b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 9424354 (Thread)

# Steven Smeagol
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:28, archived)
# heheh
why is Internet Explorer so crap?


(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:35, archived)
# The clue is in the question, sir.
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:36, archived)
# ahhh
spent ages tinkering with Css last night - got it looking fine in Safari and Firefox on Mac

looked just as it should in Firefox on PC

was an absolute mess in Internet Explorer!
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:41, archived)
# They need some DDT on their DTD...
Shit, I need to get out more.
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:43, archived)
# pardon?
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:44, archived)
# DDT is a pesticide, for killing bugs.
DTD is to do with XML, err the underlying structure of the new Office apps and I'll get my coat.

Edit: Thanks for leaving me hanging in the breeze, Freebs ;-)
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:46, archived)
# Internet Explorer.
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:37, archived)
# The UK version shoud be called
Internet Potterer
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:41, archived)
# no
Internet doesn't support CSS in a similar way to the other Popular Browsers, In fact works completely differently and is fucking annoying er®
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:43, archived)
# cos it is
I've given up with it now IE8 is out and Windows Update helpfully downloaded it - it eats memory like crazy
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:42, archived)
# see this bit:
www.b3ta.com/board/9424369


bloody stupid thing

back to t'drawing board...
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:43, archived)
# google internet explorer box model.
Basically, the silly n00bs at MS completely fucked up the box model displaying in IE, and mixed up where padding and margin go when positioning elements on the page. There's a work around involving switching your paddings for margins...or it might be margins for paddings. I forget. I tend to just use absolute positioning and avoid both padding and margins where I can. Stupid IE.
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:47, archived)
# "this page has been optimised for IE4.0+
If you try viewing it with another browser it will look weird and broken and aliens from another dimension will point at you laughing"
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:47, archived)
# Probably because MS could get away with it?
It seems to have worked: a tit speak* it had 95% usage share. The fact that it's installed by default, and that it's the only one (AFAIK) that supports MS proprietary protocols like ActiveX, must have helped.

And probably because it serves their interests? Think of it from MS's point of view: they only want to spend money on things that earn them more money. Adding proprietary protocols (eg. ActiveX) increases lock-in to Windows. In some ways, making a more broken browser increases lock-in too! ("Hey, our corporate website looks okay in MSIE, but looks wrong on others, so we'll require all employees to use MSIE).

But making a better browser per se is not likely to make people pay more money to MS for copies of Windows! (People who care will happily switch to Firefox). MS do spend money on it, but they aren't very good at producing simple and efficient standards-compliant software. That's just not what MS is designed to do!

If you're wanting them to fix it, I wouldn't hold your breath.

*: some typos were meant to be left.
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:52, archived)
# Damn fucking straight.
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 14:22, archived)
# *shakes head sadly*
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 14:07, archived)
# Ha ha ha ha!
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:35, archived)
# he looks better like this
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:37, archived)
# Which one?
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:38, archived)
# segal
obviously ;)
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:40, archived)
# This is very worrying.
:D
(, Wed 6 May 2009, 13:38, archived)