When I was trying alternative browsers, I installed both Mozilla (this was pre-firefox) and Opera. Opera lost out due to the banner ad, and I haven't felt the need to go looking for another browser since. I know Opera is free now, but Firefox and a few select extensions are serving me fine.
Seems like a fanboy page to me... many of those 'myths' I've never even heard.
For example: Myth - "Firefox is completely compatible with every Web Site"
If anyone has ever stated that, then they are an idiot or it was taken out of context.
I found firefox to be very stable lately. I also read a story the other day that points out that many of the firefox memory leak issues, actually point to many extensions. A lot of the popular extensions created memory leaks in FF1.5.
That's not to say that Opera isn't a good browser, but I've had my issues with it also. I know I've been to a few sites that displayed incorrectly for me in Opera. I'm trying to remember why I stopped using it, but I know there were annoyances that led me to stop using it... and I was using it up to the free version. I still have it installed, just rarely touch it.
Firefox is certainly not crap. If you want to know a crappy browser, look at IE 6. It's not even standards-compliant (which has been driving me mad lately, trying to hack my site's entirely valid CSS just so that it'll display properly in that poor excuse for a browser).
OK I haven't tried running firefox on a 486 but then why would I want to?
Opera crashes like crazy on my rigs.
IE in all it's forms clogs my computer with various infections bogging it down eventually requiring a reboot and more importantly a good malware cleaning at least once a night.
With firefox I really only have to worry about how many tabs I have open at once.
Active x is evil crap.
OS Integration just integrates the os security holes into your browser.
This guy is a nut. And this 'unbiased' page seems to be all about microsoft shit, zero credibility.
[ QUOTE ]
Firefox is not 100% Internet Explorer and ActiveX compatible.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh no!!!
[ QUOTE ]
While Internet Explorer is completely compatible with 99.99% of all Web Sites.
[/ QUOTE ]
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
[ QUOTE ]
Opera has the same problems as Firefox in regard to web site compatibility.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now that's comedy.
I use Firefox most often these days out of habit. But I often use Opera for pages Firefox does not load properly. Usually it's trouble with embedded video, and crashing due to certain Quicktime videos. Often from how file types are set up. Opera handles video properly, and displays sites as intended. I've never had an Opera crash, and it's much faster than Firefox and IE. And most agree it's more secure.
I've stuck with firefox on my pc but I haven't tried many alternate browsers on that since I tend to browse more on my work powerbook. On the mac side I haven't found a browser that is as good as Safari. Firefox, Opera and Camino all seem to be pretty buggy in OSX, the worst one is Firefox, occasionly it just seems to get hung up for long periods of time (spinning color wheel shows up and I can't even switch to another application).
remember seeing a version of this that was saying opera was better than everything.
what I want to know is that if IE is 99.999% compatable why is IE7 supposed to be getting html 4.01 standards? Then there's the number of hacks to get CSS sheets to display things nicely like firefox. IE i've found is nothing but incompatable with half the things i've been doing at school since I had a class basically dedicated to creating webpages.
sorry, been very irritated with IE the last bit cause of school.
I'm using primarily Opera because I simply prefer the UI and not having to reload pages when pressing the back button. Some websites won't load in Opera (Nintendo of Europe's broken POS website, for example), for those I use Firefox. I'm breaking a few more sites by only accepting cookies from websites I manually added to my list, which usually requires a damn good reason for cookie usage. If a website insists on using cookies for static content it's not worth looking at.
At least the performance myth is a real one, pretty inexplicable as well since Firefox was never designed for speed, it was designed to be a modular and abstracted system, which is obviously incompatible with performance.
But this bit annoys me:
[ QUOTE ]
This is an attempt to use scare tactics to try and get people to use an alternate web browser. Please do not fall for these. He is also well aware some of his web pages break in Internet Explorer but deliberately refuses to fix them out of clear bias: "Do I dislike Internet Explorer? Yes. Do I wish Internet Explorer would just go away? Yes." - David Hammond. It should be noted these guides here will always attempt to work with all web browsers and never resort to these dishonest tactics.
Notes - Internet Explorer has very good support (82%) for the most important web standard, HTML 4.01. In most educational systems an 83% would equal a "B" grade and without HTML the World Wide Web would not exist as we know it.
[/ QUOTE ]
1. IE is plain incomplete. Writing a website using W3C specs does not mean that IE will correctly display it. I refuse to "fix" (i.e. break) my website, too. Specifications are specifications and that which is outside of specifications has no defined meaning. A webbrowser could crash when encountering invalid HTML, while that may not be desirable it is not against the specifications. By adhering to specifications I know what I just told the webbrowser to do, even future versions of the browser will not do something unpredictable. A later version of the browser may understand more of what I said but it will never change its understanding of my code. Blame the websites who ignored specifications in favour of whatever broken code gives the desired result in IE for this mess of incompatibility we are seeing. If all browsers refused to display invalid HTML everyone would be forced to write valid HTML that everyone can understand just by knowing the specs.
2. 82% is awful. Terrible. Imagine you only understood four out of five words I say. HTML 4.01 isn't even the only language used on the web, there are many different HTML and XHTML versions, there's CSS, etc. IE is a dragstone on the progress of the web. Yes, IE is a B grade browser. If we're being optimistic.
[ QUOTE ]
Myth - "A Site that doesn't conform to W3C Standards is not a Webpage"
Reality - W3C Standards have nothing to do with the definition of what a Webpage is.
Webpage (Definition) - "A document on the World Wide Web, consisting of an HTML file and any related files for scripts and graphics, and often hyperlinked to other documents on the Web." - Source
[/ QUOTE ]
The W3C does not define what a website is, no, but it defines what HTML is. As your definition says, a webpage is composed of HTML and HTML is only what complies to W3C specs. If it does not comply it's not HTML, ergo not a website by your own definition.
I use both Firefox and IE just fine.
I never have any problems reading the sites I go to on a regular basis or any other site I may come across when googling.
Actually, the only reason I use Firefox was because it came installed on my machine here at work and I thought I'd give it a shot. The window tabs are kind of cool, but I can live without them.
Hell, I'm using IE right now and have Firefox open with some googled images. SHOVE THAT IN YOUR FACE!!!!
Why do people have to get their panties in a twist about something as simple as internet browsers? Honestly.
[ QUOTE ]
Why do people have to get their panties in a twist about something as simple as internet browsers? Honestly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well SouL, mainly because when I use entirely legitimate and valid code in a website in order to make it do what I want it to do, I'd like to be safe in the knowledge that anyone browsing my site won't run into any problems. Unfortunately IE is so outdated and poorly maintained that it's not even compatible with a lot of CSS code, which is an international web standard and used widely on many websites.
I don't want to spend hours hacking around legitimate code just to get it to work properly in some crappy outdated browser. Unfortunately since IE has the market share and Microsoft are crappy about keeping it up to date and standards-compliant, if I want everyone to be able to look at my site without it appearing to be broken horribly, I have to jump through hoops to get IE to display it correctly.
How would you like it if you got a nice new set of pens that drew lovely lines, but when you tried them on a certain type of paper, the lines went all over the place and the ink smudged for no reason? That's what making sites IE compatible is like.
[ QUOTE ]
Well SouL, mainly because when I use entirely legitimate and valid code in a website in order to make it do what I want it to do, I'd like to be safe in the knowledge that anyone browsing my site won't run into any problems. Unfortunately IE is so outdated and poorly maintained that it's not even compatible with a lot of CSS code, which is an international web standard and used widely on many websites.
I don't want to spend hours hacking around legitimate code just to get it to work properly in some crappy outdated browser. Unfortunately since IE has the market share and Microsoft are crappy about keeping it up to date and standards-compliant, if I want everyone to be able to look at my site without it appearing to be broken horribly, I have to jump through hoops to get IE to display it correctly.
How would you like it if you got a nice new set of pens that drew lovely lines, but when you tried them on a certain type of paper, the lines went all over the place and the ink smudged for no reason? That's what making sites IE compatible is like.
as a web designer by trade for many years at the start of my career and again now, I currently swear by firefox HOWEVER safari actually renders code much more faithfully to standards.
standards are what designers have been striving for since the start, however since it was an open book, microsoft have been doing thier own thing since IE3. There was a day when IE4 was seen as a blessing!
