Lets talk about Microsoft

[David Harrison]

I have heard some bad things about Microsoft, and I am sure that I will continue to hear such things while I still wander in and out of threads in this forum.

The browser ain't that good to be honest, they have completely messed up the box model as I am frustratingly finding out while trying to re-design a side bar for a web-site. Also, the operating systems do tend to throw up error's and crash on a disturbingly frequent basis.

But, is Windows really all that bad??? Surely there must be something that puts it a cut above the rest, otherwise everybody would be using Apple Mac's.

I found this (http://www.windowscrash.com/albums/movies/windows_rg.swf) web-site which takes the Micky out of Windows for it's many failures, but so far I have yet to find a site which praises Microsoft for it's good points (whatever they may be). Anyone know of one?

[PeOfEo]

Its easier to trash someone else then praise. Look at the apple flicks hosted from my server
http://quasi-ke.servebeer.com/files/Movies/other/applegamer.wmv
WARNING THIS SECOND ONE BELOW IS VERY DIRTY SO BE MATURE AND DON'T GET ME IN TROUBLE FOR POSTING A LINK TO IT!
http://quasi-ke.servebeer.com/files/Movies/other/apple.wmv
MS has plenty of good points. They actually care about security contrary to what you might hear. If they did not they would not use places like fit (florida institute of technolgy) to break their softwear to find the holes so they can patch it before a hacker gets into it. They realease updates because they do care. The reason holes are found so often is because they are on top and they are the ones everyone is going after ebcause thats where the files are that the hackers are looking for, thats where the cdkeys are, thats where the credit card #'s, thats where the fun is. MS has asp.net w/ .net studio, sql server, excahnge server, advanced server, w2k3, NT os, C++
so on and so fourth. IE sucks hard, and so does front page but their other stuff is not bad.

[jeff_archer7]

I hear what you are saying but without Microsoft the world wide web wouldn't be what it is.. lets face it if this medium was not popularised by microsoft it would possibly still be a shabby peer to peer universtiy file swap..... Sure Billy boy has done some less than ethical things but lets face it he made things simple for your everyday user.... Try making Red Hat(linux...unix...) user friendly to a non-computer person... I believe microsoft had excellent marketing which got this whole deal world wide......

[Jeff Mott]

but without Microsoft the world wide web wouldn't be what it isThis is untrue. The WWW was doing fine with Netscape as the dominate browser. They didn't really assist with the growth of the Web, but if you were going to browse the Web they made damn sure you used their browser to do it.lets face it if this medium was not popularised by microsoft...This medium was not popularized by Microsoft.possibly still be a shabby peer to peer universtiy file swapThe very first version of HTML and the very first browser were already far more productive than what you describe.face it he made things simple for your everyday user.... Try making Red Hat(linux...unix...) user friendly to a non-computer person...This is the only area I've ever heard where Windows is better than linux (user friendliness).

[PeOfEo]

and gameing. Also it is more practical for personal use. Before the internet you had to dial up another number and connect to another user. Thats what he is talking about, and the first version of html was little more then plain blue hypertext links and text. The computer was popularized by ms, a great influx of people got their first computer when windows 95 came out.

[Aronya1]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
The computer was popularized by ms, a great influx of people got their first computer when windows 95 came out.
The computer was popularized by other companies long before Microsoft existed. Ever heard of the IBM? Altaire? Commodore? Atari? Osborne? TI? There are lots more.

Microsoft would have been just another software company except for IBM giving away the rights to demand royalties for any app that ran on DOS. Dropped that little present right in Billy's lap, and he was 2nd choice. The first choice guy wasn't home when Big Blue came a-knockin', so they went down the street to MS.

Microsoft has been the benefactor of numerous such windfalls. Some have been simple dumb luck. Others were more or less stolen. Steve Jobs gave Bill Gates a tour of Apple when they were working on the Mac & showed him what they were doing. That's where the whole idea of "windows" came from.

But the biggest factor in the popularity of the personal computer is price. Pure and simple. When they hit that $2000 mark, the public opened their wallets. When a computer cost $8,000, there just weren't that many people who could afford it, or felt they could justify spending that much.

My 2c.

[spufi]

Do I really want to post on a MS bashing thread when we have had so many already? :p

Here's a little thing to think about. While Netscape certianly was the number one browser at one point, version 4 screwed up CSS so badly that they had to go and do a complete rewrite for the browser and thus skipped version 5 all together. I believe even version 6 upgraded to 6.2 fairly quickly. To this day even though it's useage is less than 1%, web designers are still doing work arounds for Netscape 4.7(hello import statement) and the work arounds for IE 4 is far less. And yes, Netscape's need for the rewrite certainly opened up the door for IE, and Bill knew exactly what to do witha door so wide open.

What's interesting about this now is that the roles are kind of reversed. IE 7 isn't coming out for maybe a couple of years, so there is going to be plenty of time for other browsers to gain some ground. Opera 8 and Mozilla 2+/Firebird 1+ should all be out by then.

[James L.]

wow, touchy subject (as I well know from previous discussions on this board)...

MicroSoft is king in the computer world, and this fact is undeniable. The truth of the matter though, if you went back to the beginning and charted things out, would be this:

1) To see what will be in the next revision of windows, all you need to do is to look at the current, or in some cases previous, versions of the mac os. Apple has, and continues, to revolutionize the computing and digital world. Only someone with blinders on could not see that. They did it with the first home computer kits, they did it with the first graphical interface to be mass produced, they did it with firewire, wifi (I think), etc. They made a PDA YEARS ago, and it failed as the world wasn't ready for it. They are currently doing it with the iPod and the iTunes music store, which others, including Microsoft, are now moving to copy.

So, why is microsoft King.... marketing. They rock at it. They should be mandatory study material in ALL marketing classes in schools. Their products are not the most popular as they are the best, or most innovative, they are simply the best marketed products. Do you really think IE would have 95% of the market share for browsers if it didn't come preinstalled on the computers people bought and people had to research and decide which browser to use?

...sad, isn't it.

