What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
142 Comments
- loyalj, on 10/12/2007, -17/+56well i'm glad it can render things faster than firefox. it's too bad they aren't rendered to standard.
uhoh. - saruman7, on 10/12/2007, -29/+61You used "M$" in your argument. You lose by default.
- rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31I started out with Mosaic and then I went to Netscape. IE sucked and then with a new version it kicked ass and I went to IE. Well IE became stagnant and Firefox came around and I switched because it was better and more secure. I'm reserving my opinion of IE 7 until it comes out of beta. If it's better I'll go with IE 7. In other words I'm prejudice to what works best. I have no loyalty except to myself since I'm the one using a particular application. Anything else does no one any good except marketers who will bring home a bigger paycheck.
- wjw75, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26The new IE is looking quite good, but I still prefer Firefox. Once you've got all your extensions the way you like them it's too hard to change.
- timalmond, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21The only mistake that Microsoft made was not creating a competitor before Firefox reached 10%, at which point it has to be supported.
If it weren't for firefox, Microsoft wouldn't be doing anything about improving IE.
Personally, I'm sticking with Firefox. As far as I can tell, there's nothing in IE7 that I don't already have in Firefox. - jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -17/+33For one, I've noticed that the rendering engine in IE7 is noticably faster than Firefox.
- ToeCheese, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19@Hanthus
Read it again and this time a little slower and you will see that he bashes MS for not adding anything new to IE 7 and claiming innovation. Then he goes on to say that Firefox will match (and most likely exceed) anything MS puts on IE 7. Unless it's locking the browser to the OS. - loyalj, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16how exactly does IE destroy firefox? IE works on one of many operating systems available. IE does not work with many standards that developers would like to use in their web apps. IE has, since the beginning, played catch up with other browsers. the one thing that keeps internet explorer popular is the fact that businesses are too scared to leave the womb.
- Lodarage, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16I absolutely agree with you. I like the extensions a lot. If Internet Explorer would be more customizable (and it would not use the Windows's internal components (eg.for displaying WMF files), etc), I'd give it a try.
Just to remember: Firefox also had some security flaws, however it's true that the Mozilla Co. fixes them a lot faster than Microsoft fixes it's IE.
Firefox still have some problems (big memory usage, slow rendering, etc.), but it's under heavy development, and I hope it will get rid of these. (And I also hope, it will become more compliant to the standards.)
Even if IE7 will be much more "secure", I'm still going to use Firefox in the future, because I like it.
For the security minden: the NoScript extension makes Firefox safer. It makes possible to customize, which sites/domains/urls are allowed to run Javascripts/Flash/Java. - ModernTenshi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Hanthus and CPUguy: clearly you didn't get what I was saying. Look at the gap between the release of IE6 and IE7. How many new features were added to IE6 before the release of IE7? Can you really count tabbed browsing, since you had to use the MSN toolbar, or the popup blocker since you had to install SP2 which was needed anyway (yes, I realize this can be argued, but that's not the point I'm trying to make).
I'm lambasting Microsoft for slow development of their browser, and when they finally come out with something new , they try to claim features already used in other browsers as their own innovation. They're trying to rename RSS feeds to Web feeds, they're still very poor as far as standards complience is concerned, and, well, I'm at work right now, but there's a whole list of other crap that they're caliming with IE7 that they really have no claim to.
The summary of what I was saying: given Microsofts history of slow and poor development with IE, it doesn't really matter what they add to their browser, because other browsers that have a more active community of users **cough-Firefox-cough** can add those features (either as extensions/add-ons or a core feature in an update/future build), and likely make them better as a result.
Sorry for replying to my own comment, fellow digg users, but I felt it was needed to defend what I was saying in my initial comment. - ModernTenshi, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21The sad reality, is that it doesn't really matter what Microsoft adds to its new versions of IE. They're already seen as copying ideas from the more up-to-date browsers of today, meaning their innovation really is rather minimal at best. Furthermore, any new features added in IE that are seen as, "desirable," can easily be added to open-source browsers such as Firefox through the extensions feature, or even be made features in future releases. In addition to this, the features can easily be improved upon or made better for the Firefox user, a feat which can't easily be done with IE.
In short, it doesn't really matter what Microsoft comes up with for IE, because it can be added and improved upon by Firefox in any conceivable way. - Xiata, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@kellan: Uh... Yes you can. You just can't be as sloppy as proprietary code.
Just because you can't see the source doesn't make it safer than code that is clearly visible to the public. In fact, proprietary/closed source code has a higher probability of having critical errors that can lead to security threats because the source isn't able to be inspected and debugged by a much larger group of people.
Exploits will happen, that is a given, but open source has a greater potential to have every security threat patched away at a faster rate than proprietary. Proprietary/closed source just has the ability to hide the fact that they have security bugs.
Are you by any chance a Microsoft shill? - Canuck, on 10/12/2007, -21/+32"Why would anyone switch back to IE7 in Vista instead of continuing to use Firefox?"
A few reasons.
1. Security. Even at home I only have IE on the kids computer because it can be locked down more than Firefox. Primarily blocking downloads, changing settings etc.
