# Solved: Why is IE so Retarded?



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Why do the people at M$ decide to not make IE standards compliant? It seems like designing for IE is like going to hell.


----------



## Eriksrocks (Aug 7, 2005)

Because they don't care and they are lazy.


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

They eliminated standards and added in "special features" that only work in the browser, like blinking text!


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

covert215 said:


> They eliminated standards and added in "special features" that only work in the browser, like blinking text!


Nope...that was Netscape.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Blinking text is stupid. I'd pay a $100 to talk to the leader of the IE app. and tell him how stupid IE is. I mean -- really, it seems like everyone but the M$ people hate IE. I bet they brainwash them.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

Again, MS did not make the blink tag. Netscape did.


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

But they still support it

that and many other useless functions that newbies like


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

Netscape invented it, and most browsers including Firefox support it. What's it got to do with MS?


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

I didn't realize that...then M$ is only more to blame than I originally thought


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

also, custom cursors are VERY annoying...those are fortunately ie only


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

> I didn't realize that...then M$ is only more to blame than I originally thought


What does <blink> have to do with Microsoft? It was invented by Netscape. And no, IE doesn't support it. Try it out- blink is supported by Netscape and Firefox, but not IE.



> also, custom cursors are VERY annoying...those are fortunately ie only


No, custom cursors are standard CSS. Check the W3C docs.


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

I was confusing it with some other effects, like text blurs and transitions

also, why doesn't IE support .png transparency?


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

covert215 said:


> also, why doesn't IE support .png transparency?


It does, try out the latest version.


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

7? i haven't tried it...but that will certainly help me out


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

The fact that Internet Explorer does not support alpha-channel transparency has led some people to erroneously believe that Internet Explorer does not support transparency at all. However PNGs can be given a single transparent background color, which works on IE, and is equivalent to the transparency available with GIF images.

There are also a number of methods using DirectX functions in style sheets and HTML that can make Internet Explorer display full transparency data in PNG images on web pages.

Internet Explorer also renders PNGs in a slightly incorrect color gamut. If a GIF and PNG image of several colors are placed side-by-side on a page, a user can often see a slight difference in color. While accurate color can never be guaranteed due to monitor and other computer differences among users, it can cause difficulty to web designers attempting to use several image formats on a page where color matching is important. There is an interesting partial fix [9] using a PHP script which utilizes the GD Graphics Library (phpGD) to alter PNG images to display correctly in affected versions of Internet Explorer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNG#Web_browser_support_for_PNG


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

Did you copy that word for word or are you very intelligent for your age?


----------



## Big-K (Nov 22, 2003)

note the wikipedia link dude, yes he did copy it word for word.

While I agree IE is horribly non-compliant, it technically sets its own standards seeing as how it commands such a large market share. Either way I'm pretty sure IE6 hasn't been a big deal to MS in a couple years now, or however long 7 has been in developement.


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

How can volunteers pump out Mozilla updates nearly every month, but it takes a multi-billion coorporation like M$ many years to provide an update?


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

covert215 said:


> How can volunteers pump out Mozilla updates nearly every month, but it takes a multi-billion coorporation like M$ many years to provide an update?


Yeah, thats really dumb.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)




----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

hehe


----------



## cnelson04 (Dec 29, 2003)

The only reason IE has a market over the internet is because MS is a monopoly on computers and almost everyone computer you buy comes with IE, so people don't question to change it. Someone should just sue MS for including bundles like IE with there OS's. Then IE would lose a lot of the market. The only people who really change to firefox are those who are computer/internet savy and see the need for change. those who do not use the computer as much will see no need to change browsers. But oh well as long as there's Microsoft there will always be IE.. sad but true.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

cnelson04 said:


> Someone should just sue MS for including bundles like IE with there OS's.


Um, why is it that Microsoft can't include IE with their OS? Why would you want to buy a computer without a browser? And why don't you sue Apple for including Safari, and Linux distros for including Firefox?

