Tekforums

http://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2008/06/11/coming-tuesday-june-17th-firefox-3/

Woot, IE user base will go down a lot, lol

Try typing "about:robots" into the Awesomebar (url bar) and press enter. The earth will stand still (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gort_(The_Day_the_Earth_Stood_Still)) for you. 8-)

Cool new easter egg, huh? :)

Edit: Also its already out (or should be) for Ubuntu users. :)

http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Drawing_text_using_a_canvas :bounce:

It is out but its Release Client v2 its not live yet

/v3 I should have said ^^

Anyway

Things about firefox 3:
http://www.dria.org/wordpress/archives/2008/06/12/655/#css
Only some of them really since there is a lot more as well and many of them you may not notice at first Glance (certain person I know said it was no different to 2, lol)

I shouldve said that RC2 is the live client, as the only showstopper is (was) an Apple Mac specific (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436575) bug.

So for all intents it is already out (live) for Linux users at least.

You should learn , its a great feature. :)

Quote from: skidzillaI shouldve said that RC2 is the live client, as the only showstopper is (was) an Apple Mac specific bug.

So for all intents it is already out (live) for Linux users at least.

You should learn , its a great feature. :)

Thing is RC3 was pushed out as well and all platforms so its not live, live for all platforms is Tuesday :)

Dangerous.

Its already bad enough that sh*t developers hide behind the "designed for firefox" logos/buttons, introducing more experimental features (html canvas for example) will only further the gap.

Great for an application, for internet users in general though its sh*t.

Lets not forget the browser with the largest market share is still IE.

Having the largest market share doesnt make you the better product. The new FF seems much better than FF2, no crashes or slowdowns for me yet. Its still miles better than IE.

Linux fanboys know all about that argument Im sure.

IE8 current beta is sh*te, at the same stage FF3 is over double faster, means nothing now but still and its memo special feature MS think will be its big feature is already an addon in firefox and a nice one at that.

I have to laugh at M3ta7h3ad tbh because Mozilla are the ones who are web standards compliance and since this my field its the dogs and FF3 is the dogs bollux in this sense, the image rendering alone for example is really noticable and in terms of rich sites it is really good. FF2 has had issues with Javascript but so do them all since the use has increased and that alone in FF3 is an amazing step up.
The font rendering and canvas features that are here are good But do not interfere with your web standards unlike what MS do with IE.
IE8 will be web standards complaint but depending on what they decide as they are still tossing around the idea you may need to switch from the MS way to everyone else way as they may still have their crap way as default.

you say "Everyone elses way" but yet again I remind you, IE has the largest market share.

IE8 is beta you arse. FF3 is final. Theres a huge difference.

Im not bitching about web standards compliance im bitching about poor web design being hidden behind "designed for" buttons and logos.

Firefox 3 will only increase the effect, as already Ive had to see and use stuff that "only for firefox", open it in IE and you get nada.

Considering the web is meant to be viewable for all, it appears firefox is in fact the cause of sh*t developers. Think back to the Netscape and IE differences, only its worse. Instead of not displaying the blink tag, now entire pages refuse to load for anyone who doesnt use firefox.

Oh and html canvas... totally not a standard (yet).

Its part of a working draft for HTML 5.0 which was only put together in January of this year! Guess MSFT isnt the only "non-standards compliant" browser out there.

Also the new standards compliant mode of IE8 with the backwards compatibility providing the capability to view pages as intended in IE7 is a beautiful thing. Does Firefox offer this? Not as far as im aware.

Quote from: M3ta7h3adproviding the capability to view pages as intended in IE7 is a beautiful thing

IE7 goes far from displaying sites "as intended", its not that much better than IE6 in terms of standards adherence. Have you never noticed how CSS hacks are only built for IE, Opera and Safari, never for FF?

My main gripe with FF from a developer standpoint is their insistence on rendering incorrectly formatted tags parsed through Gecko, but its a minor gripe.

FF can be switched into quirks mode and disregards doctypes, suitable for crap sites.

Ive never seen this "designed for" nonsense. Anyone designing sites with one browser in mind is not a good web developer.

Quoteyou say "Everyone elses way" but yet again I remind you, IE has the largest market share.

Which is fading fast, but the point being

QuoteIE8 is beta you arse. FF3 is final. Theres a huge difference.

M3ta7h3ad do you not read things on purpose to better have a go at posters or just dont?

QuoteIE8 current beta is sh*te, at the same stage FF3 is over double faster,

When FF3 was at the same stage it was faster and more stable - Had and been testing both due to what I do, got people at work here the same and all in agreement about their progress as well as on the web others also and note how I also said..

Quotemeans nothing now but still

So call someone and arse where it is due but really it is again you just being one yourself here, bit pointless getting tedious as well.

QuoteIm not bitching about web standards compliance im bitching about poor web design being hidden behind "designed for" buttons and logos.

Firefox 3 will only increase the effect, as already Ive had to see and use stuff that "only for firefox", open it in IE and you get nada.

This always pulls from anything new in many aspects of web design or the ability to do things, very nice or handy or cool features cool and the bad designers will over use them or not use them and the good ones use them correctly. It will ALWAYS be the case with ANYTHING.

QuoteConsidering the web is meant to be viewable for all, it appears firefox is in fact the cause of sh*t developers. Think back to the Netscape and IE differences, only its worse. Instead of not displaying the blink tag, now entire pages refuse to load for anyone who doesnt use firefox.

This is very wrong because web standards is the basis of good design, you do know if create a correct website with valid source and correct wording, correct content format etc it will effect your position on search engines etc which in terms of business is very important? Firefox is the best for this and with the addons like firebug it is the source of GOOD developers not sh*te. IE on the other hand IS and because of MS decision to do things differently until 8 It will always be. Eight May comply with a lot of things but its going to be bulky and slow and In terms of development and usage it is important.

Actual predictions from people knowing what they are on about indicate to 20% use for FF Within a few months of FF3 if not more with IE8 being a little way off. Safari will have its new version soon and now being on windows also will see a jump with both eating into IE. With the mobile market as well and Opera again you have a broader and increasing range of market of which IE will be lagging behind and having its market share eating away.
Dell is also considering Safari (do not know why but meh) as something to be pre installed in their packages for example as well.

