# Apple dumping IE?!?



## hazmat (Sep 18, 2002)

Check out http://www.spymac.com/ .  Looks like Apple may finally be dumping IE as its default browser.


----------



## iMan (Sep 18, 2002)

I hope they will... I use chimera all the time.. it's a fast browser but feels some times incomplet, but with apple supporting it that would change I'm sure.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Sep 18, 2002)

I really think Apple will dump IE soon too. All signs point to it. 

Navigator has come a long way very quickly. And who knows what Apple is doing with the Gecko rending engine, deep inside Cupertino. Apple's browser may not be based on Navigator, but just on the Gecko engine. Apple could develop it's own front end, as that leaves only the rendering engine as the open source component. 

If Apple uses the current Navigator front end, it will have to make the source code available, which is not really in Apple's style.

I do hope Apple is actually working off of the Navigator code, as it will give them a leg up in development time, and the collaboration between the mothership and the open source developers would be a boon. Any help Apple can get maintaining it's software for free is definitely a plus. 

Then again, maybe Apple hired David Hyatt to work on some other project completely unrelated to a Gecko based browser, and just plans to use Navigator as is instead of IE. 

Either way, IE is slow, buggy, and is woefully neglected under OS X. 3 years ago it was the best browser on any platform, and Microsoft has seemingly completely abadoned development on it, leaving it in maitenance mode.


----------



## Ricky (Sep 18, 2002)

Apple seems to be trying to dump Microsoft altogether, given the recent scores of Switch ads and the lack of Microsoft's support for OS X.  Windows recently got WMP 8, and we're still stuck with 7.  It appears that we'll soon be switching browsers as well.

Could this mean that we may finally be blessed with another Apple-branded browser?  

This is very exciting news.  If we can get Chimera developed to the final stages, we can also be certain that IE will be history.


----------



## fryke (Sep 18, 2002)

Sorry to interrupt here, but 'lack of MS support for OS X'? There's MS Office v. X, a completely carbonized version of Office. It has some features over MS Office 2001 mac:edition and even some over Office XP. If you call MS' support for OS X lacking, look at Adobe. It took them half a year longer to finish Photoshop 7.

If - at all - it was Microsoft critizising Apple for 'lack of support for OS X' which started Apple parting ways with Microsoft. And if that's a good thing or a bad thing, we'll see later, as for now Microsoft is still selling Office v. X.

Whether or not MS is developing further versions of Internet Explorer for Mac OS X doesn't really matter, as there are plenty of good alternatives, but as of yet, there is not one good alternative for Office v. X that has good compatibility.

I don't want Apple to push another browser instead of IE. I want Apple to include a crop of new builds of all good browsers around with Mac OS X and ask the user which one to use, when the user first wants to use the web.

To push their own browser (or another if they don't make one of their own) means to neglect others.

If Apple thinks there is no decent OS X browser, they should create their own iApp for it, but there's enough, no need to 'choose' one. Shouldn't Apple be pushing people to the fact that there IS choice in software today? The attitude of 'there can be only one' should be restricted to Microsoft and Highlander sequels.


----------



## adambyte (Sep 18, 2002)

I agree. I think installing multiple browsers is the smart thing to do. And I think it's about *$%&ing time that Apple dropped M$.... the biggest problem will be dropping Office. Perhaps an Office-compatible mutation of AppleWorks is in the.... works?


----------



## wtmcgee (Sep 18, 2002)

openoffice.org perhaps?



> _Originally posted by adambyte _
> *I agree. I think installing multiple browsers is the smart thing to do. And I think it's about *$%&ing time that Apple dropped M$.... the biggest problem will be dropping Office. Perhaps an Office-compatible mutation of AppleWorks is in the.... works? *


----------



## 90X Double Side (Sep 18, 2002)

I think it's perfectly fair to say that MS has abandoned the Mac since they've carbonized all their apps, but they haven't actually developed any of them. Heck, they didn't even bother to put a real cocoa interface on IE when they carbonized it, and Office v.X featured almost no new features beyond the ones it got for free from the OS (i.e. Quartz).

I would say that Adobe's support of OS X, while it took longer coming, is at a quite acceptable level and far superior to Microsoft's. We get the same versions of all their apps as Windows users, at the same time as Windows users, with actual new features. MS just charged everyone $200 to use the same app with the same feature set on a new OS.


----------



## drash (Sep 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by viktor _
> *I hope they will... I use chimera all the time.. it's a fast browser but feels some times incomplet, but with apple supporting it that would change I'm sure. *



Chimera is the best browser on Mac OS X so far.  I really like the tabbed new window feature.  Probably why it is so fast with multiple sites open at once since it doesn't have to resort to system calls for new windows for each web page.  There are no MDI windows in OS X either which is also perhaps why Office v.X appears slower than Windows equivalents of Office.


----------



## Dradts (Sep 19, 2002)

I don't think that it would be a good idea for Apple to develop its own webbrowser! 

Just think of all the webdevelopers who don't have macs at their workingplaces or at home. And if they don't have the ability to test their webseites on a Mac, most Webseites will look ugly or messed up on the Apple Browser, as long as it is not 100% MS IE compatible.


----------



## symphonix (Sep 19, 2002)

I disagree. If Apple did develop their own browser, it would almost certainly be based on the mozilla open-source project which is the basis for chimera, netscape and even - to some extent - internet explorer. so compatibility would be not as much of an issue as you'd think. 
The open source mozilla follows the guidelines of the W3C (world wide web consortium) a lot more closely than MS ever does.


----------



## sheepguy42 (Sep 19, 2002)

Apple has been very loud about their support of Standards, so any developer who follows the standards shouldn't need a Mac in-house (they may use it as an excuse to buy one, though  ).
As far as the multiple browser idea goes, I think it is always a good idea to know what your choices are. However, most users (AKA potential switchers) don't know anything about the advantages and/or disadvantages of browsers other than IE.  I spend much of my time helping college/High School/Grade School students, teachers, adults, and senior citizens how to use computers - and a surprising number of them don't even know about Netscape anymore. Your average computer user, in my experience, knows IE for Windows, and assumes that everything that doesn't workthere doesn't work anywhere else. 
Now, maybe if Apple gave these choices with a list of at least the advantages of each (in terms an average user can understand) then the choices will be a good idea. Otherwise, the people who tell me "using a Mac is confusing, I don't know where anything is and nothing makes sense, Windows is simpler/easier" would be right when it comes to the current #1 use of computers in homes and computer labs: Browsing.


----------



## Ricky (Sep 19, 2002)

The only browser that displays my web site correctly so far is Chimera because it follows HTML guidelines so well.    I've compared a lot of pages in IE and Chimera, and to be frank, there is no noticable difference.  There are some areas where Chimera lags behind IE right now, though, such as managing the cache, Java support is also sub-par, and Flash and Quicktime loading are a bit buggy.  With Apple behind the project, though, it could become the best browser out there.  No doubt in my mind.

iBrowse (No, not eyebrows.  ), here we come.


----------



## davidbrit2 (Sep 19, 2002)

Here's my take on the current browsers available: (Correct me on these if I'm wrong; I don't want to be missing out on any good web browsers!)

IE - Too basic. I can't filter images, or script actions. It seems like it's designed for the benefits of advertisers and spammers rather than the users.

OmniWeb - Slow, but allows the advanced user to filter things like images, scripts, cookies, and all that other evil stuff on the Internet.

iCab - I really wish this would get developed more, because it stands to be the best. It's customization features are mind blowing, but it currently has too many rendering and stability issues to be completely usable.

Chimera - It seems to work quite well, since it's based on Mozilla, but like IE, it's just too basic. I wouldn't be surprised if this changes in time, though, since the browser's Cocoa interface is being built from the ground up.

Mozilla - This one has gotten much better lately. Pre 1.0 versions were completely unusable for a number of reasons. The 1.1 build seems quite nice (I'm using right now,) but I would like to be able to filter images based on URL patterns, rather than just by originating server. Oh well. One complaint isn't too bad.


----------



## chevy (Sep 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by wtmcgee _
> *openoffice.org perhaps?
> 
> *



Good point, we need a good build of OpenOffice.

For browser, they are more than enough excellent browsers... as long as you don't Java !


----------



## plastic (Sep 20, 2002)

I still think that the best alternative right now, Chimera, is a little unstable on my iMac G4 after the x.2 update. Darn, what did I do wrong? But even this slighty "under powered" browser is still a dream to use. I am so addicted to the "Open in new tab" function that I don't think browsing experience can be the same ever, without it.

Chimera rocks. Until someone comes along and toppli it with something better. IE... pass... they can have that few MB back. I don't need it.


----------



## hazmat (Sep 20, 2002)

plastic: try one of the latest nightly builds, if you haven't already.  They are now building under 10.2.  There's a really cool app called Chimera Knight that will automatically download and install the latest nightly builds for you.  Even backs up the current one in case of a problem.


----------



## phatsharpie (Sep 21, 2002)

I love Chimera, but what I'd love to see is for the Mozilla team to release a version of Mozilla with just the browser and none of the other bundled applications that I simply do not use. There is no technical reason that prevents it. It's an option for OS 9 and below users and Windows users, so what about use OS X users?!


----------



## mdnky (Sep 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Dradts _
> *I don't think that it would be a good idea for Apple to develop its own webbrowser!
> 
> Just think of all the webdevelopers who don't have macs at their workingplaces or at home. And if they don't have the ability to test their webseites on a Mac, most Webseites will look ugly or messed up on the Apple Browser, as long as it is not 100% MS IE compatible. *



I'd have to agree as a web designer, though I use my Mac when designing.   I usually test on IE, and double check in Netscape to make sure everything looks good.  However, every site I've designed harldy sees anything but IE.  Most are hit by IE 85% (was the lowest), many are hit 90+% of the time.   On one site I had more hits from Konqueror and iCab than Netscape, and Lynx almost had more!  Below is the visit stats by browser from a fire department site I do, for the past 90 days.

IE                        1856
(known robots)    1238
(likely robots)       198
WebTV                 158
Konqueror            87
iCab                     63
Mozilla                  41
Netscape              19
Lynx                    17
(unknown)           8

To the average person, they use what comes on the computer.  Everybody knows Internet Explorer.  A few know of Netscape, some think AOL is a browser, and a few of us Internet Junkies still use Lynx.  Getting rid of IE would IMHO hurt Apple because people know the name, and trust it.

Personally I do like the idea of having competition, and definately have a disgust towards Microsoft.  However, as a designer I like only having to worry about how it looks on 1 or 2 browsers, makes my life easier.  If the world was perfect, everyone would follow standards.  It isn't though, and in reality IE is the "assumed" standard of the internet...those numbers above kinda prove it beyond doubt.

If they'd put some energy into tweaking IE on the Mac, they would have the market.  A bit more stable, quite a bit faster, etc...that's all it needs.  I haven't had the chance to test it on 10.2 yet or on a newer machine.  I'm on 10.1.5, IE 5.2.1 on a G3 300 desktop.  Netscape is useless due to the turtle like pace, Chimera is unstable, Opera is fast but lacks usability, and OmniWeb is a bit slow and lacks usability.


----------



## earector (Sep 22, 2002)

I use IE most of the time, but I also use OmniWeb. I set OmniWeb to be recognized as IE because so many sites are designed for IE. Whether this makes any difference or not I don't know.

I do have Java problems with OmniWeb, so my online banking only gets done with IE. 

Oh, and for what's it's worth, I love MS Office on X. Sure, Word is bloated, but I still love it.



> _Originally posted by mdnky _
> *
> 
> However, every site I've designed harldy sees anything but IE.  Most are hit by IE 85% (was the lowest), many are hit 90+% of the time.    *


----------



## rbuenger (Sep 22, 2002)

Hi, why does everyone develop his page for the IE or Netscape. Why aren't you making your page 100% HTML conform. If you make this your page is ok in every browser. And if it looks ugly in one browser this browser thould be trashed.

i'm writting my pages manually with BBEdit and they are always 100% HTML 4.01. Never had any problems with one or another browser. Alwas looks like it should exept for the framespacing in IE. But thats a fault in the IE and the user who use it must live with it or use a browser who can display HTMl pages correctly.

So stop using those designer programms for people who can't code HTML and make your pages HTMl conform.


----------



## mdnky (Sep 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by rbuenger _
> *Hi, why does everyone develop his page for the IE or Netscape. Why aren't you making your page 100% HTML conform. If you make this your page is ok in every browser. And if it looks ugly in one browser this browser thould be trashed.
> 
> i'm writting my pages manually with BBEdit and they are always 100% HTML 4.01. Never had any problems with one or another browser. Alwas looks like it should exept for the framespacing in IE. But thats a fault in the IE and the user who use it must live with it or use a browser who can display HTMl pages correctly.
> ...



If I wanted to code manually I could, however it doesn't make good business sense to do so.  While I wish it were as easy to make the code 100% conforming, it's not that case.  When a minimum of 80-90% of the audience for a site is using IE, you have to make sure it properly displays in that browser.  To do otherwise is very bad for business.  Remember, clients generally don't care if something is compliant to a standard they've never heard of.  If they know about standards, generally they would be doing their own site instead of paying for one.  They do want a clean, functional site that looks good to their target audience.  They're intrested in providing a service, information, or product to the public...and to make money.  First impressions are very important in business, and to some people if a website displays incorrectly they may go somewhere else.  If you play the numbers game then you realize that displaying in IE correctly is the utmost priority for a business.

As much as I hate to say it, I think everyone forgets that W3C standards are recomendations by an entity which doesn't actually have any real control.  Remember the saying "Possession is 9/10 the law"?  IE dominates the browser market by a substantial amount...and though we may not like it we have to deal with it.  Those who don't are left behind.

My pages tend to look great in every browser, however if I have to make a compromise then it's towards IE everytime.  To do otherwise is bad business.  Maybe someday this will all change, but I am uncertain to that hope.  I would love to be able to code 100% conforming everytime.


----------



## googolplex (Sep 22, 2002)

Web designers only hurt themselves in the long run by thinking that way.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Sep 23, 2002)

But it is 100% true.  If You were to create a website for a client that was 100% html 4.01 compliant, and it didn't display correctly for the majority of the sites visitors, do you think that client would come to you again when it comes time for a change?  I do cringe everytime I write something specificaly for the interface of IE but it's something that I've had to deal with.  
Basicaly it is all a work around for bugs in the browser...  if iCab, Netscape, or Omniweb was the most used browser on the planet we would be coding to make sure they appear correct in it.

I used to think the exact opposite,  I thought that we should code correctly and all the browsers would follow. Sadly that day has never come.   
Money talks pretty loud.  As soon as you get one customer calling you up because their page doesn't look right... inevitably in IE, you'll start coding to make it correct.


----------



## googolplex (Sep 23, 2002)

If nobody takes the lead to change things, things never will change. If the web as a whole wants to overcome the dominance of Microsoft and others the developers (who understand this issue but choose to ignore it to make their lives easier for the short term) need to take a stand.


----------



## sheepguy42 (Sep 23, 2002)

I think the point is that there are too many developers for all of them to take a stand; customers would simply switch to the developers whose sites work in the most popular browser.

On another note, I know it probably means at most like a 1% difference, but I (and many others) use OmniWeb set to pretend to servers that it is IE for Windows. As such, visitor stats can be somewhat affected by this.


----------

