Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: NETSCAPE vs. IE

  1. #1

    NETSCAPE vs. IE

    Does netscape 7.0 accept PNG files??

    and just so we dont make this entire thread a waste, ask other questions about netscape an IE

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Circling above the vultur
    Posts
    122
    Google is your friend

    http://www.webcolors.freeserve.co.uk/png/

    Q: Who uses Netscape these days?...
    Logo Design Vector Conversion Print
    eagleimagery.co.uk
    UK Business Labs Forum - The chemistry in B2B

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,026
    Netscape uses the gecko engine - same as Mozilla, Firefox, Camino etc.

    Yes, it fully supports PNG files.

    IE is the only popular browser that doesn't support them properly.
    Gone.

  4. #4

    Re: NETSCAPE vs. IE

    Originally posted by wuzgood
    Does netscape 7.0 accept PNG files??
    Sure. All modern browsers do, so there'd be no problems in using PNG files for your website.

    As some other guy pointed out, Internet Explorer is probably the only modern browser with poor support for PNGs. Sure, you can use regular PNGs, but if you want to use PNGs with, say, transparency or semi-transparency, only better browsers such as Mozilla Firefox, Opera, Safari, and, as mentioned, Netscape can show those files properly.

    On the site mentioned in my signature there's an example of semi-transparent PNGs. In IE, the semi-transparency doesn't work - however, the PNGs look okay, there's just no semi-transparency effect. In better browsers (such as the ones mentioned above), the semi-transparency works: If you scroll down the page, the menu bar stays on top of the page, and the text of the page seems to "slide" in under the semi-transparent, blue menu background. By the way, the technique used to keep the menu bar visible while scrolling is the position: fixed CSS thing - which is another thing IE doesn't support...
    Jonas Koch Bentzen

  5. #5
    Originally posted by EagleImagery
    Q: Who uses Netscape these days?...
    Who uses Netscape? People who want a better browser than Internet Explorer, I presume. Netscape is far ahead of IE in terms of support for new standards. However, there are browsers that are even farther ahead: Mozilla, Mozilla Firefox, etc. And then there are people who (like me) use Linux - or Mac. We can't use IE, and we don't miss it, since the browsers available for Linux (Mozilla, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, Konqueror, etc.) are so much better than IE.
    Jonas Koch Bentzen

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,994
    Originally posted by jonaskb
    Who uses Netscape? People who want a better browser than Internet Explorer, I presume. Netscape is far ahead of IE in terms of support for new standards. However, there are browsers that are even farther ahead: Mozilla, Mozilla Firefox, etc. And then there are people who (like me) use Linux - or Mac. We can't use IE, and we don't miss it, since the browsers available for Linux (Mozilla, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, Konqueror, etc.) are so much better than IE.
    No the answer was written in terms of the fact that less and less people use Netscape as it is no longer developed.

    Mozilla is the engine behind Netscape which of course continues to develop, but we won't be seeing any newer versions of Netscape itself.

  7. #7
    Originally posted by Rich2k
    No the answer was written in terms of the fact that less and less people use Netscape as it is no longer developed.

    Mozilla is the engine behind Netscape which of course continues to develop, but we won't be seeing any newer versions of Netscape itself.
    It's true that AOL who owns Netscape at one point decided to discontinue the Netscape browser - but now it seems they've decided to release at least one more version: Netscape 7.2 will be out this summer.

    Personally, I don't see why anyone would use Netscape. Don't get me wrong - it's far better than IE - but Mozilla and Mozilla Firefox are even better - and they're free as well and contain no advertising.
    Jonas Koch Bentzen

  8. #8
    I would go with FireFox. Its fast, reliabe, and has a small memory footprint.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    185
    netscape sucks. its the slowest browser ever!!!!

    about standards... having a browser that supports standards means jack sh*t to me. 90 some percent of internet users use IE, so all websites are coded to work in IE. so who cares if a browser supports standards? its not like websites don't render correctly in IE, because webmasters make sure they do! so having a browser that supports standards doesn't add at all to your experience on any website.

    second, if you do care about standards, get firefox! its soooo much faster than netscape!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,222
    A) Netscape is slow as molasses, due to the junk they place in the original Moz. build.

    B) Netscape attempts to install AOL 15 different places on your PC, regardless of how many times you decline it. This is borderline adware behavior.

    C) While NS7 is MARGINALLY better than IE at supporting W3 specs, I still cannot forgive them for releasing NS4, the biggest piece of dung ever compiled.

    I absolutely refuse to use Netscape, and like most developers, IE is simply not an option (except for testing purposes). The original build, Moz., is perfectly fine. FireFox is not as fast as claimed, but it's pretty lean nonetheless. KMeleon is the speedster, and has very good W3 support. Opera is my browser of choice, always and forever. Opera had 15 million downloads last year, up from 12 million in 2002 (I read their annual report). This is a very encouraging sign!

    Paul H
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  11. #11
    I don't use Netscape but I have sympathy for it. I'll miss him

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Vancouver BC, eh?
    Posts
    570
    Netscape CSS support is horrible. I am personally glad it is dying (or hope it will). It is bloated, full of spyware and imo is not compliant.

    I always got the feeling that Netscape had a completely different group of developers with each version and never really had a focused direction.

    Mozilla (and Firefox) and Opera are the way to go with compliant browsers. Firefox is the fastest of these, at least on my machine. Once it is loaded it responds as fast as IE.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,994
    Originally posted by blackdog
    netscape sucks. its the slowest browser ever!!!!

    about standards... having a browser that supports standards means jack sh*t to me. 90 some percent of internet users use IE, so all websites are coded to work in IE. so who cares if a browser supports standards? its not like websites don't render correctly in IE, because webmasters make sure they do! so having a browser that supports standards doesn't add at all to your experience on any website.

    second, if you do care about standards, get firefox! its soooo much faster than netscape!
    I am on the fence about this

    From the point of view of a web designer, standards are excellent because it allows me (well it should allow me) to design a site but only have to test it on a single browser to know that it will work on all browsers, or work well on accessible browsing systems.

    On the other hand why does the W3C have the exclusive right to tell us what can and can't be done on the web? Personally I only think it's listened to because Tim Berners-Lee is at the top of it. Internet Explorer 4 when it came around was a revolution in browsing when you compare it to the likes of Netscape 4, it it was still the top of the game when 6 came out.

    Nowadays though the other browsers have finally caught up and in some cases surpassed. However for the moment it's too little too late. If Netscape had done this 4 years back they may still have a % of the market worth talking about.

    I saw a poster on Slashdot who said he designed his site entirely standards compliant but it didn;t render at all in IE... he said he didn';t care as all he cared about was the standards. I just hope he wasn't trying to run a business with that attitude!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,222
    The W3C does not have exclusive rights to anything. The documents they publish as "specs" are no more than recommendations. They simply happen to be the most thoroughly developed, widely accepted standards available.

    Also, I'm not sure I buy into the 90%+ statistic, since so many browsers spoof IE UA strings so that they will pass through sniffers, which 99% of the time are worthless and inappropriately implemented.

    And yes, Websites DO render incorrectly in IE, mostly because the same narrow-sighted developers who only test IE also fail to test the many usability features inherent in "the only browser that matters." Or worse, they will try to cripple browsers with silly techniques such as font fixing and !important.

    Paul H
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Vancouver BC, eh?
    Posts
    570
    Well if the w3 doesn't set the standards who will? Microsoft? They at least try ... You say 2 things in your statement - standards are excellent and why does the w3 tell us what can be done on the web. w3 is a committee last time I checked. Any mature technology is going to have some standards set, otherwise you will just further the whole hacking scenario.

    I don't think of them telling us what can and can't be done, but more like if we have this feature, how should browsers render it? They aren't telling me what I can create and how. It's only defining what the tools will behave like. I personally am tired of trying to get CSS layouts working properly between browsers.
    I mean you make a div with some margin and padding. Firefox it's fine, IE adds the margin to the total size. Firefox keeps the width 100% and absorbs the margin. It's these types of things that make me wish IE would just buckle down and make a compliant browser. It's not stifling my creativity, it's making me spend more time finding hacks to get around these "bugs" imo.

    I agree what you say about that Slashdot article. There is a difference between being vigilant and stupid. Regardless, right now IE holds the majority of the market, and until that changes and you want to render sites you have to make some alterations.

  16. #16
    wow thanks to ALL of you for your replies

    very interesting topic i happend to have brought up

    well once again, thanks for everything and happy webdesign

  17. #17
    my personal website is not rendered well in IE, and i'm following the standards very strictly, and validated. so what's wrong with IE? it doesn't follow even the simplest rule...!!

    over 80% of the population use IE, that doesn't mean we shouldn't follow standards. besides, why should IE not follow the standards? IE assumes the badly written codes written by amateurs and that's not the right way.

    i've realise that i've come to the point that i will not bother 'bout IE users for my site, as long as my site works perfectly based on the standards, i'm happy. if my visitors aren't happy, they can either leave or change the browser...

    if we, website designers/developers, continue to cater for a badly coded browser, who would change for a better browser? i for one put Firefox straight up front on my website, they can choose to change for the better, or continue to suffer whenever they come to my website. i have no problems having less visitors. the main thing is, they need to realise that IE isn't a good working browser.

