Here's just one of the -MANY- different results if you search for IE7 bugs:
show me where MS says IE 6/7 follows 4.01 standards. in fact, some of those are not bugs, but rather latent code to be compatible with older WYSIWIG browsers. plus, some of those "tests" just put out test failed messages without showing the result showing it failed, just failed messages. sorry, but i wont accept anyone who "proves" their point suchly.
ill give you .5 because they may have bugs that apply to the new standards, but before you can hold a browser to those standards they have to say they support those standards. provide a link saying where MS states IE 7 aheres to the 4.01 standards and it will be a full point. as far as i have seen, they do not claim FULL compliance with these standards, but rather partial compliance.
As for browser stats, somehow I don't think that W3SCHOOLS lies thank you kindly...
no, but you mis-construe their stats.
from their OWN page:
Anyway, our data, collected from W3Schools' log-files, over a five year period, clearly shows the long and medium-term trends.
sorry, but you cannot say 1 websites history dictates what the vast majority of the web browsers of the users on the internet are.
0 points.
The Box model is how IE handles placement of elements in the browser window.
if you look at the following article from MS:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb250496.aspx
you will see they do not say they support full CSS compliance, but only partial. complaining about them not giving full compliance when they state they only do partial is like demanding WoW on the Wii. you can demand all you want, but they never said they were going to.
You've never had to deal with the uninstallable toolbars have you Wes?
nope, only toolbar i have ever installed is google toolbar because i dont prefer to use software from companies/locations i dont trust. again, thats a user issue, not a browser issue. complain to the maker of the toolbar, not the maker of the application that the toolbar hooks into.
Do you know why Opera failed in '94, because it was so obsessed with revenue that it had ads in the program if you didn't send them money, and caused designers to pull their hair out because designing for Opera reduced your top-fold by about 200-250 PX!
opera didnt fail, it succeeded. its still being used and modified and new versions released. im not talking about the 2.0+ versions, im talking about the 1.0 BWB. there were no ads in that one.
Talk to sun about JAVA issues, however I have yet to have an issue with JAVA as I keep it up to date...
of the responsible people i know who do get malware/virii, they get them from 2 sources. installing without knowing what they are installing or from a dubious source, or from java vulnerabilities.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,143962-pg,1/article.html
and i will quote the entire article at the bottom in case they choose to remove it.
I'm sorry but the number is also a strawman, because most if not all web-servers on the internet are UNIX based, meaning LINUX, not windows because they're so bloody faulty that only a real screwjob or a personal server would consider using windows due to the security faults!
a lot of internet based companies use windows as their web server. i could go into details but i could lose my job if i did. although there is a movement from MS to linux, *nix is not gaining market share as much as you would expect.
You know the URL, do you know why it uses forward slashes and can't accept spaces? Try looking up how Unix Bourne Again Shell works and you might be surprised...
no clue what you are talking about here.
I have opera, however the plugins that Firefox has that help me with my work and recreation far exceed what Opera's userbase has come up with so far.
then you fail, the vast majority of Fx plugs work inside opera, the difference is that opera limits some of the more dangerous code possibilities from Fx plugs so they are not compatible, but most are.
let me say it again, opera supports most Fx plugins except for those commands with the ability to exploit your system.
sounds like Fx wins here!
Did you MISS what I said first and foremost, passing the ACID test is nothing to scoff at, it is geared towards being adherent to CSS standards like glue!
cite a source where MS said they offer FULL CSS compliance. all i have seen from MS sources is they offer PARTIAL compliance. again, WoW on a Wii, get over it.
IE has yet to even consider going after the first ACID test, while almost all other browsers have passed the ACID II test!
and Fx 3.0 is supposed to be the first Fx browser to pass the ACID II test without plugins. and the majority of those plugins "pass" the test by bypassing it.
sounds like a good solution here.
now for the full article that shows how safe java is. bolded portions are of my doing:
PCWorld said:
The MacBook Air went first; a tiny Fujitsu laptop running Vista was hacked on the last day of the contest; but it was Linux, running on a Sony Vaio, that remained undefeated as conference organizers ended a three-way computer hacking challenge Friday at the CanSecWest conference.
Earlier this week, contest sponsors had put three laptops up for grabs to anyone who could hack into one of the systems and run their own software. A US$20,000 cash prize sweetened the deal, but the payout was halved each day as contest rules were relaxed and it became easier to penetrate the computers.
On day two, Independent Security Evaluators' Charlie Miller took the Mac after hitting it with a still-undisclosed exploit that targeted the Safari Web browser. After about two minutes work, Thursday, Miller took home $10,000, courtesy of 3Com's TippingPoint division, in addition to his new laptop.
It took two days of work, but Shane Macaulay, finally cracked the Vista box on Friday, with a little help from his friends.
Macaulay, who was a co-winner of last year's hacking contest, needed a few hacking tricks courtesy of VMware researcher Alexander Sotirov to make his bug work. That's because Macaulay hadn't been expecting to attack the Service Pack 1 version of Vista, which comes with additional security measures. He also got a little help from co-worker Derek Callaway.
Under contest rules, Macaulay and Miller aren't allowed to divulge specific details about their bugs until they are patched, but Macaulay said the flaw that he exploited was a cross-platform bug that took advantage of Java to circumvent Vista's security.
"The flaw is in something else, but the inherent nature of Java allowed us to get around the protections that Microsoft had in place," he said in an interview shortly after he claimed his prize Friday. "This could affect Linux or Mac OS X."
Macaulay said he chose to work on Vista because he had done contract work for Microsoft in the past and was more familiar with its products.
Although several attendees tried to crack the Linux box, nobody could pull it off, said Terri Forslof, a manager of security response with TippingPoint. "I was surprised that it didn't go," she said.
Some of the show's 400 attendees had found bugs in the Linux operating system, she said, but many of them didn't want to put the work into developing the exploit code that would be required to win the contest.
Earlier, Miller said that he chose to hack the Mac because he thought it would be easiest target. Vista hacker Macaulay didn't dispute that assertion: "I think it might be," he said.
I pledged, myself, as i use Firefox for a very long time, and it's been working good for me. I really hope they'll improve it's speed and reduce the high memory consumption, though.
) I decided to give up on the motherfucker and switched to Firefox with which I never had any such problems.
