yeah, I've done that in various ways

hook the computer up unpatched and see how long it takes

it's never over a minute =/

And these standards are?

Thoth please elaborate more on that. My understanding is firefox conforms to all standards, and runs in standard mode as opposed to the wrong "quirks mode" IE uses to render/process pages. Dunno maybe theres something i dont know..

><

Take it for someone who spent years developing webpages... Firefox conforms to standards for SHIT. It can't do even the most basic anchor tags (and I've never before seen a browser that can't do that!). Pretty damned elementary stuff, the very most basic of the HTML tags. The style sheets and table formatting are inconsistant not only between IE and Fox, but between different versions of Fox. And thanks to ill-informed idiots who think cutting your balls off is the only way to get security, I have to write two-three webpages for every single web page I write. You'll find most pages use redirects to deal with this crap. I've got a 200MB program on my hard drive, dedicated to making workarounds to make standard HTML pages compatible with Firefox's bullsh*t, and it only works half the time. I very often wound up doing nutty stuff, like just creating whole pages in flash, because it was easier than figuring out how to make the same page work with both IE and Fox consistently. The Firefox folk pretty much have their own idea of how the internet is supposed to work, and basically say “f*ck you!” to anyone whose been saying otherwise for a more than decade longer than they’ve existed. Yahooa and Google both went through billion dollar projects just to get their pages to confirm to firefox.

It is, hands down, the least standardized web browser I’ve ever seen. Only Windows and Steam, and a few women, have cost me more man hours than Firefox.

I hate IE... IE Sucks... But Firefox blows. So far no one's come up with a real good alternative, but of the alternatives I've tried, Firefox is the worst.
_________________
"Windows XP Crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears yours screams." - Haiku for Windows #7
Thothie

I've been using firefox since .8x (04 some time I think). Pre firefox boom at any rate and I've come across a grand total of 1 page that didn't work in firefox. When I first got into it there was nothing that could compete, now I stick around for the extensions
I don't see why you hate it so much. From a purely user perspective I think it might be IE that didn't conform to standards and perhaps that's simply what you programed for :p. Firefox beats out that abomination of a browser IE any day.

Edit: Slightly outdated but something to consider
http://www.w3.org/2000/07/8378/xhtml/me ... Firefox1.5
http://www.w3.org/2000/07/8378/xhtml/me ... MSIE6.0SP2

Large list of browsers (has IE7 beta 2 and firefox 2 alpha 2)
http://www.w3.org/2000/07/8378/xhtml/me ... es/results

IE 7 beta 2
http://www.w3.org/2000/07/8378/xhtml/me ... IE7.0Beta2
FF 2 Alpha 2
http://www.w3.org/2000/07/8378/xhtml/me ... ParkAlpha2

IE7 acid 2 test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYSjHJpKZAs
http://www.notmart.org/images/2_ie7-acid2.jpg

FF2 acid 2 test (from the machine I'm on atm)
http://img363.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... hotbp4.png

What the acid test should look like (and how firefox 3 beta/alpha renders it)
http://files.myopera.com/tarquinwj/albu ... 1/1FF3.png

Looks horrible on my version of Firefox for OSX (2.0.0.6).
Safari rendered it almost right.

EDIT: My favorite windows haiku:
Your file was so big.
It might be very useful.
But now it is gone.

Define horrible (post a pic). I know ff doesn't render it properly, but it's leagues ahead of IE. I know opera renders it correctly and it's good to hear that safari can also handle it.

Meh. maybe later. Feeling lazy about not-so-important stuff tonight.

Not like I'm against Firefox -- it's my favorite browser... and freakin' fast.

As I said, real holes are rarely patched, non-existant or theoretical holes get fixed all the time.

And, regarding the other discussion? Lynx.

Lol - what about lynx?

I look at it more from a web-developers point of view then an end-users point of view as a result of all the pain in used to cause me when I had to do that sort of thing more often.

...Most of my old pages either redirect you based on browser, or are gone, but I do have a shining example of FF stupidity in a recent, simple page I propped up. here. Now none of the HTML used on that page dates back to earlier than 1997 (It’s all Internet Explorer 4 standard). ...I could almost let the lack of direct draw functions slide, as until 2002 or so, they were platform specific, and Mozilla has had only 5 years to catch up (normally all those tables and fonts have drop shadows or glow fx)... But if you look at the top of the page, you'll see three links that use some of the most fundamental HTML code of all time ( "Custom Maps for MS:C", "AMX for MS:C", and " [FN] Fuznet Info " ) - so fundamental, back when there were only 7 HTML tags - it was one of them - the in-page Anchor tag. <a href="#tag_name">

Now, on a REAL browser, clicking on any one of those links would bring you down to the section of the page they are linked to. But in this case, Firefox = Epic Fail. It is the only browser I've ever seen to fail that basic functionality. I've even seen (and have) DOS based web text browsers that support that.

That's just one of the many basic fundamental conventions that date back decades that Firefox fails at. Again, I wrote at least three times as much freaking HTML code as I would have had to if Firefox had bothered to pay any attention to the proper standards. It's one of the reasons I've retreated from the field and rarely bother doing that sort of work anymore. It violates leading rules for tables, formatting rules for frames, pagination for indentation, font kerning, px to dpi size - you name it, Firefox fux it up. Only reason you don't see that - is because almost every page out there is written twice, or the functionality that's missing just doesn't appear (such as on that page). I find a lot of Firefox users tend to blame a page for being broken, when in truth, it's just their browser blatantly violating standards put in place before its inception.

…and I *never* get this BS about “Oh Firefox is so much faster…” – WTF are you on, a 56k modem? All pages load instantly for me, regardless of which browser. The only ones that don’t are streaming huge files of video or music – and which browser you use has no affect on that sort of download. IE7 eats more resources than Firefox no doubt, but tis also largely because IE7 is doing a hell of a lot more, and capable of doing a hell of a lot more than Firefox. I suppose you can get FF to do most things IE7 does with a sh*tload of plugins, but I’ve yet to put more than 5 plugins into FF without crashing it so hard I have to start deleting registry entries and/or reinstall Windows to get it to work again, even after uninstalling it (another thing that made me give up on FF for anything but page testing). Meantime I’ve twelve plugins running in IE7 without any issues.

Granted, if yer Linux, it's just about all you got (and indeed, I hear the linux variants tend to work better), but I find even the Knoppix OP/ Konqueror browser always had better consistency than FF, which is sad given how stripped down it is. (I wind up using that a lot of one of my laptops – and guess what – it handles that page, and a lot of others FF wont, just fine.)

There’s really just no excuse. The browser has been out more than long enough, and is more than popular enough for someone to fix this stuff, and they’ve not even tried. They seem to feel that their standard for the internet is the true standard, simply on the basis that it means less effort for them to code.

Again, when FF catches up to 1992, I’ll change my tune, but they don’t seem to have any intention of doing so. – Maybe they feel they’re generating jobs by giving web coders longer hours (again, billion dollar conversions at Yahoo/Google), I just don’t know.
_________________
"Chaos reigns within.
Reflect, repent, and reboot.
Order shall return." - Haiku for Windows #4
Thothie

I think the mozilla devs just hate you specifically thoth :p

I'm no web developer, but from what I know IE upto 7 ignored web standards and made it's own way (perhaps what your used to?). Firefox follows web standards set by the w3c (main web standards body). If I'm wrong about that then just get used to it coding in FF, myself and millions of others will never go back to that IE shit The BS about firefox being faster. Believe it. You can also speed it up by hacking the user:config page a bit as well. The amount of difference is measured in seconds (quite significant for me) when compared to IE. And as for the extension I've heard that some can conflict with each other. I used to have ~30 plugins running at one point with no issues, though I now only use ~7.
I also don't really get why you won't use the browser as a user when you have issues with it as a developer, but that is your own prerogative. I think your just old and set in your ways :p

Also if you would be so kind as to make a list of things IE can do that FF can't, I'd love to see it.

/me reduces rant to itemized list
• Can’t parse in-page anchor links
• Can’t create standardized frame proportions
• Can’t sustain PX to DPI ratio in table layouts
• Can’t sustain height to width ratio in table layouts based on monitor PnP info
• Can’t access clipboard through script system
• Can’t access local file system through script system
• Can’t take direct scan input from script system
• Can't retain indentation layout between pages with different table sizes
• Doesn’t properly support VBScript
• Only partial support for Jscript
• Only partial support for ActiveX plugins
• Doesn’t properly support script based floating windows
• Doesn’t support script variables across multiple windows
• Can’t check security certificates
• Can’t use direct draw functions outside of Java applets
• Can’t use direct 3D functions outside of Java applets
• Can’t properly parse WMF image files in web pages
• Can’t retain iFrame consistency between versions
• Doesn’t properly support iHTML pages
• Doesn’t support color consistency in dithering (overrides Windows settings)
• Doesn’t support cursor control outside of flash/java applet
• Doesn’t support locked proportion windows
• Doesn’t support local palettes
• Ignores windows system palette settings
• Doesn’t support reading of global palettes

That’s just the sh*t I remember dealing with off the top of my head (for some of which, the only solution was to port the whole page into a flash and/or had to write very old pages over again from scratch) – I know there’s a lot more.
_________________
"The Web site you seek
Can not be located but
countless more exist" - Haiku For Windows #3
Thothie

It can. Apparently different than IE though. (Wikipedia works)

Lack counterpoint due to ignorance in the specific area

Windows script system I assume? Regardless I see this as a security feature. I'd rather not have my browser capable of accessing my filesystem via a script

Lack counterpoint due to ignorance

I'm fairly sure it fully supports Jscript and has zero support for activeX. Seeing as activeX is the MS technology that is responsible for most of IEs security problems, I don't see it as a big loss. (security++)

Lack counterpoint due to ignorance

It can.

Lack counterpoint due to ignorance. Though some of that seems like some real nitpicking.

Those are huge deal when your only option to make a page work is to write it in another shell entirely. There's a BIG difference between writing a page in HTML, and re-working the whole thing as a flash page or java applet.

In regards to anchor tags (which IMO, is the most abysmal, easy to fix failure). Wiki only works because it uses a script reference system to bypass Firefox's lack of support. It took them quite awhile to come up with that (didn't work in the early days of wiki).

I should point out the anchor tag standard was established years before even Internet Explorer existed. It's pretty damned simple:

There aren't a lot of HTML conventions more fundamental than that. It's just the first indication of everything that is wrong with that browser.

It's nothing to do with it "not working like IE" - it's to do with it not working like any other browser, nor conforming to any convention - not even its own, between revisions. Even with W3C, beyond the ability to parse, it still fails, as most of the issues are with how it chooses to display/arrange the information, rather than whether or not it can process it. Nevermind the fact that IE makes up 90% of the market share, and has for ages, and thus any competitive browser should follow its convention anyways, to properly display as many pages as possible. - Rather than make everyone write their pages over again!

In regards to the certificates. Firefox refuses to verify site certificates for me, at least on the pages I need it to (including Paypal - where it doesn't check). As I understand it, Firefox cannot verify most types of certificates. I've never successfully spawned a security certificate that Firefox could read, nor has anyone I’ve worked for. It just lets them go without warning no matter what you put in the bloody header, and never comes back with a confirm. This *might* be limited to the windows version of the program, since the windows certficate system is integrated at the OS level, and it maybe that one system shuts down the other, leading to everything appearing valid.

Really though, I'm just seriously bitter about all the extra work the damn thing made me do. You code pages for a living for awhile, trust me, you'll learn to hate it too.
_________________
"Yesterday it worked.
Today it is not working.
Windows is like that." - Haiku For Windows #6
Thothie