2. It comes pre-installed so there is less work for a companies IT department (including my home IT department - me).
3. Trying to get the whole family to use Firefox has been a struggle. They want to go to a site and have it work. With Firefox, you can get plugins for pretty much everything, but they don't want to be bothered downloading and installing them.
4. Some sites only show properly in IE. Yes, that is poor design on the developers side, but the sites exist.
I use Firefox on my login with the NoScript extension, but the rest of the family will have nothing to do with ti. - silenceHR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11i have over 60 extensions in Firefox and that's the main reason why i love it. i can turn it into whatever i want. i just dont see this kind of flexibility in IE... saying that, i dont think IE7 might not be good browser, but my main concern is how much it will comply to standards.
i hope IE7 does good.... cause if it does, then Firefox and Opera will have to improve much more if they want to keep all the people that switched. and having more great browsers cant be bad thing :))) - Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14not entirely true. I myself use firefox because its far more secure then IE is.
IE is a security nightmare at present, and granted though the beta looks like it will be better on this front - i wouldnt trust microsoft to do security if my computers data depended on it.
I personally trust the 'many eyes make bugs light work' approach because it has a basis in logic and is a pro-active approach.
'security by obscurity' does not work imo. The problems are still there - they're just hidden/ignored until someone stumbles upon them via an exploit- ie a reactive approach.
Firefox also supports more web standards properly then IE does, or will from the beta - similarly with opera
Granted firefox isnt perfect in that regards yet, but IE is a quantum leap backwards - MoeB, on 10/12/2007, -11/+21because ie7 comes pre-installed?
its faster in windows? - matsientst, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Sorry my man, Firefox is inherently better than IE6. Just try to code for both and you realize how much more forgiving Firefox is. If you disagree try tangling with the MSXML objects in IE. It's a freakin' nightmare of inconsistensies. Not to mention that Firefox is working on 2 seperate releases full of updates. While microsoft views the IE upgrade as a distraction from VIsta.
However, I do think that it will continue to have a lions share of the market due to the ma and pa kettle effect. Since it's bundled most people won't know to use firefox.
*sigh* - daedalus01, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12"...is already looking ahead to the next two releases of IE..."
Why don't they just fix IE7 rather than tell us they're fix it in IE8 etc?
I'm a supporter of Microsoft products; I think their server operating systems are very powerful and great tools within a company infrastructure. But please... their flagship browser stinks - get with the times and start actually trying to compete with Firefox and some of the other Open Source / free browsers. - shiftless, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13IE7 would be fine, but it has far too many useless dialog boxes. WARNING this site may have CONTENT! Do you DARE to CONTINUE? If so, then this site may DESTROY your computer!
- rastan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"many eyes make bugs light work'"
You got this mangled with a Chinese proverb in there. The actual quote is "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus%27s_law - Braedon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14I don't use IE for one reason and one reason alone. They Don't follow internet standards. Am I the only one here who has ever had to do all those cheap little tricks to make CSS display the way it's supposed to in IE. All because they think they know better than Everyone else.
- Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I wish people would stop trying to bury perfectly good comments that they simply don't agree with :(
Context is important, unless you merely prefer to read an ever-expanding list of "me too, that rocks!" responses.
To keep this in context, I'd like to say that many of the above responses have been accurate in noting that MS has let IE atrophy to the point where Firefox loyalists are never going to go back. They should have dealt with this problem years ago, but let their software languish because it was good enough to stifle the competition. Now they face a motivated competitor that has proven itself faster to evolve and improve as the situation warrants. - jgclark123, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12"Fire" is a trickster,
One syllable, not two.
Better luck next time. - rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9The most enlightening thing I found in the article is the fact that MS is buying off big web design firms to push their product. Talk about burying the lead.
- noof, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8As long as most people are using windows, a majority of the surfers will use IE. That's just the way it is. And atm I really can't see that big switch to other OS:es happening in the coming few years. And I'm really happy that MS is trying to improve IE. Why? Because I'm so terribly tired of creating a page that looks nice in IE/FF/Opera/Konqueror and then finding out it looks like ***** in one of the other browsers. So stop the flame war and be happy for us that do some "webbing" every now and then :)
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The security in IE will be bad as long as ActiveX is still out there, quite possibly the worst "lock-in" web technology ever created.
Ties an insecure piece of software to an insecure implementation of RPC. Bad! - dipswitch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5They're a bit late now, the damage has been done for Micros~1.
I remember much flaming over IE4 and 5 back when they were new, and it seems it's starting all over again now.
As a web designer, I will never forgive them for the vast amount of time spent working around their bugs.
As a web and desktop application developer, I hate dependencies on IE and it's components, and there are a *lot* of them (a prime example of lock-in).
As a web surfer, I want to see healthy competition between browsers. - NineTailedFox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Posting in haiku
Is pretty lame even if
They are any good. - foobario, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7No, ideally the web developer should be able to write standard code, period. The 'tweaking for different browsers' is the problem.
- Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"I think you want to blame the W3C, not Microsoft."
Huh?
The W3C didn't put the bugs into IE, Microsoft did.
The W3C didn't say "render the HTML how ever you see fit", Microsoft did.
The W3C didn't say "Ignore CSS if you want to", Microsoft did.
It's not the W3C's fault that IE is a horrible web browser -- it's Microsoft's. - quamb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8how much has microsoft really lost in terms of user base?
seems another moment where microsoft want to stomp out any competition. its hard not to be cynical when it comes to ms. - ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'll give IE7 a shot once it's out of beta but I like my Firefox with Adblock too much to switch permanently.
- pbjorge12, on 10/12/2007, -29/+33"Why would anyone switch back to IE7 in Vista instead of continuing to use Firefox?"
Because Internet Explorer doesn't leak memory like hell... - spin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6MS has made my life as a web developer a living hell for the last five years. That weak-ass apology is not going to cut it for me! I demand reparations!
- mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5A company with a bottomless bank account, vurtually unlimited resources, and who practically owns how most people see the internet has absolutely NO EXCUSE for their continually substandard and mediocre products (including past versions of the OS).
Complacency can be a dangerous thing, and it's sad that a company with so much going for it has actually often *slowed* progression in Information Technology. They are lucky that most people don't know any better and are already afraid enough of tech, or else their feet would more likely be held to the fire. - Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"What you really want is for anything but Microsoft to be promoted."
Not true at all. What I really want is CONSISTENCY. I want IE, Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape, Safari, Opera and every other browser out there to render the same HTML in the same way. Adhere to standards. I don't want to have to hack the code to make it work one way in IE, another way in Firefox and a third way in Opera.
It's been 11 years since the Web went mainstream. That's not too much to ask... - Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Just be happy that grandma will finally have..."
Actually, I'll be happy when Grandma's browser renders the page like I want it to, not like IE wants to. I could care less if Grandma has tabbed browsing. I want her browser to adhere to standards. Right now it does not.
"You know IE has supported "extensions" since about version 3.0? It's called Active X."
You're right, and the sooner it's gone, the better. - SpiralMH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Yes Firefox extensions will still kick IE7's butt, but IE7 will kick Firefox's butt if you take away the extensions. Out of the box, IE7 will be much better than IE6 and a little ahead of Firefox.
I never expect average joes to meddle with extensions. Just be happy that grandma will finally have tabs, a somewhat better CSS implementation, and some anti-phishing measures in her default browser."
how can you say that with the extension removed IE7 will be better? how can it be better? the things that are going into it Firefox already has! Pluse Firefox's code is so much better than the IE coding. And who wants to settle for some what better implementation. Why should any settle for a some what css supported browser? That like saying "Well that really expensive restaurant down the street has a some what meal" who would settle for a meal that costs a lot of money but is not that great? No one would. The same thing goes for web developers/designers. Firefox will always be one step ahead of IE no matter what! You can't deny it. I can already see it now when it roles out and everyone starts complaining about the issues IE7 has with standards support, security issues and such. I will only use IE7 to make sure my website will display properly in it and thats it. - DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's funny how RSS feeds are so much like the "Channels" features in IE4.
- haikucommenter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3consensus on this matter
is that fire contains two
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=112732 - teknopagan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Umm, dude - Opera is not Open Source. Opera is a closed-source, proprietary browser that wasn't even free as in beer until the release of version 8.5 in late 2005 (prior to then, it was either ad-supported or paid licensing).
- foobario, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Umm, how about we let MS actually add desirable features to their browser before we start whining about other browsers copying those features?
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13Why "The company is building innovations...."
They aren't they are just implementing technology they should have put in a while ago. Why does everything have to be called innovation with MS?
It usual isn't, just helps gloss over the fact that they are last in the game AGAIN!!!!
And it doesn't do that very well. - NOFXY, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4dont forget konqueror passes it too
- dipswitch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"grandma will finally have..."
Since when does grandma have the supercomputer to run Vista? - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Your reply is a little harsh but you raise some good points. I have no idea why you are being buried so hard, the MS Fanclub must be in full swing this morning.
- ModernTenshi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This is actually a pretty big issue for a lot of us, akatrito. If you have a problem with it, or don't care to be involved, then don't comment on this subject.
- NineTailedFox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Sorry firefox fans, but you'll eventually get sick of that damn thing crashing and taking forever to load..."
But not until some time after it STARTS crashing and taking forever to load, presumably? - hunchback, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Clean install it
1. uninstall Firefox
2. move the whole folder in your documents and settings folder > Your Account > Application data > Mozilla > Firefox to maybe your desktop as backup.
3. Reinstall clean Firefox 1.5
Revert your bookmarks:
Move your bookmarks back to where it belongs Firefox > Profiles > XXXXX.default (profile folder) > bookmarks.html
I'm not too sure about extensions, I just went safe and reinstalled everything from FF website. You may want to screen cap your extensions screen, there is probably a better way to do this ...
Firefox should be stable after a clean install. I'm not saying don't use IE7 (dude whatever), just if FF 1.5 crashes like an ass, somethings wrong with the installation. - Nocturnal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm watching the key note from MIX 06 and BG says they are already working on the next two releases of IE. Nice. Can't wait and I'm glad FireFox and associates lit a fire under Microsoft's ass.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 142 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is