Internet Explorer 5.5 Beats IE 6 and 7 in Web Standards Test

[asb2106]

Opera 9.5 latest BETA gets 65
IE8 gets 17
IE8 in IE7mode gets 14
The latest full Opera gets to 52 before crashing lol.

That's what I get on my PC with those browsers.

first off, let me make this known, i will never use IE

but in defense of IE 8, it is in its first stage of BETA, it will take some time to work it all together

 

[beyond_amusia]

I'm using IE 8.

 

[beyond_amusia]

We've already adopted a standard - it's called popular use. Whatever people are using is the standard. If you come up with some POS that NOBODY is using, you can't call it a standard.

Yup. And people cannot say that MS FORCED them to use IE, because if you're smart enuff to DL porn and spyware, then you can most likely install a 'secure' browser, a.k.a. make for people who do stupid things online, lmao.

 

[asb2106]

IE bought the "standard". If they hadent bullied Netscape out in the 90's we would have a better war on or hands now. And let us be thankful for what netscape has brought us, they have made it possible for other companies to compete with microsoft.

Now dont get me wrong, I hated netscape back then, it was too slow, IE was better. But ever since the release of Firefox, internet life has been good for me.

Who brought us tabbed browsing?? wasnt IE
Who brought us endless extensions to form your browser for you? wasnt IE

IE rules only because it sits on computers that have windows on it, and last time I counted - it was a whole bunch. Any tech place (maximum PC, here, torrent sites), they all get a majority of hits from browsers that are not IE. I like to compare it to MSN. I am not a fan of MSN.com, but it is a highly hit site - and you know why, people dont bother changing their hompage. it makes me . I like MS, but I dont think they deserve all the free hits.

 

[asb2106]

Yup. And people cannot say that MS FORCED them to use IE, because if you're smart enuff to DL porn and spyware, then you can most likely install a 'secure' browser, a.k.a. make for people who do stupid things online, lmao.

not true, I have 100 dumb field guys that I service their computers, they are smart enough to download porn, and viruses, but they are not even smart enough to erase the porn off their desktops!!!!!!!!!! THen they send it back to me for repairs, because and I quote "It doesnt work right any more - what the hell is wrong with it - peice of shit..."

 

[btarunr]

Meh. I don't care if my browser fails these tests as long as it can render all the websites I visit properly. --Statement holds good now but not so with websites of the future adhering to newer standards. --But by then Mozilla, Opera ASA and Micro$oft will come up with browsers that can do so. --So it's all pointless.

 

[csendesmark]

first off, let me make this known, i will never use IE

but in defense of IE 8, it is in its first stage of BETA, it will take some time to work it all together

I dont like use beta browsers, because I need stability!

And I never like to use IE

 

[Darknova]

I dont like use beta browsers, because I need stability!

And I never like to use IE

Well that is entirely your choice. I on the other hand like to use BETA stuff, because then I can help the company who created the BETA to get it right, and MS REALLY needs to get IE8 right this time, especially as the new rendering engine is completely fudged currently, although as I've explained before that's due to the code pages submit to the browser on recognising it as IE.

I've always used IE. Interface is nice (I was part of the BETA so we actually had a say in that), pages loaded quickly, sure it didn't innovate (Opera brought tabs and extensions) but why does that make it a lesser product? It just means they realised what people wanted (after a lot of hounding I must say) and implemented something we all wanted.

And as to Dangles point, the reason for trying to set a standard that is not IE's is so that you can have OTHER browsers that aren't paying to MS to use their code, that would stifle competition. Also, if you hadn't noticed, part of MS's code actually breaks the rendering on other browsers unless they identify as IE.

Think about it for a second, if MS was so happy with the way IE7 rendered the pages, why would they create an ENTIRELY new engine to comply with Web Standards?

 

[csendesmark]

Opera build 9815/1834 (9.5 Beta)
65/100

 

[mdm-adph]

Show me one site that validates in XHTML Strict with an embedded flash object.

Did you even look at that URL I posted? Who said anything about XHTML Strict? The HTML 4.01 standard is still used for most professional websites today, including CNN.com, Dell.com, and hell, even Microsoft.com!

If you come up with some POS that NOBODY is using, you can't call it a standard.

Funny, you do realize Microsoft is trying to do this exact thing right now with their MSOOXML document "standard"...

 

[Solaris17]

lol i love how like i got 67 and was like w0ot and other ppl got like 50's and 60's were like ya !!!!! but in the end all of us see a big fail logo lol

 

[asb2106]

wow, this one seems like a failure.....

IE8 Beta 1

 

[Solaris17]

now thats just impressive fail.

 

[Dangle]

Did you even look at that URL I posted? Who said anything about XHTML Strict? The HTML 4.01 standard is still used for most professional websites today, including CNN.com, Dell.com, and hell, even Microsoft.com!

EXACTLY!!! It's the standard because people actually use it!!!! W3 says XHTML is the standard. You can go by what a small group of people tell you they think the standard should be, or you can go by the standard of what is actually standard use!

According to W3, XHTML is the standard. Flash doesn't validate in XHTML. So according to W3, Flash is a Violation. W3, standards = LAME!

 

[GJSNeptune]

No, Flash = lame.

US broadband = lame.

 

[asb2106]

No, Flash = lame.

US broadband = lame.

how is US broadband lame??

 

[GJSNeptune]

How is it not? It's super slow compared the other places on this planet.

 

[thoughtdisorder]

Flash doesn't follow standards. If you want a 100% compliant browser, it wouldn't allow flash vids, or support anything befor XHTML Strict. If a website looks shitty, it's the creator's fault, not the browser's. I think the standard should be what people actually use, and not what a small group of uberNerds dictate. I thought nobody was supposed to own the internet.

Has anyone conferred with Al Gore on this matter?

 

[imperialreign]

Think about it for a second, if MS was so happy with the way IE7 rendered the pages, why would they create an ENTIRELY new engine to comply with Web Standards?

I think it has more to do with a large portion of the internet community who have very little technical knowledge and that keep reading post after post in one forum after the next how IE can't properly render these tests - and it's pressuring MS to change the core of a perfectly good browser that has been accepted as "the standard" for over a decade.

I'm sorry, but if a browser (or any progeram for that matter) is considered "open source," I can't view that as being capable of affecting a "standard" - the software is free, it's free to code and develop, and there is no official support. IMO, it'd be the same effect as if all the primary developers of the different linux distributions clambored together to enact a standard for a operating system, and claiming that WIN fails because it doesn't meet their standards.

How is it not? It's super slow compared the other places on this planet.

TBH, broadband here in the US is capable of the same speeds as the rest of the world . . . it just depends on the region where you live, and how deep your pockets are (ain't capitalism great?). I'm sorry, but in this region, we only have two choices for broadband, Cox Communications and Verizon. Verizon FiOS is faster than Cox Broadband, but I'm not willing to spend $150/mth for only 15/kbps speeds when 3/kbps is just fine at $40/mth. Or, you could spend $140/mth for Cox's 13/kbps high speed connection - and be stuck with their speed caps and neighborhood access points which slows you down immensly.

If you've got the loot - Verizon here also offers 30-50/kbps speeds . . . starting at $300/mth :shadedshu

 

[asb2106]

How is it not? It's super slow compared the other places on this planet.

im gonna have to argue there, I have a 18mb connection at home and a 30mb connection at work, both residentually available broadbands, its all about what you pay for

 

[asb2106]

Think about it for a second, if MS was so happy with the way IE7 rendered the pages, why would they create an ENTIRELY new engine to comply with Web Standards?

Well that can be debated for alot of reasons,

sometimes people like new things, and a new fresh feel with new stated capabilities could drive more traffic for there browser.

also, I presonally feel microsoft likes to anticipate what is to come(sometimes they are wrong/sometimes they are right). They feel they can jump the gun and do what is wanted tommorow, but have it done today. It normally backfires

 

[GJSNeptune]

I meant our broadband providers don't give us what we deserve. Real broadband makes you sell one of your kids. I didn't mean that our infrastructure isn't capable. It's just not as widespread as it ought to be, and it shouldn't be at such a high premium. Our companies take their time and don't seem to care much.

 

[asb2106]

I meant our broadband providers don't give us what we deserve. Real broadband makes you sell one of your kids. I didn't mean that our infrastructure isn't capable. It's just not as widespread as it ought to be, and it shouldn't be at such a high premium. Our companies take their time and don't seem to care much.

true, but I will say, we should be thankful that our ISPs care so little. It could be alot worse and they could be stopping torrent traffic and limiting us to certain usages. It could be much worse. I pay 60 a month for 18mb. The 30mb is 129 month. It could be alot worse.

I have little compaints about our ISPs.

 

[imperialreign]

true, but I will say, we should be thankful that our ISPs care so little. It could be alot worse and they could be stopping torrent traffic and limiting us to certain usages. It could be much worse. I pay 60 a month for 18mb. The 30mb is 129 month. It could be alot worse.

I have little compaints about our ISPs.

quite a few ISPs are already known for limiting torrent dl/ul speeds, and also imposing speed caps during certain times of the day. Cox Communications is notorious for it. Verizon is one of the few that don't place restrictions on their customers. If you pay for 3/5/8+kbps, that's what you'll get.

IDK, I guess in areas where there is little competition between companies, it leaves a lot more room for complaints. I'd love to be able to purchase a true high-speed connection instead of 3/kbps, but Verizon charges way too much, and Cox's service is tripe. There are no other companies with service in this metropolitan region, so I'm out of luck.

 

[GJSNeptune]

That's not the kind of care I'm talking about. I'm referring to their services, not their monitoring. They don't care a whole lot about us having great service, great speeds, and not breaking the bank.