Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Is Planning To Renew IE Development
jm.one writes "In his weblog the Mozilla developer Gervase Markham (aka Gerv) points out that Microsoft is re-constituting the Windows IE team. You can save Mozillazine's bandwidth(they've been /.ed every day this week) by directly checking out this post at Dave Massy's WebLog at MSDN.
They even have set up an IE Feedback section in their channel9 wiki."
Microsoft doesn't improve their products-- ever-- except in the presence of a viable competitor
So they're going to start patching security hole instead of ignoring them now?
Give me full XHTML and CSS2 compliance please. Oh, and transparent PNGs.
Too much to ask?
...would that be a good thing for Microsoft? You seem to be forgetting MSIE's purpose: As a lock-in tool to other Microsoft products. A browser which is a drop-in replacement for Mozilla-based browsers-- and thus conversely has Mozilla-based browsers as a drop-in replacement for it-- doesn't serve this purpose at all.
Dear Microsoft.
patch the holes that make malware so easy to infect a machine so my job's a whole lot fucking easier.
- every goddamn ISP tech support staff.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
I consider the recent addition of pop-up blocking in MSIE (XP SP2) bad news. Advertisers will just find more obnoxious ways to place their adds, making the pop-up blocker in Mozilla less effective.
Remember if the friggin' window is maximized or not!!!!
Provide user options to kill popups
Don't allow friggin' Drive By Downloads!
Support all W3C standards. Deprecate all your proprietary extensions.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
I can say though that somewhat vague requests for "better standards support" are not as useful as a specific example of what you'd like to see changed and specifically why it would improve things. - Dave Massey
What part of "better standards support" does he think is too vague? Does this guy need it spelling out to him or what (rhetorical question by the way)!
I should have kept quiet yesterday. ;-)
;-/
Right now, I am hacking away on an article about browser competition on the desktop and how Firefox is gaining ground. Now this! Well, looks like we have reached the point where Microsoft copies OpenSource innovation. It used to be the other way round. That's the good part. Another upside is that there is still time left. Longhorn is far away, and if SP2 is any indication than there won't be another major update to WinXP in reasonable time. But still, the giant woke up. And Microsoft is though competition to say the least...
Look at the broader picture. The proof would be in that when Netscape died and birthed Mozilla, MSIE development came to a total screeching halt, and didn't start again until the Mozilla project, after years of dicking around, finally managed to create a product (FireFox) that anyone in their right minds would want to use.
This is still just a single example, so maybe I should have used the word "evidence" instead of "proof". But when you look at the repeated examples over the years, it becomes proof.
I can't wait for OpenOffice to become a viable product so that we'll finally see the end to the total lack of improvement that has marked MS-Office development since WordPerfect died.
Unfortunately, I would believe there is a better chance that they will instead incorporate a bunch of elements above and beyond standards compliance, that ties a user into IE and Longhorn combo, trying yet again to lock out other web browsers.
Microsoft has seemingly lowered it's self another step.
They used to be a company that copied exisiting technology and made it "good enough", if slightly annoying. Now, they are turning into a reactionary company, trying to play catch up to existing software with some future release.
If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
I recall reading here on Slashdot that Internet Explorer was getting updated for Longhorn. I don't remember exactly where it was, but it quoted one of the members of the IE development team. I think Microsoft will be taking a (small) step in the right direction by supporting standards. Well, if they do. It'd be nice if Mozilla and IE actually rendered things the same way; then you'd only have to develop for one target platform. What about Internet Explorer using the Gecko engine? Maybe Internet Explorer will become one of the 'better' Microsoft products. But seriously, what would happen to products like Firefox/Mozilla if IE became totally standards compliant. I know I would still use it, but what would happen to the argument that Firefox is better than IE? Hopefully Microsoft will actually fix the bugs and have a solid product. Even though it may become a 'competitor' for Firefox, at least the average user who doesn't know more than Internet Explorer will have a usable, secure, browser.
I believe there is a piece of the puzzle we are missing here. I'm sure that many companies out there would like to do more with their websites, but can't because of the many problems with IE. There must be some companies out there who are MS-friendly that have been telling MS "Can we please get transparent pngs? Oh, and we've been trying to make our new site (with obligatory MS portal) look nice with CSS but IE is not capable of it, and is blocking our development."
Although I believe MS is a bit concerned about losing market share, I doubt that is a motivator. The competing browsers are light years ahead of IE and they have yet to make a significant impact on the number of IE users. It would take a browser going ludicrous speed to make MS revamp IE based on market share alone.
It's even possible there are some MS friendly companies that have secretly been wishing they could make their websites useful for both Windows and (gasp!) those techy Linux gurus.
-- I have fans? Wow.
