PC Pitstop Videos
* Vista: 4 Months Later (3:10)

Rob's Vista Migration Update

* Way of the Upgrade (2:03)

Video Contest Winner

* Apples 2 Apples (5:50)

PC vs. Mac - Who wins?

* Bloatware (5:04)

Is your PC feeling a bit bloated?

* H.D. Freedom II (4:33)

When is the hard drive in your new PC not your own?

* Hard Drive Freedom (5:22)

Rob documents his crusade to reclaim his hard drive space.

* Vista Migration (5:20)

Rob shares his experience migrating from XP to Vista.

* Firefox Conversion (2:10)

Rob outlines Firefox features that compelled him to stop using IE.

* Software Stocks (4:56)

An inside look at the software industry.

* Laptop Explosion (4:55)

What's a notebook battery fire? 6 foot flames, 1000 degree temperatures.

Hello Firefox, Goodbye Internet Explorer

After a decade, Rob has made the transition from Internet Explorer to Firefox. In this new video, he reviews the Firefox features that made the decision to switch easy.


Join the Discussion
QUOTE(stormy13 @ 3:54pm Wed Feb 28 2007) [snapback]1334522[/snapback]

Don't believe that it took him ten years to try it. :adios:

One thing he forgot to mention is the built-in spell checker in Firefox.

[font=Arial][size=7]

I love the spell checker in Firefox. I do a lot of downloads for a client of mine who is dyslexic. I often "validate" things he has posted on his own as well. Built in spell checker makes us both look more professional and a little less human. HA! HA!

mjmdesk
I think it's noteworthy to mention that the CTO of Opera was also the inventor of CSS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Håkon_Wium_Lie
Bruce: Hello Firefox, Goodbye Internet Explorer (Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:18:47 GMT)
QUOTE
I wish there were a way to get a bunch of guys to tell me what to avoid to keep each browser from looking bad on my web sites.


Pretty easy, stop using msdn as a reference

Start looking at WC3 instead

I suggested you post in the web sites section gere at the forums, as the folks there like to work on getting their code to work "the same" in all browsers. They usually test with several browsers and make sure their pages work correctly.
Thank you for your interest in my wild claims.

I'm familiar with the "acid test." Frankly, it's irrelevant. It's not a real web page. It's a test of how a browser will render a code strew with severe errors. From my point of view (which may not be important to others, I admit), the really important thing is for a browser to do most of the simple things without screwing it up too much. I can create a "web page test" that makes ANY browser look bad.

Now I believe the folks that whipped-up Acid2 think the CSS specs are 100% deterministic about how to render (or not render) incorrect and erroneous CSS. I don't know if I buy that. Still, I'm not sure I care either. As a practical matter, it's even more important not to write a code with a lot of bad mistakes in it.

The examples that I would like people to show me are the ones where you have five different websites that absolutely screwup if you use browser "ABC" or whatever. But since most authors will try to assure that MSIE, Firefox, and Opera work OK on Windows machines, there probably are no good examples like that.

I suppose that if I had to be serious about which browser was really best in yerms of CSS, I'd have to go with Opera 9.1. Wouldn't you agree?

Anyway, saying "Microsoft wouldn't know what a "web standard" was if it hit em right in the face" is perhaps an overstatement. Go check out who actually writes these standards. Microsoft has been on most of these standards working groups (WG's) since the beginning of time. I would even say it is possible that MS is so big, the folks going to the WG's don't know the folks on the IE team. The WG guys have an inherent understanding in what would be useful and how the syntax should work, etc. Standards work is a career. However, the IE Team has to write good code and migrate a code base from version to version. What is important to both groups, however, is that there not be too many tags and features. The standard loses its authority if too many vendors cannot produce product compatible with it.

"Compatible" rather than "Compliant" is a better goal. For example, a compatible browser might render a page well as long as there are no outrageous code errors in it.

Since I defamed myself with pro-MS positions yesterday, I started looking at various browser test websites. Interesting stuff. But no one will share the following links with you except probably me. So here are a few MS links I find really handy...

https://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.....asp?frame=true

https://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.....asp?frame=true

Another aspect of browsers and rendering is the <!DOCTYPE ...> tag. What if you put in the wrong tag? Does anyone test for how bad a browser screws up if the wrong doctype is used on a webapage? I'm looking for those right now.

When I stir up trouble like this, I learn a lot. I wish there were a way to get a bunch of guys to tell me what to avoid to keep each browser from looking bad on my web sites. Not collapsing a margin, etc., is not such a problem for me. I want to know which elements cannot be altered dynamically ...and which ones render all wrong in a given browser.




QUOTE(Bruce @ 2:16pm Sun Mar 11 2007) [snapback]1338929[/snapback]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Please take the aci2 test which checks for web standard compliance in web browsers. Acid2 employs certain features of HTML and, more prominently, CSS. The purpose of employing such features is to highlight the problems with browsers that do not display it correctly. The Acid2 test should render correctly on any browser that follows the W3C HTML and CSS 2.0 specifications.

https://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html#top

Please post your screen shot of IE taking that test

IE is the furthest from web standards when it comes to web browsers.

I just tested it with IE7 and the results were laughable.

FireFox fares much better then IE, but Safari and Konqueror and Opera are the only ones that pass with flying colors.

Microsoft wouldn't know what a " web standard" was if it hit em right in the face.
QUOTE(JimRodgers @ 12:57pm Sun Mar 11 2007) [snapback]1338910[/snapback]

You're rambling, dude. So I'm going to ramble right back at yo.



i didnt understand anything else you stated

activeX is a microsoft tool to which there browser is only compatible too !

that should say alot, i dont need to type a million words just to say they want to render other browsers useless
Bruce: Hello Firefox, Goodbye Internet Explorer (Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:16:22 GMT)
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Please take the aci2 test which checks for web standard compliance in web browsers. Acid2 employs certain features of HTML and, more prominently, CSS. The purpose of employing such features is to highlight the problems with browsers that do not display it correctly. The Acid2 test should render correctly on any browser that follows the W3C HTML and CSS 2.0 specifications.

https://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html#top

Please post your screen shot of IE taking that test

IE is the furthest from web standards when it comes to web browsers.

I just tested it with IE7 and the results were laughable.

FireFox fares much better then IE, but Safari and Konqueror and Opera are the only ones that pass with flying colors.

Microsoft wouldn't know what a " web standard" was if it hit em right in the face.
You're rambling, dude. So I'm going to ramble right back at yo.

It's a big world out there. Lot's of people with a lot of work to do. If you want to tell me what ActiveX "is for," I would expect a discussion of CORBA, COM, RPC, SOAP, sandboxes, virtual machines, runtime executables, installed base, various product lifecycles, and when the next chipset comes out.

I've made a fortune solving real business problems for people who have work to do. They all had Windows PC, plus a few Solaris boxes and a Mac here and there. I use the most effective technology available to my client at the time. ActiveX got the job done beautifully many times. There was nothing else that worked in most cases. That's what ActiveX is for. It's not a philosophy of life. It's just the enormous Microsoft Corporation trying to keep up with a rapidly changing world. Actually, originally ActiveX in browsers was not as important as ActiveX in desktop development using Visual Basic 4+, Power Objects, etc.

Now the game has moved-on to SOAP and AJAX. This means compliance with industry standards, especially CSS, "JavaScript," and XML is critical. Microsoft Internet Explorer is by far the most compliant. And, for your information, it ALWAYS has been. The belief that MSIE "never was good at standards" is utterly a myth. MSIE had substantial implementation of CSS as far back as version 3.0. Netscape 3 ignored ALL CSS rules. But that was okay at the time; partial implementations are a nightmare for those of us who author webpages or more exactly, those of us who design user interfaces for web-based application softwares).

Once the big story was what Microsoft is going to do to stop Navigator and Java from replacing Windows. Now everyone is all whacked-out over what Microsoft is going to do to stop Google and Free Office from replacing Windows... or Mac and iPod from replacing Windows... or Linux and [nothing] from replacing Windows...

Oftentimes, strong attitudes, belligerent opinions, and conspiracy theories reflect a lack of information and a lack of discipline for clear thinking. And more often than not we talking about the male population between 18 and 28. They are the immediate cause of much of the problems in the world today, from the Middle East to the US, and from Africa to the UK. (Hey, why don t you enlist?)

