trying it out now

rants? raves?

3/6/2008 8:29:51 PM

i like it, but the standards mode makes non-perfect sites look like crap.

good review here:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/ie8-beta-1-first-look.ars

3/6/2008 8:36:26 PM

Isn't that how non-perfect sites are supposed to look?

3/6/2008 9:02:36 PM

its using way less memory than firefox so im gonna keep playing around with it and see if it can withstand the test of time

3/6/2008 9:10:28 PM

standards mode? so... instead of making standards... the.. umm.. standard... you have to choose to view a site using web standards in IE now?

i hate IE

[Edited on March 6, 2008 at 9:53 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on March 6, 2008 at 9:53 PM. Reason : still]

3/6/2008 9:51:50 PM

RTFA

3/6/2008 10:00:05 PM

i read some of it, can you not see the strikethrough?

[Edited on March 6, 2008 at 10:13 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2008 10:13:06 PM

yes, sorry

darkone, this was what i meant:

Quote :

"This experience seems to be quite representative of the overall experience with IE8; pages look mostly okay, but small bits and pieces are not quite right. Whether this is because of bugs in IE8 or web pages making inappropriate assumptions about IE (trying to use hacks that are needed for IE7 but not standards mode, for example) is something that the developers will have to figure out."

3/6/2008 10:44:54 PM

Quote :

"its using way less memory than firefox so im gonna keep playing around with it and see if it can withstand the test of time"

in that case, you might as well use Firefox 3 Beta 3, because it's much better than both.
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html

3/6/2008 11:16:20 PM

only problem i have with the firefox beta is the arrow keys/page up page down don't work for scrolling a webpage sometimes. they work like 80-90% of the time, then sometimes dont. guess i could google for it or something...

3/6/2008 11:31:53 PM

^^ done and done!

yeah these arrows are fugly

3/6/2008 11:54:36 PM

if you dont want to install IE8 on your own system, get Microsoft's Virtual PC, and get the IE8 VPC image here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=21eabb90-958f-4b64-b5f1-73d0a413c8ef&DisplayLang=en

3/7/2008 10:34:34 AM

I'll install IE8 when I get tired of seeing it show up in my criticals list. I'll run it for the first time when I get the feeling that automatic updates hasn't done it's job.

3/7/2008 10:51:25 AM

oh great...something else for me to develop on....

3/7/2008 5:37:49 PM

Golovko's posts in Tech Talk lead me to believe he knows absolutely nothing about web development.

3/7/2008 6:50:23 PM

ernie wandered off from sports talk

3/7/2008 6:55:23 PM

Ernie's right, if IE8 is going to conform to web standards, then it means less IE hacks to learn, meaning in "theory" it should be easier to develop for.

3/7/2008 7:52:02 PM

Quote :

"or web pages making inappropriate assumptions about IE (trying to use hacks that are needed for IE7 but not standards mode, for example)"

fuck.

well, guess i have something to check next week

[Edited on March 7, 2008 at 10:08 PM. Reason : # and _ hacks ftl apparently ]

3/7/2008 10:07:06 PM

That crash recovery functionality sounds like the greatest thing ever.

Might actually have to upgrade from IE6!

3/8/2008 2:21:09 AM

^You mean you're not currently using Firefox? That aside ....

Firefox 3 Beta 3 is incredibly stable for a beta ... apart from it being a beta, I'd recommend it to anyone.

3/8/2008 2:36:45 AM

I thought it was established that everyone hated IE?

3/8/2008 3:58:49 AM

Quote :

"^You mean you're not currently using Firefox? That aside ...."

I use Firefox when I need to check for compatibility and make sure that something works in it, but otherwise I stick with IE6. I've never overly liked IE7 (though I use it at work) and I have a habit of leaving browser windows open for days on end which has always led to Firefox eating half a gig of memory for two tabs.

That said, I also prefer developing initially on IE6, because there really isn't a better browser to get proper looking CSS from as a base. What I mean is, it's far easier to go from IE6 -> IE7 and Firefox than it is to go from Firefox -> IE6 and 7.

Think of it this way, before Firefox came out, pretty much the only browser of any real market share was IE6. That means just about every web page on the internet was compatible and looked right in IE6, so that when Firefox first came out as much as it may have wanted to trumpet standards, at the end of the day if it didn't display IE6 content at least close to properly, no one would have used it, since no web pages would've worked. For that reason it's so much easier to go from IE6 code that works (since IE7, though more compliant, is still very similiar) to Firefox code that works rather than the other way.

I may be the only IE6 fan in the world, but at the end of the day I seem to be cursing browser differences a lot less than anyone else in my field. Then again, I remember developing for IE6 when it was brand new, so it's little quirks really don't even phase me anymore.

3/8/2008 11:27:46 AM

ie6 4 life

3/8/2008 11:55:00 AM

Quote :

"Golovko's posts in Tech Talk lead me to believe he knows absolutely nothing about web development."

uh...yeaaah...you got me there buddy. If you knew anything about web development, you'd know that regardless of IE8 following standards, there is still that chance that what I posted below still applies...



anyway...the only hacks I've ever had to use which aren't even 'hacks' for IE 6/7 is changing things like padding/widths of blocks and positioning. Curious to know if IE8 follows IE7's method of padding or not. Personally I think IE is the only browser that does padding correctly but everything else they do is ass.

oh and z-index's for IE6 and 7.

any word if it will support rounded divs?

[Edited on March 8, 2008 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ...]

3/8/2008 11:59:33 AM

Thanks for continuing to prove my hypothesis.

3/8/2008 6:37:57 PM

i'm not even going to fuck with an internet explorer beta

do they still tie IE so closely to the OS in XP and Vista that if IE screws up so will the whole OS?

Quote :

" Firefox 3 Beta 3 is incredibly stable for a beta ... apart from it being a beta, I'd recommend it to anyone."

qft

3/9/2008 12:28:53 AM

Quote :

"only problem i have with the firefox beta is the arrow keys/page up page down don't work for scrolling a webpage sometimes. they work like 80-90% of the time, then sometimes dont."

i have noticed this too, i think mostly when there is Flash on the page. try clicking on the webpage (outside of the flash area) on some text or something, and then arrow keys work.

3/9/2008 4:24:57 PM

i really like the firefox 3 beta 3...but is there any way to get rid of those full title/URL lists in the address window that drop down for autocomplete? i hate how that looks...such a waste of space

3/9/2008 4:36:54 PM

Hey ernie, frontpage 2000 does not make you a web developer. Thanks for playing.

3/9/2008 7:11:43 PM

What?

3/9/2008 7:37:30 PM

^ He's trying to say that if you're going to call him out, as least pick a point of his and make your own case. Otherwise, STFU and don't be a troll.

3/9/2008 7:42:06 PM

He said

Quote :

"oh great...something else for me to develop on..."

Which, in the context of a thread concerning a more standards-compliant IE, makes zero fucking sense. Adding that to the laundry list of his other half-baked insights on web development, led me to respond with

Quote :

"Golovko's posts in Tech Talk lead me to believe he knows absolutely nothing about web development."

I think my point was made.

Regardless, that wasn't what he was trying to say with his last post. He made some silly assumption about me using Frontpage. He has no way to defend his retarded posts, so he's just making up shit about the person who pointed them out.


[Edited on March 9, 2008 at 11:09 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2008 11:03:44 PM

geez...sorry i said you wandered out of sports talk....i take it back...you dont have to get belligerent

3/9/2008 11:08:01 PM

Quote :

"Which, in the context of a thread concerning a more standards-compliant IE, makes zero fucking sense."

Not really, I mean, IE7 was "more standards-compliant" IE than 6, but it still has it's own slew of quirks and I really doubt IE8 will be any different. It's going to have to be checked against just like every other browser, same as you'll have to check Firefox 3 vs Firefox 2. It's hopefully an exaggeration on his part, but after dealing with just Safari's "standards compliance" vs. Firefox's "standards compliance", god only knows what kind of baseline you need to advertise something as "standards compliant" at this point.

Back to the topic of IE8, I'm glad to see that Microsoft isn't content with IE7. Half the issue with IE6 from a browsing perspective wasn't that it was so terrible (aside from the security nightmare it can be), it's just that it got really, really old. Luckily Microsoft seems to be learning from that mistake in addition to at least trying to fall more in line with a "one page, one stylesheet" mentality. With any luck that'll make all our jobs easier.

3/9/2008 11:25:28 PM

I just need Adblock and Foxmarks.

3/10/2008 12:04:39 AM

Quote :

"Which, in the context of a thread concerning a more standards-compliant IE, makes zero fucking sense. Adding that to the laundry list of his other half-baked insights on web development, led me to respond with"

obviously my assumption about frontpage is spot on...thanks for clearing that up with your last post. Sounds to me that you are very lost in this thread.


IE8 is yet another browser to develop on regardless of how 'more standard' it is. Another reason this is a pain in the ass is because IE6 is still widely in use and has to be supported...now its IE6, 7 and 8. Now thats 3 IE browsers that have different 'standards'. You do the math fuckwad. Oh wait, you can't because you're talking out of your ass and frontpage does it for you.

[Edited on March 10, 2008 at 12:10 AM. Reason : .]

3/10/2008 12:08:23 AM

Sorry to cross you, MASTER OF CSS!

(http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=478221)

[Edited on March 10, 2008 at 12:30 AM. Reason : DUDE YOU CAN MAKE WEB PAGES WITHOUT TABLES NOW AWESOME]

3/10/2008 12:24:21 AM

its ok, my work speaks for itself. So don't make that mistake twice, kid.

now go make nice with frontpage and maybe, just maybe you'll learn something.

you have yet to post anything web development related in this thread. The stalking is flattering and all but tech talk really isn't the place for you.

[Edited on March 10, 2008 at 12:30 AM. Reason : .]

3/10/2008 12:26:48 AM

Speaking of your "work", you should really find someone who speaks fluent English to re-write the introduction to your portfolio site.

3/10/2008 12:29:58 AM

Yup. engrish isn't not my first language.


and if i have the time to put into my personal site I'll be sure to correct any grammar mistakes....

[Edited on March 10, 2008 at 12:33 AM. Reason : ....]

3/10/2008 12:31:17 AM

Quote :

"god only knows what kind of baseline you need to advertise something as "standards compliant" at this point"

it's called the Acid test... and yes it's something that browsers all go through, IE8 even has multiple CSS test suites of their own to make it as close to the w3c standard as possible.

while i think it's too early to tell how IE8 will fair in terms of standards and "quirks"... there are few that have even passed the Acid2 test, not even Firefox 2 passed it... so it's a step in the right direction.

3/10/2008 10:14:45 AM

IE8 passed the acid2 test

it fails miserably at the acid3 test, however

3/10/2008 11:56:57 AM

there's not a SINGLE browser that DOES pass the Acid3 test however... i think the highest is 60/100
http://www.drunkenfist.com/304/2008/03/04/acid3-test-released-i-took-some-screen-captures-lots-of-fail/

though Safari i think started at 31, is now 87/100, even Firefox 3 doesn't get over 60

[Edited on March 10, 2008 at 12:27 PM. Reason : .]

3/10/2008 12:23:30 PM

http://www.anomalousanomaly.com/2008/03/06/acid-3/

3/10/2008 12:41:28 PM

haha, i just came back to post that!

still there's only 2 browsers over 52% that aren't "nightly/beta" builds... and neither are for the Windows platform.

[Edited on March 10, 2008 at 12:46 PM. Reason : .]

3/10/2008 12:45:27 PM

anybody gotten microsoft update to work? i've tried regular 8 beta, as well as 7 emulation, but i get errors with Windows Installer 3.1 and Genuine Windows Validation tool (might have something to do with me installing XP SP 3 and having to repair off an XP disc)

4/24/2008 12:01:28 PM

I'm using Firefox 3 beta 5 and loving it.

Fairly stable, doesn't suck in vista.

4/24/2008 12:42:44 PM

i'm using FF 2.0.0.14 but i like to be able to test things on IE

4/24/2008 12:51:34 PM

IE8??? We arent even using IE7 yet!

4/24/2008 2:08:24 PM

firefox.

/thread

4/24/2008 3:08:35 PM