SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 190
  1. #151
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Jeremy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,123
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I did no such thing. I have nothing but high praise for FireFox and Open Source. Nothing in my statement was in any way a put down of FireFox.
    SVP Marketing, SoCast SRM
    Personal blog: Strategerize
    Twitter: @jeremywright

  2. #152
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dzi
    One simple test of browser stability:

    visit: http://www.picigin.net/logcells/
    with IE7b2 and Firefox 1.5.0.1

    What happend?
    Half that page is javascript with suspicious activity such as <d + iv>. A lot of descriptions involving file activity. I'm wondering what kind of page this is that would have such code but I don't have time to mess with finding out. The site has invalid code, too so it proves nothing. I can bring you to sites that IE can't even display the page but they work fine in FF.

    In fact, at one point in the script the author recommends using Firefox if you have problems running the script. So what did you do to screw it up?

  3. #153
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Saying "why hasn't IE been updated in a century"
    Who said that? Are you saying I said that? Point to where I said that. This is the third time you've quoted things that weren't said.

    IT is still in a 1980s mentality
    When did IT come into this?

    I've personally reported half a dozen, and had a response on ALL of them (a personal response, not an auto responder). And, they even gave me a temporary fix on 2 of them, promising it'll be fixed in the final version.
    Blake is an incredibly smart guy. I've met him.
    I've reported bugs too but I never hear anything from them. I used to eat lunch with Jim Clark when I was with SGI but you won't hear me claim free Jurassic Park movie tickets. Actually, the fact you claim you get direct responses make me suspicious. No one I know has ever heard directly from MS.

    it HAS been updated (with 3 major versions in the last 5 years).
    I defy you to name ONE thing IE6 has had updated in the last five years NOT including security patches. ONE thing. (You can't do it)

  4. #154
    SitePoint Addict Jack Matier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    292
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Viflux
    "If it doesn't work on a given platform, and none of the developers care to make it work on that platform, and you don't have the ability to do so yourself, you're SOL."

    Isn't this the same with anything? I want to use Internet Explorer on a Linux Operating System (say ubuntu) under an Intel platform.

    Lets get this definition out:
    Platform:
    - Typical platforms include a computer's architecture, operating system, or programming languages and their runtime libraries.
    - A set of technology, which acts as a foundation for real-world applications, or higher-level platforms. Symbian OS includes C++ APIs, a leading Java implementation, an application suite and integration with wireless and other communications protocols.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Jeremy W.
    "1. FireFox runs on all PC platforms. That's not the same as all systems."

    So System:
    - A computer system consists of the monitor, keyboard, all of the components in the CPU cabinet and any peripherals connected to it. An operating system is all of the routines and utilities needed for control of the computer, organized into one program.

    Let's use the term 'environments', because isn't it that you're saying that Internet Explorer has so many more environments to test on?

    IE.
    MSIE & Windows XP sp2 w/ Intel Celeron 2.7 Ghz
    MSIE & Windows XP sp1 w/ Intel Celeron 2.7 Ghz
    MSIE & Windows 2000 make 1 w/ Intel Celeron 2.7 Ghz
    MSIE & Windows 2000 make 2 w/ Intel Celeron 2.7 Ghz
    MSIE & Windows 2000 make 3 w/ Intel Celeron 2.6 Ghz

    I don't know, maybe I just feel that Firefox is getting all the same evironments (apart from the cellphone market) to test on, it's also running on Mac environments which would be the same testing as other mac programs would have to go through.

    All in all, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove? You say 3 major versions in the last 5 years?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...elease_history

    In that link I see (if pink signifies a major release), MSIE 6.0 beta and MSIE 6.0 and MSIE 7.0 beta in the last 5 years.... MSIE 6.0 final came out on August 27, 2001. When they came out with MSIE 7 it was July 27, 2005. BEFORE that, when the browser wars were still going on, there was a browser released every year, after the browser wars slowed down, it went to 2 years.

    Who is accountable for this? If internet explorer was a worker I wouldn't hold him accountable for anything. When people started liking him, he stopped working when he needed to continue to update himself and provide a service to the internet. In order to get there, he provided half fast solutions. Or maybe it's microsoft that's accountable when they saw that there needed be no more work because their marketing objectives have been complete. We all know they only started on MSIE 7 *because* of firefox. Signified by them sticking people back on the IE team.

