A First Look At Internet Explorer 8 RC1

bogaboga writes "TG Daily reports that Microsoft quietly released the first update to its IE8 beta 2 to its closest partners last week. This new version only scores a dismal 12/100 on the Acid 3 test, though the score improves significantly if one leaves the [browser] window open for at least a minute. It is marked as 'Release Candidate 1.'"

Comments

real FP

[CheshireFerk-o]

damn he hoped me. but really if m$ cant get their users to update/upgrade whats the point of a new version?

Re:real FP

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Twitter, is that you?

Re:real FP

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but that is...

Re:real FP

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a sad state of affairs when someone can't use "m$" without being accused of being called "twitter".

Before twitter came along people used to use "m$" all the time. Some people need to grow up. Especially that dick (not the parent) that keeps posting AC with those stupid "hi twitter" troll posts that dude needs to stop and start joining in the conversation rather then wasting bandwidth.

But does it fix the critical vulnerability?

[Van Cutter Romney]

Does it fix this?

Re:But does it fix the critical vulnerability?

[v1]

of course it fixes it. why do you think they put it in there to begin with? To get you to stampede to 8 to get away from it. It just got discovered a little earlier than anticipated...

Re:But does it fix the critical vulnerability?

[Hordeking]

Does it fix this?

It fixes it. It also irons my socks and underwear, and leaves me squeaky clean and springtime fresh.

Re:But does it fix the critical vulnerability?

[Paaskonijn]

FTF Link:

Update: 12/16 21:11 GMT by KD : Microsoft will issue an emergency critical update for IE tomorrow.

If it's fixed in IE 7, why wouldn't it be in IE 8?

Re:But does it fix the critical vulnerability?

[mixmatch]

Maybe because they are different branches of development? I don't think it is uncommon for software developers to have to backport security fixes to non-development versions of their software.

Re:But does it fix the critical vulnerability?

[Atti K.]

Oh yeah. IE lets you browse the internet, and vice versa.

Re:But does it fix the critical vulnerability?

[Anonymous Coward]

My Tests:
Firefox: 3.0.4
IE 7: 12
Opera 9.62: 85
Google Chrome: 79

So IE 8 scores a 12 too. Hey at least Microsoft held to some standard and didn't score below 12 with IE 8.

Re:But does it fix the critical vulnerability?

[LingNoi]

Just the other day I was modded troll for saying Microsoft doesn't keep to standards in the new IE and invent their own standards.

Looks like I win Micro-mods. Pathetic that you need to mod down the truth.

Re:But does it fix the critical vulnerability?

[BasharTeg]

Actually it does mitigate that vulnerability. Internet Explorer 7 and 8 both have the ability to enable DEP/NX heap protection. Unfortunately, due to certain extensions like Adobe Flash being written like shi... written in such a way that they weren't compatible with DEP/NX (I won't even get into them dodging protected mode, just see: http://keznews.com/4244_Vista_hacked_on_3rd_day_thru_Adobe_Flash__Linux_Undefeated_), but anyway, because of extensions like Flash and Java which weren't compatible with DEP/NX, Microsoft was unable to enable by default the DEP/NX protection in Internet Explorer 7 at release. However, you can enable it now since most plugins have been modified to work with DEP/NX.

To enable this protection in IE7 right now, go to Tools, Internet Options, Advanced, and check the check box next to "Enable memory protection to help mitigate online attacks". If you're running IE8 beta 2, you should notice that this check box is checked by default. This change should mitigate a significant number of future remote attacks against Internet Explorer 8.

If you check the advisory, one of the work arounds is enabling the DEP/NX protection in IE7.

Re:But does it fix the critical vulnerability?

[dirtyhippie]

Better URL for the IE/flash NX-disabling vulnerability:

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/04/08/ie8-security-part-I_3A00_-dep-nx-memory-protection.aspx

Re:But does it fix the critical vulnerability?

[sameerds]

So in Redmond, the internet browse you!

Re:But does it fix the critical vulnerability?

[Ol Olsoc]

Are ther times when I might want to "disable memory protection to enable online attacks?"

Idiots!

Re:But does it fix the critical vulnerability?

[w0lo]

If you need to run some shitty ass Active X control that does not support DEP/NX

Re:But does it fix the critical vulnerability?

[Anonymous Coward]

To enable this protection in IE7 right now, go to Tools, Internet Options, Advanced, and check the check box next to "Enable memory protection to help mitigate online attacks".

This option is only available in Vista.

Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[eldavojohn]

This new version only scores a dismal 12/100 on the Acid 3 test, though the score improves significantly if one leaves the [browser] window open for at least a minute.

It's true, it improves to 100/100! The reason you need to leave the browser open for at least a minute is because that's how long it takes to download this extension, install it, run the extension and put the acid 3 URL into the extension's address bar.

I recommend anyone who loves IE to do this!

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[docgiggles]

Does anybody really love IE anymore. There are so many more secure open source browsers that using the Microsoft utility that came with the computer seems like it cannot possibly be the best choice

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[plague3106]

i never liked IE in the past, but 7 was ok, and I find myself actually liking IE 8. I've never looked at the source code to Firefox, so I could care less about my browser being open source. As far as security holes go... well I have vista with UAC enabled, so I'm not too worried. All browsers have security holes.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[aztracker1]

I liked IE4/5 compared to NN at that time. I've been less inclined to like IE since around Firebird/fox 0.6 or so, when I switched. It's the plugins that sway me to FF over Opera. IE7/8 isn't so bad, but still has some quirks to it. IE6 in today's web world is an abomination that must die. If people are using older windows, Opera 9 is a far better option. For people on at least Win2k/XP they have very little excuse for the older IE.

At this point it's nowhere near a fav. but the IE8 version is a vast improvement, even if passing ACID3 wasn't as high of a priority.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[Anonymous Coward]

I love it. It's the only browser that works with some %&*@)^ stupid websites.

This might not apply to most people, but for the few who it does: LEARN TO CODE! I don't care if YOUR organization uses it, don't code for JUST IE! There's others out there who need to use your damn website too.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[darkpixel2k]

well I have vista with UAC enabled, so I'm not too worried. All browsers have security holes.

Yeah--Just like every car has it's problems, that why I choose to drive a Yugo. I mean--why go with a quality car that has fewer problems, when you could get a POS Yugo? All cars break eventually, so why not get one that will break within 5 minutes of owning it?

Even better, get one with no door locks, or even doors themselves--because all cars have security weaknesses...

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[Amouth]

i just go with the best of both worlds.. i own a volvo and an MG.. one is basicly maintence free for 120k miles.. the other required me to bring my tools to get it running so i could drive it home (well half way.. the other half i used a tow truck)

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[sexconker]

You COULDN'T care less.
You could not care any less, because you absolutely do not care.

If you COULD care less, then you care some non-minimal amount.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[edmicman]

No, I *COULD* care less, but choose not to. Hah!

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[Cerium]

Which is all well and good... but how about those web standards and compatibility things? Those mean anything to you?

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[AmberBlackCat]

It's not that anybody loves Internet Explorer. It's just that nobody outside of geekdom loves any browser at all. Arguing over browser popularity is like arguing over gas station popularity. Most people don't care, and don't see any real difference. They're just going to the first one they see.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[hAckz0r]

Gee, and I though 'the delay' was due to all the malware BHO's fighting over who gets to control your system 'this time'. Ultimately the BHO who gets control of the OS first is likely to win. Once they all stop thrashing each other for the top spot in the chain then the html rendering engine finally gets a chance to receive some precious cpu resources.

And for any IE die-hards out there, the best remedy to keeping your system safe is to make the "Windows Update" site your home page. That extra minute is for you to check what emergency fixes are out there to keep it from getting infected when you browse anywhere else. Windows Update, don't leave home without it!

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[giafly]

No! One minute is just enough time for your computer to get zombie'd, which improves the average code quality.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[gnick]

IE8 version is a vast improvement, even if passing ACID3 wasn't as high of a priority.

Well-phrased. I'm a FF user, but stray to IE occasionally depending on what I'm doing. I have Opera & Chrome installed too, but I have run them very few times since install.

For me, like (I suspect) the vast majority of web users, a good report card on ACID3 isn't a big selling point. The question is, "Will the pages I use the most render quickly and look nice?" NOT "Is the browser standards-compliant and will it make web development easy for people that I never see or care about?" For right or wrong, the most popular web sites will neglect web-standards to conform to IE rather than neglect IE to conform to web-standards. As long as that's the case, why should MS care? For now, ACID3 doesn't significantly affect their market share.

MS didn't fail ACID3, they just blew off trying to pass it because they didn't care.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[mixmatch]

MS didn't fail ACID3, they just blew off trying to pass it because they didn't care.

So if I blow of a college exam and only get 12% because I don't care, I didn't fail it? You're logic is amazing. Failing is still failing, whether you intend to do so or otherwise.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[operagost]

... until they get some bad gas. Then they never go back.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[Anonymous Coward]

They deliberately crippled IE's start-up time so that it wouldn't show up Office "components"

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[SausageOfDoom]

Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you.

I thought I was the only one.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[FriendOfBagu]

So if I blow of a college exam and only get 12% because I don't care, I didn't fail it?

Sure, if you didn't sign up for the course in the first place.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[causality]

It's not that anybody loves Internet Explorer. It's just that nobody outside of geekdom loves any browser at all. Arguing over browser popularity is like arguing over gas station popularity.

Sometimes I think that the only real definition of "geekdom" is "a solid understanding of cause and effect".

Most people don't care, and don't see any real difference. They're just going to the first one they see.

That's why when they get a compromised system or otherwise suffer, I don't see them as victims even though I'd rather they not get compromised and I'd rather they not suffer.

They are making a trade-off and are taking a risk of experiencing security flaws for the sake of convenience as the browser is already installed and knowledge of its quality and security history is not needed to use it. They have set their priorities and made their choices and now they experience the results. Really, what rational person (technical or non-technical) expects to have good results when operating an extremely complex machine that they don't understand? Is there anywhere else in life where you can take the very first option to come along without ever looking at your other options and then consider yourself to have made a good choice? That the average person can routinely use a computer this way and have everything work out as well as it does is amazing, but rather than appreciate this we instead scratch our heads and wonder why certain problems (like botnets) just aren't going away.

Maybe this makes me unusual, but I am happy with both Linux and FireFox even if both of them never become anything like mainstream. They are actively developed and have enough of a userbase to ensure this for some time to come, they do what I need them to do, and they run the way I want them to run. I can't say with any certainty that I'd derive any direct benefit from the sort of ubiquity that Windows and IE currently enjoy and I see a certain risk of stagnation if that ever did happen.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[gnick]

Exactly. Do you have any idea how many college exams I blow off every year? I haven't taken a course in nearly 7 years, so I typically blow off all of them.

Does that imply that I failed hundreds and hundreds of times?

You're [sic] logic is amazing.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[uberjack]

Part of Microsoft's problem is a result of their own short-sightedness: in early 00's they tried to push IE as a platform for publishing intra-corporate applications. My university required IE for all staff because PeopleSoft would not run on any other browser - many other institutions still require it because applications just will not work on any other browser. Their aim since then has been pretty much to appease the business consumer to keep the cash coming - making IE non-shitty would mean breaking compatibility with proprietary web apps written without any form of CSS/HTML compliance. Of course, part of it is also that their engineers don't know their asses from their elbows.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[ChefInnocent]

I like IE because I'm a curmudgeon and like things the way they were. IE doesn't impose great changes on me each version. In fact, if Mosaic didn't crash so often, I'd use it.

Now, get off my lawn.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[Anonymous Coward]

Acid3 tests:

Internet Explorer v7.0.5730.13 - 0/100
Firefox v3.0.4 - 69/100
Opera v9.62 - 85/100
Chromium v1.0.155.0 (6995) - 100/100

Internet Explorer shows a jumbled mess and I can't even see the score area so I gave it a big, fat 0. Firefox scores 71/100 if run a second time, but as far as I'm concerned only the first run result is valid. The Chromium score is deceiving because it still fails with a "Linktest failed" and pink "X" in the upper right corner. Still it looks the closest of the four.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[thealsir]

There are legitimate reasons why Acid3 isn't that important of a test, but that isn't one of them.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[Mister Whirly]

As long as the page I want to see loads in my browser, no I don't. I don't do any web developing or anything related, so why should I care? Oh wait, then I would have yet another reason to bash Microsoft on Slashdot. Ok, I care a lot now!

I also don't know all the inner workings of a combustible engine, yet I still manage to get where I am going in my car. Amazing isn't it?

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[Anonymous Coward]

He's logic is amazing.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[Anonymous Coward]

There's one thing Microsoft could do to massively raise the acceptance level for IE: Make it a separate program, so that you can have several versions installed at the same time and still know for sure which rendering engine you're currently testing with.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[tendrousbeastie]

Is this a common turn of phrase in the US?
I hear it often on American TV and it always sounds odd to me. The UK habitually used the phrase 'couldn't care less', which to me makes sense.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[Anonymous Coward]

so you don't care enough to make the effort to care less?

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[not already in use]

I wouldn't expect slashdot to look at this objectively, but the GP is correct. The only reason exploits are such a big deal with IE is because of the sheer size of the installed base.

No hacker worth his salt is going to go looking for exploits in a browser with 10% market share. Also contributing to the viability of IE exploits is the fact that if you're running IE, you're running Windows so you know the target OS.

It's not defective by design, it's defective by popular demand. This is hardly Microsoft's fault. You could say they've been doing everything in their power the last couple years to deter people from actually using their browser.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[PitaBred]

You should care about standards. If IE is the only browser that works, then you'll end up with a Microsoft-only Internet.

Imagine if only one company made a "combustible engine car" that ran on the fuel available on every corner. Would you be able to get where you're going without them? Would you be happy about only being able to buy the Ford Pinto, because that's the cheapest car for them to manufacture?

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[gnick]

The question isn't whether or not ACID3 is an "important test" in general. The only question MS cares about is:
"Is ACID3 a test that's important to our market base?"
If the answer is "no", then the test is unimportant to MS. They don't care about standards unless their market base cares about those standards. There are a lot of arguments regarding why they should care about standards or about tests like ACID3. But unless it affects the number of users installing and using their product, they simply don't.

I would guess that they tried ACID3 with IE8, saw that their results were abysmal, and then committed zero resources to improving their score. Probably a similar story with other conformance metrics.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[Mister Whirly]

Why? As long as I got to where I was going I could care less how I get there. Why should people that have nothing to do with web development/design etc. care? I don't want to have to know everything about everything. I understand where you are coming from, but it doesn't change that fact that I don't care just because you do. I am not trying to be flippant, I honestly just don't give a rat's ass about standards as long as i can do what I need to do. Why do you think so many people still use IE when there are arguably better alternatives out there? I'll tell you - because it works, and most people don't care about standards.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[mrdoogee]

It's a whole nuther thing here if you could care less. It makes me nauseous at how this nukeular power supposably is illiterate for all intensive purposes. I hate it, irregardless.

__________
__________
Now my head hurts.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[evilad]

Wish I had the mod points.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[Kalriath]

However, it passes ACID 2 with flying colours.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might find something interesting about a new ACID test which IE fails miserably the instant Microsoft releases a browser which passes the old one.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[PitaBred]

So don't care about WHAT the standard is. Just that your tool adheres to it. That's all that really matters. Standards exist so people can work together... if one company dictates the standards and makes them exclusive, we all lose out.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[keefus_a]

I'm not intimately familiar with the inner workings of an internal combustion engine either, and have zero experience with combustible engines. But it is nice knowing that my Toyota and my wife's Hyundai get the same result regardless of which variety of unleaded gasoline we put in the tank.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[LrdDimwit]

I am intrigued by your ideas, and wish to surrepetitiously sign up people to your mailing list.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[spintriae]

Congratulations. One idiom down, over 9000 more to go. Keep fighting the good fight, sir. As for me, I could less.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[darkpixel2k]

It's not defective by design, it's defective by popular demand. This is hardly Microsoft's fault. You could say they've been doing everything in their power the last couple years to deter people from actually using their browser.

You're saying users are actually demanding a non-standards compliant browser? Users are actually demanding a browser that is totally and completely embedded into the OS? Hmm... This is the first I've heard of those demands.

I'm not sure what you're implying about Microsoft trying to deter people from using their browser...if they really wanted to do that, they'd preload firefox.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[darkpixel2k]

I am intrigued by your ideas, and wish to surrepetitiously sign up people to your mailing list.

Easy--just send a self-addressed stamped envelope, along with a $5 signup fee to crazy-nutjobs@aol.com

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[ozphx]

No, he's saying that users don't give a shit about the ACID test.

If I told your mum about IE not rendering the ACID3 page properly she would say "Well what moron would make a page that people can't see properly?".

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[Eskarel]

Acid 3 is not a web-standards test because the "standards"(html 5, css 3) that it tests are not yet standard.

If Microsoft sits on IE and doesn't continue to upgrade it then IE 8 failing ACID 3 is a problem, but as to the best of my knowledge neither of the proposed specifications has been ratified yet and very little of it is actually going to make it into web pages in the next year or so it's not that big a deal.

Passing ACID 2 is a big deal, passing ACID 3 is only a big deal if IE 9 doesn't do it.

Opera and webkit pass ACID 3, but that's because they've focused specifically on doing so. Personally I think that Apple would have been better off focusing on making safari not crap than trying to get webkit to pass ACID 3, and Chrome isn't much better. Opera is a different situation, but it's got its own problems and is really focused on a different market.

I'm a web developer. I want IE to support the current web standards correctly, and IE 8 appears to do that from what I've seen. I want to see IE 9 follow on soon after and I'd like to see that pass ACID 3. I really don't give a rats if IE 8 does because I don't need it to right now.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[westlake]

Sometimes I think that the only real definition of "geekdom" is "a solid understanding of cause and effect".

So did I.

Until the day I came across Slashdot.

The geek's will to believe can make one long for the more mature and analytical minds of AM Talk Radio.

what rational person expects to have good results when operating an extremely complex machine that they don't understand?

We all place our trust in systems and machines we do not understand. We all make decisions based on instinct and convenience.

I can't say with any certainty that I'd derive any direct benefit from the sort of ubiquity that Windows and IE currently enjoy

The $200 HD Camcorder is this year's high-tech stocking stuffer.

You can drop this in your WalMart cart and leave the store thinking that all the fun stuff is being made for Windows.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[darkpixel2k]

No, he's saying that users don't give a shit about the ACID test.

If I told your mum about IE not rendering the ACID3 page properly she would say "Well what moron would make a page that people can't see properly?".

Well, yeah--if you phrase it that way. But instead try phrasing it a bit different:

Hey Mom--did you know that there is a set of standards that describe how web pages look and feel?

No.

