|
|
Posted by dorayme on 05/03/06 03:23
In article <madf5216gerkk5omnvc4pc7pvmckaumv3h@4ax.com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:43:01 +1000, dorayme
> <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> This was a browser that was capable, but it certainly wasn't robust (or
> >> fit for use as a general web-browsing tool - far too many sites killed
> >> it dead).
> >
> >Well, I used it for years on OS 9 and it was very robust, more so
> >than any other browser I had. Or I was just lucky?
>
> When you were using it, sites weren't often using the (valid) features
> that are now more commonplace. The need to be even vaguely viewable
> under IE4 / NS4 limited what features sites tried to make use of. And of
> course, widespread CSS knowledge was almost negligible just a few years
> ago.
>
> If you try using IE5/Mac today, you'll run into a lot of sites that fail
> to render, and badly. The typical failure mode is large blank white
> spaces.
I don't use IE now for this reason and agree with most of your
raw data. A main reason for upgrading my equipment was to run X
and get better browsers. You did use the past tense and in that
you were wrong. IE was a very good and very robust one, it was
not as fickle as many other browsers when it came across bad
code. It was quite an achievement as a human construction and you
are losing site of the positives because its failings are so
extremely vivid nowadays.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|