While you're busy typing away at flaming somebody for having a different opinion, another young buck sets off a nuke across town because you have a different religion. But don't get me wrong. I'm jealous of your passion. If I knew you better, I'd probably wish you worked for me.

If only you could see this long line of clients with fists full on money waiting for their solutions! But all they care about, usually, is

(1) What can you do for me,
(2) How much will it cost, and
(3) How long will it take.

But is then you will finally understand why sometimes picking one browser to support is necessary. Items #2 and #3 can get out of control if the result in #1 must also work for every browser on the "market." Even when testing for MSIE alone, I still have to check it out on the "supported OS's" and the "supported screen resolutions and font sizes." In the past, we tried using the "Least Common Denominator" approach. But then a new browser comes along and lowers the bar further, so that did not work. ANd this whole picture gets even worse if the client wants the contract to include on-going maintenance as browsers change from version to version.

NONE OF THIS IS A REASON FOR ME TO SAY YOU SHOULD BE USING A PARTICULAR BROWSER. But keep in mind that "guys like me" have been cutting deals with clients to produce their project at a better price provided I only have to meet the full spec on the ubiquitous Internet Explorer.

Consumers should not have a beef with us, the "web developers." We are responding to our clients as we should in a free society. And if you are not feeling "free" enough, then I'm sorry; but I cannot address that issue with my business. All I have to offer you is this apology, this explanation, that you are reading now.



QUOTE(duanester @ 3:08am Sun Mar 11 2007) [snapback]1338755[/snapback]

lets talk about firefox and whay most prefere to use it
web development ?

thats crap, web developers tried building a product around MSIE, this cant happen, we need choice plain and simple, MS can have activeX, in fact i cannot wait to see the end of it, i know what activeX was intended for!
I think in order to have a preference for one over the other, the user has to have a problem with one of them. If a user hasn't had any virus, spyware, or malware problems then there really isn't much to push the average web surfer to another browser. Notice I said IF the user hasn't had any problems. For me they both work but I'm just more comfortable with IE.
lets talk about firefox and whay most prefere to use it


web development ?

thats crap, web developers tried building a product around MSIE, this cant happen, we need choice plain and simple, MS can have activeX, in fact i cannot wait to see the end of it, i know what activeX was intended for!
tito: Hello Firefox, Goodbye Internet Explorer (Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:07:10 GMT)
QUOTE(chengrob @ 5:56pm Thu Mar 8 2007) [snapback]1337593[/snapback]

Blue Hornet in January added some features which do not display properly in FF. It comes out sort of garbled. Blue Hornet also checks to make sure that you are running IE and makes sure that you might get weird results. Quickbooks is using Active X.


I wouldn't trust any company with such dubious tactics, our local petrol station doesn't flatten our tires because we drive a Toyota.
Well, yes. Of course, you're right. I just was back from the debugger to check my mail when I saw the headline about Firefox replacing MSIE. And I thought, "let's hope not." Then the fatigue got to me. I went on a rant. Wrong! Some of us never learn. I don't have the energy for conflicts anymore, so why start one?

Choices have many nice side effects and few bad ones. I was just bitching and complaining about having to do real work adding Firefox support to my personal library of Intranet widgets and gadgets. Whose problem is that? Now I'm wondering about Opera and Navigator.

As far as who complies best with certain standards -- I admit I can't ever be sure, and the facts are constantly shifting. Since I try things on MSIE until I get it to work, perhaps it's not fair to say Firefox is worse. However, it seems a lot easier to get things working on MSIE. Also, the kinds of issues I had with Firefox seemed kind of major. So I had reason to be cranky when I wrote that note. And I don't know why I lashed out at Pitstop. I've gotten nothing but free lunch from those guys for years. I really did not get enough sleep the night before, you know.

Sincerely...


QUOTE(Cowboy3000 @ 12:06pm Fri Mar 9 2007) [snapback]1337925[/snapback]

There are a lot of CSS and Javascript that IE doesn't support. It is very good at supporting their own brand of "features" that are proprietary though. Granted some of these are cool (not talking about ActiveX). Historically, Microsoft has always looked at standards and then decided to do something else. This applies through their software products, not just IE.

If you want to talk about compatibility nightmares, then Netscape Navigator takes the cake. For a while, some "newer" versions were not backwards compatible with previous versions in terms of what they supported.

