Redmondmag on Dumping IE 442
nSignIfikaNt writes "Here is yet another article discussing options to using IE. This one is from redmondmag.com who claims to be the independent voice of the microsoft IT community."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Redmondmag on Dumping IE
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson
An idea to beat Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
could this be a trojan horse? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not trying to stereotype microsoft users, I am merely presenting a "devils advocate" viewpoint.
Quasi-OT: Opera's voice mode (Score:5, Interesting)
You can even select a bunch of text and tell it to "speak", and it will read it to you.
Incidentaly, I had just discovered WinXP's onboard voice synth. A group of people were at a Krystal's and wanted to contact a friend.
We realized that:
--Nobody had a cell phone
--Krystal's has wifi! (I boot up my laptop)
--Our friend wasn't on AIM or similar
--I have a VoIP client... we can call him!
--We have no microphone
--WinXP has a voice synth!
So, with a little mixer tweaking, I routed the voice synth output into Skype's input, called the poor schmuck, and had Microsoft Sam read him a message. (which was, if I recall, "We will be playing Starcraft at ten o'clock and such-and-such a place. Interested?")
Re:could this be a trojan horse? (Score:2, Interesting)
Ehh... Ask your folks (Score:5, Interesting)
Firefox' little secret (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what Microsoft must be afraid of: cross-platform user interfaces with pluggable scripting languages and super-easy application deployment. This is why they originally fought Netscape - they were afraid that Netscape would become a "platform" independent from the operating system layer. And now exactly that is happening, thanks to open source. The people who designed this stuff were some true visionaries.
The Spread Firefox [spreadfirefox.com] initiative may seem like a trite marketing effort. But in reality, it is one of the best ways to enable people to switch to other platforms tomorrow. I really hope that the Firefox hackers will get SVG support ready soon, as this is one of the other key features that can have immediate amazing benefits.
Re:should read "Alternatives to..." (Score:2, Interesting)
The only website I know of that doesn't work
with firefox is my bank's
so of the hundreds of websites I've visited over the
last year or two one dosn't work
IE Only Web Applications (Score:2, Interesting)
Thanks to firefoxie (Score:2, Interesting)
Opera User in Pain (Score:3, Interesting)
Too bad as I find it an excellent browser.
Re:should read "Alternatives to..." (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:should read "Alternatives to..." (Score:3, Interesting)
Close, but no. What I meant was that IE gets you to more places than the other browsers. In other words, it's still useful despite the claim (that I was replying to) that IE is not serious for anything.
"implies that IE is superior to FF for most of the web, which is just plain wrong."
No. It doesn't say anything about the browser's superiority. Superioritiy is a term too broad to measure that way. You would have a difficult time making the statement that Firebird can successfully navigate more sites than IE. Equally, you'd have a hard time saying the IE has a superior end-user interface to Firebird. So spare me the implication that I deserved it.
"I'm not actually convinced that you meant what you claim to have meant; I have you marked as a foe because you're prone to making these kind of trollish statements (and then getting huffy and defensive)."
Uh ok. Yes I do sometimes get defensive. You would too if you were trying to make a point that nobody wanted to hear. As for being 'trollish', well I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. My intentions are not to rile people up. If you read my posts that way, fine, have a good life.
Re:should read "Alternatives to..." (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is when a server sends data to the browser it will tell the (MIME) type of the data in the HTTP response. Browsers SHOULD handle the data according to this type according to the HTTP specification. Mozilla does this, and is probably not willing to use the Microsoft way specified below.
As usual, Microsoft doesn't keep to the specifications and just looks at the file-type according to the header of the file (and maybe the extension of the filename). Then it takes an educated guess. So a site which returns a movie with the MIME type set to TEXT/HTML (the default in those badly configured webservers) will render OK in internet explorer, but will show garbage (a bit like as in the Matrix, Neo will probably be able to watch the movie) in Mozilla, and any other browser.
The Launchy plugin (for Mozilla) makes you make the educated guess yourself, and save and play also works. Unless the site works with a stupid JavaScript referer in which case you are in trouble. I usually get to the HTML source and figure it out, but for most people that would not really be an option.
Phew. Glad I got to the end of that.
Re:should read "Alternatives to..." (Score:3, Interesting)
In Linux mplayer can play every single type of video ever. There are no exceptions I have ever found. Every single video file I have ever seen plays correctly and better in mplayer than anything else ever. heck, it can even do full screen quicktimes which you usually need to pay for.
If you run firefox in linux and use mplayerplug-in mplayer will be integrated into your browser. This is just one way in which linux completely owns windows. Firefox in windows works with every website I have ever tried ever. And a site that doesn't work is probably a site that I don't want to visit. I know this because I haven't visited one yet.
What you mean is... (Score:3, Interesting)
We have one such system at work - for which the login page has some awful script which detects when you hit enter on a textbox and then submits the form (with no submit button at all on the page). I can rewrite the "SubmitMe()" function to be cross-compatible, or perhaps add a button to the page, but I could see how other companies without somebody who has done web-dev could be a little stuck here.
Re:should read "Alternatives to..." (Score:3, Interesting)
And calling IE "a leetle too forgiving" about HTML is perhaps a weak formulation. I'd say that it has its very own interpretation of how HTML should be formed, as it apparently does NOT conform to the standards in any ways.
Re:Quasi-OT: Opera's voice mode (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: MCP the OS (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Firefox is cool - on the PC (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:should read "Alternatives to..." (Score:2, Interesting)
Bullshit. I didn't use the word 'better' anywhere in my post. What I literally said was that it views 99.999% of the web pages out there. Meaning it can actually download and properly display them. Though I'll happily concede that I could have written it more clearly, it's ludicrous to think I was saying IE was a better browser in lieu of saying that it correctly views more pages out there. Who in their right mind would say that IE is superior to Mozilla UI wise?
"Secondly, you were responding to a comment which was essentially correct as if it was wrong; for any serious use (yes, other than sites that won't work outside of IE) "
No, his comment was not essentially correct. It was far too broad. He shouldn't have used the word 'anything'. IE has one very strong use, and I pointed that out. It gets pointed every so often here on Slashdot, it's not just me 'making it up'.
"If you come off as a troll, you're going to be modded as one. We can't read your mind over the internet; perhaps you should work on your demeanour."
I agree with you. I should communicate more clearly. No problem, I accept that. However, you could have given me more credit. If I say anything that even remotely sounds like I have something not-so-nice to say about Mozilla etc, I get attacked and modded into oblivion. You as well as a lot of other people here are way too sensitive to criticisms of this app. I mean, seriously, you read my comment as "IE is superior to Mozilla". WTF? Setting me as foe? Double WTF? I'll take some responsibility for that, but not all of it. I didn't dance by myself here.
Re:Firefox' little secret (Score:1, Interesting)
http://www.bindows.net/ [bindows.net]
http://webfx.eae.net/ [eae.net]
Re:should read "Alternatives to..." (Score:4, Interesting)
I use Firefox.
I like Firefox.
What I don't like about Firefox is its installer. When new a new version comes out you have to uninstall the old one before you install the new one, or else you end up with two entries in your "Add/Remove programs". If you then remove the old one, the new one breaks and must be installed again. This was last noticed when upgrading from b0.93 to PR1.0
This behaviour makes it more difficult to support clueless noobs than it should be, as when a new vuln is discovered it is not as simple as it should be for them to upgrade their systems (after be prompted to by yours truly) by themselves. It becomes necessary to provide them with step by step instructions which often look rather daunting to clueless users. "I never had to do stuff like that before" is a common response.