Firefox sucks

kayln

New member
I write 100% CSS sites, meaning I use it for positioning and everything. I don't use tables at all.

No it doesn't, show me proof or an instance that it does. I use CSS for positioning in ALL my sites, and Firefox renders them just fine.

If you want examples of Firefox rendering 100% CSS sites, check out www.csszengarden.com - all the sites there use ONLY CSS for positioning... in fact, they all use the same structural HTML file.
A website without a link? Hmm...
 
I think you guys are having similiar problems that I had, just in a much larger scale.. If you use Firefox to actually design the website, IE: from the actual start of your code, to testing your CSS positions/styles, It will render fine in FF but maybe not in IE. The same can be said about IE to FF.. For some reason the positioning is different.. I actually found out that the scrollbar in IE can add pixels to the right, and FF wont.. But that is where finding out which client the user is using can be handy.. I just wrote a script that if it found the mozilla engine, to position it a certain way, and if it found the gecko engine, to position it another way.. Seemed to work out great..
 
going off on a tangent here but...

with all my clients bitching at me to fix their websites, you'll think that FF is really popular.

NetApplications, an internet analysis company, says IE has 85% of browser market share and FF has like 8%.

I thought FF had like 50% market share.
 
I do use Firefox to check my sites, but I write them strictly for cross browser compliance. I usually have to go back and fix things for IE, whereas Opera will render anything Firefox does. In all cases, the code is valid from the start. You can have valid CSS and have it still shit on your layout.

I've used Firefox since it was Phoenix 0.6 and honestly, the only sites that I've ever seen to not render correctly were poorly coded. I'm not flaming you, but I think you need to realize that CSS that works in IE isn't the defacto standard, and you should write for ALL browsers, not just IE. Firefox renders good CSS just fine, and I seriously doubt you can prove otherwise.


Not to mention you can't use advanced CSS like below in IE. I usually end up dumbing down my designs for IE, and it's annoying.


body > ol > li p;

or

ul li:nth-child(2n+3):not(:last-child);
 
Try this, create your site it the W3C's browser/editor Amaya, get it to where it looks exactly like you want it to and validate it. Now, try viewing that site in Firefox, Opera and IE. I can almost guarantee that IE will fuck it up. Which is really no surprise, since even the IE devs admit it's CSS support sucks.

IE doesn't even fully support CSS2 or the box model, so I don't see how you're claiming that it's CSS (positioning) support is better than Firefox's, much less it's entire rendering engine. The IE Blog even acknowledges the faults that Quirksmode lists, so it's obviously a problem. The IE engine is broken and has been for the past 10+ years.


Also, to your claims that Gecko hasn't progressed, take a look at this, this, this, this and this. Fyi, I follow Firefox development closely; I've even compiled my own (optimized) builds from source before. ;)


That said, there are some things I dislike about Firefox, namely it's memory leak and current extension implementation. Of course that has nothing to do with it's rendering engine's ability though.
To be in all fairness, Firefox's current extension system poses a similar problem to what IE's ActiveX does. (Which is why it's currently being rewritten for the 1.5 release) The only difference is that Mozilla implemented a "phone home" feature to add more strict guidelines to what he browser can execute. Firefox is a lot more secure than IE by default, but some clever javascript can bypass it, and already has once. The difference is that Mozilla patched the hole immediately, while IE holes go unpatched for months and years. Firefox isn't perfect, but it's nowhere near as insecure as IE.
 
FF has its issues. But I'll put up with it. I fixed up another site this afternoon so I m feeling happy now.

But let me put this out to you. Whether you want to believe it or not. IE, for all its shortcomings and notoriously bad security, is a quality product. It renders web pages well, and is incredibly forgiving of badly formatted HTML. It's also reasonably usable.

FF is a great concept and I appreciate its effort against IE. But if it wants to stand a chance against microsoft's monopoly, it has to get better. Yes firefox complies with w3C standards. But you know what the problem is...most websites out there arent w3c compliant. If a site is compliant, any browser will render it correctly. But IE is alot more forgiving that FF. That is what is making FF lose out. When FF messes up pages and the user opens up IE and finds that IE renders the page well, thats not a win for FF. FF cant expect pages to be compliant. It has to deal with bad html.
 
Like I said, my CSS has been valiadated. FF just requires me to specify more stuff that IE. For example, I can specify the width of a few elements and IE will just go ahead and sort out the rest. My CSS is still compliant. But I was going for faster page loads, cutting out the crap. So all I really am doing is specifying shit for FF that IE can figure out on its own.

IE has a great rendering engine. It has never ever fucked up one of my pages. Neither has Opera, nor safari. So I think its FF's engine that is crappy. Well crappy is not the right word. FF's engine is not forgiving enough. Like what I said above, FF requires you to specify absolutely everything. IE, Opera and safari are smart enough to figure it out by themselves. FF apparently is not.

Dont get me wrong. its a great concept. but it has to get better. And I really dont thinkg FF lives up to the hype it has generated.

People say on the net all the time. FF will dethrone IE... FF is serious competition to IE...
No. Firefox has miles ot go before it can even come close to dethroning IE. It isnt that great of a browser.
 
Lazyness is a terrible trait. Prove that your CSS is valid damnit. Maybe its never fucked up a page because you were designing it for IE?
 
Not sure about anyone else but I don't want a browser so forgiving of badly formatted or malicious code. I also don't want a browser that is inextricably integrated with an OS. I also don't want a browser that won't admit that it has vulnerabilities when it so clearly does.
When you're responsible desktops, laptops, and servers on an enterprise level, 'forgiving' isn't exactly a quality you look for in a piece of software.

I have run into a few websites that simply won't run on FF, but the problems are mainly related to ActiveX, not CSS. I have yet to browse a site that doesn't render properly in FF.

EDIT:
The problem lies more often at the site developer's feet than at the browser's. Developers (whether they admit it or not) often code their sites to be IE friendly.
 
It does render bad HTML, but that's a bad thing. IE is loose and open to suggestion (like your mother), Firefox does what a browser should to; render the mark up given to it. Nothing more nothing less. A browser shouldn't be expected to second guess developers, that's ridiculous.

Also, as outlined earlier in this thread, IE's rendering engine is broken and inferior compared to Opera's, Safari's or Gecko. I don't know what else you need to see to realize that, and I've offered you proof. You've yet to offer a single bit of proof, aside from your words. And no offense, but just saying that it's better doesn't hold any validity with me.

Btw, I'm joking about your mom. :tongue: I figured this thread could use some humor.

Firefox will still render some horrible code, I've seen it before. It is admittedly less accurate at rendering tag soup though. You can't fault the browser for doing what it should though.

Personally, I don't care if Firefox beats out IE's market share. It doesn't phase me one bit, but Firefox does offer a better user experience and that's what matters to me. You're probably designing your sites with IE in mind though, so it's no wonder they look odd in other browsers. IE's engine is nowhere near as good as Firefox's though, and I've proven this multiple times in this thread.
That's the problem with uneducated users; they see something broken in Firefox and think it's the browser's fault, which it's not. I digress though, it's not like it really matters.

I like Firefox because I can write quick extensions rather than dicking with the horrible Win32 API if I want to add functionality. I can also do things like this in Firefox, which is awesome in my opinion.

Like I said, 'valid' only means that you're implementing the selectors correctly, not that the design is fool proof. That should be obvious.

Because IE's CSS support is shit.

That's laziness and incorrect. You obviously have to set width on all elemnts, or set them to cascade. You're being lazy and blaming Firefox for doing what it's supposed to do.

Did you even bother looking at the CSSzengarden sites? They prove that Firfox has NO problem with CSS. I really think you're just not wanting to accept that you might be screwing yourself by viewing IE as the standard.
So you're not styling elements that should be styled and blaming Firefox for rendering it improperly? Jesus, that's fucking hilarious.

Also, if you really think a few KB .css file will decrease load times, you're horribly mistaken. The difference, if any, will be negligible.


:lol:

You still say that, even after I've proven how horrible it is, and still without offering one stitch of proof. In addition, you just admitted to being sloppy and lazy about your coding.

:lol:
It's called semantic web development; it's what web developers do!


Anyway man, I don't mean to flame you, but I find it ridiculous when developers blame technology for their shortcomings. I see it all the time with software and web developers alike. There's a right way to do something, and if you do anything less, well, you're a fool to expect perfect results. You've already admitted to causing your own problems, so this conversation is moot.

Suffice it to say that our opinions are different on this issue. I can accept your opinion that IE's engine is better, however, due to your gross inability to provide any proof to your statements, I still contend that you are wrong. Feel free to back up your statemnts though, and offer us some proof.


Good luck with your updates though, I hope you can get them to play nice with Firefox. ;)
 
Has anyone actually tried IE 7 beta? cos i have and it SUCKS ASS.

Its basically just a very poor FF rip off... the only real difference between IE6 and IE7 is tabbed browsing.. and even that doesnt work properly. :thumbsdn:
 
Yeah, I tried it. It does suck, and still lacks A LOT of CSS and XML support, although it does FINALLY support PNG alpha-transparency. (which Opera, Safari and Mozilla have supported for at least 5 years.)

I'll agree with you on the interface as well; putting tabs above the File etc menus was a horrible idea, and the tabs are nowhere near as functional as Firefox or Opera's.

That said though, they admit it's not perfect, and it is just a beta, so I'm hoping to see improvement in the final release. Granted they need to make A LOT of improvements to catch up to Firefox and Opera, but it's a start.
 
well until just now i have actually been using IE6 (and 7beta occasionally). BUT the only reason for that was because firefox didnt support the Google toolbar (how sad is that?!), and i've always used IE (yes, even though it sucks in many ways). So i figured stck with what i'm used to. But now, i find a beta release of the google toolbar for FF! YAY!

So, time to migrate to FF methinks...
 
Back
Top