Forum Speed????

[uflnuceng]

Um, why would you design something for Firefox?

I am using IE6. Also, why would you use PNG images? I don't get it.

Because Firefox >>>>> you. Firefox is awesome (that is my opinion... please I'm not looking to start a debate with you Opera users, IE6, Safari, etc.). Its small, powerful and isn't prone to the attacks that IE is.

A lot of people are moving over to PNG images because it is an open source format and is 5-25% more compressed than a GIF of the same image. The compression algorithm used in the GIF format is owned by Unisys, and companies that use the algorithm are supposed to license the use from Unisys. This does not mean that anyone who creates or uses a GIF image has to pay for it. Authors writing programs that output GIF images are subject to licensing fees. Since a lot of programmers are open source geeks like me, we say screw paying fees and go the PNG route.

Only major difference between GIF and PNG is that PNG does not support animation, so Gillian would be SOL for his shaking titties.

[Dave]

Um, why would you design something for Firefox?

I am using IE6.

Most of the world uses IE. Firefox just does not work on my PC at the office it has trouble with our security system and I'm not paying my IT guy his hourly rate to "fix" that. I had it on my desktop at home and never could get to liking it. Call me a luddite, but, I'll stick with IE.

[Digitalwave]

Because Firefox >>>>> you. Firefox is awesome (that is my opinion... please I'm not looking to start a debate with you Opera users, IE6, Safari, etc.). Its small, powerful and isn't prone to the attacks that IE is.

A lot of people are moving over to PNG images because it is an open source format and is 5-25% more compressed than a GIF of the same image. The compression algorithm used in the GIF format is owned by Unisys, and companies that use the algorithm are supposed to license the use from Unisys. This does not mean that anyone who creates or uses a GIF image has to pay for it. Authors writing programs that output GIF images are subject to licensing fees. Since a lot of programmers are open source geeks like me, we say screw paying fees and go the PNG route.

Only major difference between GIF and PNG is that PNG does not support animation, so Gillian would be SOL for his shaking titties.

If you run all the latest Windows and IE6 updates, there are basically no issues with viruses and spyware. I used Firefox for a little while but it was only a band aid fix.

[James Crivellone]

Um, why would you design something for Firefox?

I am using IE6. Also, why would you use PNG images? I don't get it.

Newer web standards, or actual web standards, however you want to look at it.

I will still test on IE, however most cool functionality will be geared toward mozilla based browsers.

IE is a piece of junk, the mshtml engine is outdated and sluggish in general. IE7 shows some promise in my testing, but i'm not holding my breath.

AND with that being said, because I know it will stir up some complaining. I'm not locking out IE users, the browser will still work, i'm just not going to limit functionality based on the browser.

Plus other then a few images here and there, and perhaps some custom CSS stuff, we won't have MAJOR differences in IE vs Mozilla Rendering.

[uflnuceng]

If you run all the latest Windows and IE6 updates, there are basically no issues with viruses and spyware. I used Firefox for a little while but it was only a band aid fix.

Until the next security bug is found. The new IE6 with its antipop-up stuff is fine... but people saying you can't get Firefox to work right? I'm running it on 6 different computers, from home computers and laptops, to my work one which is behind one bitchin' firewall, to the ones in my father-in-laws office... no special configuration was needed... everything works fine and it is hardly a bandaid fix.

if you use a lot of MSN stuff, however, or go to places like xbox.com, you basically have to use IE because of all of its special "features" (read potential security issues).

Get Firefox!!

[James Crivellone]

One interesting factoid, is that according to my logs, 70% of the visitors to this site use a mozilla based browser.

I doubt we will make the site complex enough to really show huge differences between IE and mozilla, but if we do it will be decided among the masses of this forum.

[rs4pro3]

Average, but I have 56k and am using Firefox.

[Dave]

Average, but I have 56k and am using Firefox.

They still have 56k???

EDIT: I am editing using Firefox instead of IE - FWIW, slower using Firefox than IE on my connection.

[rs4pro3]

Yep, We are going to get Comcast cable internet as soon as they finish upgrading there website. I was all ready to order and they decided to upgrade.

[The Fast One!]

haha! i love comcast, it loads anything hella fast
as big as the forum is now the speen is fine i don't think the speed will need to be faster for def another year.

P.S. mozilla>IE however BOTH SUCK....... I use opera and love it!

[nando]

Newer web standards, or actual web standards, however you want to look at it.

I will still test on IE, however most cool functionality will be geared toward mozilla based browsers.

IE is a piece of junk, the mshtml engine is outdated and sluggish in general. IE7 shows some promise in my testing, but i'm not holding my breath.

AND with that being said, because I know it will stir up some complaining. I'm not locking out IE users, the browser will still work, i'm just not going to limit functionality based on the browser.

Plus other then a few images here and there, and perhaps some custom CSS stuff, we won't have MAJOR differences in IE vs Mozilla Rendering.

it's also much easier to develop to web standards, since IE is generally very forgiving to bad HTML, it will still work ok if you stick to standards. trying to write a site for IE and then making it work in a "standards" browser is just a PITA.

FYI I haven't had any issues at all with the site in IE, and it seems plenty fast. of course I'm what, 90 miles from the server? :)

[Charlie]

it's also much easier to develop to web standards, since IE is generally very forgiving to bad HTML, it will still work ok if you stick to standards. trying to write a site for IE and then making it work in a "standards" browser is just a PITA.

FYI I haven't had any issues at all with the site in IE, and it seems plenty fast. of course I'm what, 90 miles from the server? :)

IE makes up something like 94% of the market, how is anything else a "Standard".

That's always bugged me.

In a corporate environment where security is an issue and where one relies on secure intranet sites, firefox is utter, complete, gonzo cow-shit fucking garbage.

Seriously, pure garbage.

-Charlie

[James Crivellone]

IE makes up something like 94% of the market, how is anything else a "Standard".

That's always bugged me.

In a corporate environment where security is an issue and where one relies on secure intranet sites, firefox is utter, complete, gonzo cow-shit fucking garbage.

Seriously, pure garbage.

-Charlie

firefox works quite fine in an intranet environment, except when activex controls are used.

I use both internally to be compatible, but for all internet browsing, its firefox/safari all the way

[nando]

IE makes up something like 94% of the market, how is anything else a "Standard".

That's always bugged me.

standard because they follow the actual HTML/CSS standards set by the W3C governing body. if you did any sort of web development you would understand how important standards are...

[Charlie]

standard because they follow the actual HTML/CSS standards set by the W3C governing body. if you did any sort of web development you would understand how important standards are...

I am aware of the W3C. I used to build web sites for a long while before I got tired of the crap. Frankly, the W3C nonsense is a bunch of anti-MS bs. I still don't understand how something used by 4-5% of internet browsers out there is considered a "standard".

My world is SAP BW/CRM - Mozilla sucks.

-Charlie