 | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley
|
| | | (...) I never really used IE3 - I was using NN3 then, then NN4, then once IE4 became fairly stable I switched to it for a while, then back to NN4, then tried NC4.x, couldn't stand how unstable it was, then IE5 came out and I've never switched back (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Ya, long, long ago. I think it was MSIE3 that I submitted to MS a list of bugs 22 long. (...) If there are any left, I'd hope so! --Todd (24 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) And I would hope NOT. NS has better things to do with their time than fix 3 year old software. Standard policy in software is to drop support for stuff more than 18 months old. And that's a GOOD think IMHO. By your own admission (the stats (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) LOL! Unless you can go back in time, it's literally impossible to fix bugs in older browsers! Once you fix the bug, you've created a new version, and the old version continues to exist. I think we interpreted Mike's question differently. I (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Asher Kobin
|
| | | | | | (...) fixing (...) Backward compat is a sometimes difficult issue to deal with. Case in point, because of the many differences in the rendering capabilities between Nav and IE, many site authors have to write small workarounds to get even polarity (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) I'd like to see that browser be Mozilla, but MSIE is still far, far more solid. BTW, does MS have any plans to release a Linux version of MSIE? Or is it recommended to run it under WINE instead? (...) This thread has helped a lot. I actually (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | (...) for the love of god, please no! Ideally there would be 10s of browsers available, but they would all render the same pages in the same way. I have never used IE, and have no plans to - especially since there's no version for my OS of choice. (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Asher Kobin
|
| | | | | | | (...) For Linux users, Microsoft recommends following the instructions in this KB article: (URL) I can't answer your question, but I can say that Microsoft's awareness (and interest) of the Linux OS has increased dramatically, although it did take (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Why MS hubris can be a bit annoying —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) No, you just needed to get a clue that not everyone likes MS practices w.r.t. marketing and software development and some people are clever enough to do something about it that may well threaten MS's stranglehold. What's the old saying? "Dos (...) (24 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MS hubris can be a bit annoying —Asher Kobin
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) although (...) I don't understand how your comment relates to what I said above. Please don't insult me saying that I don't have a clue. I'm not a mindless Microsoft drone. (...) This seems to support what I talked about in an earlier post (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MS hubris can be a bit annoying —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) PMFJI, but most of the complaints lodged against MSIE (in this thread) have been about the *engine*, not the GUI wrapper. The issues discussed have been how IE interprets various HTML constructs, and how it renders them onto the display. (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MS hubris can be a bit annoying —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I'm having trouble parsing the above paragraph taken as a whole in light of reality unless you're being deliberately mouthpieceish/obtuse. Here are a few tidbits. MS has a track record of doing things to screw other companies over. It goes (...) (24 years ago, 25-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MS hubris can be a bit annoying —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Whoops. c /rendering engine/UI/ as we DO care about the rendering engine. also c/underneat/underneath/ would that what was underneath were neat. ++Lar (24 years ago, 25-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Did you really think that was funny? Talk about arrogant. I type this on a 192 MB real memory 600 MHz pentium III running NT and boy is it slow. (24 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) compared to my Pentium I, 200 MHz, 64 MB, that run so much faster and does so much more :P Dan (24 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Well I dunno if you can do MORE on Linux (we ought to take this to .geek, Linux doesn't yet have the vast body of apps that Wintel does) but you certainly can do a lot of things faster. ++Lar (24 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | | | On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:17:44 GMT "Larry Pieniazek" <lar@voyager.net> wrote concerning 'Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer': (...) it's true that the app base is not as big, yet... but considering what I use my home win95 for - basicly browsing (...) (24 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Which browser are you using on Linux that you would call "better" than IE5? Seriously. Every time time I try some flavor of Netscape product for Linux it just ends up making me run screaming back to browsing on Windows. In fact, I would rather (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) I love Linux, I hate Windows, but I have yet to see any Linux web browser other than Lynx which even comes remotely close to MSIE5 in how well it works. Netscape sucks, Mozilla sucks. But -- Mozilla will get better, and it will squash MSIE in (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Have you looked at w3m? It seems like a better Lynx than Lynx.... (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I'm amazed by how w3m can handle mouse clicks like that. :) Also pretty great to be able to pipe stdin to it. I wish it would keep stdin open like more does, though, to feed it streaming data. :) I had a lot of problems getting the popup menus (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I'm really curious as to why you believe that. Really. If Netscape were interested in or capable of producing an IE-killer browser, why haven't they done it already? Given the almost universally agreed-upon crappiness of Communicator 4.7 what (...) (24 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I believe that because I believe Mozilla that will, in the long run (if it hasn't already), attract better and more dedicated programmers, designers, and testers to work on it than MSIE. (...) Mozilla != Netscape (...) Mozilla != Netscape (...) (24 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) You repeat this over and over again, as if simply stating it will somehow make it more obvious and more true. Mozilla may turn out to be more than a browser. But who is making it? (24 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 20:29:30 GMT Mike Stanley <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote concerning 'Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer': (...) I think you're misunderstanding the point. Mozilla (the browser Todd is referring to) is _not_ written or sold by (...) (24 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Yeah, it does. Thanks. So what that probably means is that within a year or so we'll have a version of mozilla that ultra-geeks know and love, maybe within 5 years we'll get some media hype, then we'll see normal people move over to it, some (...) (24 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) My understanding is that very little of it is based on Navigator code at this point. Early versions of Mozilla were, but then the developers decided that there was too much cruft and started over from scratch, this time with A Plan. This is (...) (24 years ago, 25-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I never used IE, and I will probably never will - unless they come out with IE for linux and then I'll give it a shot. I used to use NN and my MOC browser :P but now I've switched to mozilla, and I'm _very_ happy with it :) (...) errr... I'm (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Mozilla (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) I can't get TrueType fonts to display correctly in Mozilla (a build from two nights ago). Do they work for you? I'm specifying 'times new roman' and 'courier new' and 'arial' for the three fonts (serif, monospace, and sans- serif, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Mozilla (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) as far as I can tell, mozilla has no problems showing any kind of fonts - though I never bothered to install to many. What X server are you using? As a rule, font problems are related to xfs, and not to the application... (...) nope, no tricks (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Mozilla (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I'm using the xfs that came with RHL 6.1... If I fire up xfontsel and look at arial, for example, and set the pxlsz to a variety of numbers, they all look correct and beautifully hinted. I can recognize individual character glyphs as being (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Mozilla (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:07:53 GMT Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote concerning 'Re: Mozilla (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer)': (...) Serif: times 16 Sans Serif: Helvetica monospace: Courier 13 Dan (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Mozilla (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I haven't gotten it to even build the last two nights. :) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Yeah, it does. And port-forwarding and other advanced features too. It's definitely the best ssh client available for ms windows. (Too bad NetTerm doesn't do SSH - it has such nice fonts....) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I'm using MindTerm, a GPL'd Java implementation of ssh: (URL) it doesn't seem to support sftp, it does talk scp (not sure how much better sftp is, though) and a buncha other features including port forwarding. Features list is at (URL) . Plus, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Okay, my bad. It looks like it does support sftp; it just doesn't call it that. Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) needed to boot NT once to make sure the hardware wasn't damaged before reformatting the drive and putting a real OS (Linux) on it. Felt good. I also ran a free copy of Bill Gates's book _The_Road_Ahead_ through the paper shredder a few months (...) (24 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | While we're off-topic, lemme just quickly complain about the way MS's content-generation "tools" use "Microsoft Latin-1" instead of the actual ISO 8859-1 Latin-1 character set. Urg. (URL) (24 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Asher Kobin
|
| | | | | | (...) Are you ignorant? Do you understant competition? What would happen If every car was the same? We want people to use our browser, so obviously we have to make it better (what the Linux world calls embrace and extend). We are more RFC compliant (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | (...) I was actually interested to see what it was... And in fact I do understand competition, but I also understand standards. If you want people to use your browser, you should make it faster, or use less memory, or have more _client_side_ (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) Probably the same thing that would happen if MSIE had a 100% market share. (In lugnet.admin.general 5378, Asher Kobin wrote: (...) ) eric (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Asher Kobin
|
| | | | | | (...) But that's a good thing :) The great thing about IE is that it can be repurposed. Anyone can slap on their own UI (AOL, webTV, NeoPlanet) and decide what features to implement or not to implemnt. If you understand COM and how IE is (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) And of course the MS track record at making things faster or less buggy is SO good. Sorry for the sarcasm, I like MS, and I'm a stockholder but I still find your statement laughable. (24 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) Umm, huh? I thought you were implying that competition was good because it inspired better growth. Is what you really mean to say "We should be allowed to compete with other browsers, but once we're winning, the other guys should just give in (...) (24 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Asher Kobin
|
| | | | | | My only point was that if every web browser did only and exactly what the RFC said, there would be no innovation. Even if MS had 100% of the market, we would still go above and beyond the spec. If they had 100% and they only lived by the spec, a new (...) (24 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Frank Filz
|
| | | | Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38D4D6F1.75A47A1D@n...ra.com>... (...) Of course in the router code I work on at IBM, we currently support 4 versions of the code, which amounts to like 3 years worth of versions or so. Of course there is a lot (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