    proper coding helps everyone far greater than badly written webpages that renders well on ONE browser.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    185
    Originally posted by ktwilight
    my personal website is not rendered well in IE, and i'm following the standards very strictly, and validated. so what's wrong with IE? it doesn't follow even the simplest rule...!!

    over 80% of the population use IE, that doesn't mean we shouldn't follow standards. besides, why should IE not follow the standards? IE assumes the badly written codes written by amateurs and that's not the right way.
    You don't have to write bad code for something to render correctly in IE.

    i've realise that i've come to the point that i will not bother 'bout IE users for my site, as long as my site works perfectly based on the standards, i'm happy. if my visitors aren't happy, they can either leave or change the browser...
    spoken like a true blogger

    i for one depend on my sites for money. if people can't view my sites in IE, I wont make money. web standards are all fine and dandy, but if they don't pay the bills, screw 'em.

    if we, website designers/developers, continue to cater for a badly coded browser, who would change for a better browser? i for one put Firefox straight up front on my website, they can choose to change for the better, or continue to suffer whenever they come to my website. i have no problems having less visitors. the main thing is, they need to realise that IE isn't a good working browser.
    first, taking on microsoft by putting a firefox button on your site is going to do nothing. second, it doesn't matter how much you bitch and moan, there will be NO NEW UPDATES FOR IE6. None. Zero. Zilch. And thats straight from the horse's mouth. The next version of IE which will come out with the new OS will be better.

    proper coding helps everyone far greater than badly written webpages that renders well on ONE browser.
    like i said before you don't have to write bad code for something to render correctly IE. you can write perfectly valid code that will work perfectly in IE, Nutscape, Firefox and Mozilla. You're being a drama queen and making it sound like IE is forcing you to write invalid code that won't render in any other browser.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    346
    Netscape is bad. Mozilla Firefox is good. They both support PNG files though.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    2
    what's wrong with IE ? , I depend on it

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,994
    Originally posted by 2slick
    what's wrong with IE ? , I depend on it
    Depends on what side of the fence you sit on. For is standards support, it's terrible. Sure most things work but they don't all work the way they were intended... or how any other browser on the planet interprets them.

    Yet we should also be thankful the browser has got as far as it has because of IE.... sure it would have happened eventually but without IE4 would Netscape really have open sourced the Mozilla code?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mountain View, CA
    Posts
    226
    It's all about firefox. The other alternative I use is SlimBrowser.
    DreamLogic Cult Film and Music Reviews
    STOPware - Visitor Management solutoins

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    4
    IE doesn't abide all standards, true, but that's not necessarily a bad thing..

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Houston, TX - Originally from UK
    Posts
    697
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter W
    IE doesn't abide all standards, true, but that's not necessarily a bad thing
    How can it possibly be a good thing?
    Kinkamono Internet Services - The Internet. Done Right.
    Dive In...

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Vancouver BC, eh?
    Posts
    570
    Originally posted by Peter W
    IE doesn't abide all standards, true, but that's not necessarily a bad thing..
    Some things that IE does I think are nice, like colored scrollbars and setting cell height. I wish that was a standard. But what irks me about IE is the way it handles CSS positioning when the w3 decided on a good approach ages ago. IE still does not follow these rules, so you get all these CSS layout hacks. Having to code different sets of rules because they decided to do it "their own way" for an application that imo should be cross compatable.
    I use IE all the time, and Firefox. I like IE, it's fast on windows. But as a developer I wish they would grasp new technology a little better. Maybe IE 7 will be different?

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,222
    There's nothing wrong with IE's proprietary CSS elements, so long as they don't negatively impact one's design when they are not supported elsewhere (scrollbars are a perfect example).

    In fact, scrollbar styles are slowly becoming more accepted in cross-browser environments. Konqueror accepts them. Opera allows the user to accept them. I foresee a day when they become part of a standard. CSS17 probably. Look for wide support sometime around 2020.

    I participated in a lengthy discussion regarding the reasoning behind reluntance to adopt scrollbars into a spec, and my theory is that it has to do with a resistance to an MS-born element. Perhaps there's some fear that incorporating this into a spec opens the door for MS to exercise undue control over future specifications.

    I've heard the argument that scrollbar styles are left out because they have to do with styling the browser's chrome, not it's contents. But I would argue that this cannot be the case, since overflow specifically mucks with this element, and shunning scrollbars for this reason would be hypocritical.

    But CSS2.1 is proof that the W3 is willing to adopt new rules based on popular usage ( a grand departure from previous ways of thinking on their part), so look for it in the future.
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Vancouver BC, eh?
    Posts
    570
    I am thinking along the lines of layouts using css positioning. This IS what developers are using to get away from tables, and actually create a method for positioning for which it was meant to be. (tables were never meant to be used the way they are - not that that is bad).

    Now Opera and Mozilla (also Firefox) use the standards set by w3, but IE still doesn't. So this means you end up coding 2 sets of CSS layouts - one with the real values and one for IE. You have to realise this kind of stuff is annoying. 2 big key elements to using div layouts rather than tables, ie positioning of elements and sizing of elements are handled differently by IE, even though the w3 has defined how they should work.

    The scrollbar thing is a sideissue, imo and doesn't reflect overall layout. But is a nice addition. Xml schema was a M$ thing and was adopted by the w3. So I don't know if I totally believe the anti M$ thought about scrollbars.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,222
    Maybe this is where the W3 drew the line? I don't buy into the notion that tables are only supposed to show relationships between data. I believe it is perfectly ok to use tables to show the relationship between visual elements as well. It's sort of like how tissue paper was originally meant as a cold cream remover, but people started using it as a hankerchief, so that became its purpose.

    As pointed out earlier, with CSS2.1, the W3 has shown it is capable of altering its specifications to suit common use. They could easily make some definition changes for tables too. Besides, CSS is walking a tight line with its push to become a structural coding language. The purpose of HTML is to provide structure. The purpose of CSS is to provide style. Browser support is nearly universal when you use the elements within each that perform these respective functions (except for NS4, but who knows what the hell they were thinking with THAT release!).

    So the answer, for now, is simply to continue using tables instead of trying to achieve structure through CSS positioning, or creating multiple site versions. It's practical, and a well-planned site doesn't need the drastic control measures inherent in structural CSS. AND good CSS practices make the table structures necessary for most sites extraordinarily simple. I've got 15-20 page sites that require no more than 100-150 kb. of total storage space for all design visuals and HTML/CSS code...
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Vancouver BC, eh?
    Posts
    570
    The purpose of XML is to seperate content from style and should be. HTML is getting phased out imo and it should be. CSS is much more powerful and easier to manage. xHTML is fine and takes the style away from html and into the CSS hands. But still, IE behaves differently than comliant browsers. Start building some xHTML compliant sites using Opera and Mozilla as a reference and you will see what I am talking about. Throw it in IE and watch all the unexpected results, things not lining up, styles not working, etc... I am talking about IE6, not < 6...

  30. #30
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,222
    I'm not so sure about the phasing out of HTML XML/XHTML allows programmers to essentially create their own coding languages that suit their own purposes. From what I've seen, a lot of disgruntled XHTML coders are returning to the familiar grounds of HTML because they don't WANT to create a new language every time they make a new site. There's something to be said about the universality of HTML, even if browsers don't treat it the same. I blame laziness on the part of browser developers and vagueness in parts of the W3 specs for this. But unless you're pulling content from a proprietary databasing source, I don't see much need for anything other than HTML. For widely used databases (SQL, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Access, etc.), PHP, ASP, etc. work just fine, and of course enjoy flawless browser support because they are preprocessed at the server.

    Then again, my perceived need for XML/XHTML comes from my limited perspective. I'm sure you and others have had different experiences. Do share!
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Vancouver BC, eh?
    Posts
    570
    Well the main idea behind XML is complete seperation between Data and Style. This isolates what it is you are presenting. With how you present it and for what media. That is one part of XML that is real cool. The other part is it's cross-application usable. A browser, flash, php, .NET, server configuration, application handling, firewall settings, cell phones, pda's etc... the list goes on and on. XML is a superb method of handling data. Anything can except an XML file and do something with the data.

    Serverside scripting languages (like php and asp3) have nothing to do with browser support. The output after compiling is always rendered as html or xml depending on your method of output - defualt is html. The processing is all handled on the server before it gets sent back to the browser.

    They stopped developing HTML after 4.01 (and that was 1999) and are not going any further with it. HTML will be backwards compatable, but development is getting away from it. xHTML does use html, but in a different way. This is the kind of stuff that I am talking about. IE handles some ESSENTIAL css differently than what the w3 sets as a standard and makes it difficult for developers to deal with. If you want to build XML and xHTML pages compliant, they don't render correctly in IE. This is M$'s choice, but imo it's hindering advancment.

    You can keep on building html transitional pages, I know I do, but the reality is that technology is requiring a different method of handling data.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,222
    I've been toying with the idea of writing HTML to the strict DTD, just to see how many browser bugs I can avoid in IE (I know little it, but I'm anxious to see how the box model renders). But yes, I do write HTML trans as of right now. In my experience, following standards and sticking to the basics will result in sites that work nicely in PDAs and cell phones - I alway do at least an Opera small screen test before I go live with a site.

    The next iteration of IE should be on its way pretty soon. That means only 6 or 7 more years before we can migrate fully away from HTML with any sense of safety. I've done some xHTML, but I'm not familiar with XML at all. Perhaps it will soon be time to dig up a tutorial...
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •