On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:45:52 -0800, "John Hokanson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Monday 29 October 2001 08:26 am, you wrote:
> > Microsoft has backed off now, because of attention and articles.
> > (I may make a note of that in the warning.)
> >
> > It will be back when they can do it in a way that won't draw
> > attention to themselves.
> >
> > Mozilla is not significantly slower then IE, I have both and there
> > isn't much in it.
> >
>
> Exactly what type of computer are you running? MSIE is
> MUCH faster than Mozilla. The browser is practically
> integrated into the OS, so it's naturally going to run faster.
> There have been benchmarks to prove it. If you like, I
> can dig some up.
What do you mean by "MUCH faster"? If you mean time to execute, then you are
correct, because most of IE executes at bootup whether you want it or not. If
you talking about page rendering speed (which IMHO is far more important), then
Mozilla blows everything else out of the water. Note that Mozilla isn't 1.0 yet
- there is a good chance that it has not been fully optimised yet, and that it
has the potential to be _much_ faster.
> > IE6 is the first browser to come close to the standards, and it
> > doesn't support Java
> > applets or plugins unless you upgrade IE5.5 to IE6, then it keeps
> > the support, other
> > wise it does not. (but IE6 is no closer then Mozilla and supports
> > stuff that wc3 don't.
> >
>
> IE 5.5 supports HTML 4.x just fine. As did 4.
You'll never know that for sure unless you do some _real_ tests. Browsers like
IE are designed to find alternatives to functions pages which they don't
support, so they can at least _look_ like they handling the code well. Also
remember that most people design sites for IE, not for W3C standards.
> I never (repeat, NEVER) came across a site that wouldn't
> display properly in IE 5.5, until Sridhar posted that one
> page with CSS. If you're using CSS, then, and only then,
> would a message be in order. Though make sure you
> point out that Opera has the same problem.
CSS is becoming increasingly popular, particularly for large sites. CSS has the
potential to make web design much easier. MS's claim that they support CSS1 is
simply a lie. Again, most people design their sites for browsers (particularly
IE), not standards (which is a real shame).
> > I am not stopping them from using IE, I am just warning them that
> > its not our choice
> > of browser and detailing some reasons why.
> >
>
> Frankly, I consider your pop-up idea to be a form of
> harassment. You are making a political statement when
> you should be thinking of intelligent ways to integrate
> IE into your webdesign. I don't want to be bombarded
> with pop-ups because you're too lazy or jaded to test
> out your site in IE. This is a HUGE step back you're
> taking.
You have a point there.
> You are entitled to place a "best viewed with" text
> at the bottom of your page because I realize there's
> always going to be one browser that looks a little
> better than another, but to state that you won't even try
> and make your page viewable to roughly two thirds of
> the web population is ridiculous.
This reminds me of the "best viewed with" images on some pages which are linked
to anybrowser.org. The problem is that people tend to ignore these because they
are are small and hiding in a corner somewhere.
I don't think Franki's aim was to make his "page viewable to roughly two thirds
of the web population", but rather to have a popup or clickthrough window simply
reminding people that they're using a non-standards-compliant browser. This page
can be very simple text, which can load rapidly. It won't be too much of an
inconvenience to IE users, but it will definitely grab their attention. He is
not blocking the page like MS did.
> This is about giving people a choice. This is why I'm
> upset as MS. It's not about herding people into a certain
> direction by using scare tactics. I haven't heard much
> in the way of truth from
> you *OR* them.
It's not a scare tactic: it is simply informative. The fact remains that IE is
nowhere near as standards-compliant as other browsers like Mozilla and Opera.
> >
> > We need to do something like this, we can't be underhanded about it
> > like them, but we
> > can't afford to sit by while they carry on..
> >
>
> Do something about WHAT? I think the peanut gallery has spoken
> on the MSN.com scandel. Everybody agrees it was universally stupid
> of them and that they were full of crap.
>
> MSN.com still looks fine in Mozilla 0.95 as of five minutes ago.
>
> > who knows, if M$ .NET takes off, we may one day end up in a
> > situation where nothing not
> > IE will be able to browse any .NET supporting site...
> >
>
> Until that day comes, stick with the facts....
>
> > Do you think they wouldn't do that if they could get away with
> > it????
> >
> > This is very serious,, I really believe something like this is a
> > good way of educating
> > people... The truth always prevales, but only if people hear it.
> >
>
> Then start telling the truth.
He is.
I would have to say that I've got mixed feelings about this. In doing this, we
are approaching the kind of nastiness which Microsoft commits. On the other
hand, we are not blocking people from using the site (which _is_ evil) - we're
simply displaying a short, fast-loading text-only message that loads before the
main site.
Of course, this idea can be refined. We can embed the message into the main page
itself, or have the text-only message automatically load the main site after a
specified period of time (say, ten seconds).
As Franki has mentioned, there is no mention whatsoever of free software or
GNU/Linux - the message is simply about open standards. Mozilla is given merely
as an example of a standards-compliant browser to use. A link to Opera wouldn't
be any different.
--
Sridhar Dhanapalan
"One World, One Web, One Programme" -- Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" -- Adolf Hitler
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
