Continued from page 1
Of course damaging that ecosystem to follow
lead of WC3 cohort would be suicidal.
Of course Opera is in business to make money, which they do by offering a different and better product.
Of course for Opera to abandon what makes them uniquely valuable to build atop FireFox would be ruinous.
Of course W3C cohort opposes Microsoft, and has left out of its list of standards innovations essential to Microsoft's future plans.
Of course Microsoft would abandon its future to cede control to its opponents. Particulrly if FireFox is in fact becoming a competing "platform".
That said, there are obviously ways Microsoft could respond to legitimate concerns; CSS may well be one. But a realistic attitude has to be that IE is a success, not a failure, and can benefit from improvements, not abandonment. Posted by: Anton Philidor Posted on: 03/17/05 Standards are bottom level Implementing full compliance with CSS 2 or 2.1 doesn't mean that MS can't have all other non-standard bells and whistles that they please in IE.
Think of it like a small econo-box car versus a high-end luxury sports car. They can both implement all of required safety standards, fuel, dimensions, and what not and still be differentiated.
The complaint against MS and IE is that they're not even bothering to implement core standards in an effort to force use of their product which they are promoting via a desktop monopoly. Posted by: Robert Crocker Posted on: 03/17/05 What does desktop have to do with HTML Standards? Posted by: TechType Posted on: 03/17/05
MS sets standard, right? Isn't standard to make all web applications compatible with IE? Has that changed? Posted by: scott1329 Posted on: 03/17/05 Microsoft meets browser needs Microsoft ships a file manger with Windows. It meets basic needs of most users and I think most people would agree it would be difficult to navigate without it. But I use Powerdesk because it is a more robust file manager.
Today web has become an extension of our OS enviorment. Once again Microsoft has provided us with basics, and of course included for free with OS. A host of other browsers lurk out there that provide better features, interfaces, etc. Users drive demand - not competitors (no matter market share). I wonder if it is in Opera's best interests that a product that is more or less free has same capabilities as their own product. Posted by: Kyron Posted on: 03/17/05 Microsoft meets browser needs AHAH! Now we come to nitty gritty of another problem with M$ - "Free" browser. Forget it - there's ain't no "free lunches" out there anymore. Trust me on this one - price of IE is "built in" to "cost of Windows"! This is why Windows has been going up and up and up in price with every iteration of O/S.
Soooo....you think its free just because it came bundled with your Windows? Forget it....you paid for it with those extra dollars you paid for your O/S. Posted by: windy0068 Posted on: 03/17/05 Opera might become more popular, too "What's ironic about Lie's challenge is that once Microsoft rises to it, then one of Opera's big differentiators (standards support) gets wiped out. Can Opera survive two free browsers on market (Mozilla and Firefox)?"
1) If IE7 were standards-compliant Opera users would have less trouble with sites not being displayed properly.
2) Didn't you mean "three /standards compliant/ browsers (Mozilla, Firefox and IE)"?? It's doing fine against current two, it's even gaining some I believe. Posted by: naylor83 Posted on: 03/17/05 Fear and loathing of IE7 Microsoft has blithely "gone its own way" in spite of worldwide standards to contrary. They developed their own version of html, ignoring existing worldwide standards; they developed their own version of java script, ignoring existing worldwide standards; they developed their own - only - O/S platform going and "integrated into it" a mail program and internet browser which allow instant invasions by hackers and malevolent worms/virus attack, to detriment of many independent browsers and mail programs which, if used with Windows, still provide some measure of security against virus/worm attacks.
So exactly why, with their track record, should we expect a sane response and effort from MS at this late date? Posted by: windy0068 Posted on: 03/17/05 W3C compliant Is it possible reason Firefox cannot render pages properly is that those sites are not W3C compliant? If sites were W3C compliant I would think Firefox, Netscape, Opera and like would render them correctly however, IE wouldn't because it isn't W3C compliant. I run numerous browsers on my system. When all browsers except IE have difficulty with a site that tells me that either site or IE aren't W3C compliant.From all my reading I see MS now understands they must be more W3C compliant with web standards. MS doesn't make standard W3C does. Posted by: RicD Posted on: 03/22/05 Mozilla Using Mozilla at home with XP and SOPHOS and it works great, never have been invaded. IE explorer XP is safe if it is backed up with SOPHOS or equivalent, and a firewall from Cisco, etc. Otherwise, it is a seive. I know I work with it daily. My company's internet life expectancy is less than 2 minutes without all security. Posted by: Bionator Posted on: 03/22/05 Mozilla? Safe? Actually, your relatively disgusting M$ IE is not only unsafe to max, but violates all principles of Worldwide Internet Standards.
The reason Firefox, Opera, Netscape and other browsers fail to display some pages correctly is that they are all compliant with International HTML / W3C Standards. As M$ has built a broken, standards non-compliant browser and delivered it "for free" (Hah!) that's what people use.
They not only contravened International HTML Standards, CSS 2 and 2.1 standards, but also Java Script Standards. They then built their "new" non-compliant M$ Standards into Frontpage. Thus, any and all "Frontpage designed" web pages will not display correctly in any browser but IE.
This is why no serious web designer who knows what he is doing uses Front Page for their web design requirements.
Safe? Yes - everyone that is but M$. And they will continue to be safe, unlike M$, until such time as M$ closes loopholes and separates Browser / Mail Program from O/S. It was an idiotic decision to combine them all anyway, integrated into O/S. Posted by: windy0068 Posted on: 03/22/0
Loring Windblad worked in communications for more than 25 years and has observed first hand the harmful effects of RF radiation in near proximity to both humans and other animals. His latest business endeavor is at: http://www.organicgreens.us
