backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by Setsunayaki.. on Mar 21 at 8:06 PM


DailyTech, loading in IE 9 Preview version
Microsoft finally seems to be taking advanced web standards seriously

"Finally!"

That must be what hundreds of veteran internet developers are saying since Microsoft is finally taking interest in embracing advanced web technologies.  After all, such technologies were typically driven by browsers with scant market share like Google Chrome or Opera, while Internet Explorer, the world's most used browser lagged far behind.  That meant that it was impractical for companies to take full advantage of the latest internet technologies, as few customers could actually use them.

At its annual Mix conference Microsoft showed that would change, unveiling a demo build of Internet Explorer 9, the successor to the widely used IE 7 and IE 8.  The demo included support for a host of HTML5 features; among them were h.264 embedded video (the kind that Google is using to trial HTML5 versions of YouTube) and embedded audio (with support for MP3/AAC codecs).

Microsoft is also supporting scalable vector graphics (SVG), an XML-driven webpage technology that's another hot topic.  SVG allows rudimentary drawings of things like lines or shapes.  In that respect, it's similar to some of the capabilities of Adobe's Flash.  With both SVG and HTML5 rendering, Microsoft is actually using DirectX video acceleration via the Direct2D API.  This means that Microsoft may actually be beating Google and others when it comes to these advanced standards, in terms of performance and speed.

Another important technology that Microsoft is supporting with IE 9 is CSS3.  Cascading style sheets (CSS) allow you to tweak your webpage presentation (how pretty your fonts look) by simply tweaking style variables.  Among the CSS3 features inside IE 9 are Selectors, Namespaces, Color, Values, Backgrounds, Borders, and fonts.

Microsoft is also packing a faster Javascript engine under the hood of IE 9.  In tests, the new engine is rather respectable -- about as fast as Firefox's script engine.  It still lags behind the Opera and Webkit (Google and Apple) engines, but it's not even a release build yet, so that's pretty respectable performance nonetheless.

But the best part of Microsoft's announcement is that you can try the browser for yourself.  It's available for download in preview form here.  Beware the preview is only geared at developers and there's no address bar (you have to go to the "Page" menu for that.

And another word of warning -- IE 9 won't support Windows XP, though.  That's really not that surprising if you think about it, but it may be a bit of a shock to some.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Discontinue anything under IE8
By Shig on 3/17/2010 9:30:54 AM , Rating: 5
Please




RE: Discontinue anything under IE8
By danobrega on 3/17/2010 9:33:58 AM , Rating: 2
Yep. It would make much more sense to support XP but discontinue earlier versions. For web developers having to support versions 5, 6, 7, 8 and now 9, and all the other browsers is just crazy.


RE: Discontinue anything under IE8
By amanojaku on 3/17/2010 10:00:56 AM , Rating: 2
Are you kidding? Supporting an OS is much more difficult than supporting a web browser, and MS does not support anything older than IE7. So, the burden is on developers to support browsers, and anyone supporting IE6 and older is the reason we're stuck in Internet limbo. Those machines running IE5 and 6 can upgrade to IE7 or 8, and for less than $200 they can just move to Win7.


By symbiosys on 3/17/2010 6:47:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Are you kidding? Supporting an OS is much more difficult than supporting a web browser, and MS does not support anything older than IE7. So, the burden is on developers to support browsers, and anyone supporting IE6 and older is the reason we're stuck in Internet limbo. Those machines running IE5 and 6 can upgrade to IE7 or 8, and for less than $200 they can just move to Win7.


I have been a front end web dev for nearly 4 years. I have only of late ditched all efforts of supporting anything below IE7. I just simply have a script tells the user to upgrade their browser and list all the current browsers if they are using an unsupported version. I'm over having to make style-sheet variations/fixes for every freakn' version of IE.


RE: Discontinue anything under IE8
By MrPoletski on 3/17/2010 10:17:03 AM , Rating: 3
Just leave users of old browsers behind, they'll soon upgrade one way or another.


RE: Discontinue anything under IE8
By Souka on 3/17/2010 11:44:06 AM , Rating: 5
When 51.8% (source powerpage.org) of the PC computer market uses Windows XP, it's a big deal


RE: Discontinue anything under IE8
By LCS2009 on 3/17/2010 9:00:49 PM , Rating: 4
The real challengue would be if other competitors (google chrome, firefox) does support XP with all enhacenments and IE9 does not... They will lose marketshare...


By MrPoletski on 3/19/2010 5:45:33 AM , Rating: 2
Tough luck for them then.

Survival of the fittest.