TBH the use of the canvas system is neither here nor there. It is a system that is being trialled and you have the option of viewing it with firefox, if a site is designed using it, then yes they are limiting it to browsers that can use it.

Now if i were to mention activex... the bane of the net for the past few years. MS only web based system that was until recently necessary to get updates for windows.

That is making built for browser websites, hell look at wmp for vista or xp mce, MS decided to change the way they process video files resulting in firefox and other browsers not being able to handle embedded files. It took the open source department of MS to release a plug-in that allowed it to work, which is a bit buggy.

FF has pushed forward browsing more than anybody recently, creating a browser built around standards whilst pushing new ideas and technologies. Opera is another major contributor to the browser market but more aimed as an all in one browser that does everything.

IE has been the left behind platform for years, it is now coming back with a few sticky plasters and random crap bolted on to try and make itself seem interesting.

Quote from: neXusWhich is fading fast, but the point being

Uh, no. In the we hate m$ club maybe. In business enviroments FF has maybe 1/50,000 users. FF is too sh*t to be anything more than a backup browser on the rare occasion when IE screws up. Its no better than IE 99% of the time for people who only use OWA or ebay or google and does nothing to justify the time spent installing/supporting a 2nd browser.

Quote from: sdp

Quote from: neXusWhich is fading fast, but the point being

Uh, no. In the we hate m$ club maybe. In business enviroments FF has maybe 1/50,000 users. FF is too sh*t to be anything more than a backup browser on the rare occasion when IE screws up. Its no better than IE 99% of the time for people who only use OWA or ebay or google and does nothing to justify the time spent installing/supporting a 2nd browser.

Sorry but this just screams of no clue ^

Regardless, FF is 2nd fiddle, and only then because fuxty million wanna be geeks are on the open source bandwagon. If you want alternative go Opera - it has pretty much all the nice touches you need, paste & go, mouse gestures, speed dial etc native.

Gonna have to back up spd here as at work I use IE and FF and FF is crap at the likes of Sharepoint integration, OWA is flaky on it at the best of times. For anything none work related I use FF anything that ties in with the system I use IE. Although I will admit since grabbing the IE Tab addon for FF I barely need IE anymore as it will call on the IE rendering engine for the pages I need in IE :)

Quote from: sdpRegardless, FF is 2nd fiddle, and only then because fuxty million wanna be geeks are on the open source bandwagon. If you want alternative go Opera - it has pretty much all the nice touches you need, paste & go, mouse gestures, speed dial etc native.

Actually youll find that users who have been on the net for any length of time often switch to FF.  Especially those who have been arseraped by ActiveX viruses.  

Quote from: sdpRegardless, FF is 2nd fiddle, and only then because fuxty million wanna be geeks are on the open source bandwagon. If you want alternative go Opera - it has pretty much all the nice touches you need, paste & go, mouse gestures, speed dial etc native.

Agreed: Opera kicks firefoxs ass any day.

Youre all about the speed nexus.

Lets think about this.

Firefox = naked, you pretty much have to install a bajillionty extensions to have it do all of the set of things that either IE provides, or you just generally use on the web. When you do this its resource footprint goes through the roof. With 8 tabs open its footprint rockets up.

Opera = Fully featured and supports user addons and greasemonkey out of the box. It loads just as fast with a memory footprint considerably less that firefox.

IE = does everything I need, and the integration within the OS is beautiful, I just shove an address into the address bar of any window and whammo... im on the web. You say its slow and clunky, I say having to go through my program files when I can just hit Win+R "iexplore" and be on the net within 7 seconds is pretty damn fast actually.

Youre all about the plugins... I use IEPro its free, and introduces pretty much everything that Id want. Spell checking, flashblocking, support for greasemonkey, session restore, session history, and a billion other features I turn off cause I dont use them.

1 browser, 1 extension... IE.

If I wanted anything else Id go Opera.

Oh and nexus.

Even if you tested both IE8 and Firefox 3 on day 20 of their development exactly, that means naff all as youve no idea whats been the priority for the developers nor have you accounted for the fact that its two different teams, that are more than likely working at completely different speeds.

"I tested em at the same time" reads to me as "I tried firefox when it was beta and IE is at beta so I assume they are at the same development stages" except thats a completely flawed way of thinking.

Quote from: M3ta7h3adOh and nexus.

Even if you tested both IE8 and Firefox 3 on day 20 of their development exactly, that means naff all as youve no idea whats been the priority for the developers nor have you accounted for the fact that its two different teams, that are more than likely working at completely different speeds.

"I tested em at the same time" reads to me as "I tried firefox when it was beta and IE is at beta so I assume they are at the same development stages" except thats a completely flawed way of thinking.

Read what ever text you seem to see, not what is said though just another example of that here  :mutley: I mean even said it does not mean much but added a bit more, but feel free to see dancing fairies and texts

When you developing websites, using websites day to day high end - FF hands down in virtually all areas tbh and I am smiling at some of the comments about comparing, you can have your fav by all means as many like opera a lot but saying ff does not have or support things when it does out the box is not on.

Well the "download day" is going well so far, their servers have been ddosed to hell

I got mine this morning, no problems.

Just got it, gotta say, everything does feel sharper and faster.

Especially AJAX based stuff, image rendering is massively improved.

Overall very impressed so far, only incompatability was firebug but i imagine they will have a new release very soon if they dont already.

Been trying to get FF 3 for the last hour now as there website is totally packed out by the look of it, finally managed to download it now at a steady 26Kbps lmao

Liam

The addon sites have been nuked.  I regret doing a clean install :(  I want my addons back...

Quote from: Deaths HeadThe addon sites have been nuked.  I regret doing a clean install :(  I want my addons back...

ANY site related to firefox is just buggered today, everyone is hammering them all

Quote from: neXus

Quote from: M3ta7h3adOh and nexus.

Even if you tested both IE8 and Firefox 3 on day 20 of their development exactly, that means naff all as youve no idea whats been the priority for the developers nor have you accounted for the fact that its two different teams, that are more than likely working at completely different speeds.