Well, there are--and did you know that Microsoft has the least compatible web browser around? And did you know that since their browser comes pre-installed on a huge percentage of computers sold every year, that it has a huge market share?

I didn't. That's pretty stupid.

You're right, mom. It is stupid. Instead of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, would you like me to install Mozilla Firefox? It looks almost exactly like Microsoft's Internet Explorer, but it's faster, more secure, crashes less, and displays web pages correctly?

Sure son, that would be swell.

See? I can hold my own straw-man conversations with fictitious characters.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[kiddygrinder]

If you think hackers aren't going to go after a vulnerability in ff just because it's only got a 20% install base (it hit 20% earlier this year) you're on crack. 20% of all computers on the internets would be a world destroying bot net, worth millions in the right hands.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[Loki_666]

But IE7 doesnt pass the Acid 2 test....

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[BenoitRen]

The question is, "Will the pages I use the most render quickly and look nice?" NOT "Is the browser standards-compliant and will it make web development easy for people that I never see or care about?"

You do realise that the two are linked, right? Better standards compliance not only means easier web development, but more design capabilities, which leads to nicer pages.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[daver00]

The question is, "Will the pages I use the most render quickly and look nice?" NOT "Is the browser standards-compliant and will it make web development easy for people that I never see or care about?"

At then end of the day though, these are really the same thing. I see you are asserting that it is simply a developers problem, well its not always high on a particular developers mind to code for a given platform, and many simply aren't aware. Now since IE is the dominant platform, that means you lose. The site renders incorrectly because standards and/or stupid hacks are not adhered to.

Now as a sometimes web developer, I can tell you it makes a whole lot more sense for browsers to simply adhere to standards than to rely on the plethora of stupid hacks required to get around various inconsistencies. The absolute worst part is that IE6 is still floating around, and that is one mother of a pain in the ass to code for. Nothing works the way it is supposed to, and simple: if *IE6: blah; else *IE7: foo; logic is not entirely present in html or css, so you rely on javascript or other random hacks that are again not necessarily supported.

So in short: if you want pages to render right then you should support standards compliance.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? As long as I got to where I was going I could care less how I get there.

So, you wouldn't care whether you got 10mpg or 100mpg?

Whether you got there in 10 minutes or 10 hours?

Whether you were shaken to bits or had a smooth ride?

Whether you ended up with severe back pain due to bad ergonomics or not?

No, you only care whether you get there or not.

Asshat.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[complete loony]

No I think he was right. Because after listening to your rant I certainly do care less.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[csartanis]

The problem is they dont realize that using a certain gas station makes them much more likely to be robbed.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[inamorty]

Nothing irritates me greater then bad grammar.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[Anonymous Coward]

The course is "being a robust web browser", since acid3 tests compatibility with web specifications, both in common and edge cases.

Of course MS is more interested in defining the standards than adhering to them. So they are REALLY not interested. Yet I guess a user could be interested.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[Anonymous Coward]

At then end of the day though, these are really the same thing.

Wrong. If 4/5 browsers adhere to standards and the other one (with 90% market share) blows them off, the most popular sites will ignore standards and tweak themselves to render correctly in IE and look cruddy in the others. Developers design for IE and then try to support the other browsers (at least the smart developers, not the idealists.) Adhering to standards helps everyone. Ignoring them helps IE.

Which option so you think MS will pick?

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[sexconker]

Even the dictionary is wrong...

Main Entry:
        nauÂseous Listen to the pronunciation of nauseous Listen to the pronunciation of nauseous
Pronunciation:
        \ËnoÌ-shÉ(TM)s, ËnoÌ-zÄ"-É(TM)s\
Function:
        adjective
Date:
        1612

1 : causing nausea or disgust : nauseating 2 : affected with nausea or disgust
â" nauÂseousÂly adverb
â" nauÂseousÂness noun
usage Those who insist that nauseous can properly be used only in sense 1 and that in sense 2 it is an error for nauseated are mistaken. Current evidence shows these facts: nauseous is most frequently used to mean physically affected with nausea, usually after a linking verb such as feel or become; figurative use is quite a bit less frequent. Use of nauseous in sense 1 is much more often figurative than literal, and this use appears to be losing ground to nauseating. Nauseated is used more widely than nauseous in sense 2.

Also, I don't get the bitching about illiterate...or was that not meant to be an example of incromulent usage?

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a contraction and therefore not grammatically correct. I guess the problem is that the term I could care less is not a good phrase anyway and is confusing from a logic standpoint. A good example of this is from Futurama:

John Jackson: "I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far."
Jack Johnson: "And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough."

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[daver00]

Wait, what? I didn't say anything about IE, what I said was that if you expect web pages to be rendered quickly and look nice then standards compliance is the only way to go. The days of Microsoft having a 90% browser share are long gone, they can't afford to design like that any more, and it seems they are taking measures to remedy this.

How successful do you think a media player would be if it played an mp3 differently to other media players? say at a different frequency so everything is faster. This idea is nonsensical, and yet we accept it as given for an internet browser?

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[Eskarel]

No, it doesn't.
But IE 8 does. So it's a good thing they're getting ready to release it.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[not already in use]

Yes, but anyone technically inclined enough to install a non-default browser is less likely to be tricked into visiting a website that can exploit a vulnerability, so there is a social engineering aspect to this as well.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[ORBAT]

Wait, did you just call your mom a fictitious character?

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[darkpixel2k]

Wait, did you just call your mom a fictitious character?

Yes. I'm fairly certain she never existed.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[plague3106]

Last I checked, 80% is still more computers than 20%

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[kiddygrinder]

no shit, my point was 20% is a lot, not that it was somehow magically more than 80%.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute

[plague3106]

It may be a lot, but if I can infect a small part of 80% of computers or a small part of 20% of computers... well it's really a no brainer.

IE needs a new slogan...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about:

Internet Explorer: Holding the Web Back Since 2001!

Re:IE needs a new slogan...

[v1]

I prefer the older standby - empowering 0wners since 2001

Re:IE needs a new slogan...

[darkpixel2k]

How about:

Internet Explorer: Holding the Web Back Since 2001!

*tap tap*
(sounds of hard disk seeking like crazy)
(IE 8 splash screen appears)
Wow. This is a nice preview of IE 8.
It looks nice and flashy--sorta reminds me of Vista. Let's go look at a web site.
*click, clickity, tap, tap, click*
rooted

Re:IE needs a new slogan...

[6Yankee]

Sure, Firefox can "take back the Web", but only the might of IE can *hold* it back...

Re:IE needs a new slogan...

[PinkyDead]

How about:

Internet Explorer: Everything will be fine if you just wait a minute!

Re:IE needs a new slogan...

[JohnBailey]

I prefer the older standby - empowering 0wners since 2001

True.. shame that the users are only license holders.

IE 10

[Cornwallis]

I'm guessing that by the time IE 10 is released it won't run at all finally making for a safe browser experience.

Re:IE 10

[Ethanol-fueled]

It'll be IE X, not IE 10. Get with the times, man.

Re:IE 10

[Gilmoure]

iX?

Re:IE 10

[AKAImBatman]

By the time IE 10 comes out, it will look like what Netscape 2.0 looks like to today's market. Even today, users hanging on to IE are reminiscent of the die hard users of Netscape 4. Netscape 4 was awful in comparison to IE5, but since it was the only viable alternative to IE, it hung around for quite a while. Life got a lot better when the Internet purged NS4, and it will get a lot better when it purges Internet Explorer.

The only difference between the Netscape 4 debacle and Internet Explorer is that Netscape didn't have the resources to develop a better browser. They ended up needing to spin off browser development, thus resulting in Firefox in the long term. Microsoft has no such constraints. They have nearly everything they need to make IE a better browser, but they don't want to give up their stranglehold on the web.

Well too damn bad. It's only a matter of time before IE loses its majority market share. The more the IE percentages drop, the faster the uptake of alternative browsers.

Re:IE 10

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the advert that came up on this item on slashdot ....

Uninstall IE 8
Completely Removes Internet Explorer 8. 100% Safe & Effective.
Removal.PCauthorities.com

Re:IE 10

[ianare]

That would be IE 9

Re:IE 10

[owlnation]

iX?

More likely... "eX"

Re:IE 10

[encoderer]

The only difference between the Netscape 4 debacle and Internet Explorer is that Netscape didn't have the resources to develop a better browser.

A little revisionism there. Netscape did have the resources to develop a better browser. That browser could've been NS5 and it could've changed the course of browsers to this very day.

So much hay about MS killing NS. They certainly hurt them, but NS killed NS.

Instead of incrementally improving NS with a release-early, release-often strategy, they decided to completely rewrite the browser. 150 internet-years later they released NS6 and by that time they hadn't a chance.

Re:IE 10

[Bert64]

The netscape codebase was old and crufty, they open sourced it and people pretty much decided to abandon it and start again...
I would imagine the ie codebase is in a similarly crufty state.

Re:IE 10

[encoderer]

Of course it was. Show me any mature product that isn't.

But i cannot imagine any circumstances where the best strategy is to scrap and replace everything.

This isn't about purity of codebase, which is what the OSS adopters you mentioned concerned themselves with.

This is about a commerical software company who chose to cease shipping their flagship product while they redeveloped it.

If they had to do it, they should've maintained and upgraded the NS4 base with 4.x releases while the new product was in development.

Re:IE 10

[sexconker]

Xplorer

Re:IE 10

[sexconker]

"But i cannot imagine any circumstances where the best strategy is to scrap and replace everything."

