Laughing (or crying?) [Archive]

View Full Version : Laughing (or crying?)

Brian Nickel

07.02.2002, 01:49

Today, at school, I was talking with a hard core Mac user and during the conversation, the following lines came out:
<ul> Netscape 4 is better than Explorer The web isn't standardized Internet Explorer doesn't use standards, it makes them up (this would be almost be a truth, except for the fact his example was their use of JavaScript) Omniweb is the best browser (http://www.alistapart.com/stories/omniweb/)[/list]
Other such comments were spoken along similar terms, but you can get the gist of it.

.Brian

mad hatter

07.02.2002, 03:46

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The web isn't standardized
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This is very true. I don't know if it ever will be. We hardcore dev gurus would like to believe that everyone thinks like us, but they don't. All my roommates, for example, don't hardly know the difference between IE and NS except that one is microsoft and a bit faster, easier to use and crashes less. NS4 is still a very alive browser, percentages may be small, but even a small % of 1000000 is A LOT of folks.

The majority of web surfers are on dial-up connections. If we tell them to upgrade their browser, they're going to tell us to f**k off. Who wants to sit around for 8 hours just so they can view my website? No one does. Tons of schools use old browsers, and they probably won't update for a few more years.

Case in point: I love the DOM. I love CSS. I want to code that way "bar-none." I'm working on a site for a client and I'm sticking it all in tables and using HTML 4.01. Why? Because they don't want to hear "Netscape 4 users will get crap." They just want it to work, be easy to manage/update. Yes, I did add some interactivity for DOM browsers, just some nice enhancements. But I can't CSS-ify the whole thing without getting barf (and there are a couple things that CSS can't do or no browser supports).

It is a ferocious loop. I don't think anyone will "win" out. I have bills to pay so I do what I've got to do. When I'm done with the site I was talking about above, I think I'm going to write an article expanding this bit as well as post the site for you guys to tear apart, chew up, and spit out. You'll hate the tables, but, as I said, there are some things that CSS can't do yet.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Internet Explorer doesn't use standards, it makes them up (this would be almost be a truth, except for the fact his example was their use of JavaScript)
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Of course they do. Microsoft makes all sorts of standards. We code by them though, don't we? (Not you Paul.) To a certain degree at least.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Omniweb is the best browser (http://www.alistapart.com/stories/omniweb/)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

So is Opera. So is Netscape 4.x. So is Lynx. Everyone has their preference. Everyone will like one browser for a certain feature, one for another. If Omniweb was really fast and I was looking at static stuff, sure I'd love it. No real argument there.

* Don't hate me. I mean what I say.

- Dave
<[url="http://www.stilleye.com"]stilleye[/url:w4ei5xgysc]>

Chris

07.02.2002, 07:24

Netscape 4 is one of the worst browsers of all time! In my opinion, it should be banished from the world, never to return...

the web would be a much safer place if it was full of Mozilla-compatibles and IE's...

as for Micro$oft, well, they are happy to stick to the standards, as long as they define them!!

Here's a joke for you:

Q: how many Bill Gates' does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: only one, who can hold a meeting with the directors of Micro$oft and agree on 'darkness' as the new standard!

Hehe <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

//----------{[url="http://www27.brinkster.com/chrispoole"]Chris Poole[/url:eb1pxpw6it]}----------//
the artist also known as fo3nix

russcoon

07.02.2002, 09:24

Heh, this kind of thing always amazes me. For instance, until a month ago (or so) I was president of my local Linux Users Group (http://plug.purdue.org), and being a web developer I figured that hey, these guys are rational people, they must be. They run Linux.

Anyway, every time I brought up why they should stop using NN4 and go with Mozilla or Galeon or Konq, nothing short of a holy war would erupt on the mailing lists. Otherwise completely rational people would come out of the woodwork to defend this most heinous of browsers. Eventually I think I won the majority of people over, but to this day I still get comments about how the LUG site doesn't render right on NN4. We point to the little "validates as W3 HTML" badge at the bottom and then ignore these posts nowadays, but it's been quite the uphill struggle.

Doesn't help that the Mozilla port for my favorite OS (OpenBSD) is quite broken =(

--
Alex Russell
http://netWindows.org
http://alex.netWindows.org

ttrenka

07.02.2002, 17:10

Ah, the old "X is better" discussion...

I will admit, until about a year ago, I steadfast refused to use IE as my initial testing platform. I always used NN4, thinking it was a better browser...until I had to do a bit of IE specific development, and I (in the voice of a Southern evangelist) "was converted". It was the rendering of 11px fonts that did it...

I end up having conversations like this every once in a while with those on the Mac platform (it only seems to be Mac users, those who prefer other systems seem to be a bit more loose), and it seems like every time it heads in the same direction--the Mac is the best, Windows sucks, IE sucks, Netscape is the only one, bla bla bla....