By marvdmartian on 3/18/2010 9:04:01 AM , Rating: 1
We'll send all the crying grannies still using IE6 on AOL over to your house. ;)


RE: Discontinue anything under IE8
By bigi on 3/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Discontinue anything under IE8
By StraightCashHomey on 3/17/2010 10:41:20 AM , Rating: 5
Work in IT and then ask the same question.


RE: Discontinue anything under IE8
By Souka on 3/17/2010 11:50:56 AM , Rating: 2
No doubt.... last three companies I"ve worked at (in two years) are barely beginning Win7 deployments and testing.

Why?

No significant benifit and lots of software compatibility issues.

I'm currently heading a Win7 testing group at my company. Win7 32-bit does have a few issues with some of our older software/hardware, but the real bitch is the 64bit flavor.

Don't get me wrong... I like Win7 myself, but the real advantage I look forward to is 64bit OS and more memory for the users. XP 64bit is fine, but no where nearly as supported as Win7 64bit. Vista 64bit... well....it's Vista..

Anyhow... happy happy, joy joy... change is coming... more job insurance for me!


RE: Discontinue anything under IE8
By LCS2009 on 3/17/2010 8:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but I think that big step between 32bit and 64bit is because regular consumers face NOW the current "forced-move-to-64bits" situation because of RAM memory and technology moving forward... so it doesn't matter when this will happend°°, it could have been suffered years ago if most of people have moved to 64 bits...


RE: Discontinue anything under IE8
By gamerk2 on 3/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Discontinue anything under IE8
By Denigrate on 3/17/10, Rating: 0
By tallcool1 on 3/17/2010 11:48:03 AM , Rating: 5
Reality is that most people use the computer for Internet surfing, basic office tasks and email. That kind of system is more than adaquate for these tasks.

Also, if MS wants to kill of the old browsers faster, then they would adopt IE9 to windows XP as the majority of people still run this OS. If you force the hand by not having XP support, then people will just continue to use their old versions of IE or maybe switch to Firefox or another 3rd party.


RE: Discontinue anything under IE8
By Belard on 3/17/2010 11:03:42 PM , Rating: 1
But once XP is patched up with SP3, it starts to bog down with the 300~400mb of compressed update patches.

My notebook came with XP (vista was not something I wanted) and it ran better than newer and faster vista notebooks. But putting Windows7 on it, and wow it smokes XP and vista.

And when it comes to P4s, those CPU/systems were always slow.

XP still has a good few years left. Its amazing that IE9 won't support XP... but many people are upgrading their OSes and buying new computers. Todays $400 computers are easily 3-5x faster than the Pentium4 or even PentiumEEs from 2006 and older.


By danobrega on 3/17/2010 11:08:39 AM , Rating: 4
It is not us that work on XP, it's our clients. Can't do much about that. And it is easier to make them upgrade the browser version than the operating system. ;)


RE: Discontinue anything under IE8
By nafhan on 3/17/2010 10:06:42 AM , Rating: 2
Sadly, I think that they have to continue to support IE6 at some level until they completely discontinue support for XP since IE6 was the browser version at release.
Just a thought, but could they be in a position where IE6 will be supported longer than IE9? IE6, 7, and 8 were all released alongside OS updates, and conceivably will have to be supported as long as their corresponding OS's (2014 for XP). IE9 will be the first standalone browser release in a while, and it will therefore be much easier for them to just say "upgrade to IE10".


RE: Discontinue anything under IE8
By Omega215D on 3/17/2010 10:16:18 AM , Rating: 1
Can't, too many businesses still rely on the old IE browsers and are too lazy to move to update. Yeah I said lazy because IE7 and IE 8 have been out for how long now? Not to mention the major security enhancements that were introduced with those browsers.


By MrPoletski on 3/17/2010 10:17:58 AM , Rating: 2
Can, because screw 'em.

Their lazy attitude will be the end of them then.


RE: Discontinue anything under IE8
By WW102 on 3/17/2010 3:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
Its not about being lazy its about money. Lots of legacy software doesnt work properly on the newer browers. The option would be to used older browers or pay to upgrade the software just to use the "latest" browers.

Maybe the government should subsidize the cost to upgrade software and browsers. Joking of course....


By Chudilo on 3/17/2010 10:12:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"That meant that it was impractical for companies to take full advantage of the latest internet technologies, as few customers could actually use them."


In other words the practice of not using any modern technologies will still continue as most of the corporate world is still on XP.