I don't think you will ever see a platform topple their death grip on the home based OS world. Unix, which imho is more stable, surely won't. The Mac OS, based on Unix, imho is superior, but won't ever be released on the PC. So, the whole thing proliferates and the cycle continues.

just my thoughts.. flame away!

p.s. PeOfEo, GREAT movies! lol!

[James L.]

Spufi, great thoughts about NN's history too.

[Robert Wellock]

The browser is so shoddy it cannot understand either XML or XHTML correctly, and screws up CSS and M$ helped develop both CSS and XML but eschews the use of DTD for its main websites.

Xerox PARC was the inventor of the first working GUI the truth is M$ was so desperate to catch up to Netscape they stole patented ideas and copied Netscape coding.

The company itself is probably not too bad apart from its monopoly and browser market share.

[James L.]

Robert,

You are right of course about Xerox, note I said the first GUI to be mass marketed or produced.

I think you hit the nail on the head though. People don't like monopolies, especially ones gained through manipulation, and sometimes theft. It isn't that their product(s), well some of them, are that bad, but for a company whose products are also not amazing, nor groundbreaking, the fact that they have the monopoly they have is.... disturbing.

Especially when there are equal, or better, options out there!

[vbKing]

Lets get to the point here. Microsoft is to the point where they are so big the don't really care how their products work, because most people have to use them. For an example we are expected to wait until at least 2005 for "Longhorn"!!?? Come on!

[EDR]

Originally posted by vbKing
Lets get to the point here. Microsoft is to the point where they are so big the don't really care how their products work,
I respectfully disagree. While James L. is correct in that "marketing" is the key distinction, a close second is that they care, hence all the R&D they put into their products. I own a software company, and I can tell you hands down that for *any* company to remain successful in business (especially in technology) routine improvements must be made and the business must listen to its clientele.

While almost everyone can site a particular area where Microsoft *should have* done this or that, they receive input from hundreds of millions of people. You can't make everyone happy, but I know they take the far majority of requests and get that functionality into their products, as best they can.

I now own Office 2003 Professional, and despite any reviews to the contrary it kicks ass! The UI, the speed, the new Outlook, Power Point and even Publisher are VAST improvements over previous versions... VAST. This is why in my other post, I'm so curious about the improvements in FP 2003. Unfortunately, it's not packaged with Office 2003 Professional.

Also, with the release of Win 2000, then XP, it was a *substantial* improvement in OS stability over 95/98/ME/NT.

Microsoft is the undisputed leader, because of (1) marketing, (2) R&D, (3) routine upgrades & improvements, and (4) listening to the consumer - period (what every company should strive to employ).

As a result of the R&D, improvements, and listening to clientele - Microsoft does have a good product. It's competitive. The pricing, extreme functionality, and user friendliness are part of the result of the above points.

Even the best marketing in the world won't be able to sell a crappy product for long. I think the GAP has some of the coolest advertising, but imagine those ads with torn, dirty clothes and homeless transients dancing to EW&F songs. Would it sell as well? I highly doubt it. Marketing is extremely important, but even though the saying, "That sales person is so talented he/she can sell a refrigerator to an eskimo" exists, it's generally known that no amount of marketing can continue to sell a bad product, especially on a mass consumer scale. People will catch on, they are too smart for that. Maybe one sales person can sell a refrigerator to three dumb eskimos, but when we're talking millions upon millions of consumers, product quality is a major factor - most people aren't dumb.

My two cents. EDR :)

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by vbKing
Lets get to the point here. Microsoft is to the point where they are so big the don't really care how their products work, because most people have to use them. For an example we are expected to wait until at least 2005 for "Longhorn"!!?? Come on! that is why the have windows updates almost daily, yes that shows a lack of care huh, patching to make it more stable and less vulnerable. The only reason holes are found by the 1337 |-|@><)l2s as often as they are is because it is on top and it is #1. These updates help ms to stay one step ahead of them, or atleast keep pace w/ them. XP, especially pro, is a very stable os. If you have ever opened w2k3 you would realize that it runs insanely fast, that is because they tore out all of the compadability code. MS has a very fast os, but so they do not step on everyones toes they put in tons of extra code so that java and other products will run well on their system, sure it would mean they might loose buisiness if they did this, but it also could take care of compedators, crush them financially. MS is not the bastard you make them out to be. It is a business and they might buy someone out or do a hole ish things sometimes but that is the business world. Longhorn should be a pretty nice os, I have a beta of it and it runs pretty freaken fast. Longhorn will have more efficient code, that should allow it to run much faster, it is worth waiting for rather then it just getting thown together and performing like ME which is not even nt based.

[David Harrison]

I tried those links, very good, I'm gonna keep those videos somewhere safe.

I got as far as:

elite F?ax???'s

but I'm lost with the other letters.

It sounds like your very pro microsoft and now you've got me on edge waiting for longhorn as well.


I must say James L. that I haven't really seen much of microsofts advertising, there were a few adverts for XP and 2k3 when they came out but not much else (at least nothing I can remember).

[James L.]

Marketing doesn't always mean direct consumer advertising. My uncle works for Microsoft, and the amount of behind the scenes work that is done with other companies, schools, organizations, etc is tremendous. Plus, a lot of it was done 15 years ago in the dos and windows 3.x days too.

Having said that, I see MS ads on t.v. on a regular basis for their new server software(s), OS updates, etc. Maybe I just live in an area that this is done in.... or maybe I watch too much t.v.!

The average consumer doesn't know any better. They go to a store, buy a machine that already has an OEM version of the os on it, and they take it home. The above describes a huge percentage of the windows users. If you had to buy hardware, and THEN research and compare the different os's, I think you would see a difference in market share. Same with IE.... if it didn't come preinstalled and people had to research and then decide which browser to use things would be a a bit different.

Ironically enough, IE Win and IE Mac are completely different browsers in so many ways. It seems wierd that they got it right for one, but not for the other!

Great thread... lots of good thoughts!

[James L.]

O.K., since we are showing great video's related to this topic I thought I would show you guys these....the first 2 are REAL... not parodies, not scripts.... just the CEO of MicroSoft:

http://www.ntk.net/media/developers.mpg

http://www.ntk.net/media/dancemonkeyboy.mpg

...I'm not sure if I like the pitstains more, the cracking voice, or the dancing!

:)


p.s. Here is a great Parody of the dancing one done in the vein of the new iPod commercials:

http://www.macboy.com/cartoons/ballmer/

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by lavalamp


elite F?ax???'s

but I'm lost with the other letters.
leet haxor = elite hacker

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by James L.
O.K., since we are showing great video's related to this topic I thought I would show you guys these....the first 2 are REAL... not parodies, not scripts.... just the CEO of MicroSoft:

http://www.ntk.net/media/developers.mpg

http://www.ntk.net/media/dancemonkeyboy.mpg

...I'm not sure if I like the pitstains more, the cracking voice, or the dancing!

:)


p.s. Here is a great Parody of the dancing one done in the vein of the new iPod commercials:

http://www.macboy.com/cartoons/ballmer/ nm, ignore that. your right, bg is the chairman.

[Paul Jr]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
1337 |-|@><)l2
Should be |_33+ |-|4><0|2

Heheh... :p

[PeOfEo]

yes... I hit shift when I was typeing.
<script type="text / off topic" language="moronic" >
Anyone ever notice how bill dresses like charlie brown? Its kind of funny, just don't tell the Fab five from queer eye... that episode might get more ratings then it deserves. I FREAKEN HATE THAT SHOW
</script>

[EDR]

Originally posted by James L.
The average consumer doesn't know any better. They go to a store, buy a machine that already has an OEM version of the os on it, and they take it home.
I guess I don't totally agree. Our "computer age" has been well into full force and effect for going on 10 years now (mass commerciality). So to assume that "most" people don't know any better, is like saying most music appreciators don't know or care if they have an Alpine or a Nakamichi.

Also, EVERY computer consumer has heard of Apple MAC's, even prior to purchasing. Why do most consumers still buy PC's? Because of product quality and functionality. Apple has a huge and briliant advertising campaign.

The bottom line is, now-a-days, you can do ANYTHING on a PC that can be done on a MAC, and the reverse is not true. PC's can now do all video, music, mixing, pro tools, graphics and other professional editing and mixing that used to be predominantly MAC domain, and Windows still maintains it's business capabilities on top of that.

Also, many people do research OS's when they purchase - whether they want 2000, or XP, a server software or some other. Unfortunately, it just happens to all be Windows-based. People are smarter than we give them credit for.

If RedHat were smarter and could give as great of a licensing deal to DELL or Gateway, we might see Unix/Linux shipped with home PC's. Microsoft is just smarter in their pricing/marketing.

[AdamBrill]

Originally posted by EDR
If RedHat were smarter and could give as great of a licensing deal to DELL or Gateway, we might see Unix/Linux shipped with home PC's. Microsoft is just smarter in their pricing/marketing. I'm not sure I can agree with this... Since RedHat is free, Microsoft obviously can't beat them in the price/marketing. ;) The bottom line is that Windows is better than Linux. About the only thing I would use Linux for is a server. The biggest thing to Linux's advantage is it's stability, but I'm running XP and normally only have to reset about once a month(most of the time because I installed something). I've never used Linux long enough to know, but I doubt that it can beat that in stability(expecially since the couple times I did run it, it didn't run as good as Windows).

Another thing is this: if any percentage at all would want a different operating system than Windows, Dell, etc, would give that as an option. But they don't, because no one wants a different operating system.

Another major disadvantage do Linux(or any operation system besides Windows) is the fact that all of the developers develop programs for Windows. Without programs, an OS is useless.

Here's the bottom line: There is no good alternative to Windows, and it doesn't appear like there will be in the near future.

And another bottom line: :p People that bash Windows/IE/whatever else normally have one reason why they don't like the product: it was created by Microsoft. For me, that is not a good enough reason; for many others, it is(which, BTW, is insane if you ask me).

[Paul Jr]

Originally posted by AdamBrill
And another bottom line: :p People that bash Windows/IE/whatever else normally have one reason why they don't like the product: it was created by Microsoft.
I now hate IE just 'cause it sucks; I don't care who made it. :rolleyes:

[PeOfEo]

My view of linux is, its fun to play w/ but it is not something I would want day to day. I would just get annoying as hell to use. Plus when u put linux on ur comp, it isnt comeing off, ever. Even if its on its own partition, if you try to remove it takes everything w/ it lol. It likes to mess it all up, it has this attitude if u go I am taken ur media, programs, and games w/ me you dirty peice of crap.

Originally posted by Paul Jr
I now hate IE just 'cause it sucks; I don't care who made it. :rolleyes: IE does suck though, hes got a point there. We can bash frontpage and ie and its not ms bashing, its crap bashing because those really are crap.

[EDR]

AdamBrill: I agree with everything you stated in your last post on this thread! All very good points. EDR :)

[AdamBrill]

Why does IE suck? What part of it don't you like? Is it the fact that you can hardly tell the difference between how IE6 generates a page and how Firebird generates a page? Firebird is considered one of the best browsers, so how can a browser that "completely sucks" and a browser that is the "best in the world" generate a page almost exactly the same?

I forgot to mention one other group of people: those that hate IE(or whatever) just because everyone else says it sucks. :rolleyes:

[Paul Jr]

Originally posted by AdamBrill
I forgot to mention one other group of people: those that hate IE(or whatever) just because everyone else says it sucks. :rolleyes:
I am now being stereotyped because I dislike a certain browser, which appears to be disliked by a great number of other people?

[AdamBrill]

Originally posted by Paul Jr
I am now being stereotyped because I dislike a certain browser, which appears to be disliked by a great number of other people? Answer my first paragraph, please.

[James L.]

<quote>

I guess I don't totally agree. Our "computer age" has been well into full force and effect for going on 10 years now (mass commerciality). So to assume that "most" people don't know any better, is like saying most music appreciators don't know or care if they have an Alpine or a Nakamichi.

</quote>


You could be right...here is my experience, which is why I have the opinion that I do. My best friend is a computer tech and professional programmer. He contracts a lot of his tech/repair work from a high end shop where I live. The users of products from this shop are split pretty evenly between MicroSoft Windows Users, Mac users, and misc users.

Our other buddy works at a common household electronics chain that is national where I live (Canada)..... this is the kind of place where the average 20 year old not in the know, to the almost EVERY 30 year old and older would go to buy a machine.... you know the mentality, "I need a computer, better go to the store, tell the sails clerk what I want to do with a computer, then let him pick the most appropriate machine for my use because I really don't know any better."

I would say our buddy sells about 10 machines to the general masses for every 1 machine the high end store sells to people in the know.

If you were to sit those people down, side by side in front of a Dell and a Mac, 90% of them (or more) would not be able to tell the difference, that the OS is different, etc.

This is my experience from dealing with clients too... my desktop is a PC, my laptop is a Mac. When I go to client's offices for the first time I often get asked about my computer. I explain that it is a Powerbook, blah blah blah, and often the first question asked is "What version of Windows do you have?" I explain that I have WinXP Pro on my home machine, OS 10.3.2 on my Mac.

To use your example of music, I liken the people "in the know" to the audiophiles who are particular about which stereo/speakers/ etc they use, to the people who walk into the store to get "Bobs" latest CD, and that stereo that was on sale in the flyer.

There are, of course, people VERY in the know about MS products (such as PeOfEo, who always has great statements and is obviously familiar with their products), but I would venture to say that more windows users are the "flyer" shoppers than informed ones.

[EDR]

Hi James!

Agreed on 99% of your points. However, "What version of Windows do you have?" - this says people know that there are choices, and are inquisitive enough to know they should inquire and perhaps decide because of various versions that exist. Like I said in an earlier post, whether it's 98/2000/NT or XP, most people do make a choice (it just so happens the majority of those choices are Windows based). :)

[Paul Jr]

Originally posted by AdamBrill
Answer my first paragraph, please.

I don't like the UI; the lack of customization, along with the fact that it's pretty buggy, no? It's also pretty slow. And the fact that scripts, such as changing the scrollbar, work in IE. Among other things like that.

I suppose, really, you could say I don't exactly "hate" IE, I just like FB a whole crap load better.

All comes down to personal preference, I suppose.

[AdamBrill]

I don't like the UI; the lack of customizationWhich, in case you didn't realize this, is a preference.
along with the fact that it's pretty buggy, no?You were right, no, IE is not "pretty buggy." I've seen more bugs in Firebird than IE(besides styles).
It's also pretty slow.No, not really, especially in startup(which is a big thing for me).
And the fact that scripts, such as changing the scrollbar, work in IE.You don't like it because it supports something that you don't like?
All comes down to personal preference, I suppose.Exactly. IE does not "suck" just because you don't happen to like it.

BTW, sorry to pick on you. ;) It's nothing personal, I just got sick of the MS/IE bashing. :)

[EDR]

I must support Adam on this one. I just downloaded and installed Firebird 0.7 and it is slower and is "buggy", at least in first experience. I run XP Pro and never have any problems with IE. It's also very fast.

Firebird doesn't seem any faster than IE, and when I clicked the stock buttons "Plugin FAQ" and "Help", it froze both times.

[Paul Jr]

Heheh, you all must be on different planents than I am on.

I've had way more bugs in IE than FB, in fact, I haven't run into a bug in FB yet.

I suppose startup time is a big thing, but the difference, if there is any, isn't that big for me.

What I meant by faster, is that I get to pages quicker? It may sound a odd, but seems that way to me.

And yes, I don't like it because it supports something I don't like, or maybe it doesn't support something I do like. If not, what exactly would one dislike about something?


BTW, sorry to pick on you. It's nothing personal, I just got sick of the MS/IE bashing.
Hey, no problem, I know where you're coming from.


I suppose I would be correct in saying that probably no browser "sucks", it's just personal preference. Along with a bit of propaganda and influencing. ;)

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by AdamBrill
Why does IE suck? What part of it don't you like? Is it the fact that you can hardly tell the difference between how IE6 generates a page and how Firebird generates a page? Firebird is considered one of the best browsers, so how can a browser that "completely sucks" and a browser that is the "best in the world" generate a page almost exactly the same?

I forgot to mention one other group of people: those that hate IE(or whatever) just because everyone else says it sucks. :rolleyes: I hate it for a valid reason, it does not handle css worth crap and I have to do twice as much work on a page trying to get it to work in ie. I used to love ie until I started using css. Then there is the fact that ie has tons of other bugs all over the place, including the horrible forced download that was mentioned about a week ago by yours truely. IE is a miserible browser, utterly horrible and I do not reccomend it. The way it reads scripts such as java script is alright, I like that more then ns based browsers and its about the same as opera but the css just recks it. How I have to hack the box modle left and right or go about doing things in illogical ways because ie reads voodoo css.

[AdamBrill]

I hate it for a valid reason, it does not handle css worth crap and I have to do twice as much work on a page trying to get it to work in ie. I used to love ie until I started using css.There are three ways to program styles:

1. Program for Mozilla/Firebird.
2. Program for IE.
3. Program for both.

I used to do #2, so I thought that Mozilla/Firebird sucked. But now I am getting much better at #3, and it's not "crappy" to get it to work in either of them now, and the best part is this: #3 is very close to the right way of doing things. My site(http://www.code4ever.com) has 0 hacks for IE, and http://www.ryanbrill.com has only one for IE, and it is for IE5.5, not IE6. So, as you can see, it doesn't take the "tons of hacks" that you think.
Then there is the fact that ie has tons of other bugs all over the place, including the horrible forced download that was mentioned about a week ago by yours truely.Ok, I would totally disagree with the "tons of other bugs", but about the force download one... As long as you know that that bug exists, it is not a big thing. On my computer, I had to let it sit there and do it's thing for about 500 popup boxes before one of them worked. So I had plenty of time to stop it. The only reason it worked is because I wanted to see if it could really be done; in real life, I would close the browser far before it got to that point.

Also, there are several bugs in Firebird. One is this: If you are trying to force a download of a file(by sending the headers to the browser), you should be able to specify the file and the extension, but not in Firebird. It works fine in IE, but not in Firebird.

Another "bug" is the textbox thing, but that would be hard to explain unless you have experienced it for yourself.
IE is a miserible browser, utterly horrible and I do not reccomend it. The way it reads scripts such as java script is alright, I like that more then ns based browsers and its about the same as opera but the css just recks it. How I have to hack the box modle left and right or go about doing things in illogical ways because ie reads voodoo css.See paragraph #1. :)

I've had way more bugs in IE than FB, in fact, I haven't run into a bug in FB yet.What are the "bugs" that you found in IE??
I suppose startup time is a big thing, but the difference, if there is any, isn't that big for me.

What I meant by faster, is that I get to pages quicker? It may sound a odd, but seems that way to me. Well, the difference in startup speed for me is 1 second in IE and 4 seconds in Firebird, so that is a huge difference. Even if Firebird would render the pages faster, it still isn't worth the extra startup time.
I suppose I would be correct in saying that probably no browser "sucks", it's just personal preference. Along with a bit of propaganda and influencing. There is one browser that you have every right to pick apart, and that is NS4. NS4 sucked back then and it sucks now. :D Fortunately NS4 is old and not enough people use it anymore to make it worthwhile to program for it. ;)

[Robert Wellock]

It would be hardly surprising Firebird would have more program code bugs because it is a beta and has not even reached 1.0 yet.

Though for a multibillion-dollar company to produce a browser that still cannot understand <object> XML, or XHTML is a pretty laid-back in my opinion.

Though to call Netscape 4.xx a bad browser would be folly, outdated though yes, but it wasn't a bad version four browser I have used it extensively.

[Aronya1]

Originally posted by AdamBrill

Well, the difference in startup speed for me is 1 second in IE and 4 seconds in Firebird, so that is a huge difference. Even if Firebird would render the pages faster, it still isn't worth the extra startup time.

Are you really saying that you'd spend an hour surfing the web at a slower speed, just because it takes 3 seconds longer for one program to load? I don't believe that. Unless you tell me that you're still using a 28.8 modem by choice.

[AdamBrill]

Originally posted by Aronya1
Are you really saying that you'd spend an hour surfing the web at a slower speed, just because it takes 3 seconds longer for one program to load? I don't believe that. Unless you tell me that you're still using a 28.8 modem by choice. Well believe it, because it's true. :rolleyes: And either way, I haven't noticed that Firebird was faster. I was just stating that if it was, I still don't like the startup time. And no, I'm not on 28.8 :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Though for a multibillion-dollar company to produce a browser that still cannot understand <object> XML, or XHTML is a pretty laid-back in my opinion.Just out of curiousity, are there any browser that support the object tag correctly? What is the point to having one tag that does it all rather than the multiple tags that we have now? I've even heard that they might get rid of the <img> tag... it seems to me like that's taking it a bit too far, but maybe that's just me. ;)

It seems to support XML ok, or at least as much as Firebird does(I'm not sure what the "right" support for XML is :p). What doesn't it do that it should do?

About the XHTML, I'm assuming you mean sending it as application/xhtml+xml... I've never actually heard the benefit to doing this, so I'd like an explination if you don't mind. ;)

As for NS4, if you compare it to any other browser, it is really bad. If you look at it by itself, then yes, it's ok(since it does the main job: getting the content across to the user), but when you have a better alternative, it starts to look pretty bad... or worse. ;) normally worse. :D

[PeOfEo]

Adam, I program for ie, ie5.5, ie5, opera, ns, mozilla, and other browsers. But to get a site to work in opera mozilla and ie6 at the same time is a pain in the butt. I do not hack that part but it means I have to do a lot of trial and error. Then I hack it for ie5. I am suprised you are defending ie, a non compliant browser, that basically ignores everything else and reads css its own way which at times is completly the opposite of the complaint browsers. I think you are just argueing for the sake of an arguemnt.

[AdamBrill]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
Adam, I program for ie, ie5.5, ie5, opera, ns, mozilla, and other browsers. But to get a site to work in opera mozilla and ie6 at the same time is a pain in the butt. I do not hack that part but it means I have to do a lot of trial and error. Then I hack it for ie5.Once you have the correct code, it really doesn't need many(if any) changes to make it look right in IE6. If it takes you so much "trial and error" to get it working correctly in IE, then chances are you don't have the correct code to begin with.
I am suprised you are defending ie, a non compliant browser, that basically ignores everything else and reads css its own way which at times is completly the opposite of the complaint browsers.If it reads css at times "completely the opposite", then why does my site and Pyro's(http://www.ryanbrill.com) work fine in IE6 without any hacks??? or did we just some how avoid all of the "completely opposite" CSS handling? Your concept is confusing...
I think you are just argueing for the sake of an arguemnt.It sounds to me like you don't have much of a reason to dislike IE when you start saying things like this rather than valid arguments... :rolleyes:

[PeOfEo]

I dislike ie because I have to go back and do more work for it because it ignores the standards and then developers see so many people only using ie6 they only devlope for that browser and that pisses me off more. I have reasons for dislikeing this browser. I used to love ie before I started using css. Then I saw how bad its box model was, then I saw how it kills objects, then I saw how it interprets code differently from the other browsers such as the positioning top bottom how the numbers just do not match up. I use rounded corners on my sites, to make them less edgey. I probably have seen these more then you have because I have to position all of those little turds for all of the browsers. It is hard to line it up right for all browsers at the same time. If I make a page that works on on all browsers but ie, then try to make it work for just ie, it screws it up for the other browser then it goes back and fourth for a while until it all works.

[PunkSktBrdr01]

The reason IE loads faster is that a lot of it is already running in the system. Firebird (and other browsers) have to load into memory, when IE is already in memory.

Now, why IE is a bad browser:

1) It is bad with CSS and the box model.

2) It has a bunch of proprietary code, which causes other browsers to look bad when they can't handle it.

3) This is just my opinion, but I seriously dislike the UI, and the way it works in general. It isn't very customizable, and it isn't very secure (or so I've heard).

[PeOfEo]

the proprietary code can be good, you just cannot realy on it. The scroll bars can be nice, and so can the overflow-x -y stuff, but if the thing is only having overflow probs in ie then use the proprietary code to fix it, if not find another way.

