Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Software Issues and Discussion => Topic started by: sTix on April 25, 2003, 03:36:02 AM
-
I've been using Mozilla on the A1XE for a week now and
all I can say is: It's dead slow! It's eating huge amounts
of memory. Do we really want this as our main browser
for our new Amigas? I definetly don't!
Well, I know it has great support for everything thats out
there and thats nice but I would much rather see a
continued development of the current Amiga browsers.
Fact is when it comes to speed Mozilla is crap compared
to IBrowse or Voyager and I'm afraid I can't blame Linux
(since everything but Mozilla is really responsive).
:ranting:
-
I do not like Mozilla at all because it feels to sluggish and really is slow when compared to the rest.
The browser what i would like to see ported to Amiga has to be Opera, good, fast, non bloat browser with loads of features, but the Opera developers said they wont atm and i agree with their choice.
-
Running Mozilla under Linux isn't quite the same thing as using the rendering engine to develop a standalone browser.
Bottom line: if you don't like the application you don't have to use it. Running a half-baked native implementation doesn't quite cut it.
-
I agree with Paul... OS4 needs a browser like Opera... maybe if they took AWeb and did a re-workover of it or something?... I dunno... I agree about mozilla though... I dont even like it on Linux on X86... on a P4 1.8 it seems slower handleing then AWeb on an 030...
I think when OS4 gets done and out the Opera team may re-consider though... they need a development platform so it's best they wait if their going to port it.
-
I agree with Paul... OS4 needs a browser like Opera... maybe if they took AWeb and did a re-workover of it or something?... I dunno... I agree about mozilla though... I dont even like it on Linux on X86... on a P4 1.8 it seems slower handleing then AWeb on an 030...
Uhm... Yeah.... I'm going to have to just go ahead and... uhm... disagree with you, there. Yeah....
Mozilla is bit slower at rendering pages than some other browsers... But what does it matter how FAST a browser renders a page, when it renders it WRONG??? Mozilla and it's offshoots are the most complete browsers out there. Opera also would be acceptable, in my book (it's much more complete than any current Amiga browser!), but it ain't gonna happen. AWeb, iB, V aren't really very close. Heck, they have trouble with Amiga.org, a site dedicated to Amiga, and TRYING to be Amiga friendly. Moz is the only solution I see as possible to happen.
-
Ive been using Mozilla for about 6 months on Linux
on a similarly specced machine as the A1 ( this time
a laptop ) and it flies.
Maybe something is wrong with your distributions
configuration?
-
I think when OS4 gets done and out the Opera team may re-consider though... they need a development platform so it's best they wait if their going to port it.
Why wait? Maybe there are a few Pegasos boards around for a group like Opera. However.. I suspect it will cost a bit of $$$ to pay for the port of Opera :-D
As for Mozilla, watch what happens with their firebird (formerly known as phoenix) browser. I've tried it and it appears to be fine on a Celery400. However, they seriously need to put in some kind of auto screen refresher .
-
@DaveP
Have you coded applications for AmigaOS that use MUI?
-
Yeah, why wait when they can use AROS or
AmigaForever running GCC or something. ;-)
If they *must* I suppose they could use the Pegasos boards to run something they might like - Linux - and use gcc on that to compile for AOS4 or even run
UAE on that.... ;-)
-
@Darth_X
Why do you ask?
I have talked about this before online but I don't recall
precisely where. I never got on with MUI as a developer it had its 30 minutes of fame. Im sure if someone had contracted me to do a proper development project on MUI I would have forced myself and probably would have ended up really liking it but that never happenned.
-
DaveP
so you're saying compared to other browsers... e.g IE,Opera,Konqueror,etc that you think Mozilla flies then?.. I'm not saying it's 'horrible' old netscape takes that cake... but Opera seems faster on every platform I've used it... so it would seem more logical as a commercial one...
Mozilla is fine though... it's a world better then Aweb... just a shade slower...
-
@mips_proc
I never said it was faster than any other browser but they are now all so close to each other ( Moz/Opera/Konqueror/IE ) that there is little to choose.
Lets put it this way, when I use konqueror it is one
of the fastest but one of the buggiest ( your Support The Troops animations completly #### its I/O thread up ).
When I use Mozilla I am confident that there are few sites if any that will not work.
When I use AWEB I think ... f**k this is slow.
-
It will be nice when AROS can replace Linux.. one of these years... ;-)
Yeah, why wait when they can use AROS or
AmigaForever running GCC or something.
Wouldn't they still need someone to pay for the port, right? So maybe you DaveP have a bit of extra cash and can shove a few *bills* into their pockets to pay for this port, like spending money on a favorite hobby? ;-)
:pint: OK.. so is it *bills* or *bucks* :roflmao:
-
DaveP
you're logic is sound...cant argue with that... but darn I really do wish Opera would find it's way onto our platforms of choice...
-
I had spare cash. Fortunately before I got a rush of blood
to the head I went and bought a house with it.
My favourite hobby is not using Opera thats for sure. Not
my favourite UI. The last Opera I used I really had to correct
myself everytime I went for one of the navigation buttons ( back/forward ) and more often than not ended up closing a window because I did not stop myself in time.
That and the freakin' adverts in the top right window sucking up my precious bandwidth.
-
Opera v7 is by far the best browser on the market. No other browser even comes close. It's fast, small, and has loads of really handy features. The tab browsing and mouse-gestures is something I can't live without, it makes browsing so much smoother. The partial rendering (the way it starts to render the page while it's still loading it, unlike Mozilla) is by far the best of all browsers. The pop-up killer is also great. With my current setting it only opens user-requested pop-ups, and it works just great. Pop-ups are a thing of the past since I started to use Opera v7.
