OT: Stop IE

wilhil · #1 October 16th, 2005, 06:09 PM

Sorry, but I have to say this....

copy from the site, and my comments begin with //

There are countless bugs in Internet Explorer, but here are the main reasons to choose a free alternative.
//most of the bugs refeared to are features, read what I write below, and IE is free, I have no use for a alternative

Prone to viruses and worms
//Well you would be if you had over 80% share of the market?

Renders pages incorrectly. Web designers then need to spend extra time working so that pages work in Internet Explorer. This puts costs up, and slows the web down.
// I am a web programmer, I design for IE from the start, I have NEVER had a problem with rendering

Doesn't let people resize certain text sizes. This means those with poor sight cannot read small text on many sites.
// This occurs when web developers use certain font commands instead of default, the text font commands only resize the default sizes.

Far slower program than other web browsers
// NEVER had a problem with speed

Far larger program than other web browsers
// I have a load of computers and servers here, my largest server being 750GB, and the smallest desktop being 80GB, 10MB extra is so large and a good reason for changing isnt it?

Isn't as user-centric as other web browsers. It lacks many handy features such as tabbed browsing and integrated search
// I agree about tabbed browsing, I enjoy that for reading up many forum posts at once, but you can do that, although limited with the msn addon, and it will be included in the new IE

Doesn't support PNG images properly
//because every website uses png? if it was that good, and everyone wanted it, it would support it, frankly there has not been a website I have visited that didnt work. I AM HAPPY!

now for extra bits, this is a horrible thing to say but, why do you think terroists attacked the twin towers instead of some house in a isolated village?

people will always try and target the largest ammount of people with as small effort, why on earth if I am a virus writer, would I write something to attack a 10% share, when I can take out a 80% share...

mozilla recently has had a load of bugs, I do not just say my opinions, I try the competition, I am always getting the flash thing at the bottom saying update available, why on earth do you think that is? they are adding a quick feature that everyone will enjoy? no, its a quiet, quick bugfix.

anything with a big userbase will always be a target, and if people use others, I can bet my life on tons of bugs being there.

now as for IE worms and stuff, it is shipped in a unsecure mode so people can go to any site they want, a load of people visit hack sites, crack sites, porn sites, bad sites in general, where viruses and trojans hang.

I can say to you again, I have got my security settings to high, it only allows me to go to sites I want, and basically it is much more secure, I have never been to porn sites or crack sites, and I can tell you I have not had ONE SINGLE error with IE.

Yes, there are other options out, but it does not mean that they are any better.

I could say so so much more on this topic, but I will let it lie, but I will write more if I have to!

back to friendly talk about when SEV will come out?

Fyron · #2 October 16th, 2005, 06:59 PM

// I am a web programmer, I design for IE from the start, I have NEVER had a problem with rendering

You should not "design for IE," you should design for w3c standards and avoid all IE rendering bugs whenever possible. Standards exist for a reason. Unfortunately this means that the entire standard can't be used, but it should still be used, not the IE bug set.

// This occurs when web developers use certain font commands instead of default, the text font commands only resize the default sizes.

Which is a good ekample of a problem with IE: inconsistent behavior.

// NEVER had a problem with speed

If you read the rest of the site, the summary becomes more clear. See: http://www.stopie.com/speed/

//because every website uses png? if it was that good, and everyone wanted it, it would support it, frankly there has not been a website I have visited that didnt work. I AM HAPPY!

There is absolutely no excuse for IE to still not render PNG format properly after half a decade. It is an extremely popular format.

people will always try and target the largest ammount of people with as small effort, why on earth if I am a virus writer, would I write something to attack a 10% share, when I can take out a 80% share...

mozilla recently has had a load of bugs...

Mozilla fixes their bugs. MS lets 90% of the bugs and holes go unchecked. This is the difference.

now as for IE worms and stuff, it is shipped in a unsecure mode so people can go to any site they want, a load of people visit hack sites, crack sites, porn sites, bad sites in general, where viruses and trojans hang.

This is a poor hack. The well-documented holes in the browser that are exploited every ms of every day should have been fixed 4 years ago. I should not have to use "deny everything" settings to be free from dozens of critical, unfixed security holes. Further, I should not have to dowgrade my OS to emoticon to get future security fixes. The browser being integrated into the OS (since the days of 98) is one of the most atrocious blunders ever made by MS. Running user level programs (such as rendering web pages) in kernel mode is just absurd. It is one of the most basic security blunders I can think of. Most of the exploits in IE would never have been so bad if MS had not done this to get a few percent improved performance.

Yes, there are other options out, but it does not mean that they are any better.

The fact that IE is so utterly terrible is what makes the alternatives better.

El_Phil · #3 October 16th, 2005, 07:00 PM

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

As for me, I've found an IE addon that does tabbed browsing and better searching. Never had a problem with IE, not speed nor security so why change? If I went to dodgy sites then maybe I'd be slightly safer, but probably not. Frankly if the site doesn't support IE it's the sites problem, not the browser. If you don't support the 85%+ market leader your stuborn or stupid.

I don't like Bill or MS, but you must deal with life as it is, and at the moment IE is king regardless of its faults.

NullAshton · #4 October 16th, 2005, 07:05 PM

Sites for IE works for all the other browsers, so why not design it for IE first? Works in all the other browsers, looks the same, more convient for those people who still use IE.

Fyron · #5 October 16th, 2005, 07:13 PM

NullAshton said:
Sites for IE works for all the other browsers, so why not design it for IE first? Works in all the other browsers, looks the same, more convient for those people who still use IE.

This could not be further fom the truth. Sites have to be hacked away from w3c standards to work with IE bugs. Sites should be designed for w3c standards, not the IE bug set! Those standards exist for a reason. Most browsers do not make allowance for IE bugs, but instead implement the w3c standards.

If you don't support the 85%+ market leader your stuborn or stupid.

Sites should be designed for w3c standards, not the IE bug set. Good site design follows w3c, then is forced to deviate to allow for poor-quality browsers (aka IE) to still work.

wilhil · #6 October 16th, 2005, 07:29 PM

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

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

this website is great! if it has any png images, I would never know, I am not seeing any problems, if png was THAT popular for websites, I am sure everyone would start using it, and then microsoft would make it compatible, although I went to a website with png images, and found NO problem. I use IE almost all the time, I have never seen a problem with images,

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

I have to agree with this.

If mozilla or other browsers get over 30% share, then I will start using standards, but as far as I think, my sites work in IE, my sites work in mozilla, but why should I make extra care to make sure they work in mozilla when the user base is a fraction of IE

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

I am sure there are more sites on the internet that are compatible with IE and more importantly WORK in IE than sites that are w3c standards, so I from this moment am going to start a new standard, IE compatible! and my sites are compatible with it, long live forever IE compatible, die w3c!

wilhil · #7 October 16th, 2005, 07:38 PM

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

// I have NEVER had speed problems

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

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

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

However, the alternatives do.

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

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

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

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

Fyron · #8 October 16th, 2005, 08:06 PM

I HAVE NEVER had a rendering problem...

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

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

More like 2...

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

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

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

How elitist of you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Umm... no, it doesn't.

Renegade 13 · #9 October 16th, 2005, 08:19 PM

Quote:

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

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

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

bearclaw · #10 November 12th, 2005, 07:15 PM

In my profession (real estate) we use many online resources. I am the computer tech for our real estate board. ALL of the online resources require IE for our realtors to use them. Online forms and such that we use will not function with anything else. I've tried.

So from the point of view of business applications, IE isn't going anywhere.