So one person write in his weblog that he's changing roles from Longhorn to IE, and that means the team is being reconstituted? People at Microsoft change teams all the time. Some people will jump from project to project every year or two, others will stick with it for 4 or 5 years.
This is not any news of anything special. Each version, there's something new planned. Whether or not that sees the light of day is another thing.
The IE team has lived for a long time and will continue to live. The IE team is probably always changing as people move to it and other people move off it.
If someone said "I'm changing roles from Office to Longhorn" does that mean that Office is now dead and Longhorn just now got re-constituted? No. What if it's a big guy on the totem pole? No.
It's pretty obvious why a web standards compliant IE would improve things (google: web standards). Oh, but it wouldn't allow Microsoft to extend the web anymore with stupid proprietry shit. I guess they're right out the window then.
I seriously doubt IE7 will be compliant. It would be nice, for sure, but given Microsoft's history it's extremely unlikely.
"The number of Unix installations has grown to ten, with more expected." (Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd ed.; june 1972)
You are assuming that they port it without creating more security vulnerabilities. It should be re-written from the ground up with security in mind from the start.
--
Please donate some Gmail invitations for the contest. Only 2 left!
Even if MS released the source code under MPL, it's unlikely that Mozilla would merge in a bunch of "proprietary extensions hooked into (a single) OS".
However, it would probably be much easier for MS to fix CSS in IE than to add all the proprietary stuff (databinding, helpfile stuff, behaviors, etc) to mozilla.
I have no great love for MS, but there is way too much hypocritical criticism of them.
People constantly complain that MS forces artificial upgrades on their users to increase revenue. More upgrades, with new "must-have" and not backwards compatible features, means more money in their greedy little pockets.
However, recently MS has been delaying products to allow for more time to make sure the software is solid. Meanwhile they are releasing free service packs to help fix security problems.
I'm not saying that MS deserves a humanitarian award. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be criticizing MS because they have pushed back LongHorn. Allowing sufficient time for good development is a GOOD thing.
And on a self-interested note, it gives Linux solutions more time to get a foothold.
The reason is because Bill Gates is not stupid. He isn't going to wait until MS has lost their market share before doing something about, he will make sure it never happens.
BTW IE is losing market share to Mozilla, though at the moment, the numbers are pretty small.
I would like the ability to completely uninstall IE from windows machines. That would require that IE is loosely coupled with the OS and that in itself would be a huge improvement.
----
Afriguru:
:)
I am a happy Windows XP user (heresy!!!) I used to use Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, and even though I occassionally boot my Fedora Core 2 install, there are many things that I don't know or don't care to fix (in addition to many others I've fixed already) to be a Linux user.
However... My IE takes around 6 seconds (proxy resolution) to render the home page. If I open the browser and want to type an URL to go somewhere else than the home page, I'd better do it before the 6 seconds elapse, or... Pfft!!! It erases all I've written and displays the home page URL!
This simple thing motivated me to install FireFox on my computer. I've been long using OpenOffice.org, The GIMP and many other tools under Windows but didn't want to relinquish IE. This was two months ago, tell you what? I forgot when I last fired Internet Explorer.
I downloaded Thunderbird 0.7 last week...
Bottom line, don't use something because everyone else uses it, and conversely, don't use FOSS just because. Just give the software a try and see for yourself, I guarantee you'll be pleased and nothing wrong will happen
The revolution will not be televised.
I'm returning to work on the Internet Explorer team. A team that I used to work on a few years ago andI'm very excited to be returning to the team where we clearly have much work to do.
Yes, you do have a lot of work to do, Dave. Maybe you guys should have done the job right years ago rather than be in catch-up as well as damage-control mode.
G-Force music visualization
By "develop" they mean "tighten DRM integration" and "more .NET". Everyone keep your Moz and Firefox, and move along. Nothing to see here.
Right-click-menu is MUCH less convenient and more intrusive, then the page opens in front, forcing you to alt-tab or click back. plus IE opens the page in some stupid size usually, so you have to maximize. The tab experience is MUCH MUCH smoother. It's like the difference between a scroll wheel mouse and a normal one -- sure, you can get by just as well with arrow keys and the scroll bar on screen, but once you've tried the alternative you never want to go back.
Why support web standards, when they are the defacto standard browser... There is no reasoning behind a decision like that...
They should give the alternatives a try, like you I think they will be pleased with what they find. But, people can have strange prejudices......
However, XP came out in 2001, as did MSIE 6.0. I believe the current timetable is for Longhorn to come out in 2006. 5 years between releases is a long time in with regard to software. One of the richest software companies in the world should have no problem in putting out new releases earlier than that. What the hell were they doing during those five years? I'm not saying MS should sacrifice quality to get their products out faster, I'm just saying they should get their products out faster. As a consequence of their laziness, they have lost a lot of Windows users to Mac and Linux and a lot of IE users to Mozilla/Firefox and Opera.
Maybe if Longhorn is void of any problems at all it will be worth the wait. But I wouldn't count on it.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
It's really making me sad how many people are excitedly awaiting the features IE "will have in SP2 or Longhorn". All alternative browsers have those features today, you can download and use them right away.
If you don't know what a browser is or that you're using one, ask your local superuser to "repair" your computer. But then you're not reading this thread (site) anyway.
But if you know how to replace IE: Why let MS decide when you're going to get tabbed browsing and popups blocked? MS is a saturated monopolist making software for the wrong reasons. The are 1st in marketing strategy, but when it comes to product quality and innovation, it's a bunch of lazy schmucks.
If you've used a "real" browser just once, the next time MS announces that from the 22nd century on their browser will implement (insert your favorite IE web standards bug) correctly, you'll just shrug and probably feel a bit sorry for the poor bastards who get their ashes fscked (voluntarily or not) by an arrogant monopolist.
"I'm not saying that MS deserves a humanitarian award. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be criticizing MS because they have pushed back LongHorn. Allowing sufficient time for good development is a GOOD thing."
Interesting theory but IMHO Longhorn being pushed back is just a sign that MS bit off more than they could chew and mismanaged the project. That's frankly way more probable then the idea that MS is being a good citizen. If MS could have gotten away with shipping Longhorn this year, XP Sp2 would not have gotten nearly as much attention by them. They are in reality just covering their asses while they develop a secure alternative.
I agree that criticizing them for a late Longhorn over and over is dumb as well but I guess I just disagree as to the why MS is doing it part. All IMHO and such.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
mozilla is getting too good. With the advent of xul and fast, safe, standards complient browsing, IE is beginning to look pretty sad.
Now, once another browser gets a foothold again, people will have the option of building web applications that feature nice interfaces (xul!) that don't need a win32 client to run properly.
They don't actually give a shit, they just want to preserve their bloated monopoly.
Blogging because I can...
Java's has this for years, I'm unclear why the windows weenies are getting so horny over .NET.
.NET technology that will be available 2006/7 and just do it TODAY with java. If you say that the GUI it's fast
jdk 1.4.2 fixed that. Or use SWT. The memory footprint of java and .NET is too close to see any differences
.NET. and the copy won't be complete until 2006/7.
".Net 1.1 binaries off the internet" aka applets
"Whidbey's click-once application deployment model" aka java webstart
"With Longhorn's Avalon and XAML" aka SwiXML, Ibex, Luxor, Thinlet, Beryl and many more
So quit coming in your pants for
Microsoft is copying JAVA to make
paradigm shift.... My arse
Well, I don't think their programmers are incompetent. From everything I have heard, they are excellent.
But one does have to question their management. A large and profitable company, with massive amount of developers delaying an operating system upgrade (maybe a partial to total rewrite?-only time will tell) that will make them massive amounts of money. An upgrade that by most accounts will not be particularly appealing to end users, will have taken at least FIVE years (assuming on time release-not likely given past history), and MIGHT be more secure and stable than its predecessor (based on past history-who knows). Doesn't sound like good management to me.
What people want is that Microsoft would fix what's already there. Why have they left their CSS implementation broken for so long?
Sure, no browser is 100% bug free, but they could at least get the basics right, such as the CSS box model.
Clever signature text goes here.
MS Pushing back release dates does not mean that they are shipping a better product, usually the opposite (remembers a "Certified for Windows 97" keyboard)
The Geek in Black
I know my BCD's (when I'm Sober)
If you have problems selling your solution, sit down and make some calculations on the monetary effects of reduced bandwidth and server hardware costs :)
Normally, I would agree with you and with the sentiments posed in "Things you should never do". However, we are talking two entirely different kettles of fish here:
1. IE has become a tangled mess of security-hole laden crap that I am not convinced it can be just fixed. Netscape had HTML problems, but that represents a smaller portion of the overall browser.
2. Many of the problems in IE are ones of design, not of implementation. In order to be secure, major portions of it need to be redesigned from the ground up with security in mind. At the same time (and this has evrything to do with security, also) the user model could be designed rather than just being grafted onto what is essentially a single-user program. Again, I don't think Netscape was in quite this bad of shape when they made the decision to rewrite.
3. Not too many months ago, Microsoft made the decision to abandon this product altogether. If they felt confident enough in their position to do that then, what makes today any different? Two words; Longhorn delays. If Microsoft thought they had a chance in hell of getting Longhorn out on time (even if that time is 2007), they would not even be worried about IE development right now. They would be developing for whatever they are going to call the browser that ships with Longhorn. After all, it is to their selfish interest to lock people into the new OS rather than creating something else that will let them coast on their older OS even longer. Netscape's only desktop product at the time they did a rewrite was the browser. The long delay incurred by the rewrite was deadly, since they were effectively a one-product company.