The adverts are just in the free version, if you register the advets will be gone. And Opera is certainly worth the small price of $39.
It would be great with a native OS4 Opera version. I would easily pay $100 for that.
-
Why dont you set up a paypal account and everyone who wants to donate can donate. Then if they come up with the
50k+ required to hire even a vaguely competant programmer
for a year then hire someone to do the port. ;-)
-
Mozilla is being stripped apart and will eventually be discontinued. In it's stead will be a pure browser project and a pure mail/news reader project.
Firebird (formerly Phoenix) is the a Gecko based browser replacement. It's lean, fast and every bit as powerful as Mozilla, which I consider to have the most standards compliant and stablist rendering engine. Opera, IE, and the Amiga browsers pale in comparison. I know because I've used all of them extensively.
Firebird, like Mozilla, has the most advanced collection of privacy and security features ever introduced. I cringe every time I'm forced to use IE with all the pop-ups and stealth cookies.
Firebird (and Mozilla) also supports add-ons like Optimoz, which gives Mouse gesture abilities to the browser. There's at least 2 or 3 dozon other add-ons you can use also.
Granted, Firebird is still in beta, but every nightly build shows improvements on speed and features.
Finally, the best thing about Mozilla and Firebird are that they are both opensource and free. Amiga wouldn't need to pay a dime to port the browser to our new platform.
The Web was ment to be free as in beer and speech, and so should web browsers.
-
IE sets the standerds... it dosent follow them...
-
Ive been using opera registered version for ages now i would love a port of the best browser available.
-
@ sTix
What version of Mozilla are you using? Mozilla has come a seriously long way in a short while. Ideally you should be using 1.2.1 or 1.3.
-
Mips_Proc Mis_Pronounced:
IE sets the standerds... it dosent follow them...
;-) Nope; the W3C sets the standards. But you're half right, Mips; I.E. doesn't follow them....
-
@ mips_proc
IE sets the standerds... it dosent follow them...
I'm sure Microsoft would love to hear you and more people say that :-)
IE has about as in touch with the standards as a tequila worm is with reality! Browse around www.w3.org (http://www.w3.org/), particularly the CSS section with IE 6x, Mozilla 1.3 and Opera 7x, and also the Complexspiral Demo (http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/demo.html). IE's attempt at rendering some of these pages is an absolute joke compared to how good they look in standards-compliant web browsers like Mozilla and Opera 7x.
-
I know about W3... but if you're making any serious site you make it IE compatible... since 95+ % of the internet is useing IE...
I know it's easy to argue... but all the goodies where IE first ... netscape/mozilla second...and everyone else still struggleing...since in the end its the % of people useing what that determines what to make your site for IE is always on top so far... there is no point in a dot-com web store making itself anything but IE compatible... unless of course they cater to a niche market suchas Amiga or RiscOS or some alternative...
and I know it's possible to make a website not render proper with IE... but that guy better update his website... because it rendered flawless on the latest IE I'm running here... everything on his site was perfect..the demo wasnt showing any flaws in IE
Opera is better then IE IMHO but it costs 40$ and I wouldnt spend that on a browser... when IE gets the job done.
-
That odd... Cause its fast here, both on linux and on windows. Takes a tad longer time to start up than IE, but thats because IE is allready running in memory.... But on browsing, its actually way faster than IE, both browsing and downloads....
-
And Opera can you just forger, its not open source, its shareware.... So we wont have any opera unless Opera themself ports it to AmigaOS, which Opera stated clearly that they would not do, cause of the small userbase...
-
I know about W3... but if you're making any serious site you make it IE compatible... since 95+ % of the internet is useing IE...
Why do you think 95% uses it? Cause of webmasters like YOU! If webmasters followed the standards, then ppl would actually have a reason to change to a "real" browser like mozilla, which follows the standards, unless m$ themself starts following the standards then.
-
@ mips_proc
When designing a website, you should check the most likely target browsers. If you run a website with Amiga-related stuff, you should be checking with Amiga-based browsers as well. I don't give any particular special priority to making sure that everything works in IE, I check with IE6, Opera 7, Mozilla, and IBrowse when I do any web design.
And here's a hilarious one - very recently (it is fixed now), the MS support site worked *better* with Opera 7 than it did IE :-) If you go to
the MS support site (http://support.microsoft.com/), and try to do a search for just Windows 2000, in IE you couldn't see it in the list, in Opera you could :-)
-
@ Tomas
Why do you think 95% uses it? Cause of webmasters like YOU!
There's a bigger reason before that - MS bundling IE with Windows.
-
mikeymike wrote:
@ Tomas
Why do you think 95% uses it? Cause of webmasters like YOU!
There's a bigger reason before that - MS bundling IE with Windows.
Very true... But if webmasters didnt care too much about the special IE "standards" then ppl would finally see other browsers as a better alternative to IE, since IE dosent render the websites right.
-
@Tomas
Very true... But if webmasters didnt care too much about the special IE "standards" then ppl would finally see other browsers as a better alternative to IE, since IE dosent render the websites right.