JimRodgers, since you quoted me in your post, I assume it was directed at me? I too have been a web developer for the past 13 years. I understand your concerns with Fire Fox. There really hasn't been a very serious competitor to IE since Netscape faded away. Fire Fox is an alternative to IE. Sure, there are some people who would like to cram it down everyone's throat, but then again that could be said about IE. I'm not a Microsoft hater or basher. I like choices. Choices drive innovation, and in some cases, drive prices down. A look at the CPU market as a good example.

As far as ads on the site, well, Fire Fox has many extensions, one of those being ad blocker. You can put the url (just domain name) of the ads to block and then the ads don't show up. Does IE 7 have anything like that?
Bruce: Hello Firefox, Goodbye Internet Explorer (Sat, 10 Mar 2007 09:10:47 GMT)
PcPitStop's tests are not FireFox compatible.
I remember when I got my first computer. It had Windows 3.1 on it and IE. When it was time for a newer computer, a 486, I decided to try out Netscape. That turned out nicely. Then it was eventually time to get into the Pentiums. Eventually, Netscape wasn't as good anymore. I switched to Avant. A couple years later or so, Avant became bloatware. I had to switch to something else, but wasn't sure what. I tried Opera; didn't like it. I wanted something simple and small. Firefox was it.

To this day, I still use Firefox. I only use 1.5, as 2.0 seems to be more fuss and feathers than I really need. I love the tabs and the ability to save them where they are instead of bookmarking them like crazy. In my opinion *I do not need a debate nor am I trying to cram anything down anybody's throat* I feel that Firefox is superior to IE. Sure, some sites stupidly require IE. I use IE 6 for those via IE View or other similar extensions. IE7 does not work for me at all and I'm too disenchanted with IE to bother with it. IE has never followed web standards very well and I find that Firefox is better at how it renders websites and blogs. It even renders email better. It also does something else IE can't even compete with. Firefox's accessibility features are sensible and easy to control and use. IE's accessibility features are always buggy and aren't easy to use nor control; some of the features you have to PAY for to use!

It looks like my favourite antivirus/technical help website, PC Pitstop *here, that is* has finally become Firefox compatible. I'm happy about that. My only question is... why did it take so long?
these airn't no speeling bea.
QUOTE(davidkhays @ 9:55am Fri Mar 9 2007) [snapback]1337875[/snapback]

YOUR --> YOU'RE for "you are"! I can't believe the many times I see this wrong word usage.

i cant believe how many times you have posted to correct spelling

i do not need your help, i will spell the way i want to
There are a lot of CSS and Javascript that IE doesn't support. It is very good at supporting their own brand of "features" that are proprietary though. Granted some of these are cool (not talking about ActiveX). Historically, Microsoft has always looked at standards and then decided to do something else. This applies through their software products, not just IE.

If you want to talk about compatibility nightmares, then Netscape Navigator takes the cake. For a while, some "newer" versions were not backwards compatible with previous versions in terms of what they supported.

JimRodgers, since you quoted me in your post, I assume it was directed at me? I too have been a web developer for the past 13 years. I understand your concerns with Fire Fox. There really hasn't been a very serious competitor to IE since Netscape faded away. Fire Fox is an alternative to IE. Sure, there are some people who would like to cram it down everyone's throat, but then again that could be said about IE. I'm not a Microsoft hater or basher. I like choices. Choices drive innovation, and in some cases, drive prices down. A look at the CPU market as a good example.

As far as ads on the site, well, Fire Fox has many extensions, one of those being ad blocker. You can put the url (just domain name) of the ads to block and then the ads don't show up. Does IE 7 have anything like that?
Bruce: Hello Firefox, Goodbye Internet Explorer (Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:58:23 GMT)
Great There are probably a few folks who could also benefit from your skills.
Thank you. I will do that.

QUOTE(Bruce @ 11:47am Fri Mar 9 2007) [snapback]1337920[/snapback]

Maybe you should post in the website section of the forums to get help with your web page coding skills.
Bruce: Hello Firefox, Goodbye Internet Explorer (Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:47:52 GMT)
Maybe you should post in the website section of the forums to get help with your web page coding skills.
Join the Discussion

Note: It may take several minutes for new posts to appear here, and only the 20 most recent posts are shown. The complete thread is available on the forums.