The Browsers - Fight Of The Century

Originally Posted by Darksat What about security

Like Templatxchange said, if your not an idiot you shouldn't have a problem.

Firefox is about as secure as IE is.

And Linux is as secure as Windows, it's all the same. It's just the most popular tools get played with more.

I have never had a download get cutoff in the middle, maybe cuz i have a fast connection, or maybe because ive never downloaded a huge file.

RSS feed is some sort of news thing i believe? I would rather just visit the website if thats the case.

RSS Feeds are great.

it DOES take you to the website, it's just a sort of bookmark to an article. You can access articles through menus in your browser etc.

I've been using FireFox for a while, I'm really in love with the Web Developer toolbar plugin for FF

Originally Posted by Robson Without all the "omgs" what is actually wrong with it? It loads fast for me and provides me with everything i need when browsing the internet. I have never understood the vendetta for microsoft, windows media player and ie and fail to see why/how their products are bad?

yeah,I don't have any problem using I.E. so far, but I'm also not against any other browsers.I've used all kind of browsers...I.E., Mozilla, Opera...bla bla...and people are talking about the difference in loading speed.I don't actually see a huge difference really. I guess it depends on personal preference.

Mozilla is very useful for a web designer like me because it has a tool to validate CSS & HTML. Most of the time I use I.E. to surf, but when I'm working I used all kind of browsers to test my web design, making sure it can be viewed by different users.

Originally Posted by developmental How many sites have you run into that have the small disclaimer at the base that says viewed best at any res larger than 800X600, there are the small few that still do, but if they come across enough web material that doesn't fit their monitor they are more likely to upgrade to one that is capable of a higher res, same goes for the W3C recommendations.

i'm sorry... i almost LOL'd there.

that's by far the most ignorant and short sighted thing you could have said. why the hell should i change my resolution and configuration for your bad website? a good website should be usable on more than one platform.

if someone comes to a website that says "best vewed with a t3 lan connection 1400x1280 resolution and no other programs running" people arne't going to shut everythine else down, upgrade their internet connection and shoot their resolution to it's max setting - especially if they're a google soccer mom. they're just going to leave and go to a plce that wasn't designed and coded by a moron.

to be honest... picard and templatexchange are the only people in this MS v Mozilla fight that are actually thinking. shame on you children. i'm all for proper coding (using compeltely needless crap like <blink> and marquees is juts going ot have me letter bomb you) but do you people actuallt read what you're saying? i'm looking at you kiswa.

the big myth is that FF really follows w3 recomendtaions..... like it knows the difference bwteen deprication? <b> got the boot by <strong> but lo and behold, it still render bold text for me. Firefox followes the doctype specifications better then IE, it doesn't run through a check list of xhtml w3 reccomended standards.

if you leave the alt tag out on an image, it still renders the image. with xhtml strict, if i don't enclose a string inside a tag like <p> or <div> or a heading (<h1>) it's not valid xhtml strict but it still renders it. if i leave out the </li> for a list, it still renders it. point: it's not as sloppy. it's not what you're making it out to be.

from a development point of view, FF is a good browser because it's harder to have ****ty code and still render coherently because it actually pays attention to the doctype (if i don't specify one, it still renders the page, so enough of the 'FF followes w3 reccomendations' no it doens't, the majority people who use it code to them.)

i like firefox because i'm a developer, but as a browser, you know, something for viewing webpages, it's actually the worst one, because it follows the doctype - it does, but most of the people cding webpages don't so it chokes and i can't view it - thus, no browsing occurs. when a website doesn't work because it's author was too damn lazy to do it properly, it make me laugh as the high number of useless people doing work in the world, because it only makes me fell better about being able to do cross browser work with ease. to a standard person, it's just going to piss them the hell off.

every argument made in FF's defense is just a bad disguise of arguing about 'proper coding methods'. i don't code to semantic 'standards' because the w3 tells me to, i do it because it makes the most sense logically. "About Me" is a heading, thus i use the heading tag <h#></h#>. using a div is like picard's penguin example. i can call <div id="headingone"></div> - doesn't make it a heading. concidently the w3 reccomends common sense.

the only thing FF has over IE from a browsing perspective is the tabs, because if i have 5 windows open, as i often do when working, plus all my other aplications, my toolbar doesn't become a cluttered nightmare and i can see why i have this much open at once. AND mozilla can eat me for this, because when i close my 5 tabs, and open 5 new ones, the original 5 ones stay cached in my memory eating away at my ram.

--EDIT:--
just because i can, bite me mozilla fan boys:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html dir="ltr" lang="en"> <head> <title>TalkFreelance.com - Welcome to the community! - The Browsers - Fight Of The Century</title> . . . <div align="center"> . . . <td colspan="2"><img src="images/style_img/spacer.gif" height="25" width="1" border="0" alt="" /></td> . . . <td bgcolor="#FBFDFF" style="border: 1px solid #687A85;"> . . . <div>Originally Posted by <strong>Darksat</strong></div> <div style="font-style:italic">What about [/b]<b>security</b>[/b]</div>

taken right from this thread's source code. . . viewed in FF no less

• it's an xhtml transitional doctype (xhtml the reccomended w3 language [i agree with it, but seriously... fanboys!])
• to be anal about w3 reccomendations, <div align="center"> shouldn't be used. css' margin: auto should be used to center an xhtml document, but transitional lets some things go that strict won't. and here we are, rending it in the middle of my page.
• for some reason in transitional width is still a valid attribute, but height in all xhtml formats has been depricated and should be handled by css. if worse comes to worse and it's not worth delclaring a class/id over, the style element should have been used. height is not a working attribute, but FF is here drawing it 25px high
• bgcolor . . also removed in any form of xhtml. background colours are a styling element and shout be controled through css.. once again, if it's not worth delcaring the style attribute should be used. by your definition FF shouldn't render the colour because it used bgcolour, but i'm seeing this nice teal and green style despite the violation of w3 reccomendations
• css is also supposed to end in a semi-colon, but the style element is clearly msising it - substitued in red. FF shouldn't render the border. php doesn't work when you leave out the semi-colon, so why is FF printing the border despite the obvious syntax error?
• hey look at that, both <strong> and <b> used on 2 lines right next to ach other, and they're both bold on the screen.
• i can print this [ b ][ i] i'm bold and itallic [ /i ][ /b] which is in clear violation of xhtml and w3 standards, but watch this i'm bold and itallic

look @ that ^^

Firefox is a great development tool, but as a standard browser it's clearly overprasied, and it's annoying because the peple doing it don't even know why.

sorry to rant like that but when it bottles up, it pops. =(

Originally Posted by lightofmind Are you talking about the W3C? It wasn't stupid; They (Tim Berners-Lee) invented the internet and should have every right to propose specifications on how to best use it. From the beginning, the Internet was supposed to be about sharing information across the globe, regardless of computing platform or viewing device. Obviously, the explosion of online commerce changed all of that, and Microsoft and Netscape (collectively) destroyed the useability of the Internet.

Actually he (Tim Berners-Lee) invented the World Wide Web, but that's what most people think of when they think of the Internet anyway so I guess I'll let you off.

Originally Posted by picard102 Uh.. people are resistant to change. Netscape was "new" but lost.

Netscape v.1.0 was released about 9 months before IE v.1.0.

Originally Posted by jamesyookay Firefox is about as secure as IE is. And Linux is as secure as Windows, it's all the same. It's just the most popular tools get played with more.

Completely correct. If FF becomes the most popular browser, it will become the most attacked.


In the past I recommended Netscape (Mozilla) over IE... right up to version 4.7 when it started losing ground - which was it became a bit ****. For a few years I made multiple site versions to ensure things looked the same in IE and Netscape then as IE took near total domination I let Netscape go.

Then along came FireFox (based on Netscape/Mozilla but without a lot of useless crap taken out and some good stuff thrown in - and a much smaller download size) and all of a sudden I have to make multiple site versions again...

But this is a good thing! It gave me cause to think about w3c, (which up to last year I had never had a site validate with and completely ignored), accessibility, and multiple platform compatibility. With this I dropped the use of tables - which hurt - and moved to XHTML/CSS layout. Good for accessibility and good for me as a designer because if I want a redesign I only have to make/ammend a stylesheet. Now if I'm making changes to a site at the clients request I use a stylesheet switcher so they can easily switch between the previous versions and decide that they preferred the first one, (as they so often do), and I just make that the default rather than changing everything back or keeping a shedload of versions.

My latest commercial project, (due to launch in couple of weeks), will look the same in IE and FF and mostly okay in Opera and Safari, (though the way they handle a few things will cause a few inconsistencies). It will be screenreader friendly and also come with a PDA version, courtesy of an extra stylesheet.

And I still haven't answered the question.

I think it's great that FF has come along and caused people to question things and offered an alternative but I still surf with IE. As someone said earlier (sorry I forgot to quote you and can't remember who), the majority of sites are coded for IE and therefore the best surfing experience will still be had within IE.

p.s. Can't remember who it was that said Al Gore invented the Internet... You do know that's not true don't you?

Mozilla Firefox is great, strongly recommend.

IE may not be broke, but it it's also not improved in a few years :P

I vote Firefox, but Avant Browser offers just about everything firefox does btw