Metropol

You say you don't want a skinned interface. Well Firebird's default theme gets the OS to draw most things so it fits really well into XP and if you want to really get an IE type look you could install the skin Luna which looks pretty much identical to IE6 in XP.

Can I just ask why you don't want to try Firebird?

I am going to, but it's not going to be my Default because, IIRC, it's still in devolpoment. I want something to completely replace IE.

Anyone got any ideas to get rid of IE on XP ?

I've tried all the alternative browsers, and for now I'm going to stick with IE. It's fairly mature code, most sites, rightly or wrongly assume it to be the browser of choice. You can't really go too far wrong. For those of you who groan about security holes, if you a decent product like Norton Internet Security and keep your definitions up-to-date, you will find that you have very few problems (if any).

Cheese Head wrote:I am going to, but it's not going to be my Default because, IIRC, it's still in devolpoment. I want something to completely replace IE.

I would say that Firebird is quite stable - I mean, I've never known it crash more often than Internet Explorer. Why not try it?

The Firebird Challenge!

Use Mozilla Firebird instead of Internet Explorer for a fortnight (making sure that all plugins are installed of course! Flash, Java, Shockwave...) and see how you get on!

If you don't like it, you haven't lost anything. Simple!

Do not confuse Mozilla Firebird with Firebird the database - otherwise you may find unexpected results! Doing the challenge may lead to: premature hair loss, depression, the tendency to scream at people and a liking for exotic fruit juices. We are not responsible for anything else that happens. You have been warned. Do not go to your solicitor or lawyer - they will just laugh at you. Your computer may burst into flames if you do not kiss your computer, dog, cat, or other pet, at least twice an hour. No refunds will be given, as you have not paid for anything. Anyone who has actually bothered to read this needs to get out more. People who say that I need to get out more will instantly be zapped into a million billion zillion tiny pieces, and no-one will bother to put you together again.

Cheese Head wrote:Anyone got any ideas to get rid of IE on XP ?

Don't. There are many applications that are extremely obstinate and require Internet Explorer. You could always get rid of XP...

Mozilla/Netcape are nasty. The reason why it never won the browser wars in the late 1990's was because it is crap. Even with a complete rewrite, it is pretty much the same. The Geko engine is not very good. The only thing I like about these alternative browsers is tabbed Windows.

Lord Wellington wrote:Even with a complete rewrite, it is pretty much the same. The Geko engine is not very good.

Can you justify these statements? Some examples of poor rendering for example?

Just use it, especially on web pages with multiple tables and controls like buttons and drop downs on them, and you'll find it doesnt render them correctly.

Lord Wellington wrote:Just use it, especially on web pages with multiple tables and controls like buttons and drop downs on them, and you'll find it doesnt render them correctly.

Any specific examples? Screengrabs for instance?

Lord Wellington wrote:Just use it, especially on web pages with multiple tables and controls like buttons and drop downs on them, and you'll find it doesnt render them correctly.

I think you'll find it renders everything "correctly." Could you give us some examples of what is so terrible about Gecko so we can counter lecture you on how bad IE is please?

(love the line in the tiny writing Mark)

If it renders everything correctly, why didn't AOL use it in it's client software? and if AOL didn't use Netscape, why should anybody else?

Netscape seems to have an inability to run scripts and render many webpages correctly. It doesn't fully support (implement correctly) the document object model. It also doesn't appear to fully implement all .css styles. I have discovered that Netscape also seems to require closing tags listed as optional, which are listed in the W3C HTML 4.0 specification as such.

I will post some examples of rendering issues shortly, although I am going to have to re-download the browser, so it might be tomorrow.

Lord Wellington wrote:If it renders everything correctly, why didn't AOL use it in it's client software? and if AOL didn't use Netscape, why should anybody else?

Netscape seems to have an inability to run scripts and render many webpages correctly. It doesn't fully support (implement correctly) the document object model. It also doesn't appear to fully implement all .css styles. I have discovered that Netscape also seems to require closing tags listed as optional, which are listed in the W3C HTML 4.0 specification as such.

I will post some examples of rendering issues shortly, although I am going to have to re-download the browser, so it might be tomorrow.

Well if you have to redownload get Firebird as it's the latest version of Gecko but only 6mb - http://www.mozilla.org

AOL didn't use Netscape as they only bought the thing so they could sue Microsoft.

I think you must be refering to IE specific things with the CSS. Gecko supports very advanced CSS2 and even some things in CSS3 (which is still a draft) aswell as fully supporting CSS1. IE claims to do this but it doesn't.

http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/ and
http://phoenity.com/newtedge/ give examples of good CSS tricks you can use - even my simpleish website renders considerable better in Mozilla than it does in IE because IE doesn't support proper CSS.

Which CSS are you refering to exactly? Scrollbars or something.

As for the DOM - The proper W3 DOM is supported fully but I'm not clued up on all so I won't really comment.

Remember Gecko renders things pretty strictly unlike IE which lets webmasters get away with any old rubbish but won't let them use anything good that is from the W3C.