Internet Explorer Not Dead Yet 498
turnitover writes "The future's not all Firefox, Deer Park and Camino, insists Microsoft. At its Mix '06 conference in Las Vegas, reports Microsoft Watch, company execs insisted that there's a bright future for IE. They not only distributed a 'layout-complete' build of IE 7.0, but offered hints about what the new version of the browser geeks love to disdain (yes, it will include ActiveX) will include. Also shown: tools to test IE compatibility. But with what? Standards or IE 6?"
Standards and Bueller, both missing. (Score:2, Interesting)
Also shown: tools to test IE compatibility. But with what? Standards or IE 6?
Right.
"See? It it renders these pages, full of our own standards, the W3c be damned. What's not to like?"
Wait, wait.. OK, never mind. I thought I was going to be whelmed by word of IE 7.0, not overwhelmed mind you, but only whelmed. But the feeling passed, I'm OK now. Really.
Honestly, I use Firefox for almost everything simply because I prefer the way it behaves, meaning, it behaves.
Mar. 17, 2006, 50th anniversary of
Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:IT narcs (Score:4, Informative)
Re:IT narcs (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html [webstandards.org]
Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (Score:3, Funny)
Most probably neither, if we're to judge by history...
Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's exactly the same principle as other standards, such as the standard rail gauge [wikipedia.org] that allows standard trains to ride on all standard tracks. Do you want websites to just work? If so, you should care about standards.
Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like phones, all the different phones only work cause there is a standard for them
Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (Score:2)
Firefox gets regular positive mentions in the PC mags over here in the UK (and is included on the cover CDs/DVDs), a
Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (Score:3, Insightful)
I would think -- based on my own experience and observations -- that number two on the list of things that is pushing people towards Firefox, after security, isn't tabbed browsing, but Adblock. FWIW, Opera 9, currently at "technical preview 2", also has a "content blocker" -- see here [opera.com] -- and though it's reportedly less powerful than Adblock, I for one am likely to find that Opera 9 will suit me better than Firefox does. (Yes yes I know that it's been possible to block content in Opera for ages, but it's nev
Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (Score:2)
Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (Score:5, Informative)
Control-K (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (Score:3, Interesting)
I just wanted to comment on tabs and the little search box. I was helping a not-so-computer-literate friend out the other day. When I suggested he google something, he clicked on the icon to open up a new browser. I then suggested he close that new window and open a new tab. Which I had to teach him how. Then he started to goto google.com, and I stopped him suggesting he type it in t
Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (Score:4, Insightful)
A friend of mine who is fairly computer literate and uses (the official) Netscape didn't know it had tabs until I showed him a few days ago.
Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (Score:3, Funny)
*coughoperacough*. Us Opera fanboys get no love I tells ya! No love!
ACID 2.0 Test (Score:2, Insightful)
Sincerely,
Firefox Fan
Re:ACID 2.0 Test (Score:5, Funny)
"Passing"? 70 percent is a D- (Score:2)
Neglecting Firefox's inability to pass Acid 2.0.
Where I went to school, 70 percent was a D- but still "passing". Therefore, I consider a 70% intact face on Acid2 to constitute "passing". Opera is the first web browser to get 100% and run on Microsoft Windows, but Firefox is still "passing" by the school standard. IE 7, on the other hand, is still nowhere near 70%.
Re:ACID 2.0 Test (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ACID 2.0 Test (Score:3, Funny)
Sincerely,
Opera 9tp Fan
(disclaimer, not bashing FF, just found the previous comment to be an offer too tempting to turn down)
Re:ACID 2.0 Test (Score:2)
Re:ACID 2.0 Test (Score:2)
Re:ACID 2.0 Test (Score:3, Insightful)
Sincerely,
Firefox Fan
(disclaimer, not bashing Opera, just found the previous comment to lack perspective.)
------
In all seriousness, Opera is a fantastic browser. I used it for a while and enjoyed the experience immensely. However, I prefer to use Open Source apps whenever possible, and since Firefox is as good as Opera and open source to boot, I prefer it. Personally, I don't care whether people use Firefox or Opera or Professor Whantunkel's Fantastical Whizz-Ban
Re:ACID 2.0 Test (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, Firefox breaks less than IE does when loading the Acid2 test, however by a strict measurement, only one (two) browsers to date pass Acid2:
KHTML (Safari/Konqueror)
If you want to count dev trees/beta releases, then you've got:
Opera
Firefox
Also, I think it's great that the Opera folks are almost mocking Microsoft, and challenging them to pass Acid2. Aside from KHTML which is there, and MSIE which TOTALLY pukes on it, Every other browser is almost rendering Acid2 to be recognizable as a smiley face. At least everyone else is attempting to handle proper CSS and bad CSS correctly, e.g, render compliant CSS, and downgrade gracefully on broken CSS.
