OSNews

I agree... NeoSmart Technologies has some really great and innovative stuff that's really good quality (Y). (they wrote VistaBootPRO!)

Do you think it will actually ever become possible that the browser you choose doesn't actually matter? If you think about it, with standards coming in from all sides it certainly is plausible that 5, 10, or even 20 years from now the difference will become like that between Coke and Pepsi: unless you are a true and honest-to-god expert there is none.

To some degree, I think that it's already become that way. Standards compliance has really become a minor issue now, in my opinion, because most browsers can display the average page correctly. It's really the more obscure CSS standards that don't work -- and I'm not sure how relevant those are to the average page. I'm not saying that browser devs should strive for mediocrity or ignore standards. I think it's somewhat akin to wine tasting. Most of us don't know a whole lot about wines. We just know what tastes good and what doesn't. Let the experts argue over the color, body, fruitiness, acidity, or oakiness of a particular wine. It either works for us -- or it doesn't.

>> Do you think it will actually ever become possible that the browser you choose doesn't actually matter? If you think about it, with standards coming in from all sides it certainly is plausible that 5, 10, or even 20 years from now the difference will become like that between Coke and Pepsi: unless you are a true and honest-to-god expert there is none.

It's certainly getting that way on the features front - Opera, Safari, Firefox... they are all getting more and more uniform...

On the rendering front though - it's still a long ways off on the back-end. Unless you are using the most basic HTML in your page, most websites (ESPECIALLY ones coded as XHTML compliant) are laden down with 'hacks' to make the page display properly in all the different browsers; at least, the well coded websites are... If you code for IE, you have to write separate hacks for Opera, Firefox and Safari... If you code for Opera, Safari or Konqueror, you have to write UBER hacks for IE, and MIGHT get lucky with Firefox... If you code for Firefox, most coders end up writing UBER hacks for IE and minor alterations for Opera and K/Safari... and the people who write and test in IE pretty much say "Screw anyone not using IE"

I moonlight as a web site coder, and am a big advocate of site TESTING in as many browsers, resolutions and font metrics as possible; Which is why I have Parallels installed in BOTH Windows XP and Linux so I can 'boot into' the other OS as needed... (I used to use VMWare, but it's just gotten to intrusive on the Host OS in recent versions)

This is my browser testing list:
Linux:
Opera 8.5 and 9
Firefox 1.0 and 1.5
Konqueror (latest build)

Windows:
IE 6 and 7 Beta
Opera 8.5 and 9
Firefox 1.0 and 1.5

and I do have a G3 iBook I reboot into to test Safari should I have a section of code that Konquerer was REALLY choking on.

I also do my testing in both small (96dpi) and Large (120dpi) fonts in windows. I'm often AMAZED at the websites which are just 'slapped up' with what appears to be no testing, or on the assumption that the user is using one browser or another or that everybody is using windows small font metrics... or worse the sites that are ENTIRELY designed in 8 or 9px sized fonts... 8 Pixel high fonts? What is this? 1983 on a trash-80 model 4? phpBB based forums are among the WORST offenders on this category...

Oddly enough, the 'hacks' needed to make XHTML code work in IE 90%+ of the time makes your site not validate - it sucks, but

Not to mention that the 'web standards' as put forth by the W3C have if anything made the situation WORSE, not better... for a variety of reasons... One big reason is that Microsoft hasn't been on the bandwagon (despite claims to the contrary... and from what I've tested on IE7 that hasn't changed).

But worse, since the introduction of XHTML been this HUGE movement claiming that 'tables for formatting is a hack', that DESPARATELY tries to replicate the tables functionality with DIV tags... to the point that to even WORK in IE I've seen site designers from this camp resort to 17k .CSS and javascript files - all because TABLES are a hack... Sure, but 17k of .CSS and javascript just to fix your formatting isn't???

Sites that do this are usually easily recognized if you have a machine running large font metrics, as their text often overruns the containers, sometimes the 'content' section that's supposed to be in the middle on a three column site is forced down UNDER the left menu, and the website is forced into this CRAPPY LITTLE COLUMN down the middle of the screen...

Although you do see that last one from time to time with table based sites... like this one... Which makes even LESS sense since tables can be this thing called... DYNAMICALLY SIZED. Something DIV attempts but /FAILS/ miserably at. (and yes, I mean '/FAIL at Intarnet/'.. and no that's not a typo)

Bottom line - we're not there yet, and it's doubtful we ever will be. Not as long as lazy site coders continue to just slap up poorly coded sites, as long as uber-geek coders overthink solutions to browser compatability and even site layout, and as long as the browser makers cannot even agree how each and every HTML/XHTML tag is even supposed to RENDER.

Of course, you want a indication of how XHTML and web standards has made inroads on the biggest and most successful websites, try validating Google, Yahoo, Amazon and E-bay.

http://www.yahoo.com - Failed validation, 351 errors
http://www.google.com - Failed validation, 42 errors
http://www.amazon.com - Failed validation, 1111 errors
http://www.ebay.com - Failed validation, 248 errors

Yet these are sites that rarely if ever come up as having problems in the different browsers... So much for web standards.

I don't know about the area in which you live, but where I am Coca Cola products have switched over completely to corn syrup instead of the mix they've been using the last few years or the pure sugar taste I recall from my childhood whereas I can see Pespi still favors the mix of sugar and corn syrup. I used to be a coke fan but have since moved on to Pepsi products until they too quit using sugar, then I'll switch to RC Cola or possibly give up on soda all together.

There is a difference you can taste it.

In the case of FirefoxOperaOther vs Internet Explorer, you can also taste the difference; it usually comes via ads and spyware via the many holes in IE....

--bornagainpenguin (long time 98lite user, Fred Vorck fanboi and nLite enthusiast, now moving on to Ubuntu...)