Could it be! Will we only have ONE major browser to design for?

[JackTheTripper]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is this the end of Netscape?

By David Becker
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
May 29, 2003, 3:34 PM PT

So much for Netscape 8.0
That's one upshot of Thursday's settlement between Microsoft and AOL Time Warner, according to industry analysts, who predict the Netscape browser--currently at version 7.02--will now move from a neglected orphan of AOL Time Warner to a candidate for euthanasia.

"For the most part, it means Netscape is pretty much gone," said Rob Enderle... Full Story (http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-1011356.html?tag=fd_top)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(I'm surprised nobody has brought this up yet.)

So, thoughts? Comments? Who's gonna be the new #2?

[Vladdy]

Netscape is just a bloatted and lagging (version wise) Mozilla. Any educated surfer uses Mozilla or Firebird, not Netscape.
AOL's days are counted: they are loosing money and they will be loosing even more as people start switching to broadband.
Company that sucks picked a browser that suckes, big deal.

[toicontien]

In the PC world, Opera seems to be next in line. I've done some playing around with version 7 and like it considerably more than 6. It also requires less RAM than Mozilla.

But Opera will still be a very small competitor for M$ IE, which as long as they keep packaging their browser with the OS, IE reigns supreme in the Windows world.

For the Macintosh, I heard rumblings about Omniweb, but haven't heard much since the release of Mac OSX. Maybe if they get their stuff together and go fully W3C compliant and Apple packages that browser with their OS, it could become the #2 in the Mac world.

Then in the wireless / handheld arena, Opera pops up again. I read in an internet.com newsletter a while back that Opera inked a deal with IBM to produce a fully-capable, and hopefully standards compliant, browser for the hand held market.

I also saw on Tech TV that opera has already come out with a browser for hand-held devices that reads legacy HTML pages (anything not written in XHTML using CSS layouts) and is able to render the pages on a hand-held device without the need for media specific style sheets.

Since Mozilla is not really run by a for-profit company, I don't see it getting much use, except by us web geeks. I can't see Mozilla inking any major distribution deals in the near future.

So basically, all signs seem to point to Opera for being the new #2.

[boojum]

"So basically, all signs seem to point to Opera for being the new #2"

an extremely extremely distant #2

that article could have added So much for W3C. at least as far as desktop browsers, not that they seem to be taking us in the right direction anyway, or fast.

[AdamGundry]

I'm waiting for the day when we don't have to design for browsers at all - we will design to standards, and all major browsers will interpret them correctly. Netscape may be going, but Mozilla/Firebird and Opera are still going strong. If IE wasn't a Microsoft product (and shipped with Windows), one of the other would lead by some distance, I would imagine.

Adam

[DaiWelsh]

Unfortunately the reality of the market place is at odds with standards much of the time, consider the scenario:-

All browsers conform to standard XXX.1 and all commercial web developers develop to it. Microsoft brings out a new browser version with a flashy new feature that is additional to the standard. As a commercial web developer do you

a) Ignore the new feature because it is not in the standards
b) Use the new feature to impress potential clients who are otherwise seeing the same thing from all bidders for the work.

Really, it is a variation on the time honoured prisoner's dilemma, we should all choose to ignore the feature as it would benefit us all to stick to standards, bu if you choose a) and one or more of the other bidders choses b) and you lose the work as a result where does that leave you?

Tricky one to see a long term solution to while there any dominant browsers. Possibly if there were 10 browsers with 10% market share each it might happen but....

Incidentally from the browser makers perspective the puzzle is pretty much identical, your developer say they have a flashy new feature ready that is not standards compliant, do you

a) Leave it out of your product
b) Include it

etc.

Regards,

Dai

[Charles]

What you do is you use your flashy but not universally supported features in such a way that it doesn't matter if the feature fails. The W3C calls this "transitioning gracefully". Engineers call it "failing safe". It's easy to do but you have to stop and think.

Browsers are compliant enough now. If you really design according to the current standards then your page will work on all browsers.

[DaiWelsh]

True enough, but I took Adam's crie de couer (sp?) to mean just standards not "standards plus some other bits that are browser specific but can be made to degrade gracefully" ;)

[Nevermore]

Personally, although I do try (as many people know) to design pages for less- or differently-able viewers, I don't see standards as being that important. As long as my page still works in a perfectly standards compliant browser and is usable in a less powerful, e.g. text-based, browser, then I will still include all the 'bells and whistles'. An example of this is a new feature that I am playing around with on my new site, which is contextual help. Basically, I have used JavaScript and PHP to allow users to select some text and click the button to search for a definition, and when the help files are up, search through the help files. None-JavaScript users can browse the help pages, type in search phrases manually etc just as they could in mmost help systems. Or at least, when the help files are written they will be able to...

[Compguy Pete]

it was my impression that Safari was going to be the hip new browser to take over the Mac Market.

More info at http://www.apple.com/safari/

About NS - I think it's going to be a while before we can say that browser isn't an issue.

[khaki]

Originally posted by Vladdy
Netscape is just a bloatted and lagging (version wise) Mozilla. Any educated surfer uses Mozilla or Firebird, not Netscape.... HEY!!!
I resemble that remark :eek:

surfing on Netscape... and ignorantly loving every minute of it...
;) k

[Nevermore]

I have to agree with Vladdy, I don't like Netscape, I do like Mozilla. But hey, that's just me!

[nkaisare]

Not much difference between the two. I use Moz 1.03 and NS7 on Win2K. My preferred browser is Op7.10. I have just grown used to it now... although there are a lot of Opera-unfriendly sites.

BTW, I noticed that my bank website complains if you are on Linux. My bank website is Linux inaccessible!!!!!!!!!!

[khaki]

My bank website is Linux inaccessible!!!!!!!!!! Maybe you should switch to a bank located in Berlin.
The government of Berlin just signed a contract to drop Microsoft and adopt Linux.
Of course they also love and adore David Hasselhoff...
although I don't think that we should read anything into that :)

;) k

[Vladdy]

Opera has one major flaw - it does not support dynamic creation of a script node.
It also suffers from identity crisis... :D :D

[khaki]

Opera has one major flaw - it does not support dynamic creation of a script node. And don't you have to BUY it?
(or else endure the fat banner?)

[khaki]

oh...
and by the way...

We ALREADY do have only ONE major browser to design for...

so what do you think will change because of this latest news?

:confused: k

[Nevermore]

Netscape only makes up about 4% of all Browser use. IE is about 93%. Bit of a difference, really.

[khaki]

yeah...

IE = 93%
Netscape = 4%

so....
don't we already have ONE major browser?