I second the fact this article needed a reference to a web developer at one of the major internet publications that would be some sort of an authority on the subject. Otherwise this is just speculation. If you did not intend to portray it that way , then do not provide the numbers (unless of course you ran a poll of web developers)




By MrPoletski on 3/17/2010 10:21:16 AM , Rating: 2
My company is stuick on XP because the software we use to talk to our systems runs on XP. Nobody has bothered updating that software yet for vista/win7 (not that it couldn't be run on a XP VM under win7 tho).

A kick up the butt is what our corp would need to rectify this situation and a kick up the butt would be welcome from a grunt on the front line such as myself.


By gamerk2 on 3/17/2010 10:48:58 AM , Rating: 2
My corp uses software written a good 15 years ago in 16-bits, so there is no way to run on anything higher then XP).

We use a 16-bit telnet connection for secure communication between sites, so we can't run anything higher then XP

The standard PC here is a P4 2.2 GHz, which is far too weak to run anything higher then XP.

The average amount of RAM is 128MB DDR, which is far too weak to run anything higher then XP.

As for GPU, most of us have old ATI Rage 128's (if we're lucky), which again, can't run anything higher then XP.

Your argument is basically for the coorporation to spend several million to replace almost every single PC in use, spend thousands of man-hours re-writing software that works as is (nevermind testing), all for a new OS that does...what exactly?

So please stop it.


By f4tb0y on 3/17/2010 11:09:26 AM , Rating: 4
what is your corporation going to do when all that old hardware starts failing? Seems to me that you should have some systems in place to start an upgrade rollout


By rudolphna on 3/17/2010 11:13:14 AM , Rating: 2
You're all going to be SOL when microsoft stops supporting XP. Corporations have had to upgrade in the past, and they will have to do it again. In the long run the companies would save money. New computers are more efficent, (Pentium 4 anyone?) and can do alot more work. If they are too cheap to upgrade and get software rewritten to work, instead of clinging to ancient software.. Well, that is their problem.


By Luticus on 3/17/2010 11:17:43 AM , Rating: 4
I shudder when I think about how secure your network must be.

Your company should do what most companies do and get on a refresh cycle. replace 1/4 - 1/3 of your systems every year or so.

Unless your company is THAT small in which case you shouldn't have THAT many computers to upgrade... it's their own fault for falling THAT far behind... 128MB RAM... you should be on Win98 with specs like that!

As for what Windows Vista/7 have to offer the list of pros is quite long and very nice. If none of it is compelling enough for you that's fine, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I just wanted to point out that your argument is a terrible one that hopefully no one would listen too.

After upgrading my entire home network (10+) computers/servers to Windows 7/Server 08 my network is faster, more efficient, more secure, and offers more features. so there are reasons to upgrade if they appeal to you. Back in the good old days Windows 98 worked just fine too... we upgraded because Windows XP worked better.

If you want to use Windows XP till the end of time, that's your deal. Personally, I can understand why Microsoft doesn't want to support 10 year old technology anymore.

If everyone thought like that we'd still be stuck in the stone age.


By SavagePotato on 3/17/2010 11:45:01 AM , Rating: 3
Though not in a corporate setting I remember dealing with a small business owner in a situation such as this once.

He had all of his tills run off a pre-Pentium system running Dos, with a dot matrix printer for receipt printing. He had it since the mid 90's and it was set up by a company that no longer existed who specifically built till setups for businesses. This was in something like 2006 or 2007.

So the whole thing was connected with some monstrous scsi card that was quite likely dead, and the guy calls and is standing there tapping his foot thinking as though I will be waving my magic tech wand and making this ancient custom built Dos 6.2 run mess come to life again. Dropping the ever important business owner phrases such as "I can't be down at all, this has to work now"

He was SOL and had to get a whole new till solution in place since there was nothing I could do for him, nor did I have the resources or anything resembling a want to replace his till system for him.


By Luticus on 3/17/2010 2:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
I can relate to this as i have a buddy who owns an electronics shop and he also uses old systems, though more current than the one you mentioned. His set up is so bad that (despite my warnings) he actually uses his server as a standard workstation... BAD!!!!

The sad part is how common these practices are. Companies try to save a buck by never upgrading and then they cry about it when their infrastructure breaks down and they get a million viruses because their systems are ridiculously vulnerable. Then they wonder why nothings ever comparable with their older network and why they have a tech labor bill that's through the roof! All that wasted energy and money could have been put towards staying current and then problems like these could be avoided.

The beauty of the refresh cycle is you only replace your oldest components every so often so that you always have only a small part of the entire bill. When companies let their old tech build up, however, there's no avoiding a total refresh years ahead when $h17 finally hits the fan!


By gamerk2 on 3/17/2010 12:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
ITT is hardly a small company; just a top 10 defense firm with several hundred million in government contracts.

