Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kenarmy]

Idc what y'all say, Internet Explorer is never dying and it's always gonna be used in some capacity. Also, I don't think Edge is that bad. It's just... ugly.

[bulldog1979]

The property management system we use at the hotel where I work is web-/cloud-based. It's written as a series of modules, most of which have already been rewritten. The GM Functions module still relies on Silverlight though, so until the PMS vendor rewrites that last module, I'll need IE (or some legacy version of another browser that works with Silverlight) for several tasks. I'm sure the vendor is working on it though.

[OCGuy81]

It's amazing how many sites didn't work with IE, but would run just fine with Firefox, Chrome, hell even Safari on my iphone!

[hbelkins]

I'm not a huge fan of IE, but I can't really see that Edge is any better. We use SharePoint for maintaining our work Web site (ugh) and IE works best with it, not Edge.

As a Mac user, I can also say I'm not enamored with Safari either. I prefer Chrome or Firefox, but I know Chrome is falling out of favor with a lot of people because it's part of the Google behemoth.

[epzik8]

I used to like IE, but now I'm Chrome all the way.

[OCGuy81]

I used to like IE, but now I'm Chrome all the way.

Same here.  It's amazing how few sites seem to gel with IE.

[bwana39]

It'll be interesting to see how many programs that use IE for some purpose that aren't maintained anymore will die with this change.

Quicken, for example, uses IE to update accounts. I presume over the next year they can fix how that works. Hell for all I know they use the built in IE parts in Edge to do it and maybe have done so for years.

My wife has a work client that demands IE.  It will not even try with EDGE or Chrome. At least it works with Firefox.

[Scott5114]

I'm not sure why anyone uses Chrome, to be honest. Firefox works just as well or better and isn't feeding your data back to Google.

[Roadgeekteen]

I'm not sure why anyone uses Chrome, to be honest. Firefox works just as well or better and isn't feeding your data back to Google.

Chrome works better with gmail and other google services.

[seicer]

I'm not a huge fan of IE, but I can't really see that Edge is any better. We use SharePoint for maintaining our work Web site (ugh) and IE works best with it, not Edge.

As a Mac user, I can also say I'm not enamored with Safari either. I prefer Chrome or Firefox, but I know Chrome is falling out of favor with a lot of people because it's part of the Google behemoth.

From professional experience and knowledge (SharePoint SME here), the KYTC is on a deprecated version of SharePoint that has long been replaced by a much more modern and compatible experience. It's pretty bad when KYTC's sites aren't fully accessible to those with disabilities (which is a huge liability and lawsuit waiting to happen).

For what it's worth, the new Edge is based on Chromium which is what Chrome is based upon. So if you like Chrome, you'll have a very similar experience with Edge - with the same extensions to boot. It even has IE compatibility tabs so that if a vendor still has not updated their seriously old applications, then it will still work.

[Scott5114]

I'm not sure why anyone uses Chrome, to be honest. Firefox works just as well or better and isn't feeding your data back to Google.

Chrome works better with gmail and other google services.

I have absolutely no problem using Gmail in Firefox, and I have three accounts through it, two of which are business accounts.

Google Maps might work better in Chrome. It spikes the processor like crazy in Firefox. But that is Google Maps' problem to fix, not Firefox's.

If a service does not work as intended in a standards-compliant browser, it is the service's fault, not the standards or the browser.

[vdeane]

I'm not sure why anyone uses Chrome, to be honest. Firefox works just as well or better and isn't feeding your data back to Google.

Chrome works better with gmail and other google services.

I have absolutely no problem using Gmail in Firefox, and I have three accounts through it, two of which are business accounts.

Google Maps might work better in Chrome. It spikes the processor like crazy in Firefox. But that is Google Maps' problem to fix, not Firefox's.

If a service does not work as intended in a standards-compliant browser, it is the service's fault, not the standards or the browser.

At this point, probably because everyone else uses.  I did look into it when Google started throwing their weight around (also when Google decided that the solution to the memory usage problem was to suspend all tabs but the visible one and then reload them when you switch, making browsing extremely annoying and making me lose my place on pages; I ended up installing an extension to stop this, but it means I now need to be careful with Facebook, as Google also changed things to allow a site to max out the computer's RAM).  In my case, I'm still on Chrome because I like the interface, I use the bookmark sync and reading list features to make navigating between my desktop, laptop, and phone easier, I like that I can add any search engine I want (Firefox requires extensions for this; on the other hand, Firefox comes with StartPage, which needs an extension on Chrome as it doesn't do queries by URL), and I use the ability to block JavaScript on a per-site basis to get around sites that block adblockers or incognito browsing (usually paywalled news sites on the latter), which Firefox lacks.  Plus the font difference makes many sites, including my own, look weird and IMO less aesthetically pleasing than on Chromium-based browsers.

In the past, the built-in Flash and PDF viewers were also a draw, but that's not much of an issue on the modern internet; other browsers have caught up with PDFs and Flash is dead.

That issue with Google Maps makes it seem like Chrome is well on its way to being a modern-day IE6.

[1]

Safari works pretty well for me. I've encountered very few things that don't work if any. Images load on this forum when they don't for others.

Private browsing is truly undetectable (it works differently from the way Chrome's incognito works), so I can usually access the New York Times and other paywalled sites without issue.

There are two issues I have:
1. There's no way to warn "this is a download, do you want to do it". The only way to do so (which I've enabled) is for it to ask where you want your download to go and then click cancel if I don't want to download it. Fortunately, despite the number of webpages saying "download PDF", viewing them doesn't require downloading.
2. Any website with an expired certificate, as well as any website that isn't allowed on that wifi (e.g. at any university you're not a member of, pretty much everything except the university website), gives the same warning message as a suspected phishing link.

[vdeane]

1. There's no way to warn "this is a download, do you want to do it". The only way to do so (which I've enabled) is for it to ask where you want your download to go and then click cancel if I don't want to download it. Fortunately, despite the number of webpages saying "download PDF", viewing them doesn't require downloading.

This is an issue with Chromium-based browsers too.  It's annoying that there's no way to say "I don't want to keep this, just directly open the cached copy instead of saving it permanently" - especially when a site forces you to download something that should be viewable in-browser, like an image or PDF.

[seicer]

1. There's no way to warn "this is a download, do you want to do it". The only way to do so (which I've enabled) is for it to ask where you want your download to go and then click cancel if I don't want to download it. Fortunately, despite the number of webpages saying "download PDF", viewing them doesn't require downloading.

This is an issue with Chromium-based browsers too.  It's annoying that there's no way to say "I don't want to keep this, just directly open the cached copy instead of saving it permanently" - especially when a site forces you to download something that should be viewable in-browser, like an image or PDF.

It really depends if the site has a viewer or not, too. With our SharePoint sites, clicking a PDF in any browser will allow the document to be viewed in the browser.

[Scott5114]

At this point, probably because everyone else uses.  I did look into it when Google started throwing their weight around (also when Google decided that the solution to the memory usage problem was to suspend all tabs but the visible one and then reload them when you switch, making browsing extremely annoying and making me lose my place on pages; I ended up installing an extension to stop this, but it means I now need to be careful with Facebook, as Google also changed things to allow a site to max out the computer's RAM).

I actually have a Firefox extension (Auto Tab Discard) that enables this behavior on Firefox, although it only does so when a tab is inactive for a set amount of time, and when reloaded the view remains the same.

...and I use the ability to block JavaScript on a per-site basis to get around sites that block adblockers or incognito browsing (usually paywalled news sites on the latter), which Firefox lacks.

This is also doable on Firefox with an extension (YesScript2). It allows you to "semi-block" a page as well, which blocks some subset of JavaScript features but not all of them.

I've never run into a site that seemed to know I was browsing with Firefox's Private Browsing mode, nor can I imagine a way a site could detect such a thing. I suspect Chrome sends some signal communicating such to the site, probably because the Chrome devs see making a Web browser as a means to provide additional opportunities for capitalism, while Firefox devs see it as a means to provide additional opportunities for communication. Looking at it from the Firefox perspective, whether or not you are in Private Browsing mode is none of the website's business.

Plus the font difference makes many sites, including my own, look weird and IMO less aesthetically pleasing than on Chromium-based browsers.

I am pretty much going to experience font differences no matter what, as the "web-safe" font set (Arial, Times New Roman, Verdana, Trebuchet, et al) is completely absent on Linux, and these font names are aliased to other fonts with equivalent metrics (any specification of "Arial" is aliased to "Liberation Sans", for instance). Even then, I notice periodic variations based on underlying infrastructure changes in what I can only assume is the X server or the window manager—there seem to be two versions of the DejaVu font package that I use as the default sans-serif font when none is specified by stylesheet, and which one I see swaps back and forth from time to time when I upgrade system versions.

Font rendering and choices are starting to matter less and less now that websites can provide a Web font and ask the browser to render it in that. You can choose whatever font you want and not have to worry about whether the user has it installed or not. This is made easier by Google hosting a wide array of these font files that can then be specified in CSS by simply copy-pasting from the Google Fonts page.

1. There's no way to warn "this is a download, do you want to do it". The only way to do so (which I've enabled) is for it to ask where you want your download to go and then click cancel if I don't want to download it. Fortunately, despite the number of webpages saying "download PDF", viewing them doesn't require downloading.

This is an issue with Chromium-based browsers too.  It's annoying that there's no way to say "I don't want to keep this, just directly open the cached copy instead of saving it permanently" - especially when a site forces you to download something that should be viewable in-browser, like an image or PDF.

The way that Firefox handles it, at least on Linux, is to save the file to a cache directory in systemland somewhere (mine is /tmp/mozilla_scott0/—my Linux username is scott so I'm guessing the 0 is to separate multiple Firefox profiles; I'm guessing it would use a subdirectory of its install directory on Windows) and then periodically clean up the directory after files are no longer being used.

It really depends if the site has a viewer or not, too. With our SharePoint sites, clicking a PDF in any browser will allow the document to be viewed in the browser.

I think it's pretty silly to provide an embedded PDF viewer in a Web page anyway. I have my own PDF viewer preferences, let me use those instead of enduring your reinvention of the wheel cause you think it's nifty-looking!

[bandit957]

Firefox used to be really good and fast, but when you open a website with more recent versions, you may want to bring a book.

[hbelkins]

I'm not a huge fan of IE, but I can't really see that Edge is any better. We use SharePoint for maintaining our work Web site (ugh) and IE works best with it, not Edge.

As a Mac user, I can also say I'm not enamored with Safari either. I prefer Chrome or Firefox, but I know Chrome is falling out of favor with a lot of people because it's part of the Google behemoth.

From professional experience and knowledge (SharePoint SME here), the KYTC is on a deprecated version of SharePoint that has long been replaced by a much more modern and compatible experience. It's pretty bad when KYTC's sites aren't fully accessible to those with disabilities (which is a huge liability and lawsuit waiting to happen).

I get the feeling that the prevailing school of thought was, "We paid big money for this package, so we're going to use it in as many ways as possible."

During the last redesign of the sites, the intent was to make the pages more mobile-friendly, and I was under the impression that accessibility issues were going to be addressed as well.

[US71]

Firefox used to be really good and fast, but when you open a website with more recent versions, you may want to bring a book.

They are constantly updating. Every couple weeks I get a "We have updated your browser"

[kphoger]

So...  I'm wondering...

For work, I run a program (CSG FSM) supplied by one of the MSOs we work for.  Inside that program, one of the applications automatically opens in Internet Explorer.  Does anyone know for sure what will happen after next month?

[seicer]

Once the patch or group policy comes into effect next month, users will be directed to Edge. I'm not sure how CSG FSM has coded it - perhaps it's a hard-coded link to open just IE, but it should redirect to Edge.

Has your local sysadmin set up a local site list for IE mode for Edge (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/deployedge/edge-ie-mode-local-site-list)? If you have the link that that application is opening, you can send it to your sysadmin and they can add it to the local site list so that you can use Edge's IE mode (File > Reload in Internet Explorer mode).

We have just *one* application that "relies" on IE. Works fine in Edge but the developer refuses to update it... so we are having to add it to the local site list until we replace it in a few months.

[bandit957]

Explorer is the only browser I know of that lets you open one of your pages as a text file and edit it. What are we supposed to do now to edit pages?

[kphoger]

We have just *one* application that "relies" on IE. Works fine in Edge but the developer refuses to update it... so we are having to add it to the local site list until we replace it in a few months.

I just tried the URL for the application in both Chrome and Edge, and it told me 'invalid username' for both.  I could log in again, and it work, but it took me to a different application within the same site instead.  Hmm......

[Scott5114]

Explorer is the only browser I know of that lets you open one of your pages as a text file and edit it. What are we supposed to do now to edit pages?

You can always save an HTML file to disk and open it in any plain-text editor.

Additionally, in Firefox, you can right click any part of the page and click "Inspect" and it will display the HTML of the page. If you change it, the version of the page loaded in memory will change. I'm not really sure if there's a way to save any changes to disk, but at least you can have fun making people say things they would never actually say.

[rickmastfan67]

Explorer is the only browser I know of that lets you open one of your pages as a text file and edit it. What are we supposed to do now to edit pages?

You can always save an HTML file to disk and open it in any plain-text editor.

Additionally, in Firefox, you can right click any part of the page and click "Inspect" and it will display the HTML of the page. If you change it, the version of the page loaded in memory will change. I'm not really sure if there's a way to save any changes to disk, but at least you can have fun making people say things they would never actually say.

For sure.