What MSIE renders could just as well be accomplished by splashing paint on a sheet of canvas. With the way Microsoft is handling things, I wonder why they don't just ignore CSS altogether and turn their browser into a random pixel renderer?
Get with the program, Microsoft. You have the greatest market share so it is in your best interest for maintaining your share to act responsibly. I hope the mass reaction to MSIE 7.0 is for major sites to either block the browser, or to use CSS which causes MSIE to totally break, and for those sites to recommend all browsers which are not MSIE as alternatives.
Microsoft has held the web back long enough with their refusal to implement proper PNG rendering - their holding back the web has to stop now.
Re:ACID 2.0 Test (Score:3, Insightful)
As a web developer, I'd love it if IE would support fully CSS, but as web developers, our loyalties are to the end user; writing code that will break on 30% of their browsers is a failure to perform our job adequately. That's like a doctor saying, you know, I'm just not going to help fat peop
Re:What is "passing"? (Score:3, Funny)
Or, put another way by means of a Simpson's quote:
"Come on, do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry"?
Re:ACID 2.0 Test (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ACID 2.0 Test (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, they couldn't be any less standards compliant than previous versions. They had nowhere to go but up.
Re:ACID 2.0 Test (Score:5, Insightful)
But conformance with W3C specifications guarantees passing Acid2 test.
Acid2 is not the ultimate goal, but it's a pretty and easy to understand by non-techies indicator of progress in HTML/CSS support.
Re:ACID 2.0 Test (Score:4, Informative)
I personally dislike the idea of data urls, for the following reasons.
Back to Acid2 guided tour. Here are the problems I see right off the bat.
I'm sure I'll find more later, but it's getting late here.
Re:ACID 2.0 Test (Score:3, Informative)
IE7's box model is fully compliant in strict mode. In fact, IE6's box model is fully compliant when in strict mode as well. Of course many people assume otherwise because they don't know they're running in quirks mode.
translation (Score:5, Funny)
Oh boy! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh boy! (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't WAIT to watch the objective analysis that this thread will surely contain.
Analysis? What is there to analyze? MS issued bunch of PR about Internet Explorer that fails to address the most egregious failings of the product. It has control of the market with this pile of crap simply because they bundled it with their monopoly OS. The consumers are suffering, but that is old news and this does nothing to make most of us believe it will change.
Ash (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ash (Score:2, Funny)
M$: Okay! *hands over IE 7.0*
Us: Ugh!
M$: You found me beautiful once...
Us: Honey, you got real ugly!
Re:Ash (Score:3, Funny)
IE may not be dead yet (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IE may not be dead yet (Score:2)
With proper technology, even Frankenstein's monster could be resurrected.
Doesn't mean it's a good idea though.
It's just resting! (Score:5, Funny)
Dont' worry, it'll be stone dead in a minute. /source/vista/ie7/*
$ rm -rf
But seriously...
User: I wish to make a complaint!
Ballmer: (hurriedly) Sorry, we're about to ship Vista.
User: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this web browser, what came bundled not five years ago from this very operating system.
Ballmer: Oh yes, IE, ah, version 6. What's, ah... W-what's wrong with it?
User: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It's dead, that's what's wrong with it.
Ballmer: No, no, It's ah... it's undergoing a security upgrade.
User: Look, matey, I know a dead browser when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Ballmer: No no, i-it's not dead, it's... getting its user interface upgraded!
User: User interface?
Ballmer: Y-yeah, the UI. Upgradin'. Remarkable browser, IE, isn't it, eh? Beautiful layouts!
User: The layout-complete build don't enter into it. It's stone dead!
Ballmer: Nononono, no, no! 'E's bein' upgraded!
User: All right then, if he's bein' upgraded, I'll run 'im!
(starts typing)
IEXPLORE.EXE! C:\MYDOCU~1\HELLO.JPG
Looky looky looky! Happily rendering the Goatse Guy! Hey, IE, I've got lots of lovely RAM for you if you're running, Mr. Internet Explorer!)
(pounds keyboard)
Ballmer: There, the page refreshed!
User: No, he didn't, that was you clicking reload!
Ballmer: I never!!
User: Yes, you did!
Ballmer: I never, never....
(pounding Ctrl-Alt-Del on the keyboard again)
User: HELLO, WORLD! HELLO TASK MANAGER! PLEASE WAKE UP!
Now that's what I call a dead browser.
Ballmer: No, no.... No, it's just running a signed ActiveX Control in the background.
User: A ACTIVEX CONTROL!?!?
Ballmer: Yeah! You invoked an ActiveX control, just as it was wakin' up! Believe me, IE runs those easily, major!
User: Look my lad, I've had just about enough of this. That browser is definitely deceased, and when I booted its PC up after buyin' it not half an hour ago, you assured me that the PC's total lack of computational power was due to it being tired and shagged out after a prolonged virus scan.
Ballmer: Well, he's... it's, ah... probably needin' activation and authorization with Windows Genuine Advantage.
User: WINDOWS Genuine ADVANTAGE?!? What kind of talk is that? Look, why did the OS crash flat on its back the moment I plugged it into the router?
Ballmer: The Norwegian Bluescreen prefers kippin' on its back! Remarkable UI, though, isn't it, guv, eh? Lovely layout-complete screenshots!
User: (coldly) Look, I took the liberty of examining that browser cache when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that the PC had anything to run on its hard drive in the first place was that it had been bundled in there along with the spyware and the DRM.
Ballmer: Well, of course it has DRM there! If I hadn't bundled that browser and nailed everything down with DRM, all the content would have nuzzled up to those wires at the back, bent 'em apart with its little bits, and VOOM!
User: "VOOM?" Look matey, this browser wouldn't "voom" if you put four thousand kilobytes of W3C standards through it! It's bleedin' demised!
Ballmer: It's not! I-It's just authenticating!
User: It's not authenticatin,' it's passed on! This browser is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late software release! It's a stiff! Bereft of RAM, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the system with DRM and your monopoly it'd be pushing up the daisies! Its spawned processes are of interest only to historians! It's hopped the twig! It's shuffled off this mortal coil! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This.... is an INACTIVE X!
Ballmer: Well, I'd better upgrade it, then.
(I'll stop it now. It's silly.)
Re:It's just resting! (Score:4, Funny)
User: The palindrome of IE is EI!
*Hearing this karate yell, Chuck Norris entered and roundhouse kicked Ballmer in the head.*
Re:It's just resting! (Score:3, Funny)
MS says IE isn't dead? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:MS says IE isn't dead? (Score:2, Funny)
In other news.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it news when a company advertises its own products?
Re:In other news.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In other news.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Good thing too! (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft hosting lab about this (Score:4, Informative)
I have read that Microsoft acknowleding on the Mix '06 Web site, "reduced need to hack around quirks in older browsers, however, means that existing pages written specifically for older browsers may render differently in IE7. In addition, IE7 includes a number of new security features which may have impact on binary extensions such as toolbars, browser helper objects, and ActiveX controls."
Re:Microsoft hosting lab about this (Score:2)
The sad thing is that there are two rendering modes for Internet Explorer, "quirks", where it intentionally gets things wrong regarding the W3C specifications, and "strict", where it unintentionally gets things wrong regarding the W3C specifications.
Decent web developers make sure they trigger strict mode, because, although it's still atrociously bad, it's still a bit more compliant than quirks mode.
However Internet Explorer 7's updates that break compatibility do so only for one of the modes. Guess
Well, Not too "Bright", but... (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as the Gecko crowd and Opera manage to hold on to enough marketshare to force web developers to use REAL standards instead of Microsoft's so that my browser of choice works, I'll be content.
Re:Well, Not too "Bright", but...Be like me. (Score:2)
Re:Well, Not too "Bright", but...Be like me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Er, certainly a few companies have inhouse ActiveX applications, and that's fine. I imagine your company is among them, or you wouldn't be making this post. But get a little perspective: those people represent a tiny fraction of the market.
*How very 1984'ish.
Uh huh, right. The grandparent "Pantero Blanco" controls a vast world-controlling network of agents, and he will soon deploy black helicopters to your house for da
Re:Well, Not too "Bright", but...Be like me. (Score:2)
Saying I "want everyone to be like me" doesn't even make sense given the original post. Did you get to the second paragraph before you knee-jerked?
Re:Well, Not too "Bright", but...Be like me. (Score:2)
Re:Well, Not too "Bright", but...Be like me. (Score:3, Insightful)
This proves that you don't understand what ActiveX really is. Flash in IE? ActiveX. Java in IE? ActiveX. ActiveX is nothing more than IE's plug-in system, so to say that it's "close to non-existent" on the public Internet is completely fallacious.
