digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

IE7 Acid2 Results

notmart.org — Probably the most funny/pathetic thing I've ever seen. Look for yourself.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • CptnObvious, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Coral Cache: http://www.notmart.org.nyud.net:8080/images/2_ie7-acid2.jpg
    Another one: http://my.opera.com/tifa/homes/albums/28055/acid2.JPG
    • arunforce, on 10/12/2007, -77/+24Umm... That's why it is still in beta.
    • windzero, on 10/12/2007, -9/+64@ arunforce

      I afriad its doesnt make any difference even when it is out of beta.
    • dear1mr1kilgore, on 10/12/2007, -6/+40In the age of nearly perpetual betas (e.g., GMail), beta testing on users should not involve solving basic issues with core functionality. Besides, if you install IE7, it replaces IE6. Beta is hardly a "test" under these conditions.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -6/+52looks like the smiley is on acid there..
    • cruelpupet, on 10/12/2007, -57/+10Well obviously this Acid 2 test cant be that important if IE doesnt render it correctly.

      It just means that no one important is using this in web development.
    • lolwtfhaha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+65I think the reason this is so funny is that the head looks completely cut in half with blood all over the place. It's almost as if MS is having the last laugh on this... "I'm going to ***** murder that stupid acid2 face!" *throws chair*
    • CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -47/+12More ammo for MS bashers.

      Yes, we get it. You use Linux/Mac/Firefox. No, we don't care.

      The product is still in beta, this is lame. I don't use IE but bashing a beta product is useless and obviously an attempt for a cheap digg topic.
    • postaboy, on 10/12/2007, -29/+4Thanks for pointing this out captain obvious
    • summerflow, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32Didn't Microsoft said there'll be no rendering changes until it release?
    • tylerni7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I'm sure they're done with the rendering engine for IE 7, they're probably just using the same one from before. I bet all they're doing now is working out bugs, and this is not a bug. But in all fairness, Firefox doesn't pass either (although it does a hell of a lot better...).
    • jetpig, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18firefox doesn't pass either. the only two to my knowledge that render correctly are konquerer and opera.
    • Powerdrift, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27and Safari
    • earthtoandy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24And Safari, it was the first to pass the acid2 test
    • tuartboy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17safari as well. anything on webkit I believe.

      didn't safari beat konqueror and then konqueror got it from apple? can't remember.
    • tuartboy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9I mean KHTML.

      BTW, I just noticed all 3 replies and also that all 3 had -1 digg. Someone doesn't digg safari...
    • Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Safari is based on khtml, which is the engine behind Konquerer. After Apple updated Safari to pass the test, I believe they assisted the khtml devs to pass the test as well.
    • rolosworld, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4oh boy.... if this is their best shot updating IE with today standards, I would not like to see some kind of OS stress test on standards, this lets a lot to say from a company with 80% OS monopoly and a hell lot of problems with spy-ware, virus and worms.

      bill leaving MS before Vista launch and this makes me think about the things to come....
    • KAMI_no_kodomo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4@cruelpupet:

      As a webdevelopper I can tell you almoost half of the time i''m desining a site i'm bussy whit all sorts of hacks so it works in IE. Thats yust insane. But hey. Moost of the people use IE and microsoft dusn't care standards so als long as those 2 things continues it dubbles my development time. Thanks micrcrap to continu like this and not fixing IE.
    • flyinglikeakite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3To all those guys who are saying that it is still in beta, remember that ie 7 b3 is the last of the beta and is almost feature complete. This thing involves the rendering engine i.e. the core of the browser. That is the first thing that is worked upon. Not the last!
      So dont expect much change in the final build.
      That picture just shows how bad ie is in terms of rendering css! Its just so primitive! There is absolutely no excuse. Even the browser provided by youos, a web-based os./web2.0 startup renders acid2 better.
      Screenshot : http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1107/picture58so.jpg ( taken from http://techlogy.net/blog/2006-07/youos-a-web-os )
    • cjmovie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm pretty sure YouOS doesn't actually implement a browser. I'm not about to check, but I'm betting it's a frame with another site inside. Writing a renderer in javascript would be deftly slow and hard.....
    • panique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is really ofn. I think it's older than digg itself. (August 1, 2005)
      http://news.com.com/Next+Explorer+to+fail+Acid+test/2100-1032_3-5813897.html
  • electrichead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Can you take screenshots with other browsers for comparison's sake? Like IE6, Firefox, Opera, Safari ...
    • CptnObvious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+110Internet Explorer 6: http://www.autark.se/ie6-acid2.png
      Opera 9: http://my.opera.com/tarquinwj/homes/albums/45511/Opera9.png
      Konqueror 3.5: http://www.autark.se/konq3.5-acid2.png
      Firefox 1.5: http://www.davidbetz.net/webdesign/Firefox15Acid2.png
      Safari 2: http://www.tomrafteryit.net/images/safari_acid2_test.png
    • masterofshadows, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15just FYI the way its supposed to look is like the reference image:
      http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/reference.html

      check your browser with the test:
      http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html#top

      @CptnObvious:
      I am not sure why your opera 9 is coming up with a blue nose, was that a screencap from one of the preview releases?
    • erichapkido, on 10/12/2007, -0/+29@masterofshadows
      When you hover over the nose it turns blue.
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9I bet the submitter is a Firefox user/fanboy/enthusiast, as well. Firefox is a nice browser, and I use it, but Opera passes all the standards (correct me if I'm wrong), and the Firefox creators aren't planning to pass the Acid2 test in Firefox 2.0.

      There are more than two browsers out there, is basically what I'm getting at.


      ...More on topic, Wikipedia has a list of browser successes.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid2
    • jetpig, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3opera 9 on my box the nose is black, not blue...
    • CptnObvious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@masamunecyrus: actually I use Konqueror and when I need flash (I'm running on AMD64) I open up Firefox. I do like how we have 3 really good browsers (Konqueror, Opera, Firefox) and 2 of which pass the test. I do have to give props to Firefox because they seemed to have started this whole web browser revolution and without it the web would be a worse place.
    • lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0The source of Firefox is said to be fully ACID2 complient according to wikipedia. Never tested it myself as I am too lazy!
    • Nanobe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Opera is certainly not completely standards compliant. No browser is. And given that the standards are always evolving and growing, it's likely that none will ever be. Opera 8.5 and Firefox 1.5 were about matched when it came to support for CSS 2.1, although both were lacking support in different areas. Opera 9 now generally beats Firefox 1.5 in CSS 2.1 support, although only by a few percentage points. Firefox 1.5 generally had better support than Opera 8.5 for HTML/XHTML, the near-ready sections of CSS 3, and DOM. Firefox 3.0, to be released in under a year, will have significant improvements in standards support, and Opera also isn't losing steam. Safari and Konqueror like to support a lot of cutting-edge things, although they have serious problems with some of the more fundamental areas of the standards, especially in scripting. IE7 made slight progress over IE6 in CSS, a little in HTML (XHTML is still treated exactly like regular HTML), and basically nothing in DOM/ECMAScript support, and generally made less progress over IE6 than the latest versions of Firefox and Opera made over their previous versions.

      The information comes from the standards support resource I maintain: http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support.php
  • V1ncent, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Funny!
  • Zero456, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Well, at least the jump from IE6 to IE7 improved it's results, though as little as it is.
    • motang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Yeah it seems to be a huge jump from IE6 to IE7. But so far it looks like KHTML based browsers (Safari, Konqueror) and Opera 9 seem to have it down. Firefox is getting there, closer than IE7.
    • Virion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16I happened to have a copy of ie 5.2 (mac) kicking around. It doesn't even render! I had to view source just to be sure it was even accessing the page.
  • abaraki, on 10/12/2007, -8/+49_THAT_ is the funniest thing you've ever seen? Wow.
    • CptnObvious, on 10/12/2007, -5/+34ok maybe not the funniest but probably the most pathetic.
    • mephitix, on 10/12/2007, -23/+12Yeah, it looks funny, but you guys fail to realize that even the smallest CSS issue can screw up the entire rendering. For all you know, IE7 could have one small bug and Firefox can have a ton. Who knows? In any case, perhaps it's not your right to call it 'pathetic' when you have no clue about the issues involved.
    • eridius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18mephitex - you don't understand how Acid2 works. It's designed so each line of the image tests a handful of different parts of CSS rendering. So if you have a tiny bug in your rendering, it will affect one line, not the entire image.
  • danieldaniel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18@arunforce
    Maybe you didn't notice, but IE 6 looks terrible too. I don't think that is still in beta.
    • CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17Doesnt look right in FF either, point?
  • Tyrax, on 10/12/2007, -12/+20They talked about this a while back:
    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx

    They never planned to pass the ACID2 test, I would rather concentrate on stuff people actually use
    • mephitix, on 10/12/2007, -14/+11Good point. I really like the MSDN post where they explain what they've done and what their goals are. The Acid2 test really tests a ton of quirky web development issues, and some of these are rarely used in common web applications/websites. The real high priority stuff for the IE team are the outstanding bugs listed in PositionIsEverything and Quirksmode. It's awesome that they've already fixed these and are even looking into hacks and bugs that web developers face everyday.
    • MarkByers, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32Erm, people *do* use web standards. They are called developers.
    • JMJimmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Seeing as every page people develop and the people who view those pages use this part of the program, even though unseen, it's pretty key.

      Would you accept this in something like an accounting software? "We chose to focus on the options percentages of our demographics like to use instead of getting the math right in the background - you may find results aren't what they're supposed to be, but you can fix it by tweaking the numbers to get the result you want"

      Sure people will do it (Enron! ;) but that doesn't make it right.
    • dear1mr1kilgore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10CSS2 standards should be a priority. I'm glad to hear that the IE7 team is working hard to fix the more important of the _many_ rendering bugs, but poor implementation of CSS2 standards will set the bar lower for many, many years. These issues should be solved before IE7 becomes the 90% standard, resulting in more unwieldly CSS hacks.
    • alphex, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12its amazing that people have this attitude. if you work at a major software development firm, there are stringent best practices being used by the staff to make sure the development happens smoothly and in a way that the entire company can be used as developers of the project needs further development down the line.
      Standards in web development are striving for the same goal! provide an even frame work for everyone to work in in a way that ensures compatibility across platforms, and furthers the exploration of whats possible, instead of all of us spending our time trying to fix the simple stuff across browsers.

      The acid 2 test is the ideal that we all should be GOOD coders, not hacks who have to bend the rules to make it look the same from platform A to platform B.

      That MS sees it any other way says bad things to me about how they behave as a corporation building the critical software that they supposedly build so well...
    • CircleFusion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10The strange thing to me about the ACID2 test is the argument about what it actually tests. According to the wikipedia page( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid2 ), it tests CSS and HTML web standards. However, on the Microsoft IE blog site (and I've read this in other places as well) they mention that ACID2 actually tests something other than strictly standards. They are vague about it though, but it seems to test the browser's ability to handle invalid code.

      From http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx
      "...the Acid 2 Test covers a wide set of functionality and standards, not just from CSS2.1 and HTML 4.01, selected by the authors as a “wish list” of features they’d like to have. It’s pointedly not a compliance test (from the Test Guide: “Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification”)."

      Here is a blog by the guy (Dave Hyatt) responsible for making Safari pass the ACID2 test. His blog chronicles the process of being ACID2 compliant.
      http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2005_04.html
      He covers some of the issues of the test in more detail. A lot of his comments refer to rendering "invalid code".

      "I needed to support fallback content when invalid MIME types were specified or when bad status codes were returned for HTTP requests (like 404)."

      I think there are a lot of public misunderstandings about the ACID2 test.
    • moisie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A lot of these quirky elements aren't used because they don't work in the browser with the largest market share and people can't be bothered to code around them to fix the bugs. Hence the web gets stuck where it is for the large part. Alpha transparency is cool but no-one really uses it because it doesn't work.
  • PhAdE, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31For what it's worth Firefox looks terrible too.
    • lazyrussian, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12which saddens this firefox user deeply.
      I guess firefox should take a page out of Opera or Konqueror when it comes to compatibility.

      FF is still my choice browser
    • MisterCookie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Someone on the Mozilla team said that Acid2 wasn't a core priority, but they plan to prove results with each release. They might have full Acid2 support in version 3.
    • Alchemeron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14It's pretty convenient that the items that aren't a core priority -- like meeting standards (which is what the acid2 test is for) -- are the things that are flagrantly failures.
    • Ghiblian, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7If you read the MSDN blog or the Acid2 website, you'll realize the Acid2 test is not a test for compliance to any specific set of standards. So while Firefox may not be fully compliant with the latest CSS2 standards, it really doesn't make sense to implement support for the Acid2 features that aren't part of the standards. That would be like how IE has a few markups unique to its rendering engine and interpreting markups not to specifications. The best thing would just be for all browsers to follow the W3C guidelines strictly, not adding more "features" or missing any specs.
    • CptnObvious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Ghiblian, no Acid2 does test the standards you probably think it isn't because you took the sentence about how it does not guarantee compliance out of context. This is because it does not test everything and even if it passes it does not mean it is fully compliant to everything. Its like taking a regular test at school, if you get 100% it doesn't mean you know everything but you do know the majority of it.
    • Brightside, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5According to this bug report: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=289480
      and this blog:
      http://diary.e-gandalf.net/2006/04/12/meet-mr-face/
      building Firefox as described on this page:
      http://wiki.mozilla.org/Gecko:Reflow_Refactoring
      will result in Firefox passing Acid2.
    • CircleFusion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Here is a screenshot on Flickr that shows Firefox rendering the ACID2 test on one of the development branches of Firefox. Question is whether this branch is going to be included in Firefox 2 or not.

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/dbaron/126886608/
    • t3hdarkone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@CircleFusion:

      It won't be in Firefox 2. The new graphics engine and Acid 2 stuff is planned for Firefox 3 (to be released in the first months of 2007).
    • srg13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, that was probably the "semi public build" they are talking about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid2#Timeline_of_successful_browsers
      (the orange firefox entry)

  • i440, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17I wonder how Lynx would render the Acid2 test.
    • avatarpalin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24ummm

      HELLO WORLD
      _.-'''''-._
      .' _ _ '.
      / (o) (o)
      | |
      | / |
      '. .' /
      '. `'---'` .'
      '-._____.-'

    • celticeric, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Actual real lynx results:

      Hello World!



      ERROR

      *
      *
      *
      *
  • detrate, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7IE7's still beta, isn't it?
    • Hootyea, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13What isn't in beta though?
    • Dracos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+43Beta or not, IE7's rendering engine has been feature complete for months, MS has stated this repeatedly.

      IE7 is a lame duck as far as web standards are concerned. Sure, they finally implemented alpha transparency and fixed some CSS bugs in a piece-meal fashion, but it's basically still just IE6 under the hood (which is still IE5.5 under the hood). MS seems to think that a lousy new UI, more user nanny tools (phishing blocker, popup blocker, etc), and a slightly tweaked rendering core and security model is worth a full version number increment. It's not. With nominal fixes to the event model, DOM support, box model support, XML support, corrrect mime type support, and CSS, this is really just a maintenance release on a codebase that's at least 8 years old.

      They should call IE7 what it really is: 5.7.
  • pbjorge12, on 10/12/2007, -21/+5For all we know one simple bug fix could fix this...
    With Acid2 one css rendering error could ruin the whole thing!
    • MarkByers, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Yeah it is just one simple bug: including Internet Explorer as the default web browser.
    • Narpas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And it's not. Little slivers of the smiley test different things.
  • gbresnahan2, on 10/12/2007, -65/+4Hey guess what nobody gives a ***** about those pissant browsers (anything that's not IE=pissant browser that nobody uses)
    • Hootyea, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Are you trolling or just an idiot?
    • kpavery, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9A lot of people give a ***** about those "pissant" browsers...especially Firefox. And Safari, which actually displays correctly....
    • aurath, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11probly trolling, they don't make them THAT dumb.
    • degree, on 10/12/2007, -32/+5safari is for nubs, sorry
  • Fluxx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13As the ACID2 spec says, "Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification." It's just a "wish list" of compatibility. Granted I would love to see IE7 pass the ACID2 test, but the fact that it doesn't pass the ACID2 test isn't such a huge deal.

    Don't get me started on the box model...
    • CptnObvious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5wow Microsoft is good with playing with words to mean something its not.

      "Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification."
      that's because it doesn't test everything for any spec and yes it is what they (the Acid2 creators) want browsers to support, standards.
    • CptnObvious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@bryan986, I think they don't want them to support bad code so they can pull a Microsoft on you. If everyone supported just the standards and only the standards there wouldn't be much need to test you pages on lots of different browsers which is what most people would want, the ability to see it on any browser the same.
  • cybernetic798, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5OK this is so misleading. The FF one looks closer than the IE one but the thing is, with CSS, there can easily be ONE single non-conforming behavior that can totally mess up the render. It is ridiculous to claim this means anything other than that IE7 is (as of today - since it is still in beta) not COMPLETELY compliant with css standards.
    • eridius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5One bug in the CSS will affect a single line of Acid2. That's because each line is set up to test different parts of the CSS2 spec, so even if you have a bug in one line, the other lines should still be able to render just fine.

      Basically, the closer you come to the reference image, the better your support is (for the things that Acid2 tests for). In other words, Firefox is pretty close, and IE7 is pure garbage.
    • person, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You're quite right on your logic that just one tiny css error can change, for example, the entire background to being red (though there are clearly MANY failures in the IE7 Acid2 test). However, I must ask you. Have you EVER coded a webpage and used some BASIC CSS, only to realize that it doesn't work as you expected. You do a ton of research, and know that you're doing it correctly. So then after you've spent 8 hours working on your precious website, you find your answer: IE doesn't correctly render CSS. It is universally known that IE supports only some of CSS1, which is now a 10-year-old standard; and that IE supports very little of CSS2.
    • colol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1IE7 isn't fully compliant. Microsoft (the IE team, in fact) has already stated that it isn't, and it won't be, and this has been corroborated by several web developers and authors throwing not-particularly-exotic CSS and CSS2 at the betas and Vista.

      They've made some improvements, mind you, but it's still basically the same ol' crotchety IE with its crazy box model and half-implemented CSS support (just more of it), now with a shiny interface and a search box in the toolbar. Yippee.
  • wastern, on 10/12/2007, -14/+27your beloved firefox sucks it up as well, get off your high horse about it




    (P.S. I'm not defending IE or MS, I use Safari. I just think you all look like asses when you call out IE7 beta, when the release version of the browser you all love to brag about fails as well)
    • endyminion, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6Works fine for me in 1.5.03
    • azygousguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11looks like the safari crowd has spoken...
    • MarkByers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Firefox passes too (it was the 5th of the major browsers to pass), but you need to get the correct branch, which is not advertised on their website. Here is some more informaiton about it: http://diary.e-gandalf.net/2006/04/12/meet-mr-face/
    • pond876, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, it ***** up about 1/3 of the rows, as opposed to the entire screen. That's a pretty major difference, particularly given the segmented nature of the test.
  • praveenmarkandu, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11wow.... thats a real kick in the nuts for firefox too. thought as a MODERN browser it would actually perform better
  • gozu123, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4wow, who cares? i use firefox 100% of the time, and i dont have any problems with web pages, look at how bad firefox does.
    • masterofshadows, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Thats because your webpages are designed with only 2 browsers in mind, IE and Firefox, the rest most web designers dont give a damn about.
  • aurath, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19woot for opera
  • RomaGluskin, on 10/12/2007, -25/+1Dude I think something is wrong with your connection.
    I'm on IE6 here and it opens the site all right (although the nose doesn't change the color upon hover).
    • jamiejamez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5 "I'm on IE6 here and it opens the site all right (although the nose doesn't change the color upon hover)."

      That's because you clicked the link for the reference rendering, which is just a .png of what the image should look like.

      You need to click the link that says "Take The Acid2 Test "
      http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html#top
    • RomaGluskin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0Of course I opened the original web page and not the PNG!
      Are you kidding me?!
    • eridius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If you opened the original site then you wouldn't get a correct rendering. Based on your description, it's pretty clear that you did in fact open the png.
    • RomaGluskin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2LOL, my bad indeed.
      Just woke up. need caffeine. sorry.
    • nauzilus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2aurath write elsewhere: "they don't make them THAT dumb."

      Hah, I think RomaGluskin has just proven that yes, they DO make them that dumb :)
  • darshil, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3as you know, ie7 has yet to improve, it coudnt even pass a css table test (=
    but that was beta 1, so you never know.
  • mtbaird5687, on 10/12/2007, -18/+0site looks fine in FF

    what a lame digg. how the hell did this make front page
  • steve01syd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5but hey, it's got tabs.
    • ThugEsquire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Sure, and they're slow.
    • uday0210, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1about tabs in IE: there is an extra "unused" tab in IE7, that always gets created whenever you open a new tab. This, I thought, would increase the turnaround time in opening a page in a new tab, but hey, guess what, not the case. Why have that extra tab then?
  • Trel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Well as long as we're comparing, here's Firebird 0.7
    http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/5429/firebirdacid3ji.jpg
    • Truegod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Fire Fox version 0.7? The current version is 1.5.0.4!
  • JohnDGeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Info about the Acid test and it's purpose.
    http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/
  • killdashnine, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4My question is this ... why does Microsoft even care anymore? All those development dollars they could be spending on WinFS instead of cancelling core projects, but no ... they have to persist in integrating their browser. As far as I'm concerned, Firefox and Mozilla should be the de facto standard (or they should be). Even Opera should get more cred.

    IE has always been a nightmare for web developers, so Microsoft ... maybe it's time to just quit!
    • masterofshadows, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Haven't you learned anything from Microsoft's control? One browser having a majority of the mindshare is doomed to be exploited to hell, be it firefox, opera, or IE. Something as complex as a web browser will always have a hole somewhere, a codebase that large is very hard to control. Granted the bugs may be more minor on some than others, that however doesn't mean we should put our our eggs in one basket.

      More browsers out there is in everyone's best interests.
  • bgoodknight, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1Funniest thing you have ever seen? It's time to get a life.
    You owe me 10sec of my life back, jerkoff.
  • tnactim, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2?? acid test passes perfectly in firefox.

    No problems here... although my IE didn't pass.

    And how did this make front page again?
    • Alchemeron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7My version of Firefox (1.5.04) mashes up the test just like the screenshots depict.

      Firefox has never passed the test... so which version are you using?
  • Bilbobaggins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I wonder how IE 7 beta 3 does on the test, considering the pics I'm seeing are of beta 2. I know it probably won't do much better if any, but I'm just wondering.
    • bgoodknight, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6I use ie7 beta 3, there is no improvement from the screen shot.
      Somehow I feel like this isn't the end of my life and things will end up being O.K.

      I get the feeling the FF fanboys are AFK in the bathroom crying.
      What a stupid waste of time.
    • Langford, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Pretty much identical.
    • ACalcutt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3beta 3 looks the same (i just tested it)
    • person, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Changelog for IE7:
      - Improved GUI
      - Integrated MSN Search

      That's it, folks. Nice and easy. No security hole patches (since it'll be released as an already flawed product), not a ton of new features, probably not a ton faster, no better CSS support, and you still get to custom-code your webpage for IE. How lovely. Thanks for the GUI change.. uh.. that's about it.
  • av4rice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Acid2 is a tough one, even for GOOD browsers (because not only do you have to render proper stuff properly, but you're supposed to ignore intentionally improper code as well)

    I don't think anyone's surprised
    • Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Exactly. I don't care if IE (or any other browser for that matter) can pass the ACID2 test. It basically only tests how the browser handles broken code. I'd rather them focus on correctly rendering valid code, and then when they get that right they can move on to handling broken code. Seriously, if the code on your site is broken, is it the browser's fault if it doesn't render correctly?
  • chaosmachine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7perhaps the idea is to render it as if the viewer was on acid?
  • jpyun, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Lame. There's been stuff on digg about how IE7 fails the Acid2 test since the IE7 beta was first downloaded. How much longer are you going to be beating this dead horse?
  • EricPeters, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3I'm using Vista Beta 2 as my main OS right now, so I'm stuck using IE7 until I'm not too lazy to find another browser that runs on Vista. I ran the Acid2 test, and the results were the same. Sadly to say, IE still sucks.
    • EricPeters, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Bah, missed the edit window. Another strike against IE7 is its inability to handle some AJAX stuff. My homepage is AJAX, and some of the movable stuff doesn't work. And whenever I try to show buried comments here, the text doesn't show up. Damn you IE.
    • computerdude33, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Firefox.

      Opera.

      SeaMonkey.
    • uday0210, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@computerdude33.

      your point?
  • Fraghappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Firefox (what I use) isn't perfect, but this goes to show how it stands in comparison to the most used browser on the planet. Admittedly, Opera and Safari are better in some regards, but I'm willing to stick with Firefox for access to the Mozilla Extension library.
  • moussam, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4hahahahahaha. i seriously had 2 beers just looking at that screenshot and i couldn't stop laughing. sorry microsoft.

    did you know microsoft was named after bill's soft micro sized penis. its true its true
  • xaque, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Looks like one of those cacodemons from Doom. Rawr!
  • Coreguy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4I don't think there will be many people who care ACID or someday another test called "Alkali"

    For choosing browser, such kind of tests are senseless.
    • Langford, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4True, it shouldn't be important for someone choosing a browser, but it should be important for someone creating a browser. If it were most document types, the programmers would be jumping through hoops to insure that it rendered the documents correctly. For some reason, when it comes to an HTML document, they expect web designers to conform to whatever their software happens to render.
    • person, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5But these tests DO matter. It means standards support. So that people can use the well-documented standards over at w3c to know how to write their web page. And also know that when they write it the correct way, it will correctly display to all users, not just a set of users. It matters to browser developers, it matters to people who use the internet so that they can see the page correctly as the author intended. Broswer developers, web page developers, internet users. So tell me, for whom is this test irrelevant?
  • booc0mtaco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Did anyone think that the screenshot of IE7's rendering looks like a red-eyed cyclops sticking his (or her) tongue out?

    that's why i thought this story was posted anyway...
  • gd007, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2they do the tabs better, don't they?
    • person, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2depends on if you like having only 3 tabs before your tab toolbar is full.
  • poipoipoi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2maybe a better idea is to *avoid* ACID2.
    • person, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5That must be Microsoft's strategy. Figure that with their monopoly, standards don't matter, anyways.
    • MarkByers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"maybe a better idea is to *avoid* ACID2."

      What a coincidence... That's exactly what Microsoft keeps saying too!
  • iNoles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Acid2 is sending Bogus CSS to expect browser to ignore it... I code it under web standard by W3C.. I think Firefox Trunk got closer results to passing Acid2 Test.
  • osc1882, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1pardon my dumbnesss but
    "What is acid 2 that we should be testing it"
    I have no idea what it is.
    • wastern, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2its a test to see how well your browser will render *****. thats about all you need to know
  • amire80, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6The acid test itself fails proper HTML and CSS validation at http://validator.w3.org/ .

    HTML validation is tentative and not XHTML.

    CSS validation fails miserably.

    I don't pretend to be a real expert, but *someone* here is *****.

    rd6ME
    • Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I direct you to my comment above. The acid test is not supposed to be valid code. What it's supposed to do is test how browsers handle broken/invalid code.
    • amire80, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think that i understood that part and i agree with your comments.

      Is handling broken code part of the standard?

      VUbLE
  • yahoofrom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Stop. Opera Time.
  • Pseudo98, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2 CptnObvious, youre 'probably the most funny/pathetic thing I've ever seen.'

    ...Look for yourself
  • hchaudh1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What I really like is that finally people have started to put the "It's a beta" apologists in place. A beta is supposed to be feature complete. But MS people (of the "Learn XXX in 24 hours") variet won't ever get that point.
  • gridrunner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Microsoft just don't care. So long as you use Front Page or Word to make you're web pages, they'll render just fine.

    Here's to years more of CSS hacks, detecting browser versions and serving different stylesheets. No no, it's not a pain in the arse at all. Really, it's fine...
  • archurban, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0whatever it is, all windows is sucks, including IE7. don't you realize that windows is copied from mac os x? safari is much better than any browser here. look at other. they're all ugly. I'm done here.
  • sxreader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually it look the same as IE6. Firefox 1.5.0.4 does much better but it is not perfect. So it is only Opera and Safari that are 100% perfect.
  • krazykarl0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Sure the test passes in opera 9... until you try and scroll up and down the page.
  • GodsHand, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www3.telus.net/public/trobert1/acid2safari.png

    Works nicely in Safari :)
    • drbaggy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Unfortunately it's about the only thing that works nicely on Safari - its general javascript/DOM/CSS is broken (gets stuff in the wrong place - or worse returns totally random information)

      Its a pity they spent all their time trying to draw a smiley face :-) rather than actually making a stable web-browser :-( that actually followed the standards for useful stuff!!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.