Look at it this way: We upgrade hardware, it comes from your taxes. We upgrade the software [that we havn't touched in 15 years], thats also paid for on taxpayer dollars [nevermind the military would have to spend untold millions more to re-certify everything...]. Everything we do, we need to be paid for. And Uncle Sam is the one paying us for our work. Get it?

So yeah, I'd say that a pretty convincing argument. Unless you don't mind the Billion dollars it would take to make a XP-Vista move...


By Luticus on 3/17/2010 1:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
I can understand where you're coming from to a point. I currently work for my county government as an IT professional and every time we buy something it also comes from tax payer money. However, we are still on a refresh cycle where every year we typically replace 1/3 of our county network.

What I'm saying is had the company you mentioned stayed on top of staying current with technology they'd be in a much smaller mess than they are now. When we make the move to Windows 7 it will be relatively painless because all of our computers can run it and 90%+ of our software will work on it. We are actually in the middle of testing for a move to Windows 7 and we'll probably either roll it out after this fall or maybe with our next PC refresh in Jan 2011 if it gets delayed for some reason.


By Dailey on 3/17/2010 2:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft Windows XP will end-of-life in regards to security updates on or about April 14, 2014.

If Microsoft follows prior patters, that 2014 date will be extended several years.

Windows XP is stable, it is tried, it is true. Windows XP is paid for, the applications are paid for, the hardware is paid for, it is familiar to all, and all the training has long since taken place.

You do not need to change your computer platform every few years any more than you need to buy a new refrigerator, stove, oven or car every few years. Sure - some people do buy a new car every few years - but most of us can spend our money better elsewhere, particularly if we make careful choices in the first place.

There is no hurry to rush into Windows VISTA or Windows 7 or IE 7, 8 or 9. Windows 7 might become of interest in several years as it matures - the same goes for the many editions of IE.

Everything in XP works. It ain't broke. There is nothing to fix.

We will begin to seriously consider alternatives to Windows XP in the April 2012 time frame - giving us one year to think our way through issues, and then a second year to implement (at least).

We will not even consider any Windows OS that is not at it's SP2 stage prior to April, 2013.

We have no reason to even think about evaluating any other Windows OS until 2012. To do so, we would only be wasting our time.

Time that we are using instead to evaluate where Linux or Apple might also fit into our strategies. And to continue to work out security issues: security issues that will be with us with Windows XP, Windows VISTA, Windows 7, and Windows whatever - security concerns are not going to go away.

No need to chase the latest Windows OS or Microsoft IE version - like a dog running qaround in circles chasing its own tail.

Best regards,

Dailey


By Hoser McMoose on 3/18/2010 7:01:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Time that we are using instead to evaluate where Linux or Apple might also fit into our strategies.

If you don't like Windows because of Microsoft's support and life cycle policies you're going to HATE Apple!

Microsoft supports their products for CONSIDERABLY longer than Apple or any Linux distribution. Microsoft also clearly lays out how long they will support their software (as do some Linux distributions) while with Apple it's entirely unwritten policy and vagueries.

From past experience Apple releases a new version of OS X roughly once every 1.5 years. After the new version is released they stop adding new features to the old version and stop releasing security fixes for the previous version about within about 1 year.

So, for example, OS X 10.6 was released last summer. OS X 10.5 is likely to get it's last new feature upgrades this summer (less than 3 years after it's release) and OS X 10.4 is likely to be completely EOLed (no more security fixes) at about the same time (roughly 5 years after release. Exactly what these dates will be is anyone's guess.

With Windows XP, on the other hand, new features were discontinued April 14, 2009 (8 years after it's release) and security updates will be discontinued April 4th, 2014 (13 years after it's release). Vista Business will get new features up until April 10, 2012 and security fixes up until April 11, 2017. For Windows 7 Professional it'll be Jan. 13, 2015 and Jan. 14, 2020 respectively.

As you might have noticed Microsoft documents this things somewhat better.


By Dailey on 3/19/2010 9:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you don't like Windows because of Microsoft's support and life cycle policies you're going to HATE Apple!


Been there. Done that. ;-)

I kept a business going that used some Mac software in the 1994-2005 timeframe. The software was excellent. The machines were excellent. However, our Macintosh vendors were always trying to get us to beta-test their latest and greatest software for them - lots of pressure - and to completely upgrade every three years or so. They were very heavy-handed - constant churning. Of course, if you did upgrade, the computers and the printers and keyboards and mice and software and such would all have to be replaced. I did not see that we would benefit in this in any way - only they would benefit.

