IE8 Beta Released To Public

Tim writes "English, German, Simplified Chinese, and Japanese versions of Internet Explorer 8 have been released for public beta. New features include accelerators, which provide instant context menu access for a number of common tasks; automatic crash recovery, which prevents a single page's failures from taking down your entire browser; and browser privacy, a feature that didn't make Firefox 3. I'm primarily a Firefox user, and I've been using IE8 at work (MS) for the past few weeks. It's a definite improvement over previous versions, and brings a lot to the table that Firefox requires extensions for. Give it a spin, submit feedback, and help keep all browser makers on their toes by facing each other's competition."

Comments

Shows what competion can do.

[xzvf]

While IE8 doesn't work on my chosen platform, it shows again how open source sparks development in stagnant environments. This product would never have happened without Firefox.

Re:Shows what competion can do.

[Bashae]

Yup, I'm wondering why the beta is available in german rather than a language with more speakers, such as spanish. Are they perhaps trying to win back the notoriously large amount of Firefox users in Germany?

Re:Shows what competion can do.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that German was chosen over Spanish for the betas because it's the second-most popular spoken language for programmers (at least, it used to be; I'm not too sure anymore). They cover the top two for debuggers out there, and then also include packages for Chinese and Japanese to test the character rendering and what-not.

Re:Shows what competion can do.

[will_die]

According to the European and thier language report German is the 2nd highest known language in the EU at 32% of the population speaking the language. Spanish is at 15% and is 5th.
For the top 5 it is:
English 51%
German 32%
French 26%
Italian 16%
Spanish 15%

Also by mother tounue German is at 18% and Spanish is at 9%

Re:Shows what competion can do.

[TheP4st]

Native Spanish speaking population in the world 330 million
Native German speaking population in the world 100 million

Re:Shows what competion can do.

[jorx]

Opera wasn't free until Firefox existed... so, there's that...

Re:Shows what competion can do.

[MobyDisk]

In that case, they would have released it in Klingon. Everyone who I know who speaks even a small amount of Klingon, uses Firefox.

Re:Shows what competion can do.

[GIL_Dude]

Actually almost all Microsoft Beta code is available in the same languages at first - English, German, Japanese, and sometimes Simplified Chinese. The thing is that they are trying for coverage of the code to make sure localizations fit dialogs, etc. For example, of the languages that use an English like character set (what is it called, Roman or whatever), German tends to have the longest words / phrases. So by covering German they find out whether all of the localizations are going to fit in the space provided. In a similar way, by covering Japanese (and in this case Simplified Chinese) they are covering localizations in non-Roman character sets. Its really not about the number of users / speakers - its about the coverage of testing on the localizations and getting them to fit properly.

Re:Shows what competion can do.

[duffbeer703]

How many Germans use a computer every day?

How many Mexicans, Columbians and Venezuelans use a computer every day?

Re:Shows what competion can do.

[jrumney]

Microsoft has long had a policy of translating into German and Japanese first. German words tend to be longer than other languages (except perhaps Dutch) so translation into German catches problems where text overflows the space allocated for it on the screen, and Japanese catches all the stupid character==byte assumptions that programmers make. I'm not sure why they don't do Arabic early as well to flush out left to right assumptions (also affecting Hebrew) and assumptions that characters have a one to one relationship with glyphs (also affecting Indian and South East Asian scripts).

Re:Shows what competion can do.

[pcolaman]

They primarily speak Portuguese, not Spanish.

Re:Shows what competion can do.

[ColdWetDog]

You come off as an angry 14-year-old who hasn't the faintest clue what's going on.

Maybe he is a 14-year old who hasn't the faintest clue what's going on, you insensitive clod.

Re:Shows what competion can do.

[rocketPack]

I think my dad is at home right now, why? Or did you mean, "Wer is ihr Vater?"

Re:Shows what competion can do.

[eugene ts wong]

A spelling Nazi that actually speaks German? Wow...

Standards-complient or not?

[tomandlu]

I assume yes. Call me naive, but I suspect MS know that they have more to lose by breaking web standards. Basically, they can't get away with that sh*t anymore - at least as far as the web goes. The average user is probably no wiser, but there are enough special interest groups to keep an eye on them in this area.

Re:Standards-complient or not?

[ByOhTek]

languages change over time, word shift meaning. New words come in, old words go out.

If you want to complain about this, let me ask you, do you ever use the word 'nice'? Check the entomology on it and revert to using in it's original form only please.

Re:Standards-complient or not?

[Khuffie]

According to Ars Technica, sites with proper HTML information will display in standards mode, and sites without will not. There's a button at the bottom that allows you to switch between the two. I have to say, I like IE8. It won't make me switch from Opera, but it's much speedier to use than IE7, and I'll probably find myself using it instead of Firefox whenever I come across a website that doesn't work in Opera. (Which is rare, and whenever that happens and I launch Firefox, it prompts me if I want to update, which gets annoying).

Re:Standards-complient or not?

[ShieldW0lf]

Developers, Developers, Developers.

Developers have moved on. IE is one of those things you test for once you've finished your work in Firefox.

This private browsing thing, if it wasn't a closed source application from a group that has a history of co-operating with US intelligence gathering organizations, might be vaguely interesting.

But the circumstances being what they are, it strikes me as a way to help the overstaffed NSA by red flagging your most sensitive items for their attention.

Re:Standards-complient or not?

[Metasquares]

I was going to ask what the root of the word "nice" had to do with the study of insects, but I guess that proves your point. :)

Re:Standards-complient or not?

[ByOhTek]

DAMNIT

I didn't mean entomology, I meant etymology...

But, using both the original and current meaning, that was a nice error...

Re:Standards-complient or not?

[ShieldW0lf]

Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).

No, developers use Firefox to do their development. Why? Because of extensions like Web Developer and Firebug and YSlow and Selenium and Firecookie and FirePHP and Venkman. To name a few.

The fact that Firefox is also highly standards compliant is a bonus.

After you've used all these tools to get your application working properly, that's when you check it out in IE and see if there are any problems that need further attention.

As for the whole trustworthiness angle, well, call it FUD if you want. It's easy enough to submit code for independent critical review. When organizations don't choose to do so, the uncertainty and doubt that remains is real and intentionally created. Personally, I don't use MS products any more for anything outside of testing my web apps in IE, and have no intention of ever doing so again. I do not choose to trust them.

Excellent feature...

[HetMes]

..that will definitely be craved by many Slashdot users, and not because of the gift shopping or use of public terminals. Question is how long it will take before Firefox sees its market share diminish because of this feature, and, consequently, how long it will take Firefox to include it in an update.

Re:Oh, I'd like a version

[tomandlu]

You want MS to provide a linux version so that you can either state your intent to never install it, or so that you can sh*t on it? I'm sure they'll get right on that...

Browser privacy

[LiquidCoooled]

I wonder how the browser privacy feature will work regarding external content from sites:

flash files store preferences outside of explorers' reach.
java applets get placed outside of the cache.
movies files play outside of ie.
pdfs might open outside.
word documents listed in word recent files list.

theres many more programs and protocols which would leave tracks.

people expecting privacy mode to actually keep things private are going to be in for a BIG shock.

good luck

Re:Browser privacy

[GeckoAddict]

I wouldn't count on this new feature to do much of anything... an article from FoxNews says the following scary line:

Although casual users cannot see the previous user's search history, authorities such as the police will be able to access it if necessary.

Kind of makes it seem like it's still stored somewhere, and while I don't know how the data is stored, I can't imagine it will take too long to figure out how to view the history of others.
Also interesting is that people at MS apparently nicknamed it 'Porn Mode'.

Extensions are bad?

[Cryophallion]

and brings a lot to the table that Firefox requires extensions for

You say that like it is a bad thing. I prefer the use of extensions for my browser, instead of the bloatware that tends to happen. What if I don't care about privacy? I don't need that installed then. I like that I can choose the features I want, instead of having everything thrown in there.

Also, extensions have a great benefit with regards to updates. they can be updated at any time, and therefore don't have to wait on a new browser update for tweaking things and adding functionality. They also allow me to leave an extension that I don't want to update as is while still being able to update the browser (and possibly its security).

This is not to say that Firefox is not getting large, or that microsoft is not trying to assist people who don't have the savvy to look for extensions. I'm just saying extensions have a lot of benefits, and can be a very important tool.

Re:Extensions are bad?

[mdwh2]

It's not that extensions are bad, it's just more of a hassle if the functionality is not included as standard.

It's one reason I can't be bothered to try switching from Opera. Sure, I've downloaded Firefox, but I don't have to time to try to hunt down all the extensions to replicate Opera's standard functionality, and wonder if each extension is the one I want.

This is even more of an issue if you are trying to persuade a random non-geek user to switch from IE - you can't say "Go to this link", instead you have to say "Go here, then install it, then go here, here and here, and install all those things". For now, Firefox has done well because its standard features are still better than IE (and the extra standard features of Opera do not seem to be known by as many people). But you can't expect an average user to grapple with trying to hunt down extensions, just to replicate what'll be standard behaviour in IE.

As for bloatware, you need to compare real world filesizes. Last time I checked, Opera was still smaller than Firefox (even without any extensions), though I haven't checked the current sizes.

Re:Extensions are bad?

[nmg196]

> You say that like it is a bad thing.

It *is* a bad thing. Usually built in features work - extensions in my experience, often don't and can easily be incompatible with each other.

I've only got a handful of extensions (5) installed and Firefox 3 crashes about 12 times a week according to the logs. According to the same logs, IE has only crashed twice EVER since I built the machine 6 months ago and I use it almost as often (I'm a web developer).

I think it's the extension-heavy approach which makes Firefox the least stable piece of software I've ever used. I doubt it crashes if you don't install any extensions. More basic features should be built in in my opinion - so you don't need to install an extension to get an extremely rudimentary feature like a close button on each tab.

Re:Extensions are bad?

[Cryophallion]

Interesting. Let's take a slightly deeper look, by looking at the most popular add-ons, and see if most non-savvy people would want them:

1.Ad-block plus - Users might like it, but people running the sites and companies would absolutely hate it. Get ready for a huge backlash on enabling this one in the base package.

2. DownloadHelper - Again, users may like it, but the people running the video sites would be fuming. As would people who do simple paid-for web tutorials, who would have everyone able to get their stuff extremely easily. Once again, good size backlash. This also has features that may need to be updated more frequently, such as when embedding code changes or something on the popular sites changes.

3. No-Script - I don't know if this would really help most non-savvy users, as they wouldn't understand why many more popular sites won't work that well, not to mention all the ajax-y things they'd miss.

4. Download-them-all - May be a good thing to implement (along with Download Status bar, a personal favorite). I'm not sure how many people would use its benefits though, but this one is a serious contender.

5. Flashgot (See Download Helper)

6. Firebug - No real use to non-savvy people.

7. Fast-video Download - See Download Helper

8. Cooliris - Cool, but no real functionality. Of course, Compiz, Widgets, Apples, etc all live off of cool, but I don't think this should be standard, especially since it is windows only.

9. IE Tab - Very nice for people who still stubbornly make IE specific sites, but still windows only.

10. Colorful tabs - cute, but not really functional. Might be a nice option though.

So, of the top 10, only one could really have a good argument made for it being in the base package. I actually think Mozilla does a pretty good job finding the middle ground of stuff to keep in the base, and stuff to have as extensions, and that helps keep the energy where they think it should be, instead of focusing on little segments.

I might add that I like extensions also since they can add new functionality before a new version comes out.

And if bandwith download is an issue for you, then perhaps you should not download Firefox in the first place.

Isn't Firefox smaller in download size than IE?

Re:Extensions are bad?

[Cryophallion]

Out of curiosity, what extensions are you using? I have around 7 or 8 depending on computer, and I've had no crashes. As always, people's problems vary, but I'm curious as to what may be crashing you.

As for the most popular extensions, such as downloadhelper, firebug, etc, those tend to be pretty darn reliable, which may be due to many bug reports, the open source concept of helping out with fixes, or because people tend to use things that work, but I have had very few problems.

On the other hand, I've had VERY bad luck with active-X "extensions" in IE, and even when not allowing ActiveX, I crash more with IE.

On another note, is it the sites you are working on that tend to crash, or basic browsing? Maybe IE is more forgiving of code you are still working on and may have forgotten a curly brace or two?

Press the button and protect your privacy ....

[Cyberurchin]

> and browser privacy, a feature that didn't make

Yeah, but the user has to turn it on .... Press the button, enter "InPrivateBrowsing" and your privacy is protected .... Kind of silly. Shouldn't such a feature be activated in the first place? And then, when the application requires the long-term cookies or you want a history, you turn off certain parts of it?

Re:Press the button and protect your privacy ....

[Apple Acolyte]

If private browsing were on by default, then everyone other than /. geeks would think their browsers were dysfunctional for not saving login cookies and whatnot.

What is really worrying is...

[Pvt_Ryan]

timesonline.co.uk Writes:

Once the setting is chosen, others using the same computer will not be able to see which sites have been accessed. Other browsers have similar functions, but this one is far more prominent. Although casual users cannot see the previous user's search history, authorities such as the police will be able to access it if necessary.

So basically the data still exists, just people who nothing will not be able to see it, I knew we were wrong in all those security model that try and keep the experts out. It's really Joe "average" Blogs we should have been protecting against all this time.. DOH!!!

I'll definitely be surrendering Firefox for IE now..

Re:What is really worrying is...

[LiquidCoooled]

I believe they are talking about the logs kept by the ISP rather than anything stored on the machine itself.

Its currently the same situation for users who delete their own history, its gone from the local machine, but that does not mean it was not logged elsewhere.

Re:Microsoft Does Not Deserve Another Chance

[Bashae]

You don't have to go back if you don't want to, but there are many people still using IE, and it would be easier to write websites if every single bit of JS or CSS didn't have to have a workaround for it. If IE8 brings us one step closer to that dream, then I welcome it with open arms! Even if I'm not ever going to use it.

Re:I tested it

[MyLongNickName]

Why? Did you find a gaping security hole?

Re:Oh, I'd like a version

[Gavagai80]

Lots of linux users would like to have IE, because we need to test websites in it. I have the wine versions of IE6 and IE7, but they're extremely slow and mostly broken, so a version from Microsoft would be great. And if it turned out to be the better browser, of course, I'd use it regularly.

Re:Thoughts

[Chapter80]

Many will disagree, but I feel the solution to this is to have "distributions", much like the distros of Linux.

Imagine being able to download from the official Firefox site such distributions as:

• Firefox Standard
• Firefox Lite
• Firefox for developers
• Firefox with Taco's favorite extensions
• Firefox for teens
• etc.

Lots of IT/Legal Depts. won't like InPrivate

[Jumperalex]

What I'm really curious to see, and I can only assume it will be there, is if they also include the ability to LOCK-OUT the InPrivate feature. Many corporate (and especially government) IT/legal departments excplicitly WANT your browsing to be tracked. Sure I can go in and delete stuff manually (except when I am not given permissions to access that folder ... which I'm not) but right now all of our standard desktop configurations prevent you from clicking the "clear private data" button.

So not only are the advertisers (as I've read elsewhere) possibly not going to like this feature, but many corp/gov types won't install it until/unless they can excplicitly prevent its use.

Re:Oh, I'd like a version

[dotancohen]

You want MS to provide a linux version so that you can either state your intent to never install it, or so that you can sh*t on it? I'm sure they'll get right on that...

That's short sighted.

I would try IE8 if it ran on my platform of choice, which happens to be Kubuntu. If IE won't run on it, I won't try it. IE8 might be the best browser since Amaya, but if it won't run on my system, I won't try it.

Not all Linux users hate Microsoft or are FOSS zealots. Most of us just love Linux. We are open to trying MS products, and when MS creates a better product than Linux||Firefox then we will use it. I only wish that MS Office 2007 would run on Linux, I would pay for it and use it in a heartbeat. But I am not about to use MS's bloated, insecure operating system to get it.

Running multiple versions of IE

[Jason Levine]

Now if they would only give us some way of running multiple versions of IE side by side. There are still a lot of people using IE6, so I need to test sites against that. But I can't if I upgrade to IE7. And if I upgrade to IE8, I can't test against IE7 or IE6. We need a standalone version of IE6 for web developers to use for website testing. The time limited VM that they provide is a start, but I don't want to boot up an entire VM of Windows just to test one page.

Re:Oh, I'd like a version

[antimatter15]

Don't Firefox, Mozilla, Epiphany, and Galeon all use the Gecko rendering engine? What's the point if they all render the exact same? I understand that as a web developer, it would be useful to test on Opera, Safari, IE and Firefox, but not on the same rendering engine

new features not in Firefox ..

[rs232]

"New features include .. automatic crash recovery .. and browser privacy, a feature that didn't make Firefox 3"

What's tools->clear private data .. 'Always clear my private data when I close Firefox'

and .. why does Firefox prompt me with:

Firefix - Restore Previous Session

Your last Firefox session closed unexpectedly. YOu can restore the tabs and windows from your previous sessions, or start a new session if you think the problem was related to a page you were viewing.

| Restore Session | | Start New Session |

Re:new features not in Firefox ..

[et764]

Your last Firefox session closed unexpectedly. YOu can restore the tabs and windows from your previous sessions, or start a new session if you think the problem was related to a page you were viewing.

Ahh, you haven't actually seen IE8's automatic crash recovery feature then. Each of the tabs are isolated from each other, so if one tab crashes it doesn't take down the whole browser. The tab just goes away and then pops back up with a message saying IE recovered the tab. It's definitely not the same thing as "Restore Previous Session."

So what?

[Viol8]

The number of hindi speakers is probably 4 times that.

They don't release to the largest markets but the most useful ones for testing.

Besides , lets be honest - the spanish speaking world isn't exactly renowned for its cutting edge expanding IT industry.

Just guessing, but...

[AnomaliesAndrew]

A large portion of Spanish speakers (e.g. Latin America) live in extreme poverty, so I doubt they'll all be downloading IE8 Beta anytime soon.

What should be compared is how many German speakers with internet access and their own PC vs. how many Spanish speakers with internet access and their own PC.

Re:Just guessing, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

A large portion of Spanish speakers (e.g. Latin America) live in extreme poverty, so I doubt they'll all be downloading IE8 Beta anytime soon.

But, it's free!

Re:Oh, I'd like a version

[FishWithAHammer]

Most of us just love Linux.

Like hell. There's a very common saying, and it's pretty damn true: "BSD users use BSD because they love Unix. Linux users use Linux because they hate Windows."

Go look at Ubuntu Forums or Linux Questions or any of the other community sites; it's a huge whack of Microsoft hate (often leading them to convince themselves that what they're using is better than it actually is, but hey, that's part of the open-source gig these days).

Re:Automatic crash recovery sounds interesting

[blueZ3]

Yep, that's my one beef with FF.

I use FF for basic browsing (without many extensions) and I mostly think it's great. Rarely crashes, renders most sites fine, etc.

But I really, really don't like the apparently single-threadedness. Each tab should be its own thread, IMO, so that when one tab is busy with some random java applet, the others are still getting enough CPU slices to actually be usable.

Another time you get this behavior is when you open multiple tabs one right after the other. The tab you are viewing slows to a crawl while content is loaded in the other tabs.

I'm not saying this is better in Opera/IE/Safari/Lynx, but I'd really like to see this fixed.