Author Topic: Google chrome: Shite?  (Read 8170 times)

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2010, 10:52:58 pm »
I have that, between my computers and my mobile devices too.  ;D

I don't use Chrome, I have an aversion to chrome since those Saturday afternoons spent trying to get the rust spots out of the Austin Allegro bumper.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #26 on: December 05, 2010, 10:54:39 pm »
Yebbut Chrome does it for me when I have NFC how I would otherwise set this up to happen automatically  :D

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #27 on: December 05, 2010, 11:08:03 pm »
Fortunately from a we dev point of view my users need me more than I need them so I can say 'IE8, FF or Chrome. No complaints for IE<8 will be entertained'

CSS in IE is interesting. In FF the parsing of units can be probematic ('80 px' gives an error but '80px' is fine.) GC copes fine. So I learned to write code better.

I don't care which browser as long as it isn't a memory hog and follows the web standards in a predictable manner. Plugins like Firebug are a bonus.

..d

   
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #28 on: December 05, 2010, 11:12:59 pm »
I am pretty agnostic when it comes between choosing between Chrome and FF on Xubuntu, but Chrome is faster (just not faster enough for me to be arsed closing down whatever my wife has opened on the netbook).


Re: Google chrome: The Best?
« Reply #29 on: December 05, 2010, 11:54:52 pm »
Let's introduce some SCIENCE:



We have to take into consideration that IE8 was running inside a Parallels virtual machine and so I did a like for like comparison with Chrome 8.0.552.215 running on Mac OS X 10.6.5, which gave a score of 8399 as above and the same version of Chrome on WinXP SP3, where it scored 7526.

These scores used the Peacekeeper browser benchmark test, which takes into consideration a wide array of different JavaScript operations.

Edit: Oh, and "Firefox 3.0.19)" is actually Camino 2.0.3, which Peacekeeper evidently didn't recognise from its UA string.

Euan Uzami

Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #30 on: December 05, 2010, 11:55:45 pm »
It's not politics, Ben.

Without standards for webbie stuff, htf do you think it would work?

Standards and politics aren't mutually exclusive.
I don't disagree with having standards at all, obviously. I just don't share the viewpoint that they should not be broken at all costs. Standards are often refined to encompass extensions if the extensions prove popular.
Of course there's got to be standards, but who sets them, is where the politics comes in.
(And before you say 'an independent body', think very carefully about what that means...)
microsoft seem to be standing accused of promoting development tools that make use of non standard extensions to the standards. People take those up, which increases reliance on its browser. That's a classic case of a commercial reason for doing something overriding a technical one. Some people say that's sacriligious because it goes against standards, while i say that if it makes my life easier (or doesn't make it harder) I don't really give a damn about the fact that a particular feature i may be benefitting from has broken standards.
That's all i'm saying.

Panoramix

  • 50 61 6E 6F 72 61 6D 69 78
  • Suus cuique crepitus bene olet
    • Some routes
Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #31 on: December 06, 2010, 12:24:50 am »
It's not politics, Ben.

Without standards for webbie stuff, htf do you think it would work?

Standards and politics aren't mutually exclusive.
I don't disagree with having standards at all, obviously. I just don't share the viewpoint that they should not be broken at all costs. Standards are often refined to encompass extensions if the extensions prove popular.
Of course there's got to be standards, but who sets them, is where the politics comes in.
(And before you say 'an independent body', think very carefully about what that means...)
microsoft seem to be standing accused of promoting development tools that make use of non standard extensions to the standards. People take those up, which increases reliance on its browser. That's a classic case of a commercial reason for doing something overriding a technical one. Some people say that's sacriligious because it goes against standards, while i say that if it makes my life easier (or doesn't make it harder) I don't really give a damn about the fact that a particular feature i may be benefitting from has broken standards.
That's all i'm saying.


Once you've tried to write a website and realise that your nicely crafted code looks good everywhere except on older IEs because M$ decided that they wanted to impose their standard your heart sink and you wish M$ were not big enough to behave like a bully. You then read about lot of "tricks" to make it work, and waste time you could have spent on your bike transforming the perfectly understandable CSS you had written into something which looks like obscure magic spells.

They are not adding features, just tryingto lock people into IE like they've managed with Office!

When you buy a standard M6 nut, it fits any standard M6 bolt; the IT industry does not seem able or willing to offer this. I think that it is perfectly reasonable to avoid the products of a company which is wasting the time thus the money of its client for its own benefits.
Chief cat entertainer.

Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #32 on: December 06, 2010, 12:26:25 am »
Standards and politics aren't mutually exclusive.
I don't disagree with having standards at all, obviously. I just don't share the viewpoint that they should not be broken at all costs. Standards are often refined to encompass extensions if the extensions prove popular.
Of course there's got to be standards, but who sets them, is where the politics comes in.
(And before you say 'an independent body', think very carefully about what that means...)
microsoft seem to be standing accused of promoting development tools that make use of non standard extensions to the standards. People take those up, which increases reliance on its browser. That's a classic case of a commercial reason for doing something overriding a technical one. Some people say that's sacriligious because it goes against standards, while i say that if it makes my life easier (or doesn't make it harder) I don't really give a damn about the fact that a particular feature i may be benefitting from has broken standards.
That's all i'm saying.

You may not care as an end user, but those of us who work with this stuff need to. Internet Explorer is the perfect example. Until very recently, web design has been a case of designing for standards-compliant browsers, then finding out how broken it is in Internet Explorer and adding in special rules to cope with its brokenness. Mostly, it doesn't matter whether you were designing with Safari, Opera, Firefox or Chrome - the result will be close enough to identical across these browsers, but broken in IE.

IE8 has improved matters to some degree (although IE6 and 7 aren't completely dead yet, unfortunately, and still have to be catered for). IE9 should in theory be better still, but based on the current platform previews Microsoft are churning out, it can't even display transparent PNG images properly or render curved corners on boxes with a border-radius set.

Another huge annoyance with IE is that while every other browser is available for Windows, Linux and OS X, IE is only available for Windows meaning that as a web designer you need a copy of Windows available to do testing. IE7 and 8 only work with XP and above and IE9 only works with Vista and above. IE6 only works with XP and below. This means you need *multiple* copies of Windows.

If IE just worked like everything else, you could have some confidence that your design would be at least mostly usable without testing it. As it is, there's nearly always some nasty surprise waiting for you.

Edit: Yeah, and what Panoramix said.

Further Edit: Oh, and don't get me started on the evil that is Silverlight.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #33 on: December 06, 2010, 12:44:34 am »
Apart from that though, Dez, IE is brilliant, isn't it.  ;D
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

woollypigs

  • Mr Peli
    • woollypigs
Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #34 on: December 06, 2010, 01:49:12 am »
Agree with Dez and others. The hours I have spend on a design that my client wanted just to get it to look somewhat good in IE. It is often something like one hour for FF and 2-3 hours for IE, just because what Dez said.

Oh the fun we had with the different versions of Netscape 4.6, ah good old times, remember them. And the versions script so ended up with 4-6 pages you had to update for the same website. Just as you got your head around the various bugs, tricks they updated to 4.7.

#bollockstobrexit

Nonsteeler

  • If nothing goes wrong, I go wrong.
    • Elsewhere
Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #35 on: December 06, 2010, 10:06:34 am »
I'm not one of these 'browser-connoisseurs' like a lot of people nowadays...
Fair enough. Many people here omit one of the main advantages (or soon to be) of the IE: It is fairly common. Yes, I know, it also means it is more often exploited (bla bla and all the other IE bashing - rightly and wrongly) BUT
Quote
Is your browser configuration rare or unique? If so, web sites may be able to track you, even if you limit or disable cookies.

https://panopticlick.eff.org/

This site form the Electronic Frontier Foundation checks your 'uniqueness' and with a more common configuration you are -careful, no comes a contradictio in adjecto - 'less unique' (which in this case is a good thing) .

Sadly, my configuration appears to unique amongst their database. Oh my browsers of choice are Firefox (since 2003) and Chrome (since 2010).
Sadly, melancholy doesn't pay my rent.

Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #36 on: December 06, 2010, 10:18:10 am »
The browser you use makes little difference to your uniqueness when it's identifying you based on what fonts you have installed...

Nonsteeler

  • If nothing goes wrong, I go wrong.
    • Elsewhere
Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #37 on: December 06, 2010, 10:28:14 am »
The browser you use makes little difference to your uniqueness when it's identifying you based on what fonts you have installed...
I agree, or for that matter, the whole range of plugins on my machine (which means that can't blame my issues with uniqueness on the browser choice). I haven't read their report yet or how to streamline your browser towards anonymity but I like this - at first glance - counter intuitive argument for the IE. It is a valid argument but I agree the relevance is disputable.  Personally I can't use IE so...
Sadly, melancholy doesn't pay my rent.

Euan Uzami

Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #38 on: December 06, 2010, 10:35:11 am »

You may not care as an end user, [but a web developer would]

yeah but surely if the website you're writing uses such complicated features it doesn't work on all browsers then the features you're using must be pretty damn obscure.
This is fine for a website such as logmein, or a company intranet or a business application, say, where people know they want to use that particular website, and are prepared to be dictated to as to what browser they can use, or spend a bit of effort getting it to work (i.e. switching to another browser), but for a website that you hope users are going to use by virtue of just having happened upon it, then if it doesn't work on all browsers, then it's surely a sign that you're using far too advanced features and eye candy just because they're there should be simplifying it, a lot.
Smacks of finding a job for the technology instead of finding the technology for the job, imho - don't get me started on that, it pisses me off greatly.


Quote
Further Edit: Oh, and don't get me started on the evil that is Silverlight.

Apart from anything else it's far too limited.
Only really any good if you want spinning cubes and animated graphs and the like.

Euan Uzami

Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #39 on: December 06, 2010, 10:37:47 am »
That said I do accept that you have more right to whinge if you are a web designer rather than an end user - but given the above caveat.

vorsprung

  • Opposites Attract
    • Audaxing
Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #40 on: December 06, 2010, 10:42:38 am »

yeah but surely if the website you're writing uses such complicated features it doesn't work on all browsers then the features you're using must be pretty damn obscure.


The features described by Dez are not obscure or complicated

Let me take another approach

I have been using computers for a while.  I started using the Internet in 1988.  I have worked as a IT security consultant.

I won't let my missus use IE for Internet banking.  Or any shopping or financial transactions. 
Audaxing Blog follow @vorsprungbike on

border-rider

Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #41 on: December 06, 2010, 10:46:56 am »
yeah but surely if the website you're writing uses such complicated features it doesn't work on all browsers then the features you're using must be pretty damn obscure.

Nope

IE doesn't follow standards, so you can write a dead simple site that is 100% compliant with htmln and CSS standards and it'll work in every browser but.  You have to insert a shedload of dirty fixes to get it to function properly in IE.  If you write a non-standards complaint site for IE then it likely won't work properly in every other browser  - because it's non standards-compliant.

IE8 is better for this, but far from perfect.  IE6 was a dog, and anything earlier was shocking.

Euan Uzami

Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #42 on: December 06, 2010, 10:47:14 am »


The features described by Dez are not obscure or complicated



ok, maybe not... but possibly slightly harder to argue as being essential...

Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #43 on: December 06, 2010, 10:49:41 am »

You may not care as an end user, [but a web developer would]

yeah but surely if the website you're writing uses such complicated features it doesn't work on all browsers then the features you're using must be pretty damn obscure.


Flipping heck, Ben, we aren't talking about 'obscure'; even things like the placement of nested DIVs is handled incorrectly by IE.

Sorrry, amending having read your response.

The use of CSS is pretty much essential.

IE doesn't not render standard layout correctly.

Can I politely suggest that if you don't know much about web-page construction, you should maybe just accept that we are right?
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Euan Uzami

Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #44 on: December 06, 2010, 10:50:51 am »
Nope

IE doesn't follow standards, so you can write a dead simple site that is 100% compliant with htmln and CSS standards and it'll work in every browser but.  You have to insert a shedload of dirty fixes to get it to function properly in IE.  If you write a non-standards complaint site for IE then it likely won't work properly in every other browser  - because it's non standards-compliant.

IE8 is better for this, but far from perfect.  IE6 was a dog, and anything earlier was shocking.

so this link i pasted earlier
W3C: IE9 Most Compliant with HTML5

that claims ie9 is the most compliant, is that a case of statistics being manipulated to say what they want them to say then ?
or just downright lies  ;)

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #45 on: December 06, 2010, 10:51:47 am »

yeah but surely if the website you're writing uses such complicated features it doesn't work on all browsers then the features you're using must be pretty damn obscure.

Standard CSS positioning is broken on IE. That is not obscure at all. It is a basic element.

I can't be arsed to faff around supporting any browser so I write standards compliant code and expect my users to use standards compliant browsers.

Then again I am in the minority of my users needing me more than I need them.

..d
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #46 on: December 06, 2010, 10:53:16 am »
so this link i pasted earlier
W3C: IE9 Most Compliant with HTML5

that claims ie9 is the most compliant, is that a case of statistics being manipulated to say what they want them to say then ?
or just downright lies  ;)

It is saying that IE is most compliant with HTML5. Most of the world runs on HTML4 or XHTML. HTML5 is not yet ratified as a standard IIANM.

And this says nothing about CSS either, which is where the major failings of IE are.

..d
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

Euan Uzami

Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #47 on: December 06, 2010, 10:56:52 am »
Flipping heck, Ben, we aren't talking about 'obscure'; even things like the placement of nested DIVs is handled incorrectly by IE.

sorry but i'm going to ask for an example. don't worry if you haven' got one i won't take it as an indication that you're making it up but i am curious about this.


The use of CSS is pretty much essential.


never said it isn't, per se, but rounded corners? transparency? why are they essential...


Quote
Can I politely suggest that if you don't know much about web-page construction, you should maybe just accept that we are right?

On the proportion of what's been posted that would class as assertion of fact(s), i think I do accept that you're right.

Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #48 on: December 06, 2010, 10:57:07 am »
so this link i pasted earlier
W3C: IE9 Most Compliant with HTML5

that claims ie9 is the most compliant, is that a case of statistics being manipulated to say what they want them to say then ?
or just downright lies  ;)

No, it's pretty much downright lies (although not intentional). Read the comments of the page you linked to.

Here's one:-

Re: Test results and report table from Maciej Stachowiak on 2010-11-02 (public-html-testsuite@w3.org from November 2010)
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

Panoramix

  • 50 61 6E 6F 72 61 6D 69 78
  • Suus cuique crepitus bene olet
    • Some routes
Re: Google chrome: Shite?
« Reply #49 on: December 06, 2010, 11:06:58 am »

yeah but surely if the website you're writing uses such complicated features it doesn't work on all browsers then the features you're using must be pretty damn obscure.



I must admit that I prefer playing peekaboo with my daughter than Internet Explorer:

Explorer Exposed!

Seriously, to me this is just proof that they are bad engineers and don't understand the basis of good technical design. It is like the virus thing on windows, everybody know that you can mitigate it seriously by restraining execute rights but MS has decided that they know better and millions of man hours in the world are wasted because of this.

The Victorians understood the interest of normalisation and propelled Britain way ahead of the world partly thanks to this. I work for an industry -construction industry- which is far less high tech than the IT industry and even "thickos" like us know that normalising stuff equates to profit but MS refuses to do it. They are just living in a parallel world and have no consideration whatsoever for their stakeholders.
Chief cat entertainer.