On 16 Dec 2008 at 8:57pm Smiler wrote:
Could this be the end of Internet Explorer
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7784908.stm
FireFox is much better anyway
www.mozilla.com
On 16 Dec 2008 at 9:42pm Digga wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Microsoft will bounce back from this quite quickly, as IE8 is just around the corner.
I would strongly recommend anyone who uses the internet, never use internet explorer because of it's weaknesses, and also that it will slow your computer down significantly whilst it's running.
You have a choice of 3 other browsers:
Mozilla Firefox
Google Chrome
or Opera
(You could use Safari from Apple, but this has limited functionality on many web sites)
Of these 3, I would recommend 'Chrome' as it is a light weight, fast and powerful web browser. To find it, or any of the just use Google.
On 17 Dec 2008 at 12:09am THEINTREPIDFOX wrote:
If this isn't a bit of irony? Perhaps the initiator of this thread wants to run HP Scrawlr to see some security vulnerabilities (which are the root of the BBC article) at the very own doorstep?? ;-) Poster two is safe. In principle, this isn't really a problem of Internet Explorer but that SOME websites can POTENTIALLY be compromised in the first place. From there it's another step to get the harmful code into Internet Explorer. A few precautions as outlined in Microsoft Security Advisory (961051) minimize this POTENTIAL risk. Everything else is just your everyday media scaremongery. And one has to admit that Chrome & Friends aren't saints when it comes down to vulnerabilities. Chrome especially. The topic is security not performance.
On 17 Dec 2008 at 12:21am Smiler wrote:
IE8 is just another nail in the coffin. Websites that work fine in FireFox, Chrome, IE6, IE7, and Safari look screwed in IE8!!
When will they learn to adhere to the agreed web standards and stop trying to force themsleves upon the web.
On 17 Dec 2008 at 12:49am Mystic Mog wrote:
Remember doing a website ages ago with Dreamweaver and used frames only to find out that it would only work with Netscape OR IE not both (this was a few years ago). Very frustrating that for developers, it seems form my limited experience, the whim of the different web browser writers to follow disparate standards.
On 17 Dec 2008 at 8:49am THEINTREPIDFOX wrote:
Whine, Whine, Whine: microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/beta/readiness/developers.aspx
It's an occupational hazard for web developers that new browsers are coming out. What a page in a given browser looks like is mostly down to the skill of the developer. Yes, it is a pain but not impossile. And yes you will need to keep updating your site to keep it compliant - for all browsers. Live with it. I'm sure Microsoft certainly doesn't release a new browser just to torture everybody. If you compare Internet Explorer Vs Opera, Firefox, Chrome, Safari (and NeoPlanet, LOL) the penny will drop when it comes down to fulfilling WCAG.
On 17 Dec 2008 at 9:12am Mystic Mog wrote:
Not a whine but an observation. When I spoke with Macromedia's technical support they basically said they do / did not follow similar standards nad were themselves frustrated. This meant that using frames was not possible if you wanted complete compatibity na dthese had to be converted to tables. As I said earlier this was some time ago (9 years) and that my experience was / is limited. You infer that life is better now - good!
On 17 Dec 2008 at 9:15am Mystic Mog wrote:
Sorry meant to say 'layers' not 'frames'.
On 17 Dec 2008 at 10:56am THEINTREPIDFOX wrote:
That's exactly what it boils down to then. The use of certain (fancy? unnecessary?) technologies that are not cross-browser / cross-platform compatible and then slag off a certain browser / platform because it doesn't work. Clue is to check and test before using it for development. Visual Studio and Dreamweaver both don't produce perfect mark-up out-of-the-box and one will need to tweak it. Microsoft Visual Studio produces less rubbish but is not an exception. The question at the end of the day is whether you are satisfied that you have done your best and most to produce a website that runs in all current browsers and on platforms alike and that it fulfils core requirements? If it doesn't it's time for a rethink and to perhaps cut out some fancy functionality, look at your coding or to find an alternative. Yes it is nerve wrecking and time consuming but rewarding at the end. I'm also puzzled that people are first to scream if something doesn't work in their small-market-share-homebrewed browser, feel discriminated at least if not come up with conspiracy theories. Which are often the very same people who produce websites which don't adhere to special needs standards. Why care if someone's Braille tablet doesn't work as long as it looks good in Firefox and Chrome? It's just an insignificant percentage of visitors. Enough said, Im off to complain to my mobile phone manufacturer as I cant use my analogue handset any longer whilst I also file a lawsuit against my TV manufacturer because it wont work after the digital switchover. ;-)
On 17 Dec 2008 at 11:48am Mystic Mog wrote:
OK. Just annoying that the layer function, which is not that fancy, would only work on either IE or Netscape not both. Just frustrated with all of them including Macromedia because a reason for buying Dreamweaver was the layer function rather than be constrained by tables. Anyway stopped doing websites, I get someone else to to do them and let them get grumpy.
I tried to get a reduction in our TV liecence because we cannot get digital via the TV aerial and resent paying for digital. However I was told as long as you get a signal, no matter how bad, that is all that is required to justify a licence fee. Good luck with the TV and mobile companies!
On 17 Dec 2008 at 12:10pm Lewes Laugher wrote:
Do you get the feeling that humans are not intelligent enough to run the systems they are capable of creating?
On 17 Dec 2008 at 12:34pm Mystic Mog wrote:
I would substitute either 'capable', 'organised', 'focused' or 'bothered' instead of intelligent. I asume that you mean collective human intelligence rather than individual.
On 17 Dec 2008 at 1:40pm Sidenote wrote:
Funny how the topic always changes to the Lewes council(s).. Yes!
On 17 Dec 2008 at 1:51pm THEINTREPIDFOX wrote:
Layer functions are fancy. And don't get me started on the TV license! It's outrageous and criminal that I can't (legally) access the BBC iPlayer when abroad despite paying for a TV license whilst others in this country watch it without a TV license!!! Argh!!! Injustice!!
On 17 Dec 2008 at 2:02pm Mystic Mog wrote:
You changed it sidenote. I was taking LL's comment to be about the human condition in general.
On 17 Dec 2008 at 7:17pm Fred wrote:
Use a Mac.
On 17 Dec 2008 at 7:42pm Lewes Laugher wrote:
MM - yes, collective. Fred - I've got a Mac. It doesn't mean no problems, just different problems.
On 17 Dec 2008 at 8:07pm Mystic Mog wrote:
Useful in the rain though
On 17 Dec 2008 at 9:50pm Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
Computer talk - it's all double dutch to me!
On 18 Dec 2008 at 12:32pm THEINTREPIDFOX wrote:
One may add that the issue mentioned in the BBC article now been fixed by Microsoft and that it's safe to use Internet Explorer. To make sure you are up to date with all security fixes, please visit update.microsoft.com
On 18 Dec 2008 at 2:29pm Harry Mount wrote:
...or use linux - you can keep your Windows viruses, thanks :-)
But Lewes Laughter got it right - they all drive you mad, just in different ways.