1 Report
at 15 Sep 2008: 17:11
Yes I am. Fuck off. I know IE has its... idiosyncracies. I do a bit of web development from time to time, and I'm more than aware how much of a pain in the arse it is to create properly interoperable websites. But it's a pain in the arse you just have to deal with. Don't tell people to switch browsers, that's really irritating.
2 Report
at 15 Sep 2008: 17:22
Seriously, the new FF fucking sucks and i ended up switching back to IE because it's basically the same thing now only it doesn't run like utter crap. What do you care what browser we use?
3 Report
at 15 Sep 2008: 17:24
the IE6 variant is pretty classy in it's own right, too. (i never noticed until now.) i second this motion re: fucking off
4 Report
at 15 Sep 2008: 17:34
Firefox 3 works perfectly for me, I really enjoy the additional functionality. I don't care that you don't use it. Can't we all just get along?
5 Report
at 15 Sep 2008: 17:42
I think it would have been fine if it was a nice suggestion. What it says is entirely unnecessary. Entirely fucking unnecessary.
6 Report
at 15 Sep 2008: 17:44
>>5 That being said, I run Firefox but had to command prompt my way into IE to see what in the world this entire thing has been over. Speaking of which, why didn't you (OP) post this in the thread we already have with the discussion? (>>5 and >>6 = same person, btw)
7 Report
at 15 Sep 2008: 18:05
Another thread on this bullshit? This already has a topic and it's been discussed in great detail.
8 Report
at 15 Sep 2008: 19:15
>>4 I'm not sure why it runs like crap for me, i got a brand new computer with 4 gigs of ddr2 ram, the fastest quad core amd makes, a really nice mobo, one of the first things i did whe i put it together is dl firefox 3. It scrolls super slow in graphic heavy pages, hd video runs at about 15 fps less then it should when streaming, even sd video runs about 5 fps less then it should, pictures take forever to load, not to mention frequent crashes, it just sucks so i got the new IE and frankly it runs fantastic. I can watch hd streaming at 60 fps, everything loads lightening quick and it's got the same functionality that i liked in firefox before with the tabs and interface.
9 Report
at 15 Sep 2008: 22:56
Ooh, the nag bar has been updated! You seem to be running Internet Explorer. Please consider switching to Opera (the Internet's running joke) or Mozilla Firefox (meh) or Google Chrome (a pointless fad) or Apple Safari (are you shitting me?). What I'm wondering is if this will continue once IE8 is out of beta. I don't have it installed here so I can't see what fchan looks like in it, but the browser has made huge strides in "standards" compliance. Seeing as it will be at least as compliant as any of the other common browsers we'll see if this is a serious attempt to improve the online landscape or just browser trolling.
10 Report
at 15 Sep 2008: 23:05
>>9 I know nothing about IE 8 - but I'll believe IE standards compliance when I see it. And I don't know how much credit I'll give them for reaching it years behind the rest of the pack. They did a real nice job adding tabbed browsing - oh, how many *years* after firefox?>>2 Anyone who writes non-trivial javascripts could potentially care a great deal about what browser his viewers are using. Again, admiting I don't know much, it's my understanding that important parts of the API are completely different between IE and, basically, everyone else. Unless the site's developer wants to double his workload, it's at least defensible to pick either IE or everyone else and tell the group that loses out to switch. And, since IE is windows only...
11 Report
at 16 Sep 2008: 05:02
> Opera (the Internet's running joke) How is it a joke when it outperforms any other browser that has something that even approaches its feature-set and when pretty much 99% of all innovative features in browsers come from it? (yes, even tabs were invented in Opera) > Mozilla Firefox (meh) Yea, some people don't like it or have problems with its instability (20 extensions lolol), it's still a valid choice over IE in that it is easy to code sites for it without any big effort. > Google Chrome (a pointless fad) So say you. It's still better than IE though and standards-compliant. > Apple Safari (are you shitting me?) It is still more compliant than IE. Also, for people wondering about IE8, i just checked it and some stuff on fchan works nicer in it, so I'd guess they'll allow it eventually.
12 Report
at 16 Sep 2008: 05:33
>>11 He was trolling.
13 Report
at 16 Sep 2008: 10:26
>>12 Well I'm not. Opera *is* a joke. It has a few nice ideas and a few completely terrible ones that make me never want to touch it again. And it has never once outperformed firefox on my machine. Google Chrome has yet to prove itself, and Safari might be more standards-compliant but it's still shite. I do generally prefer Firefox (3) to IE (7), but I'll use either depending on my mood, or whichever one happens to be open already. Makes no difference to me in 99% of day to day usage - it's quite rare that I come across a site that was coded specifically under one browser and doesn't work in the other. They're both resource hogs though.
14 Report
at 16 Sep 2008: 11:01
What "terrible" ideas? You're throwing that out there without quantifying it in any way, which is as good as trolling. As for outperforming ... I can have it open 500 tabs (accidentally selected a few items too many in the history view) and still be usable. Just tried that in FF and it shat itself. Nevermind the fact that it wasn't even able to minimize the size of a tab enough to display a few of them ... Aside from that i can also leave Opera running for weeks with 50+ tabs open and have it use at max 300 MB RAM, doing that with FF results in a 600-700 mb monster.
15 Report
at 16 Sep 2008: 11:03
P.S.: Make sure you have all your plugins in FF when you try benchmarking it.
16 Report
at 16 Sep 2008: 12:22
>>14 The main reason I don't use Opera(i'm not the guy bashing it) is that it lacks some of the features I really need that Firefox has. I do recognize it has a lot of positives though.>>13 Firefox 3 is a joke in my opinion. It runs worse than FF 2 for me and even worse it broke my bookmark organization system.
17 Report
at 16 Sep 2008: 13:44
What features? Maybe it has them and you just don't know it? :D (I'm serious, this has happened to me SOOOO many times, people thinking it doesn't have XX, when it's just not jumping in their face.)
18 Report
at 16 Sep 2008: 19:15
>>16 Yeah, the brief time i had FF3 which ran horrible, it kept haveing random furry porn pages i didn't bookmark show up as bookmarks in the search bar even though they weren't in my bookmark list and there was no way to get rid of them. Even if i deleted my history and all internet data there were 3 pages from fa with porn names there at all time and couldn't be removed. How do you create a new FF and do 10 steps backwards like that?
19 Report
at 16 Sep 2008: 21:51
>>18 >How do you create a new FF and do 10 steps backwards like that? You set a deadline for yourself and create expectations to meet that deadline from fans and investors alike. So despite the fact there was serious issues that needed to be fixed they launched the program anyway to satisfy fans/investors(mostly investors), the result is we get a buggy ass piece of shit that will probably take 6+ months to fix. If they never fix the bookmark system i'm going to be fucking pissed. Also, to be honest I preferred the "bookmarks.html" rather than the proprietary BS that replaced it in FF3. Bookmarks.html worked outside of Firefox and could be loaded up in any browser if need be.
20 Report
at 16 Sep 2008: 21:58
Uh... using firefox 3 here with no problems or performance degradation at all - on two systems, one Vista and one Ubuntu. The thing works great. OOC, actually, did you guys having problems file bug reports?
21 Report
at 17 Sep 2008: 04:03
>>20 No, i just downloaded the new IE and it works perfect, problem solved
22 Report
Spikeline at 17 Sep 2008: 06:27
Um, also requesting you kill this stupid bar. You're recommending Google Chrome after all instead of IE7? A first version beta browser with no respect for a user's privacy in terms of third party cookies or controlling which sites can use Javascript. Security is proven, not promised, and modern versions of IE (esp. with protected mode on Vista) have delivered. I should point out though, that I am running IE8b2 here since I'm that sort of person and if its the case that this bar is designed to ignore IE7 then please can who ever made it be beaten with a stick for using: if (Browser == IE && Version == 7) That should be Version >= 7. Basic error here people. 'Anyone who writes non-trivial javascripts could potentially care a great deal about what browser his viewers are using. ...' Any -good- web developer is aware of modern Javascript libraries that abstract away differences in the various browser engines. This is no longer an excuse.
23 Report
at 17 Sep 2008: 07:12
>>22 "A first version beta browser with no respect for a user's privacy in terms of third party cookies or controlling which sites can use Javascript." The Terms of Service has already been amended to fix the so called privacy issue that was there. I don't know anything about the rest of what you are saying since I don't care about Chrome at all and don't bother looking up info on it actively.
24 Report
at 17 Sep 2008: 07:16
>>22 Ok, 23 here, just looked up what you were talking about...YOU CAN TURN THAT OFF MORON. It's a FEATURE, not a privacy infringement. Yes, one could argue it's data mining(kind of like what Google does with their search engine, gmail, etc etc) but if you can turn the feature off so they don't get that data then what's the problem? Know what i'm requesting? You to stop whining about the bar. Go to a different website if it offends you so much.
25 Report
at 17 Sep 2008: 07:26
> Um, also requesting you kill this stupid bar. You're recommending Google Chrome after all instead of IE7? > A first version beta browser with no respect for a user's privacy in terms of third party cookies or controlling which sites can use Javascript. Security is proven, not promised, and modern versions of IE (esp. with protected mode on Vista) have delivered. Nothing is proven about IE, at all. It is a closed source work and noone can prove anything about it. Chrome is 100% open source. I don't think i need to go further into that. > I should point out though, that I am running IE8b2 here since I'm that sort of person and if its the case that this bar is designed to ignore IE7 then please can who ever made it be beaten with a stick for using: > if (Browser == IE && Version == 7) > That should be Version >= 7. Basic error here people. You have no idea in the slightest what you are talking about. If you had, you would know that no Javascript at all is involved in finding out what browser is showing the page. > Any -good- web developer is aware of modern Javascript libraries that abstract away differences in the various browser engines. This is no longer an excuse. Two points: 1. Forcing everyone to load humongous js libraries just because your browser is buggy is not an acceptable solution. 2. These libraries cannot fix bugs in how ie interprets CSS. In conclusion: Shoo, troll.
26 Report (sage)
at 17 Sep 2008: 17:43
>>1 "But it's a pain in the arse you just have to deal with." Actually, it's not. The web site designers can do whatever they want. If it doesn't work with your browser, then it's a pain in the arse that /you/ have to deal with. Your choices are: 1) Suck it up and live with it 2) Go somewhere else 3) Switch browsers 4) Whine on /dis/, knowing that the admins don't care
27 Report
Spikeline at 18 Sep 2008: 05:22
23: That's not what I'm talking about. In IE and Firefox with No Script. You can whitelist and blacklist who can and can't use Javascript. For example, I block IMDB from using Javascript because they use it to spam pop-ups. Likewise, you can control which sites are allowed to issue cookies to your machine. Google Chrome is missing -both- these features. 25: Security is proven in that, since IE7 came out, security vunrabilities in the browser have dropped significantly. Google Chrome was discovered to have at least one security flaw on the day it came out. Security you proove over time by being reliable, you can't just say you're secure because you're open source. Otherwise Firefox would of been secure from its second release. We're now up to version 3.0 and there are still patches coming out for new flaws. Also, having looked at the code for fchan, I'm not sure what is wrong exactly, it looks like it should work, but it isn't. But then web development isn't my strong suite. Finally, the good Javascript libraries aren't in anyway huge or cause slow down. I've used a number of websites that call upon them and they do their job with no impact to site performance. You are right they can't fix CSS issues, but now that IE8 supports CCS2 and has passed the ACID2 test, stuff like that should also improve. Oh, and trolls don't bother to sign their posts with a name. ;) I simply ask that this little detection bug be fixed and I shall be happy and silent.
28 Report
at 18 Sep 2008: 09:52
>>27 "Oh, and trolls don't bother to sign their posts with a name." You haven't been to 4chan or any internet forums have you?
29 Report
at 18 Sep 2008: 11:01
> Oh, and trolls don't bother to sign their posts with a name. Xenofur himself has said he'd prefer if noone put names on their posts so the messages would be judged by their content, not by the name slapped on them. As for security: You're missing a HUGE point: What security holes are as of yet undiscovered? Think about that for a while and you'll see why i say that nothing about IE is proven. Also, you can't compare Chrome with FF. FF has a humongously complicated codebase, because they wanted to include forward compatibility for everything and the kitchen sink. As for IE8, i figure he'll exclude it once it's final, not as long as it's beta. Regarding cookies and js control as measure of "privacy" ... You're just plain paranoid. They have nothing to do with that unless you actually give them your name, at which point it's YOUR fault. Aside from that, they're extras and while i think that it's nice to have them, a browser doesn't NEED to have them. As for the JS libraries, they may not be a huge CPU impact on your computer, but they ARE on slower ones. Just plain not acceptable, especially when one only wants to implement one single feature like "swap thumbnail with link".
30 Report
at 19 Sep 2008: 00:02
>>26 Amen amen. If the developers don't want to do extra work for IE users... then your main remedies are to "vote with your feet" and leave, or whine here. And I wouldn't hold out much hope for whining.>>27 A minor point: a lot of Windows fans - and closed-source software fans - often point to the frequent release of patches as evidence of weakness in the security and stability of open-source software. That's not entirely accurate: a patch is a fix for a problem, not necessarily the detection of a problem itself. Closed-source software - like IE - can have lots of unpatched errors - whether unknown or simply ignored by the developers. The quick pace of patches (and releases) can more redilly interpreted as evidence of the effectiveness of open-source development: OS projects find, acknowledge and fix flaws quickly, whereas closed-source vendors frequently take their time.
31 Add Reply
Name Sage? - =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread