| 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 |
 |
Why I dumped Internet Explorer | |
|
||
| Time: 02:14 EST/07:14 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
At the office, my cubicle colleague--a Firefox aficionado of long standing--smugly greeted the news by asking me what took so long. But rest assured this is no small concession. The short answer is I don't have a lot of time or patience to fiddle around getting my different applications to play nice. So when forced to decide between competing software alternatives, yours truly has nearly always gone with the Microsoft offering. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 331 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:28:04 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (69.7.134.5) at 10/7/2004 5:09:28 AM |
| I finally had to dump Mozilla because of all the security problems. I just don't have the time to be constantly going to the Mozilla website to find out if there are any updates, and the auto-updating in Mozilla does not work. |
| #2 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 10/7/2004 7:26:03 AM |
|
He didn't really go into why he switched to Firefox - other than a cryptic ref to a response to some challenge....
CSS? Standards? makes little sense since MS did support early adoption - only to have that broken off in their fourth point of contact by a group whose numbers are less than 4% in terms of their own CSS compliance... RSS? oh please... there are numerous means to support this for IE and certainly any site running well in IE and each is as easy as any for other browser. Security? Now this one makes me just laugh - right up until the nausea kicks in... "Patch management and proliferation are tough enough within a well integrated platform benefiting from equally well integrated management systems - MOM, SUS, SMS, etc... Providing the same in a heterogeneous environment, subject to users with a diverse mix of skills and needs is not only tough, it is expensive and frustrating." Has XP SP2 and how it impacts IE been discounted; forgotten? Did he even assess it; consider it? My bet is he did, but has chosen to pretend MS didn't release SP2... I think the author is desperate - to write anything... There is an effort to compel MS to release a new IE version - or so it seems. For what purpose? To compete with Firefox? - ok, I maintain MS is doing just that and just about the time that Firefox, or any alternative emerges as real competition, MS will have released Longhorn and a new experience entirely. When will people get it? I maintain that the browser as we know it, is dead. CLR? WS? anybody? It is to say, many are running a race on land; however, the world is changing and the car being prepared is not restricted to operating on land, water or in the air - no more than it is restricted to a PC, a phone, or any other device. Native Anti-and Counter [yes there is a difference], Mal-Ware = True; CLR = True; a common IDE for both web and desktop = True. Some folks better wake up before they find themselves irrelevant. They had better start to compete and not just compare. This post was edited by lketchum on Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 07:28. |
| #3 By 12071 (203.217.65.250) at 10/7/2004 9:00:30 AM |
|
#2 "He didn't really go into why he switched to Firefox"
True, it was more of a topic to get him started on Microsoft and IE. "CSS? Standards?" Yes, standards, and IE's inability to follow them, it's incomplete PNG support etc. "When will people get it? I maintain that the browser as we know it, is dead." Sorry, we forgot you know everything, we should have started listening earlier. "a common IDE for both web and desktop = True." You mean something like XUL? (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xul/). It's just a pity that those Mozilla developers didn't listen to you sooner. |
| #4 By 135 (69.7.134.5) at 10/7/2004 9:02:54 AM |
|
I think it's great that Mozilla has finally decided to embrace standards.
If Netscape had done this with release 4.x, they woudln't have lost all their market share to IE. |
| #5 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 10/7/2004 9:40:09 AM |
|
#1,
FireFox autoupdate worked fine for me and it was painless. And it didn't require an ENTIRE download of the browser, just an update. Took all of 10 seconds. TL |
| #6 By 415 (68.54.28.118) at 10/7/2004 10:43:04 AM |
|
lol ... ClosedStandards, your posts just frickin kill me sometimes! hehehe
Chris, XUL is not an IDE, it's a programming language. Visual Studio, for example, is an IDE. Make no mistake about it, IE implemented the most and most important "standards" long before the other browsers did. Don't believe the media hype. |
| #7 By 13030 (198.22.121.120) at 10/7/2004 10:45:50 AM |
|
#1: had to dump Mozilla
Same old tired line. You and Parkker ought to be drinking buddies. #2: Has XP SP2 and how it impacts IE been discounted; forgotten? Did he even assess it; consider it? My bet is he did, but has chosen to pretend MS didn't release SP2... As if every computer is running Windows XP and can thereby benefit from this long overdue lockdown of IE. #2: I think the author is desperate - to write anything... And it surely couldn't be that Firefox actually is a better product for the author to use? #2: I maintain that the browser as we know it, is dead. And so did MS (once they controlled the market share), but the amount of interest in alternative browsers due to IE stagnation and exploits seems to indicate otherwise. #2: Some folks better wake up before they find themselves irrelevant. This is one of my biggest criticisms of MS. They change the rules every few years to make it hard for their competitors (and developers!). #4: I think it's great that Mozilla has finally decided to embrace standards. If Netscape had done this with release 4.x, they wouldn't have lost all their market share to IE. Actually version 4.X of both browsers (IE and Netscape) had their standards compliance issues. The JavaScript differences alone required two sets of scripts. Neither browser at that time was a pinnacle of standards compliance. The article is yet another example of someone willing to try a non-MS product (the horror!) and discovering that it truly is a better product. I know many of you MS zealots refuse to accept this, but MS does not always make the best product. In most cases MS products are superior, but, in the case of IE versus Firefox, that is no longer true. |
| #8 By 13030 (198.22.121.120) at 10/7/2004 10:53:28 AM |
|
#5: I agree. Firefox autoupdate is fast and simple.