I did take things from MacOS 7.1, Update 3 - to MacOS 7.5.5 - to MacOS 8.6 - through MacOS 9.2.2 - but that was at our own pace, about three years behind their cutting edge. Well after all bugs were worked out. MacOS 10.0 - then new and slow and unstable - a slow, costly Unix clone with a GUI - just made me look to Linux - i.e., a fast, free Unix clone with a GUI. After comparing Linux and MacOS X, I blocked any upgrade path toward MacOS X and ran out all the MacOS 9.2.2 software and hardware through 2005.

quote:
From past experience Apple releases a new version of OS X roughly once every 1.5 years. After the new version is released they stop adding new features to the old version and stop releasing security fixes for the previous version about within about 1 year.


Thank you for the heads-up. It sounds like things have gotten worse since we stopped using Apple products.

It is these sorts of antics that keep business from using Apple over the long term. Apple knows this well - their niche is the consumer space, where latest and greatest win out over the long, hard slog. And Apple does latest and greatest very, very well.

quote:
Microsoft supports their products for CONSIDERABLY longer than Apple or any Linux distribution. Microsoft also clearly lays out how long they will support their software (as do some Linux distributions) while with Apple it's entirely unwritten policy and vagueries.


Our Linux experience has worked out well for where Linux can be used. Upgrades are unpressured, easy to accomplish, free, and do not obsolete any hardware or software. More software becomes available year by year. Hardware compatibility improves, year by year, as well.

Of the three operating system environments, in my experience, Macintosh has been the worst when it comes to "forced upgrades" - Microsoft has been middlin' - and it has not been an issue in Linux.

Security is an issue we consider, as well.

I still favor looking at all three systems in 2012 - and making decisions based on the merits at that time. If Macintosh is still putting its users on a forced upgrade treadmill at that time - which I suspect is in Macintosh's core DNA - we will largely pass Macintosh by.

In the 2012-2014 timeframe, overpowered multicore machines will be inexpensive, SSDs will be mature and inexpensive, Windows 7 should be at the SP2-SP3 level and have at least a 6-8 year future, and most Windows software will have mature updates for Windows 7. It will be a good time to then upgrade all Microsoft machines for at least a 6-8 year period - or longer, depending on the final security EOL of Windows 7 SP3. And then we will go through the process once more.

Shifting more towards Linux between and with each Windows upgrade cycle as more Linux software becomes available.

No hurry to be first to upgrade. We prefer, actually, to be last

The tortoise wins the race.

quote:
Textsecurity updates will be discontinued April 4th, 2014 (13 years after it's release).


One reads different dates. April 8, 2014 is also commonly quoted. A web search for "Windows XP SP3 EOL 2014" will bring up anything from "April 2014" to "August 4, 2014." Take your pick.

Every time I think that I have the date right, I soon read a different date.

Most focus on April, 2014. I think we will have a more definitive date as the exact day approaches. If Microsoft follows its prior patterns, the date will get extended by a year or two as the actual date approaches.

Best regards,

Dailey


By mdbrotha on 3/17/2010 3:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
That's interesting considering the Army post I am stationed has a yearly upgrade cycle. We try to do 1/3 of the PC's each year. Each of those PCs comes with a 3 year warranty. So by the time the warranty has ended, the computer gets replaced. We have completely moved to Windows Vista, for its enhanced security.


By gamerk2 on 3/18/2010 7:46:24 AM , Rating: 2
But in our world, thats not a possibility.

Remember, we work directly with software that has been developed in some cases over 30 years, and is known stable. After pouring hundreds of billions into some of these programs, do you REALLY thing anyone wants to mess with things now just to allow functionallity with a new OS? We still have VAX computers and even a legacy 3.1 machine for this very reason, as no one wants to re-write 30 years of software code that is in a known state and is used as a basline against new revisions.

Besides, a lot of our equipment requires direct acess to hardware, which went the way of the Dodo even in XP. We have a lot of 98SE machines around for that reason (anyone remember those serial port keys? Yeah, those don't work in XP, making the HW that requires them unusable).

Now, if you don't mind an extra Billion in government debt, and a total freeze on SW development for the US military while we rebuild and test the software in all possible configurations, then goodie. Otherwise, we're stuck.

And I note: Our secure network isn't connected to the Internet. I also note, we have about 3-4 hardware firewalls between us and our public network anyways. If you rely on the OS for security, then of course you'll have problems.


By tmouse on 3/18/2010 8:16:20 AM , Rating: 2
So please tell us why are you even posting to this article? By your own statements you are NOT connected to the internet. Why pray tell do you even care about IE9? None of its features will be of any real use to you. Stay with what you have, your system is pretty much set in stone at this time. The problem is when (NOT IF) your system starts to go it will pretty much be a cascading system failure and everything you do will come to a screaming halt. That will cost 10-100 times the cost to get running on newer hardware with emergency hardware replacements and software re-writes which as you point out will probably not be as stable due to the rush needed to get things up. It's a recipe for disaster. Being a bit proactive saves a fortune compared to being totally reactive which is the path your company seems to be taking. Pretending nothing will ever stop working is simply foolish. I sincerely hope you are simply unaware of what steps your company is really doing. If they are maintaining cost competitiveness by remaining on an increasingly aging hardware and software infrastructure with no plans to change till the crap hits the fan they are not doing the taxpayers any favors.


By Etsp on 3/17/2010 1:18:17 PM , Rating: 2
Can you please explain how a protocol that sends the username and password in PLAIN TEXT can be described as secure?


Journalism
By porkpie on 3/17/2010 9:50:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That must be what hundreds of veteran internet developers are saying
Why not find at least ONE who says that, then, instead of putting your own opinion into the story? Journalistic standards exist for good reason.




RE: Journalism
By theapparition on 3/17/2010 10:10:13 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree in principle, this is a blog and hence the author is entitled to his opinions.


RE: Journalism
By Omega215D on 3/17/2010 10:14:22 AM , Rating: 2
This is a news story, not a blog. The blog icon next to his name is a link to his blog. Seriously, I though we'd all figure that out by now considering how many times this was debated.


RE: Journalism
By Fanon on 3/17/2010 10:48:35 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a web developer. Have been for over ten years. I said "Finally" when I read the spec support sheet.

I can speak for the entire web development community when I say "Finally". If you're not a web developer, then you have no idea how Microsoft has ignored key web standards support in their browser.


RE: Journalism
By whiskerwill on 3/17/2010 11:18:01 AM , Rating: 4
I'm a web developer, and Microsoft SET more standards than it ignored. Back when MS had 90%+ of the market, it was sheer stupidity for some random W3 appointees (most who hailed from MS competitors) to come along and set "standards" that in many cases, were no better than the way MS was already doing it, and were just designed to do them one in the eye.

Work in any presentation language other than HTML for a while, and you'll understand what a pathetic ball of band-aid tricks HTML is. And HTML5 really isn't any better.


RE: Journalism
By Chudilo on 3/17/2010 11:37:44 AM , Rating: 3
I'm sure you are a developer and I'm sure you are happy to see this, as I am. But the author of the article stated actual numbers
quote:
That must be what hundreds of veteran internet developers...

Unless he conducted an actual poll or have gotten opinions of "hundreds of veteran internet developers", he is not allowed to use numbers. He could've said something like "many" or "numerous". But if you use a number you can not just get that out of thin air. What's stopping him from saying millions or hundreds of millions, gazillions and so on.


RE: Journalism
By Fanon on 3/17/2010 12:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
I can't argue with your first statement. What we have today is, in large part, due to Microsoft. I also can't argue with what the W3C did was stupid by taking portions from, what was essentially Netscape, and make it standard.

But here's the thing. The W3C did do what it did, and all other browser makers incorporated standards support in their browsers. It wouldn't have been a big deal except a little browser called Firefox started picking up a decent sized market share and paved the way for Browser war 2.0: IE vs everyone else.

The market share size of non-IE browsers is large enough to warrant building websites and apps that work in all major browsers. It has been the Netscape 4 hell all over again, but this time with IE causing the headaches.

So it doesn't really matter what Microsoft did in the past for web standards - what matters is now. And right now, IE is behind the pack.


RE: Journalism
By kattanna on 3/17/2010 11:55:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Journalistic standards exist for good reason


while they may exist, too bad it seems nowadays they are rarely used.

and no, im not just talking about DT, but in general.


So...
By dark matter on 3/17/2010 9:19:50 AM , Rating: 1
All those XP users in an office still on IE 5.5

Damn.




RE: So...
By darklight0tr on 3/17/2010 11:09:44 AM , Rating: 2
XP came with IE 6, not 5.5.


RE: So...
By nangryo on 3/18/2010 5:43:14 AM , Rating: 2
No. XP Prior SP2 came with IE 5.5 pre installed.
Only XP with SP2 and later version comes with IE6


RE: So...
By darklight0tr on 3/18/2010 9:18:32 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately you are incorrect. IE 6 came out in 2001 before the release of Windows XP and was packaged with the OS. IE 5.5 was never preinstalled with Windows XP. IE 6 SP1 came out with Windows XP SP1 and IE 6 SP2 came out with Windows XP SP2.


