Time to Dump Internet Explorer

User Comments: 68

1. June 18, 2004 11:03 PM
   ---agissi--- said:
   I have atleast 50 windows open, and still would rather have that then tabs.. And the whole spyware/adware thing is not a big deal at all, you just gotta be smart and stay away from the stuff.
   Reply
2. June 19, 2004 12:23 AM
   acidosmosis said:
   Note: Most people probably don't realize you can minimize MIRC to the system tray by holding shift and clicking the minimize button. This is also true for other applications which support it. I know that isn't a big deal but I thought I would mention that since were in the subject of "taking up taskbar space".
   Reply
3. June 19, 2004 2:46 AM
   Phantasm66 said:
   Probably due to lazy web development, a lot of sites look crappy in anything but IE because IE is all they are tested in.
   Reply
4. June 19, 2004 3:14 AM
   Didou said:
   Well I for one wouldn't have gotten that "talking lady ad" this morning if I wasn't using Avant ( IE front-end ).:dead:& BTW surfing pRon sites isn't the only way to get Adware, in fact you get adware more often when you install programs that come bundled with it ( DivX Pro anyone ? ). But still, just by surfing, IE is more likely to get adware installed ( sometimes without even asking you ) then with Opera/Firefox/Lynx.;)I always run AdAware/Spybot after installing programs, not after surfing sessions.
   Reply
5. June 19, 2004 4:36 AM
   DigitAlex said:
   I'd like to say that LYNX OWNZ ALL YOUR BASE :D :D And most of the people do very bad web development because they don't even give a chance to that wonderful browser to display their website, losing all the geeeky audience out there :dead: Seriously, rename the Firefox icon and change it to the blue E and I bet your grandmother won't even notice :D
   Reply
6. June 19, 2004 5:22 AM
   Unregistered said:
   [quote][i]Originally posted by acidosmosis [/i]I've been using IE for about 8+ years with no problems :-). [/quote] So you've been using IE since 1996? Interesting. Because as far as I know, at that time you only had a choice of Lynx, Mosaic and Netscape (which were around version 1.1 or so afaicr). And there was no IE bundled with windows, nor available for download that year. But that might explain why you're so happy with it, since you must be getting the "special" IE from MS without all the problems we have to deal wtih.Sorry, just had to comment on that. Carry on using IE for all I care. As long as if you're ever going to create a website you'll at least stick to the html spec so the rest of us can use it too, and don't use the laughable FrontPage shiet!
   Reply
7. June 19, 2004 8:07 AM
   Mictlantecuhtli said:
   That's a bit incorrect. IE 1.0 was released in 1995.[url=http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryIE.mspx
   Internet Explorer History[/url]Most of the forum members should already know my opinion about IE so I won't bother discussing this.
   Reply
8. June 19, 2004 8:10 AM
   acidosmosis said:
   [quote][i]Originally posted by DigitAlex [/i]I'd like to say that LYNX OWNZ ALL YOUR BASE :D :D And most of the people do very bad web development because they don't even give a chance to that wonderful browser to display their website, losing all the geeeky audience out there :dead: Seriously, rename the Firefox icon and change it to the blue E and I bet your grandmother won't even notice :D [/quote] I did that to my parents computer a while back :-P.
   Reply
9. June 19, 2004 8:38 AM
   poertner_1274 said:
   That is what I did to my computer at home for my wife and friends, cause they had no idea what ht red O was for.
   Reply
10. June 19, 2004 10:12 AM
    ---agissi--- said:
    I dont know Mic's .02 on IE.. and I'd like to know - Does he use it?
    Reply
11. June 19, 2004 10:23 AM
    Mictlantecuhtli said:
    No, he does not, as it's not available for Linux / BeOS.
    Reply
12. June 19, 2004 1:50 PM
    Unregistered said:
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Didou [/i]So you prefer to install IE + 153 patches + AdAware + Spybot + pop-up blocker + tabbed-browsing extension instead of installing one browser that has it all ?I see your point, at least I think I do.;) [/quote] Yep, Didlo. I use IE6 also. Firfox is Ok. But Opera sux.
    Reply
13. June 19, 2004 3:03 PM
    Nic said:
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Unregistered [/i]Yep, Didlo. I use IE6 also. Firfox is Ok. But Opera sux. [/quote] Maybe you could share with us exactly what it is you don't like about Opera. Its no good saying something sux without qualifying why you believe it sux. Maybe you don't have a reason for disliking Opera, and are simply opinionated for the sake of it. :confused:
    Reply
14. June 19, 2004 3:47 PM
    vassil3427 said:
    I happen to find Ie to be just fine, I wont be getting rid of it anytime soon....
    Reply
15. June 19, 2004 4:43 PM
    Rick said:
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Unregistered [/i]So you've been using IE since 1996? Interesting. Because as far as I know, at that time you only had a choice of Lynx, Mosaic and Netscape (which were around version 1.1 or so afaicr). [/quote]Incorrect. Browser history:[url]http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/history/brows
    rs.htm[/url][size=1] Windows IE 1.0 Final Aug. 1995 2.0 Final Nov. 1995 3.0 Final Aug. 1996 4.0 Final Oct. 1997 5.0 Final Mar. 1999 5.5 Final Jul. 2000 6.0 Final Oct. 2001 Macintosh IE 2.0 Final Apr. 1996 2.1 Final Sep. 1996 3.0 Final Jan. 1997 4.0 Final Jan. 1998 4.5 Final Jan. 1999 5.0 Final Mar. 2000 Mosaic 1.0 Final Nov 1993 2.0 Final Nov. 1995 2.1 Final Jan. 1996 3.0 Final Jan. 1997 Mosaic Ends Netscape 1.0 Final Dec 1994 1.1 Final Apr. 1995 2.0 Final Mar. 1996 3.0 Final Aug. 1996 4.0 Final Jun. 1997 4.5 Final Oct. 1998 6.0 Final Nov. 2000 7.0 Final Aug. 2002 Opera 2.1 Final Dec. 1996 3.0 Final Dec. 1997 3.5 Final Nov. 1998 4.0 Final Jun. 2000 5.0 Final Dec. 2000 6.0 Final Nov. 2001 7.0 Final Jan. 2003 [quote]Sorry, just had to comment on that. Carry on using IE for all I care. As long as if you're ever going to create a website you'll at least stick to the html spec so the rest of us can use it too, and don't use the laughable FrontPage shiet! [/quote] Agreed. Frontpage sucks. And everyone should adhere to HTML standards so everyone can use the web the way it was meant to be. :)
    Reply
16. June 19, 2004 4:46 PM
    acidosmosis said:
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]Agreed. Frontpage sucks. And everyone should adhere to HTML standards so everyone can use the web the way it was meant to be. :) [/quote] Yes. This [url]http://www.globalusaonline.com/[/url] is what happens when you use Frontpage.Haha. :-)
    Reply
17. June 19, 2004 4:55 PM
    Nic said:
    acid: Isn't that the website you designed for your last employer?
    Reply
18. June 19, 2004 6:21 PM
    acidosmosis said:
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Nic [/i]acid: Isn't that the website you designed for your last employer? [/quote] Nope. I had created a design to replace it, but "things" hit the fan and I no longer worked there.
    Reply
19. June 19, 2004 9:49 PM
    ---agissi--- said:
    this also happens when you use frontpage[url]http://www.atlantisglassdesign.com/[/url]
    Reply
20. June 19, 2004 10:38 PM
    SNGX1275 said:
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Unregistered [/i]Yep, Didlo. I use IE6 also. Firfox is Ok. But Opera sux. [/quote] Yes, I too would like to see why Opera "sux". In my above post I asked why and gave reasons why I thought Opera was superior to firefox and IE.
    Reply
21. June 20, 2004 4:20 AM
    Nic said:
    [quote][i]Originally posted by ---agissi--- [/i]this also happens when you use frontpage[url]http://www.atlantisglassdesign.com/[/url] [/quote] Nothing happened? [Shows up fine in Opera 7.5]Frontpage doesn't generate standard html, if you use some of its features. Microsoft really should get it's act together regarding complying with open standards. They are getting better at this with newer product lines, but they do still have a lot of work to do. Unfortunately, in the past they have been more concerned with making things powerful, simple, and easy to use for novice users, rather than sticking to standards.If a website looks crap, then blame the designer, not the tools.
    Reply
22. June 20, 2004 5:48 AM
    TS | Thomas said:
    Been using Firefox myself now for at least 6 months. At the very least for me on my connection Firefox is noticeably faster with most webpages I view. By clicking the load only pictures for originating website option I can take loading of, say, Warp2search to 22seconds, with IE this would take over 1 minute to load (As it has to download all the ad images).
    Reply
23. June 20, 2004 6:23 AM
    stelex said:
    I am web designer and one thing I hate with passion is when I see the web site that states "Best viewed with Internet Explorer" or "...with Netscape" or even worse "Best viewed with 800x600"What am I supposed to do when I see the one with "best viewed with NS4" ? Go quickly to netscape.com and download their browser just to see the crap on that website ? When I create web site it's "Best viewed with web browser" and the "computer monitor" Anything else is rubbish. The problem today is that MS is so big and has huge percentage of internet users so web developers don't care. Not all, but majority of lower end. And Microsoft has gone a lot it's own way ignoring the html conventions. Why ? Why the dog licks his own balls ? Exactly - because he can!Some people are flaming FrontPage. OK, let me put this straight, FP98 was absolute crap, total disaster. FP 2000 was ... hmmmm .... getting better, FP 2002 (xp) is pretty alright and FP2003 is fantastic. (**conditions apply)Conditions ? Yes, there is one thing you must do - never use FP themes and other MS specific stuff and you'll never have problems with FP (2002/2003)When I develop web site it is being tested on: Mozilla, IE, Opera, Firefox and Safari. If there is problem in one of those browsers - there is a problem with me. For day to day browsing I use Mozilla 1.6 ( since yesterday it's 1.7) I also use Firefox since version 0.8 but more like experimental. I totally abandoned IE use about 18 months ago. The only time I use it is when I test the web site in development. Mozilla is far superior browser to IE. The email client is exactly the same (superior). Someone mentioned that tabbed browsing is nightmare (!) Well, this is how I see it. When I need to find something on internet I open google and search for it. I usually get the page with heaps of links. Now, in IE, I would need to go to each of these and go back to google for the next one. Or, I would need to right click / open in new window. Then I have to click on the google one in task bar to get back so I can request the new one. In Mozilla, it goes this way: once I get the google result, I middle-click on each of the resulting links and the page loads in the new tab in background. So I just go click-click -click ... 20 times if needs to be, and it's all in one window in different tabs. If I need to close the tab I just middle click it and it's gone. If I need to close all tabs, I right click one tab and select "Close all other tabs" While for someone this might be nightmare, for me this is probably the best thing I ever experienced in web browser. The other thing is pop up blocking, natively built in, no extra bars, no crap whatsoever, just plainly perfect.
    Reply
24. June 20, 2004 10:43 AM
    Nic said:
    Well said stelex, you're right on the money, and even took the time to qualify your opinion. I couldn't have said it better myself :=).
    Reply
25. June 20, 2004 1:21 PM
    acidosmosis said:
    [quote][i]Originally posted by stelex [/i]I am web designer and one thing I hate with passion is when I see the web site that states "Best viewed with Internet Explorer" or "...with Netscape" or even worse "Best viewed with 800x600"[/quote] Uh. 800x600 has nothing to do with this discussion. Websites are designed for 800x600 because the majority of users resolution is 800x600. You are NOT a good web designer at all if you don't understand that you design for resolutions that the MAJORITY uses and design your page so that the MAJORITY of users can view it correctly. Who cares what the "correct" way to do html is. A functional page is MORE money for the company. If a page doesnt work correctly the viewer will NOT come back most likely. To ignore this is stupidity and the sign of a bad web designer. Edit: And you must take into account of the fact that MOST, probably 98% of shoppers online are using IE. There is no way around this fact. Those who know enough about technicalities to use another browser aren't as much of a concern as the general public is.It's one thing to know how to do "correct" html, but it's other to blatanly ignore the fact that some correct html might not work in the most used browser (IE).It really annoys me when people come in here and talk about how web designers should design a page to live up to html standards. People that do that don't know what they are talking about when it comes down to it and are bad designers and I sure wouldnt hire anyone to create a webpage with that attitude. A webpage had better work well for the majority of it's viewers or you would be out of a job if I was the one hiring you.Frontpage, is in fact crap. No matter HOW you look at it. Take a look at frontpage html with Notepad and you will immediately know why if you are a good designer.Your all ignoring the facts because you are blind. Just because you decide that FireFox or Opera are "better" doesn't mean everyone else uses it or wants to. Pages SHOULD and NEED to be designed for the majority. If your too blind to see this than well, that is your problem, your downfall and you would be the one losing money, having the customer pissed at you, and this would be the reason you do not move up in the world as a web page designer.
    Reply

Recently commented stories