Microsoft Drops Hints on IE8

benuski writes "Lost in the hype about Microsoft's new Siverlight platform, there has been some information surfacing about IE8. It will include improvements in RSS, CSS, and AJAX support, and will follow Firefox 3 in supporting microformats. Also, the developers are going to try and improve UI customization, which is one of the main criticisms of IE7."

Comments

Patches are out!

[therufus]

Patches are probably out already. I'm sure there are some hackers who have gotten code and already written spyware for it.

Re:Patches are out!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant "You restarted your computer. Please restart for the changes to take effect."

Enough of comparing it to Firefox

[r_jensen11]

I understand why they wish to compare it to Firefox, but there are other browsers out there. Now, I'm not saying that they should go and compare it to Links, Lynx, or Netscape, but how about another browser like Opera?

Re:Enough of comparing it to Firefox

[Endo13]

Because Firefox is currently the only other browser for Windows that represents real competition? Opera is nice and all, but it's not used by nearly enough people to be a real threat... yet.

Also, Firefox has a look and feel a lot more like IE than Opera does. I'm not exactly sure in how many ways this fits in, but I know it makes it easier for people familiar with IE to switch to Firefox, and perhaps it also makes Firefox and IE easier to compare than say IE and Opera.

Re:Enough of comparing it to Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd be insane to compare it to lynx -- I get better CSS compliance out of that thing than I do with IE.

-1 Troll, +1 Inciteful?

Re:Enough of comparing it to Firefox

[anaesthetica]

I like "+1 Inciteful" far better than "-1 Flamebait"...

Re:Enough of comparing it to Firefox

[jonadab]

> Opera is nice and all, but it's not used by nearly enough people to be a real threat... yet.

I don't know that it ever will be, but I also don't know that it needs to be. Opera has never been aimed at the "everybody and their mother" market segment. I don't think that was even a goal for them.

Opera has consistently been, since the mid nineties, on the dividing line between the major browsers and the minor browsers -- always having a smaller market share than second place, but always rather larger than any of the obscure players. Every webmaster who can name more than three browsers knows about Opera, and everyone who's at all serious about supporting "all the major browsers" tests in Opera at least a little. I don't see any reason to expect any of that to change.

Is it going to take over the world and force IE and Gecko into second and third place? No. But it's not going away, either. It's an _alternative_ browser for a minority of users. It occupies that role by design, and always has.

The reason they're not comparing rumors about upcoming IE features to information about upcoming Opera features is because IE8 isn't aiming to compete with Opera. Microsoft is not bothered by Opera. Opera is a very benign competitor for them, and fairly predictable. They understand its place in things, and it doesn't scare them.

Firefox is another thing. It came, from Microsoft's perspective, out of nowhere. Mozilla was doing what it had always done, occupying the role it had occupied for several years, and then whammo, over the course of a few months there was this Firefox thing, and ordinary users, not just web geeks, had heard about it, tried it out, and were using it. In droves. Its market share broke (by some measures anyway) into double digits and threatened to continue climbing. The release of IE7 was a direct response to that threat.

Further, the really scary thing about Firefox, from Microsoft's perspective, is not just that it breaks up their monopoly on the web, but more importantly that it's open source, and if too many users -- ordinary end users, not IT geeks -- start using and liking open source software, that could have implications beyond just the web browser market. I mean, if an open source web browser became the cool thing everyone had to use, then another open source application (an office suite, for example) could potentially do the same, and *that* outcome could directly cost Microsoft a lot of money. This isn't so much of an issue with Opera.

That is why IE8 rumors get compared to Firefox development information, and not Opera. It isn't because Firefox is better than Opera (though I do personally prefer it), but rather because Firefox is, in Microsoft's view, the primary competition IE must beat.

Re:Enough of comparing it to Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

I was a huge fan of opera back in the day '97-'98ish in its tabbed browsing 3.5MB glory. Then they started cramming it with ads and demanding money to remove them.
It reminded me of CuteFTP, it turned into junkware and I felt betrayed and completely forgot about them.
Every now and again I hear it mentioned but I still cringe just like I do now with digg.com.

Is it really that much better than Firefox?
What compelling reason is there to switch?

Re:Enough of comparing it to Firefox

[Nataku564]

Opera dropped the ad supported thing - its free again now, and still about as tiny. It also has something like a plugin architecture going ... but nowhere near what firefox has ... still fun to play with, though.

Re:Enough of comparing it to Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

And Safari isn't in the top three? (No, it's not a threat to MicroSoft either...)

Re:Enough of comparing it to Firefox

[CannonballHead]

It IS the primary competition for IE...

Interestingly, while it seems that a lot of people think this is bad (well, it seems to me that Microsoft responding to its competitors is often talked about in a bad light), it's actually good. It's competition in the market. It makes for better programs when there are two competing programs. I'm glad to see Microsoft is pushing forward with IE8 so soon after IE7, personally.

And yes, I run Linux on my laptop and run Firefox on both my laptop and my desktop. I also don't hate Microsoft.

Re:Enough of comparing it to Firefox

[Kaukomieli]

Funny thing though, Opera had stuff liked tabbed browsing and a lean, standard-conform (well, almost...) engine years ago. Sure, it is always easier to compare two things that are not that much different, but it won't take you anywhere. To get some insight you have to look for stuff that is in the same category, but different - and then you can evaluate if the aspects where it differs are desirable.

"it also makes Firefox and IE easier to compare than say IE and Opera"

this is a bit like "let's compare race cars by taking a look at vw-golf and opel-astra and not compare them to the porsche, because the porsche is so different".

bad example, but without another coffee I can't get up with a better one...

Re:Enough of comparing it to Firefox

[jez9999]

I understand why they wish to compare it to Firefox, but there are other browsers out there.

Any major opensource ones?

Re:Enough of comparing it to Firefox

[zrenneh]

A few years ago, Firefox's popularity is very similar to what Opera's is today. Pretty marginal, but rising fast.
No-one could say now that Firefox is not a threat, it's popularity in Europe is something like 25%.
Opera becoming free and being the only browser available for several Nintendo products has caused its popularity to rise fast and steadily. It may not repeat the success of Firefox, but be wary of ignoring it entirely.

Re:Enough of comparing it to Firefox

[drinkypoo]

The existence of the Flamebait modifier has a chilling effect on speech because people will often use it when a story pisses them off, utterly missing the fact that it is only supposed to be applied to comments whose sole purpose is to piss people off. It's different from a troll in that you believe what you're saying. But sometimes you need to say things that are true that will piss people off...

Re:Enough of comparing it to Firefox

[moosesocks]

Care to step off of your podium?

The fact that Firefox is open-source in and of itself actually has very little to do with why Microsoft is (rightfully) freaking out.

Firefox is free (as in beer. normal people have been proven not to care about the other kind), and is available for many platforms.

Now granted, these facts are a direct consequence of being open-source under a libreal license. However, microsoft would still be in trouble if Netscape got its act together and developed a free and powerful cross-platform browser, even if it were closed-source.

Simple economics dictate that well-educated consumers will make any choice that results in the best performance per buck. This is what's happening right now with Firefox. It should also be noted that Economics is completely amoral.... just like typical consumers.

Re:Enough of comparing it to Firefox

[Kram_Gunderson]

Further, the really scary thing about Firefox, from Microsoft's perspective, is not just that it breaks up their monopoly on the web, but more importantly that it's open source, and if too many users -- ordinary end users, not IT geeks -- start using and liking open source software, that could have implications beyond just the web browser market. I mean, if an open source web browser became the cool thing everyone had to use, then another open source application (an office suite, for example) could potentially do the same, and *that* outcome could directly cost Microsoft a lot of money. This isn't so much of an issue with Opera.

I think this is a very valid point. A couple years ago I got my parents using Firefox. Just recently I suggested installing Ubuntu on their box. Initially they were really apprehensive, having assumed that one simply couldn't run a computer without Windows. Their positive experience with Firefox made it easy to explain to them that it was free open-source software "just like Firefox," allowing me to get them off of windows. Same with OpenOffice.

Re:Enough of comparing it to Firefox

[The_Laughing_God]

I respect Opera's philosophy --or at lest what it was back when I had in stalled on my systems, alongside others-- but that has nothing to do with the comparison.

1. Mandarin and Spanish have more native speakers than English. Hindi and Arabic have more "second language" speakers than English. The exact numbers are the subject of debate, but it wouldn't matter if I chose other examples: the intended audience of that comparison are much more likely to grasp and appreciate a comparison to English grammar than Mandarin or Hindi. It has nothing to do with the merits or popularity of the languages.

The intended audience for that remark are much more likely to be familiar with the *latest versions* and future plans for Firefox than Opera. Those who know Opera well enough to appreciate a point-by-point comparison will probably be better equipped to make it themselves, based on the information given. MSIE is reacting (in the market) to FF, not Opera, and that is reflected in the feature set, making the comparison extremely apt. Why must they learn Mandarin for you?

2. Opera is also a poor comparison on another level. When I used it, they were devoted to adherence to the standards: if they required something, Opera had it, but proprietary/variable bells and whistles were specifically avoided. If that's still the defining philosophy then anyone can write the comparison you request, sight unseen: "MSIE has these new features. Firefox has *those* new features. Opera mostly doesn't, because they're not standards." Was that informative?

Opera *shouldn't* feature prominently in the comparison, because its specific philosophy largely excludes it from that arena. If I'm comparing the rates of the newest sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy in urban teenagers, I'd compare it to (e.g.) suburban teens, not Catholic priests, because *in principle* Catholic priests shouldn't be an informative comparison. (and any surprising finding it would say more about Catholic priests than urban teens)

Similarly, a comparison or MSIE and Opera would tell people more about Opera than MSIE --which I suspect you'd like (and that's fine), but the article was about MSIE, not Opera

Re:Enough of comparing it to Firefox

[jonadab]

> I'm glad to see Microsoft is pushing forward with IE8 so soon after IE7, personally.

Oh, definitely. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. As a creator of web content, I certainly want to see Microsoft release improved versions of IE. I was ecstatic when the news came out that IE7 was going to go out as an automatic update. That trimmed *years* off the time before we can reasonably stop supporting IE6. I hope they do the same thing with IE8.

Re:Enough of comparing it to Firefox

[jonadab]

> The fact that Firefox is open-source in and of itself actually has very little to do with why Microsoft
> is (rightfully) freaking out. Firefox is free (as in beer. normal people have been proven not to care
> about the other kind), and is available for many platforms.

IE is gratis also, if you have the platform requirements. So was Netscape. So was Mosiac. It's considered normal for web browsers to be a free download, financially supported in other ways (e.g., by advertising, or by complementing a company's other products). Firefox is no cheaper, in terms of dollars, than any other browser.

And while it's true that normal users don't care about source code, it is nonetheless also true that Microsoft *is* concerned about the open source movement, and view it as their most dangerous competitor.

Still, I don't mean to overplay the open-source aspect. Certainly the *most* frightening thing about Firefox, to Microsoft, was that all of a sudden a whole lot of ordinary end users were using it and talking about it, *not* just web geeks and power users. Within six months after its release, people who can't quite keep straight the difference between email and the web were asking their friends, "Do you have Foxfire yet?" The fact that this scary new competition is open-source makes it even more worrisome to them, but they would have been concerned anyway.

UI customization?

[GIL_Dude]

UI Customization is one of the main criticisms of IE? Darn, I guess I read /. too much. For some reason I was under the impression that the criticisms were:

1) Security (or lack thereof)
2) ActiveX
3) The fact that it came from Microsoft
4-50 other things
51) UI Customization or skinning or whatever useless thing that is

Seriously, if that is one of the main criticism, then no wonder IE is the dominant browser on the planet (which I say tongue-in-cheek as I type this in Firefox so I have spell checking).

Re:UI customization?

[anaesthetica]

I believe numbers 4 through 50 in your list are occupied by: non-broken support for XHTML, CSS 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, DOM, and the other relevant W3C standards.

Re:UI customization?

[matts-reign]

Even "Regular" users had issues with the new UI of IE7. I know people who want their menu bar to be in the right place, for example. People get into UI ruts and don't like radical shifts. This isn't always a good thing though.

Re:UI customization?

[jmac1492]

I believe numbers 4 through 50 in your list are occupied by: non-broken support for XHTML, CSS 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, DOM, and the other relevant W3C standards.

Numbers 37 and 38 are ??? and Profit!, respectively.

Re:UI customization?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about full PNG support? Would an alpha channel really be too much to ask?

Re:UI customization?

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

Yes, UI customisation is a big deal. My web browser is probably the application I use more than any other. With all that time spent using it, a browser's interface and capability to let me customise that interface are fundamental to the experience.

You can moan all you want about lack of standards support, and truth told I moan about it a lot too, but the reality is that web developers are vastly outnumbered by the number of people who just use the web. Standards don't mean a thing to them, they want a pleasant browsing experience, which as much as anything else means a good browser interface. The fact that IE7 sorely lacks that is made all the more glaring by Firefox's excellent UI customisability and also by the fact that IE7's UI is actually far less customisable than IE6's. 5 years work and Microsoft actually came out with a browser that provides a worse experience for the end user.

Short of security, UI is probably the next most important thing. You can make a browser that correctly renders every two-bit web standard in the world and people will still hate the damn thing if the interface sucks. When IE7 came out a lot of people speculated it would halt the growth of Firefox's user share. The fact that it hasn't in the slightest can largely be attributed to IE7's interface IMO.

Re:UI customization?

[hkgroove]

Seriously. I know you're somewhat joking, but unfortunately, to it, there lies a huge truth. Since what? Forever? We've had to deal with developing for dual browsers. Now the problems just get more obscure as we push the boundaries of development.

Just recently I had a very simple JavaScript fail because of IE's handling of the tag and a javascript interaction with it. It was something completely unexpected and unfortunate. I've worked around the issue, but it was not ideal. And yes, for those that scream out "JavaScript" sucks, you're right. But seriously, most problems lay in IE's shitty implementation of script. For something to work in Firefox, Mozilla, Opera, Safari and even NS4 (Yes, for real) is completely inexcusable for Microsoft. They should be embarrassed.

Hopefully with Gecko 2 pushing the next full version of JavaScript, (are they still?) IE will be hot on the coattails to keep up.

Re:UI customization?

[hkgroove]

I hate replying to my own comment, but "IE's handling of the tag" should be "IE's handling of the OBJECT tag", for clarification.

Re:UI customization?

[renegadesx]

I got a codename for IE8: "I can't believe its not Firefox"

Re:UI customization?

[creepynut]

Err.. You do know IE7 supports alpha channel transparency in PNG images don't you?

Re:UI customization?

[snilloc]

The menu bar isn't just in the wrong place, the default setting doesn't even have it. Adding the drop-down menu bar takes up a whole bunch of screen space, of which 75% is completely wasted. I can't even drag other parts of the UI up to that menu bar like we could with IE6.

So sayeth this Firefox user.

Re:UI customization?

[roman_mir]

I believe numbers 4 through 50 in your list are occupied by: non-broken support for XHTML, CSS 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, DOM, and the other relevant W3C standards. - and the other irrelevant W3C standards.

There, fixed it for you.
Love, MS IE team.

Re:UI customization?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have swapped 3 and 52... You can't kritisize anything just because it made by a specific company, that is subjective and unproffessional.
No, I'm not any MS-fanboy, I'm writing this in Firefox on my desktop Linux... and the only two reasons for Firefox right now (for me) are the LiveFeed facility and the AdBlock plug-in, it could have been Opera or Konqueror if they've got the same facilities.

Re:UI customization?

[VGPowerlord]

As much as I hate IE, it still bugs me how I stumble into Firefox rendering bugs (or in the case of map not accepting id tags under text/html, "features"), usually with something that works just fine in IE6.

Re:UI customization?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"How about full PNG support? Would an alpha channel really be too much to ask?"

Whoah, never met a time traveller before.

Re:UI customization?

[Jugalator]

1) Security (or lack thereof)

It doesn't seem like an overly big problem thus far, at least when compared to IE 6. ActiveX being disabled by default goes a long way for this, having to be activated for the sites that use it (compare to Firefox that enforce manual allowing of extension installs on other places than addons.mozilla.org), and it's also no longer integrated with the shell.

Re:I dont care...

[deftcoder]

Running up-to-date/patched IE is only marginally smarter than running IE at all. :(

Ars Link Broken

[anaesthetica]

Here's the link to the IE Blog posting:

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2007/04/19/what-t o-expect-from-ie-at-mix07.aspx

Information?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Surely at this stage it is just hype. With MS you can only consider something to be information when it has been shipping for a few versions. Most announcements from MS have a lot of hype about fancy features that don't make the cut.

Re:Information?

[adona1]

Troll? I'd tend to agree...look at all the things Vista was supposed to have back when it was Longhorn which fell along the wayside despite being hyped...WinFS being the most memorable.

OMG

[Anonymous Coward]

Please...God...Allah...Mother Earth...let it be so....make IE 8 follow W3C standards...please...please...please...

Now that the prayers are over...stop with this stupid monopoly cr*p and start thinking about the hoops and BS that end users, web developers, basically the ENTIRE WORLD have to deal with as a result of your arrogance.

Yours in *insert deity here*
ALL OF US

Re:OMG

[Anonymous Coward]

Arrogance? THiS iS MiCROSOFT!!

Re:OMG

[ThirdPrize]

How many of those tags are really necessary? I mean reaaallly necessary.

Re:OMG

[kc2keo]

yeah well Konqueror beats everything!!!

hehe. J/K. I prefer Firefox over all other browsers to be honest. I love the look and feel of Firefox. Just so nice to use.

--kc2keo

Extensions

[The Bungi]

Seriously, the only reason I dropped IE and went to Firefox is the extensions (nee add-ins). I live with the almost glacial speed of Firefox and it annoying quirks just because of that one thing. And specifically, AdBlock. Nothing else. The others are nice, but AdBlock is the reason I started enjoying the internet more.

Until Microsoft figures out a way for people to create extensions easily, without having to know C++ and COM/ActiveX, they're not going to get people like me back. I don't care about tabs. I don't care about skins. I don't care about aggregators or fancy micro-whatevers. I don't care about security (in the sense that I was secure enough with IE since my IQ is above that of a jellyfish). Without the extensions and the community that needs to build behind them, it's a no-go for me at least. Holy shit, it's 2007 and I still don't have an easy way to turn off Flash on demand. Really, WTF?

Re:Extensions

[anaesthetica]

Agreed, giving the end user the ability to control what content they are subjected to is really the deal-maker/breaker for me. I just can't use a browser riddled with ads anymore. Unless I can find an extension or plugin allowing me to block ad content (PithHelmet for Safari, CamiTools for Camino, AdBlock Plus for Firefox, OmniWeb's built-in blocker) I'm just not going to be able to stomach it.

The problem IE faces is the level to which it is beholden to other companies that rely on it to not allow end users to block their content. If IE were to introduce an AdBlock-type ability into IE they would get their pants sued off by every one of their competitors. Just look at Google--it's completely ad-dependent, and yet, with AdBlock the end user will never have to see "ads by google" ever again. In one fell swoop, leveraging their 85%+ marketshare Microsoft could destroy Google's revenue source. As a monopolist, they can never fix their inability to offer an AdBlocking solution.

Re:Extensions

[The Bungi]

They could ship one disabled by default. I mean, I really don't care a rat's ass about all the special rules people dream up that supposedly apply to Microsoft because they are a monopoly. Ship it and let the user decide. I like my monopolies better when they give me choices.

Seriously, Firefox is nice and all but 700MB for three tabs is just a little extreme. I'd jump back to IE in a heartbeat if they gave me AdBlock or an equivalent thereof. Hell, I'll settle for FlashBlock or something like that to begin with.

Re:Extensions

[Gregb05]

There would be nothing wrong with Microsoft adding in an advertisement blocking utility given that they showed that they were either not in control of it themselves or that it blocked a reasonably uniform set of advertisers. Given the difficulty of the 2nd one, I have a feeling that Microsoft placing a "Do Not Display Content" button (wherein users would put the URLs/blocking services much like AdBlock Plus) is the most likely scenario.

Any ideas how else this might be put in without provoking (let's pretend) unwinnable lawsuits?

Re:Extensions

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is a marketing company. The last thing they want is for users to block Microsoft ads or ads on Microsoft sites (I saw some third-party ads on MSDN recently!).

Re:Extensions

[Mortlath]

After a simple search, I found plenty of ad blocking extensions for IE:

• http://www.3bsoftware.com/products/adblocker.asp
• http://www.adscleaner.com/
• http://shareme.com/download/ads-filter.html
• ...

It seems to me that only 1 enterprising individual needs to make a free one for IE. (there might already be one. I didn't do a through search)

Until Microsoft figures out a way for people to create extensions easily, without having to know C++ and COM/ActiveX, they're not going to get people like me back.

Is C++ and COM/ActiveX so hard to use?

Re:Extensions

[Repton]

It wouldn't just destroy Google's revenue source -- it would destroy the revenue sources of every other advertising-supported web site. To figure out if that would affect you, use the following algorithm:

1. Make a list of all the websites you visit.
2. Remove those websites you give money to (through a subscription, or through buying their stuff).

Re:Extensions

[Anonymous Coward]

"Seriously, Firefox is nice and all but 700MB for three tabs is just a little extreme."

So is your hyperbole. I've had FF -- with 20 extensions -- running for about 6 hours now, and currently have 5 tabs open. It's using 90MB of RAM, with Peak Usage at 125MB. I won't deny that FF is a bit memory heavy, but I run it 8+ hours a day at work and the only time I've seen it go over 150MB was when I had a dozen tabs open.

Re:Extensions

[Nushio]

Huge Firefox user here. Love Adblock as well.

I hate Microsoft too, and their awful I.E., however, I felt the need to point out this.

I.E. 7 comes with plug-in support. There's a few ad blockers out there, though I haven't tested them. There's a ton of plug-ins on the Microsoft Live page.

Re:Extensions

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox is nice and all but 700MB for three tabs is just a little extreme.

Hey, ease back on the tired old trolls there, big guy. Remember we don't get paid if we make it too obvious.

Re:Extensions

[ozmanjusri]

After a simple search, I found plenty of ad blocking extensions for IE:

Now your only remaining problem is to work out which one of those is actually spyware which will hijack your browser, install half a dozen trojans and send every password you use to a crime syndicate in Miami.

Re:Extensions

[DogDude]

Bingo. Same here. Firefox is slow and buggy, but you're right. Adblock is why I am putting up with it. I didn't realize why I was still using it until you said so.

Re:Extensions

[hkgroove]

Is C++ and COM/ActiveX so hard to use?

Not for those with a clue, but what are you more likely to trust? Some random compiled ActiveX plugin for IE or something that appears on Mozilla.org and has been verified?

Until there's a huge community pushing quality plugins / addons for IE that are easy to install and customize (for those with experience) IE is going to remain way behind.

Those with a lot of experience / know-how can further customize their Firefox extensions since they're mostly written in JavaScript and not compiled.

Re:Extensions

[Nasarius]

I just counted: I have 31 tabs open (yeah, it's a mess), and my memory usage is 169MB. I have nine extensions installed, including AdBlock Plus, Greasemonkey, DownThemAll. So...bullshit.

Re:Extensions

[The Bungi]

Oh, I'm sorry. I must have entered the fanboy zone. I thought all you people had given up on this "bwah, Firefox doesn't use too much memory" mantra. I measured close to 700MB memory usage as reported by the Windows task manager a few months ago. I run AdBlock, CustomizeGoogle, IEView and Google Notebook. With the "Whitehart" theme, which is pretty sparse. It had been runing for five or six days. Let me repeat that just so we're all clear: 700 Megabytes.

If I actually cared enough about the issue I wouldn't be using Firefox. I live with it because I consider it an acceptable tradeoff for what I get in return. That doesn't mean I'm making up bullshit about it.

Re:Extensions

[The Bungi]

Thanks. I've tried AdBlocker and another one. They are inflexible and generally suck. I tried Proxomitron for a while, but that's a pain in the ass.

To be clear, I don't care that they cost money. That's not the point. I donated $100 to Mozilla before they started pulling in the millions from Google. I don't have a problem buying software. But it needs to work. AdBlock just works.

Is C++ and COM/ActiveX so hard to use?

Not really (not to me at least), but that's not the point. Whatever extension system Microsoft adds to IE needs to get away from that brittle mess permanently. Otherwise they won't build up a community and without a community you have no diversity, which makes everything suck.

I don't know if such a thing exists, but if someone came up with an AdBlock clone for IE I'd jump on it in an instance, no matter how much $$ it was.

Re:Extensions

[The Bungi]

By the way, that must have been whatever previous version I was using (probably two?). Right now I'm running 1.5.0.11 but I don't remember when exactly was that and the next time I updated FF. Like I said, I simply don't bother much with that. I know it's a problem.

Re:Extensions

[Kumba]

This is a good alternative to IE ad blocking, not to mention other nasty URLs. In conjunction with Adblock, it makes the Internet a bit closer to that old fashioned "Information Superhighway" utopia they threw around back in the 90's.

Re:Extensions

[Rasta_the_far_Ian]

I first started using Firefox when the version # was well below 1.0. The reason: Firefox allowed one to easily turn off javascript and to (fairly) *easily* restrict cookies and images to the originating web site only.

In version 2.0, this last setting has been removed from the menus, forcing one to go into about:config to set this.

No longer as easy => not reset as often. Result: DoubleClick probably now gets more data from firefox users. Bottom line for me: less incentive to use firefox.

Re:Extensions

[The Bungi]

I used to use that. Windows 2000 had a problem with huge hosts files where the c/s process would freeze for a few seconds once in a while, I suppose while re-parsing the contents or something. I'm not really keen on figuring out if XP and Vista fixed that.

Also, that approach is completely inflexible. With AdBlock when I find a new adrat I just add it to the exclusion list - with wildcards and whatnot. I don't want to lose that =)

Re:Extensions

[EvanED]

So is your hyperbole. I've had FF -- with 20 extensions -- running for about 6 hours now, and currently have 5 tabs open.

I have 10 tabs open in one window now (I've had a lot more open) and FF running for a while with 8 extensions with 2 disabled.

Windows task manager reports 390 MB of "mem usage". The "VM size" is 953 MB.

I took a screenshot a couple summers ago when I was getting really frustrated with FF mem usage before I found out about some setting in about:config that reduces mem usage by quite a bit. At the time I had less RAM, and my system was pretty swappy, and FF was by far the biggest offender; about once a day I'd have to exit and open it back up. Even if I had exactly the same tabs open, the memory use would be a fraction of what it was before exiting. Keeping in mind that this was at least one and possibly two major releases behind (so either 1.0 or 1.5), this screenshot shows the Windows task manager's performance tab after a fairly typical session of FF. At the point in the graph marked, I quit Firefox. 55 seconds later the process finally had exited, and my page file usage had dropped by about 1.3 GB.

It's not hyperbole.

Re:Extensions

[EvanED]

Actually, I'm looking at that shot a lot closer now, and it wasn't taken when I thought. It couldn't have been before late Aug. 2005 because I had already done my RAM upgrade by then. The creation date on the file is Nov. 7, 2006, which is a lot more recent than I thought and make it definitely FF 1.5, though it's possible that that time got messed up at some point.

Re:Extensions

[atomicstrawberry]

Adblock or Adblock Plus? The former leaks memory like a sieve, and the guy who wrote the extension was either too apathetic or too incompetent to bother to fix it. It was forked into Adblock Plus and is now a lot better at managing its memory.

Firefox sans extensions and themes does not use a lot of memory. It's the extensions which invariably cause the memory bloat.

Re:Extensions

[EvanED]

Replying to myself this much is really lame, but, without opening more tabs or really doing much of anything, I'm up to 422,192K mem usage. Task manager reports a peak mem use of 890,164K.

Oh, hey, look, without doing anything but typing this message, I'm up to 428,628K usage.

I love Firefox, but either it or one of my extensions is absolutely horrible with memory.

(434,500K)

Re:Extensions

[Just Some Guy]

I don't care about security (in the sense that I was secure enough with IE since my IQ is above that of a jellyfish).

Oh yeah? At what IQ level do people automatically detect and avoid websites that can take over IE with an animated mouse cursor?

Re:Extensions

[EvanED]

This is something that some people have problems with and others don't it seems. I'm not sure what makes the difference, but I certainly can back up his claims.

I would guess it's probably an extension that's causing this, but I'm not sure; I only have a few installed and enabled now.

(I just restarted FF a couple times so now it's only at 55 MB with 2 tabs, but when I posted that comment above I was over 400 MB of mem usage (with a VM size over 900 MB) with 10 tabs.

So he's probably not making that up.

Re:Extensions

[The Bungi]

The Plus version. I switched when Michael McDonald stopped working on it.

Interestingly on my Ubuntu box I have to run the "normal" version because for some reason the Plus one shits up Firefox like there's no tomorrow.

It's the extensions which invariably cause the memory bloat.

I disagree. Obviously the more extensions you drop in the more memory you will consume (and leak), but FF is pretty good at it without much help.

Re:Extensions

[nanosquid]

It seems to me that only 1 enterprising individual needs to make a free one for IE. (there might already be one. I didn't do a through search)

Yeah, but anybody who invests their time and effort to help improve a company's money-making commercial product is usually a real dope.

Microsoft is a rich company that believes in for-pay development. If their model is so great, let them develop their own extensions, and let people pay to get them.

Re:Extensions

[The Cydonian]

I just block ads at source. Ad-free browsing in all three browsers I use, MSIE, Firefox _and_ Opera! :-)

Fair enough point about Firefox extensions, although I'm beginning to like Opera widgets a lot.

Re:Extensions

[wwmedia]

IE7 with IE7pro plugin (blocks ads among other things) is sooo much faster than firefox

1sec to startup ie vs 10sec to startup firefox

go figure

im not even gonna go into the memory usage "features" of firefox

Re:Extensions

[Jorrit]

This has little to do with fanboys or whatever. At this moment I'm running firefox on windows. I have two firefox windows. One window with one tab and the other with 9 tabs. It has been running for about two hours now (since when I fired up my computer) and at this moment it is using about 170 megs.

If your firefox is using 700 megs with only three tabs then something most certainly is wrong. Can't say what though.

Greetings,

Re:Extensions

[Spy Hunter]

Is C++ and COM/ActiveX so hard to use?

Um... yes, if you want to do it properly, i.e. without race conditions or deadlocks (apartment model threading... [shudder]), memory leaks, or buffer overflows. COM/ActiveX is a nightmare that Microsoft invented .NET to get away from. (what's that function to convert from BSTR to CString again? Or to TCHAR* or wait I need LPTSTR or WCHAR* or plain char* or how about std::string or... argh!) Compare to Firefox, where your extension is likely written entirely in Javascript very similar to the kind everyone writes nowadays for web pages. Plus, example code from every extension at addons.mozilla.org is one unzip operation away; it's all open source just due to the nature of Javascript. The barriers to entry are far lower.

Re:Extensions

[ksalter]

FWIW I'm running Adblock Plus on Kubuntu (both Edgy and now Fiesty) with no problems.

Re:Extensions

[ThirdPrize]

How do these AdBlocker things work then? Do they remove images that have "ad" in their name or come from a certain set of companies? I put a button in an IE tolbar once that did sh!t. If I ever get bored I might have a go.

Re:Extensions

[Tim C]

I don't think that's the huge problem you think it is.

All they have to do is ship an adblocker built in and configured with an empty block list. If then their entire userbase decides to block Google's ads and Google go out of business, I don't see how that's MS's fault, they merely supplied the tools. How those tools are used is up to the users.

Now if they shipped it with a default blocklist that blocked Google, that would be a different matter, but while MS are arguably evil, they're not stupid. (Well, not *that* stupid anyway)

Re:Extensions

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree with this comment. The extension ecosystem is a huge attraction of Firefox, with FlashBlock being an absolutely essential extension for me. There are so many ads served as Flash these days and you can't help but look at the stupid highly dynamic animations... so fine, I FlashBlock them. The feature, though, that initially got me to switch to Firefox is the built-in "Block Images from this Server." Brilliant. That gets rid of 90% of the advertising right there

Re:Extensions

[Anonymous Coward]

update to 2.0 you dingbat. i bet that cures the problem. for me 2.0 uses half as much ram as 1.5 did.

dont go around yelling FIREFOX USES 700MB!! FIREFOX USES 700MB!! then quietly whispering "at least the old version does" as you walk out of the room.

everyone knows 1.5 was a memory hog, that is so 2006. live in the now.

Re:Extensions

[chthon]

Is the command line in Linux so hard to use?

Re:Extensions

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be slipping, DogFuck. You forgot to slam all of open source in that post!

Your trolling has really been lacking lately...

Re:Extensions

[FrankNFurter]

There is an add-on for Internet Explorer providing (amongst other things) functionality similar to AdBlock: IE7Pro.

Re:Extensions

[ben there...]

I would guess it's probably an extension that's causing this, but I'm not sure; I only have a few installed and enabled now.