By compuser2010 on 3/17/2010 11:13:44 AM , Rating: 2
Looks like Microsoft is increasingly forcing people off of XP. Reminds me of how widescreen TVs/monitors were eventually forced on us U.S. customers.




By Luticus on 3/17/2010 11:32:56 AM , Rating: 3
Forcing the advance of technology is *not* a bad thing. Unless you want black bars on the side of all of your tv channels in wide format forever. Personally I prefer the move to HD and wide screen as it looks better and is better. Even more than that the movies we buy no longer have to be "edited" just so they can fit on our tv sets anymore.


By porkpie on 3/17/2010 11:55:45 AM , Rating: 2
How are they "forcing" you? If you don't want to upgrade-- don't. They're not coming to your house with a gun now are they?

Worse case, in 5 years when HTML5 may actually be a market force, you download a non-IE HTML5-compliant browser.


Huh?
By ChrisHF on 3/17/2010 9:52:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
... Opera and Webkit (Google and Apple) ...


Google and Apple both use Webkit.




RE: Huh?
By ChrisHF on 3/17/2010 9:53:13 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, I guess that's what you were saying as well. I read it wrong.


installing it right now
By troysavary on 3/17/2010 9:59:21 AM , Rating: 2
Let's see how quickly I can break it.




RE: installing it right now
By Zertzydoo on 3/17/2010 11:14:06 AM , Rating: 2
I haven't tried too much, but it seems to work pretty well.

The CSS3 stuff renders correctly which by itself is a great start!


No XP support?
By kenglong on 3/17/2010 10:20:56 AM , Rating: 2
That means no IE9 for me and most of the people I know. I have yet to find a compelling reason to move off of XP with IE8. Vista was a non-starter and 7, while it seems to work fine, offers no compelling reason to switch to it.




RE: No XP support?
By darklight0tr on 3/17/2010 11:07:22 AM , Rating: 2
If you're happy with XP then you'll be happy with IE 8 or another browser. Do you expect Microsoft to support XP forever?

If there is no compelling reason for you to upgrade by all means don't. I understand that completely. But don't be surprised when the world moves on and you are unsupported.


why do we have Silverlight?"
By crystal clear on 3/17/2010 11:06:53 AM , Rating: 2
After five years of work, a draft of the HTML5 specification was released in 2008.
Parts of it are showing up in browsers, but the complete HTML5 work won't be done for years.

One of HTML5's goals is to move the Web away from proprietary technologies such as Flash, Silverlight, and JavaFX, says Ian Hickson, co-editor of the HTML5 specification. (Hickson is a Google employee, while his co-editor David Hyatt works for Apple.)

So Microsoft heavily promoting HTMLs when silverlight exist today,now prompts me to ask the question-

why do we have Silverlight?"

After investing so much in Silverlight, now they kill it !

Microsoft should address this question in detail & be honest about it.




RE: why do we have Silverlight?"
By porkpie on 3/17/2010 12:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
Or you could just use your own common sense.

HTML5's "goal" may be to move the web off proprietary presentation technology. But it's a long way from offering everything available in Silverlight.

MS is giving developers a choice. Use the tool that makes sense for the situation. In an all-IE environment, Silverlight is still by far preferable. In a heterogeneous environment, go with HTML5.

What's hard to understand about that?


idiotic article
By Visual on 3/17/2010 11:56:38 AM , Rating: 2
Whoever wrote the description of CSS is either a complete idiot, or considers his readers to be such. And describing SVG's capabilities as "rudimentary" points towards the first option.




RE: idiotic article
By Captain Orgazmo on 3/17/2010 6:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
Did you miss the byline? It is a Jason Mick article. He is like the Ron Burgundy of Daily Tech. Or maybe Brick Tamland (I like lamp).


IE8 disables FrontPage
By jimmyb2020 on 3/17/2010 11:56:09 AM , Rating: 3
In 2003 I began using FrontPage to build simple websites for my small businesses. It's an excellent program for novices to learn and use, unlike freak shows such as Dreamweaver. It enabled us to have a strong web presence that would not have been possible if I had been forced to continue hiring developers who did crappy but expensive work. Even though FP is not compliant with current standards, I've been able to design sites that rank in the top 2 or 3 in natural searches, so the excess code isn't bothering the robots. Microsoft discontinued support for FP, a program that I paid for, after it was less than 5 years old, which I can live with. But it turns out the IE8 DISABLES FRONT PAGE, which I believe has been done on purpose to force users to buy ExpressionWeb, an overly complicated program that is worse than Dreamweaver. Shame on Microsoft.




