Re: remember netscape!!!
You should try using Mozilla for OS9. Even better than Netscape, but overall very similar.
You should try using Mozilla for OS9. Even better than Netscape, but overall very similar.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No More IE for Mac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not really. 63% of websites still run on Apache and only 26% run on Windows.
(See attached image from news.netcraft.com)
Also compatability based on web servers has nothing to do with the PC vs. Mac situation. It's a choice of individual website operators to make sure their sites work in the various available browsers. My company uses Mozilla exclusively and we frequently neglect our IE testing. However, since the states require healthcare organizations to use Netscape for their connections, this rarely turns into a problem for us.
At my own company I develop for mac, solaris, windows, linux and target mozilla as the platform since it is available on so many different OSes. So to me it's not a compatability thing it's a web developer thing.
Attachments
good points.
hmm very good points, people. I was thinking I don't need IE (and I don't right now), but the vision where MS will set up completely new standards there is very frightening, because then they'll totally have a monopoly. it would totally suck not being able to use any web services.
I can do my online banking etc fine with safari (since the 1st public beta), but if the future of the internet is in the hands of MS, not good.
So, I take back the positive posivite grade I gave the thread..
hmm very good points, people. I was thinking I don't need IE (and I don't right now), but the vision where MS will set up completely new standards there is very frightening, because then they'll totally have a monopoly. it would totally suck not being able to use any web services.
I can do my online banking etc fine with safari (since the 1st public beta), but if the future of the internet is in the hands of MS, not good.
So, I take back the positive posivite grade I gave the thread..
Sorry, but it wouldn't. Safari needs to aim for simply handling the standards, not attempting to mimic another browser's handling of them.
Browsers emulating IE only helps to stagnate standards adoption and further entrench IE-specific design.
if someone has already mentioned this, sorry, but I didn't feel like scanning 5 pages of posts...
anyway, as much as I like safari, and as great as it runs on macs, it is still quite far from perfect. There are several issues with CSS that safari has (has anyone tried to do a div overflow in safari? doesn't work there, but works as it should in mozilla-based and, shock-horror, IE). There are quite a few annoying things like that for web designers that drive us insane. As much as I want Safari to be the "Be all, end all" of mac browsers, it just doesn't cut the mustard yet. Hopefully, the developers of khtml will address some of the major layout/standards issues in the core, and Safari can turn into in incredible app. Until then, I'll stick with camino or firebird...
but anyway, back to the subject... yes, good riddance to bad rubbish... I really can't stand IE... especially their flippant disregard for alpha PNG support! Bastards!
anyway, as much as I like safari, and as great as it runs on macs, it is still quite far from perfect. There are several issues with CSS that safari has (has anyone tried to do a div overflow in safari? doesn't work there, but works as it should in mozilla-based and, shock-horror, IE). There are quite a few annoying things like that for web designers that drive us insane. As much as I want Safari to be the "Be all, end all" of mac browsers, it just doesn't cut the mustard yet. Hopefully, the developers of khtml will address some of the major layout/standards issues in the core, and Safari can turn into in incredible app. Until then, I'll stick with camino or firebird...
but anyway, back to the subject... yes, good riddance to bad rubbish... I really can't stand IE... especially their flippant disregard for alpha PNG support! Bastards!
I have started using Firebird (Mozilia based browser) on my PC because IE has so many problems reading images on the Net and no ad blocking. However there are still a lot of sights out there that only work on IE (the Mac or PC version). So I have to go back to IE every now and then. This can only be a bad thing for Macs unless Apple or Mozilia makes a browser compatible with IE only sites.
Originally posted by cotteez
I think we need to remember that Apple is only new to developing browsers. MS has been doing it for years. Be patient, Apple WILL get it all right
Apple did it right before:
Cyberdog
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
Because .NET is better for desktop apps than VB, VC++, and Java. But that's hardly high praise.
Hmm, just like WebObjects.
Mono is a Trojan horse, because .NET apps are always going to run substantially better on Windows. I see no reason to assist MS in furthering their dominance.
Because .NET is better for desktop apps than VB, VC++, and Java. But that's hardly high praise.
Hmm, just like WebObjects.
Mono is a Trojan horse, because .NET apps are always going to run substantially better on Windows. I see no reason to assist MS in furthering their dominance.
Re: Re: Missing the point
Really? Are you sure about that (using MSVS.NET does not make an app .NET ... which I'm sure you know)? I mean, .NET isn't really applicable to most application spaces, so it seems odd that almost fully half of all development is using .NET.
Just a few years ago almost half of all development was using COBOL and the like (bank and corporate back-ends); I don't see any large percentage of those switching to .NET anytime in the near future, which means it's the other half that's switching to .NET. Seems we'd be hearing more about this mass adoption if it were true ...
So, if you can, please cite a source for your numbers. Thanks!
Really? Are you sure about that (using MSVS.NET does not make an app .NET ... which I'm sure you know)? I mean, .NET isn't really applicable to most application spaces, so it seems odd that almost fully half of all development is using .NET.
Just a few years ago almost half of all development was using COBOL and the like (bank and corporate back-ends); I don't see any large percentage of those switching to .NET anytime in the near future, which means it's the other half that's switching to .NET. Seems we'd be hearing more about this mass adoption if it were true ...
So, if you can, please cite a source for your numbers. Thanks!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
In other words, you just made up the "40-50%" figure.
Personally, i don't see much .NET usage amongst the programmers I know (the two who do use it think it is kludgy and hardly revolutionary). Maybe I hang with the wrong crowd, but we're a pretty even mix of app and server-side developers (and, yes, I'm the only one who develops on Mac as well as unix/Windows).
Also, "two latest VS incarnations" ... ? I thought VS 6.0 and then VS .NET were the last two? Has there been an update to VS.NET?
In other words, you just made up the "40-50%" figure.
Personally, i don't see much .NET usage amongst the programmers I know (the two who do use it think it is kludgy and hardly revolutionary). Maybe I hang with the wrong crowd, but we're a pretty even mix of app and server-side developers (and, yes, I'm the only one who develops on Mac as well as unix/Windows).
Also, "two latest VS incarnations" ... ? I thought VS 6.0 and then VS .NET were the last two? Has there been an update to VS.NET?
Re: Re: Missing the point
Interesting, I program in ASP.NET, and my web apps appear fine in IE for Win, look at little bit strange in IE for Mac, and look horrible in Safari. However, I've found that manually adjusting the size of any controls you put on the page can cause layout issues - if you leave them at the default sizes then they usually end up fine.
Interesting, I program in ASP.NET, and my web apps appear fine in IE for Win, look at little bit strange in IE for Mac, and look horrible in Safari. However, I've found that manually adjusting the size of any controls you put on the page can cause layout issues - if you leave them at the default sizes then they usually end up fine.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
Yep, there's VS.NET 2002 (uses .NET 1.0) and VS.NET 2003 (1.1).
Yep, there's VS.NET 2002 (uses .NET 1.0) and VS.NET 2003 (1.1).
ummm..
so i didnt read all of the posts, but i did notice a number of people getting excited about freeing 20-60mb of space off of their hard drives after deleting ms software. is it really worth a post to share that? i think i have text files on my computer that are 60mb hehe, not really. but on a 360gb raid array i guess you start disregarding anything under a gb. whatever. i guess this post wasnt even worth posting. sorry
so i didnt read all of the posts, but i did notice a number of people getting excited about freeing 20-60mb of space off of their hard drives after deleting ms software. is it really worth a post to share that? i think i have text files on my computer that are 60mb hehe, not really. but on a 360gb raid array i guess you start disregarding anything under a gb. whatever. i guess this post wasnt even worth posting. sorry
Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
Don't use grid positioning and you will be fine. Also, Safari ignores style sheets on controls to make text box lengths. You have to remember to set the text box control length like you would for a non CSS browser.
Don't use grid positioning and you will be fine. Also, Safari ignores style sheets on controls to make text box lengths. You have to remember to set the text box control length like you would for a non CSS browser.
Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
I can tell you about 95% of the developers I know use .NET in one form or another. Half of the development a few years ago was in COBOL huh? Yeah right, when Y2K came around they could barely find a COBOL programmer to help companies out, hence the large paychecks they got.
Most developers for the Windows platform are evaluating .NET, and many have switched atleast some of their code base.
Consider this, upgrading from VB to VB.NET automatically converts your project to .NET. You do realize that an unbeleivable porportion of shareware, and small commercial apps, are written in VB even though they probably shouldnt have been? Nice thing is, VB.NET puts VB on equal footing with C#, C++ .NET, and other languages. Where as going from C to .NET takes work, VB to VB.NET is automatically converted by an upgrade wizard.
I can tell you about 95% of the developers I know use .NET in one form or another. Half of the development a few years ago was in COBOL huh? Yeah right, when Y2K came around they could barely find a COBOL programmer to help companies out, hence the large paychecks they got.
Most developers for the Windows platform are evaluating .NET, and many have switched atleast some of their code base.
Consider this, upgrading from VB to VB.NET automatically converts your project to .NET. You do realize that an unbeleivable porportion of shareware, and small commercial apps, are written in VB even though they probably shouldnt have been? Nice thing is, VB.NET puts VB on equal footing with C#, C++ .NET, and other languages. Where as going from C to .NET takes work, VB to VB.NET is automatically converted by an upgrade wizard.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
Like WebObjects...wouldnt say that. WebObjects is for web pages. .NET is for web pages and GUI apps and background services. I would relate it more to Cocoa, which can also serialize classes to XML just like .NET.
I don't see it as helping their dominence. The Mono project is quite far, and has done a lot of work. I wouldnt be surprised to see it included in the next version of RedHat.
So the question is, do you want Linux to be the only platform able to run the next generation of Windows apps? Or would you like MacOS X to as well? Which platforms have more applications? With so much push behind .NET, its hard to see a reasoning not to let it run on your platform.
Like WebObjects...wouldnt say that. WebObjects is for web pages. .NET is for web pages and GUI apps and background services. I would relate it more to Cocoa, which can also serialize classes to XML just like .NET.
I don't see it as helping their dominence. The Mono project is quite far, and has done a lot of work. I wouldnt be surprised to see it included in the next version of RedHat.
So the question is, do you want Linux to be the only platform able to run the next generation of Windows apps? Or would you like MacOS X to as well? Which platforms have more applications? With so much push behind .NET, its hard to see a reasoning not to let it run on your platform.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
My experience has been that many books cover multiple languages on topic.... some books are devoted to windows forms, others devoted to ASP.NET. Yet others are dedicated to data access....and others to webservices, or handheld device programming.
The fact is thought, that it is very popular with microsoft developers right now. MS has submitted .NET to standards committies and let it pass, whereas Sun pushed Java and pulled it back when they were about to lose control.
My experience has been that many books cover multiple languages on topic.... some books are devoted to windows forms, others devoted to ASP.NET. Yet others are dedicated to data access....and others to webservices, or handheld device programming.
The fact is thought, that it is very popular with microsoft developers right now. MS has submitted .NET to standards committies and let it pass, whereas Sun pushed Java and pulled it back when they were about to lose control.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point
How about this novel idea, don't support MS and instead just use what we already have...JAVA. Because I can guarantee you, the same thing MS did with IE to netscape (and doing to apple now), they will do to the software dev industry, just wait, mark my words. We'll be having this same discussion in the future about how MS is releasing .NET v2 and somehow forgetting to release the implementation docs so that MONO etc can implement it...this whole "open standard" facade-crap is just there to sucker the whole dev community into supporting .NET just like how they gave free copies of MS Office for free in the begining and then started charging 500 freaking dollars once it was Monopolized...once MS gets .NET accepted, they'll pull the rug out once again.
I don't really think MS not releasing future versions of MAC/IE is any big deal from a Web design point of view. Point being you need to test your new site on a WINDOWS machine running PC/IE.
But some of the posts pointing out the danger if MS engineers sites so you need IE to get in sounds like a real worry.
But some of the posts pointing out the danger if MS engineers sites so you need IE to get in sounds like a real worry.
Its a bad news indeed
Since IE is no longer available as a standalone application, the web is ultimately becomes part of Windows Operating System. Microsoft control 95% of browser market, so they can come up with their own standards. And all the webdevelopers (95% of those who write for IE) will be called Windows Developers since there is no more IE. Do u guys still remember what happened to Opera browser. M$ purposely cripped MSN not to look good under Opera. M$ have monolopy and can do whatever they want. So does their partner. I think its high time Apple come up with a browser for Linux at least, so that at least some Linux programmers will write safai compatible web. Also, i think both IBM and MS pulled out of W3C. so the standard is now upto M$.
Please apple, bring us Safari for Linux. and Windows too
Since IE is no longer available as a standalone application, the web is ultimately becomes part of Windows Operating System. Microsoft control 95% of browser market, so they can come up with their own standards. And all the webdevelopers (95% of those who write for IE) will be called Windows Developers since there is no more IE. Do u guys still remember what happened to Opera browser. M$ purposely cripped MSN not to look good under Opera. M$ have monolopy and can do whatever they want. So does their partner. I think its high time Apple come up with a browser for Linux at least, so that at least some Linux programmers will write safai compatible web. Also, i think both IBM and MS pulled out of W3C. so the standard is now upto M$.
Please apple, bring us Safari for Linux. and Windows too