My feeling is that the Mac is great, if you don't program (and using something like DreamWeaver doesn't qualify, in my opinion). But if ANYTHING goes wrong, there is nothing more annoying than that little bomb with error message -13, and oh by the way where is the documentation that tells you to hold down the Apple key when booting to rebuild your desktop (I would refer the kind reader to Scott Andrew's rant about trying to get his AirPort working), and...and...and...

I kind of wish that the Mozilla organization hadn't done a complete scrap and rewite, though. Although I dev on Windows, I'm not too happy about the total MS domination; but the amount of time it's taking the good folks of the Mozilla org to finish thier browser forces me to use the MS products more and more. Why? Because right now the MS stuff (IE) is a better product, and it allows me to do my job in the most efficient manner possible.

Which, in my opinion, is the true bottom line. Which one is better? The one that helps you accomplish what you want in the simplest, fastest manner possible.

NN4 is no longer that product. It was once, but no longer. Which is too bad.

Tom Trenka

donovan

07.02.2002, 18:03

All this is why I went to Flash and SWiSH. It looks the same in all browsers, plus the .swf compression is great. I like audio also. Just my opinion, of course...

russcoon

07.02.2002, 18:23

Have you tried OS X Tom? There's really nothing quite as sweet as having a full BSD install in your Mac and a workable command line.

--
Alex Russell
http://netWindows.org
http://alex.netWindows.org

mad hatter

07.02.2002, 20:05

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
All this is why I went to Flash and SWiSH. It looks the same in all browsers, plus the .swf compression is great. I like audio also. Just my opinion, of course...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

If used correctly, Flash is a great product. 99% of the Flash I've seen is completely unneeded though (intros for example), but I've seen some really good stuff. When the developer knows what they are doing (hook it up to a DB and a CMS) then Flash is a great tool. Also, if the site is DBed then they can have a text-only version for those non-flash people (wherever they may be).

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Which, in my opinion, is the true bottom line. Which one is better? The one that helps you accomplish what you want in the simplest, fastest manner possible.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Yes it is. Customers want results, not excuses (if that makes sense).

- Dave
<[url="http://www.stilleye.com"]stilleye[/url:kzs1z3lxs6]>

ttrenka

08.02.2002, 00:22

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Have you tried OS X Tom? There's really nothing quite as sweet as having a full BSD install in your Mac and a workable command line.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

No, not yet....but I did do a lot of work with NeXT cubes when I was doing hardcore computer music (CSound and such) back in 1993, and liked it (to an extent). In fact, I just got my hands on an old one (sitting next to the dual monitor Win XP Pro setup at work), but I haven't had the time to play with it. From what I understand OS X is based in a large part on NeXT Step, which is a good thing. Now if they would only license the hardware again...I bet a LOT of people would start moving back to the Mac platform.

But I think that the Mac is still known as the "easy" box, which means most programmers don't dev on it too much. Great for graphics (although I'm pretty happy with Windows for that one) and multimedia (again, happy with Win32)...but until someone ports a great Database engine to it (on the order of Oracle or SQL Server), it will continue to suffer from a near critical case of MSitis.

If Steve Jobs has the gumption to re-license either the OS or the hardware so that one can buy form someone other than Apple, we *might* see a near miraculous recovery, though--and that would be a good thing!

Tom Trenka

Brian Nickel

08.02.2002, 01:50

I guess I just take all you wonderful standards loving people for granted.

BTW: In theory, couldn't you load MacOS onto a Non-Mac machine? I would think being PowerPC and all...

.Brian

mad hatter

08.02.2002, 03:01

In resonse to the thread's title:

I think is is more of a sigh.

- Dave
< [url="http://www.stilleye.com"]s t i l l e y e[/url:pn8ho8ka6c] >

ttrenka

08.02.2002, 11:14

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I guess I just take all you wonderful standards loving people for granted.

BTW: In theory, couldn't you load MacOS onto a Non-Mac machine? I would think being PowerPC and all...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I suppose someone might try it, but as far as I've heard, no, you can't--it was written for the line of Motorola chips in Apple's special configuration, and doesn't port to another platform. Be great if that changes (and it seems to me that if you're going to write a UNIX flavor system, it might) but Apple hasn't said anything, so I have no hope...

As Dave says...*sigh*.

Not really as standards conversation anymore, is it? :)

Tom Trenka

Brian Nickel

08.02.2002, 15:51

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>it was written for the line of Motorola chips in Apple's special configuration, and doesn't port to another platform.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
The PowerPC is a merge between IBM and Motorola, I would hope it would work, or I might loose my faith in hardware standardization.

.Brian