[PunkSktBrdr01]

But proprietary code pushes designers -- and users -- away from web standards. This leads back to the browser wars era.

[Paul Jr]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
But to get a site to work in opera mozilla and ie6 at the same time is a pain in the butt.
I can't really say I've made a ton of really complicated sites, but they're not real simple either, and I've never had any problems getting a site to work in IE 6, Moz 1.5, FB 0.7, Opera 7, and Netscape 7.1 at the same time without any hacks, or doing anything any different than normal.

[PeOfEo]

you have not had problems? Post a link then. You have to understand, I am using rounded images and fluid heights and widths. Look at http://quasi-ke.servebeer.com/layout/index.html
I had to make that transitional and use aligh="right" to get the images on the right side to line up correctly because Ie would put them off 1 or 2 px, and this would change witht he resolution so I could not hack it. When I changed it to useing align="right" it was still 2px off in ie, but perfect in mozilla so I hacked the heck out of it for ie, you can see my css at
http://quasi-ke.servebeer.com/layout/layout.css
I worked on that for hours, this was the solution I came to. I could fine no other way. I got it work numerous times in opera and mozilla but ie would always screw up the right side.
I finally decided to try this but unfortunatly I cannot make it strict and say look it is in strict... big deal. If you want to validate it in strict the only errors you will get are the align="right" ones. But anyways, this layout is pretty in ie6, 5.5, mozilla. It gets a little messy in ie5 and opera. Such is life. I have not viewed it in lynx yet because I have not download it yet (I am on a new hard drive), but it should look almost exactly the same as it did when It was http://www.paxonradio.vze.com , that is the old layout of mine I was modding

[AdamBrill]

Well, I decided I would try re-making the site you posted a link to and see if I have so much trouble and have to use so many "hacks." Here are the results:

Mine is valid HTML 4.01 Strict; yours is valid HTML 4.01 transitional. After designing the entire site, mine validated perfectly the first time. ;) I love it when it works like that. :)

Mine has 79 lines of CSS with 2 hacks for IE(because of the different handling of borders) and yours has 353 lines of CSS with many hacks.

Most of the reason that you were having problems with this was probably because it is really a pixel perfect design. I believe that web development is leaning toward more flowing designs(such as http://www.ryanbrill.com).

I stand to this:Once you have the correct code, it really doesn't need many(if any) changes to make it look right in IE6. If it takes you so much "trial and error" to get it working correctly in IE, then chances are you don't have the correct code to begin with. since once I had the "correct" code, it only needed two hacks to make it work in IE.

Attached is my version of your site. I give you permission to use it as you wish... ;) You will notice, though, that I didn't add the links in, mostly because you used JS and I don't like JS menus. I would suggest coming up with something else, but do what you want...

[PeOfEo]

Open it in ie6 and then play w/ the browser size. The image at the top will move tad bit out of alignment and then back into alignment. That is why I had to make mine transitional and use the align element. I could not get rid of little things like that. That was my biggest problem when I first made this layout, I had a ton less code, and it was much more straight to the point, the way I would normally do things, but when I was finished I meat that little bug, a nemesis I had meat before. I would be all done packing it up, look at it one last time at the normal red then do one last check by resizing my res and messing w/ the browser size (I mainly resolution test while I am working w/ firebird by popping the browser size to 800 by 600 w/ the tool bar) but when I changed the res on ie I would see that. Anyways the bottom right image was positioned fine it was just the top one. Also more things that I noticed about that layout. You are going to need a few more hacks, if you look at it in ie5 you will see what I mean, my original one looked fine in ie5, except the top right corner (I might fix that once I figure out what was cuasing the problem). But what you made needs the box model hack because it gets screwed up in ie5.5 too, but thats just minor stuff. All and all it looks pretty good, I would be tempted to use it but then again I did not make it and I can't feel comfortable telling people that I wrote the code to something I did not so I will stick with mine since I recoded and hacked out all of the major stuff and the content is accessable on a very wide ange of platforms and it looks good for an overwhelming majority or the traffic. I know I will be using java script for those menus, but did you notice that the top of each of those is a link? If a browser that comes along happens to not support java script, yet support the visible property of css they can use that to be tanken to a page with the menu on it, when I finish. But in browsers like linx and ie2, etc, the content will just display under the header slightly indented because they support neither. I have that one covered. When this is all done this site will look pretty for I would think all of my traffic (its not often you will get a browser like lynx) but even for that situation the content will be accessable. My main goal is that this will be accessable for everyone who could possibly visit. But back to all the junk earlier, I got the whole thing up and running fine in opera and mozilla early on, and had to redo things and basically recode it all just for ie not to mention thow in ie hacks and do things a different way for every other browser so as not to screw it up for them. That owen's hack really came in handy, I see you used it too. IE is not a very good browser, I do not quite understand why you are taking an opposite side from me in this one, usually I am the one sticking up for an ms product and you would be in the middle on it or against it. :(

[jeff_archer7]

I here what everyone is saying however....Why would you not design pages for IE.... other browsers may be better but IE is the most popular... if you are designing pages that work perfectly on FB you are catering for the small percentage.... 90% of people use IE, I design with that in mind, as for all othere if the pages work the same cool... if they don't ,,, well too bad.... I cater for the majority.

FB may be superior but IE is more common....... FB need better marketing

[Paul Jr]

Originally posted by jeff_archer7
I here what everyone is saying however....Why would you not design pages for IE.... other browsers may be better but IE is the most popular... if you are designing pages that work perfectly on FB you are catering for the small percentage.... 90% of people use IE, I design with that in mind, as for all othere if the pages work the same cool... if they don't ,,, well too bad.... I cater for the majority.

FB may be superior but IE is more common....... FB need better marketing
I agree. But I do not code for IE, I code mostly for FireBird, then I fix what IE misinterprets.

[PeOfEo]

Did not say I don't design for ie. You sort of have to. I just do not enjoy having to redo my code so it will work on ie. I would like my site to look pretty on all browsers, but obviously that is not possible... so Ill atleast try to make it accessable... I still have more work to do. I am going to have to code things out the long way (not that much longer actually, just a few if statements instead of feild validators... etc) to get rid of some asp.net w3 screw ups too.

[spufi]

Originally posted by jeff_archer7
I here what everyone is saying however....Why would you not design pages for IE.... other browsers may be better but IE is the most popular... if you are designing pages that work perfectly on FB you are catering for the small percentage.... 90% of people use IE, I design with that in mind, as for all othere if the pages work the same cool... if they don't ,,, well too bad.... I cater for the majority.

FB may be superior but IE is more common....... FB need better marketing

It's been said before, but I'll repeat it. One should code according to standards first, and then tweek your code to make it work like you want it to in various broswers. Also, getting it to work in IE first means you are creating more work arounds than needed. If you cater to the majority, does this mean you also don't use <noscript> tags since only 13% of the net have JavaScript disabled?

And by the way, if you can think of a marketing plan for a version 0.7 product to take on a product which is in version 6 and installed on 90% of the operating sytems by default, I'm sure you could make millions off of it.

[PeOfEo]

exploit the forced ie download and force others to download fb :p. if only you could get that script onto msn.com or google or something where it would get to a ton of people in a short period of time before a patch is released or the site is taken down for fixing... would be a nice prank though.

[jeff_archer7]

I'll say it again..... code for all you want but remember your work is being veiwed through IE most of the time..... I agree one should code to standards ( you know those set of pseudo rules that change constantly to cater to nerds who design crap only other nerds use :D )...... Opinions are for the end user to have NOT the web designer.... the web designers' job is to make pages accessible TO THE MAORITY.... If I employed someone who wrote mainly with a low percentage audience in mind (ig. firbird) They would get themselves fired. My customers want the MAJORITY of people to experience their products or information not 10%....





Originally posted by PeOfEo
exploit the forced ie download and force others to download fb :p. if only you could get that script onto msn.com or google or something where it would get to a ton of people in a short period of time before a patch is released or the site is taken down for fixing... would be a nice prank though.

I believe that is called a VIRUS......
LOL...... BABY :D

[PeOfEo]

I prefer to call it a... well... exploitation of an ie security hole that leads to a helpful backterial infection... never mind... Ill think of something shorter.

[jeff_archer7]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
I prefer to call it a... well... exploitation of an ie security hole that leads to a helpful backterial infection... never mind... Ill think of something shorter.

lets call it "inventive programing" or mabee ummmmm "coded misadventure" .........
"convertive script proccessing" :D

soooooooooooooooo many options

[PeOfEo]

browser improvement through malitious scripting.

[jeff_archer7]

"product biased code improvisation"

[PeOfEo]

I have one, "Getting you a new browser, weather you like it or not"

[jeff_archer7]

"unsolicited browser renewal" ???

[AdamBrill]

Ok, I'm back. ;) The problem in IE6(I'm assuming that you meant the right image going over the links, since that's all I could find) really wasn't a "problem" at all. I just set the z-index and away I went. I also added some filler links just to make it look not quite so blank...

I also got it working fine in IE5.5, which only needed one hack. For the very small amount of users using IE5.01, I didn't waste my time fixing it for that. You can't get it to look right in all browsers anyway, so you have to draw the line somewhere. For me, that line is IE5.5; I don't go much below that.

About the Owen's hack, it really wasn't needed, so I got rid of it...

I knew something was wrong with your code as soon as I saw that there were 353 lines of CSS and that it was only valid transitional. This design doesn't need anywhere near that much code, as I have shown.

About the JS menu, I just don't like them. Not only for compatibility issues(which are able to be worked around), but mostly just because, in my opinion, they are annoying.

Originally posted by PeOfEo
IE is not a very good browser, I do not quite understand why you are taking an opposite side from me in this one, usually I am the one sticking up for an ms product and you would be in the middle on it or against it.Yes, true, I am normally in the middle somewhere, but then, we are normally talking about Microsoft in general, not IE6, so that's the difference. I will still say that IE is not a bad browser. IE6 needed two hacks and IE5.5 needed one more; if you ask me, that's pretty good. I'm hoping that through this people will realize that IE6 is not the evil beast that people like to make it out to be...

And I will one more time stand to this:Once you have the correct code, it really doesn't need many(if any) changes to make it look right in IE6. If it takes you so much "trial and error" to get it working correctly in IE, then chances are you don't have the correct code to begin with.

[PeOfEo]

well No, look at the top right image and play around w/ the screen size. You will find it slides out of alignment at other sizes, like It must be an odd number of pixils or something for the width, but it is something I have seen many times. It is quite annoying. The menu adds quite a bit of css to my code because I have 3 or 4 properties I set for each of those divs. If I got rid of that then I would not have much at all. I do like how you condenced some things like those two images into one. Mainly why I did not do that was because I was taking this from another layout I made and trying to make it into something different. I like how mine fairs though on all browsers as it is now. But I will look at your code and see if there are ways I can optimise mine. But the reason mine is transitional is because I used align = right for the right images because of the width alignment problems I found. Those are the only errors. Validate it in transitional to see. I am not too worried about that though. I will look and see what you did differently here in a minuit or two.

[PeOfEo]

here is a screen shot of what I am talking about. This is why I had to use the align = right on mine too :( . Ill have to look and see how you managed to get the bottom right image to stay put. Also when you said pixil perfect earlier, what did you mean? Just the fact that everything has to line up perfectly or it looks crappy because I am using rounded edges etc?

[Paul Jr]

Originally posted by jeff_archer7
the web designers' job is to make pages accessible TO THE MAORITY....
I don't believe it should matter what the majority uses, or what it doesn't use. I believe the job of a designer/developer is to code his or her site as to make it accessible and functional no matter what device is used to view it. I do not believe in coding for one thing over another just because it is used by the masses more than something else.

[jeff_archer7]

Grrrrr

[AdamBrill]

Ah, ok, thanks for the screen shot. I didn't even notice that until you showed that screen shot.

Anyway, here is a version that fixes that. It appears that the problem was this:

position:absolute;
right:10px;

I'm not sure why I would have used that anyway since you can do the same thing(and it works better) with float:right, but I changed it and it works much better... and the CSS got shorter, too. I'm down to 77 lines.