More importantly, why should you decide what brower everyone else's computer should come with?


----------



## cnelson04 (Dec 29, 2003)

I didn't mean it to that context, but as if everyone hasn't sued them for everything already. and i don't think microsoft should be able to include it because they have such a monopoly on computers already they don't need more products, as for apple and linux who own much less of the computer market. What i'm saying is everyone should be giving fair game althought microsoft still domaintes the market.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

How is banning one company from making a browser and forcing people to use a different product "fair"?


----------



## cnelson04 (Dec 29, 2003)

i'm not saying they shouldn't make the browser, or force people to use a differant product, but differant products should be aviable in the bundle to use. This way you can CHOOSE what one you'd like use.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

You already can choose...if you want Firefox, you can download it. Microsoft can bundle or not bundle whatever browser they want, that's their choice. You can also choose whether you want to buy it or not. This thread just seems a bit odd to me because everything listed so far has either already been fixed or is not an IE problem.


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

The main issue isn't that IE comes preinstalled. The issue is that you cannot remove it. It is built into the OS.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

Sure you can...if you don't want IE, don't buy Windows. I don't see anyone complaining that you can't uninstall the kernel from Linux.


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

??

They are different situations. In Windows, you expect to be able to delete delete a piece of software and the system will still run. In Linux, that like saying you expect to uninstall the OS and expect it to run.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

covert215 said:


> In Windows, you expect to be able to delete delete a piece of software and the system will still run.


If Windows had IE deleted then Windows Explorer, Windows Update, and most of the rest of the OS would be useless. Why would Microsoft do that?


----------



## cnelson04 (Dec 29, 2003)

The point is that IE can't be uninstalled and that the use has to go out of the way to download other browsers. Also IE in most cases cause system vaurniblty from a lack of updates. As said before firefox comes out with updates sooner with then IE who is a multi billion dollar company but firefox is mostly voulinter work?


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

covert215 said:


> The main issue isn't that IE comes preinstalled. The issue is that you cannot remove it. It is built into the OS.


I managed to remove it screwing around with system files. Though I had to reinstall to fix it. Plus you don't wan't to remove it because you should use it for updating your computer.


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

Technically, you can remove it, but some main functions of the OS will cease.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

cnelson04 said:


> As said before firefox comes out with updates sooner with then IE who is a multi billion dollar company but firefox is mostly voulinter work?


Firefox revenue is over $70 million/year. They pay bounties to developers that report vulnerabilities.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

covert215 said:


> Technically, you can remove it, but some main functions of the OS will cease.


Exactly...it would mess things up if Microsoft made it easy to remove IE. It would just prevent people from using Windows Update and other features.


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

But why does Windows Update have to be used in IE only? That is a market-driven decision, not a technical one.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

How would you get system information, edit the registry, and install OS-level patches without using IE/ActiveX?


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

Couldn't all the be generic? I can use FF as a file browser if I want. Why can't I use it for other things as well?


----------



## cnelson04 (Dec 29, 2003)

Yes, MS should find another way to update its OS something not depandant on the internet browser.

btw; i have nothing aginst MS, i love all the OS's but i feel very strongly aginst IE..


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

How exactly are they supposed to let you visit the update site without a web browser?


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

covert215 said:


> Couldn't all the be generic? I can use FF as a file browser if I want. Why can't I use it for other things as well?


(Though, its file browser isn't that great...)



> Yes, MS should find another way to update its OS something not depandant on the internet browser.


The auto-update thing kinda-of works.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

ferrija1 said:


> The auto-update thing kinda-of works.


This is all built into the OS...the update service is using the same DLLs and libraries as IE to access Windows Update. This is why it doesn't make sense to uninstall IE- it's more than just a browser, it provides important parts of the OS.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

brendandonhu said:


> This is why it doesn't make sense to uninstall IE- it's more than just a browser, it provides important parts of the OS.