But Microsoft can't get Longhorn out on time, so they must give the users something to stem the switch to other browsers. IE 6.0 is unusable right now (don't flame me, if you think it is, my rates for cleaning spyware are outrageous, but reasonable compared to losing all your data by reinstalling). If they rush another POS like WinME out the door (WinME was another "patch 'em up quick" filler product caused by delays in win2k), they risk alienating people even more! So that's maybe a 4th reason: history. Microsoft has done this once with WinME; how credible will they be for Longhorn if they pull another WinME?
Glad to hear that IE will be improved before Longhorn is released. Some of us may not live that long.
I agree with the posts that council against throwing every new feature and the kitchen sink into IE. I think the priorities should be:
1) Security - Every Windows user who also uses IE that I know has a hard drive littered with spyware. Fix it.
2) Standards - for CSS2.1, full support for PNG, XHTML.
I just finished building a site this week. I wrote it to the standards for XHTML and CSS, checked it in Safari, Mozilla, Opera, and did *not* check it in IE for Windows. If it looks good in those browsers but not in IE - too bad. I will spend no more of my time cleaning up after you.
On the site's "About" page I included the following text along with badges for XHTML and CSS validity and a link to the Mozilla Firefox page:
The above will be included in all web sites that I design in the future until such time as IE's standards support is satisfactory.
You are (I hope) thinking of IE2. IE3 compared quite favourably to Navigator 3.0, the latters only major advantages being incumbency and an integrated HTML editor in the Gold Edition.
My first web page (not site) was done in Netscape 1.x.
I remember bitching when there were more things to learn when Netscape 2 came out.
Most developers do not have a firm grasp on how the www works.
- Was designed to render in ANY browser
- That browser may be text based
- That browser my not support any font attributes.
- Your text will be rendered in a text area of arbritrary size, the end users browser, not the author of the page has control over how the page renders.
- Firmly grasp the concept of open tags and closed tags
- Then understand what is possible with the html 1 spec
- Then learn how to add html 2 attributes to your page, and do so, in a manner that they fail gracefully on a browser that only supports html 1
- Then learn to add html 3 attributes and css level 1 attributes and how to have them gracefully fail on browsers that only support html 2 or html 1 spec.
- Learn how to make your fonts cross-browser compatible. I.E. so they render at a viewable size under default settings on IE Windows/Mac, as well as with geco based browers.
- Now, keeping in mind that some people are on dial up, or are using text only browers, start to do all your page layout with css 1.
Most "web developers" have never coded for the html 1.0 spec. The do not understand that a web browser was originally designed to render content, not deliver adverising and pixpel perfect rendered graphical pages.If you understand what is in each html spec and how these features were added, it is not to bad creating comaptible pages.
------------
vi +
Oh in all honesty I don't understand how intelligent people can make such sweeping statements. It depends ENTIRELY on what you're building on. (A little bit of common sense and a lot less hype would go a long way in IT).
If you have a nice workable product that has some shortcomings or needs some things fixed, yes by all means don't throw out what you have. That would be like buying a new car or boat and throwing it out the first time its scratched, or one part got broken.
If on the other hand you bought a $200 rust bucket with an engine that barely starts where every piece is going to need to be replaced then yes it may take more effort than if you were to build from scratch. At this point ditching it and making an attempt to learn from your mistakes is a good thing.
Now if anyone tells me you can say for certain just how broken IE is without seeing a detailed review of the source - which bits are or aren't worth saving, then I think they are rather naive.
The "Don't trash it, fix what you have" paradigm is no more of a silver bullet than any other paradigm.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Gmail seems to have a reasonably interesting database backend, if only to support their 'labels'.
Dunno if it sql, or more along the lines of the filesystem they described in their whitepaper on google.
Now, m$ is moving to a sql backended operating system. If it ever works, it may be interesting, and would support the sort of advanced features that Gmail is using.
At that stage, with what is finally probably a reliable operating system, it may make some kind of sense to move to doze for all the boxen.
AH yes - and you have reduced the bandwidth by 68GB...
Bandwidth actually costs money - If I were to pay for international traffic at my current hosting center, 68GB would cost me dkk 2040 - or roughly $330.
$330 for two days of work is not too bad for a student imho.
AND - you assume everyone is using a 10Mb line - on a 56Kb modem the load time would be reduce from 24 seconds to 7 seconds - and with those numbers only 3389 pageloads would be needed to get a net time "profit"