| 4:40 am on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I agree with much of what you say, FF does not view many web pages as IE would and sometimes has shown my own web pages weird off and on. That said I love the features and I love the tab setup. I also love the fact that it has not once been hit with a browser hijacker after my kids went to a kids site. I hope it develops even more.
| 11:23 am on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|All Microsoft has to do is come out with Internet Explorer 7.0 |
If it's so easy, I guess they'll release it next week.
Incidentally, the word is insecure.
|I don't like the tab feature. |
I'm using Firefox right now with no tabs in sight!
| 12:47 pm on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For all the rant and raving, I haven't seen one reason why IE is better then Firefox. That is other then to say that Microsoft has a monopoly.
| 4:43 pm on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|FF does not view many web pages as IE would... |
Firefox shows your page how you coded it. It does not interpret your code or correct your mistakes. Is it better to know how to write web pages or be flattered into thinking you know when you don't?
By far, one of the greatest advantages of using Firefox is quickly being able to spot when you have made a mistake in your code.
The WebDev toolbar is pretty nifty too.
| 5:10 pm on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
^ ^ IMO that's what validators are for. I have enough to do, I don't need the additional challenge of having a browser pick out every fallacy of my work - that's what competing developers and designers are for, and they do quite well. :-)
|have to agree with this article I just read. Firefox is not a top contender in my book. |
Also IMO, I'm ill of all this browser war stuff. What's wrong with being completely indifferent to what browser is being used? Obviously some browsers make your job more difficult than others, but the bottom line is the "average user" doesn't care, they just want to find their widgets and thing-a-ma-bobs.
| 5:31 pm on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
In an ideal world all rendering engines would implement standards and developers really could be indifferent to the browser.
| 8:43 pm on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Just for the record, you have to write really bad markup for it to break in FireFox. I've found that even most FrontPage sites work fine in FireFox. Granted, FireFox's quriks-mode is different than IE's quriks-mode. But that's just an example of two different browsers taking two different guesses at sloppy code. Instances of pages actually breaking in FireFox, in my experience, are very very rare.
| 10:43 pm on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
We live in a hype filled world. If you can't generate some kind of buzz, then you cannot succeed. Microsoft is so good at generating buzz that you may THINK you're hearing a news story.
The issue for me isn't whether there's a lot of type around Firefox right now. Of course there is. The issue is whether it's ONLY hype or if it's being over-rated. And the answer there is clearly "of course it's not." Firefox is far from empty promises, folks. And I'm not reading a lot of false claims, either.
Firefox may never dominate 90% of the market - in fact, I don't think that kind of market domination is healthy for any browser, even a nice open-source project. It certainly has not been healthy for IE to have that kind of dominance.
But Firefox will continue to grow and continue to make waves. And that's a good thing for all of us - even those who never use it.
| 12:21 am on Feb 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For years, I have used IE with the security high and only allowed trusted sites. With tweaking the settings I have always been able to keep my browser secure. I have clients that weren't as cautious, therefore they would have problems. But after the realease of Windows XP SP2 the clients machines were spyware and adware free. Microsoft has hit this in the head. Pop-ups are a thing of the past. All of this always existed if you took the needed steps to secure yourself, but with SP2 by default the security is enabled, therefore protecting your computer not just your browser.
I believe Microsoft has been doing its job and should not have to be subject to securing or educating everyone (even though they do), because exploiters launch attacks. Microsoft is not the Internet Police and should not be treated as such. People are still using Windows 98 and some complain because Microsoft is not supporting it. It is 2005...time to upgrade. Who is providing free support for a 1998 product? No one. Why should Microsoft?
| 1:09 am on Feb 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Just for the record, you have to write really bad markup for it to break in FireFox.
I use php, and if you took the time to read and think before you put your keyboard in your mouth you would have seen the part where it read "sometimes the page displys fine, sometimes it doesnt". Thats right , FF only displays what it reads, so why display 2 versions of the same thing? Please think before you flame someone.
All of this always existed if you took the needed steps to secure yourself, but with SP2 by default the security is enabled, therefore protecting your computer not just your browser.
I have been runniing SP2 since it came out and although it does take care of popups (Their use of meaya is great i was using it when it was a standalone product 2 years or however long ago) it has been blasted by pop unders and the like. I cant fault my kids for others work.
| 1:34 pm on Feb 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I use php, and if you took the time to read and think before you put your keyboard in your mouth you would have seen the part where it read "sometimes the page displys fine, sometimes it doesnt". Thats right , FF only displays what it reads, so why display 2 versions of the same thing? Please think before you flame someone. |
I never flamed anyone in my life, and I'm not sure what you're referring to in my post that could be considered a "flame." I certainly didn't intend to write anything but a calm, reasonable and rational post. I apologize for anything I may have said that seemed like a flame to you, but please understand that it was absolutely unintentional.
| 2:41 pm on Feb 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
NO problem then :)
| 2:51 pm on Feb 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Aaaaghhh! That's nice!
Now, back to topic:
|Firefox shows your page how you coded it. It does not interpret your code or correct your mistakes. Is it better to know how to write web pages or be flattered into thinking you know when you don't? |
Wouldn't it make more sense for a browser to fix these choppy code some webmasters create? Isn't there a internet browser standard, which is within the limits of the law, like how IEEE set standards for eletronics and devices?
| 3:11 pm on Feb 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
ha ha ha, that is true, honestly I like both I like open competition because the end users win in the long run.
| 4:06 pm on Feb 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't know what world you're in azzbacwordz, but from where I'm sitting Micro$oft is very quickly going down the tube. They crippled Netscape by trashing the standard, but the Mozilla crowd have fought back and it's now close to impossible for M$ to corrupt the standards more than they already have. The same things happening all over the Desktop.
That effectively means that ActiveX and other virus-prone garbage will go the way of VBScript, and AFAIC good riddance ;)
| 8:16 pm on Feb 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Wouldn't it make more sense for a browser to fix these choppy code some webmasters create? |
Maybe, maybe not. But would it be better to work with a browser that is less tolerant of errors then one that is more?
|Isn't there a internet browser standard, which is within the limits of the law, like how IEEE set standards for eletronics and devices? |
Yes, it is called the W3C Recommendations, which per chance Firefox adheres much more faithfully to then IE.
| 9:09 pm on Feb 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It's also good to see how fast FireFox issues patches - and usually for POTENTIAL security issues that are reported long before a real exploit is running "in the wild" and stealing identities or running a denial of service attack.
Because Firefox does not expose the operating system the way IE does, I think it is inherently safer. Not all security flaws are created equal by a long way. Will be interesting to see the FireFox record as its popularty spreads and makes it a more enticing target.
| 9:40 pm on Feb 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Wouldn't it make more sense for a browser to fix these choppy code some webmasters create? |
Sorry, but no. The problem with this idea is that you cannot possibly control or predict all the ridiculous chopping that will happen. It's FAR better to put the burden of doing it right on the designer, and to support that effort by providing standards (and here they are [w3.org]), than it is to start second guessing what the designer meant.
With the standards in place and a browser that correctly implements them, everyone, even the sloppy programmer, benefits. Sloppy coders get better out of necessity; compliant coders get pages that render the way they meant them to render; and the world (or at least, WebmasterWorld) becomes a much happier place.
| 8:25 am on Feb 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have to agree with createErrorMsg. A good web designer/programmer can make his code work in all browsers, not just IE. It's better to learn to do it right than to rely on the browser.
| 10:31 am on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|What's wrong with being completely indifferent to what browser is being used? |
That's why we need browsers like Firefox. It's because of IE that we can't code to the standards today.
The problem with IE is that it is seriously buggy. Every week someone finds another layout bug, where content can disappear, odd things can happen, even the browser can be made to crash with a simple line of code. Of course developers have added ways round IE's most common bugs, so the user thinks the browser is acting perfectly when they view a page in IE. Then when it looks slightly different in Firefox, they blame that, when often it's Firefox that is displaying the code correctly.
I wouldn't mind IE if only Microsoft were continually upgrading it. 2001 was when IE6 came out! Since then we have seen only a pop-up blocker added. (Which was probably because all the other browsers had one.) They have fixed none of the CSS bugs, broken PNG support, incomplete CSS and HTML, etc. Nor have they implemented full XHTML mode, which of course Firefox has had for years. (So XHTML documents can be served as xhtml/xml. IE doesn't recognise these - it tries to download the file!)
The other point is that the Gecko engine (which powers Firefox, Netscape and Mozilla) is continually being improved. Now we are seeing CSS3 being added, which allows for things like CSS columns, media queries, and much more. IE is by comparison a standing joke. No CSS3 at all. Nor will we be likely to see it soon, because Microsoft have a policy of only adding what they feel their customers want. Firefox, and browsers like Safari and Opera, are aiming to implement nearly all of the W3C specs, along with a few other very exciting things. They have led the way for years, adding tabbed browsing (you don't have to use it!), keywords for bookmarks, all kinds of features. What about extensions too? These mean you can add just about anything (such as an RSS reader) to the browser. IE just cannot do that.
People still using IE really are missing out.
| 4:14 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Also, say what you want about Firefox, but I doubt IE will ever have anything as useful as the Web Developer Toolbar.|
| 4:20 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I doubt IE will ever have anything as useful as the Web Developer Toolbar |
I could forgive IE of all it's sins if I could just have the Web Dev "Outline" and "CSS > View Style Information" features on the IE browser. Those alone would make overcoming 95% of IE bugs a ten second snap.
| 4:34 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
That and the "Edit CSS" sidebar. (Which puts a whole new spin on developing skins for CSS Zen Garden!)
| 9:54 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Great features. Funny thing is (and this might be a coincidence) since I installed the plugins for Firefox my Gmail notifier has stopped working.
| 10:57 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The FireFox Gmail notifier, or the official notifier?
If it's the FireFox Gmail Notifier extension, there could be a conflict of some sort. I highly doubt there's a conflict if you're using the official Gmail Notifier from Google. You could always try disabling the new extensions and see if the notifier works again.
| 9:02 am on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think its just a coincidence to be honest. I did disable the plugins, and have also re-downloaded the Gmail notifier from Google and it still doesn`t work.
Maybe the service is down at the moment? Instead of the notifier launching I get a web page saying 'This page is not available'.
| 5:45 pm on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Firefox is not a top contender... |
A poor choice of words, I think - Firefox clearly is THE main contender. Sure, IE on Windows will stay the king of the hill for the foreseeable future, but if you care about developing for any other browser's audience at all, then Firefox is the one to pay attention to.
Even if a developer prefers IE for their personal use, if they ignore Firefox completely then they risk losing a good chunk of the target audience - and that chunk is growing in size.
It is worth the energy it takes to understand the differences between the two browsers, and to dig into Standards vs. Quirks mode [webmasterworld.com] a bit. Standards are not going to go away. Neither is tabbed browsing. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it as an option in the next MS browser.
Tip: If you monitor web pages for rendering in Firefox as you create VALID mark-up, then tweaks for IE and other browsers, even Mac browsers, are relatively easy. But if you approach development the other way around, previewing in IE/Win during the process, then cross-browser tweaks are often much more challenging.
| 2:05 am on Mar 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I love tabs, it makes it so easy to copy/paste!
| 10:03 am on Mar 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The whole benefit of tabs is that you don't have to reload the page. Plus there are more time-saving efficiency benefits:
1. I can right-click a link and open it in the background. (Ie: on a new separate tab.) Hence I can open any interesting links on a page and carry on reading the page until I wish to check out the links I've opened. Then, they are ready for me, fully loaded.
2. On forums, you can't beat tabs. Open the main page, then open a forum as a tab. Open any posts you wish to read as a third tab. Want to go back to the forum? Just close the third tab and you're there instantly! With IE, it has to reload the page (which can often stick due to heavy traffic), but you have it there fully loaded as a previous tabbed page. Want to go back to the main forums page? Again, it's there as a tab waiting for you.
3. I can open a set of pages I check regularly and save them as a session. Then I can open all the pages in one go by just reloading the session. I can even set this up so the browser starts using those pages. Try that with IE!
4. If I'm on a page and need to break off to view another page (this just happened!) I can open a new tab, check the new page, then close it when I'm done and carry on reading the first page without going back or reloading it. Since it hasn't been reloaded, it's at the same place I was reading at. (Plus forms are still filled in - I haven't lost anything I've typed into them.)
5. I can open two similar sites and compare them rapidly. This is great when you're working on a layout - you can load it, do some work on it, then load the new version as a new tab and just refresh that page only. Then just flick between the tabs to see the differences. (Also useful for checking offline versus online versions of a page.)
6. The main benefit for me is that tabs don't fill up the limited space of the Windows taskbar. If you open six pages in IE6, you've got six separate programs running (probably using more resources as well), each taking a separate block away from the taskbar. XP added a feature to group similar programs on the taskbar as one button, but I turn that off as I don't find it productive. But with Firefox or Opera, it doesn't matter how many pages I have open, there's only ever one button on the taskbar.
7. If a site uses a favicon, then it shows on the tab. So when several sites are open, it's easy to see which tab belongs to which site. The Windows taskbar only shows the browser program icon. There is also more room for text on a tab than with a button on the taskbar. (Tabs go fully from the left to the right as there is no Start button or group of icons or clock taking up space at either side.) This means you can read more of the website's title.
Of course I respect that people have a right not to use tabs, which is probably because they are used to IE and Netscape. But it's well worth getting used to them for the reasons I've outlined above.
| This 33 message thread spans 2 pages: 33 (  2 ) > > |