Page 2 - Why you browse the web with IE

I begrudgingly use IE sometimes because of how it handles Java - much faster than Mozilla. We use it at work because all of our users are on Windows, it maintains uniformity throughout the office.

In the datacenter however, we are on Netscape on Solaris.

I use a combination of Mozilla, IE, and Konqueror.
I use Konqueror because:
(1) HTML validation
(2) Web translations
(3) Tabs
(4) Execution of RPM's without saving to disk
I use Mozilla because:
(1) Passwords
(2) Tabs
(3) Download manager.
I use IE when:
(1) Working with Windows because every other browser you have to install almost every other time you boot the computer because they become corrupted because the OS is crap

My core browser is Mozilla (I'm in love with popup blocking and tabs ), but I do still have IE.

The only reasons I ever use IE is there are certain sites I visit that don't render properly in Mozilla. Mozilla and IE render the same CSS differently too, I've noticed. I also run it to compare how my site designs look in the two browsers, since the majority of people still use IE so I need to cater for them too....

There have been times when I've designed a site that looks perfect in Mozilla, open it in IE and it looks like trash. So, I have to compromise between the two.

Oh my, is it time to bring up the Developer's Hell thread again? (over two years running...)

Yes, i think the time has come

I fear that thread...

But this isn't an issue of browser wars, it's an issue of Microsoft stamping out what could have otherwise been a very powerful web development tool for us to use. XUL has amazing potential as a heavyweight development tool, but I fear it will fail the social test. You can't develop XUL apps until you can get people to use Mozilla. You can't get people to use Mozilla until they realize that IE isn't their only option OR their best option..... how do we do that when we can't get OEMs to stop plopping down Windows on all their PCs automatically or putting lame browsers like Netscape on the desktop next to IE (that just makes it look like IE IS the best option...). In short:

HOW DO WE GIVE PEOPLE A COMPUTING CHOICE THAT IS THERE'S TO MAKE OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL? If people have the opportunity to educate themselves on their choice of systems, browsers, etc. and they choose IE or Windoze, fine. At least they had the option, and when things go wrong, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Alas... I like to pontificate on such matters, but I am but a lowly developer, not a high-powered lobbyist, lawyer, or investor..... so I have no solutions to offer

BTW... kudos to the person who revisits broken sites with Internet Explorer when they're too crippled to open with a browser that actually handles pages and scripts properly. Nothing like saying "I like Mozilla! (but if you're too lazy to fix your site, I'll gladly just bend over, take it, and use IE to get to it)". I actually canceled an account with a credit card company once because I couldn't use the online bill pay 'service' with anything but IE (I even tried muddling through with lynx, to no avail)... one of the best feelings I ever had (yea yea.. that's sad, I'm sure)!

LOL, sorry, I just couldn't resist.


Not...necessarily... There's nothing in the rules that says they have to even know that what they are downloading are browser components. There is plenty of development going on where people download client components to connect to business systems, so why should XUL be any different. There are also several stand-alone software packages which use Mozilla/XUL internally, without even making any ado about the "browser" part of it.

So, if you want to develop an enterprise XUL app, don't even confuse people with the worry that they will have to "change browsers". Just prompt them to download the "client component".

And I'm not saying this is the only way to deal with this problem, either. Zitan and I have been discussing this from both the social and technical aspect for awhile now, and I think there is some room for interesting things to happen at either end:

1. The simplest, KISS-style approach is just to have people download a special build of the Gecko core (as I mention above) which will render XUL windows, without worrying about Mozilla chrome, etc... Set the mime types properly from your webserver, and even if the users are browsing with IE, a .xul page will pop up a window in the Gecko renderer.

2. There is work being done on a Java library to render XUL. So, if the client is IE, you can just load an applet to render XUL. (slow... but might provide a good sales point for using native Mozilla )

3. A more distant possibility is the creation of an ActiveX control which just embeds the smallest possible version of the Gecko runtime inside Explorer. Same caveat as above, of course.

4. Maybe it's time to put together a resource pack which outlines the business and consumer case for using Netscape/Mozilla. There are now plenty of articles, even by people like John C. Dvorak, on why Mozilla is a better choice than IE.

Joe-

I hear ya there, but that's not going to make me stop using Mozilla. I really think most of the Mozilla developers had no interest in throwing their weight around like this. It was just a few at the top, and I think in time they will reconsider. Even if they keep using Firebird as a project "code name", people will still refer to it as the Mozilla browser, and eventually all will be well. Who really wants to call their browser "Firebird" anyway?

Someone who has got a HOT homepage

Ahhh... Java, the little lost child of programming and another fire that Microsoft felt the need to try and "stamp out". I don't like Java applets, and I don't like pages that use them. I'm sure there are many other people on both sides of the "war" that feel the same way. Of course, I fear and hate ActiveX with ten times the energy I could ever devote to Java....

I like the idea of a stripped core download that you can then take advantage of, but it's extra fluff that has to be added by the user. I think that's a fine solution for web services interfaces and applications, but for regular web development, I don't know that it's such a hot idea.

I think the best thing is to just try and show people why Moz is superior (via option 4 - which I really like). Most web browsers like eye candy or information. One or the other, in some cases both. Mozilla is fast, responsive, and very customizable so that you can see your information when you want it without much hassle (i.e. kill popups, javascript tricks, etc.), but when you're looking for candy and fun, you can take advantage of XUL pages that make the best flash and java enabled interactive sites look like they were built with tinker toys!

I'm all for advocacy... hell, I got my mother to purchase a copy of Open Office for Windows. Now, she's going to push that solution at work because they're distributing laptops to a bunch of clients and they don't want to pay out the arse for Office licenses!

IMO, most Windows users know two operating systems: Windows and Mac. Since their hardware won't support the Mac OS, most give no further consideration. Then the question is why choose the Windows system in the first place? The answer is simple: people are too afraid of change. If companies like Dell, who was at one point placing FreeDOS on some workstations to appease their agreement with microsoft and installing linux/bsd as main OS, would install a dual-boot OS, people might be willing to switch as they would know they could always go back to Windows if they needed to.
Steps towards killing Microsoft:
1) Make Linux/BSD distributions support most hardware so newbies/non-techincal people don't have to learn how to recompile (DONE)
2) Simplify install process so it is easy for the average person (AKA idiot) to understand (DONE)
3) Let people know there are more choices than just Windows or Mac
4) Have software developers support Linux and create easy-to-install RPM's for installation of their products
5) Have large computer manafacturing corporations install Linux/BSD on their computers as dual or single boot and end relations with Microsoft

I am with you there mate. Thats why I have Java disabled by default using the Prefs bar. If I really need it I turn it on but otherwise I have it off. Things like Frontpage Java Hoverbuttons I miss out on, which is good. Generally any site that uses them I dont visit, or leave right away

I use safari for 90% of my web surfing and Netscape for the other 10% of sites that Safari has issues with.

I used to use Netscape all the time and would avoid using IE like the plague, but it kept crashing so I eventually made the inevitable switch...

Aaron