Take a look at 99% of Windows user's desktops. You'll find the default desktop colour background still in use. What does this tell you? :-)
-
@mikeymike
:oops:
oh, I'm using 1.0.0, the one that comes with Debian,
I guess I should try upgrading.. I'll do that now as a
matter of fact :-D
-
BUT again,
I do think that our slow 68k miggys have put healthy
pressure on the developers and I think it would be a
shame if we would drop great, heavilly optimised software
like IB and Voyager in favor of Mozilla etc. OK, I'm not
using the latest Mozilla but this machine (A1XE) is a
rocket compared to my A3k and still it certainly doesn't
feel like one, and I think it should even if Mozilla would
be a shell-script (and maybe it is . :-D )....
-
sTix wrote:
I've been using Mozilla on the A1XE for a week now and
all I can say is: It's dead slow! It's eating huge amounts
of memory. Do we really want this as our main browser
for our new Amigas? I definetly don't!
[....]
I guess you havn't tried Netscape 4.x?
That browser is much slower?
Have you tried phoenix/firebird?
That is a browser built upon gecko (mozillas rendering engine). Smaller and much faster.
Look here:
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/phoenix/
However there I havn't found any binary-files for PPC Linux.
I guess you have to pull the source from CVS and build on your own.
-
mips_proc wrote:
IE sets the standerds... it dosent follow them...
IE doesn't set standards, it screws them up!
Hey, this site looks really nice with Konqueror. Down with Mozilla, I've never been able to get it to work properly. Konqueror and Opera rock, though.
-
That and the freakin' adverts in the top right window sucking up my precious bandwidth.
I think I've heard that Opera downloaded adverts like once a week and stored them locally.
So I don't belive that Opera tried to take your precioussss bandwidth from you.
-
So noone would like an updated version of IBrowse?
-
@ Jose
Of course they would, but incase you hadn't noticed, the subject of this thread is "Mozilla on AOS4" :-)
-
mikeymike wrote:
@Tomas
Very true... But if webmasters didnt care too much about the special IE "standards" then ppl would finally see other browsers as a better alternative to IE, since IE dosent render the websites right.
Take a look at 99% of Windows user's desktops. You'll find the default desktop colour background still in use. What does this tell you? :-)
That the average windows user is totally retard when it comes to computers... :-)
But anyways... If their belowed IE browser did not work with websites, cause IE dosent follow the standard, then they would be forced to switch browser.
I actually want to block IE from my websites... just to protest.
-
Why bother and spend money on porting Browsers!
We allready have them, and they only need to
be standardized!
As I recall, there will be Ibrowse3.0 for OS4,
with all latest standards!
-
Mozilla has a history of running slow under linux. Do a search on the mozilla website, or google for that matter, and you'll find tons of references relating to people trying to get it to run quickly.
-
mips_proc wrote:
IE sets the standerds... it dosent follow them...
On Windows it sets new standards for bugginess, thats for sure ;-)
IE6's CSS rendering engine is fundamentally b0rken. Float something, give its parent div a background colour and BANG! The background colour appears on top of that div's contents. Yay! :-?
-
Tomas wrote:
Why do you think 95% uses it? Cause of webmasters like YOU! If webmasters followed the standards, then ppl would actually have a reason to change to a "real" browser like mozilla, which follows the standards, unless m$ themself starts following the standards then.
Hmmm... thats not why 95% of people use it. Its because it comes free, pre-installed on the machine that 95% of people buy...
Day in, day out, I make standards compliant websites that work perfectly in IE/Moz and Op7. The degrade gracefully to old/Amiga browsers too - they just dont get to see the design. Its the way forward...
-
@ Ponos2D
As I recall, there will be Ibrowse3.0 for OS4, with all latest standards!
Considering how long it's taken armies of developers to get other web browsers to support all the latest, do you really think IBrowse can make such a jump from its state in 2.3 to 'supporting all the latest' in 3.0? I think not.
And that's not having a go at the guys who develop IBrowse, it's just a fact. If one browser has armies of developers behind it, and the other has only a handful, which is more likely to finish first?
-
mikeymike wrote:
And that's not having a go at the guys who develop IBrowse, it's just a fact. If one browser has armies of developers behind it, and the other has only a handful, which is more likely to finish first?
A web browser is never finished ;-)
I would love an implementation of Gecko over here on the miggy. I fear that we may need GTK+ or QT first though... (I might be wrong though)
Hey DaveP, didnt you start on a gecko port for OS3.9 a while back? Or was that an April 1st thread? ;-)
-
Well, I'm going to be a dissenting voice and say I still have issues with Opera. It seems to encounter problems with some css formatted pages and also fails to handle javascript which IE, Mozilla (and all Gecko based browsers) and Konqueror all manage perfectly. In fact Opera shares the javascript problem with IBrowse.
Speed is good, but speed is not everything. I use Phoenix on Windows and Galeon or Konqueror on Linux. Opera is installed on both, but will not become the default browser until it handles all the pages the others do with the same results
-
@ gnarly
You *know* what I mean, smarta***! :-)
Erm, what's Mozilla got to do with GTK+ or QT? I could be very very wrong, and I would be very very surprised, but I thought that was the point of using their own home-grown GUI design standard (XUL is it?), so that it was more open to porting across platforms....
AOS4 needs an up-to-date standards compliant web browser. Opera 7x, Mozilla or a.n.other Gecko-based browser, take your pick people!
