BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,002
- 126
First of all, here are the browser tests somebody asked for. Sorry it's not in English and it's all I could find on such short notice but I think the results are plain as day. Mozilla is certainly not winning any rendering awards. Also note the IE6's rendering engine is better in almost every way to IE 5.x's.
Then again, you really have nothing at all to back up your technical claims.
Guess again. Also I've read/participated in a number of posts in various forums about crusher style rendering speed tests and IE always came out on top with speed and accuracy.
But you said all other browsers are "trash", which gives you zero credibility.
You're right, that probably was a bit over the top. I should have simply said "overall IE is better than the other browsers in terms of accuracy and speed".
it's separate from the page rendering performance issue.
Yes it is which is why I wonder why you even bothered bringing it up in the first place since I was talking about rendering speed, not application launch times or memory use.
There was a test called the "Acid Box Test" or something to that effect that showed how correctly the browser worked.
And I've seen tests of real world pages which contradict what you're saying. Also screaming "it's more standards compliant and it's the coder's fault that the page doesn't work" really doesn't mean dick when my page is loading fine under IE but yours isn't under Mozilla.
How do you know what they are supposed to look like?
Because the poster who starts the thread shows a screenshot of the correct layout and then lets everyone with every browser check both the rendering times and the rendering accuracy. In all of the cases I've seen in the forums scattered over the web IE has always come out on top.
IE just allows for more mistakes where Mozilla is more strict, just because it allows you to be lazy or stupid doesen't mean it's better
It most certainly does mean it's better because it's friendlier for development plus you spend more time reading correctly rendered web pages than you do debugging someone else's code.
making IE's load time a lot less, where as other browsers have to load all their DLLs at launch time making it take longer.
I'll explain it again: I was talking about the rendering speed of the page, not the application load time.
It's a known fact that IE allows sh!t HTML to render without errors.
And that obviously gives it an advantage because it means more pages are likely to render correctly on it than on the other browsers. And as far as users go, that's exactly what they want.
Then again, you really have nothing at all to back up your technical claims.
Guess again. Also I've read/participated in a number of posts in various forums about crusher style rendering speed tests and IE always came out on top with speed and accuracy.
But you said all other browsers are "trash", which gives you zero credibility.
You're right, that probably was a bit over the top. I should have simply said "overall IE is better than the other browsers in terms of accuracy and speed".
it's separate from the page rendering performance issue.
Yes it is which is why I wonder why you even bothered bringing it up in the first place since I was talking about rendering speed, not application launch times or memory use.
There was a test called the "Acid Box Test" or something to that effect that showed how correctly the browser worked.
And I've seen tests of real world pages which contradict what you're saying. Also screaming "it's more standards compliant and it's the coder's fault that the page doesn't work" really doesn't mean dick when my page is loading fine under IE but yours isn't under Mozilla.
How do you know what they are supposed to look like?
Because the poster who starts the thread shows a screenshot of the correct layout and then lets everyone with every browser check both the rendering times and the rendering accuracy. In all of the cases I've seen in the forums scattered over the web IE has always come out on top.
IE just allows for more mistakes where Mozilla is more strict, just because it allows you to be lazy or stupid doesen't mean it's better
It most certainly does mean it's better because it's friendlier for development plus you spend more time reading correctly rendered web pages than you do debugging someone else's code.
making IE's load time a lot less, where as other browsers have to load all their DLLs at launch time making it take longer.
I'll explain it again: I was talking about the rendering speed of the page, not the application load time.
It's a known fact that IE allows sh!t HTML to render without errors.
And that obviously gives it an advantage because it means more pages are likely to render correctly on it than on the other browsers. And as far as users go, that's exactly what they want.
Facebook
Twitter