POLL- Internet Explorer, are you still using it?

[meltdown75]

i use IE. i also run ccleaner, adaware and spybot regularly just to make sure there is no crap lingering. i'll make the switch to firefox if and when i ever encounter any problems, which i doubt will happen.

 

[Nothinman]

The faults of IE have nothing to do with this.

Of course not, you're only here to point out what you consider faults of FF. If FF doesn't support ActiveX it's a horrible bug but if IE doesn't support CSS2 it doesn't matter because IE is the defacto standard.

Saying it's a web designers fault for FF not rendering a site properly is ridiculous, and that is what I'm disputing.

And I assume it's Windows's fault if a program looks bad, because there's no chance it could be the software developer's fault.

I'm not a fanboy. You are. I don't stick by a company if I find something better, I switch in a heartbeat.

FF isn't corporate and hell I don't even use FF most of the time.

 

[Patt]

Originally posted by: Megatomic
I use IE and Mozilla. IE at home, Mozilla at work.

I'm the other way round ... mandated IE at work, Mozilla at home.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: drag
ActiveX is @ss. It's impossible to protect a webbrowser that supports it.

How is Mozilla's extension system inherently better? Aren't you still installing a third-party plug-in from a potentially unsavory vendor?

(Not trying to flame you. I'm curious about extension security)

 

[imthebadguy]

ffx for life

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Malak sounds like a guy on another website I go to. That guy tried to insist that IE was "the standard". :roll:

Then I am nothing like that guy. I think IE is garbage.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

The faults of IE have nothing to do with this.

Of course not, you're only here to point out what you consider faults of FF. If FF doesn't support ActiveX it's a horrible bug but if IE doesn't support CSS2 it doesn't matter because IE is the defacto standard.

It's not a bug, it's a lack of support. IE is not the standard, and that would also be a case of lack of support. You are still missing the point and I'm still waiting for you to admit you were wrong in the first place.

Saying it's a web designers fault for FF not rendering a site properly is ridiculous, and that is what I'm disputing.

And I assume it's Windows's fault if a program looks bad, because there's no chance it could be the software developer's fault.

If the software was developed wrong so it didn't look like it should, then it's clearly the fault of the developer. However, that is not the case here. They used activex correctly and designed it without code flaw, but the browser could not display it because it did not support it. Once again you are trying to point the blame on the web developer and not the browser. And once again I say, who cares how stupid activex is, it's still not the web developers fault the page cannot be displayed properly in FF. Admit it and end this.

 

[Nothinman]

It's not a bug, it's a lack of support

And it's not a fault because it's a design decision with virtually no bad side effects.

You are still missing the point and I'm still waiting for you to admit you were wrong in the first place.

I won't, because I'm not.

And once again I say, who cares how stupid activex is, it's still not the web developers fault the page cannot be displayed properly in FF. Admit it and end this.

Yes, it is the web developers fault, they chose to use something that they knew would not work in anything but IE.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

And once again I say, who cares how stupid activex is, it's still not the web developers fault the page cannot be displayed properly in FF. Admit it and end this.

Yes, it is the web developers fault, they chose to use something that they knew would not work in anything but IE.

You just aren't getting it. It's like blaming a game developer for not making a mac port. When 95% of the gamers don't use macs. IE is still the big boy in town, and people who code websites take it into consideration first and foremost. It's sound business practice. If a web developer sees fit to use something that only works in IE, they'll still hit most of the market. It's not their fault you use a browser that can't display it. You are clearly wrong, clearly. Give up. This is getting ridiculous. So ridiculous I'm not even going to bother trying anymore. Clearly delusional.

 

[Carazariah]

Firefox 1.0
Interesting idea It's not the Website Developers fault it's the Browser Application Developer. I always think of Website development being something of a total package. . . If you want to reach the widest audience possible then you test with multiple browsers and ensure the features and functionality you've created work and display in an acceptable manner for your target audience. If you create your website to be IE centric or Active X compliant then you have consciously chosen to exclude a certain portion of the general target audience. For example if you were targeting average World Internet user with a product or service, coding with Active X would probably be acceptable being that 90% of the market uses IE and your website would look and display correctly. If you were targeting high end tech users like those at Anandtech, this poll indicates you would be excluding 56+% currently of your target that of course would be unacceptable. Firefox is about choice. The greatest thing is the source is available. If you don't like the current development you can download the source and publish your own Firefox with Active X support . . . or more easily run IE or Opera or whatever you like. I don't think it's correct to blame xyz software developer for not displaying your website correctly. It's the web developer?s responsibility to make sure the site displays correctly for the target audience it's intended for.

So to sum up my thoughts although technically and job wise it wouldn't be a Web Developers fault their page doesn't display in Mozilla, Firefox whatever browser, it would be their responsibility since they are the ones who choose who to market and target their website. It is ultimately the Web developers decision to use Active X, Perl, CSS2, etc. . . If their page doesn't display correctly, generally the end user is calling you the Web Developer not Microsoft and not Mozilla.

Of course it's not Mozilla Firefox's fault they chose to exclude a security hazard from their application either so it's nobody's fault but it is the Web Developers responsiblity. After all it won't be Mozilla Firefox that is altering code to display Active X I dont' see it ever happening. But it will be Web Developers who choose their target audiences that will code their pages to display on the widest variety of browsers that are available.

C

 

[Malak]

But you have to take into consideration that alternative browsers aren't really mainstream yet, many internet users don't even know they exist, and everyone on a windows machine has IE.

