IE 8 is more powerful than firefox?

I use IE only cause some sites are not displayed correctly in FF. Otherwise FF rocks. But its plain myth that FF is safer and faster than IE. If you need speed try OPERA

 

Then you're wrong. IE is 12 years behind all other browsers in modern standards and practices. Known, provable and verifiable. Microsoft even admits to this and you can look at the link in my sig for starters.

You need to define this.

 

Then you are only listening to people on forums or you never read the technical journals which show Firefox, and all other browsers, are many times faster than IE and many times safer. See my second link below.

 

I am not sure about the technical aspects, but it is my experience which I mentioned. Firefox is not faster than Internet Explorer, except for scripting, but for standards support, security and features, it is a better choice. (In bold- Taken from your site!!!)

Check out this comparision

microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=cd8932f3-b4be-4e0e-a73b-4a373d85146d

 

IE supported AJAX before any other browser.

So why did Mozilla implement an incompatible object model? Not because there was an official standard. Not because the de facto standard didn't work. Simply because Mozilla did not want to be compatible with IE. Instead, they created their own competing standard, disparaged Microsoft for creating their own standard, and ultimately supported the Microsoft standard with rolling eyes and heavy sighs and whinging about "we have to do this because of crappy old IE who won't support the standard."

Busted.

If you'd like to argue the point of whether Mozilla and Firefox deliberately and maliciously interpret standards differently, just so they won't be compatible with IE, I suggest you try it with someone who doesn't remember the Spyglass acquisition.

I fail to see how this is incompatible with my observation that one of the four classes of bugs doesn't get fixed.

 

IE8 is way behind firefox. microsoft needs a lot of work to catch up

 

Because Microsoft's version relies on ActiveX which is proprietary and requires Windows. You can't have a browser run on all platforms that way. No browser does it Microsoft's way. The current draft of the W3C standard doesn't do it the Microsoft way either.

It doesn't matter if they interpreted them differently or not. The correct interpretation is what matters and can be shown through tens or hundreds of web sites dedicated to showing how IE misinterprets web standards (positioniseverything.net) while there are NONE for any other browser. IE is NOT the standard. The W3C documents are. No browser looks to IE as a reference and no browser vendor should.

I don't know what you're talking about here.

You made the statement so you need to clarify yourself. Just because a bug isn't fixed YET doesn't mean it will never be fixed.

 

FF>IE8 for sure.Tried IE8 on my old laptop it lagged like hell, installed firefox - no problem.On my current PC there's even no IE since I uninstalled it and I'm not planning on coming back to IE cuz it's way behind firefox.

 

It wouldn't be a good idea to reference Microsoft for a test on browser performance. However, on their IEBlog, they show IE9s performance is twice as slow as Firefox 3.5 but I don't recall what they were referencing. CNET, ArsTechnica and others have their own browser performance comparisons which show IE at the bottom of the pile overall.

 

Chrome is -- in my opinion -- better and faster than them both... But, for what it's worth, FF is much more robust than IE.

 

That's rather like saying you don't support a protocol because the first implementation of it was in Java. You can implement AJAX without ActiveX; indeed, that's exactly what was done. There was no real reason it had to be implemented with an incompatible API and workflow. That was an arbitrary choice made for political reasons. "It's Microsoft, and we hate Microsoft, so we won't do it their way." It was childish, ignorant, and malicious.

IE was the only browser that did AJAX. There was no standard at the W3C. This is what is called a de facto standard: there is only one thing that does it, so it sets the standard. If you choose to create a second standard, the proliferation of incompatible standards is YOUR FAULT.

This seems to be a pattern with you.

If you let volunteers choose the jobs they do, nobody will choose to do the jobs nobody wants to do.

That's why open source projects do not have a QA process. Nobody wants to work in QA. And that's why assigning bugs to a developer on an open source project is a joke: without QA to verify that the developer has actually fixed the bug, any developer can just check in anything he wants and close the bug.

 

Though I agree with drhowarddrfine with regard to the superiority of FF over IE, I find your anti-MS hate talk kind of boring and repetitive. You just come up with the same old crap, every single time.

 

Due to the way both Firefox and Internet Explorer are coded Firefox will always be the better ship so to speak. Due to Internet Explorer and it's heavy use in it's coding and what it's believed to be coded in then FireFox will have the upper hand.