How about when a house burns down?

Re:IE 10

[operagost]

They continued to release updates to the stand-alone browser while working on the dead-end NS5. When they started on NS5, the browser was at 4.05 and when they killed it, it was up to 4.7x.

Re:IE 10

[Anonymous Coward]

Crap dude, i never realized the internet was THAT old.

What did they do back in those older days?
IPoA?

Re:IE 10

[GuldKalle]

Internet Explorer 10: the ex-browser

Re:IE 10

[m50d]

Have you tried a recent IE? It's actually a good browser. Not good enough that I'd switch from opera, but much better than firefox - lower memory use, better looks, more sensibly designed menus...

Re:IE 10

[AKAImBatman]

Have you tried a recent IE?

Hahahahah! That's funny, dude. You had me going there for a moment. Great-- oh. You're serious? Seriously?

I think the real question is have you tried any other browsers? Above all else, IE's lack of standards support stands out like a sore thumb. Every time I develop a site for the damn thing, I can't help but notice that simple features like DOM2 and CSS2 still aren't supported even though they are over a DECADE old. That means that sites have to be gimped for IE's substandard support. And it shows. Modern websites perform poorly in Internet Explorer, with interfaces that are regularly slower or degraded. (I remember one application that had a column sort. Near instantaneous in Firefox, about 20 seconds in IE. I had to algorithmically optimize the living hell out of it just because IE was sucking so badly. ) And don't even get me started at how grating IE7 is on the eyes. I mean, the interface looks like an amateur artist took a dump all over the screen. Ungainly tabs, toolbars in odd places, over the top graphics, etc. The best I can say for it is that it works. Sometimes.

Don't even get me started on Microsoft's outright unwillingness to support upcoming standards like HTML 5. Funny, it never seemed to be a problem 10 years ago when their browser was the only one that implemented the standards. :-/

IE7 is the worst major browser on the market today, bar none. FireFox, Opera, Safari, SeaMonkey, Chrome, etc. are all FAR better options. Anyone who thinks that IE is "a good browser" is woefully out of touch with what is available on the market today. I cannot wait to jettison the piece of crap. Especially after I noticed that Microsoft is *explicitly* ignoring the same requests for standards support that they did in IE7. When the RFE for support of DOM2 Events is closed as "works according to specs", you know there's a problem.

Re:IE 10

[m50d]

I think the real question is have you tried any other browsers?

Yes I have; all the major ones (unless you count safari as major these days) and several that aren't. IE remains perhaps the 3rd-best of them.

Above all else, IE's lack of standards support stands out like a sore thumb. Every time I develop a site for the damn thing, I can't help but notice that simple features like DOM2 and CSS2 still aren't supported even though they are over a DECADE old. That means that sites have to be gimped for IE's substandard support.

Shrug. Be that as it may, as a user I don't really care. I've run across more than enough sites that seem to be developed for firefox-only (as in, they don't render properly in IE, Opera, Konqueror, or sometimes even Seamonkey), and those annoy me a lot more, because there's no defense of ignorance in that case - the developer knew full well that there are multiple browsers in existence, yet still chose to develop for only one of them)

And it shows. Modern websites perform poorly in Internet Explorer, with interfaces that are regularly slower or degraded. (I remember one application that had a column sort. Near instantaneous in Firefox, about 20 seconds in IE. I had to algorithmically optimize the living hell out of it just because IE was sucking so badly. )

Nonsense, frankly, and overgeneralisation. Some javascript is much slower in IE, some is much faster; if you look at actual benchmarks, it's much of a muchness overall.

And don't even get me started at how grating IE7 is on the eyes. I mean, the interface looks like an amateur artist took a dump all over the screen. Ungainly tabs, toolbars in odd places, over the top graphics, etc.

a) All this is subjective b) You're wrong.

Don't even get me started on Microsoft's outright unwillingness to support upcoming standards like HTML 5.

Lies; they've been a major contributor to the standard.

Funny, it never seemed to be a problem 10 years ago when their browser was the only one that implemented the standards.

And we saw where that got them. Maybe, just maybe, it's better to wait for the standards to be finalized and then implement them, rather than leaving sites having to be coded for 400 different partial implementations.

Re:IE 10

[thexile]

IE Mojave, I reckon.

Seriously?

[DarrenBaker]

Surely you can't be serious - It scores higher if you leave the browser window open for a minute?

What is it, an Oldsmobile?

Re:Seriously?

[IceCreamGuy]

Holy crap I miss my 1990 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme. Thanks for bringing that up. :'-(

Re:Seriously?

[EIHoppe]

I've heard of car engines running on diesel, but browsers?!

Now I really have seen everything...

~EI

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a timed component to the ACID test. Some of the tests can take a while to run, so they have a limit set if you want to pass validation. Something IE can do apparently takes a while.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

what's worse is the "significant" improvement is a 21/100! still pityful

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slickest application of a car analogy I ever seen. +1 internets to you.

Re:Seriously?

[sir_eccles]

It's like high end Hi-Fi equipment you have to let the browser window burn in before you can get that richer and warmer internet experience. I always leave my browser to burn in overnight the first time I install it and find pages load quicker when I use oxygen free unidirectional tubes.

Re:Seriously?

[jbeaupre]

You must not be in marketing. That's "A 75% performance improvement over time."

Re:Seriously?

[denttford]

Don't you know? It takes a minute for the tubes to warm up...

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

i miss your ice cream van more.

when u coming round again mister?

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

you forgot...

", you insensitive clod!"

Re:Seriously?

[j79zlr]

I just spent 5 minutes trying to read your sig and still haven't done so successfully. I guess my boss is right, those lunch beers are affecting my productivity. Damn.

Some people STILL think they should use IE

[theaveng]

Like this guy: http://www.highdefforum.com/768120-post19.html

I don't know how someone can say "IE is not any more vulnerable" with a straight face. And it only scored 12/100 on compatibility tests? RUN from IE.

Re:Some people STILL think they should use IE

[gzipped_tar]

The best (worst) argument for IE I've ever heard was "to save disk space".

Re:Some people STILL think they should use IE

[aaron.axvig]

Nah, I'll just keep using it, and it will just keep working, day after day, causing me NO PROBLEMS.

Re:Some people STILL think they should use IE

[electrictroy]

Okay.

Well I used to think like you, no problems with IE, but what changed my mind was when my homepage kept randomly changing to various sites. Then I started getting weird images on my desktop. That's when I realized that IE is basically a giant hole for hackers.

Re:Some people STILL think they should use IE

[aliquis]

It's obvious he didn't knew shit, what is it what works better in IE? His borked websites?

Speaking of bork, what's your signature all about? Fastest in what way? From your location?

Re:Some people STILL think they should use IE

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, well enjoy your poor web experience.

Also, cancer of the internet, etc.

Re:Some people STILL think they should use IE

[electrictroy]

Clearly the fastest speed that local citizens can get, averaged over the whole state.

It's well known that Sweden has the fastest connections in all of Europe.

Re:Some people STILL think they should use IE

[gparent]

Maybe you should stop installing every single thing that comes up on your screen. I don't use FireFox, but I'm not stupid enough to think spyware magically happens if you're on IE. I used it for years and never had any problems.

Re:Some people STILL think they should use IE

[gparent]

*I use FireFox

Re:Some people STILL think they should use IE

[electrictroy]

>>>Maybe you should stop installing every single thing that comes up on your screen.

I rarely install anything, ever. This was simply the result of scripts automagically changing the homepage in IE to www.porn.com (or what4ever) and taking advantage of exploits to save themselves to the c: drive (spybots). When I switched to Firefox, all those problems stopped.

Re:Some people STILL think they should use IE

[aliquis]

So where does 11 mbps come from? The ADSL offers are most often max 28 mbps but sometimes more, is it based on the ADSL speed most people get or what?

And obviously in some areas you can get other things than ADSL, so it doesn't make sense to me at all, and I'm swede ;/

It could had been so much better over here if the government didn't sucked.

Re:Some people STILL think they should use IE

[theaveng]

Well being an AVERAGE, I imagine some people in Sweden have fat 50 Mbps lines, some have slow 750k lines, and others just have 50k phonelines.

Therefore when the people who did the study averaged all of these people together, they arrived at 10.8 Megabit/s which I rounded up to 11 because my signature space is limited.

Damn, did I really not know?

[IceCreamGuy]

Is a release candidate still considered a beta? I was always under the impression that release candidates were past the "beta" moniker and were part of the next phase of deployment. But I'm an admin, not a programmer, and really have no clue when it comes to that kind of stuff.
Coincidentally, I just watched Blade Runner on my Sony Superbeta hi-fi, still looks fantastic after all these years. Suck it, Blu-ray.

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[will_die]

In Microsoft speak a RC is a feature complete product, parts are still buggy but the capabilities are in, they still reservice the right to add features but will not remove them.
Now that is not to say that things still will not change for instance with the release of parts of Office 2007 some products would work in the RC phase on Windows 2000 but come release they stopped working. However at that phase you can usally start developing for the new product and it will work on the release with at most minor changes.

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on what we call things, I suppose.

"Traditionally" there has been the alpha phase for initial work, once all features was mostly done it would become beta for testing and optimisation and stability work would proceed. And then once everyone figured it was done you'd have a build you could call a release candidate.

But of course 'beta' has since become a buzzword that just means you can access software that may - or may not - be somewhat done. And any usage is at your own peril. I suppose an RC would fit into this category since it is generally considered to be done, but it has not got the final approval.

In some cases the RC term has also been degraded to something that is not really done and is just a fairly stable pre-release of something. I believe Microsoft did that with the Vista Service Release 1.

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[lloydchristmas759]

In Microsoft speak a RC is a feature complete product, parts are still buggy but the capabilities are in, they still reservice the right to add features but will not remove them.

Really? I thought that was the definition of "service pack 8".

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Just like a pre-beta isn't an alpha anymore?

I'm afraid of Windows 7 if it's supposed to come out in about 6 months and we haven't even seen a beta yet...

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you know? M$ considers the world to be its alphaa testers! They have always released their alpha versions of OS and software as a final release!

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[poetmatt]

Whoever labeled lloyd troll obviously is a Microsoftie.

I'd be surprised if Microsoft ever decided to release a well tested and thoroughly prepared release. It seems to not be a priority to them at all.

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[IceCreamGuy]

I think it's pretty difficult to argue that Windows Server 2008 was not well tested and thoroughly prepared. Can you name something that was seriously wrong with that release? In my opinion (keep in mind I run Ubuntu Server LTS for most of my new deployments), Server 2008 is a truly fantastic OS; it's rock solid, got great features, has full-fledged CLI, and is polished out of the box. Even the licensing is now easy. Or how about Office 2007? Aside from the initial shock at the UI change, it went very well. What about Visual Studio 2008?

I'm not defending IE, I can't stand it myself, but I think [citation needed] is appropriate here if you're going to make broad statements like that.

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[sik0fewl]

In Microsoft speak a RC is a feature complete product, parts are still buggy but the capabilities are in, they still reservice the right to add features but will not remove them.

Ohhh... so it's a beta!

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[Anonymous Coward]

RC is equivilent to when a Linux distro does a freeze and just takes in compatibility and bug fixes before a release. Basically puts a stop to feature creep that might cause more delays.

Everything thats gonna be in is there, they are just testing and fixing now.

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[poetmatt]

Well, it was better done than many of their other products but if you are running it I'm sure you know that HyperV was their big selling point and barely works. So, kinda same thing there.
Office 2007 still has an excess of problems, and visual studio is probably the one product people are happy with.

I'm not denying that I did make an excess of a blanket statement (I agree, I did) and on rare occasions they release things well tested, but it doesn't seem to be exactly consistent.

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[nine-times]

Yeah, you'd think that a "release candidate" meant that it was a candidate for the "release" version if no huge problems popped up. That was what the term was invented to mean, AFAIK.

But people abuse these terms pretty heavily, and you have to know how each developer is using them. It seems like Microsoft considers "release candidate" to mean "late beta". They never have any intention of releasing RC1, and they usually have a roadmap includes multiple "release candidates" be released for testing purposes before they consider actually releasing the thing. When it gets up to RC3, it's probably close to release.

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[sukotto]

If only you had the even more advanced Sony SuperReleaseCandidate :-D

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[sexconker]

Who says it's coming in 6 months?
The same people who were talking about MinWin?

Offtopic, but it needs to be said:

MinWin was (recently) mentioned by one guy during a demo of some virtualization stuff. He was running Windows 1.0 and such. He was clearly a very intelligent employee, and while he said they've been working on MinWin, he ALSO said that it's just the COMMON CORE of future Windows releases.

From Shitipedia:

In October 2007, Eric Traut, a developer at Microsoft, demonstrated a self-contained MinWin system, made up of about 100 files, on which a basic HTTP server was running.[8][9] Traut noted that MinWin takes up about 25 MB on disk and has a working set (memory usage) of 40 MB. It lacked a graphical user interface and is interfaced using a full-screen command line interface. Traut explained during the demo that MinWin would not be offered as a stand-alone product, but would instead be used as the basis for future operating system releases such as Windows 7.[10]

MinWin is just the common parts of the kernel across all versions of Windows. Work on that, and you copy it over for all your versions, saving a ton of time and simplifying maintenance, support, documentation, etc. MinWin does NOT imply that Windows will be leaner. All versions of Windows use MinWin, and they all have bloat piled on top.

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. The first real release candidate (in open-source terms) is the products' first release, because that's when feature freeze starts. That's also why you should wait first the first (or second) service pack before switching.

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

No, by Microsoft PR when they said "Windows 7 will be out during the first half of 2009."

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[aliquis]

When it comes to Google several betas actually come after the RC :D

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[put_the_cat_out]

From your explanation, I now understand that the 12/100 score on the Acid3 test is a feature of IE8 that is not likely to be removed when it gets released to the general public.

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[Anonymous Coward]

They must not have said it very loudly...

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[IceCreamGuy]

Hah, yeah, I did forget about Hyper-V (does anyone actually use it?), however it's really cool that if you don't want it, they let you buy a cheaper license without it. The other awesome thing about 2008 is that you can buy licenses that include use on virtual machines, either four or unlimited, which I think is a killer feature this day in age.

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[Just Some Guy]

In Microsoft speak a RC is a feature complete product, parts are still buggy but the capabilities are in, they still reservice the right to add features but will not remove them.

You're joking, right? Please tell me that you're joking! Seriously, "RC" is supposed to mean "we think this might be the one to ship unless something comes up".

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[shutdown -p now]

In Microsoft speak a RC is a feature complete product, parts are still buggy but the capabilities are in, they still reservice the right to add features but will not remove them.

Can you give some examples? In my past experience, what you describe is a "beta" in Microsoft parlance. RC is something that shouldn't have major bugs (and they won't do any long-reaching bug fixes at that point), and if no serious bugs are found in a certain period of time, the RC is designated a release. It went this way with at least Vista, Server 2008, Visual Studio 2008 and 2008 SP1, and SQL Server 2008. Do you have any counter-examples?

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[dn15]

To me it seems like the definitions are pretty clear, yet people take a lot of liberties with the meanings. I've always had the understanding that...

Alpha = Somewhat usable but not feature-complete and probably pretty unstable.
Beta = Feature-complete but still has plenty of bugs to work out.
RC = A candidate for, well, release! If no major problems are found it may be sent out the door as a standard public release with no further changes.

Re:Damn, did I really not know?

[will_die]

Vista or Windows 2008. Microsoft even said, in an article about Vista, when questioned about the definition rewrite that the meaning of release canidate has 'evolved'.
Look at Windows 2008, you had the first RC out 6 months before product release then a second RC 3 months before release and they both had major bugs and RC0 was missing features that showed up in RC1 and release.
Which also brings up the questions what exactly a pre-Release Candidate is.

If Programming Languages Were Religions

[Anonymous Coward]

fuddles would score all 6's on the ever infactdead bugwear, as well as the gottiesque 'business' practices. better days ahead.

Re:If Programming Languages Were Religions

[FlatWhatson]

If that's a Markov chain, I'm impressed!

If web browsers were religions...

[gsgriffin]

Many people would be converting and those that have already converted would be seeking ways to destroy the old faith by any means possible. The new religion is full of love?

Could have fooled me

[JoeCommodore]

I actually saw an IE8 ad earlier this week on-line (geared for enterprise computing firms) I thought it was final and out already.

Yep, MS even has a slick site already up for it:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Internet-explorer/beta/default.aspx

Re:Could have fooled me

[jisatsusha]

It quite clearly says beta there.

IE

[ionix5891]

is like a bad smell that wont go away

Good

[spinkham]

As someone who does both web security and some web design, I couldn't be happier.
Yes, IE 8 still sucks, but it sucks less then IE 7, which sucks less then IE 6.
IE 8 has some decent rendering improvements, a built in XSS filter, and lots of other changes.
In standards compliance it still sucks versus all the compition, but as long as it helps kill off IE 6, I'm happy.

Re:Good

[Kokuyo]

Just don't add a usability POV to that mix. IE7 and 8 give me nightmares.

Re:Good

[Leafheart]

In standards compliance it still sucks versus all the compition, but as long as it helps kill off IE 6, I'm happy.

As someone doing web design for a living for the past 10 years I can tell you that I'm really not happy. At all. I put standards compliance much higher than any gimmick like XSS. If firefox still had all the Extensions (which is hard to live without) but was not standards compliant, I would hate it, a lot.

Another IE that is not standards compliant, means or a new set of rules I cannot use on my code, or another set of hacks (already ahve one for 5, 5.5, 6 and 7

Re:Good

[spinkham]

A Cross Site Scripting (XSS) filter is hardly a gimmick. XSS affects ~50% of websites, and can be used to great effect against client browsers to great effect, with many fraud implications for the servers.
Microsoft's protections aren't perfect, but they're pretty good at patching the major vectors.

I agree that full IE standards compliance would be a Godsend (and how about some ability to accept XHTML?), but anything that kills off IE 6 is a step forward in my opinion.

Re:Good

[Rearden82]

IE6 is still very popular despite the fact that 7 came out over two years ago. If users haven't upgraded by now, I see no reason why they would when 8 is released.

I'm sure IE8 will be broken in slightly different ways from 6 and 7. So all this really means is we will have to implement hacks for three different versions of a shitty, non-standards-compliant browser for the foreseeable future, instead of two.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

IE6 was already killed when Microsoft put IE7 into the force feeding tubes last summer. All the Windows computers have updated already unless if someone has on purpose blocked that update.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

It's still an improvement over IE 7 (which was a minor improvement over IE 6), but it's still lagging far behind.

Since I still have to support at least IE 7 for the foreseeable future, and will probably have to support IE 6 for at least a couple more years, this doesn't make my life any easier, and it doesn't let me actually do anything I couldn't do before.