BTW, Paul Jr, while you definately should validate your code and use proper CSS, you should make your site look the best in the most popular browsers. If I would come across a 1px difference between IE and FB and I couldn't figure out how to make it work in both(which probably wouldn't happen, but if it would...), I would make it look right in IE. Since it's not like it would be "wrong" to make it look right for the majority, that is how it should be done.

[Paul Jr]

Originally posted by AdamBrill
If I would come across a 1px difference between IE and FB and I couldn't figure out how to make it work in both(which probably wouldn't happen, but if it would...), I would make it look right in IE. Since it's not like it would be "wrong" to make it look right for the majority, that is how it should be done.
Eh, I probably would too, but that would be the only instance. I would code for the most popular browser if there was absolutely no way to fix the problem.

[PeOfEo]

float:left;

is that just a css equiv to the html align stuff? Its handy. I do not want to use your code because I did not write it and I just do not feel right about it. But I will use those floats and get rid of those 2 align's I have and make mine strict.

[AdamBrill]

is that just a css equiv to the html align stuff? Its handy.Yes, it is.I do not want to use your code because I did not write it and I just do not feel right about it.I totally understand that... Even when I started making this, I figured that you wouldn't end up using it, but I wanted to show that IE's handling of CSS is not bad at all(which I think I have shown). If this helps convince some of you that IE's CSS handling isn't that bad(actually, IMO, it is quite good), then it was worth my time. ;)

I also forgot to comment about the pixel perfect thing... I said that because everything on the whole site has to line up "pixel perfect" or it won't look good. IMO, it is better for designs to be more flowing... Unfortunately my site isn't that great as far as that goes either. :( I guess that's what comes of being a programmer not a designer. ;)

[Paul Jr]

Originally posted by AdamBrill
Unfortunately my site isn't that great as far as that goes either. :( I guess that's what comes of being a programmer not a designer. ;)
Heheh, I like what you've done with it, though. I always go there for all my fake latin needs ;). I remember when it was just plain ol' text and normal blue and purple (visited) links :p.

[AdamBrill]

Originally posted by Paul Jr
Heheh, I like what you've done with it, though. I always go there for all my fake latin needs ;). I remember when it was just plain ol' text and normal blue and purple (visited) links :p. lol, yeah, I decided that it sucked so bad I had to come up with something else, and that's what I came up with. ;) I'm not really happy with it, but it'll do. :)

I'm hoping to have time to make some better pre-made scripts soon(in PHP), but school has been keeping me busy so it'll have to wait. ;)

[PeOfEo]

http://www.loremipsum.de/
its used because it looks better then
test test test test test test test test.
It is acutally just latin gibberish I thinks.

[AdamBrill]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
http://www.loremipsum.de/
its used because it looks better then
test test test test test test test test.
It is acutally just latin gibberish I thinks. Just out of curiousity, what made you post that? ;) I guess that's the same reason why Paul Jr uses my Fake Latin script...

[PeOfEo]

lol I was just posting incase he was wondering where we got the latin mumbo jubo from. Well there are many other places but its all the same... latin looking gibberish.

[AdamBrill]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
lol I was just posting incase he was wondering where we got the latin mumbo jubo from. Well there are many other places but its all the same... latin looking gibberish. Yes, and you can see my "fake latin generator" here. (http://www.code4ever.com/free/fake_latin.htm) I was just wondering what would make you link to a different one. :) But it doesn't really matter, so... ;)

[PeOfEo]

I didn't even know that existed. Book marked!

[Paul Jr]

Originally posted by AdamBrill
you can see my "fake latin generator" here. (http://www.code4ever.com/free/fake_latin.htm)
This is probably a bit pointless, but I once tried to make it spit out like 5000 paragraphs for me :p. Needless to say, it crashed my browser ;).

[PeOfEo]

Good, serves you right :P Your lucky the e-machine didnt tell you to go ... (inside joke from a mac video... even though you do not use a mac)

[Paul Jr]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
even though you do not use a mac
You're right, I don't. But why would you assume such a thing?

[PeOfEo]

I did not, but its just a funny thing to say, watch the video why dont you. Alert the e-macines told me to go ____ myself. It was in a mac user video, one of the ones I have that smears mac. :D

[Paul Jr]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
I did not
You most certainly did!
And I quote:
Originally posted by PeOfEo
even though you do not use a mac

[AdamBrill]

Originally posted by Paul Jr
This is probably a bit pointless, but I once tried to make it spit out like 5000 paragraphs for me :p. Needless to say, it crashed my browser ;). lol, yeah. Maybe I should add in another box that says,"How many books to generate?" :D

[Paul Jr]

Originally posted by AdamBrill
lol, yeah. Maybe I should add in another box that says,"How many books to generate?" :D
Lol! Yeah, add something in to appease the the little obsessive complusive person in us all. ;)

[PeOfEo]

Lets pretend to talk about ms here for a few posts to make it look like this thread is on topic so it doesnt get locked :D

[steelersfan88]

Justo to continue the thread, I composed the next in Latin, and it didn't take nearly as long as J.K. Rowlings takes to write her books :)

So microsoft, as peo wants to do, lets talk about it ... [***************************] Note that its written as passwords in red & black ink since the information is secure, sorry :)

[AdamBrill]

Originally posted by steelersfan88
Justo to continue the thread, I composed the next in Latin, and it didn't take nearly as long as J.K. Rowlings takes to write her books :)

So microsoft, as peo wants to do, lets talk about it ... [***************************] Note that its written as passwords in red & black ink since the information is secure, sorry :) Please tell us what the point to your post was. If there was none, then why did you bring back a three month old thread??

[steelersfan88]

While the post before mine is 3 months old, there were viewers of this thread today! (before peo, also). Posting here at least showed these guests that the forums are active and that maybe we could get a tad few to join. I am sorry, as I did not realize I had lost the right to post where I want.

[PeOfEo]

1) http://quasi-ke.servebeer.com/dumped.jpg

2) http://quasi-ke.servebeer.com/banhim.jpg

3) http://quasi-ke.servebeer.com/crushed.jpg

I wish I could post images for a good image flame every once in a while.