmccollum:
JLL, look at your sig, you think im really going to take you and your views seriously?
BGM, look at your post count, you think people really going to take you and your views seriously? For as far as we know, you could be troll.

Just STFU and let JLL share his opinion. Name-calling is immature.
     
brainchild2b
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Basement
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 08:05 PM
 
First of ALL you need to understand what "STANDARDS" mean. Because one single organization 'w3 consortium' sets their 'standard'.

A STANDARD BY IT'S VERY NATURE can be defined as the NORM, or what IS MOST USED. THAT IS Internet explorer. AND IE SUPPORTS all the w3 standards further and farther than the gecko engine does. IE supports DOM and all the w3 standars and then some of it's own tag. Gecko on the other hand is supposed to be 100% compliant but it's not and certian parts of CSS is not finished and up to date. Read about it on their weblogs.

People who rag on IE do so, so they can feel good and justify the fact that they use gecko or otherwise. I DON'T CARE what browser you use. It's a free country. IE however is the standard. It's what the web is judged by. Not the 60+ year old farts over at w3. It's really that simple. That and IE updates faster, and constantly changes to meet the w3 set standards.
     
Atef's corpse
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Baghdad, chillin' with Chirac and Schr�der over cocktails with Saddam.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 08:15 PM
 
Let's simplify, infidels. IE for the Mac sucks in these categories:
1. rendering speed
2. pop-up management
3. cookie management
4. javascript management
5. image/advert management.

In all those categories, Mozilla for Mac excels. IE for Mac still wins for rendering more sites correctly (likely b/c those sights were written for IE).

If IE adds 1-5, I'll go back to it.

Worry not, appeasement-loving infidels! Chirac & Schr�der defend the Butcher of Baghdad.
     
bgmccollum
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 08:17 PM
 
am i classified as a post whore yet?

bg
     
bgmccollum
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 08:21 PM
 
Originally posted by Atef's corpse:
Let's simplify, infidels. IE for the Mac sucks in these categories:
1. rendering speed
2. pop-up management
3. cookie management
4. javascript management
5. image/advert management.

In all those categories, Mozilla for Mac excels. IE for Mac still wins for rendering more sites correctly (likely b/c those sights were written for IE).

If IE adds 1-5, I'll go back to it.
1. yes, IE is slow to render. I have stated this and do enjoy the gecko engine's speed, but not its correctness.

2. pop up functionality is standard. preventing it breaks this standard.

3. cookie management? whats wrong with the IE cookie management.

4. same with javascript

5. what the hell is this?

how is a site written for IE? you mean, adhering to standards? im sorry your browser cant cope with the CSS and DOM models...

bg
     
bgmccollum
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 08:28 PM
 
Originally posted by JLL:
You could at least learn how to spell, if you're going to call me names.
pardon me, my deepest apologies...zealot


j/k smile


i dont mean to come off as an *******, i just like to debat things, and i will take a point when a point is due...just so you know im not way off base...


bg
     
Wevah
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: State of Denial
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 08:34 PM
 
Originally posted by brainchild2b:
AND IE SUPPORTS all the w3 standards further and farther than the gecko engine does.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. IE does not support sibling CSS selectors. The Gecko engine does. IE does not support the :before and :after selectors. The Gecko engine does. IE/Win does not support position: fixed. The Gecko engine does. Only recently (with version 6) did IE/Win even render the box model correctly, and it still won't do it if you have an XML preamble at the head of your document. Neither version of IE supports the Level 2 DOM whatsoever. Etc, etc, etc.
[Wevah setPostCount:[Wevah postCount] + 1];
     
Wevah
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: State of Denial
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 08:37 PM
 
Having said that, even I am looking forward to an updated version of IE/Mac, with bugfixes, better CSS2 support, and JScript 5.5 ...
[Wevah setPostCount:[Wevah postCount] + 1];
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 09:09 PM
 
Originally posted by brainchild2b:
as far as i'm concerned microsoft has done a better job of setting "web standards" than w3 consortium. If you mean by the fact that pages look nicer, and that 90% of the entire world uses IE. IE is the standard and until it's percentage changes it will be what the internet experience is judge by. It also means you build your sites to LOOK BEST in IE not mozilla or gecko.
Oh, crap; I feel a flame coming on...