It's just restin'.. (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but... (Score:5, Funny)
What's bright.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is when you're a company like Microsoft and you've got this huge, unstoppable cash flow: you never really have to pay for your mistakes. Which makes it hard for you to stop making them. I hate to be the one to point this out, but Google has the same problem!
Extensions (Score:3, Insightful)
I just can't imagine installing IE7 on my machine except if I REALLY have to to verify that my websites load and operate with it. And that would be really sad.
Re:Extensions (Score:2, Insightful)
BS. It's not extensible through HTML/CSS/Javascript like Firefox, but it is extensible, and in many ways even moreso than Gecko-and-XUL-based browsers. You can add new functionality to IE via Browser Helper Objects (BHOs) [wikipedia.org], or embed/extend the browser by referencing the browser COM object.
BHOs are actually a very powerful way of extending IE. For example, when popup blockers started showing up in other browsers way b
Firefox has some work to do too... (Score:2)
In my view, the guys at Mozilla should grade the extensions in relation to how stable or otherwise they leave the base Firefox installation. The FoxyTunes extension for example, while being touted as completely compatible with Firefox 1.5.0.x, still makes the tab browsing interface completely inconsistent.
I also feel that at this point in time, the Firefox interface looks ancient. It's time for a revamp. How about that guys?
Re:Firefox has some work to do too... (Score:3, Interesting)
NOT DEAD YET? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure I wish it was dead just like everyone else, but last I checked my grandmother wasn't going to download firefox so she can receive RSS feeds and use tabbed browsing...
what a bias misleading subject...
i thought
muahahahahahahaha
Re:NOT DEAD YET? (Score:5, Funny)
You must be new here, welcome.
It could've been... (Score:2)
A Mac user? [slashdot.org]
Re:NOT DEAD YET? (Score:2)
From the fact that the only new feature in the past few years was the popup blocker. Microsoft hadn't been arsed to do anything about new features or standards compliance until Firefox came along. The IE "team" was just there to spackle over the latest high-profile security crack.
IE is still the 500 lb. gorilla in user share terms, but it's a lazy, out-of-shape 500 lb. gorilla.
Dead (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Dead (Score:2)
Is it an IE-only function of the bank's software? No.
It's the "print just this frame" function. My bank's website has a frame layout, and on the lower frame, it shows all my transactions. It's over a secure connection. In IE I can right click and choose to print just this frame(I think that's how it goes), and boom, it prints out my bank statement and I balance the checkbook.
If I try this in firefox, it insists
IE7 Dynamic Security Protection (Score:2)
Maybe this will finally catch the 'big one that got away.'
Still trying to figure out the statement (Score:3, Interesting)
FTA "reduced need to hack around quirks in older browsers, however, means that existing pages written specifically for older browsers may render differently in IE7. In addition, IE7 includes a number of new security features which may have impact on binary extensions such as toolbars, browser helper objects, and ActiveX controls."
I'm still scratching my head over this. From what I think this says, it means that the pages that relied on the MS specific stuff for IE5x and 6 won't look the same when viewed with IE7. Which doesn't say anything about following standards, or comparing it to how the page looks using FireFox and Opera. And, the new "security measures" will screw up all the toolbars, objects, and ActiveX that they've encouraged web developers to use. Gee, wasn't this why I switched to FireFox in the first place?
As long as they have an iron grip on the desktop OS, and insist on intertwining it into their OS, of course it has a "bright future." It doesn't mean that it's going to be any more secure (although hope reigns eternal), or be compliant with standards. I'm still trying to work out what the hell they meant.
Not Dead Yet but Still Being Flogged (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure Joe Average user doesn't care about these things (at least not directly) but he does care about the indirect problems that these things incur. All he knows is that with Firefox, he doesn't get POPUPS, it lets him modify it to what he wants it to look and act like and it's simple easy and fun to use. Most users completely forget about IE until another applications forces them to open it and asks if they want it to be their default browser.
Now even universities, schools and businesses are installing Firefox and doing their best to remove all pointers to IE due to security risks. And once the end user becomes familiar with the brwser at work or school, they will be more likely to download it and install it at home.
There is a reason why some sites show Firefox usage as high as 30%; hell even internally at Microsoft, 8-11% of people use a Mozilla based browser (based on stats from exclusive third party vendors to Microsoft).
In this case, Microsoft is their own worst enemy and needs to modify their business strategy or else continue to lose market share in the browser.
