micro$oft internut exploder - backward underdeveloped insanity

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   
This is kind of a web developer's rant. PNG is an image format that allows for alpha transparency, and better color resolution. I know I'm not the first, nor will I be the last to gripe about this. micro$oft internut exploder is a piece of crud. Today *all* modern browsers on Windows support PNG alpha channel transparency except internut exploder.

Yes, I'm aware that I can get alpha to work with IE, but not without adding 50 or so lines of script. You could do it in two lines with "AlphaImageLoader," which is a DirectX filter for internut exploder, but I know I'm not the only one that disables DirectX in internut exploder becase of all of the viruses, worms, spyware, addware, and malware. Why should I have to add all of this extra support just for one browser when the support is included with every other piece of software except internut exploder, and it's as simple as putting "image.png"> into the HTML for everyone else?

Microsoft implemented PNG image support in internet exploder 4.0. When internet exploder 5.0 was released is was hoped that alpha transparency support would be added. Nope. 5.5? No. 6.0? Not yet people. 6.5? Ahhh, mmmm, nu-uh. 7.0 (beta)? I guess they are going to do it.... reportedly. Now, even if they support PNG transparency in internut exploder 7.0, a web developer will still have to add support for... how many previous versions?

The depth of internut exploder's handicap becomes terribly apparent when you look at the support of CSS (cascading style sheets.) I could only imagine this website, or the entire www for that matter, if developers had the freedom to use the full CSS 2.0 standard.

Anyway, the list of things wrong with internut exploder goes on.... and on.... and on.... And I assure you that there are at least two work a rounds for every problem that will cause not only the web developer grief, but the people viewing the content.

If you have some free time, visit the following website with internut exploder and another browser. Try Mozilla Firefox, and view each page in each browser and see the world through a developer's eye when arranging a website that needs to be internut exploder compliant.



... No, Internet Explorer did not handle it properly

You know what? I am sick, just sick ... no, wait, scratch that ... I'm sick and tired of hearing it.

This page looks perfect in Internet Explorer but when I load it in it gets it all wrong. What is wrong with ? Stupid with its useless support.


*title

[edit on 9/11/2005 by Seth76]




posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
All web browsers are garbage in their own little way. All have horrible security flaws in them and don't do things you want, no avoiding that. If you don't like it, make your own with all the stuff you want. ATS and the web in FireFox isn't as pretty looking compared to IE.

EDIT: Here are a few example of many to prove my point that I found on ATS alone.

Here is the "about" info links in the ATS board with IE.


Now with FireFox...


Here is standard post as viewed with IE.


Again with FireFox...



Don't call IE grabage unless you can make a better one yourself, it's not that easy. FireFox is pretty good but still needs some wrinkles ironed out.

GoldEagle

[edit on 11/11/2005 by GoldEagle]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
FireFox is becoming just as full of holes as IE. As more and more people use FireFox more and more security breaches will happen.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle
All web browsers are garbage in their own little way. All have horrible security flaws in them and don't do things you want, no avoiding that. If you don't like it, make your own with all the stuff you want. ATS and the web in FireFox isn't as pretty looking compared to IE.


I never said there was a perfect web browser. However there are better browsers, and most of them are under 10MB to download. A lot of them are free. A good percentage were integrating (and actually following) the CSS 2.1 Specification before Microsoft even got off their bum.

Pretty looking?!! You obviously missed my whole point, and neglected to read anything within the link I provided. If you a design a web page to "look pretty" in internut exploiter it will NOT look right in any other browser unless you provide exemption in your scripts. You know why? Because Microsoft made it that way.


EDIT: Here are a few example of many to prove my point that I found on ATS alone.


I say pǒtâtŏ, you say jăbôtǐcǎbǎ.


First example

Does this really need an explanation? This is bad design, not incompatibility. The use of "Webdings" font is really a bad choice. Contrary to its name, it is a Microsoft font and makes it incompatible with any other browser. Why not add a style with gif bullet?


Second example
bgcolor="#d0d0d0"> height="120" valign="top"> class="subject">Subject goes here....

Now you are on the right track! The second example you gave is a prime example! You are wrong in saying that it is displayed correctly in internut exploder though.




Don't call IE grabage unless you can make a better one yourself, it's not that easy. FireFox is pretty good but still needs some wrinkles ironed out.


People have made better browsers.


[edit on 15/11/2005 by Seth76]





new topics
 
0

log in

join