IE7 -- What a lousy browser
Moderator: General Moderators
- volomike
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:04 am
- Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
IE7 -- What a lousy browser
Check this out:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932044
Hahahaha. Microsoft really screwed up on IE7. Hope you don't have uppercase domain names for cookies and which are also an odd number of characters. Otherwise, you won't be saving any cookies any time soon. Not without a service pack. And how many people are -not- going to have that service pack? Lots.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932044
Hahahaha. Microsoft really screwed up on IE7. Hope you don't have uppercase domain names for cookies and which are also an odd number of characters. Otherwise, you won't be saving any cookies any time soon. Not without a service pack. And how many people are -not- going to have that service pack? Lots.
- jaoudestudios
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 1483
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:32 am
- Location: Surrey
Re: IE7 -- What a lousy browser
I already thought IE* (all of them for none linux developers) were useless, but it just keeps getting worse!!!
- JAB Creations
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 2341
- Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:44 pm
- Location: Sarasota Florida
- Contact:
Re: IE7 -- What a lousy browser
IE8 can't do something as simple as this...
Apparently there is some sort of security issue, with buttons! Any just so happen to know of a work around on this?
Code: Select all
document.getElementById('element_id').setAttribute('type', 'button');- volomike
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:04 am
- Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
Re: IE7 -- What a lousy browser
So have you tried the jQuery approach?
$('#element_id').attr('type','button');
Actually, though, I would almost expect that type would be read-only on all browsers. I mean, guess what happens when you take an INPUT type="text" and switch to INPUT type="checkbox" -- it's a whole other ballgame. I think I'd be pushing the envelope on what we should be able to do with browsers.
$('#element_id').attr('type','button');
Actually, though, I would almost expect that type would be read-only on all browsers. I mean, guess what happens when you take an INPUT type="text" and switch to INPUT type="checkbox" -- it's a whole other ballgame. I think I'd be pushing the envelope on what we should be able to do with browsers.
- JAB Creations
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 2341
- Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:44 pm
- Location: Sarasota Florida
- Contact:
Re: IE7 -- What a lousy browser
No No No!
I absolutely never rely on third party DHTML modules. That's my thing right now is to replace any reliance on third party modules in general. I currently do have jQuery and will add more DHTML libraries but that's besides the point (and they are optional opt-in only modules at that).
If I rely on third party modules I become locked in to updates which waste time...and I don't learn anything. Version 2.9 of my site (and the Alpha 2 which there is a link in my signature) will be not only error free but warning free (Firefox console).
Granted IE is a total pain in the butt however it's not as horrid to deal with once you get used to it...yes it's tiring though it's not completely unmanageable. There always seems to be a work around that doesn't completely spit in the eye of standards (or at least validations heh). I figure if I can't find a solution I'll end up styling a text anchor as a button and stick the CSS code in an IECCSS file. I mentioned this on the IE blog and they haven't published my comments, I wonder why.
I wonder how jQuery manages it if they can get it to work in IE...I mean if jQuery can do it so can I.
Plus no need for a third party 45KB DHTML download (as magical as jQuery is).
I absolutely never rely on third party DHTML modules. That's my thing right now is to replace any reliance on third party modules in general. I currently do have jQuery and will add more DHTML libraries but that's besides the point (and they are optional opt-in only modules at that).
If I rely on third party modules I become locked in to updates which waste time...and I don't learn anything. Version 2.9 of my site (and the Alpha 2 which there is a link in my signature) will be not only error free but warning free (Firefox console).
Granted IE is a total pain in the butt however it's not as horrid to deal with once you get used to it...yes it's tiring though it's not completely unmanageable. There always seems to be a work around that doesn't completely spit in the eye of standards (or at least validations heh). I figure if I can't find a solution I'll end up styling a text anchor as a button and stick the CSS code in an IECCSS file. I mentioned this on the IE blog and they haven't published my comments, I wonder why.
I wonder how jQuery manages it if they can get it to work in IE...I mean if jQuery can do it so can I.
- volomike
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:04 am
- Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
Re: IE7 -- What a lousy browser
jQuery's 55K is like one small image download. Once it's downloaded for a given website, depending on how one sets up their browser history, it's cached locally on their hard drive even when they close their browser and re-open it again to reconnect to that site. To make that download even faster, Google has a way to download it from their site. (It's a new thing -- they tell you that you can do this now and they have code on the web to show you how.) Google's site is actually a set of sites cached all across the USA and parts of the world. So, that download is bound to be faster because it will have less router hops to jump through. And, I add a clause in (just like Google recommends) so that if the jQuery didn't load, I can load it from my server down to the client browser.
When people say this is slow, I'm like, how can it be slow? It's a slightly slow initial download but no more than a normal banner image. Google has also helped tremendously in this area with the new way you can download it from their APIs area on the web. Then, as far as processing time on the local workstation CPU -- it depends on what you're doing. Much of the animation you can do with jQuery seems to run slightly slow on a Pentium 3 or an early model Pentium 4, but after that, it's fairly fast. Forgo the animation, and the end user will be quite happy with the speed. (Side note -- on Google Chrome and Safari, Javascript runs extremely fast.)
When it comes to DHTML, because it's so error-prone and inconsistent, I leave it to the jQuery guys and the mountain of support out there for help with jQuery. The main developer of jQuery, John Resig, works on the Firefox Javascript team, so I think I'm in pretty good hands. This saves me a tremendous amount of time and I just focus on the higher-level thought stuff, like problem solving, object refactoring, database schemas, etc. And when some bug is detected in a given browser, guys who are closer to the fine on this one than me hop on it much faster than me, build a fix in jQuery, and it impacts thousands of websites who use that newer update.
When people say this is slow, I'm like, how can it be slow? It's a slightly slow initial download but no more than a normal banner image. Google has also helped tremendously in this area with the new way you can download it from their APIs area on the web. Then, as far as processing time on the local workstation CPU -- it depends on what you're doing. Much of the animation you can do with jQuery seems to run slightly slow on a Pentium 3 or an early model Pentium 4, but after that, it's fairly fast. Forgo the animation, and the end user will be quite happy with the speed. (Side note -- on Google Chrome and Safari, Javascript runs extremely fast.)
When it comes to DHTML, because it's so error-prone and inconsistent, I leave it to the jQuery guys and the mountain of support out there for help with jQuery. The main developer of jQuery, John Resig, works on the Firefox Javascript team, so I think I'm in pretty good hands. This saves me a tremendous amount of time and I just focus on the higher-level thought stuff, like problem solving, object refactoring, database schemas, etc. And when some bug is detected in a given browser, guys who are closer to the fine on this one than me hop on it much faster than me, build a fix in jQuery, and it impacts thousands of websites who use that newer update.
Last edited by volomike on Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: IE7 -- What a lousy browser
Denying the advantages of highly factored, well tested open-source libraries is like going back in time. This is doubly true when dealing with something as volatile as cross-browser compatibility which is too variable and quirky to be handled by one developer unless he dedicates all of his time to it.
Insisting on reinventing the wheel is a nice privilege if you have ton of time and don't need to support commercial customers, but it is simply not an option otherwise. You might as well rewrite PHP in C since you can't depend on their updates and fixes and you don't learn anything.
And regardless, by simply turning on Gzip, jQuery base download size is around 15kb which is nothing for today's connections. Might as well worry more about that giant background image or flash embed.
Web technologies are constantly evolving and you can't deny them just because they might be incompatible with last decade computers and browsers.
Insisting on reinventing the wheel is a nice privilege if you have ton of time and don't need to support commercial customers, but it is simply not an option otherwise. You might as well rewrite PHP in C since you can't depend on their updates and fixes and you don't learn anything.
And regardless, by simply turning on Gzip, jQuery base download size is around 15kb which is nothing for today's connections. Might as well worry more about that giant background image or flash embed.
Web technologies are constantly evolving and you can't deny them just because they might be incompatible with last decade computers and browsers.
- JAB Creations
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 2341
- Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:44 pm
- Location: Sarasota Florida
- Contact:
Re: IE7 -- What a lousy browser
pytrin, 45KB gzipped with the animation scripts thrown in that is. 
I have nothing against jQuery and I personally think it's truly awesome. My concern is the instantaneous thought of fellow programmers to depend on a third party module to solve such a small issue. I reserve DHTML modules for opt-in animations only and yes I do have the time to write everything I'm doing (though not to rewrite C or anything!
) If I agreed with everyone who disagreed I wouldn't have music on my site because some people hate frames (though I'll be able to get rid of frames in the future thanks to AJAX though that is a different issue altogether) or I simply wouldn't have a site because everyone is always willing to negatively criticize my site's visual design. About two years ago I had a business partner who I was going to depend on for the PHP/MySQL aspects of a joint project. Long story short it didn't work out and I decided self-reliance was the only way to go.
Plus I dare anyone to say with a straight face that they have never looked at someone else's code and grimaced! Seriously I've got business goals in mind this year and as much as I too hate IE have to support it. Plus why do you think video games have so many video options? Easy: they need to have the widest range of appeal! Some kid may be stuck on an old Pentium 4 with a GeForce 4 and then you'll have someone with two 4870 X2's in Crossfire who decided to blow a grand on an i7 Extreme Edition CPU...they want the details. So I cater to both dial-up and broadband users. I mean tell me it's not satisfying to turn on all these options and being able to say, 'Yeah, I can do that' knowing not all other people can't?
Granted those are some good points about caching and the minimal number of hops because of Google though I'll counter that with first impression with insanely fast initial load times and not having to rely on a third party source to consistently support the things you rely on to always be there. Granted I don't think any one here writes for only Internet Explorer like dumb corporate fools using ActiveX and the like though I still think it's a valid point. Besides we all have our goals so if it's good for you then do it. I just like having more bullets in my ol then I intend to use when it comes to presentations.
Oh and to stay on topic has anyone noticed some extremely obnoxious bugs they could point out that are still present in IE8?
I have nothing against jQuery and I personally think it's truly awesome. My concern is the instantaneous thought of fellow programmers to depend on a third party module to solve such a small issue. I reserve DHTML modules for opt-in animations only and yes I do have the time to write everything I'm doing (though not to rewrite C or anything!
Plus I dare anyone to say with a straight face that they have never looked at someone else's code and grimaced! Seriously I've got business goals in mind this year and as much as I too hate IE have to support it. Plus why do you think video games have so many video options? Easy: they need to have the widest range of appeal! Some kid may be stuck on an old Pentium 4 with a GeForce 4 and then you'll have someone with two 4870 X2's in Crossfire who decided to blow a grand on an i7 Extreme Edition CPU...they want the details. So I cater to both dial-up and broadband users. I mean tell me it's not satisfying to turn on all these options and being able to say, 'Yeah, I can do that' knowing not all other people can't?
Granted those are some good points about caching and the minimal number of hops because of Google though I'll counter that with first impression with insanely fast initial load times and not having to rely on a third party source to consistently support the things you rely on to always be there. Granted I don't think any one here writes for only Internet Explorer like dumb corporate fools using ActiveX and the like though I still think it's a valid point. Besides we all have our goals so if it's good for you then do it. I just like having more bullets in my ol then I intend to use when it comes to presentations.
Oh and to stay on topic has anyone noticed some extremely obnoxious bugs they could point out that are still present in IE8?
- volomike
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:04 am
- Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
Re: IE7 -- What a lousy browser
Oh yeah. I forgot the gzip fact. Yeah, I set up my Apache to support that, and most browsers since IE4 support this now. And so, yeah, 15K to download the most awesome minimalist yet powerful Javascript library known to man in such few bytes -- that's quite a feat. Then, to make it work so well across browsers -- that's another plus.
- Chris Corbyn
- Breakbeat Nuttzer
- Posts: 13098
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:57 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: IE7 -- What a lousy browser
I'd use jQuery if I was doing any heavy work with the DOM, like animation stuff (.slideDown() and .slideUp() are great). If I had JS scattered around my site I'd use jQuery. But I don't use it just because it exists.
For example, I wrote this highlighting/bracket pairing library in JavaScript which you'd think did some heavy DOM work. No jQuery though... I spent years working with JavaScript (I studied it for a while actually) and basically it's like anything else, you learn from experience.
I agree with JAB Creations here... like he says, he wants to learn
I'd bet you John Resig can do some far funkier things with JavaScript than anybody who just went straight to jQuery to avoid the cross-browser headaches.
I'm not saying don't use jQuery, I do use it myself. But don't over-use it (and certainly don't avoid fathoming out why something works in jQuery if it doesn't work in your own code).
For example, I wrote this highlighting/bracket pairing library in JavaScript which you'd think did some heavy DOM work. No jQuery though... I spent years working with JavaScript (I studied it for a while actually) and basically it's like anything else, you learn from experience.
I agree with JAB Creations here... like he says, he wants to learn
I'd bet you John Resig can do some far funkier things with JavaScript than anybody who just went straight to jQuery to avoid the cross-browser headaches.
I'm not saying don't use jQuery, I do use it myself. But don't over-use it (and certainly don't avoid fathoming out why something works in jQuery if it doesn't work in your own code).
Re: IE7 -- What a lousy browser
Don't know what animation script is that, the basic jQuery library with plenty of animation options is 15kb gzipped.pytrin, 45KB gzipped with the animation scripts thrown in that is
We are talking about jQuery here. It is the most beautiful piece of javascript I have seen. This is not just some hackers code. This is top notch, highly factored and amazingly designed piece of work. I admit fully I will probably never approach the level of Javascript that John Resig spewes out, and I don't intend to. I did study the library a lot, and implemented much of its design and coding standards in my code - which is another plus for relying on high-quality components.Plus I dare anyone to say with a straight face that they have never looked at someone else's code and grimaced!
A library like Javascript significantly reduces the LOC in my javascript files. I'd say about 60-70% as opposed to plain DOM manipulations. That's a lot, and it saves more download size and increases maintainability. Not to mention that I can pretty much rely on it to be cross-browser compatible instead of struggling with non-standard conforming browsers.
If someone is writing plain Javascript for something simple or just to learn that's perfectly fine. But I don't see how you can deny how useful libraries like jQuery are.
- JAB Creations
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 2341
- Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:44 pm
- Location: Sarasota Florida
- Contact:
Re: IE7 -- What a lousy browser
Tonight I programmed my latest project to automatically scroll to the bottom of an overflow div each time AJAX displayed new content...except when the scrollbar wasn't already at the bottom. It always feels refreshing to go back and program JavaScript because it's useful but not necessary...not in the sense that PHP and MySQL are...almost ineffable to describe. 
- jaoudestudios
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 1483
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:32 am
- Location: Surrey
Re: IE7 -- What a lousy browser
There is nothing wrong with learning Javascript, but like many developers said, cross-browser issues are a big issue. Jquery takes the pain out of this. I briefly used other JS libraries in the past (prototype etc...) and they are messy and flaky, they can not compare to Jquery. I dont know much JS, but the cross-browser compatibility that Jquery provides in itself is amazing!
- JAB Creations
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 2341
- Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:44 pm
- Location: Sarasota Florida
- Contact:
Re: IE7 -- What a lousy browser
Well IE7 sucks at both CSS and JavaScript...
However IE8 still sucks at JavaScript!
I've been working on a project that is intensively JavaScript driven (where I can offload a large bulk of serverside work to the client). However it's just one issue after another in JavaScript and even in IE8 I have to do some pretty backwards stuff to achieve the same simple results. It's not like I'm doing anything insanely complex.
However IE8 still sucks at JavaScript!
I've been working on a project that is intensively JavaScript driven (where I can offload a large bulk of serverside work to the client). However it's just one issue after another in JavaScript and even in IE8 I have to do some pretty backwards stuff to achieve the same simple results. It's not like I'm doing anything insanely complex.
-
alex.barylski
- DevNet Evangelist
- Posts: 6267
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Winnipeg
Re: IE7 -- What a lousy browser
Dude...you should totally share that with us (errrm me) I need something like that for a chat script and would appreciate itTonight I programmed my latest project to automatically scroll to the bottom of an overflow div each time AJAX displayed new content...