True. Personaly I find firefox faster at loading web-pages so I use it. I like the idea of tabs because it lets me see alot of things at once and load stuff in the backround while I read anthor page.

I used IE for years and it served me well, but now I think firefox is alot better. I think everyone should find what suits them best, im real picky about what I install on my computer and I know alot of you are to ;)

We are supposed to see some improvements in 3.1.0 if I remember correctly, the admin interface in IE kicks ass, I would love to see it working in firefox :D

It's most likely a malformed test for compliance, as opposed to the script not functioning properly. It's the case with the WYSIWYG editor, IIRC.

You two. I dare you to visit my site, Ultimate FF. I have its coding in, IIRC, XHTML 1.0 Strict.
View it in IE, and FF side by side.
You will see that the ONLY difference is that the header image has a small 1-2px misalignment in FF, else the entire page renders just perfect in both browsers.
If it were not for my news script, the entire page would validate 100 % against XHTML 1.1
I realise that my webpage does not have any fancy JScript, or sells anything, but it shows that the base level of websites is 100 % possible to code for both IE and FF. I spent less than 5h redoing the original coding into XHTML, it was the first time I touched XHTML, and I had rarely touched HTML before. So I think any pro can do it in a fraction of time ;)

Onto what I find might be a problem for businesses, JScript. As we know, not all JScript works 100 % equal in both IE and FF. But I also completely believe that there are other ways of coding that function, using possibly "FF-only" code. And as you can see in vB, it is possible to have "browser-specific" JScript.

I find it EXTREMELY stupid for businesses to code sites that do not work at all in FF, because FF's download counts will only rise in the future. I boycott any site that either displays "Optimised for IE", or shows that its code does not work in FF, regardless who made it. (You can ask one of my MSN friends....)
What do you think is better business, spending $50 extra for a coder to make your site FF compliant, or losing ~8 million potential customers? ...I rest my case :p


As mentioned above, coding sites for FF too would be very easy, using some JScript ;)


IIRC, they said that at the time of producing vB3 ACP interface, Firefox was not able to display the IE interface. I think they said that they would give FF this too, once it was able to display it :)

Very good to see someone using code for what it is ment to do for once. I never said that could'nt be done, infact it is exactly what you should be doing :).

My comments where based on all the sites I have seen going 'firefox only' or 'mozilla only' because the authors of the code want it to be standards compliant and they think it won't work in IE. Or they use new standards that IE can't even work with.

Thats what I mean when I say if you need to break something for IE, do it. IE is just used by to many users not to support it. You might be able to get away with not supporting firefox now, but for how long remains to be seen.

But your right, anyone serouis about there site damn well better be making sure there xhtml works in most browsers at least to the point that the site is readable.

Hopfully god awful IE will get a big update, but we are still going to have to live with IE has it is today for along time to come :(

Meh, ill save the wap support rant for anthor day. :ninja:

On this note, it only took me around 20 minutes per style to bring up XHTML and CSS compliance on my site: this is on Forumhome, Site homepages (CMPS) with may custom modules on a *heavily* hacked-up board: not hard to do, and it looks pretty much identical on IE, FF, and only a few deviations on Opera (that Opera users are used to)...

No excuses really... ;)

Unfortunately Brad, methinks MS won't update IE until they update the OS again sometime late next year or early 2006.

It really dose not matter when it is updated. The number of systems running older versions of IE will always be large.

Just because we see IE 7 dose not mean we won't be supporting IE 6 for along time to come. As it looks now the new version of IE won't even run on XP or older systems, at least as I have heard it.

All speculation. :p

Not all speculation. I have a friend in the comp sci dept at the University of Kentucky and they have a couple machines running Longhorn beta. Longhorn is being designed to force an upgrade in order to jumpstart slumping PC sales.