If someone wants to give me the world's fastest crash course in C, I'll help out on the Mozilla/AmigaOS port... I've got as far as successfully writing a few programs with gcc! :-)
(Mozilla 1.3 user here)
-
Once again, I am the odd man out I guess,
(I did "fail" the eharmony.com psyche eval)
I sit here curently running mozilla 1.3 on my "Marklar compatibe" 750 celeron bx100 board. (suse 8.1)
The browser speed is no different for me regardless of whether I use konq , opera, or moz
And its about the same when I boot into win2kpro and use Instant Net Exploder 6
so, I guess I cant follow along or relate with the issue at hand a.t.t.
-
so we SHOULDNT make web pages that use advanced features and work flawless with 95% of the public?...and then try to get them to download Mozilla (big fat app) on 56K ? for what reason? I think not... IE is pre-installed and FREE... its what people write for....I mentioned some special sites that will make them work good for differant purposes e.g Amiga,Linux,etc...(of course you dont make an Amiga website opted for IE...or netscape)
but for the general public you have to assume their running IE....and from there... avoid doing anything to screw up their IE expierence...
-
mips_proc mentioned:
but for the general public you have to assume their running IE....and from there... avoid doing anything to screw up their IE expierence...
;-) No, you want to make your page crash Internet Explorer if you can, then tell the unhappy campers that the incompatibility is their browser's fault. That's the way Microsoft did it, anyway...
-
Actually they are slimming down the engine from this point on. So watch the part we need to port get smaller and faster.
-
The amount of overall work required won't change
Im afraid just the amount of engine code that sits
on the abstraction layer will be reduced and become
easier to maintain.
-
@ mips_proc
If you want to support/condone some of the worst business practices the world has ever seen, I guess that's up to you :-)
Personally I like to keep the playing field as open as possible, and let the best product get the greatest share of the market. The only way that can be done is by supporting standards, not only browsers.
Also remember that if Microsoft invented the Internet, like they keep trying to tell everyone they did, the only way you'd be able to connect to it would be (after the complimentary Internet Product Activation, involving the divulging of half your personal details and a chunk of your credit card limit) only through an "MS approved Internet accessibility product". Is that something you'd like to condone as well, or do you prefer the idea that anyone with any machine that has the capability to access the Internet to be able to?
-
I agree really, think the fascination with a Mozilla port has probably become blind really (its been discussed for years now), especially in light of the fact we now have an Amiga open source browser project in the form of AWeb, if people want to contribute they should help this project in my opinion rather than starting another.
It would be nice to see AWeb become the YAM of web browsing on the Amiga. :-D
Then there's the latest IBrowse and Voyager, both of which meet most of my needs, particularly like the latest IBrowse release. But, always thought AWeb was fundamently better some how, its never (4 years of pretty regular use), crashed on me once, complete contrast to Voyager.
But there's still plenty of room for improvement...
All three Amiga browsers need (in my experience of using all 3)
- Better printing support
- Truetype fonts for display
- Shockwave-flash (Voyager's support is still quite limited)
- RealPlayer (lol)
Think it would also be nice to see more collaborations like Apdf's Vpdf module for Voyager, thinking 'embedded' MP3 streaming, avi/qt player, etc.
We don't need another browser, just the one's we've got brought up to speed ;-)
-
I agree with Mips on this one, most knowledgable users might go searching for a better browser, and actually pay for it when they find one they like, but most of the time people will be using a flavour of windows and will just use the built in IE, it's there and it works.
(unfortunately!)
-
@ L8-X
How is that agreeing with mips? :-)
Mips is basically saying why should anyone bother developing for anything other than IE, as 95% of worldwide users use that.
The fact that most people use IE isn't being debated, and it's not something likely to change very quickly. If the antitrust court case(s) had gone better, then maybe IE would either have been unbundled, (or now thinking about it, preferably...) forced to adhere to the standards 100%. Then the fact that 95% of people use it doesn't affect the people that don't.
-
I do support standerds...IE is a standerd... and I would make pages for it... because making pages means making money...I dont make money by giving a client a webpage that uses some standerds they never heard of and loads poorly on their computer but loads nicely on some nerds computer... the world isnt full of nerds its full of average people who want things done and want them to just 'WORK" and dont care if their perfect in every little way...
IE is fine as a browser goes(not saying other browsers are not fine, just saying their not nearly as standerd)... sure Opera has a couple features IE dosent...but IE has more then a couple Opera dosent... and IE is by far the fastest browser I've ever seen.. since its integrated right into windows itself...
I think if they un-bundled IE from windows... it would just add to the cost of IE .. as OEM's like Dell/etc would still put IE onto windows and just charge an extra ammount for it and for doing it...
It's the year 2003 guys... people want more features in their OS...a TCP/IP stack and a browser are 'basic' things...part of the OS itself...this is a networked world...an OS isnt an OS without the ability to get online and browser the web... any court would rule thats the case...
It's sad but there ya go... thats my two cents on it...
-
@ mips_proc
I do support standerds...IE is a standerd...
Yes, about as much as MS Word format is a standard.
I dont make money by giving a client a webpage that uses some standerds they never heard of and loads poorly on their computer but loads nicely on some nerds computer
Erm, if you designed a web page that works in Mozilla, it's a damn sight more likely to work in other browsers.
I think if they un-bundled IE from windows... it would just add to the cost of IE ..
IE is free.
OEM's like Dell/etc would still put IE onto windows and just charge an extra ammount for it and for doing it...
Any OEM that did that would be a dead OEM very quickly, as it would't be the attitude generally taken, as OEMs know their customers want a web browser. In the old days, Netscape used to be bundled. Did any OEMs charge for that? I don't think so. On the other hand, I think if an OEM were to advertise a registered copy of Opera with their PC bundle, it would receive a warm reception.