"I tested em at the same time" reads to me as "I tried firefox when it was beta and IE is at beta so I assume they are at the same development stages" except thats a completely flawed way of thinking.

Read what ever text you seem to see, not what is said though just another example of that here  :mutley: I mean even said it does not mean much but added a bit more, but feel free to see dancing fairies and texts

When you developing websites, using websites day to day high end - FF hands down in virtually all areas tbh and I am smiling at some of the comments about comparing, you can have your fav by all means as many like opera a lot but saying ff does not have or support things when it does out the box is not on.

Then instead of just saying I dont get you, have you considered re-wording what youre saying? Because I appear so far to have it bang on. Youre saying you tested firefox when it was a beta, and IE is a beta now so youre assuming their the same thing.

Firefox doesnt. What firefox does do quite a bit to restore some of the extra functionality is incorporate the user extensions in a particular build.

Im waiting for the "A new version of Firefox is now available" Message which will no doubt appear at some point in the near future.

I made the mistake of installing the FF3 beta a while back and lost the few extensions I actually used. Hopefully by the time I get "notified" things like Del.icio.us will have FF3 extensions etc...

Its only you so nope

http://lifehacker.com/396312/power-users-guide-to-firefox-3

Annoying thing is they appear to have ditched all there search engine add ons.  Now there are only 23... there used to be thousands.  Good job I backed up my Firefox before I upgraded...

Quote from: neXusIts only you so nope

psht!

Quote from: Deaths HeadAnnoying thing is they appear to have ditched all there search engine add ons.  Now there are only 23... there used to be thousands.  Good job I backed up my Firefox before I upgraded...

http://mycroft.mozdev.org/
^Should still work?

Why have they changed the linked?  Twastards!
this is the FF3 site:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:4/cat:all?sort=name

Quote from: neXus

Quote from: sdp

Quote from: neXusWhich is fading fast, but the point being

Uh, no. In the we hate m$ club maybe. In business enviroments FF has maybe 1/50,000 users. FF is too sh*t to be anything more than a backup browser on the rare occasion when IE screws up. Its no better than IE 99% of the time for people who only use OWA or ebay or google and does nothing to justify the time spent installing/supporting a 2nd browser.

Sorry but this just screams of no clue ^

Id say hes right

There is no out of the box control for firefox in group policy, active directory domains being the most popular form of office group networking. Therefore it will never replace IE in business environments.

And - another thing - a lot of bespoke applications that the likes of call centres never run right in firefox. Yes they might be badly written, but that doesnt matter one damn.

Ours at plusnet does, id say probably 90% of us use it.

Well the sheer different people downloading ff3 shows that more of MS market share will be going.

Quote from: neXusWell the sheer different people downloading ff3 shows that more of MS market share will be going.

No it doesnt.

It means a bunch of fanbois wanted to get firefox as a world record holder and decided to download it as many times as possible.

Even I downloaded it, but I dont use it except in cases where I come across a damn annoying "designed for firefox" sticker that really means "I am a twat, and cant code websites for sh*t, because I do not take account of cross-browser compatibility".

Quote from: M3ta7h3adEven I downloaded it, but I dont use it except in cases where I come across a damn annoying "designed for firefox" sticker that really means "I am a twat, and cant code websites for sh*t, because I do not take account of cross-browser compatibility".

Have you got an example of one of these? Ive never seen one in my tinterweb travels.

Quote from: M3ta7h3ad

Quote from: neXusWell the sheer different people downloading ff3 shows that more of MS market share will be going.

No it doesnt.

It means a bunch of fanbois wanted to get firefox as a world record holder and decided to download it as many times as possible.

Even I downloaded it, but I dont use it except in cases where I come across a damn annoying "designed for firefox" sticker that really means "I am a twat, and cant code websites for sh*t, because I do not take account of cross-browser compatibility".

You really crack me up, of all you say about me,   :rofl:
To be an official record your above statement is NOT the case. Basically what you again think is wrong.

I am with Nige, i would like to see the designed for firefox sticker. I have seen the stupid IE only ones which says "I am a twat and can not code for web standards"
Making things up as you do is one thing but then taking what is and reversing it just to do your moaning is even worse, lol.

Admittedly the other day I had a forbidden planet newsletter/email sent to me and it said that if you were viewing the mail in firefox you needed to right click this banner and choose view image to see it at the proper size...

Quote from: zpyderAdmittedly the other day I had a forbidden planet newsletter/email sent to me and it said that if you were viewing the mail in firefox you needed to right click this banner and choose view image to see it at the proper size...

Thats the thing metal is being backwards, Yes IE has the market share but it does not mean its the best browser and its the worse off in terms of standards compliance and is terrable in the acid tests - Opera and FF Are way more compliant and better in the acid tests with 100% in version 2 and high 70s in version 3.
IE8 will have standards compliance but not as default, you will have to switch it from the silly IE 7/8  hybrid.
Mac is growing in its userbase as well and no IE for that, Saf, ff and Opera and camila work.
IE 5.5 even beats 6 and 7 in acid test 3 basically more standards compliance then both of those two so MS have gone backwards and again considering how important this is now in terms of rendering engines and how fast you can make your site load being standards compliance as well as how it is basically essential if you want good search engine responses and web traffic as well as the actual code and design benefits IE is utter sh*te in that respect.

Then I could go on about JavaScript and its use on modern sites in the form of ajax and the very good frameworks out there and IE in terms of safety over other browsers and how you have many with IE still turning off or having JavaScript off which basically kills a lot of the internet for them but do so to feel safe while FF and more over Opera are fine in this regard but then for extra you have things like no script but the new in built features of FF3 are dam good.

FF 3.1 is even better.

I ignored it at first but got to laugh about metal moaning about the downloads and what the downloads are followed by how he downloaded it but does not basically use it  :rofl:

.

Quote from: M3ta7h3adOne really sodding irritating example: http://dcgrendel.thewaffleiron.net/vmbuilder/2.02/

Have you ever considered the fact that (that) website needs to display properly regardless of operating system? Last time I wrote websites for IE you would need to call an MS-only ActiveX/DirectDraw control to do fade-in-fade-out effect that website does, if you were coding for IE.

I think youre sorely misguided on the reasons behind the designed for banner in this instance, M3ta7. Its about spreading openness, instead of helping MS lock people into their software.

But yes, FF does need a way to be easily deployed in large corporate enviroments. In Red Hat you can do this fairly easily, but not Windows yet.

Quote from: skidzilla

Quote from: M3ta7h3adOne really sodding irritating example: http://dcgrendel.thewaffleiron.net/vmbuilder/2.02/

Have you ever considered the fact that (that) website needs to display properly regardless of operating system? Last time I wrote websites for IE you would need to call an MS-only ActiveX/DirectDraw control to do fade-in-fade-out effect that website does, if you were coding for IE.

I think youre sorely misguided on the reasons behind the designed for banner in this instance, M3ta7. Its about spreading openness, instead of helping MS lock people into their software.

But yes, FF does need a way to be easily deployed in large corporate enviroments. In Red Hat you can do this fairly easily, but not Windows yet.

Im for spreading openness, designing for one particular browser is poor design. The "designed for" logo may have been intended to spread openness, but ultimately it gives poor web developers a shield to hide behind.

There should be no need to specify what browser your site was intended for viewing in. It should just work.

The term is "web developer" not "IE developer" or "FireFox developer".

Regardless of OS... typically any linux browser (aside from lynx :D) has been designed using the mozilla framework.

Quote from: M3ta7h3ad

Quote from: skidzilla

Quote from: M3ta7h3adOne really sodding irritating example: http://dcgrendel.thewaffleiron.net/vmbuilder/2.02/

Have you ever considered the fact that (that) website needs to display properly regardless of operating system? Last time I wrote websites for IE you would need to call an MS-only ActiveX/DirectDraw control to do fade-in-fade-out effect that website does, if you were coding for IE.

I think youre sorely misguided on the reasons behind the designed for banner in this instance, M3ta7. Its about spreading openness, instead of helping MS lock people into their software.

But yes, FF does need a way to be easily deployed in large corporate enviroments. In Red Hat you can do this fairly easily, but not Windows yet.

Im for spreading openness, designing for one particular browser is poor design. The "designed for" logo may have been intended to spread openness, but ultimately it gives poor web developers a shield to hide behind.

There should be no need to specify what browser your site was intended for viewing in. It should just work.

The term is "web developer" not "IE developer" or "FireFox developer".

Regardless of OS... typically any linux browser (aside from lynx :D) has been designed using the mozilla framework.

Konqueror, Opera, Galeon? :P I have used lynx (:D) in framebuffer (GUI) mode once or twice as well. :P

Also: I think it the end its about poking MS with enough sticks that in the end they got up off their arse and adhere to standards, instead of buying off committees ( theODF/XML farce for example).

Quote from: skidzilla

Quote from: M3ta7h3ad

Quote from: skidzilla

Quote from: M3ta7h3adOne really sodding irritating example: http://dcgrendel.thewaffleiron.net/vmbuilder/2.02/

Have you ever considered the fact that (that) website needs to display properly regardless of operating system? Last time I wrote websites for IE you would need to call an MS-only ActiveX/DirectDraw control to do fade-in-fade-out effect that website does, if you were coding for IE.

I think youre sorely misguided on the reasons behind the designed for banner in this instance, M3ta7. Its about spreading openness, instead of helping MS lock people into their software.

But yes, FF does need a way to be easily deployed in large corporate enviroments. In Red Hat you can do this fairly easily, but not Windows yet.

Im for spreading openness, designing for one particular browser is poor design. The "designed for" logo may have been intended to spread openness, but ultimately it gives poor web developers a shield to hide behind.

There should be no need to specify what browser your site was intended for viewing in. It should just work.

The term is "web developer" not "IE developer" or "FireFox developer".

Regardless of OS... typically any linux browser (aside from lynx :D) has been designed using the mozilla framework.

Konqueror, Opera, Galeon? :P I have used lynx (:D) in framebuffer (GUI) mode once or twice as well. :P

lol good point I clearly couldnt see the wood for the trees this morning :)

And omg... framebuffer mode lynx  :rock: :D

Quote from: M3ta7h3adOne really sodding irritating example: http://dcgrendel.thewaffleiron.net/vmbuilder/2.02/

I came across it months back, there was a more recent one that I found as well but cant remember the url nor what the topic was as like the above in IE it displayed nothing other than the designed for firefox logo.

As for the downloads? Did you actually look at the numbers of pledges made? something in the region of 500,000 when I looked.

500,000 != 8,000,000

You know as well as I do that downloading and masking your trail is easy enough. If people want to skew a poll on a website, theyll do it. If its on something as fanboi-esque as firefox, you can bet your bottom dollar a bunch of people would do it.

What you dont know is does every one of the 8 million downloads constitute a record breaking one? No... I didnt say that either, what I said is that people will download firefox repeatedly, believing they are helping it get a world record.

Maybe its my turn to say "read the post".

Appears im not the only one getting irritated by it.

http://blog.keithsilgard.com/2008/05/07/designed-for-firefox/

LOL,
So even though it is being audited and Guinness are looking at the data to make it official you still will not believe it when it comes back because you know better?

The site you linked does not load for me But yur again basically moaning about sites that comply with full web standards which includes css validation which although those standards are there and work in other browsers they will not run in IE.
Do not get me started in regard to vistas rendering issues.

As for the read the post comment I fully well know what you said and again the fact that the data is properly being audited and the official figure will go out and go into the guiness book of records and it DOES NOT count someone repeatability downloading it ^^

I could very easily link loads of bad sites - bbc as a good example with the first version of the iplayer and how they got slated big style as it only worked in IE as well as other high profile sites.

That last link has a point but then he says IE sucks because it does and actually goes against a number of things you have said here yet you linked it, But then he is wrong because if you want to make a site fully validate it will NOT work in IE.