[Nevermore]

Although 4% doesn't seem a huge amount, in context to the sheer number of people out there, it is a lot of people. The question really, I think, is which browser they will turn to. If they turn to Mozilla for a similiar browser, then we will still have a situation like we do now, which I think is good because it encourages better coding. However, they will probably almost exclusively turn to IE, and 97% really is very different to 93%. It just seems like such a huge majority that I think most people will stop thinking about other browsers altogether, which will force people on to IE and create a system in which IE can do anything - including charging for its browser - without anyone having a choice but to pay.

[khaki]

well...

I wasn't really making any comment about the politics of browsers.

I was only making a point that 93% seems like a rather MAJOR number to me.

If it's a matter of symantics... fine.

But if we are already designing for all browsers while there is a browser out there that holds 93% of the market....
then I don't think that things are likely to change much from the design aspect (at least not as long as these other browsers have at least some percentage of the market).

We design for all of them (or are supposed to be). So if 93% hasn't already altered our approach to design....
then... what can I say.

;) k

[JackTheTripper]

Wow, this thread took a turn and is pointed right back at ME! :(

I know about the stats of IE vs. NS vs. Other and that IE really is THE major browser, but I guess by question was more where do you think the NS users will turn. Which has already been answered.

Also I was thinking more of NS 4.7 which I know there are 2 newer versions out already, but looking at my web stats this is what I'm seeing...

Visits 62,916

Explorer 6.x 34,959
Explorer 5.x 21,927
Explorer 4.x 625
Explorer 3.x 64
Explorer 1.x 1

Netscape 5.x 1,567
Netscape 4.x 969
Netscape 6.x 177
Netscape 3.x 13

Now I'm not sure if it's reporting NS7 as 5.x, that's what I'm assuming. Haven't checked with the head of IT, but you can see that a lot of people are slow on upgrading to the newest version. These stats are per visit. Our site is practacly unviewable in NS4.7. We had alternate pages for NS4.7 but it was a pain to have basically 2 sites so the head of IT scrapped it and we just put a notice up that says for them to upgrade.

Now I'm just blabbing so I'll stop.

[Nevermore]

Originally posted by khaki
(at least not as long as these other browsers have at least some percentage of the market).

But judging by the people who ask questions here, isn't the common view that they don't?

[khaki]

yeah cijori...
you are spot-on with that observation
I'm a Netscape girl :( ... and I can't even tell you how much code that I try to view from people here looking for help, which doesn't even work at all in Netscape!
And then if you tell them that... they say "my users all use IE, it doesn't need to work in Netscape" :rolleyes:

but... without turning this thread into yet another "standards" debate :eek: ...

as long as there is some browser that complies to standards... there will always be some demand for web pages that support it.
So... unless the web authors themselves wish to turn Microsoft into the big, bad wolf (and seal their own fates)....
they had better design for cross-browser compatibility.

oh... and Trip....
don't be sad... ;)
i wasn't "pointing anything" at you.
It's just a discussion (and these things take on a life of thier own :eek: ).

And personally, I only began using Netscape so that I could use it for testing purposes.
The fact that I now use it as my primary browser is not really very significant.
I'll use any browser... as long as it knows how to surf :)

support cross-browser development...
or prepare to pay for the next version of IE :( ...
;) k

[Nevermore]

You really like those smilies...

[khaki]

You really like those smilies... yes...
sadly, I do :rolleyes:

need to ween myself off of the smiles...
;) k

[khaki]

HEY!!!

so...
do I look any different?

(hint: I'm surfing on Mozilla 1.3 now)

doesn't seem much dif than Netscape :rolleyes:

well... it looks like Netscape's stats are gonna take another hit :eek:

whatever...
;) k

[Jona]

Originally posted by cijori
You really like those smilies...


Oh you just noticed? :rolleyes: One time she used so many she couldn't even post the whole message--it said she used too many smilies in one post! :eek: I kinda learned to use them a lot... Hey, she really expresses her thought with them, though. :D

"...now acting like khaki...."
:D Jona

[khaki]

One time she used so many she couldn't even post the whole message--it said she used too many smilies in one post! hey... they only allow 10! :eek:
...now acting like khaki.... I'm fearing for you ;)

[Nevermore]

Originally posted by Jona
Oh you just noticed? :rolleyes:


I noticed a while ago, but I was worried the toothy one might get me if I mentioned it...

[Jona]

I will definitely keep my underwear on and not go to the Gulf of Mexico...

About the main topic (sheesh)....
I agree with Charles 100%. No matter what happens, if we code standards compliant, and let our pages transitionalize gracefully, there should be no problem..

Jona

[Nevermore]

Originally posted by Jona
I will definitely keep my underwear on and not go to the Gulf of Mexico...

If you need to think about it, you need help. BTW, are the two events linked? (Mexico + underwear)

[khaki]

are the two events linked? (Mexico + underwear) ummm.... yeah :rolleyes:
(actually the Gulf of Mexico... Fla coast)

i think that i may have traumatized Jona with that story :(
sorry sweetie

can account for every item of clothing in the last 3 years (I think :rolleyes: )...
;) k

EDIT: and to comment on the topic :rolleyes:...
yes... I agree with Charles (and Jona) too.
But the topic of bells & whistles is an interesting one (although Charles offers a very intelligent and flexible means for including them).
One of my favorite personal quotes is:
Just because you can... doesn't mean you should.

[Jona]

Dude, khaki rubbed off on me, but that doesn't mean I'm going to literally act like her. I have my own personality... Which has changed somewhat because of her. (No offense, I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.. lol) But I wasn't thinking about it... Just letting y'all know that I'm not that way.

Jona

[Ribeyed]

I'm waiting for the day when we don't have to design for browsers at all

ASP.NET

[Nevermore]

I don't design for browsers anyway. I design for people.

[khaki]

Originally posted by [SWR]Ribeyed
ASP.NET hey Dave...
please explain

;) k

[gizmo]

I had a short spell working on software quality and the teachings from that experience say one should design to the standards. If MS deviates from them it is either a bug (or a feature) and cannot be relied upon to be present or work that way in a later version.
I prefer therefore to be as standards compliant as possible in the hope that oneday MS will realise that they are neither the standards body, nor the best browser producer.:rolleyes:

[Ribeyed]

Hi Khaki,
When a browser requests an ASP.NET page, a standard HTML page is retrieved. This means that an ASP.NET page can be made to be compatible with any browser.
The fact that ASP pages generate plain old HTML has always been a big advantage of developing Web pages with Active Server Pages. You don’t have to assume that a browser supports VBScript, Java, or JavaScript to display an Active Server Page.
However, with versions of ASP before ASP.NET, this was both an advantage and a burden.
It was a burden because people really like client-side JavaScript. When JavaScript is used correctly in a page, it can create a better user experience. ASP.NET controls can automatically detect whether a browser supports JavaScript and render JavaScript content only if the browser is able to support it. You don’t have to add and JavaScript code yourself to take advantage of this feature of ASP.NET controls. The controls make the decision of whether to use JavaScript and render JavaScript code for you.
You also have the option of preventing a control from ever using JavaScript. You can set a property so that ASP.NET control always renders plan HTML without JavaScript.
You can let ASP.NET environment deal with browser compatibility issues for you. Depending on an internal setting, you can tell ASP.NET to generate run-of-the-mill HTML3.2 code for the browser with very limited scripting, or you can tell it to produce browser-specific code, which checks the capabilities of the browser and then sends code to the browser optimized for it. It also takes advantages of any advanced browser features available. This process is referred to as “browser down-levelling” and “browser up-levelling”

[Nevermore]

I don't think people should have to invent a 'new' scripting language to allow them to use an older language properly.

[khaki]

hmmmm...

I am a huge Microsoft girl...
but I've been leery about ASP.NET from the first that I heard of it.
I've always assumed (yes... all assumption) that it was gimmicky, WYSIWYG'y and highly proprietary.

Maybe some day soon I will post a thread in the ASP forum to get opinions and feedback on ASP.NET (cause I'd really hate to be missing-out on a party! lol).

still not sure what to make of it...
;) k

[Robert Wellock]

Micro$oft will undoubtedly try it best to crush other desktop browsers by distributing ignorance, although it will only shoot itself in the foot it if doesn't start following more of the Technical Recommendations.

It will be a while yet, but wait until the electric toaster becomes the new user-agent, notability it will not run M$ IE or even HTML because the processing cycles would be mammoth, it would probably rely on an XML processor that can break when they see erroneous code.

[Jona]

Originally posted by Robert Wellock
Micro$oft...
..M$ IE...

Is there any reason why you are "censoring" the word Microsoft?

[khaki]

y'know... quite honestly...
if I was running Microsoft (whoa... there's a scary thought :eek: lol)....

I would just create my own Microsoft internet portal (like AOL) and just keep everything proprietary and take advantage of the large number of Microsoft programmers and IE users and create for my own standards (although they already kinda do that now... and they really suck at it :rolleyes: )

anyways...
I think that Microsoft is more likely to try to bully (or crush) the W3, than they are to conform to it.
(and they are kinda going in that direction already anyway)

Scary thought.... but...

(just be glad that I'm not running that show :) )

my dream (your nightmare) ... :)
;) k

[Nevermore]

Smaller browsers, e.g. Opera, have to 'play nice' or the bad publicity could kill them off. I wish IE was a small browser.
You heard that MSN.com has been made deliberately unusable in Opera?

[Jona]

If we went back to the main topic of the post, we'd see that is the original idea. "We only have ONE major browser to design for." Hopefully we will--whether it be Mozilla, Opera or Microsoft IE, having a single browser on the Web would make everything much easier. However, if this did indeed happen, chances are the browser will cost, you guessed it, moolah! :(

So in over all, it is good that there is more than just one browser, although there is one major browser already.

Jona

[Nevermore]

I guess the problem is that the most compatible browsers are, ironically, the least popular.

[khaki]

You heard that MSN.com has been made deliberately unusable in Opera? if that's true (is it :confused: )...
then they are a bunch of idiots!!!

aside from punishing the user...
they are playing the same losing game that Barksdale tried to play while he was busy committing suicide over at Netscape.

what is wrong with these people.
yeesh!

just another reason to hate $Opera...
;) k

EDIT:
oh... it's not true :rolleyes:
cijori is playing with my head :(
bad boy... stop it

[Charles]

Originally posted by khaki
just another reason to hate $Opera... You have that backwards. Micro$oft was the problem, not Opera. Opera then struck back with a special version that translated the MSN site like the "Sweadish Chef". See http://my.opera.com/dev/articles/20030206/. Opera is a most wonderful browser. It's very fast and has lots of very useful features. If you are having trouble with your web pages on it then your pages are simply not written according to published standards.

[Nevermore]

oh... it's not true
cijori is playing with my head
bad boy... stop it

Actually, it is.
Unless they have fixed it, they were sending broken style sheets to anyone using Opera. Opera then made the 'Bork' version to hit back humorously. It makes MSN.com look weird.

[Charles]

According to that article to which I above posted a link, MSN has stopped sending the broken stylesheet to Opera 7 but they continue to sabotage Opera 6.

[khaki]

actually I'm not having any problems with my web pages on it...
But I am having problems seeing them completely on it :rolleyes:

what's the deal...
I buy the browser and they remove all the ads from every site I visit?
ummm...NO.

so what's the deal then...
I get a smaller screen... but I get it a bit quicker?
(does the fact that I need to take additional time to scroll factor into the speed at all?)

or...
is it that I can pay for something that is offered everywhere else for free...
but the paid-for version is exceptionally lightning quick (as if I've ever really noticed :rolleyes: )
ummm.... hardly.

$Opera is BAD because they are starting something that will only spawn more of the same.
They are the first WORST thing to happen to the internet (aside from all of these "smiley guys" :rolleyes: )

all I know is...
if Microsoft said that they were going to charge money for a new-faster browser...
you'd all be screaming that they are forcing us to pay for technology that they should be providing anyway.

feel free to hate Microsoft...
but please hold everyone by the same standards.

$Opera is BAD for the internet user.
I'm glad that Microsoft is trying to screw them.
Now I really love Microsoft!!!

it's a Microsoft planet... and they are just allowing us all to live on it... :)
;) k

[pyro]

Originally posted by khaki
it's a Microsoft planet... and they are just allowing us all to live on it...That's some dysfunctional thiking for ya... :eek:

[khaki]

That's some dysfunctional thiking for ya... so I suppose that you think that the Matrix is a fictional story then?
(insert scary music here)

sorry to have to tell you this Pyro...
but you don't really exist...
Microsoft created you (so I wouldn't be going around p*ssing them off ;) LOL)

uh-oh....
something tells me that this thread is about to be terminated :eek:

147 days until Bill Gates birthday....
only 24 until mine! :) ...
;) k

[pyro]

Originally posted by khaki
something tells me that this thread is about to be terminatedNope, not unless it get's terribly off-topic... ;)

[gizmo]

K, I think you must be the first person that I have encountered to actually like MS's offerings. ;)

[khaki]

K, I think you must be the first person that I have encountered to actually like MS's offerings. wierd... isn't it?

dunno...
i can't help myself :rolleyes:

I started with Excel...
moved to FP and IE...
advanced onto Visual InterDev and ASP...

so hey....
Microsoft enables me to put clothes on my back...
food in my belly...
a roof over my head...
and even a little bit of fun money :)

I don't forget where I came from...
loyalty is a "thing" with me :rolleyes:

people can hate Microsoft if they want to...

but not me... :)
;) k

[AdamGundry]

Microsoft must make (some) decent software, because they are in such a strong market position. I don't hate them, but I don't love them either.

The only MS product I really don't like is FrontPage Express.

Adam

[JackTheTripper]

Originally posted by Jona
Is there any reason why you are "censoring" the word Microsoft?

Don't think anyone i$ $en$oring it. I think it'$ ju$t a "cute" way to type it out and kind of ironic becau$e M$ i$ $o powerful with all the money, you know.


Adam, every tried using their MS Project? Now that is a huge, usless program. I can build a project plan easier in Excel in 1/4 the time. Plus there is a HUGE learning curve. But I do have to agree, once you really get into them Word and Excel are easy to use, powerful tools. Oh, and I have to admit I like IE. There I said it. :p

[Nevermore]

Originally posted by khaki

They are the first WORST thing to happen to the internet (aside from all of these "smiley guys" :rolleyes: )


I see the 'smiley guys' got to you worse than normal.

Oh, and I also like some Microsoft software, although I don't like Frontpage - just not used to it. I think about Microsoft the same way I do about other companies - some good, some bad, all costs money! And I just don't got none.

[DaiWelsh]

I wonder how many of the people here make a living charging for their web development services? The only reason I ask is that having one browser might help webmasters to simplify their sites, but it is likely to lead to an increase in 'McDonalds' websites and non-developers building all the websites. For me that wont be a good thing financially.

I charge a fair whack for my services because most people cant do what I do (supply/demand), if MS or anyone else makes website building an add-in to Office then my skills become less scarce.

I love change, I love variety and I love chaos because I am a fast learner so I can stay ahead of the competition.

Kapeesh? ;)

[AdamGundry]

We don't need one browser, we need one standard - which we have. Now all we need is for all browsers to follow it correctly, with the same results, and the problem is solved.

I don't think you need worry about an Office add-in putting you out of a job. There is much more to web design than a WYSIWYG editor - issues such as font/colour selection, flowing layouts, accessibility and so on which are very difficult to automate, and often require real skills.

Adam

[Jona]

DaiWelsh, you're so right! :)

Jona

[Jona]

Oh yeah, Adam, good point. Real programming can't be done by another program. You can't have a program do CGI coding for you. It's not like a markup language. So real programmers will always be needed.

[Charles]

Originally posted by DaiWelsh
[H]aving one browser might help webmasters to simplify their sites Would you then eliminate Braille and audio browsers just to make yor job easier?

[khaki]

I don't think that DiaWelsh was actually saying that he wanted to see that happen Charles.

I understood him to say that he wants everything to be even harder to do (for job security reasons).

One browser would be no good...
just like one radio station would be no good...
just like one brand of car would be no good....
etc.

The important thing is the standards.
And if everyone is determined enough to try to develop according to the standards...
then it will be the company that makes non-standard browsers which will find itself with a smaller and smaller user-base.

and I don't care if there are 50 browsers...
just don't ask me to pay for one (especially if it does nothing much different from one that I can get for free)...
because ultimately...
all browser makers may eventually decide to see if they can get away with it too!

RESIST $Opera!
DESTROY $Opera!
(before it destroys the internet as we know it)

FREE the World Wide Web...
;) k

(note: only ONE smiley was used in the making of this post)

[DaiWelsh]

We don't need one browser, we need one standard

Better but doesn't really alter my point 'we need' is not necessarily the same as 'altruistically better'

I don't think that DiaWelsh was actually saying that he wanted to see that happen Charles.

Go, Khaki, indeed I was not, but for the record it is Dai (its a Welsh thing, I forgive you)

You can't have a program do CGI coding for you

Hmm, while I personally tend to agree (at least with an added 'good' in the middle), there are plenty of people who disagree e.g MacroMedia with Dreamweaver MX and a host of '4GL' products in the 90s.

There is much more to web design than a WYSIWYG editor - issues such as font/colour selection, flowing layouts, accessibility and so on which are very difficult to automate, and often require real skills.

heh unfortunately my 'soft' design skills are woeful, I am a hardcore programmer pure and simple.

Would you then eliminate Braille and audio browsers just to make yor job easier?

Charles, you acid washes past me like water from a ducks back (one of the joys of advocating for the devil).

I am not suggesting that we act like luddites (or inverse luddites in a way) and try to keep the technology secret and techy. If I could push a button now to decide it I would absolutely go for standards and simplicity because it is the greater good, however as I don't have that button I prefer to embrace the chaos and see the advantages it brings me rather than moan about how much easier my life would be without it.

Couple of cliched quotes might help

"I would enjoy this job if it was not for all the customers"
"If life gives you lemons make lemonade"

Just offering a different viewpoint :)

[khaki]

Go, Khaki, indeed I was not, but for the record it is Dai (its a Welsh thing, I forgive you) Is it a "Welsh thing" to forgive me...
or is the "Dai" part the "Welsh thing"?

Anyway... oops... sorry aboot the misspelling ;)

but also for the record...
i wasn't taking Charles to task or anything.
I was just trying to clarify your statement in case he misunderstood it.

You really must understand that Charles - for whatever his personal or professional reasons may be - has taken-up the cause of advocating for the disabled.
I'm very cool with that... and I admire his convictions (although not always his methods... but I'm sure it's a result of frustration more than anything else. After all... it's not something that people are comfortable (or open to) hearing about.
But I'm grateful that he raises the issue...
and he offers solutions too...
so it's not just ranting and berating.
I'll probably always stumble over something to bicker with Charles about...
but ... whether he likes it or not ... I still like him :)

anyway...
I think that we all agree that the problem isn't browsers...
it's coding to the standards
(although the $Opera thing is a problem too... as far as I'm concerned :rolleyes: )

peace-out...
;) k

[PeOfEo]

maybe I will test out my hex editor on orpera... see if I can remove some banner ads.

[AdamGundry]

I am a hardcore programmer pure and simple.Me too. I don't think I'm going to go down the web design route as a career, but instead look at working in programming Internet-enabled software or something. Perhaps a compromise - Javascript programming?

Adam

[pyro]

Originally posted by DaiWelsh
I am a hardcore programmer pure and simple.Yes, I think that is necessary. Let's face it, all you can do with WYSIWYG's is HTML... If you need anything else (javascript, CSS, PHP, etc) you need to dive into the code and know what you are doing...

[Robert Wellock]

There are various legal reasons why I can only refer to the corporate's products as M$ or Microshaft, etc. when I am highlighting the failing of the browser, compared to the resources they have at their disposal. I have no specific spiteful grudge against Microsoft itself.

It is a shame that Micro$oft do not always practice the standards they preach by being a member of the W3C but failing to apply many of its philosophies, especially with regards to following web standards, etc.

[DaiWelsh]

Originally posted by khaki
Is it a "Welsh thing" to forgive me...
or is the "Dai" part the "Welsh thing"?


Definitely the Dai part, not the forgiving part, the Welsh have not forgiven the Romans yet, let alone the b*****y English :)

[khaki]

Well...
I'm a Yank
(did we do anything to p*ss you off.... or are we cool :) )

;) k

[DaiWelsh]

I cant think of any good reason that the Welsh should hate the Yanks, after all you took Tom Jones off our hands, so I guess you are cool :)

[khaki]

okay...
at the risk of a Pete or Pyro encounter....

A guy walks into the doctor's office...

says, "Doc, I can't stop singing 'What's New Pussycat.'"

The doctor says, "That sounds like Tom Jones syndrome."

The guy asks, "Is it common?"

The doctor replies, "It's not unusual."

;) k

[pyro]

Yes, you do like risking it, don't you? I'm not going to lock this thread yet, but I will say that it is getting very close. You know the rules (http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9968) :rolleyes:

[PeOfEo]

Like I said in an earlyer post I am going to test my hex editor on opera... I could not find the code for the banner ad anyone have a better hex editor?

[Hester]

$Opera is BAD because they are starting something that will only spawn more of the same.
They are the first WORST thing to happen to the internet (aside from all of these "smiley guys" )

I simply cannot let this go by unchallenged. Opera is a browser that has so many unique features that BENEFIT the user. Especially if they are 'disabled'. Such as a proper Zoom that enlarges text AND graphics. (IE is despised because it's the only browser that DOESN'T allow pixel-set fonts to be enlarged.)

It has mouse guestures that make surfing faster and more intuitive. It now has built-in stylesheets to test your pages (example - one to emulate a text-only browser).

And much, much more.

The only problem with Opera is that they scrapped the code for version 6 so Opera 7 is a new program. This means it still has plenty of bugs (but so does Mozilla and IE6). There are also problems with Javascript which I wish they would solve.

If only Microsoft would implement the many cool features found in Opera. Please don't be put off by the ads! If you go fullscreen, they disappear anyway.

all I know is...
if Microsoft said that they were going to charge money for a new-faster browser...
you'd all be screaming that they are forcing us to pay for technology that they should be providing anyway.

Which is what Microsoft are doing with the next version of IE. You have to PAY to buy Windows Longhorn to get it. It is built into the OS. It will not be available separately!

$Opera is BAD for the internet user.
I'm glad that Microsoft is trying to screw them.
Now I really love Microsoft!!!

Yet you use Netscape?

IE is now being called "the new NS4" because it has so many faults. Broken code, CSS2 not fully implemented. Now we won't even get an upgrade until 2005 when the new version of Windonws comes out! So the web is stuck with an 'out-of-date' browser that doesn't even have tabs or a pop-up ad blocker.

In this situation, Opera and Mozilla can only go from strength to strength. They are always being updated. They can handle MUCH more code than IE. You can even log bugs and get DIRECT feedback from the programmers as they solve them. Try that with Microsoft!

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by Hester
I simply cannot let this go by unchallenged. Opera is a browser that has so many unique features that BENEFIT the user. Especially if they are 'disabled'. Such as a proper Zoom that enlarges text AND graphics. (IE is despised because it's the only browser that DOESN'T allow pixel-set fonts to be enlarged.)
Yea but thats why you use the magnifying glass or you increase your resolution

It has mouse guestures that make surfing faster and more intuitive. It now has built-in stylesheets to test your pages (example - one to emulate a text-only browser).
tell me how the file tab helps a darned thing

The only problem with Opera is that they scrapped the code for version 6 so Opera 7 is a new program. This means it still has plenty of bugs (but so does Mozilla and IE6). There are also problems with Javascript which I wish they would solve.
I aggree all brosers have problems but opera wont read a lot of java script and skips out on some css all together
If only Microsoft would implement the many cool features found in Opera. Please don't be put off by the ads! If you go fullscreen, they disappear anyway.

what cool features? I have never seen the ads dissappear. Also you can download ie from microsoft.com anyway cant you, and I do intend to buy longhorn so it does not matter.



IE is now being called "the new NS4" because it has so many faults. Broken code, CSS2 not fully implemented. Now we won't even get an upgrade until 2005 when the new version of Windonws comes out! So the web is stuck with an 'out-of-date' browser that doesn't even have tabs or a pop-up ad blocker.
my god man the tabs suck I hate them and popup blockers can interfear with scripting say you have a java script window or something it can sometimes be blocked buy a popup blocker and if you want one so bad thenj dl one separatly
[/QUOTE] everyone complains about ie faults but they are not as numerous as you make them out to be like I have been saying in other threads if you put the borders on everything then it is not missaligned opera also messes up the colors of images on another site it has a mind of its own and I think opera is a horrible browser. Check out the transfers on opera, its so annoying to check your downloads with that stupid tab strip. But you somehow think that tabstip is good?

[VB.NET]

I personally hate Mozilla. In the time it takes to start the program, I could have started IE 5 times. Plus, Moz doesn't have the neat IE feature of Ctrl + enter key which automatically ccompletes the http://www. and .com parts . Saves me a lot of work. Also, I have found surfing the net much slower with Moz than with IE. Last but not least, I hate the gecko interface. Speed is my concern, and Mozilla is considerably slower than IE in both the program aspect and the browsing aspect.

[JackTheTripper]

Originally posted by VB.NET
Plus, Moz doesn't have the neat IE feature of Ctrl + enter key which automatically ccompletes the http://www. and .com parts . Saves me a lot of work.

OK, I'm an IE user and I like it. Not love and not hate. Just what i prefer to use. But this has got to be one of the stupidest features I've ever seen. I didn't even know it existed until now. First off, you don't even need the http://, second in most cases you don't need the www and third (and I hate to burst anyone's bubble) not all addresses end in .com. My company is a .org. Where's my shortcut?

[Jona]

Originally posted by VB.NET
I personally hate Mozilla. In the time it takes to start the program, I could have started IE 5 times.

Have you ever even looked in the preferences section? It has a "stay in memory" feature to make it start up faster; besides, you must also hate Netscape, because it takes just as long (if not longer) to load as well.

Jona

[nkaisare]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
Yea but thats why you use the magnifying glass or you increase your resolution
That is a naive comment. Go to desktop, right click, properties, choose resolution... just to see tiny fonts more clearly v/s [Ctrl +] to increase font size.

tell me how the file tab helps a darned thing
I hate to see my desktop clutterred. Opera opens new browser windows in different "tab" in same window. Since I am usually running some simulations on my computer, this helps (the buttons on taskbar dont get teeny-tiny).

I aggree all brosers have problems but opera wont read a lot of java script and skips out on some css all together

what cool features? I have never seen the ads dissappear.
Evidently, you haven't read hesters comments. All these ARE cool features: tabbed browsing, popup blocking (without needing another software), user stylesheets, zoom etc.

I do intend to buy longhorn so it does not matter.
I don't, so it DOES matter to me.

my go[o]d man the tabs suck I hate them
You always have the option of opening new windows in a new window (instead of a new tab).

and popup blockers can interfear with scripting
Turn popups on. Its as simple as [file] >> [Quick Preferances] >> [Accept all popups]. I prefer to use "Open requested popups only".

everyone complains about ie faults but they are not as numerous as you make them out to be
I don't know of any fault mentioned in this or other thread that isn't an IE fault. All the faults mentioned are well known IE faults. If you find some problem with Mozilla (probably Opera too), you can report them... and they get logged with corrective action taken.

opera also messes up the colors of images on another site it has a mind of its own
If you are mentioning that gaming template, view it again in IE/Win. The border colors are different for me. Probably its because you are using different gamma setting. Opera doe not have a mind of its own... atleast not in displaying colors/images.

Check out the transfers on opera, its so annoying to check your downloads with that stupid tab strip. But you somehow think that tabstip is good?
I dont see your point here. If I click on a pdf file, it prompts me to open/save... if I choose open, it launches Acrobat to view the pdf. In addition, it opens the transfer tab. You are free to ignore this tab. Its not like the pdf doesn't open in Acrobat. Moreover, next time you need the pdf (eg. for a course website), you dont need to go to website... just open the transfer window.

[nkaisare]

Originally posted by VB.NET
the neat IE feature of Ctrl + enter key
Usually, "www." is not required for a www.****.com site... its only requried for www.****.com/*** etc... in which case [Ctrl + enter] wont work. Mostly, its just extra ".com" that you need to add.

I hate the gecko interface.
Thats a perfectly valid reason to not use Moz

Speed is my concern
Try Opera. I think it IS faster than IE and Moz.

[Jona]

Originally posted by nkasaire
the neat IE feature of Ctrl + enter key
Usually, "www." is not required for a www.****.com site... its only requried for www.****.com/*** etc... in which case [Ctrl + enter] wont work. Mostly, its just extra ".com" that you need to add.

Well I normally just type in "Google.com" and IE (I think Moz and NS, too) adds the http://www.Google.com/ part automatically. I've never had to use any CTRL + [Enter] quick keys.

Out of town for 4 days...
Jona

[nkaisare]

Originally posted by Jona
adds the http://www.Google.com/ part automatically. I've never had to use any CTRL + [Enter] quick keys.
If you see carefully, it adds http:// first... ALL browsers do that as it is the protocol used to "access the internet". It will then check for http://google.com. The actual address being http://www.google.com/, the browser will be "redirected" to that address.

Counter example:
There is no http://health.gatech.edu/
Its http://www.health.gatech.edu/
So, if you type health.gatech.edu, you will get an error message saying that http://health.gatech.edu/ doesn't exist. If there were [Ctrl + Alt + Enter] to insert www and edu in IE (there isn't), you could "health.gatech [Ctrl + Alt + Enter]" to go to the correct site... which you can't do with Opera and NS.

Repeat: [Ctrl + Alt + Enter] does not add www and .edu to the addresses in IE.

[JackTheTripper]

Originally posted by nkaisare
If there were [Ctrl + Alt + Enter] to insert www and edu in IE (there isn't), you could "health.gatech [Ctrl + Alt + Enter]" to go to the correct site... which you can't do with Opera and NS.


But then what is the shortcut for .org
or .gov
or .ca.gov
or .us
or .coop
or .name
or (etc...)

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by nkaisare

everyone complains about ie faults but they are not as numerous as you make them out to be
I don't know of any fault mentioned in this or other thread that isn't an IE fault. All the faults mentioned are well known IE faults. If you find some problem with Mozilla (probably Opera too), you can report them... and they get logged with corrective action taken.

wow um opera refuses to read many java scripts does not recognise hoverlinks (I have not seen a working hover link yet) and the scroll bars are horrid I mean they ar ejust ugly cause they cant decide to start reding scroll bar scritps like ie even though it makes a lot of difference on some sites then a big ugle scroll bar.

[toicontien]

Forgive me for not providing the specific source, but I read in an article that Flash developers drive the development of that technology. Now granted, Flash is Flash. There's no Opera Flash or Netscape Flash. My point is that Macromedia alone does not hold the steering wheel when it comes to the next version of Flash. The developers have a hand on the wheel too.

Translated to browser terms, we as developers and designers need to design for the standards, and let the browser developers know when they screw up.

If we demand standards-compliance and design for it, then they will have to support it. I must admit, that's a potential slap in the face for Microsoft, since they want to steer all computer technology and will likely retaliate in some way, using their market-share to their advantage.

Then there are these rumblings I hear about the US government mandating that all their web sites be accessible to all Internet-ready devices, thus designing to W3C standards. I read in a http://www.alistapart.com/ article that there is a chance that the government could mandate the same accessibility to the commercial Internet too, based on the Americans With Disabilities Act.

If that were the case, and I can see it happening, it would force browser developers to support the standards by legal mandate, and also to demand that web developers build sites with standard markup. This would render MSIE's marketshare threat a moot subject.

And lastly, who makes sure that web developers are competent at their craft? No one. I haven't even heard of any certifications people can get in web design and development, even though they probably exist. And if/when people get these certifications, who knows about them? Not the customers who want a website built. They want something that works, but don't care if their developer actually knows what they are doing.

Would you send your broken-down car to an uncertified mechanic? No, yet that's precisely what's happening now in the web dev industry. There really is no easy way for customers to ascertain whether their web developers know what they are doing.

That needs to change. Even if it means teaching customers a little about what we do. Advertise the fact that you have some sort of certification, a piece of paper, that says what you can do. Especially if it's a piece of paper from the W3C saying that you are certified in standards-compliant design.

Then potential customers could take a quick glance and know that someone took a test by some sort of governing body. It's a matter of authority, and right now nobody in the web dev business has it, except Microsoft. And that's only because of its marketshare.

Here's what I propose:

1. The U.S. Government mandates that all WWW content be accessible to devices/ software that wants to connect to the WWW - i.e. support W3C standards.

2. Certifications by the W3C, even if it's only a useless piece of paper to you, to a potential customer it could be what differentiates you from the competition.

Then we only need to design for standards and we don't need an 80-some post-long topic on who is the #2 browser.

[gizmo]

Tiocontien, I like your reasoning, but remember, the web is 'world wide' and American legislation is not. :)
Although MS tries to do its bit by imposing their own laws (that's the bit no-one reads on installing, but just clicks the 'I Agree' button). If its not MS trying to take over the www it's the american government trying to meddle. I have no problem with W3C being based in any specific country because I want to see one standard that is not based on one commercial product, but we have largely two non-compatible standards, W3C and MS. I don't want to see another VHS/Betamax war as happened in the UK, where the inferior standard won the battle. :mad:

[PeOfEo]

I stand correct it will read hover links but opera is so freaken picky so IE you can have a few little syntax errors which should not cause problems but opera likes to blow them all out of proportion when on it it will work just wonderful, thats one of ie's best features that it has on opera.

[nkaisare]

I stand correct it will read hover links but opera is so freaken picky so IE you can have a few little syntax errors which should not cause problems but opera likes to blow them all out of proportion when on it it will work just wonderful, thats one of ie's best features that it has on opera.
Webbrowsers are less likely to be forgiving in the future, when XHTML and XML become more prevalent. HTML was forgiving, XML isn't. Moreover, if there are syntax errors, there is no guarantee that various IE versions will display the page similarly. You should try to make all pages as syntactically correct as possible.

Anyway, coming back to hover (or lack of it), if you use incorrect order of link, visited, active and hover pseudo-classes, it isn't supposed to work, even in IE. I am surprized that it works in IE. It shouldn't.

For example, I want hove on one set of links and none on other, I can give a generic
a:hover {...}
and override later with cascade rule
a.nohoverhere:visited {...}
By doing this, hover and visited should be displayed in the same manner for "nohoverhere" class. If that doesn't work in IE, its IE's fault not Opera's.

Example of Hover not working
---------------------
Take a look at
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/popups/demo2.html
It works with Moz, Opera but not with IE. Hover does work in Opera. If anything, IE has some bugs!!!

Colored scrollbars
----------------
On your gaming template site, the scrollbars appear black in color on both Opera and IE.
IE5/Win98 and Opera 7.10 display the page almost in exact same manner. The page looks correct to me only in IE6/XP.
[Note: I am stating this example because I presume thats where your anti-Opera originates. My only aim here is to show that Opera is pretty darn good with HTML and CSS.]

Javascript
------------
This is one thing which even the staunchest of Opera supporter won't deny. This is one place where Op needs to improve a lot. My banking site, which has 100KB javascript, freezes for a few seconds in Opera. I can't view my checks or PDF statements... though I can view my statements in HTML (In fact, until last month, they didn't allow Opera access to their site... it required IE/NS).

I have also seen Op choking on some XML pages.

Still, I continue to use Opera as my favourite browser. I use NS and IE too sometimes, but not as often as earlier.

[Nevermore]

Yeah, I like Opera because it is pretty close to the standards, but it is pretty bad with JavaScript. I was playing around with making 'secure' encryption in JavaScript*, and Opera just refuses to run the script at a complex level, and when it is knocked down to about 10-bit encryption, Opera takes about 20 times longer than and other browser.

* I'm up to 40-bit encryption. And yes, I know that you can break it via the source, that they cracked 64-bit, and that 40 bit is
309485009821345068724781056 times less secure than modern encryption. I'm nearly there, then..

Edit: If anyone here is an accomplished code-breaker and wants to see how long it takes to break JavaScript encryption, here's some text:
39%20%39%16%54%14%51%38%20%33%85%31%83%19%55%40%48%23%70%20%2%17%46%23%

[VB.NET]

But then what is the shortcut for .org
or .gov
or .ca.gov
or .us
or .coop
or .name
or (etc...)

That's just nitpicking. Have you noticed that most programs, like Word and Mozilla, don't have shorcut keys to ALL of their features? For example, F1 does help, but where is the shortcut to Tools -- Mail and News -- Send a Link in IE? Should IE be trashed because it doesn't provide this shortcut?

In case you haven't noticed, most sites on the web end in .com. IE should be praised for providing extra feature, not condemned for not providing every extra feature a human can think of. Ask yourself, if you go above and beyond with your work and do better than your colleagues, which comment would you want to hear from your boss: "Good job for going the extra mile" or "why the hell didn't you also do this, that, and more?"

you don't even need the http://,

IE has a tendency of directing you to the MSN search engine if you don't put http:// in front of some domains.

second in most cases you don't need the www

In many cases you indeed don't, but there are plenty of sites that require www. in front of it. Try typing cs.purdue.edu and you won't get anywhere. It has to be www.cs.purdue.edu.

In any case, the shortcut does save time with .COM sites.

you must also hate Netscape

I really do.

Try Opera. I think it IS faster than IE

Opera is pretty fast, but maybe not faster than IE. There has to be more incentives, distinctive advantages, to some browser to make me forfeit IE.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by nkaisare

Example of Hover not working
---------------------
Take a look at
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/popups/demo2.html
It works with Moz, Opera but not with IE. Hover does work in Opera. If anything, IE has some bugs!!!

what? The hoverlinks are perfectly fine in ie on xp what are you talking about???? Also How do my scroll bars read on your opera but not mine because I am on xp with the newest opera and it cant see my scroll bars? I am going to alter the layout to fix any sliding or screw ups then run it through a validator but about the corners how the heck can I fix that color because I dont think they will ever math correctly on all browsers because if I fix it for opera its messed up for moz and ie if I fix it for ie its messed up for the other two and so and and so forth. God what a pain in the but, rounded corners suck why did I want to do them. Tell me something how do opera and mozilla handle vml because I have had it with this, my experience with vml tells me that its a real turd to controll though and get positioned correctly for different browsers.

[PeOfEo]

I saw a post above about domain names please refer to this... http://www.norid.no/domenenavnbaser/domreg.html

[PeOfEo]

I give up... I dont consider myself pro microsoft or anything but I do use a lot of their stuff like asp.net for example and I use a windows machine (I might end up running my server on redhat but Ill get the propers patches and all so I can run asp.net) Anyways I just try to defend microsoft a little from all the opposition on this forum and kind of make it so its not one way down with microsoft stuff but you guys never cease. I dont think microsof tis the great satan you make it out to be, I wish you would take to this with an open mind. All browsers have the quirks, ie's is css operas is well certain java scripts, and mozilla's well mozilla is a damned good browser and I dont think I could find a quirk but their is bound to be one somewhere. Now can we talk about more important things like the fact that I GET CABLE INTERNET IN 3 DAYS! :D

[nkaisare]

Originally posted by VB.NET
That's just nitpicking.
Should IE be trashed because it doesn't provide this shortcut?
No one's nitpicking or trashing IE for this. We are just arguing that [ctrl]+[enter] is not a good enough reason for us to think of switching back to IE.

IE should be praised for providing extra feature
I should praise IE for [ctrl]+[enter] and you want to hate opera which provides user style sheets. Dont you think you are biased? User style sheets allow me to do a lot more than adding trailing .com before pressing [enter]. I have used the [ctrl]+[enter]... just dont find it useful enough to stick around with IE.

"Good job for going the extra mile" or "why the hell didn't you also do this, that, and more?"
You seem to have misunderstood. I was, and probably JackTR too, said that we don't find the feature useful enough to change back to IE.
BTW, IE also has some other nice features, such as autocomplete (which was the only reason I stuck with IE for so long). I agree. But I prefer Opera due to:
1. Easy to block popups
2. Tabbed browsing
3. User style sheets and page zoom
4. Transfer window (for d/l files)
5. Better compliance to standards

IE has a tendency of directing you to the MSN search engine if you don't put http:// in front of some domains.
And you find that an interesting feature! Quite frankly, I find it annoying.

I also find the generic "page unavialable" pages that IE throws. If page is unavialable, why the heck do I need another page that asks me to detect network settings. Hell, who am I... a dummy?

In any case, the shortcut does save time with .COM sites.
How long does it take to type .com?

Opera is pretty fast, but maybe not faster than IE. There has to be more incentives, distinctive advantages, to some browser to make me forfeit IE.
1. Opera IS faster than IE. The difference is evident to me when I am using the browser while running my matlab simulations.
2. Sometimes, when I run a lot of programs together, Op and IE have tendancy to crash. When Opera crashes, its just Opera thats crashed. When IE crashes, it takes out the whole frigging Windows.
3. You don't have to forfeit IE. Reasons why I did are listed above (the 5 points listed above).

Peace :)
Niket

[PeOfEo]

hey I wanna stab this thread in the heart refer to my post above...

[toicontien]

Reply to gizmo's post above:

Ah yes. A major oversite on my part, forgetting that the "world" in World Wide Web really does mean just that. I should rephrase what I wrote then.

A U.S. law that basically mandates that browsers support the standards does not mean that MS won't release a special "international" version that isn't standard's compliant. I guess the answer is to allow MSIE to be excluded from releases of the operating system, thus allowing other browser manufacturers to ink distribution deals with PC makers.

Competition. That's what we need. Which of course brings us right back to the question at hand. The #2 browser. I've still got to go with Opera for the reasons I listed above. I don't think that individual users will ever put up with paying for a browser, so distribution deals are where browser developers are going to make their coin. Opera is a for-profit company. They've already gotten a deal with IBM to make a hand-held browser. Could a deal to include Opera as a desktop browser be next? Maybe. Then again, maybe we aren't giving MSIE developers enough credit. Maybe the bugs will be worked out in IE7, and hopefully they will release a version 6 for the Mac.

[toicontien]

I just ran into this story on zdnet:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-1012943.html

Microsoft might be discontinuing it free distribution of IE. But there's always more to the story. I'm actually kind of mad after reading it, despite the positive implications.

[Hester]

If you read my post, I already made the points about IE being discontinued as a standalone browser. Jeffrey Zeldman sums the whole situation up nicely: http://www.zeldman.com/daily/0603a.shtml#luxury

PeOfEo: "I have never seen the ads [in Opera] dissappear. Also you can download ie from microsoft.com anyway cant you, and I do intend to buy longhorn so it does not matter."
No, you will not be able to download IE as a separate browser anymore. IE6 SP1 will be the last download you can get. IE7 is merged with Windows Longhorn - you cannot separate the two (apparently).

As for Opera ads, as I said, if you go fullscreen they disappear. To do that, press F11.

All three major browsers we're discussing all have their benefits and their bugs. If you look at any CSS demo sites though, you'll see how much doesn't work in IE. There's a lot of CSS (and even HTML) that people cannot use because IE does not support it. Such as :before and :after. While Opera and Mozilla continue to upgrade their browsers, Microsoft seem to have abandoned any future improvements for 2 years. I call it "holding back the web".

And when Longhorn comes out, how many people will upgrade? Some people are still on Windows 95! So we will be stuck with IE6 for years. At least it's a reasonably good browser.

Now let me list some differences between the browsers worth noting:

Mozilla
You can save a group of tabs as a bookmark. Say you start work every day with the same 5 sites open. Just one bookmark will load them all for you!

I filed a bug that crashed the browser when using Print Preview. I've now been emailed by the programmers that the bug is fixed in the next version of Mozilla. Such service would be unheard of from Microsoft.

Opera
You can resume surfing from where you were after a crash. Or the next time you run Opera as it remembers the last page you were on.

Coloured scrollbars are possible. It requires a hack though.

I'd say Opera handles the most CSS right now, including some advanced features such as Generated Content and custom HTML tags.

IE
You can set up other auto-complete web addresses beside "www"-name-"com". I can't recall how but it's possible to have a list it checks through. So if your site is "www.name.org" it will work if you type in "name".

However.... both Opera and Mozilla use a far superior method - Keywords! Bookmark a site then view the Properties. You can then type in a keyword that will take you to that site. So for www.diveintomark.com all I need to type in is "dive". Or I could have chosen "mark". This is a real timesaver! Plus it doesn't matter what the URL ends in!

Lastly, tabbed windows. Once you start using these, they are a god-send. When you go back to IE, it sucks big-time without them! An example is surfing a forum. I can open each section in a new tab. (The tabs align at the top.) Then I can open each thread I want in another tab. When I've done reading the thread, I close the tab to get back to the forum section instantly! Or close that tab to be back at the main page in no time. Without tabs, you have to wait several seconds to go back while the page reloads.

Opera even allows new windows to open in the background. This is great for a page of images where you wish to open several, but stay on the main page.

There are many, many more features Opera and Mozilla have that IE does not. Plus they handle more code. But IE is used by the majority to write their sites, so we need to use it still, even if just to test in. Shame those bugs won't be fixed soon though.