Ok by me
By fic2 on 3/17/2010 2:58:25 PM , Rating: 1
I ditched IE long before MS thought about ditching XP.




RE: Ok by me
By cherrycoke on 3/20/2010 7:42:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'm real proud of you.


Finally!
By Murst on 3/17/2010 11:07:42 AM , Rating: 2
IE will finally support border-radius. Unfortunately, box-shadow isn't yet supported, and I refuse to use the -ms-filter:shadow method since it tends to mess up the text. Hopefully box-shadow will be supported in the future.

I did a quick test for some styles I'd like to see... Firefox 3.6 is on the left, IE Preview on the right: http://www.bloodforge.com/image.axd?picture=ie9css...




Security
By Setsunayaki on 3/21/2010 8:06:47 PM , Rating: 2
I remember years ago I would code web pages under lower standards for compatibility. This creates a problem because lower standards to the web programmer = Older Standards

People would trade away security for compatibility/flexibility.

I use FireFox and Opera since they are not part of the Core of Windows. Unfortunately, Internet Explorer itself will still be a vulnerability as long as it is part of the Windows Core.

You could give as much security to the browser as you wish, but having to deal with IE being hacked and wrecked on your machine endangering your windows installation is one of the main reasons why many who know computers flock to FireFox or Opera.

I would love IE to be seperate from the Core and be given the choice on installations....that alone would be the greatest security improvement the browser has ever faced.




all i want to know
By inperfectdarkness on 3/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: all i want to know
By MrDiSante on 3/17/2010 9:44:48 AM , Rating: 5
ACID3 is in large part garbage.
1) It uses CSS 3 working drafts. That means that if all browsers implemented them as per the ACID3 test, devs started using them, and then the spec changed we'd have a ton of incompliant behaviour.
2) A lot of the features are either extremely esoteric or not something you would see used on a daily basis.
3) It is not made by the W3C group.


RE: all i want to know
By Fanon on 3/17/2010 10:51:07 AM , Rating: 5
Finally, someone sane.

Acid3 is the 3DMark of browser tests. It's a synthetic test. There's no real value of scoring well with Acid3.


RE: all i want to know
By gamerk2 on 3/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: all i want to know
By Fanon on 3/17/2010 11:12:06 AM , Rating: 4
CSS3 is in a working draft state. It is not proposed.

http://www.w3.org/standards/techs/css#w3c_all


RE: all i want to know
By danobrega on 3/17/2010 11:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
There we go again with the "its a draft" argument. Unless I'm mistaken the proposed standards are in draft until at least some of the major players implement them. This is precisely so that the major players (where Microsoft should be included) can, in the process of implementing the standard, challenge some of the standard.

Now, if those same players say they will not implement the standard until it gets out of the draft phase, we are in a dead end, aren't we?


RE: all i want to know
By nichow on 3/17/2010 11:36:09 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it remains a draft until the working group finally agree on enough to where the release it as an official specification. I've been a member of a working group for a hardware related spec and it takes quite a bit of negotiation and NDA's to get all the members to agree. Implementation has nothing to do with the spec's draft status.

802.11n is a good example, you could buy various wireless networking gear that implement the draft of that spec for years before it was finalized.

There is some danger to implementing draft specs too soon. If those specs change significantly after implementation it will cause major problems for intranets/internet sites that code based on the draft behavior. Either thousands of sites to change or a few browser developers maintaining backwards compatibility to past behavior that is no longer in spec... Neither is a very good situation.

I'm not up to speed on the likelihood of the various draft specs changing enough to cause real problems, but it is a valid concern. The race to get 100% Acid3 results might actually end up being detrimental to the web and the ability of the spec working groups to make good changes since I'm sure they would be pressured by the various group members that have already implemented the spec according to an earlier draft.


RE: all i want to know
By crystal clear on 3/17/2010 10:20:28 AM , Rating: 2
As Microsoft supports more of the HTML5, CSS3 and SVG2 markup, the company expects its ACID3 ratings to go up, officials said. At the Professional Developers Conference in November, Microsoft officials showed a very early build of IE 9, which earned an ACID3 score of 32. The build out today is up to 55, according to company officials.

Microsoft’s high-level goals for IE 9 include making the browser snappier, maintaining compatibility with Web sites at at least the same level as IE 8 and, ultimately, enabling developers to use the same markup across IE 9 and other non-Microsoft browsers. That last of these three guiding principles is more theoretical and real at this point, but it’s interesting Microsoft is thinking this way.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=5572&tag=col1;...


“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki