Nice to see the diversity. I'm shocked that Google Chrome passed Safari already. does this include mobile web browsing? if so i'd expect Safari to be doing a lot better than that (with all the preloaded macs/iphones out there)
@SmilinGoat - Google Chrome FTL! IE is slow but works with everything. Firefox is quicker and has a billion plugins and works with 99% of things.
It doesn't matter how quick Google Chrome is if it doesn't work. It won't remember forms half the time, doesn't populate my ticketing system at all, several browser games crash or won't launch... an exercise in frustration.
@Ducman69 Try Google Chrome 4.0 beta. Sure, it's beta (Google keeps things in beta for ages), but it works with everything I've thrown at it and has extensions as well. For the few webpages that work better in IE (like my corporate webmail), I use the IE Tab extension. Works like a charm and is sooo much faster than any other browser!
You don't seem to have a functional understanding of the word "everything". IE got a 20% rating on the ACID3 web compatibility test. Does that sound like it's compatible with "everything" to you? Safari, on the other hand, got a 100%. So did Mobile Safari. 100% sounds much more like "everything" to me.
I have written it to you before, and I will write it again:
ACID3 is not standards compliant. For example, HTML5 is used, but HTML5 is still a draft and not yet a standard/recommendation. If any browser supports HTML5, it is not standards compliant. ACID3 requires downloadable TrueType fonts, but as of yet no existing standard nor draft supports true type font support. The spec requires a specific type of OpenType font, but if you use them the ACID3 test fails. Also, a quote from WikiPedia: "[T]he test also uses Base64 encoded images, some more advanced selectors, CSS 3 color values (HSLA) as well as bogus selectors and values that should be ignored."
Also, while something may pass a test, it does not necessarily mean that the test verifies all a browser can handle. For example, I spent hours last week working around bugs in Safari that rendered properly in IE, FF, and Opera. CSS tags that needed to be in different orders, script code that did not work in Safari (specifically finding the location of a parent element using offsetParent works in all browsers except Safari) that worked fine in the other 3, CSS attributes that worked fine in all browsers, but in Safari you needed to reorder unrelated attributes for them to be recognized (background color and position should not rely upon position), and many more.
This "It passes ACID3, so therefore it is a great browser" attitude is a joke.
But what I do think is funny, is that Engadget decides to alienate 62.69% of their possible users with piss poor IE support (javascript errors abound, invalid HTML that fails in all browsers, and more) just so they can cater to their most favored of users.
@Jack Except bad web developers still develop for IE only, meaning Safari/Firefox/Chrome's ratings on the Acid test don't mean shit because the developer didn't use standards. It's sad, but true. Now, I use the Dev version of Chrome (Think beta of a beta) and I have very little problems with it, but there are some sites that work better in Firefox (haven't come across any that require IE lately though). Some sites still don't know what Chrome is (since its still fairly new) and just don't know what to do with it... which can cause some problems. My online college class site doesn't like Chrome just because it doesn't know what Chrome is (and I know because it tells you).
@NohOne1 "Engadget decides to alienate 62.69% of their possible useres with piss poor IE support"
actually, IE users are alienating themselves for using the worst possible browser on Earth. Granted, some people don't know that there are superior browsers available so that's where we come in. We all have to pitch in and contribute to spread Safari/Chrome/FireFox/Opera awareness. Together we can liberate everyone from the horror that is IE.
"Together we can liberate everyone from the horror that is IE."
I pledge allegiance, To the iPod Of the Apple Computer Corp. Of America And to the Corporation, For Which it Stands One Dictatorship, Under Steve Jobs, With Conformity, and being a Sell Out For All
I think your problem is that you see things like ActiveX as a "standard", when in fact it's 100% proprietary. Do you understand the difference between something that is a universal standard and something that is proprietary?
Do you understand that when you have to program a site a different way just so that it works with IE, that is not the same thing as being "standards compliant"? Your bitching about poor IE support basically means that you're bitching that Engadget isn't programming proprietary bullshit into the site just so IE works better with it.
In other words, Engadget is a site that is standards compliant. The fact that you don't like that is simply proof that you're living in your own little universe where IE is a good browser that supports all standards. You know, imagination land. Fantasy Island. Whatever you want to call it.
I think it's funny people are always going on and on about "standards". People always complain that websites have to be coded for IE and on and on and on. But let's look at some numbers, shall we.
IE has 62.69% of all browser share. This article also goes on to point out that 21% of all browser share is still going to IE6. Now that's a vast majority of users right there, all going to IE. So what becomes standard?
Sure there is the defined "standard", but if the vast majority of users are using what isn't defined as "standard" couldn't it be argued that what they are using is indeed the standard. They are the majority therefore they are the standard.
People may hate coding for IE, but that's where the userbase is, so live with it. Get on with your life. Hell, maybe they should drop coding for the "standard" and just code for IE - I mean again, that's where the users obviously are.
Standards may be better, but when your users aren't using them, who cares?
Should Microsoft adopt standards? It would be nice wouldn't it. But it's not the way the world works. Microsoft has their way of doing things and they're free to do what they want.
I know you're going to try and argue that it's because users don't know of other browsers and standards and some BS like that....
The Galaxy Tab 10.1, much like its Limited Edition sibling that we reviewed last month, is ever-so-slightly thinner than the iPad 2, a slate that most sane individuals (and competitors, for that matter) would confess is the market leader today.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Nice to see the diversity. I'm shocked that Google Chrome passed Safari already. does this include mobile web browsing? if so i'd expect Safari to be doing a lot better than that (with all the preloaded macs/iphones out there)
either way Google Crome ftmfw!!!!
@SmilinGoat - Google Chrome FTL! IE is slow but works with everything. Firefox is quicker and has a billion plugins and works with 99% of things.
It doesn't matter how quick Google Chrome is if it doesn't work. It won't remember forms half the time, doesn't populate my ticketing system at all, several browser games crash or won't launch... an exercise in frustration.
@Ducman69 Try Google Chrome 4.0 beta. Sure, it's beta (Google keeps things in beta for ages), but it works with everything I've thrown at it and has extensions as well. For the few webpages that work better in IE (like my corporate webmail), I use the IE Tab extension. Works like a charm and is sooo much faster than any other browser!
@Ducman69
You don't seem to have a functional understanding of the word "everything". IE got a 20% rating on the ACID3 web compatibility test. Does that sound like it's compatible with "everything" to you? Safari, on the other hand, got a 100%. So did Mobile Safari. 100% sounds much more like "everything" to me.
@Jack
I have written it to you before, and I will write it again:
ACID3 is not standards compliant. For example, HTML5 is used, but HTML5 is still a draft and not yet a standard/recommendation. If any browser supports HTML5, it is not standards compliant. ACID3 requires downloadable TrueType fonts, but as of yet no existing standard nor draft supports true type font support. The spec requires a specific type of OpenType font, but if you use them the ACID3 test fails. Also, a quote from WikiPedia: "[T]he test also uses Base64 encoded images, some more advanced selectors, CSS 3 color values (HSLA) as well as bogus selectors and values that should be ignored."
Also, while something may pass a test, it does not necessarily mean that the test verifies all a browser can handle. For example, I spent hours last week working around bugs in Safari that rendered properly in IE, FF, and Opera. CSS tags that needed to be in different orders, script code that did not work in Safari (specifically finding the location of a parent element using offsetParent works in all browsers except Safari) that worked fine in the other 3, CSS attributes that worked fine in all browsers, but in Safari you needed to reorder unrelated attributes for them to be recognized (background color and position should not rely upon position), and many more.
This "It passes ACID3, so therefore it is a great browser" attitude is a joke.
But what I do think is funny, is that Engadget decides to alienate 62.69% of their possible users with piss poor IE support (javascript errors abound, invalid HTML that fails in all browsers, and more) just so they can cater to their most favored of users.
@Jack
im sorry, but as the owner of a iPhone, mobile safari certainly is NOT 100% compatible with everything.
@Jack Except bad web developers still develop for IE only, meaning Safari/Firefox/Chrome's ratings on the Acid test don't mean shit because the developer didn't use standards. It's sad, but true. Now, I use the Dev version of Chrome (Think beta of a beta) and I have very little problems with it, but there are some sites that work better in Firefox (haven't come across any that require IE lately though). Some sites still don't know what Chrome is (since its still fairly new) and just don't know what to do with it... which can cause some problems. My online college class site doesn't like Chrome just because it doesn't know what Chrome is (and I know because it tells you).
@NohOne1
"...Engadget decides to alienate 62.69% of their possible users..."
That number is for the internet at large. For sites such as Engadget, IE users are typically the minority.
@NohOne1 "Engadget decides to alienate 62.69% of their possible useres with piss poor IE support"
actually, IE users are alienating themselves for using the worst possible browser on Earth. Granted, some people don't know that there are superior browsers available so that's where we come in. We all have to pitch in and contribute to spread Safari/Chrome/FireFox/Opera awareness. Together we can liberate everyone from the horror that is IE.
@HighestRanked
"Together we can liberate everyone from the horror that is IE."
I pledge allegiance,
To the iPod
Of the Apple Computer Corp. Of America
And to the Corporation,
For Which it Stands
One Dictatorship,
Under Steve Jobs,
With Conformity, and being a Sell Out
For All
Hater
@SmilinGoat
That's nice, but where did I say it was? I said it passed the ACID3 test at 100%. And it does. Anything else I can help you with?
@NohOne1
I think your problem is that you see things like ActiveX as a "standard", when in fact it's 100% proprietary. Do you understand the difference between something that is a universal standard and something that is proprietary?
Do you understand that when you have to program a site a different way just so that it works with IE, that is not the same thing as being "standards compliant"? Your bitching about poor IE support basically means that you're bitching that Engadget isn't programming proprietary bullshit into the site just so IE works better with it.
In other words, Engadget is a site that is standards compliant. The fact that you don't like that is simply proof that you're living in your own little universe where IE is a good browser that supports all standards. You know, imagination land. Fantasy Island. Whatever you want to call it.
@Jack:
I think it's funny people are always going on and on about "standards". People always complain that websites have to be coded for IE and on and on and on. But let's look at some numbers, shall we.
IE has 62.69% of all browser share. This article also goes on to point out that 21% of all browser share is still going to IE6. Now that's a vast majority of users right there, all going to IE. So what becomes standard?
Sure there is the defined "standard", but if the vast majority of users are using what isn't defined as "standard" couldn't it be argued that what they are using is indeed the standard. They are the majority therefore they are the standard.
People may hate coding for IE, but that's where the userbase is, so live with it. Get on with your life. Hell, maybe they should drop coding for the "standard" and just code for IE - I mean again, that's where the users obviously are.
Standards may be better, but when your users aren't using them, who cares?
Should Microsoft adopt standards? It would be nice wouldn't it. But it's not the way the world works. Microsoft has their way of doing things and they're free to do what they want.
I know you're going to try and argue that it's because users don't know of other browsers and standards and some BS like that....
@HighestRanked
So be kinda like EU and force MS to advertise for competitor's browsers right?