Code you have to do...
http://www.lockergnome.com/news/2004/06/15/why-you-should-dump-internet-explorer/











































DO not see Opera or FF in the detection elements you have to do to get it to look right in all sites, You even have to whack in needless overflows in your css because of IE being dumb.
Anyone and ALL of us can link sites as you done here to "show" our point to be the right one like this..

http://www.lockergnome.com/news/2004/06/15/why-you-should-dump-internet-explorer/
http://www.jeffwu.net/?p=204
http://www.slayerment.com/blog/damn-you-ie-internet-explorer-worst-freaking-browser-ever

But not a valid way to make a point and you havent, actual coding, standards and what it actually means to properly develop websties and web technologies - IE has to many faults and problems, I could go on and on in regard to the rendering engine and background flicker for example and more.

Metal You really do just not read things, make things up and twist and turn what you say just to have a go at a topic or person that you have a problem with, really is bizarre.

Quote from: M3ta7h3adThere should be no need to specify what browser your site was intended for viewing in. It should just work.

Grats on basically arguing against yourself again  :rofl:
You link something to support yourself and comment yourself in regard to making sites work for IE and then you say this later on which from my above post proves the point that You make sites working under many OS and other browsers but then have to have conditional css to make it work in IE basically putting down your own comments.
Make your mind up

Quote from: M3ta7h3adLets not forget the browser with the largest market share is still IE.

Just like to point something out.

IE only has the largest market share cus MS monopolised the software market, and bill gates view was put to a pc in every home.

Thus i think its quite obvious why IE has the largest market share. If Firefox had been packaged under Windows OS it would have been the opposite.

For firefox to get 8 Million downloads in a few days is incredible, believe it or not.

All i know is Firefox > IE over page loading and security, or thats the way it seems to me.

Quote from: skidzillaBut yes, FF does need a way to be easily deployed in large corporate enviroments. In Red Hat you can do this fairly easily, but not Windows yet.

build a .MSI file and push it out using Server 2003/2008?  or just build it into the company image.  Ive used the latter myself, and I know of a large IT company who has pushed it out to all their XP workstations...

Quote from: neXus

Quote from: M3ta7h3adOne really sodding irritating example: http://dcgrendel.thewaffleiron.net/vmbuilder/2.02/

I came across it months back, there was a more recent one that I found as well but cant remember the url nor what the topic was as like the above in IE it displayed nothing other than the designed for firefox logo.

As for the downloads? Did you actually look at the numbers of pledges made? something in the region of 500,000 when I looked.

500,000 != 8,000,000

You know as well as I do that downloading and masking your trail is easy enough. If people want to skew a poll on a website, theyll do it. If its on something as fanboi-esque as firefox, you can bet your bottom dollar a bunch of people would do it.

What you dont know is does every one of the 8 million downloads constitute a record breaking one? No... I didnt say that either, what I said is that people will download firefox repeatedly, believing they are helping it get a world record.

Maybe its my turn to say "read the post".

Appears im not the only one getting irritated by it.

http://blog.keithsilgard.com/2008/05/07/designed-for-firefox/

LOL,
So even though it is being audited and Guinness are looking at the data to make it official you still will not believe it when it comes back because you know better?

The site you linked does not load for me But yur again basically moaning about sites that comply with full web standards which includes css validation which although those standards are there and work in other browsers they will not run in IE.
Do not get me started in regard to vistas rendering issues.

As for the read the post comment I fully well know what you said and again the fact that the data is properly being audited and the official figure will go out and go into the guiness book of records and it DOES NOT count someone repeatability downloading it ^^

I could very easily link loads of bad sites - bbc as a good example with the first version of the iplayer and how they got slated big style as it only worked in IE as well as other high profile sites.

That last link has a point but then he says IE sucks because it does and actually goes against a number of things you have said here yet you linked it, But then he is wrong because if you want to make a site fully validate it will NOT work in IE.


Code you have to do...
http://www.lockergnome.com/news/2004/06/15/why-you-should-dump-internet-explorer/

Code Select Expand











































DO not see Opera or FF in the detection elements you have to do to get it to look right in all sites, You even have to whack in needless overflows in your css because of IE being dumb.
Anyone and ALL of us can link sites as you done here to "show" our point to be the right one like this..

http://www.lockergnome.com/news/2004/06/15/why-you-should-dump-internet-explorer/
http://www.jeffwu.net/?p=204
http://www.slayerment.com/blog/damn-you-ie-internet-explorer-worst-freaking-browser-ever

But not a valid way to make a point and you havent, actual coding, standards and what it actually means to properly develop websties and web technologies - IE has to many faults and problems, I could go on and on in regard to the rendering engine and background flicker for example and more.

Metal You really do just not read things, make things up and twist and turn what you say just to have a go at a topic or person that you have a problem with, really is bizarre.

.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------nexus

What is the point of coding to "standards" when the largest market share (bacon well done for pointing out the obvious, it doesnt change a thing however) browser fails to display it.

Its effectively: "im going to cut off my nose to spite my face"

Just to hammer the nail home.

Nexus please do correct me if im wrong, but what I see from your ranting is that you approve of only standardised code and suggest that to take account of a browsers limitations is foolish, as its not your website that doesnt work, its the browser.

Great, but Ill be sure to not recommend you for any web design jobs that come my way, because to fail to cater for the majority of internet users means that businesses will effectively lose the custom of those users.

My point is that as a web developer, I would expect you to put in workarounds, to develop alternate views and to do the necessary leg work so that my company can be seen by as large a footprint as possible. Standards just dont cut the mustard Mr Jobsworth.

I would expect you to adhere to W3C guidelines on accessibility
I would expect valid XHTML.
I would expect the necessary additional work for the site to display in whatever browser I so choose, or at the very least a big selection of them.

Just as much as I would expect you to develop for any and all screen resolutions.

It comes with the job.

My gripe is that sh*t web designers (you seem to be putting yourself firmly in this basket by your own admission) hide behind the words "standards compliant" and "designed for" badges, believing it to be an excuse for poor code.

As for 8 million, if thats the fully ratified total that guiness world records recognise has no duplicates in, so be it.

A little while ago when I quoted large responses a certain person with the name starting M3 Moaned and threw some insults my way and we have the above, funny that.

QuoteWhat is the point of coding to "standards" when the largest market share (bacon well done for pointing out the obvious, it doesnt change a thing however) browser fails to display it.

I could Go into great detail but basically you just show you not got a clue about the field your trying to contribute to so why bother?
I mean search alone and business and marketing in terms of your appearance on the web and search engines, standards are VITAL, NOT your meta tags, lol.

QuoteIts effectively: "im going to cut off my nose to spite my face"

Err, NO!  :rofl:

QuoteNexus please do correct me if im wrong, but what I see from your ranting is that you approve of only standardised code and suggest that to take account of a browsers limitations is foolish, as its not your website that doesnt work, its the browser.

Your wrong

QuoteGreat, but Ill be sure to not recommend you for any web design jobs that come my way, because to fail to cater for the majority of internet users means that businesses will effectively lose the custom of those users.

LOL ^ Has no Clue, Funny How I got this very good job I am in now that SteveF insisted I would not get and could not get paid this amount of money for because Of What I can do, this is one of the leading web development companies in New Zealand and they ONLY code in strict XHTML.
Really, Far to much I could go into why your wrong M3ta7h3ad, the reason I am not is simply because your so wrong I could do 2,3 pages of posts on why you are and others can as well like they have only just touched on.

QuoteMy point is that as a web developer, I would expect you to put in workarounds, to develop alternate views and to do the necessary leg work so that my company can be seen by as large a footprint as possible. Standards just dont cut the mustard Mr Jobsworth.

Funny how I showed above that I do but how IE is CRAP because you have to, but you seem to have ignored or not understand what was shown to you.
Sorry but I have to Laugh at you really hard if you think standards are meaningless, that really and honestly a really really dumb thing to say.

QuoteI would expect you to adhere to W3C guidelines on accessibility
I would expect valid XHTML.

Going back on what some of the things you say and say about IE, LOL>

QuoteI would expect the necessary additional work for the site to display in whatever browser I so choose, or at the very least a big selection of them.

Leading off the chain of discussion, again you ignoring or twisting even your own responses to reply to what comes you way.

QuoteJust as much as I would expect you to develop for any and all screen resolutions.

Which goes into contradiction with..

QuoteI would expect you to adhere to W3C guidelines on accessibility

IF you knew what they were actually saying at the moment, Are you a registered member of W3C and the web standards group like myself? I doubt you are.

QuoteMy gripe is that sh*t web designers (you seem to be putting yourself firmly in this basket by your own admission)

Nope, You though have shown a massive lack of real understanding about web design and development and I am not the only one (msn ftw) agreeing that your way off the ball and until your attitude changes its you on the lower end because your basically shooting yourself in the foot in this thread in a big way.

Quotehide behind the words "standards compliant" and "designed for" badges, believing it to be an excuse for poor code.

SORRY BUT AGAIN  :rofl:  :rofl:  Saying standards and poor code in the same sentence, sorry M3ta7h3ad but honestly this is just a massive "I HAVE NO CLUE" post yet again, as I said I can prove you wrong very easily and others will agree I am sure but it will just be from start to finish and take a while, basically it would be like introducing someone to the web from uni to a standard to be a good developer and designer. Next you will be saying people should still have javascript turned off.

QuoteAs for 8 million, if thats the fully ratified total that guiness world records recognise has no duplicates in, so be it.

Took what? 3/4 attempts to get this drilled into your head what was ACTUALLY going on  :rofl:

Let me just list a couple of bits in official web standards profile..

Quote# Accessibility
# Usability

Then lets look at what you said

Every time standards is mentioned I know you do not know what it actually means and what your thinking is very wrong. I am not thinking your an idiot here, I really am pissed off how you attack people on this forum often wrongly like others and that is idiotic as its often meaningless attacks but here I just know you do not actually know enough and you just need to learn a lot more, what gets me is your arrogance and attitude here, I think the problem is again its nexus so your a bit blinded and more interested in just putting anything I post down even when your very wrong.

Just thought i would point out:

QuoteFirefox 3 Hits 17.3 Million Downloads

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,147422-c,mozilla/article.html

Quote from: neXusA little while ago when I quoted large responses a certain person with the name starting M3 Moaned and threw some insults my way and we have the above, funny that.

QuoteWhat is the point of coding to "standards" when the largest market share (bacon well done for pointing out the obvious, it doesnt change a thing however) browser fails to display it.

I could Go into great detail but basically you just show you not got a clue about the field your trying to contribute to so why bother?
I mean search alone and business and marketing in terms of your appearance on the web and search engines, standards are VITAL, NOT your meta tags, lol.

QuoteIts effectively: "im going to cut off my nose to spite my face"

Err, NO!  :rofl:

QuoteNexus please do correct me if im wrong, but what I see from your ranting is that you approve of only standardised code and suggest that to take account of a browsers limitations is foolish, as its not your website that doesnt work, its the browser.

Your wrong

QuoteGreat, but Ill be sure to not recommend you for any web design jobs that come my way, because to fail to cater for the majority of internet users means that businesses will effectively lose the custom of those users.

LOL ^ Has no Clue, Funny How I got this very good job I am in now that SteveF insisted I would not get and could not get paid this amount of money for because Of What I can do, this is one of the leading web development companies in New Zealand and they ONLY code in strict XHTML.
Really, Far to much I could go into why your wrong M3ta7h3ad, the reason I am not is simply because your so wrong I could do 2,3 pages of posts on why you are and others can as well like they have only just touched on.

QuoteMy point is that as a web developer, I would expect you to put in workarounds, to develop alternate views and to do the necessary leg work so that my company can be seen by as large a footprint as possible. Standards just dont cut the mustard Mr Jobsworth.

Funny how I showed above that I do but how IE is CRAP because you have to, but you seem to have ignored or not understand what was shown to you.
Sorry but I have to Laugh at you really hard if you think standards are meaningless, that really and honestly a really really dumb thing to say.

QuoteI would expect you to adhere to W3C guidelines on accessibility
I would expect valid XHTML.

Going back on what some of the things you say and say about IE, LOL>

QuoteI would expect the necessary additional work for the site to display in whatever browser I so choose, or at the very least a big selection of them.

Leading off the chain of discussion, again you ignoring or twisting even your own responses to reply to what comes you way.

QuoteJust as much as I would expect you to develop for any and all screen resolutions.

Which goes into contradiction with..

QuoteI would expect you to adhere to W3C guidelines on accessibility

IF you knew what they were actually saying at the moment, Are you a registered member of W3C and the web standards group like myself? I doubt you are.

QuoteMy gripe is that sh*t web designers (you seem to be putting yourself firmly in this basket by your own admission)

Nope, You though have shown a massive lack of real understanding about web design and development and I am not the only one (msn ftw) agreeing that your way off the ball and until your attitude changes its you on the lower end because your basically shooting yourself in the foot in this thread in a big way.

Quotehide behind the words "standards compliant" and "designed for" badges, believing it to be an excuse for poor code.

SORRY BUT AGAIN  :rofl:  :rofl:  Saying standards and poor code in the same sentence, sorry M3ta7h3ad but honestly this is just a massive "I HAVE NO CLUE" post yet again, as I said I can prove you wrong very easily and others will agree I am sure but it will just be from start to finish and take a while, basically it would be like introducing someone to the web from uni to a standard to be a good developer and designer. Next you will be saying people should still have javascript turned off.

QuoteAs for 8 million, if thats the fully ratified total that guiness world records recognise has no duplicates in, so be it.

Took what? 3/4 attempts to get this drilled into your head what was ACTUALLY going on  :rofl:

Let me just list a couple of bits in official web standards profile..

Quote# Accessibility
# Usability

Then lets look at what you said

Every time standards is mentioned I know you do not know what it actually means and what your thinking is very wrong. I am not thinking your an idiot here, I really am pissed off how you attack people on this forum often wrongly like others and that is idiotic as its often meaningless attacks but here I just know you do not actually know enough and you just need to learn a lot more, what gets me is your arrogance and attitude here, I think the problem is again its nexus so your a bit blinded and more interested in just putting anything I post down even when your very wrong.

So where is the correction? All I see are retorts against what Ive suggested, not any actual content. Just "no" "wrong" "me and my secret army (msn 4tl)".

When you start posting actual content Ill see fit to respond.

Could you please explain how coding for any and all screen resolutions contravenes anything about the W3C accessibility guidelines? Hmm... because yes obviously developing a site to adapt to screen resolutions completely rules out using browser detection techniques to display content appropriately.

cross-platform code doesnt rule out standards at all.

Bacon: Well done for firefox.

Nexus: I suggest you re-read my first post in this thread.

My post simply states my opinion on something, its a device currently part of no formal HTML standard, and firefox supports it. It will lead to more incompatibilities with IE and other major browsers Id imagine, and it will introduce the "homestead" effect to most newbie web developers.

Its an opinion. Lose the vitriol, none of this at all is targeted at you in a particularly personal way.

QuoteBacon: Well done for firefox

Im still waiting for you to remind the forum again, that IE has the biggest market share.

I did state the obvious in my other post.

Its not well done for me its well done for Mozilla  :heehaw:

M3ta7h3ad  Being honest and serious I am laughing at you because yes you are massively wrong But I am pissed how you treat people here especially me which is wrong so that comes over.
BUT, You can have your opinion that is cool but you did more in this thread then this making many errors and many again just because you do not like me you did not read posts properly.
Honestly you are wrong, But its sooo much in the wrong in terms of what you think the web is, development, what it means and what standards are and what they mean (because you say "pah" to standards yet refer to elements of them as being essential at the same time for example) It would just be far to long to explain to you and to get you up to speed.
I just been put in the hot seat 4 weeks into my work to design the new University (more then one in the country) that is from 2 that are merging and to do the site design and be one of the guys that will then develop it. This is a MASSIVE site with different development stages and more And I am bricking it already as its a LOT of money yet the boss feels I am the man for the job.

If you honestly willing to read up I can give you some really cool stuff to read up if you really want to learn about it more But it is a lot you seem to need to get clued up on in regard to this. As I said just search engines alone if your below par on some basic standards you know google will NOT list you as just one example of what it all means.

I am beginning to wonder if the FSM blessed you with eyes.

Quotecross-platform code doesnt rule out standards at all.

Doesnt exactly say "pah to standards"

Just for emphasis...

Quotecross-platform code doesnt rule out standards at all.

Quotecross-platform code doesnt rule out standards at all.

Quotecross-platform code doesnt rule out standards at all.

Quotecross-platform code doesnt rule out standards at all.

Quotecross-platform code doesnt rule out standards at all.

Quotecross-platform code doesnt rule out standards at all.

Quotecross-platform code doesnt rule out standards at all.

ok, Time to end it now since your just determined to be rather childish. Your selective reading, backtracking and adjustments to match responses (which makes you contradict yourself ^^ ) Etc is rather boring now.

If you want to quote what you say

QuoteWhat is the point of coding to "standards" when the largest market share (bacon well done for pointing out the obvious, it doesnt change a thing however) browser fails to display it.

And then the is all the other stuff you said, anyone and everyone can just look at your posts and see it all, unless you go and edit your posts or remove them it is rather obvious M3ta7h3ad so there is not even any point trying to hide etc from it all.

Your misjudged on the subject and do not fully understand it - So what, that is not a big issue, its all the crap you have said on top of it and the way you have done so as mentioned. With all the stuff you say about me and your constantly doing these things at the moment, quite hypercritical, wrong and lots of double standards on your part.

Oh, forgot, to just drill in the sh*teness of IE and to continue to bring the points home
Google have made something the dogs bollucks.

QuoteIE7 is a JavaScript library to make Microsoft Internet Explorer behave like a standards-compliant browser. It fixes many HTML and CSS issues and makes transparent PNG work correctly under IE5 and IE6.

Like google? They are saying this, want to argue with what google things with IE? Search google Developers and IE and see all the comments, goes agaisnt all your thinking even further, as I said You can just go on and on and on to show how wrong in your thinking you are.
The PNG fix has been around for a while but this is a great big improvement.

There is some discussion with developers about the workings on this, Not sure what MS will do but there is talk of even more big security flaws in IE then initially thought with IE. As everyone knows in terms of malicious JS IE is the most vulnerable and while this fix is WICKED in terms of development its also a big concern

This thread moved from an announcement of firefox, to discussion of new features its supporting, to me saying supporting the new features is dangerous (which it is in this case), to a random browser cockfight, then moved to nexus completely missing the point.

Quotecross-platform code doesnt rule out standards at all.

Paraphrased for nexus: If you want to code to standards, brilliant, however blindly coding to standards and nothing else is dangerous especially when that standard isnt fully supported by (ugh) "the largest market share".

As a web developer I will expect you to use either cross-platform standard tags that are supported, or to put in workarounds to display the webpage as you intended for other browsers.

QuoteWhat is the point of coding to "standards" when the largest market share (bacon well done for pointing out the obvious, it doesnt change a thing however) browser fails to display it.

Re-iterating the point. Asking you what is the benefit of coding strictly to standards when the majority of your prospective audience will not be able to view it?

Answer: None.

My suggestion to you: Code to standards, theyre great, but do it blindly at your peril. You MUST take account of cross-platform issues if you expect to be taken seriously in the web development arena.

2nd suggestion: Stop harping on about unrelated bollocks.

Response to your latest post:
Great, except running JS despite it being developed by google, could open up some nasty holes, as you suggest. Think Ill take my IE7, and run firefox on the odd occasion when sites just screw up in IE because they were coded by idiots.

Disclaimer:
All comments used in this post hold no reference to any person or persons alive or dead. Any similarity with any person or persons alive or dead is unintentional.

Just to dig up the almost dead thread...

Firefox 3...seems ok, though slightly less stable than FF2 Ive found. Seems the plugin support install at the start was quite cool, until it turns out a lot of the video plugins werent installed or werent installed properly. Some crashes occur as a result of trying to watch some videos in FF3 now.

Also occasionally the Awesomebar decides to no longer work, requiring a restart of firefox before I can type in addresses and go to new pages that way...

Quote from: zpyderJust to dig up the almost dead thread...

Firefox 3...seems ok, though slightly less stable than FF2 Ive found. Seems the plugin support install at the start was quite cool, until it turns out a lot of the video plugins werent installed or werent installed properly. Some crashes occur as a result of trying to watch some videos in FF3 now.

Also occasionally the Awesomebar decides to no longer work, requiring a restart of firefox before I can type in addresses and go to new pages that way...

This sounds one of those install issues with any browser or software tbh, googling this is not a common problem, I would try backing up your profile cleaning FF3, making sure FF2 is off and reinstall, I bet all is well then.

Quote from: zpyderJust to dig up the almost dead thread...

Firefox 3...seems ok, though slightly less stable than FF2 Ive found. Seems the plugin support install at the start was quite cool, until it turns out a lot of the video plugins werent installed or werent installed properly. Some crashes occur as a result of trying to watch some videos in FF3 now.

Also occasionally the Awesomebar decides to no longer work, requiring a restart of firefox before I can type in addresses and go to new pages that way...

Id be inclined to agree with this. Firefox 3 seems faster but less stable than 2, with more frequent crashes and I too am seeing the awesomebar locking up on occasion, along with the back/forward/reload/stop/home buttons.

I imagine itll get sorted very soon though so Im not overly concerned.

Quote from: Chris H

Quote from: zpyderJust to dig up the almost dead thread...

Firefox 3...seems ok, though slightly less stable than FF2 Ive found. Seems the plugin support install at the start was quite cool, until it turns out a lot of the video plugins werent installed or werent installed properly. Some crashes occur as a result of trying to watch some videos in FF3 now.

Also occasionally the Awesomebar decides to no longer work, requiring a restart of firefox before I can type in addresses and go to new pages that way...

Id be inclined to agree with this. Firefox 3 seems faster but less stable than 2, with more frequent crashes and I too am seeing the awesomebar locking up on occasion, along with the back/forward/reload/stop/home buttons.

I imagine itll get sorted very soon though so Im not overly concerned.

Reports of this on the firefox site, it is to do with the installation over firefox 2. A clean install apperently sorts the issues, its actually old ff2 files causing you problems

Quote from: neXus

Quote from: Chris H

Quote from: zpyderJust to dig up the almost dead thread...

Firefox 3...seems ok, though slightly less stable than FF2 Ive found. Seems the plugin support install at the start was quite cool, until it turns out a lot of the video plugins werent installed or werent installed properly. Some crashes occur as a result of trying to watch some videos in FF3 now.

Also occasionally the Awesomebar decides to no longer work, requiring a restart of firefox before I can type in addresses and go to new pages that way...

Id be inclined to agree with this. Firefox 3 seems faster but less stable than 2, with more frequent crashes and I too am seeing the awesomebar locking up on occasion, along with the back/forward/reload/stop/home buttons.

I imagine itll get sorted very soon though so Im not overly concerned.

Reports of this on the firefox site, it is to do with the installation over firefox 2. A clean install apperently sorts the issues, its actually old ff2 files causing you problems

Firefox was installed over a "clean" system with no traces of Firefox 2.

Quote from: Chris H

Quote from: neXus

Quote from: Chris H

Quote from: zpyderJust to dig up the almost dead thread...

Firefox 3...seems ok, though slightly less stable than FF2 Ive found. Seems the plugin support install at the start was quite cool, until it turns out a lot of the video plugins werent installed or werent installed properly. Some crashes occur as a result of trying to watch some videos in FF3 now.

Also occasionally the Awesomebar decides to no longer work, requiring a restart of firefox before I can type in addresses and go to new pages that way...

Id be inclined to agree with this. Firefox 3 seems faster but less stable than 2, with more frequent crashes and I too am seeing the awesomebar locking up on occasion, along with the back/forward/reload/stop/home buttons.

I imagine itll get sorted very soon though so Im not overly concerned.

Reports of this on the firefox site, it is to do with the installation over firefox 2. A clean install apperently sorts the issues, its actually old ff2 files causing you problems

Firefox was installed over a "clean" system with no traces of Firefox 2.

Ooh, dunnu then, At work FF is using well over half the memory after the same time and things are running way way faster for me and loving the security feature, is working well saying NO to sites.