It's the year 2003 guys... people want more features in their OS...a TCP/IP stack and a browser are 'basic' things...part of the OS itself...this is a networked world...an OS isnt an OS without the ability to get online and browser the web... any court would rule thats the case...
Which is why I said it would be a preferable solution to force MS to make IE standards-compliant.
Expanding on my opinion about this, I think any software that gets bundled with an OS should be standards compliant, as it only hurts the evolution of the software market to do otherwise. Standards compliant software 9 times out of 10 is going to be more future-proof. as people coming up with the standards aren't primarily trying to line their pockets with money as a direct result of the standard. It's like MS's laughable stand on making Office 2003 "open" by using XML, then as usual, going back on what they said because they realise it might compromise their strangle-hold on the office software market.
A world with only one software company is one that receives very little innovation in software design, because quite frankly, why bother innovating when you can just squeeze more money out of your customer base by forcing them to "upgrade" all the time to a virtually identical "new" product. Look at Office for example: same old security problems since Word 6, and only the most minor changes for the better have come in since. Microsoft however would very much like you to pay 500 quid for the privilege of the same old security problems, a more bloated product with even more bizarre bugs than previous versions had (let's talk about the Office 2k registration bug shall we?). Do you think that's innovation?
Most companies or free software movements understand that in order to continue getting revenue, they have to innovate. Doing the opposite is possible, MS are a testament to that, but it just screws up the evolution of what IT has to offer.
-
I support free-market...if MS wants to they can market windows with whatever they want...and impose on people all they want...because ya know what? you buy their products... the whole world does...and they do it because its the cheapest/easiest and most widely accepted product... why? because Mac's cost a fortune and hardly anyone is smart enough to use Linux.
MSWord format is a standerd because the market dictates its a standerd... everyone uses it ...so it became standerd...not some evil conspiracy...
IE is a standerd because the market dictates its a standerd... everyone uses it... so it became standerd.
netscape sucked at the time and if you recall was behind other browsers of its era for a while... it sure is now these days... but my point is if there is no 'market' in browser (nobody making money) whats wrong with IE anyway?.... if they charged for it and thus tried to create a market it would be undermined...if they didnt charge for it then of course people would say 'their anti-trustful' or whatever... OEM's these days would be bundleing IE or Opera anyway...
about site design... if I make something 100% Mozilla compliant...and it works with EVERY other browser except IE it dosent matter... I still failed...if it dosent load perfect in windows on IE it's a failure... average joe uses windows or a mac with IE on it...
-
and IE is by far the fastest browser I've ever seen.
well, that is certainly NOT my experience! IE is sluggish pn my system (Dell p4, laptop). i have been using Opera 6.05 for a couple of months and it is SO fast i'm completely spoilt!
i almost NEVER use IE. in fact the last time it was to chat on an msm groups chat room. it was a real horror to see how slow it was. and i had opera open to surf other sites at the same time i was chatting. opera did not slow down at all. IE, slugg, slugg, slugg :-P
i write my web pages to work on as many browsers as i can test on. that means the various linux browsers, opera in both windows and linux and - if i'm in the mood - a brief look in IE. i never use codes that only IE uses.
F IE :-D
-
I support free-market...if MS wants to they can market windows with whatever they want...
You can't say you support a free market if you refuse to support standards-compliant browsers. You only support MS.
MSWord format is a standerd because the market dictates its a standerd... everyone uses it ...so it became standerd...not some evil conspiracy...
I never suggested an evil conspiracy at any point. With HTML, MS adheres to the standards only as far as it has to, then does its very best to derail other browsers by parting from the standards.
You have the word "standard" conveniently confused. What most people refer to as standards in this context are *open standards*. Ones that anyone can write software that adheres to them without having to pay a license, because quite frankly, most software vendors compete on the notion of the best product getting the greatest market share.
I'm not against the idea of an operating system or any piece of software having 95% of the market share. I'm only become against it when it is employing tactics that should be downright illegal to enforce its market share.
Netscape didn't "suck" at the time, Netscape 2 and 3 wiped the floor with the competition, and IE4 swang the balance in its favour because it was a better overall product (I say product because of Outlook Express as well, on merit). Netscape should have responded with a significantly better Netscape 5 but for some reason didn't, entirely their own fault. However, MS at the time were busy with their usual tactics to enforce IE usage, so that didn't help either. I suggest you go read up on your browser history.
about site design... if I make something 100% Mozilla compliant...and it works with EVERY other browser except IE it dosent matter... I still failed...if it dosent load perfect in windows on IE it's a failure... average joe uses windows or a mac with IE on it...
Unless you try your very hardest to make a site non-IE compatible, I'd like to see you manage such a feat. If you actually TRIED Mozilla for website browser testing it might help, because, quite frankly, you're talking out of your hat, practically speaking. In theory of course, you're perfectly correct here, but the theory doesn't match the reality.
Website design and browser testing, if you do the job the way it should be done, has its PITA elements sometimes, but quite frankly so does every other techie job on the planet. I could get away without the PITA elements of my normal job, a Windows sysadmin, if I chose to be totally ignorant of everything I know about Windows and just do default installs all the time, but I know that to do the job properly sometimes it requires those kind of annoying times. How many web designers believe they can get away without proper browser testing is beyond me, people like that command about as much respect as Long John Silver's parrot.