That attitude disgusts me. It symbolizes everything that is wrong with the Internet. And I am not exaggerating when I say that. Do you honestly favor having your entire livelihood controlled by a single company, one which has (all as proven in various courts of law) lied, cheated, stolen, and even killed to get where it is? And yes, I do mean, even killed. Look up the story of Gary Kildall sometime. He was the inventor of DR-DOS, one of the first Microsoft competitors which was caused through Microsoft's fraudulent practices (they had code in the OS specifically to break DR-DOS; this persisted even through Windows 95, where it was found in a court of law). He was driven to suicide by the whole process; to be frank, while he may have been the one to pull the trigger, Microsoft murdered him.

Code to the standards, and let the browsers sort it out. That's the way the Web was always intended to work, and the way it should work. It's easier for you too, if you bother to take the time. If Mozilla does not display your code right, and you cannot directly track it back to a Mozilla bug, then your code is not clean. Deal with it, and learn to do it right. "Good enough" will never be good enough; only perfection in code can ever be considered acceptable. IE, and to a lesser extent the older versions of Netscape, have broken the Web, and it's pathetic no-talents who can't even take the time to check their code and do it right the first time who perpetuate this travesty.

I apologize to those I have flamed. But this needed saying.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 09:13 PM
 
Originally posted by Wevah:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. IE does not support sibling CSS selectors. The Gecko engine does. IE does not support the :before and :after selectors. The Gecko engine does. IE/Win does not support position: fixed. The Gecko engine does. Only recently (with version 6) did IE/Win even render the box model correctly, and it still won't do it if you have an XML preamble at the head of your document. Neither version of IE supports the Level 2 DOM whatsoever. Etc, etc, etc.
Although you're correct about most of these, it should be noted that IE5/Mac and IE6/Win do feature decent DOM support; not the greatest out there, but quite good (better than almost anything other than Gecko).

The problem is, Microsoft continues to support the old, broken IE4 object model on both machines. They should have made a clean break, but they refuse to do so, in their continuing tradition of bloating their code and encouraging others to do the same.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Atef's corpse
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Baghdad, chillin' with Chirac and Schr�der over cocktails with Saddam.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 09:47 PM
 
Originally posted by bgmccollum:
1. yes, IE is slow to render. I have stated this and do enjoy the gecko engine's speed, but not its correctness.

2. pop up functionality is standard. preventing it breaks this standard.

3. cookie management? whats wrong with the IE cookie management.

4. same with javascript

5. what the hell is this?

how is a site written for IE? you mean, adhering to standards? im sorry your browser cant cope with the CSS and DOM models...
You're not getting it.
2. Pop-ups are unrequested windows. They suck to no end. We as users should be able to restrict pop-ups, and there is nothing wrong with doing so. Stopping them has nothing to do with standards--it is done on the user's end. You don't have to open spam email. Pop-ups are the same damned thing. If you want 'em, then have your fun. Most of us hate 'em. Again, it's not a standards issue, so there is nothing to break.
3. IE's cookie management isn't flexible enough. Omniweb and Mozilla are what I consider flexible. Get to know their cookie management and you'll know what I want in IE.
4. Javascript is executed on my computer, and I have every right to restrict what it does. Mozilla gives many options for restricting Javascript. This isn't a standards issue, but a feature. Users turn off javascript 'features' at their own peril, but it is still our choice. IE gives us no choice, and if it wants to be a top browser, it should.
5. Image/advertisement management. That is like in Mozilla. I right-click an image and can block all images from that server. Good-bye doubleclick.net and many, many others. Their sites no longer load images, and it makes my web experience less cluttered. This isn't a standards issue, either, but a end-user feature.

All of the things I outlined are features, and have nothing to do with implementing standards. I like the way IE renders; I like its 'compliance' with 'standards'; what I don't like is it giving the short shrift to users in terms of my outlined 1-5.

Worry not, appeasement-loving infidels! Chirac & Schr�der defend the Butcher of Baghdad.
     
bgmccollum
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 09:59 PM
 
Originally posted by Atef's corpse:
You're not getting it.
2. Pop-ups are unrequested windows. They suck to no end. We as users should be able to restrict pop-ups, and there is nothing wrong with doing so. Stopping them has nothing to do with standards--it is done on the user's end. You don't have to open spam email. Pop-ups are the same damned thing. If you want 'em, then have your fun. Most of us hate 'em. Again, it's not a standards issue, so there is nothing to break.
3. IE's cookie management isn't flexible enough. Omniweb and Mozilla are what I consider flexible. Get to know their cookie management and you'll know what I want in IE.
4. Javascript is executed on my computer, and I have every right to restrict what it does. Mozilla gives many options for restricting Javascript. This isn't a standards issue, but a feature. Users turn off javascript 'features' at their own peril, but it is still our choice. IE gives us no choice, and if it wants to be a top browser, it should.
5. Image/advertisement management. That is like in Mozilla. I right-click an image and can block all images from that server. Good-bye doubleclick.net and many, many others. Their sites no longer load images, and it makes my web experience less cluttered. This isn't a standards issue, either, but a end-user feature.

All of the things I outlined are features, and have nothing to do with implementing standards. I like the way IE renders; I like its 'compliance' with 'standards'; what I don't like is it giving the short shrift to users in terms of my outlined 1-5.
thanks for explaining that, and yes, those features would be nice. i just find that the current feature set of IE outweighs those of other browsers.

back to the popup. the target=_blank is so intgral to the internet. most news site make all external links popups. the reason behind it is, the user will visit the site in question, but the parent page isnt lost in history hell. if you remove this functionality, these links either dont work, or lose the focus...but its up for debate. i prefer keeping popups active, but having a hosts file filter for all the banner ad servers...look around, the files are kept by many and are quite easy to use.

bg
     
unfaded
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Pitzer College, Claremont, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 10:21 PM
 
Originally posted by bgmccollum:
thanks for explaining that, and yes, those features would be nice. i just find that the current feature set of IE outweighs those of other browsers.

back to the popup. the target=_blank is so intgral to the internet. most news site make all external links popups. the reason behind it is, the user will visit the site in question, but the parent page isnt lost in history hell. if you remove this functionality, these links either dont work, or lose the focus...but its up for debate. i prefer keeping popups active, but having a hosts file filter for all the banner ad servers...look around, the files are kept by many and are quite easy to use.

bg
External links in new windows are not pop-ups, if they were, I would not have new windows open up in Chimera when I had a site with an external link. Pop-ups are defined as UNrequested windows that come up without clicking a link - those are the devil we are seeking to vanquish.
     
Ozmodiar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Quetzlzacatenango
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 10:31 PM
 
As it stands, I personally have no reason to go back to Internet Explorer. Chimera plays nice with my online banking, my university's web site, and when I design a web site and preview it with Chimera, it will look nice in Explorer.

If Microsoft adds Atef's Corpse's list, then I would go back. Right now, though, Chimera is in my dock.
     
mbryda
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 10:42 PM
 
Originally posted by vmpaul:
Browsing experience on a Mac is definitely slower then on Windows.
Try the Mach build of Mozilla...It FLIES!
     
Atef's corpse
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Baghdad, chillin' with Chirac and Schr�der over cocktails with Saddam.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 11:01 PM
 
Originally posted by mbryda:
Try the Mach build of Mozilla...It FLIES!
Where do we get such a beast?

Worry not, appeasement-loving infidels! Chirac & Schr�der defend the Butcher of Baghdad.
     
Person Man
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2002, 11:39 PM
 
Originally posted by bgmccollum:

back to the popup. the target=_blank is so intgral to the internet. most news site make all external links popups. the reason behind it is, the user will visit the site in question, but the parent page isnt lost in history hell. if you remove this functionality, these links either dont work, or lose the focus...but its up for debate. i prefer keeping popups active, but having a hosts file filter for all the banner ad servers...look around, the files are kept by many and are quite easy to use.
Most of the pop-ups that we want to get rid of are ones that open automatically upon entering or leaving a web page. In other words, we did not click on a link to see that new window.

Many web browsers (not IE) will let you restrict the New Window function to ONLY open windows when you click on a link. If a page wants to open a new window automatically (without you saying so), it can't.

