New IE 7 Icon and Logo

By N1CK
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Mark Otto

Posted
Posted
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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

lav-chan

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Mark Otto

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

redfish

Posted
Posted

I've found firefox to have bugs in rendering (I don't mean problems because of following standards), and also bugs in the general interface. But whenever I've mentioned this its sacrelige.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Mark Otto

Posted
Posted
Why is this a 6 page debate? It's a damn icon, you either like the look or not. Go 'Browser Battle' somewhere else.

586372245[/snapback]

In the words of Bart Simpson, "Eat my shorts." Go complain somewhere else, Mr. Michael Madsen fanboy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Proficient

yanowhiz

Posted
Posted
Why is this a 6 page debate? It's a damn icon, you either like the look or not. Go 'Browser Battle' somewhere else.

586372245[/snapback]

:rofl: :rofl: :laugh: :p

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

lav-chan

Posted
Posted
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'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

LUTZIFER

Posted
Posted
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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Experienced

Xab

Posted
Posted
"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

E t h a n

Posted
Posted
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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Mark Otto

Posted
Posted
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Denis W. Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

E t h a n

Posted
Posted
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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.