Re:Not Dead Yet but Still Being Flogged (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, IE has had a popup blocker for years now, and the average user doesn't even know you can plug things in.
There is only one reason Firefox has gained marketshare: IE's vulnerability to spyware. If they fix t
Re:Not Dead Yet but Still Being Flogged (Score:2)
People need a really good reason to use something other than what works well enough
People need several reasons. One isn't generally enough to cause people to change from something they are comfortable with and used to. You may think it is only one reason but it is a combinations of issues that have plagued their browser. Lack of CSS support, lack of W3C compliance, activeX vulnerabilities, vulnerabilities to the OS, spyware, viruses, browser hijacki
Re:Not Dead Yet but Still Being Flogged (Score:2)
Yep, it's called wishful thinking, or more accurately, Lies.
All he knows is that with Firefox, he doesn't get POPUPS, it lets him modify it to what he wants it to look and act like and it's simple easy and fun to use.
You're right, Joe average doesn't care, but IE has a popup blocker, and lets him modify just as easily as firefox. (drag and drop) It's no simpler or easier to use, and the supposed security advantage over IE looks like more
Re:Not Dead Yet but Still Being Flogged (Score:2)
And decrying it without proof is called denial. Of course you can always deny that too.
IE, monty python style (Score:2, Funny)
Thats nice, but (Score:3, Funny)
*ducks*
I don't want to go on the cart! (Score:2)
IE may not be dead now, but if MS don't stop implementing open standards how and if they feel like, IE will be loaded on the cart and clubbed in the head by Eric Idle.
Sure they've fixed a lot of stuff, but one of the most critical is the lack of support for the application/html+xml mime type.
ActiveX has to stay (Score:3, Insightful)
The summary implies that the "right" engineering decision would be to eliminate ActiveX. This is complete bullshit.
ActiveX is a mechanism that allows compiled code delivered via the web to run on the client. This feature is an absolute must-have for many corporate environments.
Was Microsoft's ActiveX security framework insufficient? Absolutely. Were their implementation buggy? Yes. Were their security defaults too lax? Certainly. But with a feature as important to your customer base as this, the right solution isn't to cut the feature. It's to fix the problems.
Re:ActiveX has to stay (Score:2)
I'm not convinced either browser does it well yet but Firefox does seem better than IE.
Re:ActiveX has to stay (Score:2)
personally i think the best option for activex is to leave it completely disabled by default with a hidden setting somewhere for those corps that bought into it (maybe because they didn't have a proper app deployment setup or whatever) to enable it for a few spefic sites. Its most certainly totally inappropriate for the open web.
mhm.. (Score:5, Funny)
Right, its Opera.
ducks
IE is dead... (Score:2)
What's the point of comparing features? (Score:2)
A quick visit to the Firefox extensions archive, and anyone can see
IE is primitive by comparison. I've got at least 15 extensions running
in Firefox, which add functionality to Gmail, Amazon, Ebay and yes, Hotmail.
I've also got FireFTP, for in-browser FTP'ing, G-Space for file storage
on Gmail, weather reporting, in-page/on the fly foreign-currency to dollar conversion,
a sophisticated download manager, right-click access to Wikipedia, Dictionary.com,
and Ti
If it's not dead yet... (Score:3, Funny)
no, of course IE isn't dead... (Score:3, Funny)
Only on Slashdot... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Standards? (Score:2)
I take it you're a bit too young to remember when IE invented the "strong" tag to break the "b" tag. (If you ever tried to create "cross-browser" Javascript, especially around 2000, you'd also feel differently.)
Re:Standards? (Score:3, Insightful)
What you're talking about is what takes place between F/OSS projects working on the same thing; each takes ideas from the others while coming up with its own ideas, which may be copied.
Sometimes it happens in battles between commercial products, but often each starts implementing things differently for the sole purpose of breaking compatibility with the other. The result is documents, pages, et cetera that will only work with
RTF... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:vista only? (Score:2, Interesting)
There's two ways to get Vista into the hands of schucks:
Vista will be out there, but keep in mind, there's a lot of users still dorking along on Win 95, Win 98, ME, NT, 2000, etc. and they're in no hurry to switch. Why pay an a Technology
Re:vista only? (Score:5, Insightful)
My wife is already sold on a MacBook (she's waiting for the design to mature a little, we've been burned before buying the first generation of a product). I'm happily running Windows 2000 and Ubuntu and they suit my needs just fine. In fact Windows 2000 suits all my needs right now, however I am trying to get used to Ubuntu just for fun.
Its future IS bright (Score:2)