 

[Nithin]

Originally posted by: Tarrant64

Originally posted by: Googer
I use mozilla products, except when doing windows update. Thats the only time IE is run on my machine.

Same here. IE for windows updates only.

 

[Nothinman]

You just aren't getting it. It's like blaming a game developer for not making a mac port. When 95% of the gamers don't use macs.

I do get it and that is a valid complaint for any game. id manages to do it, why can't others? If the choice had been made to not use DirectX a port would be simple, so yes it is most definately the fault of the game developer.

If a web developer sees fit to use something that only works in IE, they'll still hit most of the market.

And like any other closed source, corporate controlled product they've cornered themselves, if they do want to switch to something vendor neutral in the future it'll be that much harder because they chose, say, ActiveX over Java. Not that I'm a java fan either.

It's not their fault you use a browser that can't display it.

Of course it isn't, but it definately is their fault that their site doesn't work in other browsers.

But you have to take into consideration that alternative browsers aren't really mainstream yet, many internet users don't even know they exist, and everyone on a windows machine has IE.

Which is irrelevant. The Internet was designed to be vendor and technology neutral. Look at it, everything from TCP/IP to HTML to CSS are open standards that can be implemented freely by anyone. As long as developers stick to what's been designed to be open, they'll be fine. ActiveX controls on a website were one more attempt by MS to control the Internet because you essentially need a Win32 subsystem to run them, so even if FF wanted to implement them it would have to be an OS-specific feature and that would be bad because it would increase development overhead for them because now FF on Windows isn't the same as FF on anything else, have fun debugging that.

 

[hopejr]

I've developed a lot of websites, an at first I started developing for IE, because I thought "The other browsers suck coz they don't support the standard DOM that IE has." Then I found out that IE's DOM isn't standard, but has heaps of proprietary crap added on. Then, I found out that IE doesn't even support W3C standards properly anyway. From then on, I make a site standards compliant so that it works on all the compliant browsers, and then spend time tweaking it so that it doesn't break on those browsers but so that it actually works on IE. I wish M$ would do something about that because it's a waste of time trying to do this. I like to have my sites work on all browsers, because I know many people who don't use IE.
Nothing annoys me more than seeing a site that only works properly on IE.

 

[Nothinman]

So hopejr, as a web developer you would say that it is the fault of the developer if their page cannot be displayed in FF and not the user's fault for using FF?

 

[drag]

That's funny you mention developers choosing DirectX for games as a design error.

Take for example Unreal Tournament 2004. For Windows it's a DirectX game.

HOWEVER, you have a small handfull of people, or maybe even one guy that worked for Atari and ported UT2004 to libSDL for graphics and openAL for sound.

I think that's funny. It works just fine in Linux. LibSDL and OpenAL are completely cross-platform (works in Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, etc). The libraries are staticly linked to the game binaries so there is no need to worry about versioning. Performance is good, I regularly kick windows-user's rear-ends online. The installer was a breeze, if I run it as root it installs in /usr/local/games if I install it as a user i stick it in /home/drag/apps/

No problem, no sweat. Ran into a couple problems with beta updates, but other then that it is just as nice as libsdl/openal as it is in DirectX as far as I can tell. Most mods work with little issue, all the user-built maps download and run just fine... etc etc.

i know it's off topic, but it's interesting.

 

[dug777]

IE, 'cos its already there & i'm comfortable with the familiar setup (i did try firefox, but just preferred IE so went back, i personally couldn't see any advantages ), its easy to use, i almost never have probs loading sites, and really at the end of the day it's not something thats really worth getting worked up about...

 

[hopejr]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
So hopejr, as a web developer you would say that it is the fault of the developer if their page cannot be displayed in FF and not the user's fault for using FF?

yes and no. Some developers may not know that it doesn't work in browsers other than IE, so it's not their fault. But some do and still use those proprietary features and then it becomes their fault. It's not a fault of the browser that it doesn't support something that is non-standard (i.e. proprietary from another company). It's the fault of the company that adds the proprietary features and creates a monopoly out of it (i.e. MS). And when it comes to browsers not accepting international standards, it's also the fault of the browser developer (again MS).

It's not the user's fault at all for choosing a browser other than IE.

 

[BFG10K]

ActiveX should be completely disabled...

I certainly disable it because I don't really need it to be honest.

Look at java applets, for instance, it has a terrific security record.

Maybe, but can it truly match the COM functionality that ActiveX provides?

Maybe, the HTML file only triggers a download of a *exe and a *dll file that then is executed and runs the actually thing that infects your computer.

If it does the firewall will block those files.

Does not being admin protect against breaks in local zone security protections?

You wouldn't have rights to install the program even if it did somehow get in, and if it did a drag-n-drop installation it'd have to attach itself to the Startup folder and it would be really easy to spot. Also if it tried to harm the system after it started running it'd be stopped.

 

[Carazariah]

Qutoe from Malak:

But you have to take into consideration that alternative browsers aren't really mainstream yet, many
internet users don't even know they exist, and everyone on a windows machine has IE.

End Quote:


Agreed that's targeting your audience and it would be the Web Developers choice. . .



Thanks,
C

(Forgot to Quote)

 

[doan]

Originally posted by: Salvatore
HAHA

I think I'm actually going to open to my mouth about building though. Better to try and not succeed rather than not trying at all. Wish me luck.

 

I'm using Firefox and i like it better than IE or even Opera. It's simple and powerfull.