In other words, unrequested and undesirable pop-ups don't come up, but the ones you do want and specifically "ask for," will.
     
benb
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Far from the internet.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2002, 12:00 AM
 
Woops!
( Last edited by benb; Dec 30, 2002 at 12:09 AM. )
     
benb
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Far from the internet.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2002, 12:08 AM
 
Originally posted by Wevah:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. IE does not support sibling CSS selectors. The Gecko engine does. IE does not support the :before and :after selectors. The Gecko engine does. IE/Win does not support position: fixed. The Gecko engine does. Only recently (with version 6) did IE/Win even render the box model correctly, and it still won't do it if you have an XML preamble at the head of your document. Neither version of IE supports the Level 2 DOM whatsoever. Etc, etc, etc.
Thank you for saying that. IE might do HTML well, but in CSS, XHTML, DOM, etc. It just really sucks. I cant say this anyother way. And also, IE5 Mac is standards support is actually better than IE/Win.

For cryin out loud, IE/Win can even do position:fixed; a CSS2 selector that is infinitely useful. And having to deal with the 40% of people who still use IE5/Win which breaks the box model so I have to put voice-family:"\"}\"; in my CSS is just retarded. No, Netscape and Microsoft broke the web with 3-5 of thier browsers. Now W3 and Mozilla are trying to put it back together.

Honestly, I dont care what browser people use, just as long as I can code sites in XHTML and CSS that validate and display properly on ANY BROWSER.

Regards,
Ben
     
Superchicken
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Winnipeg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2002, 03:34 AM
 
Apple's building gecko into OS X?
SWEET!

Hey you know.. it'd be really cool if you could just browse the internet inside of a finder window hahaha.
     
dru
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2002, 03:52 AM
 
Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
As it stands, I personally have no reason to go back to Internet Explorer. Chimera plays nice with my online banking, my university's web site, and when I design a web site and preview it with Chimera, it will look nice in Explorer.

If Microsoft adds Atef's Corpse's list, then I would go back. Right now, though, Chimera is in my dock.
Anyone been to Office Depot and done their extended warranty thing? If you go to that site online, the pop-up menus don't work in IE or Omniweb because they are using the standard Mac widget. I had to use Mozilla so I could scroll through the dozens of options with a scrollbar (Mozilla uses an IBM Common User Access-style (CUA) "combo box", rather than the untameable mouse-scrolled pop-up menu).

About your sig: you do realize that stylized fish was drawn by early Christians in the sand with their feet to covertly identify one-another to avoid persecution and even death at the hands of ancient Rome, right? In light of the original symbol's history, I've always found the 'evolution walking fish' tacky at best. Perhaps a comparison could be drawn with the Confederate flag flap in the American South or use of Nazi-symbology. Just something to think about. I'm sure there are better, more creative ways to express ones view on Creation or support of the "Darwin-based" Mac OS X.
     
clarkgoble
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Provo, UT
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2002, 04:25 AM
 
OK now that all the IE griping has been going on, let me give my #1 gripe about the XP version of IE. It is multithreaded horribly. When a popup or ad is waiting for data the whole window hangs. Now as all of you know, some ad sites are not supplying their ads with enough bandwidth. So with IE on XP you get these nasty-assed delays. Everyone speaks about how much faster Windows browsing is than OSX browsing. But this is one place where Chimera and especially Omniweb outperform Windows. I absolutely HATE that fact, especially during high traffic times.

Having said that, I don't really dislike IE. I wish it were a little faster. But I think the interface has some good ideas. I wish it supported Services and had a neat spell checker like Omniweb. We'll see what Microsoft does. Slam them all you want, but I think that by and large they do good work. Typically their software is better than what Apple has done. (How long has that crappy OSX Appleworks been out?)

What I dislike about it are its buttons. (They look like some hybrid between OSX and OS9 buttons). I also think that the color of the aquaish icons and interface items ought to better match the OSX colors.

Some of its interface ideas are quite good though. I really like both the Page Holder and the Scrapbook ideas.
     
JLL
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2002, 05:38 AM
 
Originally posted by bgmccollum:
pardon me, my deepest apologies...zealot
See, not so hard
JLL

- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
     
brainchild2b
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Basement
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2002, 10:56 AM
 
Millenium, you quite obviously don't work in a web hause of any sort or have to build complex sites for the internet. You only see from the perspective of my browser "chimera" is faster right now.

I do code for the standard, it's called Internet Explorer. 96% market share is THE standard.

When we do corporate sites (100k + projects) We usually do two three versions .

The main (standard) version that looks best in Internet Explorer.

Then if we need to we make another version that will work with Gecko. Mainly just because it renders fonts that shouldn't be RENDERED unreadable SUPER small or because of some part of CSS the "gecko" team says is "buggy"

For the last three years the Mozilla/Netscape crowd has been trying to pound out a browser. We we actually get is a constant stream of beta browsers that always have gapping holes in either the feature set or in some important area that can't be overlooked.

Maybe I represent everything that is wrong with the internet, but I represent 97% or 100 million + people. Those 100 million customers are what you state is "everything wrong with the internet" Consumer demand drives the internet.

IE Ships on computers that people buy. People by PCs. People like Windows. It's really simple. People don't download netscape for the most part. And the people who use AOL just mostly launch IE instead of the brower that ships with it.

The people who get pissed about this the most often harbor hate for Microsoft and thus rag on every product Microsoft makes.

Suppose IE 6 for Mac is SUPER fast and offers features like tabs and so forth? What would be your reasoning for using Chimera anymore? You wouldn't (maybe for testing sites only) simply because you'd have the fastest browser, as well as the browser people checked the sites you're viewing in.

It's pretty much the reason why on windows people prefer to use IE. Because it is superior. I spend all day on every configuration of windows, mac, linux, solaris testing websites. I feel that I'm in a good position to judge.

IE is a much more forgiving web browser, it handles errors better. While you may scream "WELL JUST code your site PROPERLY!" many consumers aren't HTML programmers. Technology and the power of the internet should be available to everyone. Not just computer geeks and advanced nerds.

If I had to put my finger on the difference between IE and mozilla/netscape is that IE is way more consumer oriented. Mozilla fits well with linux and the whole geeky, "never touched by a human GUI designer or interface guidelines."

On sites that everyone needs access too, we see 99.96% (average of 100 sites) of our hits come from IE. The 1ish% comes from someone usually on linux who doesn't have internet explorer.
     
Developer
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2002, 11:35 AM
 
Originally posted by brainchild2b:
IE is a much more forgiving web browser, it handles errors better. While you may scream "WELL JUST code your site PROPERLY!" many consumers aren't HTML programmers. Technology and the power of the internet should be available to everyone. Not just computer geeks and advanced nerds.
This is part of the problem. Web Browsers shouldn't be forgiving (as required by XML). That would make developing a standard (by definition not de facto) compliant browser much easier. The way it currently is, every other browser vendor has to implement the forgivingness of Explorer (and unlike the standard the forgivigness is not documented). This blocks innovation.

Consumers should use WYSIWYG editors that procude correct code.

Mozilla should implement a smiley face and error protocol like iCab. Maybe then your customers would demand error free code, and not just one that just works.
Nasrudin sat on a river bank when someone shouted to him from the opposite side: "Hey! how do I get across?" "You are across!" Nasrudin shouted back.
     
Sharky K.
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2002, 04:00 PM
 
I think it is just plain stupid to make any page only work with IE or any other browser.
If you use standard HTML or Javascript you know your site will work with future populair browsers and you won't have to create several different sites for every browser. A good web-builder can make every page in standard HTML or other languages. Better looking or better working is no excuse to make websites only work with IE.
If you are a professional you can't give your client a non-standard website. There will always be questions from consumers about why the website is not working. Creating IE only code cheaper than creating standard code? give me a break.

edit: if IE was not included in Windows nobody would download it. IE application in windows total size is 60mb.
     
cowerd
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2002, 04:03 PM
 
Slam them all you want, but I think that by and large they do good work. Typically their software is better than what Apple has done. (How long has that crappy OSX Appleworks been out?)
About as long as crappy versions of MS Office have been out. Get some history. The last good thing MS coded up for Apple was IE5 on OS9. And before that it was Word 5.1, and the original versions of Excel and Word. If the OSX version of Office is any indication of what IE6 brings us, I'll stick to Chimera.
yo frat boy. where's my tax cut.
     
Sarc
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2002, 04:24 PM
 
I'm actually looking foward into IE, decent plugin integration, complete standards support, sounds good.

I have been usin chimera since 0.4 and I must say I love it, but I usually need two browsers for some sites, and IE is definetly UNpleasant to use.