-
I test sites... I test with IE and forget it... but if as you said it's hard to make a site non-mozilla compatible then why is there an argument? if mozilla supports all these standerds 'perfectly' then whats the problem?
-
@mips_proc
about site design... if I make something 100% Mozilla compliant...and it works with EVERY other browser except IE it dosent matter... I still failed...if it dosent load perfect in windows on IE it's a failure... average joe uses windows or a mac with IE on it...
This is one of the few statements in the arguments here that I agree with. As a developer, you must target browser market-share, as well as you can. You can't ignore the massive market share that is IE (though different versions and different platforms of IE behave differently, so simply testing on one IE is certainly not near enough...)
I test sites... I test with IE and forget it...
Pretty shoddy work. You really should make sure your site is ALSO standards compliant. (Not in place of IE functionality, but in addition to it!) At this stage, that doesn't mean going back and trying to get it to work on IBrowse, but there is no excuse for not being HTML 4.01 clean. Gecko-based browsers and Opera should be able to handle it.... The fact is, IE is not available and impossible for some of your viewers to obtain. And not just viewers who are M$ paranoid. You have a large band of corporate users who surf at work (>35% of legitimate e-commerce traffic, according to some optimistic surveys) and due to some of the latest security problems, there are workplaces that went as far as removing IE's access through the firewall. Telling people who can't use IE to use IE isn't going to make them happy, and they're not likely to come back...
-
I test sites... I test with IE and forget it...
Funny.
but if as you said it's hard to make a site non-mozilla compatible then why is there an argument? if mozilla supports all these standerds 'perfectly' then whats the problem?
For the fiftieth time... IE doesn't adhere to the standards!
No product is perfect. Even if all browsers were up-to-date and adhered to the standards, you'd still have to do a bit of cross-browser testing to make sure, because the standards don't write everything in stone down to the last pixel, what they do try to do is make sure that you'll get a pretty damn close approximation between all standards-compliant browsers. Oh God, you have to do some tedious testing, that little bit of extra work, let me just find the world's smallest violin to play for you and every other lazy-ass web designer on the planet.
-
mips_proc wrote:
so we SHOULDNT make web pages that use advanced features and work flawless with 95% of the public?...and then try to get them to download Mozilla (big fat app) on 56K ?
Is 6-12megs a BIG FAT APP?? Including both mail and irc client!! How big do you think your beloved IE is?? If webmasters did follow the standards, instead of coding just for IE, then it would work perfectly in all browser, instead of ONLY working in the buggy "browser" IE... This would force Micro$oft to follow the standards themself, if not.. then they would loose userbase... But i guess you like supporting their monopoly and make the internet only work for ppl running windows... I bet you work for them.
-
L8-X wrote:
I agree with Mips on this one, most knowledgable users might go searching for a better browser, and actually pay for it when they find one they like, but most of the time people will be using a flavour of windows and will just use the built in IE, it's there and it works.
(unfortunately!)
Yep... cause stupid webmasters like mips make it work, though the browser crappy.
-
Quixote wrote:
mips_proc mentioned:but for the general public you have to assume their running IE....and from there... avoid doing anything to screw up their IE expierence...
;-) No, you want to make your page crash Internet Explorer if you can, then tell the unhappy campers that the incompatibility is their browser's fault. That's the way Microsoft did it, anyway...
Actually.... thats the way to do it.. MS has used those dirty tricks for years now, to ensure that their monopoly grow.
We should act back to fight their dirty monpoly before its completly too late...
-
mips_proc wrote:
I do support standerds...IE is a standerd... and I would make pages for it...
They use their own standards, which other web browser developers cannot even implement, cause of legal issues... Which means that those sites that use those so called IE standards, wont work on other browsers, unless they make another version for the real browsers. :-x
-
You mean like this (http://www.sztolnia.pl/hack/TrivialIECrash2/TrivialIECrash2.html)? :-)
-
mips_proc wrote:
I test sites... I test with IE and forget it...
Thats not testing in any real sense, but thats another argument altogether :-)but if as you said it's hard to make a site non-mozilla compatible then why is there an argument? if mozilla supports all these standerds 'perfectly' then whats the problem?
The problem comes when your sites totally ignore the standards!
What REALLY pisses me off is ignorant web designers who STILL put effing stupid browser detect scripting into sites. Its fecking stupid.
Write semantically correct xHTML, written to W3C Standards. Lay it out and style it using CSS2, written to W3C standards. It will work perfectly in Mozilla, Netscape 7, IE 6 and Opera 7. It will work acceptably in IE5.5, Opera 6 and Netscape 6. It will degrady nicely onto older and/or non css supporting browsers. It will be inherently accessible content (a convenient side effect of xHTML/CSS)
ITS THE WAY FORWARD!
-
oh, I'm using 1.0.0, the one that comes with Debian,
If you are using Debian, you should type "apt-get install galeon". Best browser on earth. It uses the Mozilla engine with a GTK+ interface. Very fast it is.
-
I am using an ibook had ie installed but was painfully slow i actally thought it was my ibook playing up then i was told to try netscape and low and behold the ibook came alive on the net so i promptly deleated ie it is #### complete and utter crap !!!!!!!!!!!! sucked in to all those dopy pc users who know nothing else but what comes installed on there systems its a sad world when you realise how crap ms realy is
-
I wouldnt go to any extra trouble just to make a few people happy...it would be foolish if I wasted my time like that...and nobody has explained how that 5% or less that dont use IE matter when sites are supposed to be made for the masses?.... I dont even bother screwing with standerds or W3C there is no point...if the site works and the clients likes it...its done! thats it...done...I test with old IE on a Win95 box and I test with the latest version...it looks good in both then its done...
I dont see any reason to develop to 'standerds' because IE itself is a standerd... and if it works with IE and dosent work well with the others...then thats (at most) 5% who cant view the site...
-
I dont see any reason to develop to 'standerds' because IE itself is a standerd... and if it works with IE and dosent work well with the others...then thats (at most) 5% who cant view the site...
Just to be a pain.........
Why develop software for Amiga? "Noone uses it" ;-)
-
It's not bieng a pain... you have a point... but Amiga is an alternative... it's something people do for fun and also out of love for the platform..
developing a website for the masses is differant then developing a site for a spacific alternative segment...
-
@ mips_proc
And if you couldn't browse any websites whatsoever because every webmaster was as enlightened as your good self, would that annoy you?
It's only through standards compliancy that you can see *anything at all* for some websites when using say IBrowse, the standards are designed with some backwards compatibility in mind as well.
Can you provide a few URLs to websites you've designed please?
-
its not the pointof wether or not it annoys people... the point is IE is a standerd because there are so many people useing it...that when making a site the last concern on most peoples minds is wether or not it loads fine in alternative browsers... but since they claim IE just dosent support things that Mozilla does support it shouldnt be a problem for Mozilla/etc anyway...
I'm not provideing my work...this isnt a judgement of me... it's a judgement of IE and wether or not its a standerd... I dont think anyone is disputing that its 95% or so of the browsers...
things like Flash have become standerds for example for making online presentations... playing a flash in say Dillo or Konqueror is impossible last I checked... dosent mean flash is bad...it means they need to update their product to support newer technology..
standerds make sense...but they would make more sense if there was any form of legit competition going on wich there is not...so the standerd falls to IE wich has the majority.
-
Ok, you keep rattling the same points over and over again without actually listening to anything being said, so there's not a lot of point trying to convince you. I guess you'd have no problem with designing a site entirely in Flash either, so I guess I'll leave it there!
There is competition. You're shutting it out because you apparently like IE so much that you want to take the choice of web browser, and therefore restrict the choice of operating system away from the other 5%. If you can't see the irony of your attitude when considering what website you're posting your opinion on, I guess there's no getting through to you.
I wanted to see what websites you've designed because I wanted to see if you actually do anything that only IE is capable of.
-
mikeymike mentioned:
...I guess you'd have no problem with designing a site entirely in Flash either, so I guess I'll leave it there!
:-? You mean like this one (http://www.rockstargames.com)? Okay, the main page allows you to opt for a non-flash version, but the non-flash version gives you links to pages like this one (http://www.rockstargames.com/midnightclub2), which do not have non-flash alternatives. It’s a shame for them, too, because they’ve lost me as a customer, and I can’t even use their site to find an e-mail address to tell them why.
-
I couldn't believe it when I found that Iiyama UK (http://www.iiyama.co.uk/)'s website was entirely in Flash and no alternative... trying to browse monitors and not being able to use the back button is REALLY IRRITATING, let alone having to use my 'toggle flash' script to rename the Flash plugin DLL normally named to stop it from being detected by Mozilla :-)
I hate it when browsing a website (tomshardware.com in particular) and suddenly noticing CPU usage going through the roof because of a couple of stupid Flash ads... on a 1.5GHz Athlon XP... I am pleased however that I only actually *have to* enable Flash for a website once a month, if not less than that, but maybe I have a knack for avoiding sucky websites :-)
-
My point is that there 'realistically' is no competition... 5% combined amongest all browsers other then IE dosent count as competition to me...
I dont see any irony about this site here... because this is a site designed for a niche...
I dont have a problem useing flash... flash is a widely accepted standerd and alot of people want their sites done in flash... so non-IE dosent support flash...dosent bother me at all....I do however not like to do sites 'entirely' in flash because it dosent allow alot of the features a browser has to be useful.. like back buttons..page spacific bookmarks... alot of little things... flash intro's... flash components...etc
It may restrict the choice of OS...and thats sad... but if a browser wants acceptance suchas Mozilla...they conform to IE...
I've seldom if ever saw a site that didnt load 'at all' in mozilla or nutscrape... sure it might look kinda lousey but they will almost all load...
-
mips_proc wrote:
so non-IE dosent support flash...
It may restrict the choice of OS...and thats sad... but if a browser wants acceptance suchas Mozilla...they conform to IE...
Well, actually, most (all ?) browsers support flash as long as flash is available for the OS it runs on. Which it may not be...
You should really do something with that attitude of yours. Yes, a lot of people use IE, but that does in no way justify creating web sites that does not follow the html standards. I know you say that IE is a standard, but it's not. No matter how many people use it. IE is a browser, and any browser should follow the W3C standards. Micro$oft have a long way to go there.
If web pages are created according to the standards (W3C) it will look ok in all browsers. When I create a site, I make sure that it works acceptable in all major browsers (mozilla, opera, ie) and uses 100% valid XHTML and CSS code.
My sites will look fine in Mozilla and Opera, and quite nice in IE. The CSS support in IE is really poor...
The thing is: If you use special IE features, you will run into problems when you want to use other browsers, but if you follow the W3C standards, your site will look good on all browsers. Using correct html does not mean that it will look bad in IE. You don't have to use code that IE can't handle.
--
Glenn Hisdal
-
mips_proc wrote:
My point is that there 'realistically' is no competition... 5% combined amongest all browsers other then IE dosent count as competition to me...
With the amount of people using the web today, 5% of the people using web-browsers are quite a lot of people in numbers. Do you really want to shut out a copule of million people/potential customers just because you can't be bothered to check the site with other browsers and conform to web-standards?
It's web-designers like you that destroy any potential competion to IE beacuse you are to lazy to check that your websites work in all browsers and conforms to standards.
Websites that doesn't work in Opera (which I use as my main browser nowadays) won't get any return visits from me that's for sure. I will not start up IE just to visit one site.
When talking about how slow IE is. Just try clicking the back button to go back to your previously visited site, and then try the same thing in Opera. When hitting the back button (or the back mouse-gesture) the previous page is shown directly, but in IE it takes several seconds.
-
mips_proc wrote:
I dont see any reason to develop to 'standerds' because IE itself is a standerd... and if it works with IE and dosent work well with the others...then thats (at most) 5% who cant view the site...
You dont get it do you?? IE is no fuc*ing standard, w3c is. Its not a god damn standard when only one browser "IE" can use them legally... Even microsoft themself signed to follow the w3c standards, but do they follow them?? NO!! The reason why they do it this way, is to get rid of all other competition...
I really wonder why you even hang out on a Amiga site, when you say only users who run Microsoft products, should be able to browse the web..
-
mips_proc wrote:
My point is that there 'realistically' is no competition... 5% combined amongest all browsers other then IE dosent count as competition to me...
Why do you think there isnt any competition? Cause ppl like you force people to use one damn browser to be able to browse your site, you are limiting their freedom to use other Operativsystems, browsers.. And also, just cause the statistics shows that 95% is IE users, dosent mean its right... Did you know that most browsers like opera, mozilla identifies as IE as default? Which is done to bypass the browser check script, that limits the site to just IE, even though it works in other browsers... Thats why...
-
mips_proc wrote:
I dont see any reason to develop to 'standerds' because IE itself is a standerd... and if it works with IE and dosent work well with the others...then thats (at most) 5% who cant view the site...
That argument just doesnt stand up at all.
OK, so you're developing a site for the masses. Lets say you have 2 million visitors in a year. 5% of them cant access it because your site is b0rked in anything other than IE.
THATS 100,000 POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS THAT YOU'VE LOST!
-
mips_proc wrote:
dosent mean flash is bad...it means they need to update their product to support newer technology..
But you yourself arent adopting newer technology such as xHTML and CSS-P? Hmmm...
-
TurboLaban wrote:
My sites will look fine in Mozilla and Opera, and quite nice in IE. The CSS support in IE is really poor...
Actually, thats not entirely fair. IE6Win can do nearly everything that I require it to do perfectly. It has some absolutely infuriating bugs relating to float behaviour, but for the most part it does just fine. If I do run into trouble, a post to CSS-Discuss (http://www.css-discuss.org/) generally provides a solution.
IE5Mac has one of the best CSS rendering engines going. The advent of Safari means that MS are less likely to want to develop it much further now though.
-
TurboLaban wrote:
My sites will look fine in Mozilla and Opera, and quite nice in IE. The CSS support in IE is really poor...
Actually, thats not entirely fair. IE6Win can do nearly everything that I require it to do perfectly. It has some absolutely infuriating bugs relating to float behaviour, but for the most part it does just fine. If I do run into trouble, a post to CSS-Discuss (http://www.css-discuss.org/) generally provides a solution.
IE5Mac has one of the best CSS rendering engines going. The advent of Safari means that MS are less likely to want to develop it much further now though.
Well, ok. Maybe I was a bit hard on it :-)
The problems are, as you say, most of the time possible to get around. It is a bit annoying that it doesn't draw all border styles correctly (but maybe that has changed lately. Using IE5 for Mac myself to test it). But then again, other browsers also have that problem (e.g. khtml based browsers).
Hopefully Microsoft will eventually see that open standards are a good thing, but I fear that they won't :-(
--
Glenn Hisdal
-
Tomas tossed in:
I really wonder why you even hang out on a Amiga site, when you say only users who run Microsoft products, should be able to browse the web..
;-) Mips_Proc hangs out here to stir up reactions like yours. He'll deny it, but it seems a lot like trolling to me. Granted, his approach is a bit more subtle than that of most trolls, but....
-
@mips_proc
Whats the reason to not follow standards like W3C, unless ofcourse the great IE doesn´t follow them...... :lol:
And a website isn´t properly tested unless it´s been tested in Lynx.
You know even the blind is surfing the net these days and their text-to-speech browsers or touchdisplays don´t work well with Flash and other unnecessary crap.
-
I really wonder why you even hang out on a Amiga site, when you say only users who run Microsoft products,
I recall AmigaBasic was a Microsoft product...
-
>I don't see any reason to develop to 'standerds'
>because IE itself is a standerd...
I'm sorry guys, but I don't really see any
problem with this statement.
The question here isn't whether or not IE
'should' be a standard, the issue I see is that
like it or not, IE is a standard by default
simply because it's the most widely used and
accepted browser. If conforming to a particular
W3C standard produces an ill effect under IE,
what do you think people should do? Ignore the
95% market to make sure that somebody using
AWEB2 can view the site correctly??? Let's
get just a tad more real here...
-
what you are saying is
I don't wan't 100% of the market I want 95%
but since you are of base with your 95% of users using IE it should probably read something more like this
I don't wan't 100% of the market I want 65% of the market.