(I just restarted FF a couple times so now it's only at 55 MB with 2 tabs, but when I posted that comment above I was over 400 MB of mem usage (with a VM size over 900 MB) with 10 tabs.

It's not just an extension causing it. Well, maybe the outrageous numbers like 400 MB. But default config can easily get up to 150-200 MB on WinXP.

It's hard to explain where that kind of memory could go. Even 30 tabs with pages full of images don't add up to that much memory. But it would be mitigated if the active page wasn't paged out. In fact, I don't know why the other tabs would be active in memory anyway. If you don't have that much memory, might as well pull some stuff back out of the cache instead of the pagefile. And too many actions are blocking. If Firefox has to wait for something unrelated to the current page/action to be pulled from VM before it will perform the action (say, a background tab to be loaded into memory), it's the primary reason why Firefox feels so slow, and it's not good design.

I have 1 GB but would probably get much better performance with 2 GB. That's pretty sad for a browser. Especially one I like so much.

Re:Extensions

[razvi_98]

Talking about flash, just wait till the microsoft competing format is launched. Then IE will get a "turn off Flash" feature and will be enabled at install.

Re:Extensions

[bunratty]

You may want to try creating a new profile. That quite often fixes serious problems. If that doesn't help much, try the standard diagnostic, including a clean reinstall of the latest stable version of Firefox from downloaded from mozilla.org. It certainly sounds like something is borked on your computer if you're regularly seeing memory usage that high.

Re:Extensions

[xtracto]

. I'd jump back to IE in a heartbeat if they gave me AdBlock or an equivalent thereof.

You might be interested in Privoxy. It is a Proxy that lets you do just that, block ads in a similar way to adblock. I have been using it and it and is really good.

Re:Extensions

[sootman]

A custom ad-blocking hosts file (/etc/hosts in Linux and OS X; locations vary in Windows) will block most ads and spyware-hosting sites. And it's system-wide, making all browsers largely ad-free.

Re:Extensions

[jp10558]

AdMuncher or proxomitron or Privoxy will cover all browsers on windows...

Re:Extensions

[jp10558]

AdMuncher???

Re:Extensions

[Mortlath]

Good point, but I think that the difference is that only one person, or a team, has to know how to program COM to make a plugin.

Re:Extensions

[DjRenigade]

Google toolbar has a very good pop-up blocker and another one is Pop-Up-Blocker Pro.

It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

Firefox is a widely used browser and is the biggest competition to IE. No offense to opera, but its not as strong or as popular as firefox.

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Sparr0]

Yeah, not like Opera is the most used browser on the planet or anything. Your desktop-centric thinking is rapidly becoming obsolete.

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[sortius_nod]

uhhh... it isn't...

who let this monkey infront of a keyboard?

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Nasarius]

Largest install base, perhaps, though I can't find anything quickly with Google. With mobile phones, Wiis, etc, Opera is pretty big.

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Merusdraconis]

Yeah, not like Opera is the most used browser on the planet or anything. Your desktop-centric thinking is rapidly becoming obsolete.

Thanks, guys! I've just got an ad hominem, an assertive statement with no backup and a condescending rebuke in two posts! I'm going to win Slashdot Logical Fallacy Bingo for sure!

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

too bad more mobile devices use Opera than firefox... and what about the Wii? Granted those aren't windows based, but if enough people learned that's what their devices used, and that it was avaible for their pc, there's a good chance a decent amount would switch over.

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Scoth]

I'm not much of an Opera user (tried Opera Mini on my old Nokia phone, wouldn't run well), nor do I have a Wii (yet!), so I mean this question genuinely. Is there any relation between the actual backend rendering engine in the Operas for the Desktop, Wii, and Mobile platforms? Or are they more like the IEs for Mac and Windows where they're roughly similar interfaces with completely different code behind them? If they're completely different, then there really wouldn't be much reason for people to switch based on that. Unless they just like the name.

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Jarjarthejedi]

I'd be willing to bet a good quantity of imaginary dollars that the number of Mobile Phones, Wiis and other gadgets using Opera is far smaller than the number of computers using Firefox. And really even if it's not Opera is not one of the top 2 competitors, and with those mobile phones/Wiis coming with it pre-installed (sounds like another browser considered by some superior to Firefox due to higher numbers...just saying) that means the number of people who purposefully go out to get Opera is far smaller than FF. Say what you want about FF but it is the biggest non-IE, perhaps because of media coverage but still the biggest. (Why do I see a FF bloatware joke coming?)

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

I use opera to browse pr0n.

It's got a nice zooOOM feature.

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[StachStach]

Do you mean the interface has no importance ? :)

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"No offense to opera, but its not as strong or as popular as firefox."

So? Opera has some nicities FF doesn't. If MS copied/stoled/shennanigan'd them, then they'd have an edge over FF instead of just playing catch-up.

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[jrieth50]

I've seen Firefox punch through a concrete wall. Men have emptied entire clips at it and hit nothing but air, yet its strength and its popularity are still based in a world that is built on rules. Because of that, they will never be as strong or as fast as Opera can be.

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[B2382F29]

Why do I see a FF bloatware joke coming?

Yo Firefox's so fat, you have to DOUBLE-click it to run.

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Westley]

I'd be willing to bet a good quantity of imaginary dollars that the number of Mobile Phones, Wiis and other gadgets using Opera is far smaller than the number of computers using Firefox. I wouldn't like to guess at the install base in terms of numbers of installations, but where the numbers are much more in Firefox's favour (I would hazard a guess) is in terms of the amount of browsing done with each installation.

I own a Wii, and I've got Opera on it. Both my wife and I have laptops with Firefox on. Does that mean that our view of the web is on a 1/3 Opera, 2/3 Firefox basis? Not at all - we very rarely use the Wii for browsing, but we browse with Firefox all the time.

How many people spend more browsing time on a mobile phone than they do on a computer? It may increase over time, but I suspect that traffic going through Firefox is *much* heavier than that going through Opera, for that reason.

Jon

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera DS, PC, and Wii all have its own internal rendering (or whatever) engine. Opera Mini or whatever for the mobile phones runs through a proxy.

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[nyctopterus]

Informative? Mods didn't know about double-clicking apparently. I wonder how they got their internets to run.

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[AndersM]

Is there any relation between the actual backend rendering engine in the Operas for the Desktop, Wii, and Mobile platforms? Yeah, same engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presto_(layout_engine )

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

"No offense to opera, but its not as strong or as popular as firefox." - by Kryptonian Jor-El (970056) on Wednesday May 02, @10:11PM (#18966775)

That's not true (on the "as strong" portion of your statement) about Opera. Popularity is NOT a gauge of strength or being better. Nobody is accusing the masses who do not write code or analyze it of intelligence, but more of "following the crowd, and being with the 'in-crowd'" face it.

My evidences? Well, here you are, documented, & tested:

Opera, afaik, is the ONLY browser to pass the ACID test (yes, there is one called that), check it:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/03/12/1416222.shtml

Opera also has outperformed FireFox on speed, period, check this (most current and comprehensive browser vs. browser test I have ever found):

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win

Opera also has addon widgets (just like the .xpi extensions firefox has):

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/08/001722 6

Opera also has less vulnerabilities found than any other browser, over time. CHECK THIS:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/02/23/HNbrowse rvuln_1.html

That all said, noted and documented, & aside? Opera vs. FireFox??

(& it had/has features before any other browser, that Mozilla/FireFox copied outright from it (tabs, anyone? Opera had tabbed browsing FAR before Mozilla/FireFox))

AND OPERA IS ALSO FREE!

Opera, vs. FireFox? NO CONTEST! Opera wins on any front you can name...

APK

P.S.=> At least as far as technological superiority, & innovation. The trouble with many things today is, the best product or man for the job, does not always win. Especially in today's politically motivated, & "Public Relations Driven" world (whoever has the most monies, wins), & in our current "world of committees" (it's no longer a world of great men, but instead, a world of committees, imo)... apk

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel you on the "ad-hominem" attack of yourself, because I've dealt with it more than should be, per the author of this article (see my p.s. below) rather than the actual topic!

That all said & aside? I decided to direct you to this post in this thread, so you can see some documented facts:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233227&cid= 18969947

Enjoy the read, you ought to find it useful, if not enlightening...

APK

P.S.=> As to the author of this article, Jeremy "no degree or certification in computer related sciences, or professional experience in the trenches as a network or software engineer" Reimer? See here, where I had to dispatch he & his friends (he is nothing without them supporting him on technical information in this field, and even nothing WITH them):

http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=193#feedbackAnchor

You read that, you judge... and get ready to LAUGH! apk

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[bradavon]

The UI for Opera sucks. Sure it has some nice features and little bits and bobs but Firefox is much better. Personally I think this is why the Opera following is so low, the UI isn't intuitive at all. Firefox also to an extent looks more like your average browser.

That and it's normal to only compare the top two, and that's IE then FF.

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no. Not because you are wrong or the linked article isn't funny, but just because you are annoying.

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

"Um, no. Not because you are wrong or the linked article isn't funny, but just because you are annoying." - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, @07:53AM (#18970457)

Whatever: Just more "ad-hominem attacks", lol, as the poster I replied to said happened here and he was correct about - you simply evidence more of it is all.

ROTFLMAO: Is that reply of yours above, the BEST you have to offer here? Well, to that, I can only say this - Dispute the facts noted here, of Opera's superiority over FireFox on most all levels (except "popularity"):

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233227&cid= 18969947

You do that, you get the better of the facts I posted? Well, then? I'll listen.

(Otherwise, "go away, fly"... buzz off!)

APK

P.S.=> Amazing - idiots with stupid replies like yours actually exist. Infestations and pests? Extermination of them is VERY simple: Facts do the job! You are MORE than welcome to disprove my points above, they are after all, documented and tested fairly recently, and complete... I have a feeling all you have is your rather LAME & EFFETE "ad-hominem" attacks, lol, & those? I won't listen to, and simply invite you to disprove facts, IF you can (you won't be able to)...

In fact, I note your reply is JUST like the "arstechnica author", lol, here, in Jeremy "no degree or certifications in comp. sci, or professional experience network or software engineering, and plagiaristic 'newsgroups ambulance chaser & reciter of others' words" Reimer:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=193#feedbackAnchor

And his "anonymous hordes" from arstechnica (lol, weak, like yourself, & easily dispatched)...

(Now, above all: IF you don't LIKE that? Just defeat the list of facts in the url's noted... simple, right? Not - even a famed PhD in the latter one above, could not do so, and still cannot years later, and I have written & challenged him to do so, freely & openly, and helped him correct errors in his work that are of ROOKIE levels in hardcodes)... apk

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

Dammit, where's my "-1 used 'lol' in an unironic way" moderation?

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[tauron0]

Opera, afaik, is the ONLY browser to pass the ACID test (yes, there is one called that)

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it: Anyhow, enjoy the facts noted in the URL's in the thread posting that was parent to your own which you replied to - facts are always more interesting than fiction, and the facts are that Opera is technically superior on many levels to FireFox.

I almost hate to say it, but there is TOO much in favor of Opera (documented in the url I post below) to say otherwise:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233227&cid= 18969947

And, I am NOT "against" FireFox - in fact, I helped them correct errors in their browser, during my 5 yr. stay @ NTCompatible.com!

(This you CAN verify by either writing Philipp the owner of NTCompatible.com, or the FireFox development team)...

APK

P.S.=> FireFox? It IS "GOOD STUFF" but, in my professional estimation (as a developer for coming up on 2 decades in this field professionally & more), and the documentation above??

It's not as good as Opera is, currently. Facts, are facts. Still, things change, & hopefully?? The FF folks can equal or surpass (good luck) Opera on technical superiority levels. This, in turn should it happen, will only spur the Opera team to do even more in the future.

Who gains? We do, as the end users... competition, based on features & facts? Is good! apk

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[tauron0]

(...Wrong button...)

I thought it was Safari that got Acid2 test right first and soon after Konqueror, and only then Opera and FireFox...

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Phisbut]

Largest install base, perhaps, though I can't find anything quickly with Google. With mobile phones, Wiis, etc, Opera is pretty big.

How about, I don't want to be using a mobile phone browser when I'm on my desktop?

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

"ACID2", my apologies! You're correct... ... that's what I get for thinking about that test in terms of the commonly used phrase, "passing the acid test".

All in all, on your part? A GOOD spelling nitpick/good catch, admittedly!

For once I'll say that!

(As far as regards my spelling/correct name of the test type etc., because it IS "in error", admittedly, on spelling (yes, this somewhat upsets me, but I am only upset @ myself - I was a former national level "spelling bee" contestant in my youth, & messing up on spelling on my part, irks me, @ myself)).

So, "I salute you", 'spelling & grammar nazi's @ /.', lol! No sarcasm intended either. I am a bit upset w/ myself on that note, but the important point for me personally, is to be technically as accurate as is humanly possible.

(STILL, on the spelling check in all honesty? Well, because I feel that if somebody cannot deduce the meaning of a word, misspelled or not, in sentences on forums? They are the ones with the problem really, provided dyslexia is not a condition they are subject to that is (this is NOT our last will & testament, nor, legal documentation after all. It's just forums board posting @ /., & no more))).

I thought it was Safari that got Acid2 test right first and soon after Konqueror, and only then Opera and FireFox..." - by tauron0 (1058438) on Thursday May 03, @09:15AM (#18971201)

On your note about Safari passing it first, prior to Opera? You may be correct, but is there ANYTHING substantiating it you can find in that posting, or elsewhere?? I would like to see it.

Thanks, because if you find proof of it, I will amend my reply in future subsequent discussions and even cite you for it, should this matter to you!

APK

P.S.=> I guess what I would like to see, and you seem to be attempting to do so, in your latest reply to which I am responding here to?

Substantiated facts that prove the rest of my list wrong really, and this only makes my replies stronger in the future, so thanks, because, like anyone??

I only get STRONGER via correction, because it's worth more than a 1,000 praises... So, that said? If you guys find technical inaccuracies in the rest of that list which I posted? Please DO correct me on them, as I will improve it in the future for discussions like these... thanks!

1 down (though it is STILL a fact about Opera in its favor)? 3 more to go! apk

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy fuck. Are you the timecube guy?

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[zootm]

Although this isn't, as far as I'm aware, the case for Opera Mini, which uses a more specialised Java ME renderer.

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[ady1]

Based on my experience of Windows, PocketPC and Linux, Opera has the same rendering engine for all three. Don't know about Wii. The Opera Mobile is a completely different beast though sicne it's based on Java and optimized for small screen rendering and text layout and there is nothing common in it except name.

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[delinear]

That's not the point though - in terms of marketing it makes more sense for MS to compare to FF because it's the FF defectors they want to win back. In a technical sense it's better to (if they can't innovate) steal features from Opera, but they still want to "sell" IE as a competitor to FF, since Opera barely registers as a serious competitor at this point (despite arguably being the better browser).

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"The UI for Opera sucks. Sure it has some nice features and little bits and bobs but Firefox is much better. Personally I think this is why the Opera following is so low, the UI isn't intuitive at all."

I can't say I agree with that at all. A vanilla install is rather similar to FF's. At worst it takes you a moment to read the icons and work out what they do. To somebody who has used Opera for a few days, the FF UI is a pain in the ass to customize. The Opera team has spent a good deal more effort in a good user experience than FF people has. It doesn't take long in using it to spot that.

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[jZnat]

I've got a Wii, and via my observations, Opera on Wii renders the same as Opera on Windows, OS X, Linux, et al. Opera for phones, however, optimises the markup (via a proxy from Opera), images, and such, for small devices. You can see this in action via Opera for Windows, OS X, Linux, et al. Despite the differences, they are both powered by Opera's Presto renderring engine.

Microsoft is a bit different in this regard because they seem to reinvent IE for any platform they make a version of it for; my guess would be that it's tied so deeply to the operating system that it makes more sense to make a completely new version than to upgrade an existing one.

In contrast, KDE (KHTML) and Apple (WebKit) also have a renderring engine that is used in both desktops (Linux, BSD, Solaris, OS X, etc.) and mobile devices (iPhone, many Nokia phones, others), and although it might not do as much (if at all) as Opera does in the case of modifying the markup to be better for small screens, it does a great job as well in parsing the markup and displaying it properly.

And for information parity, Mozilla's Gecko renderring engine is also being worked on for a mobile device web browser called Minimo, and although it's still pretty much alpha softwore, it's chugging along smoothly. The only thing I can complain about with it so far is that it's only for the latest version of Windows CE (or you can use it with Linux if you can install Linux on your PDA/smart phone if it doesn't already run Linux), and the only PDA I have is an old Toshiba e335 with PocketPC 2002, and I can't even install Linux on it. :(

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[jZnat]

Safari (probably a nightly version though) and Konqueror (started in 3.5.something) both also pass the Acid2 test, and Firefox 3.0 will also pass the test. I believe Opera was the first to pass it (or at least pass it in a non-beta release), however.