On the oter hand, people DO know IE, if a stranger would sit in front of my desktop he/she would probably take a while to find out that Chimera (Navigator) is my browser.

Many people though see the classic 'E' and know that's a browser.
:: frankenstein / lcd-less TiBook / 1GHz / radeon 9000 64MB / 1GB RAM / w/ext. 250GB fw drive / noname usb bluetooth dongle / d-link usb 2.0 pcmcia card / X.5.8
:: unibody macbook pro / 2.4 Ghz C2D / 6GB RAM / dell 2407wfp - X.6.3
     
pliny
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: under about 12 feet of ash from Mt. Vesuvius
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2002, 04:31 PM
 
Originally posted by brainchild2b:
I represent 97% or 100 million + people. Those 100 million customers are what you state is "everything wrong with the internet" Consumer demand drives the internet.

Oh brother, get off it. You represent yourself.

BTW, why doesn't IE block popups? I'm sure there is high consumer demand for that (maybe you can go poll your 100 million friends to see how many enjoy popups).

You claim that consumer demand drives your work but really it's your insistence on and love for coding for one browser that determines what people use, not the other way around. This makes your job easier but it doesn't make surfing easier or better, there's a big difference.

I don't even remember the last time I used IE on my Mac but I do use it from time to time on PCs running 98 and 2000 and XP and your claims that IE on Windows is so superb fah lah lah lah, is somewhat loony or just boisterous, because i just don't see what is so great about it, IE 6 for instance is the same old crap but with new toolbar widgets.
i look in your general direction
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2002, 04:42 PM
 
Originally posted by brainchild2b:
Millenium, you quite obviously don't work in a web hause of any sort or have to build complex sites for the internet. You only see from the perspective of my browser "chimera" is faster right now.
I don't care which browser is faster. You are correct that I use Chimera, but that is irrelevant. What matters is that it follows the standards; all else, even interface, is secondary (though interface does run a very close second).
I do code for the standard, it's called Internet Explorer. 96% market share is THE standard.
No it isn't, sellout. The standard is set by the W3C, of which Microsoft is a part. They can't even properly implement the standards they helped make; that's what's so funny.

Programs are not standards. Formats, protocols, implementations, these are standards. A program is not, and we must never get into the habit of thinking that a program is a standard, be it made by Microsoft, a community of Open-Source programmers, or anyone else. A standard is not an implementation.
When we do corporate sites (100k + projects) We usually do two three versions .
The point of standards is to cut that down to one. A single version, that everyone can use, regardless of browser or device. Plain and simple. Is that not better? And yet you work to keep that from happenning. Makes me sick.
The main (standard) version that looks best in Internet Explorer.

Then if we need to we make another version that will work with Gecko. Mainly just because it renders fonts that shouldn't be RENDERED unreadable SUPER small or because of some part of CSS the "gecko" team says is "buggy"
The Gecko team doesn't say your code is buggy. The inventors of CSS say your code is buggy. No one but the inventor of the standard has the right to say that. Gecko happens to have CSS very, very close to 100% correct at the moment; that makes it a good place to test. Better than IE, which doesn't do it as well, where your errors can still slip through.
Maybe I represent everything that is wrong with the internet, but I represent 97% or 100 million + people. Those 100 million customers are what you state is "everything wrong with the internet" Consumer demand drives the internet.
That doesn't make it right.
IE Ships on computers that people buy. People by PCs. People like Windows.
Don't make me laugh. No one likes Windows, not even the staunchest PC enthusiasts. They use it because they think they have to, either because they're unaware of alternatives (via Microsoft's lies) or they don't see them as feasible (again, usually due to Microsoft's lies).
Suppose IE 6 for Mac is SUPER fast and offers features like tabs and so forth? What would be your reasoning for using Chimera anymore?
Standards-compliance. No more, no less. Everything else is secondary, because the most important facet of any program is that it works correctly. Everything else is worthless if the program doesn't do what it's supposed to.
IE is a much more forgiving web browser, it handles errors better. While you may scream "WELL JUST code your site PROPERLY!" many consumers aren't HTML programmers. Technology and the power of the internet should be available to everyone. Not just computer geeks and advanced nerds.
HTML is not hard. CSS is not hard. And the parsers nowadays are quite good at spotting errors. It is a trivial thing to clean up most pages' code to make it clean; often a quick run through Tidy will do it automatically. Making people code their pages cleanly will not make it more difficult to make a page. Particularly not when the WYSIWYG editors finally get their act together and produce clean code; once that is done (and great steps have been made in this area) 99% of people won't even need to touch a single line of code, and their pages will be clean.

We hold people to logical standards every day. Why not for this, if for everything else?
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
sdagley
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2002, 05:30 PM
 
For web developers that seem to think that you can't create a CSS styled website that looks right in both IE and Gecko based browsers I'd suggest reading, and learning from, this book:

http://www.ericmeyeroncss.com/about-book.html

The author, Eric Meyer, is one of the leading authorities on CSS (if you really know CSS you know who he is). He also happens to work as a Standards Evangelist at Netscape so I think we have a pretty good resource to tell us if Gecko is "buggy" with its CSS handling .
     
Ozmodiar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Quetzlzacatenango
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2002, 06:35 PM
 
Originally posted by dru:
you do realize that stylized fish was drawn by early Christians in the sand with their feet to covertly identify one-another to avoid persecution and even death at the hands of ancient Rome, right?.
thanks...for that.

Anyways, I agree with Millennium on the "no one likes Windows" point. My (computer nerd) friends all hate Windows, yet they make fun of me for using a Mac. What's a Machead to do?
     
passmaster16
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2002, 03:13 AM
 
I think for now on we will always face this incompatibility problem. I remember when Netscape and Microsoft battled early on. Even then they used different HTML tags and such. This problem still remains. If all browser makers strictly adheared to the guidelines established by W3C, I don't think this would be an issue. Right now Microsoft adheares to these guidelines on their own level...not completely. Then you get a gecko based browser that attempts to fill this gap and follow the guidelines more closely and yet it has some issues with certain pages due to the Microsoft dominance. Wouldn't it be great if web developers could create pages that worked THE SAME in ALL browsers? I have to admit though, I would most likely do what some of the other developers that posted have done. I typically make pages that are primarily compatible with IE. Why? Simple, because it is the most widely used browser on both Windows and Mac platforms. Does that make it a good proudct? No. Does that make it better than Chimera or Mozilla? Absolutely not but time is money. Having to write separate pages to account for the small percentage of non-IE users doesn't really make great business sense. I'm using Chimera as my primary browser. IE is just too slow right now, but I do use it when needed for certain sites. If IE 6 came out and offered the speed/features of Chimera I'd consider using IE.
     
Mike S.
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2002, 03:40 AM
 
I agree with Millenium, he's absolutely right on the standards stuff.

Just because Microsoft can instantly push just about any technology or implementation into a majority share position via Windows does not mean that technology or implementation is a standard.

Windows IE does not have the level of standards compliance found in Gecko or even Tazman. I know a guy with a site that uses standards compliant CSS and IE 6 completely screwed up the layout forcing him to "fix it" for IE.

Even OmniWeb, which has pretty horrible CSS compliance at the moment, at least managed to lay it out how he intended all though it was otherwise wrong in all the details.

I can only assume people enjoy the Microsoft monopoly because they can end it at anytime.

You web developers could simply all get together and do things the right way, the standards compliant way, which gives people complete browser choice while making your lives easier in the end.

Microsoft would then be forced to make their product standards compliant or lose their market share.

All you have to do is tell your users to download Mozilla, Phoenix, Chimera or whatever. The standards are right there for all browser makers to conform to just as the Mozilla team has so you're not promoting a product, but an ideaolgy.

When the majority of pages start looking like garbage in IE then watch it's share decline or MS put out a standards compliant version. Once that happens and devs stick to the standards instead of the MS proprietary candy then everyone benefits.

On another note, those of you saying nobody likes Windows are wrong, very wrong.

Many people like Windows, there are many customization sites for Windows, there are Windows themes, etc..

Paul Therot (sc?) has his "Windows Supersite" and he loves Windows, as do his readers.

Windows is not a bad OS, it's got security flaws up the wazoo but the OS core and technologies are fine. MS has interesting new concepts in mind for things like the file system and the GUI, what does Apple have in mind for the future to keep up?

Sure, MS copies a lot of asthetic ideas but just about anything on Linux is a visual rip-off of something else and that doesn't make the OS suck.
     
davecom
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2002, 03:43 AM
 
Sorry to burst some of your bubbles but IE is the standard as many have stated. Am I happy about it , no. The real 'standards' from the W3 don't mean much in a Microsoft dominated world.

Don't matter to me though, I'll keep using Omniweb.
     
brachiator
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2002, 05:19 AM
 
Originally posted by dru:

About your sig: you do realize that stylized fish was drawn by early Christians in the sand with their feet to covertly identify one-another to avoid persecution and even death at the hands of ancient Rome, right? In light of the original symbol's history, I've always found the 'evolution walking fish' tacky at best. Perhaps a comparison could be drawn with the Confederate flag flap in the American South or use of Nazi-symbology. Just something to think about. I'm sure there are better, more creative ways to express ones view on Creation or support of the "Darwin-based" Mac OS X.
<way way way off topic>

This comparison is not apt, and I think that the intervening history makes your argument come out the other way.

At worst, the Darwin Fish is a critique of the fundamentalist, 6-solar-day creationist position. It is nothing like either the battle flag of the Confederate, slave states, nor the symbols of the Nazi regime. Both of the latter were triumphalist icons of brutal oppressors. In contrast, again at worst, the Darwin Fish is a skeptic's/scientist's amusing mockery of a symbol of the fundamentalist wing of the dominant religious movement of the Western world.

Moreover, it's the Christian fish -- the "ICTHUS" -- that is more akin to the other symbols you mention, notwithstanding the selective early history you cite. (And mind you, I am NOT really comparing the fish to the Confed battle flag or the swastika -- those were things you brought up, so I'm just turning them round.)

Yes, the fish was used by early Christians to identify themselves covertly in dangerous and deadly times. But the history of the Church has been in part one of increasing power, domination, and subjugation of other peoples and faiths -- often brutally. The Church repressed, oppressed and suppressed modernity and progress, at sword point... the Dark Ages were dark due to this phenomenon (at a time when the Islamic Empire was at the peak of art, mathematics, science, tolerance -- enlightened civilization). Copernicus. Galileo. And those who much later hewed to Darwin's theories were castigated by the Church (I'm using the term to include all Christians, Catholics, whatever)... even past the Scopes trial days into the present struggle, and at a time when we have a self-styled "born-again" Christian president and right-wing ideologues who advocate invading other nations and "converting them to Christianity!"

Moreover, the fish itself -- icthus in Greek -- symbolizes not only the Christian faith, but the aggressive evangelical nature of the faith, which some find offensive and insulting. In part, this evangelical character gave rise to some of the militant and brutal episodes in Church history. The word "icthus" has double meaning: both "fish" in greek, and aas an acronym for the english transliteration of the greek for Jesus Christ God's Son and Savior, a characterization of Jesus that is insseparable from the evangelical posture of the faith. Jesus said that he would make his apostles "fishers of men" i.e., savers of souls, later interpreted to mean evangelicals attempting to convert the world. And attempt the Church did. And woe betide anyone who got in the way, or didn't convert, or challenged the crabbed view of whatever fundamentalists were in the saddle.

In the face of all this -- about 1700 years of it if you only start counting with the conversion of emperor Constantine -- you take offense at a couple of legs on the fish, and compare it to displaying the swastika??? If there is blame to be placed for offense to the ancient legacy of the fish symbol, it lays closer to home. It's modern (American?) Christians who converted the icthus from what it was in old Rome into a bumper sticker one can't escape, a political symbol, an economic symbol (Christian-owned business, shop here!), and a public proclamation of the glory of the faith to the infidels.

"But it does move!"

</way way way off topic>
( Last edited by brachiator; Dec 31, 2002 at 06:06 AM. )
     
Sven G
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Milan, Europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2002, 05:46 AM
 
Originally posted by brainchild2b:
Suppose IE 6 for Mac is SUPER fast and offers features like tabs and so forth?
Now, this would be a Very Good Thing� in any case (especially, tabbed browsing is a must for IE 6), and would also stimulate Mozilla, Netscape, Chimera, OmniWeb, Opera, iCab, etc. to become even better than the new IE/MSN.

As always, it is not MS' products that are bad - it is still their whole corporate and business attitude...

The freedom of all is essential to my freedom. - Mikhail Bakunin
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:13 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,