posted 09-30-2000 06:54 PM               

I think.

posted 09-30-2000 09:30 PM               

a) the proprietary microcrap tags
b) its very-tight integration with the operating system

Personally, I like a browser to act *as a browser* and not my interface (or part of) the rest of the operating system.

Hence why I use Netscape Navigator, because it actually feels like a separate program.

So as a surfer, I use NS by default, but IE is alright too...

But of course, let's not talk about when I'm making webpages. >

/me grumbles at triple the amount of code (IE/NS/W3C).

posted 09-30-2000 09:37 PM                  

If you dont like having the web integrated into your interface, you better switch to a better operating system, because thats the future of MS OSes.

I like not having to wait 5 minutes for Nutscrape to load.

I like having my webpages look right in IE while Netscape fucks them up.

posted 09-30-2000 10:44 PM               

Hmm, funny thing is that IE takes about 3 seconds to load, and NS takes about 5 seconds. On my P200, IE took about 6 seconds, and NS took about 9 seconds (including the time it takes for me to click and choose my user profile).

True, "Nutscrap" takes longer to load-- but that's because it isn't integrated w/ the OS... so there's no chance it'd load faster.

Of course, this is before it gets cached into memory. Once it's in, they both take virtually the same amount of time to load. But regardless, I don't know where you're getting this "Nutscrap takes 5 minutes to load" from. That is a gross exaggeration of stupendous proportions.

* * * * *

Netscape doesn't fuck up your webpages. In fact, if you want the full cumshot, BOTH Netscape and Microsoft FUCKED UP BIG-TIME when they hit the version 4 browsers. They decided to peel away from W3C standards and implement their proprietary DOM (Document Object Model) standards and proprietary HTML tags (e.g. BGSOUND, LAYER, come to mind) in the so-called "Browser Wars."

Now obviously, there was political motive for doing this-- it was obviously geared at getting people to switch to "their" respective browsers. People using one browser will see some messed up shit while other browsers will see it nice and dandy. Vice-versa.

But then again, any webpage designer will know that maximum page reproduction is achieved only by writing code for ALL browsers (hence my remark about 3x the code when making pages). So in the end, all it did was victimize (okay, maybe not to that extent- but at least inconvenience) the viewer and the creator.

Now, IE5.5 is supposedly W3C-compliant, but it's not fully-so, unlike the "new" Mozilla/Netscape 6. Granted, NS6 is even slower, buggy (aka shit), and still in development, but it is a "true" standards-compliant browser that aims to finally axe all the old proprietary DOM code (include Netscape's own war-brew).

Enough talk. To each his own. But I just wanted to set a few comments straight.

posted 10-01-2000 04:09 AM               

I always feel that crappy code (HTML or otherwise) should be dealt with by the programmer/designer and not the platform it's running on. Theoretically, the compiler/runtime environment shouldn't have to deal with shotty code. Ideally, the compiler/RE would fix all your errors. Realistically, there is some compensation (most common would say, be Win9x/DOS's virtual forgiveness when dealing with case-sensitive filenames), but a lot of blips pass by. The fact that any program even partially compensates for correctable errors is already a gift.

However, it's also a gift that promotes laziness. You don't encourage someone to code or do any task poorly just because there's some sort of compensation to straighten things out for you. It's like leaving a mess in your room because you know a maid will be there to tidy it up for you.

It also brings the following into question- how often are you going to load a page with shotty code? What is "crap" code? There's one thing about using deprecated tags and stuff-- but those are just that, deprecated but not completed hosed out. But then there are more formal examples, like using an appropriate </TR> after finishing a table row. HTML is VERY VERY forgiving and lenient with coding convention, but it's roots are pretty much like any other programming language out there. There is some syntax you have to follow and rules that one has to be aware. Don't expect the program (or page) to work/display properly if the code was initially problematic.

I'm not downplaying the robustness of IE as something Evil, but if the browser automagically corrects it, what type of programmers are we gonna have? It's like a bunch of people asking during a game, "how do I stop myself from bleeding?" in AQ2. They are complete newbies who don't know anything at all. When you introduce them to a more complex environment, they think they can just slide their ass up to the top, when in fact, you have to stand up and take steps.

That ramp doesn't always exist. Not to sound elite (because I'm anything but that) but if someone can't figure out proper HTML coding then it could mean three things: 1) That person should take the time to learn more and practice, 2) That person should stop and consult someone who can-- no one is perfect in everything (it doesn't hurt to ask for help), 3) maybe coding isn't his/her thing, so instead of making it difficult for everyone he/she shouldn't pretend that he/she can. Coding is NOT something everyone can do.

You can't pass the blame down the chain. The mistake started with crap code by some programmer. That's the source. Fix him (or her).

set rant_mode 0

EDIT: BTW, this has nothing to do with how a browser interprets PERFECT code, but rather how a browser interprets CRAPPY code. Obviously, as Pscyho just pointed out, I agree - I've had my share of complaints at how NS sometimes rapes my table code.

------------------
-Victor Chow (eLDeR_MMHS)
Don't let the last name fool you-
I'm as white as you are.

posted 10-02-2000 02:09 AM                  

Is this a known issue that 5.0 doesn't work with your ISP, or does it just not work and you want to see if 5.5 does? Because if 5.0 and the IE setup program don't work, I have a feeling 5.5 won't either... Check your Windows Internet options. All that IE stuff should use the Windows settings, while Navigator uses its own settings...

From my personal experience, Navigator has always taken a little longer to load, but loads pages faster than IE, on modem and broadband connections. As soon as I installed Win2K, "Netscape" stopped crashing too. (Since I set my Program Files directory to another drive, I'm actually using the same installation, which is why I used the quotataion marks...) Also, IE doesn't have as much functionality to me as Navigator. I actually use the "Open Frame in New Window" and "View Image" commands. Navigator's built-in source viewer is also faster than loading the page in Notepad... With the newest version, and all of MS's little addon packs, I can almost tolerate using IE. I won't even get into ActiveX...