#6: Your zealotry has such a fine consistency about it! Who was your teacher? <lol> Don't ever stop! |
| #9 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 10/7/2004 12:38:44 PM |
| I tried Firefox PR 1 since it was released, and found it was an excellent browser, but it did a bad job rendering pages, and didn't support certain flyout menu's and dropdowns that normally appeared in IE. And I need to access those menus, so I am happy to be back with IE. |
| #10 By 135 (69.7.134.5) at 10/7/2004 12:45:17 PM |
|
TechLarry - "FireFox autoupdate worked fine for me and it was painless. "
Quite clearly your machine is misconfigured, as it simply does not run on my machine. ch - "You and Parkker ought to be drinking buddies. " Flaming shots of Sambuca all around! But clearly my statement was no more pathetic or ridiculous than this article. I find it odd that you would take issue with it. |
| #11 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 10/7/2004 1:58:45 PM |
|
#13 - Look beyond the present. Browsers are launching pads for application services now. HTML specs haven't been radically updated in years, and the ones that are out there now are more proposals than ratified standards (or at best: badly worded or implemented "standards") . The most revolutionary things you are seeing with the browsers of today are the following:
1. Plug-ins that change the browsers behavior (tabbed browsing, search bars, gestures, etc) 2. Applications that launch once installed on the system (activex components, asp.net apps, java, etc) The browser as you know it is dormant and old. People are screaming about the Great New Thing in Firefox but the reality is its not that revolutionary. That's what people are saying when they stick with IE -- yes, in many cases, there is nothing about the BROWSING that compels them to move to firefox (myself included). It might be the extensions that compel them, or the false sense of security. But it certainly isn't basic standards compliance. Even if Firefox were 100% standards compliant, the majority of users and websites out there simply do not render well on that. Why? See above -- there are many ways to implement the "standards". Take CSS for example. For those in the know, this is obvious... for those who just like to jump on the bandwagon, it might appear that firefox is more "compliant". But who cares, when sites can't figure out how to interpret the "standard" anyway? Who will eventually care when rendering pages in HTML takes a back seat to ASP.NET or other network-centric applications? |
| #12 By 10896 (142.167.148.13) at 10/7/2004 2:56:35 PM |
|
I have a simple policy at my office of about 200 users, anyone outside of the IT department that downloads and uses Firebox or Mozilla will no longer be working at the company.
|
| #13 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 10/7/2004 4:30:54 PM |
|
You just proved my point, though. You didn't show me anything "new" with HTML. It's all about what the browser can LAUNCH. The faser app is just that .. an app. Was that the Next Great Browser Evolution? No, it's an application.
Try again. |
| #14 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 10/7/2004 4:35:25 PM |
|
You could see the run up to XP SP2 with all the BS from the ABM crowd about how anything but IE was just wonderful, but now that XP SP2 is widely available these articles are just plain laughable.
Another amusing item is this crap about "standards" - when you have 90%+ of the market, like Microsoft has, you are the standard! doh! #16 - At our company, users just don't download and install anything, period. AD and GPOs takes care of that. |
| #15 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 10/7/2004 6:30:53 PM |
|
"You just proved my point, though."
Wasn't your point that applications are the key and that is the reason to stick with IE? "That's what people are saying when they stick with IE" Yet Halcyon was showing you a rich app that doesn't use IE tech but rather Moz tech, right? So how does that prove your point? |
| #16 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 10/7/2004 6:35:29 PM |
|
#21 - That's not the point. You keep going back to more browser widgets. If the sole goal was to adhere more to the w3c specs, congrats, Firefox won (compared to IE, but not compared to other browsers, btw!) -- but what does that mean? This is like saying that a car suddenly comes with a new radio, but I'm referring to the roads. I don't care if the Firefox browser starts talking to me and recommending sites... it doesn't matter if it doesn't launch the applications that are appearing. W3c specs don't matter, for the most part.
The issue that #2 was bringing up that I agree with is that winning the "w3c conformance goal" doesn't mean anything... adding more "browse friendly" doesn't mean anything (tabbed browsing, etc)... W3C specs are moving far more slowly than application vendors care to, and it's a ton more friendly to simply launch their own applications. The browser isn't dead, but it's rendered meaningless. I can get IE to do everything Firefox does (including transparent PNG), and people claim victory... so what? It's all free. I don't care that Firefox runs on every client in the world ... I do care that my applications (which run FROM the browser) work. Widgets, gadgets, themes, etc are meaningless and trivial -- both do them. Extensibility and launchability are the focus points for future. |
| #17 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 10/7/2004 6:38:08 PM |
|
#22 - Applications are the key, that's the focus for the future (is not IE specific -- if Firefox launches them too, that's ok, but that's where the web is going, not on the archaic and slow-moving W3c specs)
The rich app is still just an app. It's not w3c. That's why it proved my point. The browser is just a launchpad. It's kinda like saying Firefox is better because it has Java. Well Java is a application engine, basically. Both browsers have the same thing. If java applications improve, that's fine, but it has rendered the browser meaningless, as long as it can run the application. |
| #18 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 10/7/2004 6:53:54 PM |
|
mram, if I follow correctly, you are pushing for IE. In other words, your point is not proven. If FireFox and others can deliver more features, better standards, and applications, and IE only delivers apps... they lose.
It doesn't matter whether the app is related to w3c specs... As long as other browsers can deliver what IE brings AND MORE, IE loses. |
| #19 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 10/7/2004 7:11:40 PM |
|
SJ I'll be completely clear: I don't give a rats ass which browser "wins". I am saying that W3C specs are not "the win". Browsers will become the application launchpads of the future, and in that respect, it largely doesn't matter anymore, especially since they are both free.
I am not pushing for either browser. I don't care. Is that clear enough? Firefox users can deliver more features (which can also freely be acquired with IE), better standards (so what?), and applications (ding ding), guess what'll happen if IE suddenly releases IE7 with the best standards compliance? Well, I'll tell ya, Firefox would conform. Then what? Well ........................... then you start arguing the points of extensibility and application launchpad viability. Everyone acts like IE simply can't conform to standards. Well, guess again. It's not the winning argument, it just doesn't matter anymore. If standards were everything, noone would be running IE *or* Firefox. (Edit: My point? Reread post #2. That's where browsers are going. Quit focusing on the widget-of-the-moment avaliable for the browser, or standards. That is all.) This post was edited by mram on Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 19:21. |
| #20 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 10/7/2004 7:44:14 PM |
|
Fine, you don't care... As I said, if I follow you correctly...
We disagree. Okay. IE does not deliver the same features, does not support standards, and is pushing applications in the future. In the future, there won't even be an IE, which I think will hurt it more than any rich application delivery. IE is not going to quickly support standards... There is no indication of that. It is not the most significant issue to you, but I think most users still think features, security, and standards are the most important differentiators of browsers. Most end users think apps can be delivered to any browser, and they are correct. |
| #21 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 10/7/2004 9:56:57 PM |
|
So you're saying that Microsoft didn't conform to standards and extended it in a proprietary way that it controls exclusively in order to leverage its platform? That's pretty much the argument against having them involved in setting any standards.
Don't put words into my mouth, and I won't assume you're a moron. I can recommend standards, you can recommend standards. The W3C chooses to adopt them (edit -- and to be clear, Microsoft may be a member but cannot adopt a standard in a vacuum). Extending standards is the right and ability of any browser. Don't get mad at that -- Firefox does it as well. IE does not deliver the same features, does not support standards, and is pushing applications in the future. My god you guys are deaf. IE does not support the full W3C standard set FULLY, but then again neither does Firefox. To firefox's credit though, they support it better. In the future, there won't even be an IE Wrong. It is not the most significant issue to you, but I think most users still think features, security, and standards are the most important differentiators of browsers. Most end users think apps can be delivered to any browser, and they are correct. Right now perhaps. In the future, it won't. Again, please consult your Reading Comprehension 101 texts and reread post #2. Thanks. As to your last statement, that is precisely why the browser is obfuscating itself. This post was edited by mram on Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 21:58. |
| #22 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 10/7/2004 11:10:35 PM |
|
Some have it dead right and some have it equally wrong.
Why no new IE? That was the authors's "real" point. Simply put, "it does not matter." No browser will matter - and far sooner than people think. That is what I meant earlier. Making the development tools available now, as MS has done, will ensure this. mram has been both correct and consistent - it simply will not matter and the W3C limitations presented to all browsers will be gone. We're coding that way now - ensuring that what we develop not not only conforms to where we will be going, but also to allow us to apply complex logic at the transaction level as interchanges make more profitable business possible for our clients - who are trading in much more complex ways and with a more diverse mix of partners than ever before. I assess that each of us needs to divorce ourselves from the browser and do so as soon as possible. And here is one that I hope will be taken in the spirit it is intended - with sincere hope - "All had better hope OSS, or someone does get it other than Microsoft. Even MS wants this to some extent - intense competition - it justifies the effort at some level. It would be easy to debate and win against some statements [XUL, for example - compared to an IDE like .NET? - goodness gracious...]. Comparisons must stop and very hard work must begin to not emulate but invent. Features? Mercy... You will see what is possible and its richness is manifest - one taste of that and users will ditch browsers in an instant and demand more. Hal, I am in a hurry and want to drive what will be - not just suck up what is. I could give a flip about what is, or what Firefox, or Mozilla have planned - scoring points about one browser's this over that one's lack of some feature as cartoon'ish as tabbed browsing... I want a crazy rich, personally relevant interface that delivers real-time intelligence product within a discoverable experience - regardless of business or activity. I want to be able to connect business deals as fast as the human imagination can come up with ideas and at the same time make them agnostic - letting OSS pals [Mirko, Daryl, Ron] write however and in whatever they want. Thanks for enduring my rant. |
| #23 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 10/8/2004 2:41:58 AM |
|
#35 - Topic please... foul ball. The topic is "Why isn't there a new IE" or "Why I left IE for Firefox" not "Why Microsoft sucks in general" or "Why I don't believe in stuff that isn't released yet."
But to answer your crazy-out-of-the-blue I-just-gotta-get-the-last-anti-MS-comment: I could. It still better support rich applications, and the W3C conformance issues will largely not matter in the long haul. |
| #24 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 10/8/2004 5:55:02 AM |
|
Hal, Firefox is not a platform. It is an application which renders content passed via http.
This of course you know. IE is different. Windows is a platform. A platform is the basis from which things are launched - huge hint here as to what IE is and why it is different [and BTW, why the govt's original case against Microsoft was so wrong]. Equally large directional arrow as to where and how things will be launched from "a platform." It is appropriate that from a platform, things depart - and at some point [now], software must depart from where it is and move "forward" - that usually implies the future and progress. For far too long, the W3C has had all of us bolted to home base - running back and forth between client browsers and a remote host along a very thin path poopulated with hazards that make little red riding hood's wolf seem tame. There are those out here that do not like that path. We are building a 3 dimensional, multi-lane network of high speed roads. That requires a platform - not just a language, and certainly not just one application. Unlike a conventional roadway, with limited exit services and entry points, this roadway may be entered, and or exited at any point. Similarly, one is not simply resticted to movement along it. One may set up any type of shop along the way and open any type business one wishes. To do this efficiently, one requires common tools that anyone, speaking most any language, may use. Fortunately, Microsoft and for that matter, the United States, is always working to build for the future. MS does not do this alone - they facilitate the construction by providing the foundation and platforms from which to "Launch" the applications that support all forms of interchange. When IE was integrated to the platform, it had zip to do with markets. It was and remains about how the use of the roadway I have described may best be exercised. It was then, already known what would be possible in the future and a fundamental understanding of what and how that "is" had to be driven into the culture of the underlying fabric. My God what will you do when ASICS are history and all of this uses FPGA's...<sorry, Just thought of Hal's question about XUL> - when hardware and software are no longer separated from one another and stressing either strengthens both [like muscles being trained]? The only thing stopping us from extending XUL, or any language, is that we do not choose to - we are however, and have been for years, working on a language designed to write languages for FPLA and FPGA based environments - the hardware, as you can imagine, is quite costly and the operating environment [for the present] is quite cold. These are designed to build SW that is capable of authoring on its own - based upon what it is asked to do and what environment it encounters - it BTW, it looks at Firefox or a similar applications, assesses them and rebuilds functions on the fly - only a lot more quickly. It is a slow process, and not even Longhorn is designed to support it, yet. That is the point, though...that future thing that some don't seem to embrace - after all, they have chosen to invest in a 30 year old cast off of an OS base. Many don't care for that and will not go backwards. Hence, no new IE [not unless it makes sense as fuel to fund what is being built]. |
| #25 By 135 (69.7.134.5) at 10/8/2004 8:28:57 AM |
|
I remain completely neutral in this debate.
|
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 331 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:28:04 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
