| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
New Year's resolution for Firefox: Grow | |
|
||
| Time: 06:06 EST/11:06 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
Forty-five days and some 13 million downloads after its official release, Mozilla's Firefox browser is showing undeniable momentum--but does it signal the beginning of the end to Microsoft's monopoly over the basic software used to access the Web? Even as Firefox gathers steam, powerful brakes are poised to kick in that could limit its long-term growth: Interoperability has long dogged non-Microsoft browsers, which are often glitchy on some Web sites. Firefox claims some significant progress on this front, but a handful of sites, including Microsoft's Windows Update site, are still inaccessible. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 337 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
7:14:13 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 12/28/2004 2:17:17 PM |
|
tgnb--that may be the problem, I'm not sure (I've been using FF/FB since about version 0.7 on the same machine). My results look similar to AWBrian's posted image, although his image appears to have two different pages served up in FF and IE, whereas mine is the same page--IE with images, FF without. AWBrian, would you mind reposting those examples of FF rendering issues? I don't want the discussion bogged down in my eBay example if it turns out it was a problem with my configuration.
Chris_kabuki, you may be right... it'd be interesting to talk to the developers to see why that happened. I can understand Parkker's point about IE being the de facto standard, but it's a rather slippery and cyclical argument to defend. At the same time, there seems to be among certain crowds (though I'm not accusing you of this) a somewhat anal attitude at times towards standards compliance that comes across as "standards for standards' sakes," and oftentimes it's not helpful. At any rate, we're left with one browser that nearly always works and one that works a great majority of the time. Both are quite stable, but both require patching. One has a patching mechanism suitable for businesses, one does not (of which I'm aware). To me, the solution is obvious, at least for most business desktops. But I like using FF on my own machine. :) |
| #27 By 12071 (203.217.26.160) at 12/28/2004 9:24:44 PM |
|
#39 Go back to school Parkker and learn something rather than trying to argue semantics when you're already standing on shaky ground! I guess by your logic there is no IRC standard either, as the IRC standard is defined by RFC 1459, RFC 2810, RFC 2811, RFC 2812 and RFC 2813, and as we all know RFC stands for "Request for Comments".
"In fact, if you look at the site there are 5 year old HTML recommendations that are the most current. HTML 4.10 is from 1999! Even XHTML is from 2000." So why is it that a company with the resources of Microsoft cannot write a web browser that supports standards written 6 years ago (e.g. CSS2 - 1998)? You obviously don't understand what a standard is. A standard doesn't change with "internet time"! And given that Microsoft cannot handle supporting 6 year old standards, imagine how much difficulty they would have supporting "internet time standards"! #40 I know what Parkker's point is, but it's an argument of standard vs defacto standard and, as with almost everything in life, there are pro and cons for both sides. However I think you'll find that the reason why so many people mention that a page hasn't been written to the standard is due to people such as Parkker assuming that IE is the greatest thing since sliced bread due to some lazy developer testing (if you can even call it that) in IE only. Yes Firefox should be able to handle broken pages as best it can - I'm all for that, because I know that there are a lot of web developers out there that are either incompetent or lazy or both. BUT, the whole point of a standard vs a defacto standard is that Firefox shouldn't need to code around the way IE works, it should simply follow THE standard. How can you blame Firefox for not guessing what the original web designed MEANT to code in his page? And that is why most people (not including the MS zealots) that stick by the standards so strongly. Because we want to know that regardless of whether we use a MS application or a non-MS application, the end result should be interoperability. If web developers stick to the standards rather than the defacto standard, then it's the consumer that wins. The consumer then has the choice of whether they use Opera or FireFox or IE or a web browser that they coded as a project at Uni. The loser in that scenario is Microsoft, as they lose control. |
| #28 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 12/28/2004 10:24:32 PM |
|
#42, Huh?
http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm - "yes" one can host ActiveX Controls in FF 1.0 and many other browsers. ActiveX development was and "is" available on all platforms and in fact, Sun Microsystems developed over 1000 controls adding to the many thousands of others developed by many SW houses. OLE and delivering an experience not possible before the use of COM and other COM Clients like ActiveX has been the main attraction. To the standards guys.... I don't even know where to begin, but I will say for now that MS responds to its customers, partners, ISV's, etc... - not just one group that is both anti-US and anti-MS who themselves conform at a rate of less than 4%. A lot more on that later... |
| #29 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 12/29/2004 3:01:42 AM |
|
Hal you didn't even read my post at #46 above - much less address it.
A link to an opinion won't help, either - ActiveX is a COM Client and is available across multiple platforms, is not proprietary to MS <and never was> and there are thousands of controls from many different developers. It is true that MS in XP SP2 nailed the handling of "all" COM Clients, including ActiveX. And as far as OS protection for Windows Systems Files, do not forget DEP, which is natgive to SP2. Data Execution Prevention (DEP) helps prevent damage from viruses and other security threats that attack by running (executing) malicious code from memory locations that only Windows and other programs should use. This type of threat causes damage by taking over one or more memory locations in use by a program. Then it spreads and harms other programs, files, and even your e-mail contacts. Unlike a firewall or antivirus program, DEP does not help prevent harmful programs from being installed on your computer. Instead, it monitors your programs to determine if they use system memory safely. To do this, DEP software works alone or with compatible microprocessors to mark some memory locations as "non-executable". If a program tries to run code—malicious or not—from a protected location, DEP closes the program and notifies you. Microsoft's layered approach across the board is superior to its competitors and that does also include its browser and how that browser is used to launch programs and execute other code calls. Truth and science be known, FF isn't even in the same room. |
| #30 By 12071 (203.217.26.160) at 12/29/2004 8:02:24 AM |
|
#45 "The W3C produces recommendations. Not standards."
Yes, and all those RFC are requests for comments, not standards too. You should get a job at Fox News! "Yes they do. Take for example wireless "standards". 802.11b to 802.11a to 802.11g to 802.11.n etc etc." To prove that a standard does change in internet time, you came up with an example of different standards, when I mentioned standard (singular not plural), but that's fine, let's have a look at your definition of internet time at least. 802.11 came out in 1997, 802.11b came out in 1999, 802.11a came out in 2001, 802.11g came out in 2003 and 802.11n has yet to be finalised. The W3C had even more releases over a much shorter period of time and sure they could keep coming out with new standards each each to please you, but I ask you once again, what's the point in coming out with updated standards all the time if your favourite company cannot even comply with 6 year old standards? "Maybe you want to live in 1999. That seems to be a common theme among anti-Microsoft reactionaries. They criticize Windows 98 and Windows NT and pretend they are valid criticisms in 2004 when in fact those operating systems are 6 - 10 years old." Good for them, maybe they are just trying to live in the same year that you do, you know, where you have to manually compile everything if you use Linux... Hypocrite!! "I don't want 1999 technology. I want something more advanced." Your wish has been granted by Microsoft. You don't have 1999 technology! You don't even have complete 1998 technology! #46 Yeah, don't you just hate those anti-US, anti-MS, if they're not with us, they must be against us types. Maybe I was wrong, maybe it should be you who takes the job at Fox News instead of Parkker. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 337 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
7:14:13 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
