Recommended Posts

DEAR UNBIASSED FIREFOX FAN,

He never said that Firefox does not support Web standards. He said that it is 'buggy with many websites' (meaning the two are incompatible for whatever reason). But i guess it sorta looks like he's making fun of your poor browser, doesn't it?

YOURS TRULY,

Unbiassed third-party observer

586371924[/snapback]

If every browser was 100% web standards compliant, there would not be any "buggy with websites" issues out there. The reason for almost all "bugs" in FF is due to a lack of programming or development standards support.

And thank you for your sarcasm in the matter that it is "my poor browser" because I really did say in the prior post that it was my browser, right? Sure I did...

If every browser was 100% web standards compliant, there would not be any "buggy with websites" issues out there.  The reason for almost all "bugs" in FF is due to a lack of programming or development standards support.

586372071[/snapback]

(1) No, there would still be plenty of 'buggy with websites' issues out there. W3C recommendations were not particularly well-thought-out until pretty recently. There's almost a good 10 years of learning to undo before '100% web standards compliant' browsers could begin to solve all the problems.

(2) You keep forgetting that it's not really a standard, it's a recommendation. I should say that if 90% of the world writes code that only works on Internet Explorer, their code is the de facto 'standard', as much as you and i may hate that. (And believe me, i hate it as much as you do.)

And thank you for your sarcasm in the matter that it is "my poor browser" because I really did say in the prior post that it was my browser, right?  Sure I did...

586372071[/snapback]

No, of course you didn't. But you can tell that someone has a bias when they ignore the spirit of another person's comment and just focus on it as if they had personally attacked your mother. All the guy said was that Firefox is buggy with many Web sites, and you practically went on a rampage, challenging him to prove to you that Firefox isn't more secure and more standards-compliant and just all around better than Internet Explorer. That's where the 'your poor browser' comment comes from.

IE has caused more issues with websites than any other browser I've used before. I have seen it time and time again falter to render a website as it should. Firefox is not buggy with web sites; most websites are buggy as a result of being designed to comply with IE. That is the major problem because why should we default to standardizing a program that is weak in comparison to security, development, and interaction with the end users?

What is needed is a set of recommendations (as you said, yes the W3C sets forth recommendations for standarization) that are not vendor-neutral. If people could adapt to using those standards when developing browsers, we wouldn't have to be talking about this. The developers of IE openly stated that they would not solve many problems with their browser, namely problems involved web standards and the delivery of websites. I am not being biased by looking at the idea of IE changing itself to suit the idea of web standards when Firefox, as it is today, already supports web standards. This idea that Firefox is buggy with websites is what I am addressing because Firefox does not mess up what the website tells it to show to end users. IE is the one that does not render code the way it should and that is where the problem is with IE.

IE has caused more issues with websites than any other browser I've used before.  I have seen it time and time again falter to render a website as it should.  Firefox is not buggy with web sites; most websites are buggy as a result of being designed to comply with IE.  That is the major problem because why should we default to standardizing a program that is weak in comparison to security, development, and interaction with the end users?

586372230[/snapback]

Look, you're preaching to the choir here. I never said that Internet Explorer was a good browser (it's garbage). I just think it's unfair that you snapped on someone who made a completely true statement about Firefox (whether or not he worded it perfectly, i should hope that you know what he meant). I also think that you're taking a biassed stance towards Web recommendations -- if a site is designed to work in IE, and it does work in IE, then it's not really 'buggy', is it?

What is needed is a set of recommendations (as you said, yes the W3C sets forth recommendations for standarization) that are not vendor-neutral.  If people could adapt to using those standards when developing browsers, we wouldn't have to be talking about this.  The developers of IE openly stated that they would not solve many problems with their browser, namely problems involved web standards and the delivery of websites.

586372230[/snapback]

Preaching to the choir again.

I am not being biased by looking at the idea of IE changing itself to suit the idea of web standards when Firefox, as it is today, already supports web standards.  This idea that Firefox is buggy with websites is what I am addressing because Firefox does not mess up what the website tells it to show to end users.  IE is the one that does not render code the way it should and that is where the problem is with IE.

586372230[/snapback]

IE renders code its own way, just like Netscape (upon which Firefox is based) rendered code in its own way. (Just like Firefox renders code in its own way, actually -- maybe you're not aware that, for example, Mozilla has added a bunch of its own proprietary extensions to CSS.) People who write Web sites designed to work in Internet Explorer 'tell it' what to show to end users who use Internet Explorer. When Firefox comes along and can't handle that, it's 'buggy'. Firefox is doing what it's supposed to. The site is doing what it's supposed to. It just doesn't work out. And that's what people usually mean when they say that 'Firefox is buggy with many sites'.

What about IE 1/2?

586372275[/snapback]

I'm kinda curious to what IE 1 looked like period. I would imagine it was very plain and not much use. I know IE 2 was absolutely useless, but I can't even remember what the icon looked like, since I used it for maybe a month. Well I can't say "used" really, as I thought the Internet sucked at the time, until I got Netscape 3 and realized it was just IE that sucked, and continued to suck till IE 6 alpha came out, which was really good, but then kinda went downhill by final.

IE 7 is awsome though, and after getting used to the new icon, I changed my mind, and like it more than the orinal beta icon.

I even reshacked my IE 7 to have the new icon and changed my "About" window too, and changed the title in the titlebar to "Windows Internet Explorer".

"Since Firefox is still buggy with many websites" - what crack are you smoking?  Maybe you haven't heard of something called web standards, but Firefox is more supportive of them than IE will ever be.  The whole campaign to market Firefox as a better Internet browser is from the standpoint that it is in conjuction with web standards and offers better security.  Show me proof that Firefox is not more secure, doesn't support web standards, and, not to mention, doesn't offer a numerous amount of features that IE doesn't have (Some to name: extensions, themes, download manager). 

Firefox is the basis for the browser of the future, not IE.  And do you know why?  Because it is in agreement with the progression of web development.  IE7 has just recently jumped on the bandwagon of tabbed browsing and numerous other features, which may I remind you have already been incorporated into other ones such as FF, Opera, and Maxthon.  This just goes to show that MS has overestimated their tactics with IE; they had to ressurect the development of IE just to keep their share of the market.  Pretty sad if you ask me.

This is not just a browser war; it is a war between the development of the Internet and the development of a commercially marketable product that appeals to the masses (IE).  Firefox is on the Internet's side, and are numerous other applications, companies, and individuals.  Who is Microsoft of not offer everything it possibly can to the surfers of the Internet?  Why should Microsoft deprieve surfers of security, standarization, and so much more?  Because all they want to do is make some money, keep up it's share of the market, and make sure to crush the competition all while inhibiting the growth and experience of the Internet.

The facts have been presented numerous times over; Firefox is more secure, but it, as well as others (don't make this seem like a FF vs. IE fight), is a newborn in a world of one adult who has to be nursed over time and time again to keep up with the competition (competition which includes both surfers and hackers).  Firefox is everything IE has been, is, and will be because it is only a newborn at a critical growing stage of its life where bullies will stop at nothing to keep it down at the bottom.

Is this post biased?  No, not one bit.  I use IE and Firefox (IE on one PC, FF on the other), but I also have experienced first hand how vulnerable IE is compared to Firefox when the PC using IE gets popups and viruses.  Firefox gives me a better experience with the web, but as a web designer, I have to develop pages that work the same in both.  Ah, the woes of developing a web standards compliant website that looks as it should in IE...not much fun.  Simply put, I use both, but FF has hands down proven itself to be better for me, and as a businessman, my clients as well.  You decide which is better for you, everyone else, and the Internet.

586371896[/snapback]

Calm it down, I never said Firefox was a bad browser, simply that more times than I can count, I've had to switch to IE to view a site to order something or register for something, simply because Firefox would not render the page correctly or cut some things off.

Maybe it's not Firefox's fault, I don't really care. All I know is that the web page is buggy in Firefox, and that doesn't help me.

And a point for discussion... Notice the name change from Microsoft Internet Explorer to Windows Internet Explorer. (This has happened since IE 7.0 Beta 1, when it was still Microsoft Internet Explorer)

Why have Microsoft chosen to do this? To reflect the fact that Internet Explorer is no longer developed or supported on the Mac?

Source: IEBlogs

586368827[/snapback]

Eagle eyes you've got there! I hadn't noticed this before you mentioned it.

But I've been thinking. What if the new logo is all about trying to look more like Firefox's logo colour-wise?

Here's Firefox:

post-99705-1123912467.png

Now, here's the old IE:

post-110729-1123957003.png

Now, here's the new IE (note the addition of gold/yellow--Firefox colours--wrapping around the circular "E"--or should I say "Earth"?!!!!):

ie7xph2rgb1mh.png

People don't call Bill Gates a "tricky dick" for nothing! :rofl:

Eagle eyes you've got there!  I hadn't noticed this before you mentioned it.

But I've been thinking.  What if the new logo is all about trying to look more like Firefox's logo colour-wise?

Here's Firefox:

post-99705-1123912467.png

Now, here's the old IE:

post-110729-1123957003.png

Now, here's the new IE (note the addition of gold/yellow--Firefox colours--wrapping around the circular "E"--or should I say "Earth"?!!!!):

ie7xph2rgb1mh.png

People don't call Bill Gates a "tricky dick" for nothing!  :rofl:

586372345[/snapback]

The IE icon used to have yellow/gold you know. It's an 'e', not an Earth. They changed their style and good for them. See the attachment.

post-8654-1123963323.gif

The IE icon used to have yellow/gold you know.? It's an 'e', not an Earth.? They changed their style and good for them.? See the attachment.

586372382[/snapback]

Correct. And IE's icon, from version 1 to about 4, was a magnifying glass over a globe.

BTW, you're aware the Firefox icon I attached is just a fancy icon done by someone at WC. It's not an official icon.

For instance, here's IE3's icon. Firefox wasn't the first to place an 'earth' in the icon.

post-99705-1123965113.jpg

Correct. And IE's icon, from version 1 to about 4, was a magnifying glass over a globe.

BTW, you're aware the Firefox icon I attached is just a fancy icon done by someone at WC. It's not an official icon.

586372509[/snapback]

Sorry, mate, you can say that I was trolling there, but the fact remains that MS gave up the whole "earth" and "gold/blue" imagery quite a while ago.

My question is: why have they brought it back? (The "E" is more globelike now vis-a-vis the globe in the Firefox logo.)

What this means in advertising terms is that they shifted to an all-blue letter "E" to something that more closely resembles Firefox's logo. Frankly, it doesn't matter what they had going half a decade ago. The fact remains, they realised at some point that they had better do something about IE to bring it up to speed. And they thought part of the whole catch-up programme would be advanced by making their logo look more like Firefox's. Again, it's of no importance that their logo may have in the past have had similar features. What matters is the shift from blue to gold NOW. :rofl:

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • It STILL has horrid theme support. Hard to look at for me. The white is too bright, and the black too dark. I'm using classic outlook for the Dark Grey theme. It's just right for me.
    • inb4 someone leaves the usual "what an unfortunate name" comment
    • Cuktech 10 Ultra charger review: big display, four ports, 110W total power by Taras Buria Cuktech recently announced a couple of Ultra-branded chargers, including a desktop 300W charger, which I reviewed a few weeks ago. For those who do need that much (or who do not want to spend that much on a charger), Cuktech also offers the 10 Ultra, a traditional wall charger with similar features. Four ports, a big display, and up to 110W of power output. After using it for a few weeks, here are my impressions. Disclaimer: Cuktech provided the review unit without any editorial input or pre-approval. Like the 30 Ultra, the 10 Ultra arrived in a box made of nice cardboard with quality print all over it. Inside, besides the charger, you will find a 240W 6A charger, which, this time, is fully braided. While Cuktech always bundles high-power cables with its chargers and power banks, they are usually regular and unassuming. This time, the cable is much nicer, matching the charger's $59.99 price tag. The charger itself measures 67 x 76 x 33 mm or 2.6 x 3.0 x 1.3 inches and weighs about 250 grams. Considering the charger has four ports and a big display, I would say the compact size is quite impressive, albeit a little hefty. The overall design is similar to other chargers from the manufacturer, minus the chrome Cuktech logo next to the four ports. The Cuktech 10 Ultra has retractable prongs for better portability. Its front side is covered with piano black plastic housing two elements: a capacitive button with backlight and a quite large display for various charging stats. Ports are downward-facing, and I have mixed feelings about such a design. It is not the most convenient when you frequently connect and disconnect cables. It makes you bend over to find the right port to connect, and it is a no-go with outlets mounted closer to the floor. On the bright side, design like this eliminates clutter and sagging, especially when using four cables at once. Plus, you get plenty of space for a big display. Ports include two high-speed USB Type-C ports, one Type-C for less demanding devices, and one classic USB Type-A. The first two ports deliver full 100W, while the third is capped at 45W. As for the Type-A port, its maximum output is 18W. In total, the charger delivers 110W of power, but in my testing, I managed to squeeze 117W when charging two power banks and a tablet. Quite impressive. Type-C1 Type-C2 Type-C3 Type-A Single-port 100W 100W 45W 18W Two ports 80W 20W - - Three ports 65W 20W 20W - Four ports 65W 20W 10W 10W The charger can detect handshake protocols and balance power across all four ports according to each device's needs. As such, power is not limited to the values in the table above. You can have two ports charging at 55W, three ports at 45W + 20W, and more. For some reason, Cuktech is not listing the supported protocols, but a quick test showed that it is compatible with PD3.0, PPS, QC5, DCP, and UFCS. When you connect a compatible device, the charger automatically detects its charging standard and displays it on the screen, for example, Apple 6A or Samsung 3A. Speaking of the screen. The main highlight of the 10 Ultra is its 1.57-inch display with a maximum brightness of 700 nits and 160-degree viewing angles. The display takes up most of the front, and it shows various charging-related information, including total output power, current temperature, power distribution across ports with watts, volts, and amps, a screensaver, and more. You can toggle between the different views by tapping the button, and holding it changes the screen orientation (portrait or horizontal, plus flipped) according to your socket position. The screen is very nice. It is sharp, vivid, and the fonts are easy to read. As for settings, you can change the following: Keep the screen on or off Lock the screen orientation (hold the button to change the screen orientation) Keep the USB Type-A port on Toggle power modes The charger has three power modes: AI: standard mode that automatically allocates power to each connected device. Power Priority: prioritizes power for high-demand devices, such as laptops or power banks. Balanced: splits power evenly across connected devices according to their needs I was skeptical at first, but after testing a few devices in different modes, I can see the benefit of these three modes. The most useful is power priority, which gives the first Type-C port more power. When I was charging a 100W power bank (port 1) alongside a 140W power bank (port 2), Power Priority split the total output about 75-30. Balanced mode, as the name suggests, splits the total output between the two ports more or less equally. As for AI mode, the charger uses its brain to detect which device needs more power. In my testing, it figured out that the 140W power needs a bit more juice. As I said, I expected this to be more of a gimmick, but the three built-in modes turned out quite useful. For example, you can prioritize your laptop while giving other ports a little less power, but still enough to charge at acceptable speeds. Unfortunately, unlike the 30 Ultra, this charger cannot display the battery level of the device being charged. This small feature turned out to be very useful when I was testing the 30 Ultra, as it allowed me to see my phone's battery level without picking it up. Like other Cuktech chargers I tested, the 10 Ultra one proved itself reliable and well-made. It uses Gallium nitride semiconductor technology to reduce the charger's size and improve efficiency. It is also better at dissipating heat, but I have to say that when charging two power banks at 117W total, the charger got hotter than what I would call comfortable (hold it for a few seconds, and you start feeling a burning sensation at your fingertips). However, the built-in thermal indicator remained below the temperature threshold, with the screen reassuring that the device operated at "High performance" (I tested it in a 21 °C / 69 °F room). Overall, the Cuktech 10 Ultra is a solid choice. If you need four ports and you like to nerd out on various stats, it is a very easy recommendation. It will take care of your laptop, phone, tablet, and power bank without breaking a sweat, plus the build, material, and cable quality are top-notch. The mode switcher is handy when charging different devices with different power needs, too. I cannot say a display is a must-have in a charger, especially when it makes you more conscious about where to plug it, but it is a neat addition if you have a socket at your table or bed level, so that you can actually use the display and its features. The more important fact is that despite its size and quality, the display does not make the charger that much more expensive than similarly powerful chargers from competitors. Plus, you can save 10% on the 10 Ultra with a promo code on Amazon. Buy Cuktech 10 Ultra charger - $53.99 on Amazon with a promo code As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Last week I was investigating an issue with contacts and tried using the new Outlook. In the real (Classic) Outlook, you can easily go to any Outlook folder and present it in a Table View, then customize the columns to show/sort any field, which was exactly what I needed. But of course, the new Outlook doesn't have this feature at all. I gave up. Oh, and can we possibly stop claiming the new Outlook has PST support? What it really has is the ability to use the real Outlook in the background to pretend to have PST support. There is no PST support without the real Outlook installed.
    • Honestly just before Panos left it started to feel like MS just wasnt interested in them so they were being less innovative with them, and then when he DID leave for Amazon its kind of clear the direction is gone. It felt like Panos had both goals and drive, and a vision, but it felt like no matter what his title/department was the Surface devices never had the full interest of the rest of management and he was just pushing a bolder up a hill that MS was adding dirt to as he went.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      mobandz earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Apprentice
      fernan99 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • One Month Later
      nothanks earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      B2Proxy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      MadMung0 earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      477
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      247
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      79
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      60
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!