Code intended for IE really doesn't render properly in standards complient browsers, I often see broken websites in firefox but this is not firefoxes fault... it's complying to general standards for rendering. So if it's broken, the site has obviously only been tested in IE with IE's standards.
...
However the internet is ready break it's self all over again as the new version of IE is reverting to the generally accepted standards laid down by W3C.
usually it's do with IE's padding, margins and span rendering. IE renders Spans as divs, where as firefox won't. IE uses padding externally from a div, whereas firefox does it Internally from the div.
Other shit that drives us designers mad. Bring on the new IE I say. I might even use it.
Replies
For example: Myth - "Firefox is completely compatible with every Web Site"
If anyone has ever stated that, then they are an idiot or it was taken out of context.
I found firefox to be very stable lately. I also read a story the other day that points out that many of the firefox memory leak issues, actually point to many extensions. A lot of the popular extensions created memory leaks in FF1.5.
That's not to say that Opera isn't a good browser, but I've had my issues with it also. I know I've been to a few sites that displayed incorrectly for me in Opera. I'm trying to remember why I stopped using it, but I know there were annoyances that led me to stop using it... and I was using it up to the free version. I still have it installed, just rarely touch it.
Opera crashes like crazy on my rigs.
IE in all it's forms clogs my computer with various infections bogging it down eventually requiring a reboot and more importantly a good malware cleaning at least once a night.
With firefox I really only have to worry about how many tabs I have open at once.
Active x is evil crap.
OS Integration just integrates the os security holes into your browser.
This guy is a nut. And this 'unbiased' page seems to be all about microsoft shit, zero credibility.
Firefox is not 100% Internet Explorer and ActiveX compatible.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh no!!!
[ QUOTE ]
While Internet Explorer is completely compatible with 99.99% of all Web Sites.
[/ QUOTE ]
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
[ QUOTE ]
Opera has the same problems as Firefox in regard to web site compatibility.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now that's comedy.
I use Firefox most often these days out of habit. But I often use Opera for pages Firefox does not load properly. Usually it's trouble with embedded video, and crashing due to certain Quicktime videos. Often from how file types are set up. Opera handles video properly, and displays sites as intended. I've never had an Opera crash, and it's much faster than Firefox and IE. And most agree it's more secure.
what I want to know is that if IE is 99.999% compatable why is IE7 supposed to be getting html 4.01 standards? Then there's the number of hacks to get CSS sheets to display things nicely like firefox. IE i've found is nothing but incompatable with half the things i've been doing at school since I had a class basically dedicated to creating webpages.
sorry, been very irritated with IE the last bit cause of school.
At least the performance myth is a real one, pretty inexplicable as well since Firefox was never designed for speed, it was designed to be a modular and abstracted system, which is obviously incompatible with performance.
But this bit annoys me:
[ QUOTE ]
This is an attempt to use scare tactics to try and get people to use an alternate web browser. Please do not fall for these. He is also well aware some of his web pages break in Internet Explorer but deliberately refuses to fix them out of clear bias: "Do I dislike Internet Explorer? Yes. Do I wish Internet Explorer would just go away? Yes." - David Hammond. It should be noted these guides here will always attempt to work with all web browsers and never resort to these dishonest tactics.
Notes - Internet Explorer has very good support (82%) for the most important web standard, HTML 4.01. In most educational systems an 83% would equal a "B" grade and without HTML the World Wide Web would not exist as we know it.
[/ QUOTE ]
1. IE is plain incomplete. Writing a website using W3C specs does not mean that IE will correctly display it. I refuse to "fix" (i.e. break) my website, too. Specifications are specifications and that which is outside of specifications has no defined meaning. A webbrowser could crash when encountering invalid HTML, while that may not be desirable it is not against the specifications. By adhering to specifications I know what I just told the webbrowser to do, even future versions of the browser will not do something unpredictable. A later version of the browser may understand more of what I said but it will never change its understanding of my code. Blame the websites who ignored specifications in favour of whatever broken code gives the desired result in IE for this mess of incompatibility we are seeing. If all browsers refused to display invalid HTML everyone would be forced to write valid HTML that everyone can understand just by knowing the specs.
2. 82% is awful. Terrible. Imagine you only understood four out of five words I say. HTML 4.01 isn't even the only language used on the web, there are many different HTML and XHTML versions, there's CSS, etc. IE is a dragstone on the progress of the web. Yes, IE is a B grade browser. If we're being optimistic.
[ QUOTE ]
Myth - "A Site that doesn't conform to W3C Standards is not a Webpage"
Reality - W3C Standards have nothing to do with the definition of what a Webpage is.
Webpage (Definition) - "A document on the World Wide Web, consisting of an HTML file and any related files for scripts and graphics, and often hyperlinked to other documents on the Web." - Source
[/ QUOTE ]
The W3C does not define what a website is, no, but it defines what HTML is. As your definition says, a webpage is composed of HTML and HTML is only what complies to W3C specs. If it does not comply it's not HTML, ergo not a website by your own definition.
I never have any problems reading the sites I go to on a regular basis or any other site I may come across when googling.
Actually, the only reason I use Firefox was because it came installed on my machine here at work and I thought I'd give it a shot. The window tabs are kind of cool, but I can live without them.
Hell, I'm using IE right now and have Firefox open with some googled images. SHOVE THAT IN YOUR FACE!!!!
Why do people have to get their panties in a twist about something as simple as internet browsers? Honestly.
Hahahaha
site I may come across when googling
[/ QUOTE ]
Why do people have to get their panties in a twist about something as simple as internet browsers? Honestly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well SouL, mainly because when I use entirely legitimate and valid code in a website in order to make it do what I want it to do, I'd like to be safe in the knowledge that anyone browsing my site won't run into any problems. Unfortunately IE is so outdated and poorly maintained that it's not even compatible with a lot of CSS code, which is an international web standard and used widely on many websites.
I don't want to spend hours hacking around legitimate code just to get it to work properly in some crappy outdated browser. Unfortunately since IE has the market share and Microsoft are crappy about keeping it up to date and standards-compliant, if I want everyone to be able to look at my site without it appearing to be broken horribly, I have to jump through hoops to get IE to display it correctly.
How would you like it if you got a nice new set of pens that drew lovely lines, but when you tried them on a certain type of paper, the lines went all over the place and the ink smudged for no reason? That's what making sites IE compatible is like.
Well SouL, mainly because when I use entirely legitimate and valid code in a website in order to make it do what I want it to do, I'd like to be safe in the knowledge that anyone browsing my site won't run into any problems. Unfortunately IE is so outdated and poorly maintained that it's not even compatible with a lot of CSS code, which is an international web standard and used widely on many websites.
I don't want to spend hours hacking around legitimate code just to get it to work properly in some crappy outdated browser. Unfortunately since IE has the market share and Microsoft are crappy about keeping it up to date and standards-compliant, if I want everyone to be able to look at my site without it appearing to be broken horribly, I have to jump through hoops to get IE to display it correctly.
How would you like it if you got a nice new set of pens that drew lovely lines, but when you tried them on a certain type of paper, the lines went all over the place and the ink smudged for no reason? That's what making sites IE compatible is like.
[/ QUOTE ]
Quoted for being so damn true.
standards are what designers have been striving for since the start, however since it was an open book, microsoft have been doing thier own thing since IE3. There was a day when IE4 was seen as a blessing!
Code intended for IE really doesn't render properly in standards complient browsers, I often see broken websites in firefox but this is not firefoxes fault... it's complying to general standards for rendering. So if it's broken, the site has obviously only been tested in IE with IE's standards.
...
However the internet is ready break it's self all over again as the new version of IE is reverting to the generally accepted standards laid down by W3C.
usually it's do with IE's padding, margins and span rendering. IE renders Spans as divs, where as firefox won't. IE uses padding externally from a div, whereas firefox does it Internally from the div.
Other shit that drives us designers mad. Bring on the new IE I say. I might even use it.
What? It renders spans as inline elements for me.
Score!
And yes, that would be porn I'm googling.
NOW, Off to some bagels!