    I believe firefox can be held more accountable as time passes because a company isn't there to remove workers.

    So we know why MSIE hasn't been updated in half a century. (though it does seem like a century). We know that if we let MSIE take the thresh-hold again and regains it's market share they will *again* halt production and the web will fall behind.

    You can probably tell that I am not pleased. Even if MSIE 7.0 does look promising.

  5. #155
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nothing in my statement was in any way a put down of FireFox.
    But you also said:
    "I've seen issues fixed on IE faster than on FF"

    "IE6. As a browser, its independence puts it on the same footing as FireFox."

    "As far as FireFox vulnerabilities, it only took me searching secunia.com for "FireFox" to find at least 2:"

    "As far as FireFox, my point was that there are still vulnerabilities that are 6 months plus months old."

    "You said they always fix vulnerabilities and bugs faster. Which obviously isn't true."

    "realistically, the number of people who will pop in and reprogram your FireFox binary for you are pretty damned small. Which is why FireFox still doesn't pass the Acid2 test, still has several vulnerabilities, and still has dozens of bugs that are more than a year old."

    I don't see any high praise. You also claimed IE7 is part of the shell which I linked to show you it isn't but you haven't responded. Another interesting point mentioned by another site is, if it's not part of the shell, why do you have to restart to use it?

  6. #156
    SitePoint Addict Jack Matier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    292
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    For this matter, it doesn't seem as though MSIE is doing anything really important to their browser other than marketing objectives. Really, this is what I see.

    1. They fix the outstanding 'bugs' on positioniseverything.com, and I think that's the only thing they paid attention to because the Acid 2 test is so broken it's not even funny anymore.
    2. They changed the layout so much to compete with the "less is more" idea of other leading browsers. Seperated it's browser (which is going to cause more of a memory increase, possibly more than firefox, definately more than IE). Added tabs.
    3. Security is the biggest thing for this release. But I don't think they're going to keep up with it proficiently. When something is released they wait a month before they will even release their patch, no matter how critical it is. Wait, hasn't security been a big thing about every release of MSIE past 5?

    Why is this though? Do you think they actually *care* about us? By what I see here the answer is "no", they are working to improve things for the client end again, not the developer end (if the client can *see* the fixes, they are there). I think they just want to shut us up for a while so we will stop taking away marketshare from them. It just feels like one of those "is it good enough?" solutions.

  7. #157
    SitePoint Addict Jack Matier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    292
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Firefox and Acid 2 is dependent on the gecko engine. Which will be updated for Firefox 2 I believe.

  8. #158
    SitePoint Addict Jack Matier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    292
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just a quote from wikipedia I found interesting:
    "Based on a post from the IEBlog, version 7 will finally support PNG alpha channel, and will fix some of the incorrect implementations of CSS. Further, according to another post in IEBlog, the browser will support tabbed browsing, a feature found in most other modern browsers. On July 27, 2005, Beta 1 version of Windows Vista and Internet Explorer was released on MSDN subscribers for download (not for public).

    Beta 2 will feature several major CSS bug fixes, and improved support of HTML and CSS, e.g. HTML 4.01 abbr element, CSS 2.1 selectors, :hover on any element, and so on."

    So it's not until Beta 2 that they will do their stuff. If they properly support standards, then that's all good, I'll support them, (considering I'll code standard and have it work in firefox, safari, and opera). If not, then screw them. This is of course mostly on my personal sites. But I plan to make some nice websites for the public based solely on standards without bending backwards for 1 browser vendor.

    I'll also closely watch my development time to develop for IE and add a price tag to that. Cost does drive a lot of decisions in the business world. Why not this too?
    Last edited by Jack Matier; Feb 5, 2006 at 19:45.

  9. #159
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Matier
    I'll also closely watch my development time to develop for IE and add a price tag to that. Cost does drive a lot of decisions in the business world. Why not this too?
    You should already be doing this unless you like giving away hours of your work for free.

  10. #160
    SitePoint Addict Jack Matier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    292
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by vgarcia
    You should already be doing this unless you like giving away hours of your work for free.
    Well, I normally just bundle it in a normal package which states it works on most browsers (not going into details here) and will fall back.

    But as I keep on finding that about 75% of my development time is spent coding for MSIE, I wonder what affect it would have if I just cut this price by that amount and add it on if they want MSIE. I really want to more accurately represent my time spent coding. It'll help me realize some bad coding practices that I currently have as well.

    In a way, I want to segregate my service into your basic standards 'current' package, which would be tested on Firefox & Safari, maybe Opera too? Then include MSIE <v7 after.. which could double their price tag. I wouldn't mind trying to get clients really interested in this standards movement really. It's really not that hard of thing to sell either.

    Edit: I may just do this when Firefox 2.0 comes out.

  11. #161
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Jeremy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,123
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine
    Who said that? Are you saying I said that? Point to where I said that. This is the third time you've quoted things that weren't said.

    When did IT come into this?



    I've reported bugs too but I never hear anything from them. I used to eat lunch with Jim Clark when I was with SGI but you won't hear me claim free Jurassic Park movie tickets. Actually, the fact you claim you get direct responses make me suspicious. No one I know has ever heard directly from MS.

    I defy you to name ONE thing IE6 has had updated in the last five years NOT including security patches. ONE thing. (You can't do it)
    Direct responses? They give a direct response email on the IE blog. Al Billings responded directly to each request that I received a response to. I've also received responses on Vista betas, O12 betas, etc. Why wouldn't I receive a response? Maybe you know the wrong people.

    One thing IE's done in the last 5 years? You mean besides IE7 I'm guessing, since that was huge.

    So, besides security patches?

    1. Local User access is gone
    2. ActiveX control levels have been completed retooled
    3. GPO interaction is now effectively complete
    4. IE enterprise deployment kit
    5. IE malicious software detection tool
    6. Dynamic font generation systems
    7. New plugin model
    8. Working with second tier dev teams on half-gen IE apps (IE2, etc)
    9. IE for SmartPhones
    10. IE for PalmOS
    11. IE7
    12. IE for EN
    13. IE for XPe

    And that's just off the top of my head. IE6 for XP SP2 had hundreds of changes that weren't security patches.

    As far as the last century:

    "Talk about bugs that are more than ONE year old. Let's start with the last century with IE!"

    Why are you even in this thread? We're talking about IE7. And you keep bringing up every other issue but IE7. How bad MS's business practices are, how bad updating IE has been for 5 years, etc, etc, etc.

    An update is HERE. It is publicly available. It's in beta 2, which means it'll be out this year. And there are a huge number of changes. Some of which validate what FireFox and Opera are doing. Some of which are new. Some of which take IE above and beyond what other browsers are doing.

    This is a Good Thing. And you want to nitpick about who fixes bugs faster, across different types of dev methodologies, for apps that are deployed on a completely different number of platforms, and when one team has to ensure that backwards compatibility happens while the other just makes developers and clients fix things every 3-6 months.

    What's the point?

    As far as my "negative" comments about FireFox, almost all of those were in response to you saying FireFox was, effectively, perfect. Or you taking extremes. Saying IE took years to fix issues, and then saying FireFox did it in hours. Well I just showed that the inverse happened. I wasn't saying FF was bad, that the team was bad, etc.

    I think you need to get a grip. Look at what the thread is about and come back with a clear head. I'm not bashing FireFox. I'm not sticking up for the IE team. They've done great work, but the truth is they had to when they lagged for so long. And they've broken developers trust. This time, they underpromised and overdelivered. It's not enough to go all the way, but it's obvious they are listening to all clients, not just corporate ones with this release. Who knows what the RTM'll hold?
    SVP Marketing, SoCast SRM
    Personal blog: Strategerize
    Twitter: @jeremywright

  12. #162
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    1. Local User access is gone
    2. ActiveX control levels have been completed retooled
    3. GPO interaction is now effectively complete
    4. IE enterprise deployment kit
    5. IE malicious software detection tool
    6. Dynamic font generation systems
    7. New plugin model
    8. Working with second tier dev teams on half-gen IE apps (IE2, etc)
    9. IE for SmartPhones
    10. IE for PalmOS
    11. IE7
    12. IE for EN
    13. IE for XPe
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    And NOT ONE of those things improves IE for the web! Those are all OS add-ons or changes, not browser improvements! One you put there is IE7 but IE7 doesn't even exist yet. IE for SmartPhones is not an improvement, it's a dumbing down for an entirely different product! Same with PalmOS, EN XPe. Stick with the subject and don't go off base. We're talking IE6 for computer use for the web or I'll bring XUL into the fold and question you why IE can't run XUL but XUL can run on ANY platform with Firefox!

    IE6 for XP SP2 had hundreds of changes that weren't security patches.
    And you still cannot name ONE.

  13. #163
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    And there are a huge number of changes. Some of which take IE above and beyond what other browsers are doing.
    Name ONE.
    And you want to nitpick about who fixes bugs faster
    YOU were the one complaining about Firefox not fixing bugs that have been there for a year but now you say I'm nitpicking? You were the one that brought it up!

  14. #164
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    when one team has to ensure that backwards compatibility
    Backwards compatability in IE for what? For Windows? IE is supposed to be a browser not part of some operating system! Whoa, but IE is part of the OS! IE doesn't work right without the OS. So IE cannot be improved because of backward compatability limitations of the OS. Sounds like a problem for them. They can't keep up can they.

  15. #165
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Jeremy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,123
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine
    1. Local User access is gone
    2. ActiveX control levels have been completed retooled
    3. GPO interaction is now effectively complete
    4. IE enterprise deployment kit
    5. IE malicious software detection tool
    6. Dynamic font generation systems
    7. New plugin model
    8. Working with second tier dev teams on half-gen IE apps (IE2, etc)
    9. IE for SmartPhones
    10. IE for PalmOS
    11. IE7
    12. IE for EN
    13. IE for XPe
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    And NOT ONE of those things improves IE for the web! Those are all OS add-ons or changes, not browser improvements! One you put there is IE7 but IE7 doesn't even exist yet. IE for SmartPhones is not an improvement, it's a dumbing down for an entirely different product! Same with PalmOS, EN XPe. Stick with the subject and don't go off base. We're talking IE6 for computer use for the web or I'll bring XUL into the fold and question you why IE can't run XUL but XUL can run on ANY platform with Firefox!

    And you still cannot name ONE.
    1. Who said they had to just be for the web? You told me to name one change that wasn't a security patch. I did. I answered your big bad challenge.

    2. IE7 doesn't exist yet? What are you on? Are you not looking at the thread title? This whole discussion is ABOUT IE7!

    3. I love you. XUL is a great subject to bring up. Dozens of XUL issues with FireFox have been uncovered. This is because, in many ways, it allows the same thing that ActiveX allows, and it's an issue for the same reason. Why hasn't IE allowed XUL? 1) there is no need, they already have a remote code execution, and page-specific application, model and 2) there is no security model built in and, thus, it's just an issue waiting to happen, oh, and 3) what's the benefit to users that can't be solved just as well, and more securely, by other means?
    SVP Marketing, SoCast SRM
    Personal blog: Strategerize
    Twitter: @jeremywright

  16. #166
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is the most sense you've made in this whole thread:
    They've done great work, but the truth is they had to
    they lagged for so long. And they've broken developers trust.
    they underpromised and overdelivered.
    It's not enough
    But then you say:
    it's obvious they are listening to all clients
    7 bug fixes from 1998 and two CSS additions are hardly "listening to all clients". They are still just talking the talk but not walking the walk. The proof is in action and we see little action on their part.

  17. #167
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Jeremy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,123
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine
    Name ONE.
    YOU were the one complaining about Firefox not fixing bugs that have been there for a year but now you say I'm nitpicking? You were the one that brought it up!
    Name one. Fine. When certificates aren't valid, it doesn't even load the page. It takes users to a big old error page. Which is as is should be. Can anyone explain to me why AdSense STILL isn't using the right certificates, for example?

    There's your one.

    Also, I wasn't complaining about FireFox fixing bugs. To jig your memory, you jumped all over the IE team for taking soooo long to fix bugs, while the FireFox team "did it in hours". My response was that, in general, they fixed bugs in largely the same time frame - especially when you allow for the testing the IE team has to do. On average, the FireFox team fixes vulnerabilities in 7 days. The IE team does it in 12.

    I have no need, reason, nor desire to bash the FireFox team. How many times do I have to say this... You, on the other hand...
    SVP Marketing, SoCast SRM
    Personal blog: Strategerize
    Twitter: @jeremywright

  18. #168
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Jeremy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,123
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine
    Backwards compatability in IE for what? For Windows? IE is supposed to be a browser not part of some operating system! Whoa, but IE is part of the OS! IE doesn't work right without the OS. So IE cannot be improved because of backward compatability limitations of the OS. Sounds like a problem for them. They can't keep up can they.
    Do you need to recharge from all this foaming at the mouth?

    Does FireFox "work right" ... "without the OS"?

    Is there even a need for anyone to respond to the rest of this?
    SVP Marketing, SoCast SRM
    Personal blog: Strategerize
    Twitter: @jeremywright

  19. #169
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Jeremy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,123
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine
    This is the most sense you've made in this whole thread:





    But then you say:
    7 bug fixes from 1998 and two CSS additions are hardly "listening to all clients". They are still just talking the talk but not walking the walk. The proof is in action and we see little action on their part.
    Y'know those quotes you pulled? Almost an exact copy of what I said when I entered this dicussion!

    Also what I wrote on my blog the day IE7 was launched. ALSO what I'd been figuring IE would do for the last year.

    And, yes, "x" bug fixes and "two" CSS additions is proving they are listening to all clients. Until now they have ONLY been listening to corporate clients and NOT listening to web developers. They have shown they ARE listening to web developers. They've acknowledge the issues, said what they are working on, shown what they've fixed, listened to criticisms and already acknowledged fixing several bugs in the box model since IE7pb2 was released.

    Listening? Hell, they're having a whole damn conversation.
    SVP Marketing, SoCast SRM
    Personal blog: Strategerize
    Twitter: @jeremywright

  20. #170
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Who said they had to just be for the web?
    So what are we going to start doing, argue about how IE works well with OfficeXP and Firefox doesn't and call that an improvement?

    IE7 doesn't exist yet?
    If you want to start including beta products in this argument then I get to include Firefox 2.0 Beta. Do you really want to do that? I don't think you want to go there. You have to start thinking of IE8 then. But that doesn't exist yet, does it?

    Dozens of XUL issues with FireFox have been uncovered.
    And hundreds of issues with ActiveX. Pick one.

    Why hasn't IE allowed XUL?
    Because it's open source and they can't sell it.

    what's the benefit to users that can't be solved just as well, and more securely, by other means?
    1) XUL works on all platforms and can work with any browser. Granted, right now you need a gecko engine but, being open source, any browser maker can make XUL work for them.
    2) XUL is more secure than ActiveX will ever be.

  21. #171
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Jeremy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,123
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm going to bed. Anyone who believes "XUL is more secure than ActiveX will ever be" is just living in some land where security is measured purely by the company writing the app, and not by security models, best practices, testing, UI, IA, etc.

    Enjoy your little "IE7 is just a beta so we can't talk about it, even though we're in an IE7 BETA THREAD" world. It must be interesting to live there. Are there mice? Or are those features too?
    SVP Marketing, SoCast SRM
    Personal blog: Strategerize
    Twitter: @jeremywright

  22. #172
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    They have shown they ARE listening to web developers. They've acknowledge the issues, said what they are working on, shown what they've fixed, listened to criticisms and already acknowledged fixing several bugs in the box model since IE7pb2 was released.
    Yada, yada, yada. And we're still sitting here eight years later still not able to use the DOM correctly. Still not able to use all of CSS. Still not able to ... and here we are coming full circle. All talk by MS and little action. "We are aware of the problems. We hope to fix them. But we won't get to it this edition. But we are working furvently..." Yada, yada, yada.

    Good night. Going to bed.

  23. #173
    SitePoint Wizard Keriam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,178
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I love how these threads that are supposed to be talking about a single browser always degenerate into a "Microsoft can't do anything right, Firefox can't do anything wrong" thread.
    Never put off until tomorrow what you can do
    the day after tomorrow. ~ Mark Twain

  24. #174
    SitePoint Addict Jack Matier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    292
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey, if IE7 does things well, it does things will. If not then they'll be the ones sorry for it. Doesn't hinder me, nopers.

  25. #175
    SitePoint Evangelist
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    515
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Keriam
    I love how these threads that are supposed to be talking about a single browser always degenerate into a "Microsoft can't do anything right, Firefox can't do anything wrong" thread.
    dude...I totally agree. Things I hate about it already though, I have to type in www. or http://...boring and takes too long. Yes I am that lazy. Other than that, it only crashed once on me, with something about an error about iframe or something like that.

    atleast the tab browsing comes better than firefox, where you have to download a freakin plugin for it to work the way you want it.
    FlyffWorld.com - Online Gaming MMORPG
    AdTalks.com - Publisher/Advertising Network Review
    Cursors - Cursors-4U.com


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •