On Monday 29 October 2001 05:41 pm, you wrote: > On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:45:52 -0800, "John Hokanson Jr." > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > On Monday 29 October 2001 08:26 am, you wrote: > > > Microsoft has backed off now, because of attention and > > > articles. (I may make a note of that in the warning.) > > > > > > It will be back when they can do it in a way that won't draw > > > attention to themselves. > > > > > > Mozilla is not significantly slower then IE, I have both and > > > there isn't much in it. > > > > Exactly what type of computer are you running? MSIE is > > MUCH faster than Mozilla. The browser is practically > > integrated into the OS, so it's naturally going to run faster. > > There have been benchmarks to prove it. If you like, I > > can dig some up. > > What do you mean by "MUCH faster"? If you mean time to execute, > then you are correct, because most of IE executes at bootup whether > you want it or not. If you talking about page rendering speed > (which IMHO is far more important), then Mozilla blows everything > else out of the water.
I find the page rendering speed in MZ 0.95 to be roughly comparible to IE 5.5, while the startup time is somewhere in the order of 4-5 times slower. If Browser.com is to be believed, the page rendering of Netscape 6 (which uses Gecko engine), is still less than that of IE 5.5. http://www.cnet.com/software/0-3227883-8-3607741-3.html?tag=st.sw. 3227883-8-3607741-1.DIR.3227883-8-3607741-3 > Note that Mozilla isn't 1.0 yet - there is a > good chance that it has not been fully optimised yet, and that it > has the potential to be _much_ faster.' I won't agrue against that. Though I'm skeptical 1.0 will benefit from a perfomance boost. I'll bet money that performance won't be addressed to any real degree until revision 2.0. The current trend seems to be focused on piling on the features (bloat). MZ is a fine browser and worthy of the Netscape legacy, but it needs a lot of tweeking. Personally, I would like to see a feature-freeze initiated after 1.0 so that what they already have can be refined. They also should consider bringing the memory footprint down. > > > > IE6 is the first browser to come close to the standards, and it > > > doesn't support Java > > > applets or plugins unless you upgrade IE5.5 to IE6, then it > > > keeps the support, other > > > wise it does not. (but IE6 is no closer then Mozilla and > > > supports stuff that wc3 don't. > > > > IE 5.5 supports HTML 4.x just fine. As did 4. > > You'll never know that for sure unless you do some _real_ tests. My definition of a real test is to connect with a variety of different browsers and see how the page looks in each one. It lacks elegance, but it's foolproof. HTML validators are cute, but I only find them useful in checking code integrity for the benefit of browsers I don't test the page in. > Browsers like IE are designed to find alternatives to functions > pages which they don't support, so they can at least _look_ like > they handling the code well. Also remember that most people design > sites for IE, not for W3C standards. > You're missing the point, which is that it's the webdesigner's responsibility to ensure his code meets W3C standards and looks good in browsers other than IE. You can not lay this one on MS's doorstep. If you don't take the time to learn proper HTML, you get what you deserve. And contrary to what you or anybody else says, MSIE will render proper HTML if you take the time to use proper HTML. I myself type the majority of code by hand. > > I never (repeat, NEVER) came across a site that wouldn't > > display properly in IE 5.5, until Sridhar posted that one > > page with CSS. If you're using CSS, then, and only then, > > would a message be in order. Though make sure you > > point out that Opera has the same problem. > > CSS is becoming increasingly popular, particularly for large sites. > CSS has the potential to make web design much easier. MS's claim > that they support CSS1 is simply a lie. Again, most people design > their sites for browsers (particularly IE), not standards (which is > a real shame). > I can't argue with that last point, other than to say that this entire thread wouldn't be faced with my ire if this were specifically about CSS. If you want to specifically put this warning pop-up on CSS pages, your case would be all the much stronger. > > > I am not stopping them from using IE, I am just warning them > > > that its not our choice > > > of browser and detailing some reasons why. > > > > Frankly, I consider your pop-up idea to be a form of > > harassment. You are making a political statement when > > you should be thinking of intelligent ways to integrate > > IE into your webdesign. I don't want to be bombarded > > with pop-ups because you're too lazy or jaded to test > > out your site in IE. This is a HUGE step back you're > > taking. > > You have a point there. > Thank you. > > You are entitled to place a "best viewed with" text > > at the bottom of your page because I realize there's > > always going to be one browser that looks a little > > better than another, but to state that you won't even try > > and make your page viewable to roughly two thirds of > > the web population is ridiculous. > > This reminds me of the "best viewed with" images on some pages > which are linked to anybrowser.org. The problem is that people tend > to ignore these because they are are small and hiding in a corner > somewhere. There are larger link GIFs. > I don't think Franki's aim was to make his "page viewable to > roughly two thirds of the web population", but rather to have a > popup or clickthrough window simply reminding people that they're > using a non-standards-compliant browser. Except that's not true unless he's specifically coding a CSS page, If you place it on a non-CSS page or any page that that IE can render just fine, you are effectively guilty of a similar offense as MS. That you can parse a line of (mostly) BS but then allow the user to contine on is somehow less of a problem then blocking out the user entirely? Perhaps, but it seems like we're spliting hairs here. I should remind you once again that MSN.com is viewable in ALL the browsers that were locked out. > This page can be very > simple text, which can load rapidly. It won't be too much of an > inconvenience to IE users, but it will definitely grab their > attention. He is not blocking the page like MS did. Unsolicited pop-ups are harassment. Period. It should be written into the rules of netiquette. Windows resource management is already that of a house of cards, let's not make it worse by opening up more instances of the browser window. > > > This is about giving people a choice. This is why I'm > > upset as MS. It's not about herding people into a certain > > direction by using scare tactics. I haven't heard much > > in the way of truth from > > you *OR* them. > > It's not a scare tactic: it is simply informative. The fact remains > that IE is nowhere near as standards-compliant as other browsers > like Mozilla and Opera. I don't know how to answer this because you haven't defined what you consider "near standards-compliant". It's standards compliant enough for me and the pages I write. This goes back to my original claim of laziness and failure to refine your code. IE will render HTML 4.x (I'm getting sick of repeating this). I'd be willing to bet, excepting CSS, the majority of rendering errors in IE can be attributed to using Netscape proprietary tags or non-W3C tags. > > > > We need to do something like this, we can't be underhanded > > > about it like them, but we > > > can't afford to sit by while they carry on.. > > > > Do something about WHAT? I think the peanut gallery has spoken > > on the MSN.com scandel. Everybody agrees it was universally > > stupid of them and that they were full of crap. > > > > MSN.com still looks fine in Mozilla 0.95 as of five minutes ago. > > > > > who knows, if M$ .NET takes off, we may one day end up in a > > > situation where nothing not > > > IE will be able to browse any .NET supporting site... > > > > Until that day comes, stick with the facts.... > > > > > Do you think they wouldn't do that if they could get away with > > > it???? > > > > > > This is very serious,, I really believe something like this is > > > a good way of educating > > > people... The truth always prevales, but only if people hear > > > it. > > > > Then start telling the truth. > > He is. > I beg to differ. -- John Hokanson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations,analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallently. Specialization is for insects." - Robert A. Heinlein
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