I know, it provides patches for M$'s screw-ups, and I agree about that. But other than that you have to agree IE is very retarded.


----------



## Eriksrocks (Aug 7, 2005)

First, if you don't want IE, don't use it. You can remove the icon from the desktop and start menu if you like:

Control Panel > Add or Remove Programs

Second, Microsoft has the right to do whatever they want and include whatever they want with their OS! They made it, it's their property! You can bundle your own software with your own product, you can do whatever you want with your property! You created it!

They are not going to ship an OS without a browser! IE is that default browser. Don't like it, don't use it! How would you download Firefox without IE? 

If someone doesn't want to change, they don't have to. But everyone needs to be educated that there is an alternative to IE.


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

This is a great site here, and its sister site is good too.

http://killbillsbrowser.com/


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

> But other than that you have to agree IE is very retarded.


If you could say what exactly the problem you're having with IE compatibility is, it would be a bit easier to help. I'm not sure that the issues you're talking go beyond MS-bashing (eg., saying IE developers were stupid for supporting the blink tag (which they don't), and not having the same opinion of Firefox which does use blink.)


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

I didn't say anything was wrong with the tag. I just wanted the developers to get their priorities straight. Fundamental before flashy.


----------



## Eriksrocks (Aug 7, 2005)

cnelson04 said:


> The point is that IE can't be uninstalled and that the use has to go out of the way to download other browsers. Also IE in most cases cause system vaurniblty from a lack of updates. As said before firefox comes out with updates sooner with then IE who is a multi billion dollar company but firefox is mostly voulinter work?


Ok, Internet Explorer sitting idle on your computer is not a security risk!

It is not vulnerable if you're not using it! 
Why would you want to uninstall it?

Microsoft hasn't been focusing on IE lately. Now they are starting to realize they need to get to work on it, with IE 7, but it's not very high on their todo list right now.


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

It is the most dangerous aspect of the OS; I would assume it should be a main priority. (Thats right, I just pulled out a semi-colon)

For someone w/ a FF avatar, you seem pretty pro-IE.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

covert215 said:


> I didn't say anything was wrong with the tag. I just wanted the developers to get their priorities straight. Fundamental before flashy.


So basically...when you thought MS created blink, you complained about them "eliminating standards." When you found out that Netscape/Firefox use blink but IE doesn't, you all of a sudden don't have a problem with it.


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

I don't have a problem w/ FF has it because they have more important features. There is nothing wrong with <blink>. However, would you rather have blinking text or CSS support? IE made the wrong decision. FF decided to do both.


----------



## Ferendon (Aug 13, 2003)

Someone doesn't link <blink>ing text lol
And he's right, it hasn't been supported by IE since v.4
It was annoying anyways. If you set you HTTP-EQUIV's to an older version of HTML (like v4) then you shouldn't have as many issues. With the change in CSS setup I've gotten some issues, as IE doesn't like to support the _style_ modifier for tags, but FF doesn't like external CSS Style Sheets unless you're set for HTML 4.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

covert215 said:


> I don't have a problem w/ FF has it because they have more important features. There is nothing wrong with <blink>.


LOL...on the first page of this thread, you said that IE adding blink "eliminated standards". And now you say that it's good that Firefox did added blink.



> However, would you rather have blinking text or CSS support? IE made the wrong decision. FF decided to do both.


Both what? Neither IE or Firefox fully support the CSS standard. It doesn't make sense to call IE developers stupid for adding non-standard tags, and then praise Firefox for doing the same thing.


----------



## Eriksrocks (Aug 7, 2005)

covert215 said:


> It is the most dangerous aspect of the OS; I would assume it should be a main priority. (Thats right, I just pulled out a semi-colon)
> 
> For someone w/ a FF avatar, you seem pretty pro-IE.


I love Firefox, I don't like IE.  But I am just trying to be fair in that if you don't like IE, don't use it. Go download Firefox by all means and forget IE! 

I agree that IE needs to be worked on, but I am just stating a fact that Microsoft doesn't think so, and they are just getting around to it.


----------



## Eriksrocks (Aug 7, 2005)

brendandonhu said:


> Neither IE or Firefox fully support the CSS standard.


And name a browser that does.  Firefox has *much* better CSS support than IE does.

We could have a debate about whether supporting non-standard tags is good. Unfortunately, not that many websites are build to standards, so browser makers have to allow for that. If you built a browser with very strict standards, users wouldn't be happy because many websites wouldn't display right.

Browser makers have to get the right balance for supporting standars and supporting non-standards and the majority of websites so that websites display properly.

You want to try to design a site that sticks to the standards with all your good CSS2 and such, but what if that site is all messed up in IE? 

Unfortunately, you may have to build your site around IE support, or with it in mind, because so many users use that browser.

See my point?


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

Eriksrocks said:


> And name a browser that does.


Exactly! It's nonsensical to blame IE for not being fully standards compliant and using non-standard tags, and then praise another browser specifically for using the same non-standard tags you were complaining about IE's support of.


----------



## Eriksrocks (Aug 7, 2005)

But although it isn't "perfect," Firefox *does* have better standards support than IE.


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

I didn't say that adding that tag eliminated the standards. I said that they added the tag instead of following standards.

Eliminated was a bad word to use. You cannot argue that they put in unnecessary tags before the began support for more necessary ones.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

> But Firefox does have better standards support than IE.


For the most part yes, although we were specifically talking about the <blink> tag. In this particular case, IE uses the standard and Firefox doesn't. Yet IE is still blamed for the problem, and Firefox praised.



> You cannot argue that they put in unnecessary tags before the began support for more necessary ones.


So you think it's ok for a browser to make up non-standard tags as long as it has support for more important tags first? I would rather see standards compliant CSS support in Firefox over non-standard <blink> tags.


----------



## Eriksrocks (Aug 7, 2005)

Well who really cares? Yes, Firefox supports it, but it's just one tag...


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

Eriksrocks said:


> Well who really cares? Yes, Firefox supports it, but it's just one tag...


Yes, that's my point. IE is called stupid and evil for supporting the tag, and then Firefox is thanked for supporting it. There's no logic to that, only MS-bashing.


----------



## Eriksrocks (Aug 7, 2005)

Yes, that's not right. I think that Firefox is much better, but I also respect IE.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

Agreed, I always use Firefox over IE on my computer. At the same time, I think it's ridiculous to decide whether a feature is good or evil based on which browser uses it.


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

The point is, that they are farther along than M$

And the blink tag was just a random example I pulled off the top of my head. I didn't mean anything specific abou it


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

Can you give us an example of what you're talking about then? It's hard to give suggestions if we don't know what issue exactly you're talking about.


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

custom cursors
every thing on this page


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

check out this too:

http://news.com.com/Copyright+Office+poll+IE-only+OK/2100-1038_3-5827627.html

FEMA came under fire recently after their Katrina support form turned out to be IE only.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

Custom cursors are standard CSS, check the W3C specifications if you like. Have to leave for now but I'll look at the links tomorrow.


----------



## Eriksrocks (Aug 7, 2005)

What don't you like about custom cursors? If they're not outrageous or truly "custom" (like using a custom, oversized image), then personally I'm fine with them. 

(I actually use them on my site.)


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Eriksrocks said:


> (I actually use them on my site.)


erikswan.net?


----------



## Eriksrocks (Aug 7, 2005)

Yes. I use them, but very subtly. Take a look at the CSS:

.subheadings {
font-size: 18px;
font-style: italic;
display: inline;
*cursor: default;*​}

.topheading {
font-size: 48px;
font-weight: bold;
line-height: 30px;
margin-top: 35px;
margin-right: 0px;
margin-bottom: 35px;
margin-left: 0px;
*cursor: default;*​}

In the big title at the top and in the headings (tools, toys, etc.) I've changed the cursor from the default selector (that's what I call it ) to the normal arrow. Adds a cool touch IMO.


----------



## Eriksrocks (Aug 7, 2005)

Very nice thread you've started here by the way.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Eriksrocks said:


> Yes. I use them, but very subtly. Take a look at the CSS:
> 
> CSS......
> 
> In the big title at the top and in the headings (tools, toys, etc.) I've changed the cursor from the default selector (that's what I call it ) to the normal arrow. Adds a cool touch IMO.


I didn't see that before. I like it too.


----------



## dcyphure (Feb 10, 2003)

IE 6 has been out how long now? and your just now complaining?


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

dcyphure said:


> IE 6 has been out how long now? and your just now complaining?


IE7 is coming out too. And I didn't see you start a thread on this.


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

I have to agree with *brendandonhu *in this argument.


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

But one thing which I condemn MS for is when you have FF as default browser, click on a link & it opens in IE. That is so annoying. In this case MS is forcing you to use IE


----------



## Eriksrocks (Aug 7, 2005)

MMJ said:


> But one thing which I condemn MS for is when you have FF as default browser, click on a link & it opens in IE. That is so annoying. In this case MS is forcing you to use IE


No, that's not true. If you click on a link in Firefox it will open in Firefox, and if you have Firefox as your default browser it will open in Firefox. 

Now of course if you click on a link in IE it won't open in Firefox... (Duh!)


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

I mean if you click on a link in OE or WLMessenger. Or another program


----------



## Eriksrocks (Aug 7, 2005)

Well that is entirely the maker of the program's choice. Usually if it's just a default open URL it will open in the default browser (Firefox), but some programs use a method that opens IE specifically. It has nothing to do with MS.


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

How about OE & WLMessenger?


----------



## Eriksrocks (Aug 7, 2005)

Yes, MS has chosen to open links in IE, but there is probably a setting to change that somewhere.


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

Yes there is. But its not exactly easy for the common user


----------



## Eriksrocks (Aug 7, 2005)

Well the common user wouldn't care because the common user uses IE anyway.


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

Not necessarily. All the members of my family use FF and they would be considered the "common user".


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

brendandonhu said:


> Netscape invented it, and most browsers including Firefox support it. What's it got to do with MS?


And the W3C took it one step further by adding blink to their CSS functions 
Which IE6 didn't support, haven't tried it out in IE7 yet...


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

It was said that 5% of comp users are enthusiasts (not "common" users). Since there will soon be 1 billion computer users that makes 50 million. There are much more FF downloads than 50 million


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

covert215 said:


> This is a great site here, and its sister site is good too.
> 
> http://killbillsbrowser.com/


That site is funny


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

namenotfound said:


> That site is funny


Not as funny as www.msfirefox.com

the best page is http://www.msfirefox.com/microsoft-r-firefox-support/what-is-rss.html


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

MMJ said:


> Not as funny as www.msfirefox.com
> 
> the best page is http://www.msfirefox.com/microsoft-r-firefox-support/what-is-rss.html


LOL Really Simple Sex


----------



## covert215 (Apr 22, 2006)

that site went from being 1 page to a full site overnight...i pointed some friends there and it was very different


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

> *3. Your computer won't spend its free time telling the world about Viagra soft tabs.*
> 
> Experts say 80% of spam comes from hacked PCs. Firefox has much better security, so your computer will get hacked less. Do it for the children, the children! (caveat: reducing Viagra spam may also reduce total number of children.)


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

It is even possible to get a [email protected] e-mail! Although it sucks


----------



## designerstoast (Nov 25, 2006)

IE is terrible, I just hope that M$ DIES , which would never happen


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

Yup. Mainly since you are using there OS.


----------