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Endo13]

I prefer Firefox over Opera myself as well, but I think you're being a bit too harsh on Opera. IMO one of the big reasons why Firefox seems more intuitive is simply because it's more like the typical Windows software we're already used to, while the developers of Opera were a bit more daring and made something a little more different.

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[SEMW]

Some people (e.g. you) don't like its *default* UI. But the whole point about Opera is that it's SO much more easily customizable than any of the other major browsers. You can make it look and work like Firefox, or IE, or Lynx (!), or any other broswer you like if you really want. Every single UI element is drag and drop to anywhere else, out of the box (you'd need a ton of FF extensions (or like editing wierd config files) to replicate the same customizability in FF).

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

I use opera to browse pr0n.

It's got a nice zooOOM feature.

Ohh yeah ? I raise with (a) pornzilla

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[Holmwood]

According to Opera's CEO (interviewed here) Opera has around 10-15m active desktop users, 40m people with Opera on their phones, and 7m users of "Opera mini" on other devices. Other figures note 50m phones with Opera have been 'shipped', but presumably not all of these are in use.

So, yes, the non-desktop market increases Opera's base by a factor of 4-5, assuming every phone with Opera on it is being used to browse the web.

That's still a modest share of the overall market, even when you measure by installed base, rather than actual usage. Indeed, likely substantially less than Firefox (Supposedly circa 100m desktop users from not terribly good sources).

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[aaronmcadam]

Firefox's tears can cure cancer, but Firefox doesn't cry!

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[sakasune]

Chuck Norris uses Opera...

Re:It wouldnt be a good comparison

[DjRenigade]

That is FUCKING GREAT!!!! http://renigade.blogspot.com/

MS losing some of its charming 'tude ?

[weighn]

Also, the developers are going to try and improve UI customization, which is one of the main criticisms of IE7. aw, come on. where's the preemptive UI going?
I want to see "it looks like you're typing an email" and animated puppies running off into the distance when I turn off animations ...

Re:MS losing some of its charming 'tude ?

[Sax Maniac]

animated puppies running off into the distance when I turn off animations

Isn't that a slap in the face? You're trying to turn off animations and puppies, and before it submits to your will, it decides to run one more animation even though it knows you've just asked it not to. Just to spite you! "Oh, you don't want any more animations, huh, do you? Well, get a load of this! Ha! You're not really in control! And, you bloody well know that the next time you run Windows Update I'm going to stomp all over your settings and come back. Woof! Woof! It looks like you're searching for some files. Should I pee on your carpet?"

Sorry, yes, I'm bitter.

You know what I want?

[SocialEngineer]

I want a little more attention paid to standards. What is the point of developing standards compliant, accessible websites if the most used browser in the market screws it up without crappy hacks? Oh, wait.. Notgetting sued is a pretty good reason, I guess. Still, the overhead IE creates for web developers (especially ones in areas with a low budget for design work) tends to make things cost much more than they should for the client.

We'll probably just see them get a little above 60% compliance on this round, though. Apathy is great, isn't it?

Re:You know what I want?

[AKAImBatman]

I want a little more attention paid to standards.

Amen. I want to see DOM 2 support (not just their crappy 1.0 support from 1998), CSS that works, caching that actually works, Canvas (ok, so it's not a W3C standard; but IE is the only one missing it), SVG, a Javascript debugger that doesn't suck, so on and so forth.

Re:You know what I want?

[XeRXeS-TCN]

If only I had mod points.. I couldn't agree more. It just seems every time there's information about a new version of IE in the works, they say "We're going to increase CSS compatibility!" and that has the geek crowd starting in with the wishful thinking, talking about how wonderful it would be if they adhered correctly to standards or fully implemented CSS. Then the thing finally comes out and we're all bitterly disappointed as we were foolish enough to hope for a proper standards implementation and all we get is excuses from apologists claiming that it's far better than it used to be... to quote Jack Black in the Pick of Destiny,

"We were so awesome!"
"Yeah, it was awesome... compared to BULLSHIT!"

Re:You know what I want?

[Major Blud]

I wonder if IE 8 is going to be compatible with XP or Vista only. It seems to be to early to tell at the moment, since details are still lacking. I wouldn't be surprised if it was Vista only since it seems that MS is in a big hurry to discontinue support for XP.

Re:You know what I want?

[sexyrexy]

One could argue that the overhead IE creates for developers is a good thing for really, really good web developers - it increases billable hours threefold and makes those of us talented and experienced enough to write solid code for IE *AND* all other platforms and push our less-able competitors out of the high-paying market. I know, all that blah blah about a healthy business and technology ecosystem and everybody wins. But seriously, who fucking cares? I make plenty of money because Microsoft makes it impossible for lesser developers to compete with me for limited dollars.

Re:You know what I want?

[SleepyHappyDoc]

(ok, so it's not a W3C standard; but IE is the only one missing it)

Let me see if I got this...you want Microsoft to pay attention to standards, but only the ones other browsers don't ignore? That's a standard right there...a double standard.

Re:You know what I want?

[hkgroove]

I'd like less pop-ups with IE 7 (and Vista - but that's another discussion).

I know this might be asking a lot of people / users - but I think a simple one time run / setup of a user's settings would help instead of the pop-ups that hardly make any sense to the common user since they're made up of one or two short sentences with hardly and explanation.

They take enough time to set up Windows, you'd think a one time, initial setup for IE, - in big giant letters - to set up their initial settingswouldn't be so bad. Most people don't even know where their options for IE are located.

Re:You know what I want?

[hkgroove]

I would hope yes and I would hope no. If they're going to release another disappointment then keep it with Vista. I've had several friends who bought laptops / machines in recent months that were shipped with Vista, call and complain to Dell that they absolutely hated it. Two were able to jump through some hoops and ended up with a new copy of XP. This is interesting because the person who sells us our equipment (our leases are from Dell) said he gets a better rate in commission to push Vista (I don't know how truthful he was about this - maybe there were incentives, but not sure about commission...). We told him we weren't interested in Vista and he said that was no surprise that probably only 5% of his sales have been Vista - though his projections were to be 30 or 40% of new sales be Vista over XP.

Granted he sells primarily to businesses - was it this difficult when XP was released? And yes, I know many business are still stuck with Win2000 (the majority of his clients are smaller companies) not huge banks or corporations who seek conformity, but instead companies that traditionally are on the cutting edge of technology.

Re:You know what I want?

[@madeus]

In what way are other browsers, like Firefox, Safari, and Opera 'ignoring' another standard by implimenting canvas support? Canvas support is a widely support standard, Firefox, Safari and Opera both impliment it, Microsoft have something *similar* but of course it's not the same.

This is pretty typical, and a situation that arises a lot even when it's with a W3C standard - things like the ECMA script standard leave specifics untermined, and the other major browser developers have implimented complimentary systems, but Microsoft almost always does it's own thing.

Usually their implimentation has ultimately the same functionality, but it's typically more verbose to impliment and requires special if (browserIs.IE) { } kludges (and in the case of more complex apps, libraries to abstract the functions).

Re:You know what I want?

[AKAImBatman]

WHATWG is a perfectly good standards organization. They've been doing more to push web technology forward in the past few years than Microsoft has done in the last ten. It wouldn't kill Microsoft to sit up and pay attention to a standard implemented by all other browsers, regardless of whether it comes from the W3C or not. After all, the W3C is not the only organization that's ever standardized web technology...

Re:You know what I want?

[Anonymous Coward]

so ideas that don't come out of the w3c should be rejected? I don't see too many people using W3C's Amaya for their everyday browsing.

Re:You know what I want?

[SleepyHappyDoc]

Well, I'm assuming that the lack of a W3C standard for Canvas means that the W3C standard for that is to omit support for it. The original poster I was responding to, almost in the same breath, berated Microsoft for not complying with W3C standards and requested that they comply with a non-W3C one. I don't know much about WHATWG or Canvas, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either Microsoft will comply with all the W3C standards or they won't at all, or they'll comply with some. You can't have both A and C.

I reiterate: I am not challenging the validity of WHATWG as a standardizing organization, nor do I have anything against Canvas (nor am I a Microsoft fanboy), but I don't think it's fair to hold IE to impossible expectations.

Re:You know what I want?

[jiushao]

Apple asserts patents on the canvas tag, interestingly directly mirroring the concerns Microsoft IE developers expressed about WHATWG all along. So don't expect the canvas tag in IE ever.

Re:You know what I want?

[Bogtha]

berated Microsoft for not complying with W3C standards and requested that they comply with a non-W3C one.

And what is wrong with that? The W3C aren't responsible for JPEG, that was standardised by ISO. Does that mean that web browsers shouldn't implement JPEG?

You are talking like there is a wall between the W3C and the rest of the world, where implementing a non-W3C technology means that you must inevitably throw away W3C stuff. This is nonsensical. You can implement W3C specifications and non-W3C specifications simultaneously just fine,and this has been the norm for as long as the W3C has existed.

I don't think it's fair to hold IE to impossible expectations.

Huh? You are talking about something that the OP already pointed out was already implemented by the other browsers. How is keeping up with everybody else an impossible expectation?

Re:You know what I want?

[Bogtha]

One could argue that the overhead IE creates for developers is a good thing for really, really good web developers - it increases billable hours threefold and makes those of us talented and experienced enough to write solid code for IE *AND* all other platforms and push our less-able competitors out of the high-paying market.

It's slowly pushing me out of the market, not because I'm unable to cope with Internet Explorer's shortcomings, but because I'm sick of wasting time working around bugs instead of putting my valuable time to good use creating things.

You seriously think that work for the sake of work is a good thing?

Re:You know what I want?

[Tumbleweed]

I want a little more attention paid to standards.

I want a LOT more attention paid to standards. I want it to be the number one priority over everything else (yes, even security). There will always be bugs and security holes in software - Firefox has been far from immune, but if you don't code for standards compliance from the get-go, you're certainly never going to achieve it by accident.

In an ideal world with a company with the resources that MS commands, one would hope that a parallel IE8 team would've been formed at the same time that IE7 was given the go-ahead, but to start a new browser from scratch. That would be marvelous. That would make sense. That would be so EASY for someone with the resources that MS has. That would also be a fantasy. *sigh*

If IE8 comes out and the *ONLY* thing it has over IE7 is standards compliance, I will consider it a rousing success.

If Firefox 3 comes out and the *ONLY* thing is has over FF2 is a multithreaded UI, I will consider *it* a rousing success.

I'm not holding my breath for either of these things to happen. And that's a real shame, because I look smashing in blue.

Re:You know what I want?

[jez9999]

What is the point of developing standards compliant, accessible websites if the most used browser in the market screws it up without crappy hacks? Oh, wait.. Notgetting sued is a pretty good reason, I guess.

Wow... what planet is that person on?

There are a lot of strange comments on Derek's and Molly's posts from people who believe it should be up to every company to decide whether its website should be accessible or not. And anyone would think the company didn't have to provide a website at all!

Re:You know what I want?

[Tim C]

Well, call me an old cynic if you like, but you only have yourselves to blame. What part of "We're going to increase CSS compatibility!" makes you think they mean "We're going to fully implement CSS compatibility according to the spec!"?

Going from 1% compatibility to 2% is an increase. Hell, it's better than an increase, they've doubled their level of compatibility!

Re:You know what I want?

[Hic sunt leones]

Come now, don't insult sensible products like bullshit. Its creators might see red and charge you!

Re:You know what I want?

[Anonymous Coward]

> WHATWG is a perfectly good standards organization.

No it's not. They're defined as "all the browser vendors except Microsoft", and their patent policy is worse than the W3C's.

Re:You know what I want?

[Excors]

That isn't a problem. Apple and Microsoft (and Mozilla and Opera and others) are part of the W3C's new HTML Working Group, which is going to take the WHATWG's work (including canvas) and build on that (hopefully not by removing canvas in the process); and the W3C has a patent policy which means Apple's patent is not a problem, since they will follow that policy and make it freely usable by anyone implementing the specification. (The WHATWG doesn't have a patent policy, which is why Microsoft didn't get involved until it moved into the W3C.)

Re:You know what I want?

[AKAImBatman]

I am actually aware of the situation. (Apple landed that little bomb on the WHATWG mailing list about a month or two ago.) However, it was just an Apple CYA stating that Apple "makes no representations as to Apple's willingness or unwillingness to license these IP Rights." They then went on to say, "in the event that the Web Applications 1.0 Working Draft becomes part of a formalized draft standard at W3C or IETF, for example, Apple is prepared to address the disclosure/licensing rules of such organizations."

Basically, Apple is ensuring that they are clear on the fact that they haven't given up any IP rights yet because of the lack of a patent policy at the WHATWG. Since the WHATWG specs are all slowly migrating into W3C specs as they stabilize, Apple is stating that they'll deal with the patent issues as soon as they get there.

In Microsoft's case, though, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from asking Apple for individual rights that cover their browser. Microsoft and Apple have had cross-licensing patent deals in the past, so throwing Canvas into the pot would be nothing new for them. I expect that it's simply a matter of asking nicely, rather than any real barricade to implementation.

Re:You know what I want?

[alexo]

> I want to see DOM 2 support

DOM-2?
I really hope it will never be supported!

Re:You know what I want?

[jZnat]

WHATWG is very similar to W3C as it is comprised of a very similar list of member organisations, although they have more of a focus on making standards that people will actually use (and web browsers will implement) rather than wasting time on a dead standard like XHTML 2. They are also far more open about their standards processes and allow non-members to give their own opinions to the people writing and editting the standard.

So, WHATWG is just as valid of a standards organisation that Microsoft should be following as the W3C (of which they are a member ironically), ISO, IEC, ECMA (even though they pretty much rubberstamp Microsoft's standards they push through), IETF, IEEE, ANSI, etc.

Re:You know what I want?

[jZnat]

Not making your website accessible to disabled people is discriminatory and therefore illegal. It's analogous to a situation where you owned a store but didn't allow black people to shop there. I mean, you're the shop owner, so you should be able to make arbitrary decisions on who's allowed to shop there, right? Who cares about black people? They only make up a small percentage of the population, so by denying them service, I save money from potential theft of my VCRs, right?

It's fucking discrimination; don't sugar-coat it with the "they don't have to blah blah" Libertarian bullshit. Sometimes the government needs to provide the incentive (e.g., via fines or taxes) that would otherwise cost the company more money to fix the problem than to ignore it. Example situations of where this is necessary include environmentally toxic practises, discriminatory practises, employee abuse, etc. The "free market" can't correct these sorts of problems, so sometimes we need to step and fix them.

Re:You know what I want?

[AKAImBatman]

They're defined as "all the browser vendors except Microsoft"

They're defined as "browser makers who will join". Microsoft simply hasn't agreed to join. They haven't been excluded.

their patent policy is worse than the W3C's.
They don't have a patent policy. The WHATWG is an incubator/fast track for new web technologies. After it matures in the WHATWG, it gets submitted to W3C for more official level of standardization. If you've paid any attention to them, you already know that WHATWG has resulted in the reopening of the HTML working group, submission of a browser sockets standard, and several other key pieces of technology being ported over.

The only thing holding up Canvas is the fact that it includes changes to the HTML model. (i.e. The tag itself.) Thus it's up to the HTML working group to define it as a W3C standard. Something which I believe will be happening very soon now. (At least if the few hundred invited experts have any say in it.)

Re:You know what I want?

[jez9999]

Not making your website accessible to disabled people is discriminatory and therefore illegal. It's analogous to a situation where you owned a store but didn't allow black people to shop there.

That's so ridiciulous I'm not sure that you're not trolling, but I'll reply anyway.

No, it's not at all analogous to that. If you prevent black people from shopping there, you're actively discriminating. If they can't for some other reason, you're passively discriminating. Personally, I think passive discrimination (with a good reason - eg. a step that stops disableds from entering the store), should be legal. Look, you're the owner, I don't see why you should be required to expend time and money to provide access to other people if you don't feel it's a worthwhile business decision. Again, this is *passive* discrimination. You'd love everyone to be able to visit, but there is unfortunately some barrier to some people, which you don't feel the demolition of would provide the extra business to cover the cost.

In the case of websites, the barrier is the lack of ALT text and other accessibility features. The webmaster feels that adding those features isn't worth their while (or just fucking doesn't want to do it, as is their right in a free society!!!), and *no way* should they be forced to do so. It's one thing to detect that someone's black and ban them; it's another to provide identical access to everyone, and then claim that's illegal because not everyone can use that provision as it was intended. Sorry, but to say that is retarded.

Re:You know what I want?

[DjRenigade]

I am a blogger and i have tried to use the W3C validator on several ocassions. Their crap is sooo hard to pass that it si unrealistic!! I am no HTML,CSS,XHTML guru, but W3C is rediculous!!

Re:You know what I want?

[DjRenigade]

WTF??? R U CRAZY?? "Not making your website accessible to disabled people is discriminatory and therefore illegal." Where the hell did u come from? Did u wake up or go to sleep on the wrong side of the bed? I have been reading all of this topic and fail to see where you come off acting like this...

will any win32 FF users actually go back?

[weighn]

preamble: this may sound like some OSS fanboi troll-rant, but it is not (check my other comments).

This is real and (IMHO) the computing experience for many users right-now.

So are MS trying to pull back users who have turned to an alternative browser, or they are desperately trying to plug the drip drip drip of users who still haven't moved?

Either way they will have to make a hyperspace leap to get ahead of the curve.

I began using FF at something like v0.83 and its now mature, secure and stable.

After occasionally dipping the big toe into linux over the past 5-6 years (Redhat 7.3; Fedora 3, 4, 5), just this week I installed ubuntu 7.04 and have fallen in love with it. Restored a ghost backup of XP to a partition and have booted into it just once.

IE's CSS hassles should have been fixed years ago - MS really needs to do more to stop the millions of users like me that are dabbling and finding that OSS is more than just a viable alternative.

Re:will any win32 FF users actually go back?

[Mr. Underbridge]

I began using FF at something like v0.83 and its now mature, secure and stable.

Now by stable, do you mean that the manner in which it leaks memory and ultimately crashes is well characterized and predictable? Firefox on mac for me is nearly unusable. Sadly, safari is only slightly better. On my linux machine, it's a bit better but still a pig. Don't know about Windows.

Re:will any win32 FF users actually go back?

[weighn]

Now by stable, do you mean that the manner in which it leaks memory and ultimately crashes is well characterized and predictable?

haven't seen that on Windows since pre1.5. The latest Ubuntu release seems happy with it (2.0.0.3 OotB).

anyhow, I grew up on Windows - the solution to what you describe is "throw more RAM at it"

Re:will any win32 FF users actually go back?

[jZnat]

The situation on Linux is a bit different due to the aggressive caching in Linux and how it will try to use all the available RAM you have (unused RAM is wasted RAM, remember that). Also, viewing process statistics will generally show memory usage for programs by including memory used from shared libraries (which are only used once if you have them open in more than a single instance) and from cached files. And there's the fact that Linux makes better use of swap than Windows, so having full RAM all the time doesn't necessarily mean instant slowdown for everything due to paging in and out.

Re:will any win32 FF users actually go back?

[pavera]

I use FF on windows, linux and OS X all day every day. I haven't had it crash since somewhere around 1.5 beta.

Right now, FF is using 64MB of ram, its been on all day, it has 8 tabs open, today it has ranged from 1 tab to more than 20... that is on OS X.

FF uses just as much RAM as IE doing similar workloads. Obviously that can only be tested on windows, but i have done extensive bookmarking on > 100PCs.

Re:will any win32 FF users actually go back?

[GuyfromTrinidad]

I remember first trying out Firefox pre 1.0 and hated it. 1.5 came around and I decided to give it a second chance, haven't looked back since then. This was my first step to becoming more educated about choices other than MS. This coincidently was also around the time I started to take web design seriously. After that the floodgates opened, I started questioning do I really need to use windows, can I survive without it? Haven't made the full switch but the answer is yes. IE8 will not bring a lot of users back because the public is recognizing that surfing the net is part of a larger experience and MS has proven time and time again they are slow to provide those experiences.

Re:will any win32 FF users actually go back?

[EvanED]

I'm addressing your post's title rather than content, but here goes...

will any win32 FF users actually go back?

I'm very interested to see the development of the computer industry over the next couple years. I wouldn't go so far as to say Vista is failing, but at the same time it's not exactly flying off the shelves. MS got some things right with it, but missed the mark with a number of others.

The way I see it, one of two things will happen.

- MS will stop goofing around and pull itself together. There are a lot of talented people there, and NT's architecture is a lot better than a lot of people (at least around here) give it credit for. It seems like there should be really no reason for them to have had so many security etc. problems in the past other than that they were just not caring because they were the only folks in town. So if they start caring, maybe they can wade through the bureaucracy put something neat together.

The fact that a lot of people are really praising Office 2007 is a little support for my assertion that MS *should* be able to actually produce something nice, though updating the GUI is a "little" different than writing a kernel. MS Research is also top notch. (Partly because MS is one of the few companies that is actually putting $$ into (non product) research at this point.)

- MS won't actually improve. It could be that the management at MS can't figure out a way to structure things so that they can be productive, or maybe the people there actually aren't so hot. (Or maybe they are in some sense too hackery and don't have the diligence to produce OS-quality software.) In this case, the MS product line continues to stagnate.

In the first case, it's entirely possible that IE could catch back up to FF. IMO there were a few years back there from probably IE 5 until at least Mozilla started to really get going (and possibly not until Firefox) that IE was the best browser around for Windows. Netscape 4.7 was a dog compared to IE, and Netscape 5 or 6 (whichever was publicly released) was horrible. Opera was probably a contender in there at some points too, but when I first used it I don't think it had really matured yet and wasn't all that good, and then I didn't use it again until 2003 or 2004 when things were starting to heat up again because IE 6 was starting to suck comparatively.

This seems to be the nature of things; one product moves ahead while the other falls behind, then it catches back up while another product goes away completely, etc. Look at Intel vs. AMD. Back around 2000s AMDs were a really good buy; their performance per dollar was higher than Intel. At the same time, Intel still had the best chips on the market. But a couple years later, things changed; AMD became not just the leader in the performance per price, but became a serious contender just flat out in the performance category. They were also the first to hit the market with AMD64, which Intel later picked up. At the same time, Intel was sort of floundering. The P4 wasn't all that great. But then last year they released the Core architecture, which not only retook the lead by trouncing AMD's best offering performancewise, but was competitive on a value comparison too. Before, I dunno, 1999 or 2000, I wouldn't have seriously considered getting an Intel knockoff chip. But after AMD was on the scene for a while, from then until the release of the Core 2, I would have gotten an AMD without much of a thought. But now I think I'm back siding with Intel again.

I guess what I'm saying is that FF mustn't become complacent, because that will put them in the same position that MS put itself in that allowed FF to gain as much ground as it has.

Wow, what committment!

[RiskyChris]

Confirming upgraded support for CSS, eh? This is almost as exciting as waiting for WinFS!

Re:I dont care...

[Envy Life]

what Microsoft does to IE, it's still going to be IE. End of Story And I'd expand that thought to all browsers. You ever notice the similarities between a web page and a 3270 terminal? HTML was intended for static content, and has been showing signs of age for over a decade. When web developers have to deal with bloatware like AJAX frameworks and pull hair out over javascript incompatibilities just to make the UI just a little more interactive, it seems times are ripe for a better solution. You can't polish a turd.

Innovate or die

[Skeith]

Its IE so it is still going to dominate the market, but Microsoft won't win any users back. The next versions of Opera, Firefox and Konqueror are set to impress on all platforms.

Re:Innovate or die

[adona1]

That's MS's biggest problem. IE7 looks a lot prettier than IE6, but catching up to the competition won't make me ditch FF....

Now if they could jump three steps ahead of them, I might consider it. Their problem is while IE7 catches up to FF1.5, Mozilla is working on 2, 3 & even 4.

Hype about Silverlight?

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Microsoft announced a few major partners who were going to adopt Silverlight. I wonder, however, whether any of those were "wins" of content providers who were previously using Flash video ... or if they were merely content providers who were already using Windows Media and are merely going to take advantage of an easier way to distribute it.

Anyone know?

Hmm...

[imamac]

"It will include improvements in RSS, CSS, and AJAX support, and will follow Firefox 3 in supporting microformats." So it will simply copy features already in most other browsers. These "improvements" are simply things which should already be in IE7. (Maybe with the exception of microformats.) Still, it's just MS trying to play catchup, but by the time IE8 is released, Firefox, Safari, and Opera will have moved on to bigger and better things.

Summary of article

[cgenman]

Microsoft representative: "You know that really nifty stuff the Firefox team said they're working on? Um... Yeah, we're doing all that too. And better. And with a pony. ...Ok, we lied about the pony."

Re:Summary of article

[pallmall1]

Ok, we lied about the pony.

I'm not so sure about that. With all the horseshit spread by microsoft, there's got to be a pony somewhere.

Re:Summary of article

[6Yankee]

OMG, pwnIEs!

competition is good -- what's the next big thing?

[boxlight]

Competition is good. Microsoft would never improve IE unless Firefox was trying to out-do them. Similarly, they'd never improve Windows if it wasn't for Mac OS X, and they would never improve their server products if it wasn't for Linux.

If Microsoft had been broken into a variety of little companies like the judge wanted 10 years ago, we'd all have much better products now because of the resulting competition.

Now it's time for Firefox (or Apple) to truly think out of the box and blow us all away with the next big thing. What's the next KILLER APP? We all know Microsoft won't do it first.

boxlight

When will they learn?

[eebra82]

It will include improvements in RSS, CSS, and AJAX support, and will follow Firefox 3 in supporting microformats.

I generally think Microsoft provides solid products and I rarely stumble upon problems with aged products. Look at Office, Windows XP and other operating systems, that are doing just fine.

Internet Explorer is one of the few big mistakes Microsoft has had. IE4 knocked out Netscape and after that, we have seen little and rather futile competition, with Opera being the exception. But even with the release of Firefox, Microsoft has been utterly ignorant. They don't care about perfecting the CSS support and I have little hopes for IE8 after seeing IE7. Sure, it is far better but why is it so damn hard to follow standards?

In my opinion, Microsoft only needs to follow the standards to regain some trust from its lost users and it should have done so with IE7 as it had several years to do what Mozilla did.

Re:When will they learn?

[wizardforce]

Sure, it is far better but why is it so damn hard to follow standards?

you're new here arn't you? Microsoft doesn't compete, they simply attempt to force people to use it. to accomplish that, during the browser wars microsoft and netscape developed their own flavor of standards and each tried to get the W3C to adopt them.. javascript for netscape and CSS for microsoft. because netscape wasn't immediately available like IE was, few people bothered to switch to anything else since it did exactly what they wanted... sometimes, and no more. this in effect ended any real "innovation" by microsoft and no real need to follow the W3C since everyone was using IE anyway. the only way the standards will be followed is if other browsers like firefox put a little fear into microsoft

Re:When will they learn?

[tshak]

why is it so damn hard to follow standards

You must not be a software developer or one that's had to work with a standard as complicated as W3C's. While I've never worked directly with the W3C standards, I have tried to work with other standards in my career and I can tell you that I fully empathize with the IE team. Sometimes standards are a lower priority simply because they're a bear to work with, or they don't allow for innovation because they're too restrictive or poorly designed. It's "design by committee" at it's worst. That all being said, I think that IE is a case where things like DOM and CSS should be fully W3C compliant because it's a good standard *and* it's demanded by our customers. Firefox can do it, so should we. In general though, standards are not always a good thing for the customer. When they are they're a pain to work with. I imagine that a lot of the IE troubles are due to backwards compatibility with non-standards compliant code. So yeah, we should have been building on standards since IE2. Live and learn.

Disclaimer: This is my opinion which does not necessarily reflect that of my employers.

Re:When will they learn?

[grikdog]

You have to remember IE was not designed to graze among the innertubes, but to browbeat OEMs into shipping one and only one operating system. IE has evil vampire roots in every component of Windows exposed to users. When SCOTUS amputated IE from the rest of Windows, and made it compete with honest browsers, IE was essentially broken. It is not a failed browser. It is a failed set of brass knuckles, and deserves its fate.

UI...? Just give me history!

[urbanriot]

How about the ridiculously unintuitive location of history in IE 7? You wouldn't believe how many customers who have updated to IE7 or use Vista ask me where the history icon went...

They may switch back; Firefox, don't be complacent

[KWTm]

Will people ever go back to IE once they've switched to Firefox? Maybe, but it might be a good thing.

Firefox lit a firecracker under the butts of Microsoft (who actually disbanded the IE team after IE6 --can you believe it?), and made them scramble to build a web browser that was a first in the world of Microsoft: it was standards compliant. Okay, actually, it wasn't, but it was a heck of a lot more so than the old IE, and for the first time MS actually paid attention to Web standards compliance. Whatever happens after that, we can thank Firefox for this historic watershed; even if people switch back to IE, it won't be to IE 6, and web page authors will realize that Microsoft doesn't necessarily dictate the standards.

In the same way, though, Firefox can't afford to be complacent. Microsoft has a long history of coming from behind and overtaking. There are quite a few ways in which Firefox could be improved, and if MS makes this improved browser IE8, then I can very well envision people switching back.

I think the main thing Firefox needs to do is manage its extensions. There was an interview on Slashdot in which one of the developers said that there was no need for the Mozilla Foundation to vet and officially support extensions, which I think flies in the face of common sense. The MozFound needs to pick three or four extensions and make sure they work --which would not be hard to do since they work now-- but officially make it part of Firefox. These extensions are: Adblock [Plus], NoScript, ... well, I'll let you fill in the rest so I don't start any flame wars. Then when testing happens, they have to include these extensions.

Firefox could do with a few other improvements, and I'm sure other posters will happily list them, but the point is: Microsoft is fully capable of overtaking Firefox again. This is a good thing only if it spurs Firefox to greater heights. I don't want IE to actually end up overtaking Firefox, because I want the dominant browser on the Web to be a cross-platform one.

Re:Extensions - adblock for any browser

[flacco]

run the privoxy proxy and make it the proxy server for all your browsers. it does ad filtering at the proxy level.

wait a fucking minute. did i just make IE more attractive?

Will it run on Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Mac? Or anything other than just bloody Vista? The worst problem for anyone publishing on the Web (which is everyone) is having to own all the new OSs for testing our standards-deficient browsers.

On the plus side, I'm shocked to hear Molly Holzschlag is working with MS on the new release.
http://www.webstandards.org/2007/04/02/bringing-st andards-to-microsoft/

Year after year MS has made promises about standards for the next browser and then never delivered. It's been pure Charlie Brown + Lucy + football every time. I'd expect no different for this IE8 hype, except for the mention of Molly.

I've worked with Molly and hold her in the greatest respect. I'm also thoroughly jaded about MS browser announcements and never believe a word anymore. One of these positions will have to shift with the release of IE8, and I'm very curious which it will be.

Re:Will it run on Linux?

[Bogtha]

I've worked with Molly and hold her in the greatest respect. I'm also thoroughly jaded about MS browser announcements and never believe a word anymore. One of these positions will have to shift with the release of IE8, and I'm very curious which it will be.

Why do you think they hired her? They already have plenty of people who know the W3C specifications inside out and backwards, hell it was core members of the Internet Explorer development team that helped write the W3C specification. Ignore the spin; they don't need anybody to help them "bring standards to Microsoft".

No, the trouble Microsoft has is that they are a developer-oriented business, and they completely and utterly burned their bridges with web developers years ago. They lost all trust, and no amount of platitudes will help them get trust back, or even merely stop them being the object of ridicule and hatred. They could put every single developer at Microsoft to work on Internet Explorer, make it conform to every W3C specification ever written, and release it all as open source, and still web developers would hold a grudge against them.

So they brought in somebody well-respected in the community, to act as a bridge between the developer community and Microsoft. Web developers are sat at one end of the bench, Microsoft at the other, and Molly is in the middle. Web developers talk to Molly, Microsoft talks to Molly, and she repeats everything to the other party, even though all three parties know full well that they are all within earshot of each other.

Have you ever seen an adult use a sock puppet to talk to a child because the child doesn't want to talk to the adult? It's the exact same thing. Molly is the sock puppet, and Microsoft is treating the web developer community like children. I'm sure Molly is doing something useful at Microsoft, but her primary use to them is as a PR tool. And judging from your comment, it's working.

Improved AJAX Support?

[Dragonslicer]

It will include improvements in... AJAX support

Last I checked, IE's XMLHTTPRequest object (or whatever they called the ActiveX object in IE6) sends requests to the server and receives responses back just fine. What noticeable improvements do they plan on making, or are they just falling into the trap of using "AJAX" to mean any JavaScript/DHTML?

Okay who is it?

[imamac]

Who's he Microsoft fanboi who modded every commen about MS not being up to par with IE as "Troll"? That's just sad...

How about...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Microsoft works on getting IE7 to uninstall properly before they work too hard on IE8. That would help me!

Re:When will they learn

[skoaldipper]

When will they learn to hack an x64 flash plugin into IE6, 7, or even 8 already? Ubudoobie x64 and firefox are cracking white hot baby. I got this puppy firing on all flash fours with that nspluginwarper doobamajigger. Honestly, I love IE7 and all, but everytime I make love to it, I feel like firefox's hands have been all over it first - from tabs to customizing UI to ... you name it. Hey, I'm no fanboi either way fellas, but I call 'em like I see 'em. Microsoft ain't no turtle nor hare in this race - probably some granny with a cane taking the scenic route. It really is impressive when you stop and think how a collective group of worldwide contributors can surpass this organization in swift response to user demand. Personally, I think Microsoft is in dire need of further decentralization of their many software departments, or more personnel, or ... something. It use to be I only booted into Windows for the browser, now I only boot into XP when I'm not using a browser. Strange turn of events...

Too much crap

[Quiet_Desperation]

Let's revert back to HTML 1.0 and be done with it. :)

I'm generally rabidly anti-Luddite, but the web seems so broken sometimes.

Let's start over and make content matter. Please?

Re:Too much crap

[Anonymous Coward]

There isn't an 'HTML 1.0'. The first standardized version HTML was HTML 2.0, way back in 1995.

If you want people to simply 'get on with it', then HTML 4.01 Transitional is probably what you want, since it includes depreciated elements as well as all the new stuff.

You may also want a 'versionless internet', which is exactly what the WHATWG are trying to make happen with their (X)HTML5 proposal.

Additionally, I would recommend that new pages be made according to the HTML 4.01 Strict specifications, and my own site is coded to the XHTML 1.1 specifications (no, really).

Re:Too much crap

[jZnat]

HTML 1.0 was "whatever the web browser supports"; that is, there was no official standard for 1.0. I'd rather not repeat those days again...

Interface customization?

[Aqua OS X]

I don't know if people want "customization" as much as they don't want the god awful interface MS decided to slap on IE 7. When compared to Firefox or Safari, that cluttered thing is a practically crime against humanity. Seriously, I think I've seen it try to execute the elderly by forcing them to use tabs.

Adblock

[weighn]

Adblock seems to be a big attraction for using FF and there is no way in Hades that MS would put anything like that in IE. Ditto for FF 'officially supporting' it.

Please, oh please, make a decent search dialog!

[Anonymous Coward]

The current one, even on IE7 is a big piece of crap. At least when you compare it to the one on Firefox.
If they include that, I let them call it IE9 if they want to :)

IE7/Vista are terrible

[llZENll]

Installed IE7 on my laptop which I rarely use, man I'm glad I didn't install it on my main machine, the thing is terribly slow and the interface is just aweful. IE6 and Firefox simply blow it out of the water. After seeing the crap MS puts out year after year, its a real surprise they are still a monopoly.

Re:IE7/Vista are terrible

[Anonymous Coward]

The phishing scan slows things way down per page, but can be disabled from Internet Options > Advanced.

But, personally, I'm looking forward to IE8 - The Ocho!

Re:UI...? Just give me history!

[weighn]

How about the ridiculously unintuitive location of history in IE 7? You wouldn't believe how many customers who have updated to IE7 or use Vista ask me where the history icon went... yeah pressing Ctrl-H is such a drag

Hey! Mod Parent Up

[mpapet]

I can't believe this comment was modded down when history repeatedly shows Microsoft over promising and under delivering.

IE7 and Vista are two examples that were loaded with desirable features when they were vaporware.

Ketchup

[networkzombie]

A good question would be "can they do it"? Microsoft is great at solidifying technology to catch up with its competitors, or even through assimilation. They don't ruin products nearly as bad as CA or Symantec. I don't see assimilating Firefox, so, as late to the game as they are, can they pull off reviving the base of users they still have (that's a lot of users)? Why wouldn't it be called IE 7.1? Has it changed enough to justify 7 revisions?

Oi MS!

[GFree]

You better add IE support for AmigaOS you bastards!

Re:I dont care...

[iminplaya]

You can't polish a turd.

I don't know why not. Just lay a couple of coats of varnish and viola, polished turd, a pretty good description of Vista if I do say so myself. :-)*

*It was a joke, okay? I actually like Vista. Best Solitaire ever.

Re:When will they learn

[spockrock]

what? also flash last I checked is not available on for firefox running linux with the x86_64 architecture. http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.c fm?id=6b3af6c9 Straight from Adobe saying no 64 bit browser support

IE8: Who Cares?

[Dracos]

By the time the first betas are out, MS will have announced that IE8 is Vista only, and given the amount of time they took to produce IE7 (a token effort at best), it'll probably require Vista SP1 to function fully. Another year of development means another 18 to 24 months, probably.

If they want to impress web developers (who are the catalyst for people moving away from IE), they have to stop paying lip service to web standards. Until then, developers will continue to do everything they can to save themselves wasted time and effort dealing with IE, by eroding IE's market share.

As a designer/developer, I don't really give a damn about RSS improvements. This is merely something they can use to bloat a bullet list of improved features. Fixes to CSS, DOM, events, floats, javascript, and making IE into a worthwhile developer's tool would be much more appreciated. And get rid of hasLayout while you're at it.

Re:IE8: Who Cares?

[Tim C]

If they want to impress web developers (who are the catalyst for people moving away from IE)

You're fortunate to be in such a position. I work at a web agency and every single customer we've ever had have mandated IE support. Some of them now also mandate support for other browsers (mostly Firefox), but more have stated that they do not care about anything other than IE and will certainly not pay for any effort to ensure cross-browser compatibility.

Sure, we can recommend that their site supports other browsers too, and always try to do so regardless of what is required of us, but at the end of the day if there's no budget for it then it isn't going to be a top priority.

As a designer/developer, I don't really give a damn about RSS improvements.

Nor do I, but then as developers that feature isn't aimed at us, it's aimed at the end users. MS have to balance their efforts; if all they did was implement full standards compliance and nothing else, end users would be wondering what on earth they'd spent all the time doing. All their sites would still work, they'd see no difference in the browser, so why bother to upgrade?

You and I may rejoice, but the vast majority of the population would be decidedly non-plussed.

Improvements?

[maztuhblastah]

improvements in RSS, CSS, and AJAX

Sh*t. "Improvements"? Didn't we do this a decade ago?

My Adblock policy

[SIGBUS]

By default, I let ads through. However, the instant $AD_NETWORK serves up an abusive ad, such as a fake dialog box, or circumventing Firefox's popup blocker, or playing audio by default, or anything else obnoxious (see also: Intellitxt, Rovion), said network goes into my blocklist. Needless to say, blocking the bad guys makes the browsing experience a whole lot nicer.

Google ads don't really bother me - they're text ads, rasy enough to ignore.

Re:I dont care...

[GrievousMistake]

You can't polish a turd.

Completely OT, but actually, I'd imagine you could. I'm not too sure about making a silk purse out of a sow's ear, though. I guess you'd need some kind of silk pig? Mythbusters need to step up here, both of these are long overdue.

Ahem. Back to the issue at hand, this particular turd has proven to be highly moldable, and polish is what it is lacking. Yes, incompabilities and poor standard coverage is a bitch, but the technology itself is adequate. If you had to make a web page/web app/whatever you had in mind when you wrote your comment, but with the guarantee that all visitors would use the same recent and 100% standards compliant browser, what would your main complaint be?

Core HTML is designed to represent a static document, yes, but the vast majority of the web is representable as such, animated interactive flash ads and embedded multimedia aside. What's new is mostly ever fancier styling, and loading some of that static content in a dynamic way.

I am not seeing the signs of age, but of immaturity. Browsers have aquired new capabilities that have made them a viable platform for more complex content, but early adopters face the hazzle of incompatible and incomplete implementations.

Going from your post, I don't think you really want a better successor to HTML and the browser. You sound like you want something completely unrelated, maybe a zero-install securely sandboxed app delivery system, but you are being forced to implement it as a web app? (Guessing wildly, sorry in advance.) Did you perchance have anything specific in mind as a successor to the common web page? Maybe one could do it in something portable, extensible and modern like XML... Oh, wait.

Re:UI...? Just give me history!

[urbanriot]

yeah pressing Ctrl-H is such a drag

No, it's not... ?

Ohhh, wait, you were being sarcastic! How clever! I haven't experienced sarcasm since it fell out of favor a few years back but it's really funny when someone intelligent brings it back... kind of retro-cool.

Anyhow, if you weren't too caught up in being witty, you might have realized I was referring to "normal people" who aren't so privy to keyboard shortcuts and are looking for their history icon and have serious difficulty finding it. Compared to IE6 and Firefox, with clearly visible clocks, this seems like a step back to me.

Re:I dont care...

[Urusai]

"You can't polish a turd."

You can if you freeze it first.
-- attribution unknown

On a serious note, I'm ashamed, ASHAMED, that browsers have become thin clients. They suck at it, AJAX is a horrible kludge, they are all incompatible, that's not what they are for, etc. I thought Java would be the thin client foundation for the future, all that was needed was a small caching/comms/app management environment. No...that was too obvious, and nobody wanted to put Sun in a position to call any shots. Microsoft pulls .NET out of its cloning labs, but it turned out to be a cheesy mix of Visual Basic API and Java, and nobody wants to catch the clap from sleeping with Microsoft. We have RDP, but seriously, can we get serious? Whatever this Silverlight thing Microsoft is shilling is poison from inception; I dismiss it knowing it only from this article.

Re:I dont care...

[renegadesx]

I agree to a point. Bottom line is if it still uses ActiveX, its still beyond repair (security wise).

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously.

I accept your challenge!

[plasmacutter]

You can't polish a turd.

my friend has a professional grade rock tumbler..

Web Developers

[ProfessionalCookie]

Requiring Windows to run IE? This is exactly what Silverlight does. It requires that developers run windows. While the plugin will be cross platform all the development require proprietary tools plus windows. I will resist it as a user as long as is reasonable, but I will never touch it as a developer. I'm all for next generation web technologies but they need to have open development standards.

No, IE has plenty of ui customization.

[plasmacutter]

There are a plethora of UI addons for ie7

oh, you wanted voluntary ie addons! sorry, my mistake :P

Re:No, IE has plenty of ui customization.

[chuckymonkey]

What's sad is that I had a friend one time that was wondering why his IE browser was running like ass. When I took a look it was almost identical to what you see there, nevermind the 5000 spyware instances he had running and 53 viruses to boot.

O'RLY

[Anonymous Coward]

Orly?

Make the installer work first

[slapout]

How about making the installer work first. I just spent an hour trying to install IE 7 on my dad's computer. It still isn't installed.

Hmmm...maybe his anti-virus program really does work that well...

Re:Make the installer work first

[badc0ffee]

It does not install on my Linux either.

Re:competition is good -- what's the next big thin

[StarReaver]

Similarly, they'd never improve Windows if it wasn't for Mac OS X/i> If you call Vista an improvement, that is.

Re:I dont care...

[spoco2]

On a serious note, I'm ashamed, ASHAMED, that browsers have become thin clients. People like you must die young? Surely? You love to find things to bitch about, things to get incensed about, things to go prematurely gray about... urgh.

The world is the way it is now, browsers are being used as thin clients because they are ubiquitous. Java is not used because it's always had a shitty install process, version management and was historically slow.

So, we have browsers that can do an awful lot installed on pretty much every single computer out there, why not use that as a nifty way of being able to deliver applications?

And if you're so pissed off with the incompatibilities with javascript/DHTML, why not use a great dev platform like Openlaszlo where you code in one language and output to either flash or DHTML?

I'm currently building a flash based app using it as you get away from the hell of browser incompatibilities by way of the standard flash player.

Unless you're in a position to change the world, there's very little to be gained by spending your time bitching about how certain, quite insignificant, things are the way they are. (And why are you 'ashamed'? Did you cause this to happen? How can you be ashamed for something you had no part in... unless, of course, you did).

IE8 who cares

[Ichthus777]

Firefox has grown to 25% of the total browser presence... and growing. The last time I used IE was IE5... then I switched my entire network to linux where I have been happily browsing without IEx. Firefox is fabulous, Ubuntu and SUSE are coming into their own, and Microsoft is becoming irrelevant. I personally would not be excited about IE8 if they paid me substantially to use it. It (IEx) just doesn't matter any longer.

It can no longer be doubted....

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates is more than a monopolist bent on subjugation and total domination of humanity. He's also a sadistic psychopath. More than any other legal action, I'd like to see a judge ban Microsoft from ever putting out another web browser, for ever and ever. The world would be a 50% happier place right there.

Typo, btw

[rob1n1]

Btw: Siverlight -> Silverlight.

ie6 to ie7 "update"

[Vskye]

When Microsoft pushed this update, it plain and outright broke a lot of our customers ability to even surf on the web. It was random for sure. I just kind of boil it down to MS just not getting it. Like releasing what I would consider a alpha release. They could ping out and get info back, etc. Just a support nightmare for a while, and yep.. we pointed them to MS support to fix their crap software, while recommending Firefox.
 
I can imagine what a ie8 release will bring... more headaches.

Re:I dont care...

[TheGreatHegemon]

"what Microsoft does to IE, it's still going to be IE. End of Story"
Office 2007 is miles away from Office 2003. I actually think it's an improvement too (Though some would debate this). I imagine microsoft is getting their act together now, and IE8 might actually start being preferable to firefox (Except for addons, which will still remain Firefox's game winner)

Re:When will they learn

[Anonymous Coward]

but it is available for XP x64, for both browsers.

Re:When will they learn

[Anonymous Coward]

He specifically said with "that nspluginwrapper". It wraps a 32-bit plugin for Firefox x64.

Or try and use Gnash or swfdec, they're much better these days and play youtube from svn versions.

Re:I dont care...

[korisu]

Maybe one could do it in something portable, extensible and modern like XML... Oh, wait.

Perhaps you should join the WHATWG. I remember hearing something somewhere about the greatest threat coming from the inside. :)

But on a serious note, the W3C needs to get the (numerous) loose ends of XHTML2 wrapped up so the web can move on.

Re:I dont care...

[Barny]

You should have gotten ultimate edition, best $100 poker software ever imho.

sarcasm(0);

Re:Extensions - adblock for any browser

[sulfur]

Although you can do filtering at the proxy level, with this approach you can't reclaim valuable screen real estate. You will have large gaps and websites will generally look ugly. Been there, tried to block ads with squid - AdBlock is just much easier and more effective.

Car Analogy, Yet Another

[pipingguy]

a lot of hype about fancy features that don't make the cut

Sort of like how the show cars that look terrific at first but then the actual production vehicle ends up having warts, bad hair and herpes?

Software freedom doesn't come with age.

[jbn-o]

I generally think Microsoft provides solid products and I rarely stumble upon problems with aged products.

Regardless of age, proprietary software doesn't respect my freedom to be run it, inspect it, share it, or modify it. I don't inspect or modify most of my software but I trust others to do this work. Therefore I need to make sure they too have these freedoms so that I may benefit from their work. Thus, I need to make sure my software is free (presently that means running a free software OS with only free software installed on it; in the future a free BIOS will be a part of my system). No matter how powerful or reliable a proprietary program is, without these freedoms it simply costs too much.

Re:Software freedom doesn't come with age.

[Anonymous Coward]

to me freedom without reliability and functionality is too heavy a price to pay. thankfully that is not a sacrifise you have to make for many open projects, but I would still NOT choose freedom over reliable and functional. Such attitudes suck, I want the best, I prefer open but if the best isn't open then so be it.

Re:Software freedom doesn't come with age.

[jbn-o]

With rare exception, reliable and powerful proprietary software cannot be freed. Free software can be made more reliable and powerful. Thus your priorities should be reversed; help make free software better and we can secure our freedom without giving up power and reliability. The open source movement never teaches you to value software freedom, so you're led to believe that technical proficiency alone should be prioritized. This is one of the reasons why I'm not a member of that movement and I don't advocate on its behalf.

Re:When will they learn

[spockrock]

ok first off no, there is no 64bit plugin for windows either. All it is a 32bit browser with 32bit plugin. Again I posted a link to the adobe knowledge base which clearly states there are no 64 bit versions of the plugin for any OS. Also firefox is only available from what I can tell only as a 32bit binary from the mozilla site. In linux you have two options, either run the plugin through ndiswrapper, or you run a 32bit binary of firefox and the plugin as normal. You can find out how to on any linux distros wiki, such as the ubuntu wiki.

Re:competition is good -- what's the next big thin

[VGPowerlord]

If Microsoft had been broken into a variety of little companies like the judge wanted 10 years ago, we'd all have much better products now because of the resulting competition.

I'm not following your logic. Splitting Microsoft into an OS company, an applications company, and a hardware would have changed things how? Those companies wouldn't be competing with each other...

The UI changes were definitely stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont know who they studied, but the UI changes they made in IE7 were terrible.

How is this a troll, mods?

[Anonymous Coward]

In what demented universe is the parent a troll? Will someone please give the mods a solid kick in the balls?

acid

[f4hy]

So will it be IE 11 or IE 12 that passes acid 2? Focus on UI customization, does not sound like a push for web standards compliance.

Common sense ?

[steveoc]

If Microsoft was run by engineers .. surely it would make sense to just say something like :

"Hey, the whole internet browser concept has now matured, and is a commodity peice of kit. No need to work on internet explorer anymore, we can freely include Firefox with our Windows OS, and put our resources and money into developing something new instead."

What is it with this constant need to re-invent everything and make it a Microsoft Branded product, especially for commoditzed products where there is already freely available top-quality alternatives that are widely accepted ?

It doesnt even make good business sense.

Because of (and thanks to) this commoditization, you cant get away with putting out products that subvert standards, lock-in customers, and de-rail other inventions.

It doesnt work like that anymore !!!

Microsoft's future looks extremely bleak, if all they can think of doing is to spend the rest of eternity trying to undo things that are already commoditized, and put out a better free mousetrap than the next person.

That is just an idiotic and self destructive strategy .. unless .. well, this sort of strategy ONLY makes sense if they honestly believe that they can OWN the internet or something. Are they really that out of touch with reality ?

There are millions of billions of IT companies out there in the market, and how many of them are wasting their time developing a 'new internet browser' that isnt based on open source software ? ONLY ONE !!!

Is that because all those other companies are :
a) Not as competant as Microsoft, or
b) Not as pig-headedly, self destructively foolish as Microsoft ?

Re:Common sense ?

[simong]

Microsoft wants its monopoly, end of. When Bill 'bet the company' on the Internet in 1995 he (or his advisors) saw that the browser was going to be the main portal. Prior to IE, MS was concentrating on the 'walled garden' approach like AOL - it's easy to forget that MSN has been around for longer than IE. IE has evolved from being a licensed afterthought to being part of the OS.
There was an article here last week where someone replied that they liked IE because of the ways it could communicate with the outside world using ActiveX. Personally, I think that that approach remains dangerous and irresponsible and that a web browser is a web browser, but MS have taken the approach that it should be able to do more, and while they are not imposing this approach on third parties a choice remains available to the user.

Re:Common sense ?

[pho3nixtar]

I get what you're saying, but that's just begging for Microsoft to find other ways to fork with you. I can just imagine how Microsoft might just install a bunch of their own worthless add-ons, designs and other pre-packaged crap on the browser. I'd uninstall their Firefox and go download it directly from Mozilla, just to be safe.

I definitely see the usefulness of getting them to permanently EXCLUDE Internet Explorer, however. I'd be 100% behind that initiative.

Re:I dont care...

[Skrynesaver]

Sadly as the Month of Active X Bugs blog is illustrating this is true across all MS'Active X applications

Opera is "designed" for the broad mass

[nephridium]

I'm using both browsers and although Opera starts up faster (even faster than both, my old Mozilla Firebird 0.7 or Mozilla 0.9.x I still have installed) and generally is less of a resource hog I still prefer to use Firefox. Even though I need to restart it due to the memory leak problem (which is mitigated by the built in session manager). Why? One word: customization. If I can not get plug-ins or a Greasemonkey script to do what I want I still can try to delve into the code and "fix" stuff myself.

As a normal browser for Joe Shmoe and his grandma though, I don't really see how Opera could not compete. It is very usable, at least as usable as the other browsers. It's got this new Speed Dial function (when opening a new tab instead of a black screen you'll get a cached thumbnail view of your favorite webpages to click on - real slick) and supports mouse gestures from the get go. It's definitely got the potential to become the main player. The only reason why it is not as popular is because Firefox has been propagated as the main alternative by most people anti-IE/MS, maybe in part because both those browsers stand for such different concepts/philosophies (greedy corporation vs. open source).

Also, Firefox didn't come out of nowhere. Actually quite the contrary: while Netscape (which evolved to Mozilla) was "doing their thing" (i.e. carving more and more market share from Mosaic and other browsers in the early days), whammo! - suddenly there was MS IE pre-installed as the default browser on Windows 95. Suddenly every MS box ran IE because there was no real need to run another browser (and it was faster too). The only edge that Mozilla had and what makes it the favorite alternative browser now is that it was and is open source.

Re:Opera is "designed" for the broad mass

[Anonymous Coward]

Does everyone forget that until last year Opera cost money? With IE and Mozilla available free of charge -- the former pre-installed on 95% of desktops -- it really made things difficult for Opera. That's a big reason why Opera has a small % of the market. Good thing I'm a rocket scientist!

(Ad-supported-yet-free-of-charge versions don't count. There are enough ads on the web I don't need ads in my browser too when ad-free browsers exist for $0 as well.)

Re:They may switch back; Firefox, don't be complac

[Serious Callers Only]

who actually disbanded the IE team after IE6 --can you believe it?

The purpose of Internet Explorer was to kill the internet - embrace, extend, extinguish. When the IE6 team was disbanded, they had pretty much killed any competition in the browser market. They even went as far as just discontinuing the mac version. WPF/Silverlight are an attempt to do exactly the same thing by giving the appearance of being open/cross platform - right till MS decides they dominate enough to pull the rug out from opposing platforms. So don't expect anything great from MS in a browser - they could have fixed IE in v.7 to support CSS and the DOM properly and allow a level playing field, but they will never do that, it's just not in the corporate DNA.

Funny how windows has become a poorly debugged set of device drivers as Andresson predicted despite Microsoft's best efforts to kill the web.

Re:I dont care...

[Spy Hunter]

Everyone hates the browser, but nobody can replace it. Instead of denying it, it's time we (as a profession) accept that the browser actually *is* a good platform for applications, and start figuring out why, so that when we try to replace it we don't end up removing its best features.

Here's a list of things browsers do better than any other client application platform out there:

• Superlative, lightning fast text layout and reflow, including support for all languages
  
• Sandboxed code from untrusted sources that you can actually trust enough to run routinely without security prompts
  
• Extremely robust and effective yet easy to use transparent caching mechanism makes "installation" irrelevant
  
• Stateless nature forces architecture choices on developers that turn out to be a good idea anyway (despite the kicking and screaming)
  
• Emphasis on declarative content and text instead of procedural code and opaque binary blobs enables automated processing, unintended features: search engines, back button, bookmarking, form autocomplete and spell check, password managers, download managers, tabbed browsing, GreaseMonkey
  
• Easy centralized control using proxies
  
• almost completely platform-agnostic
  
• Free development tools
  
• Practically instant start-up
  
• Tiny runtime size (Firefox is a 5.7 MB install; Java and .NET are how much again?)
  
• "Everything is a hyperlink" user interface simplifies and standardizes user experience
  

I'm not even counting the installed base as an advantage here, so don't complain that alternatives fail because of user apathy toward installation of alternatives; these are genuine advantages that the browser has over alternatives, ignoring its ubiquity. Now, the implementation of all of these features in browsers have flaws that I'm sure you can name, and browsers have plenty of other faults too. But no other alternative provides all of these features in one package. These are *all* really important features with huge advantages in the real world that any replacement for the browser as an application platform will need to address.

.NET/online browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't they write a .NET or online browser and do away with all these thick clients already?

I mean they already do an online mail system called hotmail.

dorodango.com is all about turd polishing...

[bytta]

You can't polish a turd.

Craft Magazine just published an article on making shiny balls of mud (Vol 03, pp 140-142).
http://www.dorodango.com/ for more info.

My Anecdote

[pedestrian crossing]

Damn, people, what are you doing to your browsers to make them consume so much RAM?

I was reading these anecdotes, so I thought I would give it a try.

I have FF 2.0.0.3 on WinXP (hey, I'm at work!), AdBlock Plus, AB+ Filter Uploader, DOM Inspector, FlashBlock, NoScript, and Talkback as extensions.

With 5 tabs open, (2x /., Google News, Gmail, RitzCamera*) FF uses 78KB. I opened another window and opened 36 tabs (All the news stories from the current IHT RSS feed), and I'm up to a whopping 90.4KB. Yes, that's KB, not MB.

Now I do notice an upward creep of about 4KB in mem usage after closing the window with 36 tabs, so I guess there is some mem leakage, but it would take a while to get up to even 1MB...

So, certainly, YMMV...

* Do not do business with RitzCamera, they have awful customer service!

Microsoft Drops IE8

[hachete]

there you go, fixed for yah

TFA forgot to mention the real goal of IE8...

[fellip_nectar]

...XP incompatibility.

UI?

[asninn]

Main criticism is "improve UI customisation"? The MAIN CRITICISM? I'll tell you what the fucking MAIN CRITICISM is: the MAIN CRITICISM that microsoft consistently and *deliberately* ignores just about EVERY standard. THAT is the fucking MAIN CRITICISM.

Sorry, but really - this kind of drivel should have no place on Slashdot.

Opera's Niche

[olego]

I have to disagree with you slightly. I recently replaced all links to IE with Firefox on my parents' computer, and I chose Firefox for a reason: learning curve.

I'm going to divide all computer users into three categories:

* Power users who know how things work
* Adventurous users who might try changing their setups
* Normal users who go with default settings and never try to customise

The concept of software customisation is fairly new, and everyone from the third category is still adapting to it. Changing your computer's background is one thing, but changing the way your web-browser acts is another thing altogether. It ventures into the realm of programming, with which the third category is unfamiliar. They're simetimes even scared of technology, because they would have no way of recovering from their mistakes.

How does that relate to Opera? Opera has too much customization. The default installation has too many buttons. It has this strange toolbar that appears below the address bar with top 10 and bookmarks. The side panel has notes, transfers, and links. Even though to groups 1 and 2 this seems normal, to group 3 it's too much to learn, when there is a simpler alternative around the corner: Firefox. It's very similar to IE, its features are much more hidden, and it doesn't give off an aura of complexity.

In order to get Opera to the same state, someone needs to spend about 5 minutes customising it. But here's the paradox: group 3 users never bother with customisations, and it just doesn't happen. Opera developers don't care, because they realise that people are slowly migrating to groups 1 and 2. But group 3 is still better off with Firefox.

Re:Opera's Niche

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! I put Opera on my Dad's machine - he has shitty eyesight and I thought the zoom would be genuinely useful - and he uninstalled it within a few days just because the default configuration is really weird. I later showed him that you can actually set it up in a much more conventional way but he'd lost interest at this point. Thing is, he's a definitely a "group 2" user, he's forever putting crazy calender programs on his desktop and he recently set up Windows with an iconless desktop and putting everything in an auto-hiding sidebar. He tried the new Ubuntu last weekend after I mentioned it was out, and is even talking about installing it. He just wasn't interested in reconfiguring a browser when he already has a perfectly good one (firefox).

Re:They may switch back; Firefox, don't be complac

[jez9999]

scramble to build a web browser that was a first in the world of Microsoft: it was standards compliant. Okay, actually, it wasn't

You can say that again; for most of the referenced table, it's a case of spot-the-difference between IE6 and IE7. Always makes me laugh when people say IE7 is standards-compliant.

countdown begins

[wizkid_cb]

how long before ie8.com gets pwned? a la ie7.com?

Re:I dont care...

[TeknoHog]

I think varnish has a lot to do with violas ;)

Re:They may switch back; Firefox, don't be complac

[TractorBarry]

> I want the dominant browser on the Web to be a cross-platform one.

I don't want a dominant browser at all. I'd rather see thousands (nay millions !) of browsers all of which work to the same standards.

Too little too late

[metushelach]

IE has already lost the battle. It will take a few years, but Redmond fell into their own trap and now FF is doing to them exactly what IE did to Netscape all those years ago (albait more slowly, but still).

IE is too inflexible, too unsecure and too heavy compared to its fiery friend to be a valid competitor anymore. More people understand it every day and as more sites become FF (or rather W3C) compatible, the less reason there is to use IE.

Evolution in the making.

Re:Too little too late

[VinB]

... said the mouse to the lion.

Re:I dont care...

[Jesus_666]

Actually, first I'd like to see a working version of XHTML1. But that's not the W3C's problem but Microsoft's.

I bet that IE8 will still not support application/xhtml+xml, damning XHTML to further irrelevance.

Re:competition is good -- what's the next big thin

[GrievousMistake]

Not directly, but each of them would have to compete by their own merits in their respective fields. Microsoft apps wouldn't use secret hooks in the Windows API. When IE6 stagnated for years, the OS team could make the right decision and, say, make a deal to bundle Opera instead. It would be more difficult for them to force their way into the games market by eating their losses with profit from other parts of the compay, etc.

Re:I dont care...

[Anonymous Coward]

at least he didnt say "wala"

My Embarassment

[pedestrian crossing]

Yes, that's KB, not MB.

No, that's MB, not KB.<blush>

Anyway, still less than what I'm hearing from others...

If it doesn't support display:table-cell

[Shados]

I'm going to start a mass sacrefice of kittens. Please MS, think of the kittens.

Re:If it doesn't support display:table-cell

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally I'd laugh at a "Please think of the kittens!" comment, but all I can think of now is how grateful I am that Firefox has a spell check utility built in...

Simultaneously, I feel depressed that I'm stuck at school where all the computers have IE, and installing Firefox is an offense that allows the technicians to get you suspended (or expelled if you're doing other things too). Though I do feel very grateful that they still have IE 6 on here and not IE 7, because if they had IE 7, I would go crazy.

symbol of infinity

[bl8n8r]

That's not version 8, it's the infinity symbol turned sideways to show the number of problems in IE that haven't been fixed.

Standards Standards Standards

[ralphclark]

Forget all the so-called "improvements". I just want a standards-compliant rendering engine that means I don't have to jump through hoops in order to get web pages to work in the two most popular browsers.

This lack of focus on standards in such a critical area is just stupid, the worst sort of corporate nonsense - and when the Microsoft executives who told Wilson he couldn't fix these issues in IE7, they effectively made themselves the enemies of progress.

Main criticism

[Anonymous Coward]

The main criticism I have of IE7 is that it's Internet Explorer. If they fix that in IE8, I may try it.

Re:They may switch back; Firefox, don't be complac

[Kythe]

The same can be said for Linux. While MS fanboy-types love to taunt Linux fanboy-types about how Linux will never be widely accepted, etc., etc., the truth is they can thank Linux, *BSD and a number of other open-source alternatives to MS products for many of the steady improvements in MS products we've seen over the years. Had it not been for the constant pressure from open-source products (and Mac products, of course) that didn't have the marketing power or connections to beat MS, but provided sufficiently obvious alternatives to put MS products in a bad light, many of the improvements in stability and security newer versions of Windows have seen likely never would have taken place.

Yes, MS had reason to produce new versions with new features in order to keep the cash cow producing milk. But given MS's actions in the browser arena (disbanding the IE team once they had a lock on the market), there's good reason to believe the "improvements" would have been much more fluff and much less substance.

At this point in time, by the way, MS will have to do a tremendous amount of "innovation" to win me back over to IE. IE7 was a marked improvement. But they'll literally have to blow Firefox out of the water to win me back. And I don't think that's going to happen.

The Ultimate Zero Day Exploit?

[LifesABeach]

I never thought that Microsoft would go after IE7 harder than the Script Kiddies. I just wish Microsoft would address the .NET exploit that strips out XML Preprocessing statements from their Web Services handling; I figured out how to do it, but what a colossal waste of time. But if Microsoft IS listening, how about updating to CSS2, SVG1.1, XML2. It is not like this stuff is not unheard of, for years now. Sometimes, being closed sourced can be VERY expensive, even when your developers are living on 10 cents a day.

Re:They may switch back; Firefox, don't be complac

[FireFury03]

Microsoft (who actually disbanded the IE team after IE6 --can you believe it?)

Yes - once you have no competition and thus noone to stay ahead of in order to keep customers, why would you continue to invest in development of a project? If the customers think your product sucks then that's too bad - there's nowhere else to go*

(* yes, I know that there have always been other browsers, but they weren't known to the average user so MS stood no chance of losing a significant number of users).

This is why competition is good for the customers - it forces the vendors to continue to improve their products. Remember that the vendor isn't working for the good if it's customers, it's working for the good of itself - when there is competition in the market place then those goals tend to align quite well, but they are at odds with eachother if there is no competition.

This is also a key difference between commercial projects and many (but not all) Free projects - Free projects are often improved because the coder wants the feature for himself. Commercial projects are improved either because a customer will pay for the improvement or because it keeps customers from migrating away to the competition. In a monopoly, many Free projects will continue to improve.

even if people switch back to IE, it won't be to IE 6

Sadly there are still a lot of people using IE <= 6 - at what point can web developers ignore it completely and stop having to use horrible hacks just to make their pages display (I pretty much gave up supporting IE a few years ago, but I'm not running a commercial site. If people want to visit my site then it's their responsibility to use sane software - it doesn't harm me if they go elsewhere instead. For a commercial site, the loss of all the IE users would be disaster).

Microsoft has a long history of coming from behind

Couldn't have phrased it better myself. :)

Although historically MS seem to have overtaken the competition by copying what the competition is doing and then extending it in a non-standard way. That kind of behaviour won't wash with web developers, but sadly it is the non-technical user who dictates what browser is popular - if IE8 has a shiny new feature, the average user won't care that it's non standard and makes the lives of web developers hell.

there was no need for the Mozilla Foundation to vet and officially support extensions

I think that there needs to be work done to segregate extensions and plugins from the browser. At the moment, if an extension leaks memory, for example, then it's not obvious that it's the extension at fault - it's just interpretted as "firefox being crap" by the users. If each extension is segregated then the resource usage of each is easy to examine and a unstable extension/plugin shouldn't take down the whole browser.

I don't want IE to actually end up overtaking Firefox, because I want the dominant browser on the Web to be a cross-platform one.

I would be quite happy for several (relatively standards complient) browsers (including IE) to continually be leap-frogging ahead of eachother from version to version, rather than having one dominant browser. Having any dominant browser encourages the web developers to embrace non-standard parts of it at the expense of users of other browsers. The key to good web development is to try and make your code work in as many browsers as possible, not force everyone to use the dominant browser (even if it is cross-platform).

Re:They may switch back; Firefox, don't be complac

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes me laugh too, considering that the IE team made clear that IE7 would not have full CSS standards compliance. Why anyone would claim something that even the application developers never claimed is beyond me.

Menu bar?

[Midnight Thunder]

Since we are on the subject of IE, can someone tell me why Microsoft started hiding the menu bar and then only make it visible under the address bar!? I know that this is a hack to get it back to the right place, but I am interested what the human interface designers were thinking over there?

Re:Menu bar?

[egyptiankarim]

I think they just want it to look more Vista-y. "Fluence", the new toolbar interface for Office 2007, looks way different than previous gens in that they got rid of the menu bar. I guess they figured they wanted IE7 to mesh more. Ever notice how the new back and forward buttons look like the new Vista "Pearl."

Re:Menu bar?

[Midnight Thunder]

I think they just want it to look more Vista-y. "Fluence", the new toolbar interface for Office 2007, looks way different than previous gens in that they got rid of the menu bar. I guess they figured they wanted IE7 to mesh more. Ever notice how the new back and forward buttons look like the new Vista "Pearl."

How does this UI design in Vista actually work out in practice, ie how easy is it to access the functionality that were in the menus? I haven't used Vista, so I'd rather ask someonewho has spent time with it?

Re:I dont care...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a good post. It's not at being technically good, but about being accessible. Makes sense.

Those are 2 oximorons in 1 sentence

[metushelach]

1) Microsft and "human interface"
2) "Human interface designers" and "thinking"

Re: Firefox layout bugs

[bunratty]

The first bug seems to be bug 915, which is over eight years old! I guess no one is bothered enough by that to fix it. The second might not be a bug according to bug 34415.

AJAX support?

[Vicarius]

Are they implying that IE never ever supported JavaScript and XML? This mentioning of AJAX in every possible place has got to stop.

Re:Extensions - adblock for any browser

[Sax Maniac]

That's not true, Privoxy can subsitute blank gifs to reclaim the space just fine. The main reason I moved to Adblock from Privoxy was not for Adblock itself, but for the auto-updating blacklists. I spend far less time configuring Adblock than I did with Privoxy.

Re:UI...? Just give me history!

[Anonymous Coward]

Also "find in page". It took me months before I foudn it again.
Part of the reason it took me months is I could not find it in 10 minutes so I avoid IE even more than before.
The only reason I found it was I too an afternoon to explore every part of IE to find it. In hindsite I can see what MS was thinking when I found where they put it, but if you were used to the old way it did not makes sense.

BETTER? Need critique: 7 points now!

[Anonymous Coward]

7 DOCUMENTED PROOFS/POINTS ABOUT OPERA, BEING FIREFOX'S SUPERIOR, on quite a few levels:

1.) Opera also has outperformed FireFox on speed, period, check this (most current and comprehensive browser vs. browser test I have ever found):

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win

SUMMARY FROM THE ARTICLE ON THE SPEEDTEST FROM THE URL ABOVE:

"So overall, Opera seems to be the fastest browser for windows. Firefox is not faster than Internet Explorer, except for scripting, but for standards support, security and features, it is a better choice. However, it is still not as fast as Opera, and Opera also offers a high level of standards support, security and features.

On Linux, Konqueror is the fastest for starting and viewing basic pages on KDE, but as soon as script or images are involved, or you want to use the back or forward buttons, or if you use Gnome, Opera is a faster choice, even though on KDE it will take a few seconds longer to start. Mozilla and Firefox give an overall good performance, but their script, cache handling and image-based page speed still cannot compare with Opera.

On Mac OS X, Opera and Safari are both very fast, with Safari 2 being faster at starting and rendering CSS, but with Opera still being distinguishably faster for rendering tables, scripting and history (especially compared with the much slower Safari 1.2). Camino is fast to start, but then it joins its sisters Mozilla and Firefox further down the list. Neither Mozilla, Firefox nor IE perform very well on Mac, being generally slower than on other operating systems"

(On the Windows Platform, in THAT test alone, it took 4 of 7 total categories... nuff said on that account! Considering 90% of the world's computers run Windows based Os' (hopefully Windows NT-based ones by now)? That's saying a HELL of a LOT!)

Opera (as you may read for yourselves above) even did great on the OTHER platforms too!

Now, some folks will say "But today's CPU's are so fast this does not matter" - ahem: BEG TO DIFFER, it matters! If a browser's faster & more efficient on slower CPU's ESPECIALLY (purely relative term here), it will still be faster on faster CPU's mhz or cores/h-t/smp-wise (especially if multithreaded & designed properly with non-blocking operations in multithread design used wisely).

(That type of statement is like trying to say "Delphi code speed being faster than MSVC++ &/or VB doesn't matter" when clearly, it does. I cite this from as far back as 1997 where in Visual Basic Programmer's Journal Oct. Issue "Inside the VB5 Compiler Engine" issue had Delphi blow away VB in every test (except ActiveX form loads which VB even beat MSVC++ in since it is optimized best for it) & even took MSVC++ to the cleaners & in every test (except graphics form paints, losing only marginally, VERY small margin). In math & strings, which EVERY program does? Delphi absolutely swept the floor with BOTH VC & VB... & by HUGE margins. Of the 12 or so tests? Delphi took away the winner crown on 10 of them... I think we have to agree to disagree here for anyone that takes that tack with me on this point).

I will ALWAYS, personally, go with what I know is a better coded, faster, & more efficient tool to work with... everytime, provided I am informed correctly that is &, on Opera &/or Delphi? I KNOW I AM CORRECTLY INFORMED... absolutely, no question.

2.) Opera also has addon widgets (just like the .xpi extensions firefox has):

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/08/001722 6

3.) Opera, has passed the ACID2 test & afaik, did so before FireFox did (not sure currently, if it has or not though - feel free to correct me here if necessary, as is per usual & I expect it - I only get STRONGER for co

*shrug*

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps with the new, open .NET they'll have a copy for FreeBSD so I would give a damn.

Re:I dont care...

[jZnat]

Very nice list; how about another list that details the annoyances and horrible attributes of web browsers? If we were to supercede the web browser for some new web platform that includes all the good things you mentioned, I can think of at least one thing that should definitely be included: standards compliance or bust. Make it so that an invalid page fails to parse and display so that web developers and designers can learn to code properly. XHTML/HTML and CSS (much less in magnitude, however) are the most bastardised standards I can think of, but when it comes to similar XML-based standards (in the case of XHTML), we don't have programs that accept invalid markup for: SVG, MathML, ODF, RSS, Atom, RDF, other metadata standards (e.g., Dublin Core), and pretty much every other XML-based standard. It seems as though web developers can follow standards and use semantic markup when it comes to their news feeds in RSS or Atom, but when it comes to the web page itself, we get tag soup, invalid markup, and hacks upon hacks to try and make XHTML/CSS a page layout or typesetting program.

<disgruntled-web-developer /> (and the reason we need a space there even though XML doesn't need one? because of SGML and the lack of XML parsing for XHTML; example of valid SGML in an HTML context: <title/Slashdot | Microsoft Drops Hints on IE8/>)

Not timecube guy: 7 points in favor of Opera now!

[Anonymous Coward]

7 DOCUMENTED PROOFS/POINTS ABOUT OPERA, BEING FIREFOX'S SUPERIOR, on quite a few levels:

1.) Opera also has outperformed FireFox on speed, period, check this (most current and comprehensive browser vs. browser test I have ever found):

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win

SUMMARY FROM THE ARTICLE ON THE SPEEDTEST FROM THE URL ABOVE:

"So overall, Opera seems to be the fastest browser for windows. Firefox is not faster than Internet Explorer, except for scripting, but for standards support, security and features, it is a better choice. However, it is still not as fast as Opera, and Opera also offers a high level of standards support, security and features.

On Linux, Konqueror is the fastest for starting and viewing basic pages on KDE, but as soon as script or images are involved, or you want to use the back or forward buttons, or if you use Gnome, Opera is a faster choice, even though on KDE it will take a few seconds longer to start. Mozilla and Firefox give an overall good performance, but their script, cache handling and image-based page speed still cannot compare with Opera.

On Mac OS X, Opera and Safari are both very fast, with Safari 2 being faster at starting and rendering CSS, but with Opera still being distinguishably faster for rendering tables, scripting and history (especially compared with the much slower Safari 1.2). Camino is fast to start, but then it joins its sisters Mozilla and Firefox further down the list. Neither Mozilla, Firefox nor IE perform very well on Mac, being generally slower than on other operating systems"

(On the Windows Platform, in THAT test alone, it took 4 of 7 total categories... nuff said on that account! Considering 90% of the world's computers run Windows based Os' (hopefully Windows NT-based ones by now)? That's saying a HELL of a LOT!)

Opera (as you may read for yourselves above) even did great on the OTHER platforms too!

Now, some folks will say "But today's CPU's are so fast this does not matter" - ahem: BEG TO DIFFER, it matters! If a browser's faster & more efficient on slower CPU's ESPECIALLY (purely relative term here), it will still be faster on faster CPU's mhz or cores/h-t/smp-wise (especially if multithreaded & designed properly with non-blocking operations in multithread design used wisely).

2.) Opera also has addon widgets (just like the .xpi extensions firefox has):

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/08/001722 6

3.) AND OPERA IS ALSO FREE!

4.) Opera also had/has features before any other browser, that Mozilla/FireFox copied outright from it (tabs, anyone? Opera had tabbed browsing FAR before Mozilla/FireFox)

5.) Opera is more used than FireFox is, in "mobile devices", afaik (handhelds, etc. (not into them myself, but I wager this one is correct as well).

6.) Opera also has less vulnerabilities found than any other browser, over time. CHECK THIS:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/02/23/HNbrowse rvuln_1.html

(Opera is definitely the "least attacked/most secure" of the "big 3" browers'-wise (IE, FireFox/Mozilla/Opera) out there... unless someone can show me otherwise. Thanks for that info. IF you can provide it. Yes, it may only be by "security by obscurity", that IS a valid argument, but somehow, based on ALL of the above? I would wager, strongly, not. Not that it is the ONLY reason it is more secure than other webbrowsers that is.)

That all said, noted and documented, & aside? Opera vs. FireFox?? Opera, vs. FireFox? NO CONTEST! Opera wins on any front you can name...

7.) Opera, has passed the ACID2 test & afaik, did so before FireFox did (not sure

IE7Pro

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been done already for free (beer): www.ie7pro.com

Re:Hey! Mod Parent Up

[SEMW]

IE7 and Vista are two examples that were loaded with desirable features when they were vaporware. E.g., apart from WinFS? (WinFS is the only one anyone ever mentions when pushed, but "desirable feautures" implies plural. And no, Palladium doesn't pass the 'desirable' test...:-) ).

Re:competition is good -- what's the next big thin

[boxlight]

> I'm not following your logic. Splitting Microsoft into an OS company, an applications company, and a hardware would have changed things how? Those companies wouldn't be competing with each other...

Good question, here's some examples how:

It wouldn't be in Office Inc's and IE Inc's interests to protect Windows Inc's dominance, so they might choose to make an Office for Linux and IE for Mac and IE for Linux -- they would likely even make IE fully standards based. Years ago IE Inc would likely have had excellent Java integration, as Java was a threat to Windows, not IE. Windows Inc would have no interest in ensuring Office Inc's or IE Inc's success, so they might bundle Firefox or OpenOffice with every copy of Windows shipped.

It's sort of like, if there was one company that made all cars and all gas. They would have no interest in making car's more fuel efficient. Breaking up the monopoly makes sense -- competition is good for the consumer and for innovation.

Frankly, if Microsoft was spun out into 4 smaller companies, each with their own stock symbol, the collective value of the company would likely grow larger than the whole -- so it would be good for shareholders too.

boxlight

Re:Extensions - adblock for any browser

[jp10558]

Well, with AdMuncher or Proxomitron, you certainly do not end up with any large gaps. I would assume you can do similar things with privoxy.

I use a combination of Firefox and IE6 currently

[ElboRuum]

because there's seems to be just no way (yet... fingers crossed) to get away from pages developed in ASP that just won't render right under Firefox, otherwise I'd use Firefox exclusively.

The problem with all of this is that HTML was never meant to deliver active content. The initial usage was for images, sound, text, and links. But that was/is boring. Here comes Java and Javascript, Flash, etc. and now you have All Your Base, flying toasters, virii, and worms because you just HAD to execute code in your browser. And MS, long given to fits of computer utopia fantasies, didn't think for a minute that anyone would EVER write malicious code.

IE6 is a security mess, IE7 is a joke as I've never seen a less intuitive browser, and Netscape, Firefox, and Opera won't render MS technologies properly. Cross-platform development is an absolute nightmare.

It's not the standards, people. It's the content. The content we want is active, running code. Controls and buttons and boxes and gizmos and visual fluff of all kinds. The browser is a document viewer. Work that out for yourself and you'll come to the same conclusion I've come to.

The Web may not be obsolete, but the technologies it relies on are, and Web 2.0 is just a repackaging of it. A document delivery system is no way to run code, son. Teh internets need an overhaul and we need a better, more secure tool than a document viewer with plug-ins hanging off of it to deliver our dancing bananas and D-grade home movies.

Re:competition is good -- what's the next big thin

[VGPowerlord]

Windows Inc would have no interest in ensuring Office Inc's or IE Inc's success, so they might bundle Firefox or OpenOffice with every copy of Windows shipped.

Firstly, Microsoft was only going to be split into two companies (this is actually my fault for not reading up about it for my previous post).

Secondly, to my knowledge, the new companies would have the same shareholders at the beginning. What's to stop them from forging an agreement between the two companies?

It's sort of like, if there was one company that made all cars and all gas. They would have no interest in making car's more fuel efficient. Breaking up the monopoly makes sense -- competition is good for the consumer and for innovation.

Er, yes, but Microsoft was going to be split along business units. To extend your own analogy, having one company that makes all the cars and a second company that makes all the gas is relatively no different than what you started with if both companies have the same shareholders.

Turd Polish

[tgrigsby]

You can't polish a turd.

Stephen King reference aside, apparently, it's already been done: http://www.turdpolish.com/. There's even a line of turd polish that you can purchase to polish your own turds. What a relief!

A band wrote a song about it.

There's a disturbing "artistic suite" that borrows the name.

Re:I use a combination of Firefox and IE6 currentl

[Anonymous Coward]

The initial usage was for images, sound, text, and links. No, the initial usage was for text and links only. Using your favourite browser it made reading text on the web more pleasing and efficient then it is today. Because of the simple tasks at hand the browser could be more customised to meet your requirements. Nevermind security issues, web standards etc. I still use Internet primarily to find and read text and it's harder then it used to be.

No wonder they need a new version so soon...

[East Coast Models]

...because IE7 is still full of bugs and it's still not as good to use use as Firefox. It seems to spend half its time phishing!

east coast models