Firefox also has a lot more modifications than IE giving it more customization and many more features than IE making it a lot more powerful than IE. Firefox also uses a different form of gaining the information from the cloud which is much more safer than IE and is also more faster than IE's form of gaining things from the cloud.

These are the reasons why Firefox is greater than IE.

It's more secure, faster, more customizable, doesn't come with windows.

 

Anti-MS? Or is it anti bad software? If I didn't inform those who didn't know, someone else would. Showing someone the error in their statement doesn't make one anti-anything. Allowing someone to continue thinking false statements are true is worse and even makes one a bad person.

It's only in response to the same old crap, every single time. If there weren't people making the same wrong statements, I wouldn't need to make the same responses.

 

It's anti-MS.

See, you keep making excuses for Firefox. When a bug in the fundamental interpretation of basic CSS isn't being fixed, you dodge the issue by claiming that just because it's not fixed now doesn't mean it won't be fixed tomorrow.

But when IE has a bug in the handling of strange and unusual alignment combinations, you say it's massive disrespect for the standards and the same old arrogant crap from a company that doesn't care about its users.

This is a contradiction. If a bug that big is excusable in Firefox, then a bug that small is excusable in IE. And if a bug that small is unacceptable in IE, then a bug that big is unaccepable in Firefox.

I don't really care which way you come down on the issue. I just want your position to be consistent.

The fundamental flaw of the open source movement is an inability to distinguish a technical argument from a political one.

 

No it's not. Java, too, is (or was) proprietary and not in any W3C standard either.

Oh? And what's the way to call an instance of XHR for IE?

var xhr = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP");

Code (markup):

Web standards can't contain proprietary code. Politics had nothing to do with it.

Same answer. Standards cannot contain product specific or proprietary code.

At first I thought this would be an intelligent conversation but it seems you want to deteriorate into childishness.

Mozilla QA

Of course you are assuming what you said is true and it isn't. So far, you have shown you claim open source doesn't have QA when they do. You claim open source projects are all volunteer and they're not. And now you claim anyone can check in anything they want without review which, if you looked through Bugzilla, you would know that's also not true.

I question your knowledge on this subject and wonder if you, too, gained everything you know from reading these forums but no real, applied experience.

 

I can't answer the question because you haven't stated the problem.

There's a difference you don't seem to know. A bug is when the intention is for input A to result in output B. It's disrespect when the browser doesn't do as it should but publish its documentation as if it should, or ignoring the standards and create your own version of the same.

I'll repeat. You still have not stated what bugs you are talking about. You can't have an argument if you can't state the problem.

Now you are waaayyy off base. Your posts are a little rambling and you make me feel you're leaning a little toward the lunatic fringe. Don't do that and I'll try and answer your questions.

 

Let me get this straight.

The software is documented as doing precisely what it does, but you would like it to do something else, and that is a bug.

Resolved - Won't Fix. Resolution: PEBCAK.

 

It wasn't a web standard. It was a de facto standard. Now pay attention here.

There is absolutely no reason "new ActiveXObject()" is required to create a proprietary object using the ActiveX technology. It is an arbitrary symbol. It may as well say "new BananaMonkey()" - the words don't actually mean anything. It is just an entry in a symbol table to be looked up during code execution.

Mozilla had every right to implement their own open, cross-platform technology to replace the object in question, and simply write the code to interpret "new ActiveXObject()" appropriately. And there was absolutely no technical reason they could not do so.

But they didn't. And the reason they didn't was political. They objected to the existence of ActiveXObject() in "their" JavaScript language, so they refused to use it. They implemented their own incompatible object, instead. The incompatibility was deliberate.

You seem to have serious trouble with this idea.

There is a "standard" that is written down and reviewed and approved by a standards body.

And there is a "standard" that is simply what everyone is doing.

The latter variety of standard can and frequently does contain any old thing.

When you see that the latter type of standard exists, and you deliberately choose to do something different, you are just being difficult.

Actually, no.

1. Open source projects do not have a QA process. That doesn't mean they don't have QA. It means they don't have a formal process. There is no formal QA process documented on that site.

2. I never said they were all volunteer. Look more closely, and you'll see that I said WHEN they allow volunteers to choose what they want to work on. You can, of course, operate an open source project in the same way you might operate any proprietary project. No technical barrier prevents it.

3. I didn't say it could be checked in without review. I said it could be checked in without anyone making sure the bug was actually fixed.

You seem to have real trouble understanding what I'm saying. Is it ignorance, or malice?

 

Nope. That's the Microsoft way.