It wouldn't be so bad if IE 8 actually manages to kill off IE 6 once and for all, but I don't think that's going to happen. Everyone stuck on IE 6 is probably going to stay there until they throw their computer away and buy a new one. It's probably just going to eat away about half of IE 7's market share, so IE's market share will be split into thirds, making it impossible to ignore any of them.

Re:Good

[Canazza]

IE8 gets 12/100 on the Acid 3 test for standards capability. even IE 7 gets 14/100 (and 8.0 beta2 got 21) this 8.0 beta/RC/whatever, standards wise, is a major step backwards

Re:Good

[poetmatt]

XSS affects 50% of the websites geared for IE. Not 50% of all websites. Significant difference there.

I agree with the rest though, IE6 is bad and IE7 is worse, so hopefully IE8 won't be too broken. From everything I have seen so far unfortunately, it will be. I seem to recall some controversy with IE8 a few months back too, something about putting it on an XP service pack or something.

Re:Good

[foniksonik]

I won't be happy until they retire IE6 and somehow all the corporations out there upgrade their standard browser to at least IE7.

IE6 is the bane of my existence as a web developer and yet one of my biggest clients uses it by default as their corporate standard, so I have no choice but to develop for it.

Re:Good

[Chaos Incarnate]

Or is still running Windows 2000.

Re:Good

[Tatsh]

Problem: IE >= 7 is for XP and Vista only. There are still a bunch of users out there using IE 5.5 (or worse yet 4 or 3) because they do not want/know how to update. Maybe they are on dial-up and updating is too slow (although I would update on dial-up). Then there are the IE 6 users on Windows 2000. That is the highest they can go, and for a lot of these computers, it makes no sense to upgrade to XP.

When I develop a page, I develop a whole different sheet (that tries its best to look like the original for COMPLIANT browsers) for IE 6. For IE 7, a few changes but not many. For IE 8, hopefully less. The point of a compliant browser is I do not have to do any of the above because it should work in any compliant browser. I do not consider IE of any version to be a compliant browser. Not until its engine gets 71 or more on the Acid3 test, preferably 100.

Re:Good

[Ed Avis]

If users haven't got the sense to move from IE to Firefox or Chrome, what makes you think that they will upgrade from IE6 or IE7 to IE8? It'll be quite some time before Microsoft pushes out the IE8 update automatically.

Re:Good

[spinkham]

Actually, ~50 % of websites tested in the past year by WhiteHat Security. It's the best metric we currently have for security flaws, as WhiteHat has many customers across quite a few industries, and they are all automatically retested over time. It has little to do with the browser targeted, and everything to do with the web frameworks used, the knowledge of the programmers, and the testing or lack thereof most websites get before deployment.

If you check xssed.com you'll see that near 100% of websites have had XSS vulnerabilities in the past.

Re:Good

[Blakey Rat]

Standards compliance is a non-feature. Give end-users a list of browser features, ask them to rank them, and I can guarantee standards compliance will come in last. The ONLY people who care are web developers, because it makes their job slightly easier. Cry me a river. (And web developers have to QA their page anyway.) Microsoft's time is much better spent on features users actually care about.

Demanding that browser makers drop everything and work only on standards compliance is like telling Toyota they should immediately stop production of all their cars so they can make it easier for mechanics to operate on. It's ridiculous, it doesn't help any end-users (you know, the people we're here to serve), and it's a huge waste of time for Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, and everybody else who makes a browser.

Here's a challenge for Slashdot: explain to me how standards compliance benefits the end-user of the browser.

Re:Good

[spinkham]

Problem: IE >= 7 is for XP and Vista only. There are still a bunch of users out there using IE 5.5 (or worse yet 4 or 3) because they do not want/know how to update.

Where "bunch" is less then 0.1% for all versions lower then 6 combined. IE versions less then 6 are dead, dead, dead, and no one should feel like they need to care about them.
In my experience, the IE 6 problem is caused more by corporate users who have some IE 6 only internal app that keeps them from upgrading their browser. My day job is security testing websites, so I have to keep a copy of IE 6 around also. There are a few people using win2k or earlier out there, but they are by far the minority(estimated 2-3% market share according to wikipedia). IE 6 has and estimated 20-30% market share.

Maybe they are on dial-up and updating is too slow (although I would update on dial-up). Then there are the IE 6 users on Windows 2000. That is the highest they can go, and for a lot of these computers, it makes no sense to upgrade to XP.

When I develop a page, I develop a whole different sheet (that tries its best to look like the original for COMPLIANT browsers) for IE 6. For IE 7, a few changes but not many. For IE 8, hopefully less. The point of a compliant browser is I do not have to do any of the above because it should work in any compliant browser. I do not consider IE of any version to be a compliant browser. Not until its engine gets 71 or more on the Acid3 test, preferably 100.

One nice thing about IE 8 is you can just put in a meta tag that tells it to act like IE 7 and only maintain that version. Until IE 9 comes out and IE 7 is dead, then you could do the same with IE 8 rendering mode. IE sucks, but at least they are good at maintaining backwards compatibility to reduce extra work...

Re:Good

[Canazza]

We've just had a similar problem arise today. We tested a site on IE 7, working fine, Firefox, working fine. IE 6, the logo is hidden off the top of the screen. IE 5.5, works fine (even the scripting shockingly). IE 6 was the browser that made me turn to Firefox and i've never looked back.

Re:Good

[spinkham]

IE8 gives a number of mechanisms for either you or Microsoft to request the legacy IE7 renderer for your website. is all it takes to not have to add IE 8 specific version of your website.

Re:Good

[Grey_14]

Here's a challenge for Slashdot: explain to me how standards compliance benefits the end-user of the browser.

Standards compliance allows web developers to spend less time in QA and more time developing new features in THEIR applications. So rather than Microsoft developing one or two new features per year in their browser, Every web developer on the planet can develop one or two new features for their site per year. (Those numbers are obviously terrible and asspulled, but you get my meaning I'm sure).

It's similar to being able to write in higher level languages, (Java, Python) over lower level (C, Assembly). Once you don't have to care if the processor is x86 or Sparc, or if the compiler is GCC or MSVCC you can spend more time working on the actual purpose of your application. (Sorry, I couldn't think of a car analogy)

Remember all those #ifdef's in lots of old C (And many C++ Programs)?, ever had to write the same program twice in assembly, targetting two different processors? Ever written something once in python or java, and been reasonably confident that it'll run on any machine? (Java's stil a bit quirky between JVM Versions, but they're making a real effort at least), By standardizing the "language" (Or runtime environment in the case of most new languages), the productivity of every single person who uses that language improves.

That makes the investment of time by those writing the languages or runtime environments seem very worthwhile to me.

Re:Good

[nine-times]

I agree completely. It's been a while since I've done any significant web design (Safari was still new the last time I designed a web page), but IE's rendering was the most painful part of the job. I was never that great at web design (it was never my primary job), but the process was always:

1. Come up with a design
2. Figure out how to code it according to how HTML/CSS works
3. Write the markup according to the standards
4. Now it probably works fine in Firefox, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, and pretty much every web browser except for IE, so it's time to load it into IE and see what happens.
5. Oh crap, it doesn't look right at all. Now it's time to troubleshoot, experiment, screw around, and figure out what tags aren't working right in IE.
6. Now that I've figured out what isn't working, I have to spend a few hours Googling for how other people have addressed IE's rendering bugs.
7. After implementing some ugly hacks and major revisions, come up with something that looks roughly the same in all browsers.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I put standards compliance much higher than any gimmick like XSS.

Could you please tell me what sites you have designed so I never do anything important with them?

(PS, look up what XSS means, I don't think you really know)

Re:Good

[Qzukk]

XSS affects 50% of the websites geared for IE

XSS has nothing to do with the browser unless the hacker is an idiot and uses vbscript instead of javascript. Misconfigured bulletin boards, search boxes that print out whatever you searched for without escaping entities, and scripts that use redirects to move from page to page with messages in the URL are probably the top causes.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

ROFL

Man, I can't even pick a small part of that to quote. That whole thing is hilarious. It's been years since I've seen anyone post rubbish like this.

I won't even address the analogy. Anyone can fabricate an analogy on the spot to fit any viewpoint they wish so I stay away from them. But good lord man, you'd really have to struggle to come up with one more completely off the subject than your's.

A web page is built with a markup language. If your web browser can't speak the language, while several several others speak it just fine, why would you use it?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Feeding the troll from work...

Browser developers don't directly serve end users any more than Bosch directly serves automobile drivers (they make spark plugs and the like). The browser is only a tool for accessing the information you need, and only part of the whole operation. The browser is half of your interface to this information, and the web developers are giving you the other half. Standards exist to ensure that the two can talk to each other effectively and with a minimum of effort. I can go to any store and buy spark plugs that fit my car, Toyota doesn't have to custom fit them to my engine every time, and the plugs from my 2006 are the same size as the ones from the current model-year.

Standards are to the end user benefit _because_ they help the web developers. If I have to spend x hours coding workarounds for IE4/5/5.5/6/7/8, FF1/2/3, Netscape Navigator, Safari, Opera, et al; then that's x hours I've _wasted_ that I could be using to make _your_ interface to _your_ data more suited to _your_ needs. Seems most of the browsers have agreed that standards compliance is a worthy goal.

Since I'm not a commercial web developer, I have the freedom to discriminate in favor of the standards. I make sure my HTML and CSS validate without any serious errors, look good in the compliant browsers, and are at least minimally functional in IE 6 and 7.

No, on second though, I see what you mean. Web standards are meaningless drivel being imposed on the masses by the intellectual elite as retribution for all the wedgies in gym class.

Re:Good

[Amazing Quantum Man]

If you're on Win2K (and many users will only drop it when someone pries it out of their cold dead hands), you *can't* use IE7 or later.

Re:Good

[Phroggy]

Another IE that is not standards compliant, means or a new set of rules I cannot use on my code, or another set of hacks (already ahve one for 5, 5.5, 6 and 7

You can use IE7 compatibility mode so all your IE7 hacks will still work in IE8.

IE8 doesn't pass ACID3, but neither does any other currently-shipping non-beta mainstream browser, so if your site relies on the behavior that ACID3 tests for, you've got issues anyway.

However, IE8 does pass ACID2. If you design your site to work in any browser that can pass ACID2, then you're pretty much set. Yes, you still have to code exceptions for IE6 and IE7, but in a few years, you won't be coding for IE6 anymore, for exactly the same reason you don't code for Netscape 4 anymore, even though it used to be the #1 browser by a very wide margin.

I know I'm oversimplifying; you can't really code for "anything that passes ACID2". Still, the death of IE6 will definitely be something to celebrate.

Re:Good

[Phroggy]

I'm sure IE8 will be broken in slightly different ways from 6 and 7. So all this really means is we will have to implement hacks for three different versions of a shitty, non-standards-compliant browser for the foreseeable future, instead of two.

However, IE8 has an IE7 compatibility mode, so if you have to hack your code, you should be able to just hack it for IE7 and add tags for compatibility mode, and the same hacks should work in IE8.

Of course, it's quite likely that a site you build that works in Firefox, Opera, Safari and Chrome will also work just fine in IE8 in standards mode (the default, thankfully). Then if it doesn't work in IE7 and IE6, you can just hack it for those, just like you have to today.

Re:Good

[verisimilitudo]

I wonder much of IE6's residual popularity is due to being the latest version of Internet Explorer to run on Win2K.

How bis is the presence of pre-XP Windows versions?

Re:Good

[Shados]

Is the Vulnerability == Microsoft reflex drilled in your head that deep? As was said, XSS has little to do with the browser. If you don't escape stuff when you display it, and it came originally from a user, you've got an XSS that works across browsers.

Re:Good

[poetmatt]

No, it's not that deep lol. It's already been answered, see all the replies.

I should have clarified better, and have like a million people correcting me already.

Re:Good

[Leafheart]

I know I'm oversimplifying; you can't really code for "anything that passes ACID2". Still, the death of IE6 will definitely be something to celebrate.

Yeah it will. But not as much as the death of IE as a whole ;). Indeed my codes are designed for ACID2, not ACID3. That never stopped me for having to code around around IE bug^M^M^Mfeatures.

About IE8 and ACID2. Define how much it pass ACID2. As much as IE7? If so, not good enough unfortunately :( And you said about IE7 compatibility mode, can I force it? If not, I cannot rely on that.

Re:Good

[lazyforker]

My company has been trying to upgrade to IE7 from IE6 for almost a year and a half (we wait for other people to have problems first). But we've been held back by our ERP system: SAP. For similar reasons we're stuck with IE for the majority of users - too many systems only work correctly with IE. Retarded.

Most home users (not the ones usually seen here) don't even seem to apply "Critical" M$FT security patches so I'm not holding my breath for them to install a whole new browser.

Re:Good

[Phroggy]

About IE8 and ACID2. Define how much it pass ACID2. As much as IE7? If so, not good enough unfortunately :(

No, I mean IE8 actually passes ACID2, while IE7 does not. Here's their blog post about it.

And you said about IE7 compatibility mode, can I force it? If not, I cannot rely on that.

Yes, you (the web developer) can force it, by adding a meta tag to your code (which IE6/7 and all other browsers will ignore):

<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />

The user can also force IE7 compatibility mode for specific sites (if the developer hasn't already added this tag). More info here.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

But of course, you see, you are making your own problem worse by trying.

If people just stopped supporting IE, or at least nag IE users to upgrade, it will happen.
Nag them in every page, big red double bordered box at the top, red letters.
Link them to Alternative Browser Alliance, or a similar site.

If everyone done this, there WOULD be a change, maybe not instantly, but it would happen.
Stop letting MS bully you into changing!

Re:Good

[Phroggy]

I put standards compliance much higher than any gimmick like XSS.

Could you please tell me what sites you have designed so I never do anything important with them?

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll be able to tell. ;-)

(PS, look up what XSS means, I don't think you really know)

No kidding.

Re:Good

[PitaBred]

I wonder what would happen if Toyota weren't compatible with the gasoline standard?

I'd like it if the Hummer was the only vehicle available that ran on a standard gasoline, wouldn't you? Rather than having those pesky "industry standards" that give you the choice of vehicles to fit your usage styles.

Re:Good

[Shados]

Amusingly enough, since FF, Opera, Safari and Konqueror have different defaults. Remember, the standard often (usually!) doesn't define defaults. Its just that many developers are used to that fact and know instinctively to zero out certain CSS attributes. If you don't, it gets...entertaining.

-And- these browsers aren't perfect. I remember before FF3 came out (sure, its a while ago, but people were spouting the same thing at the time), I had a web site which worked in all browsers, -except- firefox, without hacks or anything (sure, it was simple, but come on...AND it worked in FF3 beta at the time). Turns out FF2 doesn't support display:inline-block (while IE supports it for inline elements...which still sucks).

Display:inline-block is a fairly basic thing...but nope, no go in FF2. While IE really, really, really sucks, and is the bane of my existance as a web dev too, its not like the others are magical. Especially if you add Javascript in the equation, and older versions. Cross-browser web development is just a pain in general. Its better thanks to the lowest common denominator bar being raised all the time, but if it wasn't for us being almost conditionned to hack around limitations (even in the "standard" browsers, often without realizing we are), it is a disaster, IE or not. IE just makes the "disaster" into an armageddon :)

Re:Good

[Kent Recal]

Some people are celebrating already.
And I think we need more of that. If a few more high profile sites dared to tell Joe Sixpack to shove it and get a real browser that could probably accelerate the demise of IE significantly.

Push harder I say, the giant is tumbling and we, the builders of the web, should continue to show Microsoft where its place is.

Re:Good

[shutdown -p now]

As someone doing web design for a living for the past 10 years I can tell you that I'm really not happy. At all. I put standards compliance much higher than any gimmick like XSS. If firefox still had all the Extensions (which is hard to live without) but was not standards compliant, I would hate it, a lot.

Another IE that is not standards compliant, means or a new set of rules I cannot use on my code, or another set of hacks (already ahve one for 5, 5.5, 6 and 7

As far as standards compliance goes, IE8 is much, much better than all IE versions before it. Really. The problem is that the standards it supports are pretty much those of the past day. So it can now do HTML4 & CSS2 correct - that's when WebKit & Opera has covered most of CSS3, HTML5, and SVG (dunno about FF, but I believe it's somewhere up close, too). Also, both Firefox and Opera support MathML.

Then again, with IE8, at least you can stick to some standards and be sure your web site will look as it should. They also seem to be trying to catch up - at least IE8 does bits and pieces of HTML5, too...

Re:Good

[nine-times]

Amusingly enough, since FF, Opera, Safari and Konqueror have different defaults. Remember, the standard often (usually!) doesn't define defaults.

Yeah, I actually found a CSS file that zeros everything out a while back, and I include that in pretty much everything, and then build the formatting how I want it. The defaults are often sensible enough if you don't want to deal with formatting at all, but if you're trying to format something, I'd rather not fight with them.

While IE really, really, really sucks, and is the bane of my existance as a web dev too, its not like the others are magical. Especially if you add Javascript in the equation, and older versions

Not magical, but to a large extent you can code to the HTML and CSS standards and end up with a layout that's roughly what it should be. At least that was the case a few years ago, and I doubt it's gotten much worse. Of course, if you through CSS3 or Javascript into the mix, that's another thing.

I would agree that every browser could stand to be improved, but when I was doing it, IE really stood out as a serious problem on a regular basis.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

possibly those same users are still using Windows 2000 and can't upgrade...

Re:Good

[Shados]

Yeah, I actually found a CSS file that zeros everything out a while back, and I include that in pretty much everything, and then build the formatting how I want it. The defaults are often sensible enough if you don't want to deal with formatting at all, but if you're trying to format something, I'd rather not fight with them.

Yeah, so its the kindda thing I was refering to... its easier to deal with standard browsers, since its one less thing to worrie about... but without things like that CSS you have, the browsers tend to behave in their own little world, and you can get quite different results. The main issue (and part of why IE had such issues with standards, since it predates them), is that the W3C absolutely doesn't know how to write specs. XHTML/CSS, SOAP, XQuery, XSD...its all ambiguous garbage. So really, when browsers like FF or Opera implement their standards, what they do is implement a commonly accepted standard, based on the W3C spec...so they tend to be in sync.

With IE8 for example, Microsoft went and followed the standard on the dot on some stuff, such as making sure anything from an incomplete spec (CSS3) used a vendor specific prefix (like -ie-blahblah). Thats what the standard dictates, and for some things that are commonly accepted, FF doesn't do it, but implements the CSS3 rules like if the spec was finalized (which is AGAINST the standard). People flipped over Microsoft over it, and the blogs were full of curse words and people bitching...

So its pretty tough... the standard people want isn't even the W3C spec, its some kind of unwritten "standard" that is mainly based on FF, Opera and Webkit.... gets very, very awkward when you don't have pre-made "plumbing files" like the zero-out CSS...

Re:Good

[petermgreen]

and lots of companies and instituction have stopped automatic upgrading to IE7 because they rely on enterprise shitware that relys on IE6.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you actually call cross site scripting a gimmick ? Which company do you work for ? I want to make sure they never get my business.

Re:Good

[dn15]

Anyone still on Win2K can, of course, upgrade to Firefox if they're willing.

Even simple HTML can crash IE8

[VJTod]

This simple HTML still crashes Beta2.  It will probably still crash the RTM.  This was a trick I found back in 2002.  I had reported it somewhere, but obviously nowhere important.

<table>
<tr>
<td><div style="width:100%;height:100%"/></td>
<td>
<div>
<span style="height:100%;width:50%">></td>
<span style="height:100%;width:50%">></td>
</div>
</td>
<td><div style="width:100%;height:100%"/></td>
</tr>
</table>

Re:Even simple HTML can crash IE8

[Anonymous Coward]

Cut them some slack, your html is wrong on so many levels. Poor written html is not the real issue here.

Re:Even simple HTML can crash IE8

[TeXMaster]

Poorly written HTML should NOT crash a browser.

Re:Even simple HTML can crash IE8

[jc364]

Interesting. Although, not only IE8 has this problem; IE6 appears to crash out as well. The latest Firefox handles it fine. It's nice to have a simple way to discourage IE users. ;)

Re:Even simple HTML can crash IE8

[guruevi]

Simple question: wouldn't the reason for the crash (whether it is accessing memory out of boundaries or doing an illegal instruction), allow for a potential exploit.

Re:Even simple HTML can crash IE8

[Anonymous Coward]

your html is wrong on so many levels.

Correct.

Poor written html is not the real issue here.

Agreed. Poorly written software is the issue here. Can you imagine if you wrote a program that crashed (instead of just giving merely nonsense results) when given bad input? Anyone making $7/hr or more, would be fired for that. But the microsofties are an exception, due to their unusually low quality standards.

Re:Even simple HTML can crash IE8

[Fastolfe]

Nothing should crash anything.

Re:Even simple HTML can crash IE8

[twistah]

This is a highly ignorant comment. A browser should never crash due to poorly written HTML, or due to anything. From the security angle, this is at least a DoS, but likely something more. Take a look at the IE7 0-day which is affecting millions of users. It is not a buffer overflow; it's a simple crash. However, because of JavaScript, one is able to manipulate ("spray") the heap enough to a point where even a simple crash can be used for code execution. ANY crash in a browser should be taken seriously.

Re:Even simple HTML can crash IE8

[Anonymous Coward]

This simple HTML still crashes Beta2. It will probably still crash the RTM. This was a trick I found back in 2002. I had reported it somewhere, but obviously nowhere important.

<table>
<tr>
<td><div style="width:100%;height:100%"/></td>
<td>
<div>
<span style="height:100%;width:50%">></td>
<span style="height:100%;width:50%">></td>
</div>
</td>
<td><div style="width:100%;height:100%"/></td>
</tr>
</table>

Confirmed to crash IE8 beta2. Just locks it up.

This is another sad day for Microshit.

Re:Even simple HTML can crash IE8

[Pastis]

> I had reported it somewhere, but obviously nowhere important.

Placing this here should solve the visibility issue. I guess Microsoft now reads slashdot. It even made atlerslash !

Re:Even simple HTML can crash IE8

[Anonymous Coward]

*quickly copies this code to the Feedback page on his website*

That should take care of most of the stupid complaints. Thanks!

Re:Even simple HTML can crash IE8

[Anonymous Coward]

Another crash in all IE versions:

                IE CSS3 bug
               
                        button#temp[value = 'add'] { background:red; }

                                button

Re:Even simple HTML can crash IE8

[Anonymous Coward]

Still doesn't mean that it should **crash** the browser. A better way would be for the browser to refuse to handle the page and display a "bad page", similar to what Google Chrome does.

Re:Even simple HTML can crash IE8

[wynand.boshoff]

Then anything *will* crash everything.

Not following standards costs us

[MazzThePianoman]

As a web designer it really pisses me off to see Microsoft continuing to write their own standards and not follow the conventions set forth so that web pages could look the same across browsers. Passing the acid test should be mandatory and doing so would likely save millions if not billions in lost productivity time between broken websites and the extra hours of work web designers have to put in to work around IE's bugs.

Re:Not following standards costs us

[jc364]

Actually, IE 8 passes the Acid 2 test (yes, they are last, but its an improvement). Not to mention that Microsoft contributed 2524 test cases to the CSS 2.1 test suite. I'm a web developer, and I know the horrors of developing for multiple browsers (especially IE), but I have to give Microsoft some credit for their interest in standards in this coming IE version.

Also, the acid tests are just one indicator of how well a browser does standards. To make it the defining standards test would not be completely fair. More info on that here.

Re:Not following standards costs us

[f1vlad]

Yes, it is sad, but not a surprise that they, what appeared to be, selectively picked what to support and what not. They declared this summer that certain crucial things still will not be supported in a final release. I wrote more about this in another discussion.

Re:Not following standards costs us

[mlingojones]

Really? The IE team lately has been doing a great job listening to web designers and developers. IE8 uses a standards-compliant rendering engine by default solely because the web design and development community asked for it.

As far as Acid3, even Firefox 3 only gets an 18/100 (of course if you let it sit for a while it goes up as well).

BREAKING: Microsoft about to change IE's name

[Nicolas MONNET]

In a controversial move to restore trust in its products, Microsoft just announced that it will rename Internet Explorer 8 as "Microsoft Firefox Downloader 1.0". A spokesperson for the company, speaking on conditions of anonymity, commented that the move was the result of a market study to identify the most common task performed by users of the product.

Also, still no XHTML, you fucking shitheads? You can XML, you can do HTML, but you can't do XHTML?

The real patch...

[Tatsh]

...should be a drastic change to Windows, removing Internet Explorer, all Windows dependencies on it; minimalising the DLLs needed for old dumb applications that used IE's rendering engine, and installing a new browser out of a few, namely: Firefox, Opera, Safari, and others that are free and web-standards compliant.

IANA Coding Guru, but....

[penguin_dance]

Being that M$ tied their browser to their OS to avoid a court judgment of having an illegal monopoly the main reason they're in this pickle in the first place? You can't nimbly fix bugs or create features if what you do on that level ends up crashing your OS on another level.

Seems to me they've screwed themselves in the long run. They avoided having to removed Internet Explorer from Windows, but now their browser sucks on ice, is bloated, slow and filled with bugs that affect the OS. All of this could have been avoided (not to mention the continued $ hemorrhage of having to pay programmers to work on this) had they just concentrated on a decent OS and let others create the browsers. Instead they have (and still) pig-headedly insist on taking over or competing with every bit of software that touches their computers.

 

Re:IANA Coding Guru, but....

[Shados]

IE7 isn't tied to the OS anymore. Heck, in Vista its not even used for updates or anything of the sort anymore. The catch is the rendering engine IS used by a lot of third parties. A lot of things that "render" something, let say reports, even if they don't look like HTML, often use the IE rendering engine. They're still breaking compatibility with IE8 and redoing it from scratch... its just not something that happens overnight.

Re:IANA Coding Guru, but....

[critical_point]

Maybe they should learn from the source to konqueror.

Re:IANA Coding Guru, but....

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

IE7 isn't tied to the OS anymore. Heck, in Vista its not even used for updates or anything of the sort anymore.

In terms of antitrust law, tying is linking a product in a monopolized market with a product in a separate, pre-existing market. The first example and most common form of tying is selling the products bundled together in the same package (like Windows and IE are).

Re:IANA Coding Guru, but....

[Shados]

Considering the GP stated, and I quote:

You can't nimbly fix bugs or create features if what you do on that level ends up crashing your OS on another level.

I assume they were talking about tying the browser to the OS at the technological level, and posted using that definition. Their reference to the antitrust case was to explain WHY it was tied that way, not because they were using the antitrust law definition.

Re:IANA Coding Guru, but....

[penguin_dance]

Basically, my point is: Netscape complained to the court that MS had an advantage because they were using their monopoly regarding their OS to get an unfair advantage over Netscape by providing their browser free with the OS. MS responded that you couldn't remove the browser without breaking the OS because they were joined. "The browser IS the OS," I think was the quote. And they proceeded to make sure they were even more tied together by the time the next version of Windows came out (Windows 2000, I think).

And I still think they're joined. (At least in the US, I don't know about the European versions because of the court action there.) If they two, separate programs, you should be able to remove the browser from the OS without either destabilizing or crashing it altogether. And if they are separable, then they should be forced to add a removal option.

Re:IANA Coding Guru, but....

[Shados]

Thats how I understood you originally, yes. And yes, they are separate now. There are reasons you cannot remove it though: if you remove all browsers from your system, it becomes very, very tricky to get them back, for one. Second, the rendering engine is required by a lot of applications, and since it used to be part of Windows, installers do not usually add it as a dependency, so a lot of things would break: not the OS, not Microsoft softwares, but a lot of other things would.

For now, you can easily toggle which browser is used system-wide via the Default Programs config, and you could use third party tools to remove it and things will still work out, just some 3rd party apps won't like it :)

Re:IANA Coding Guru, but....

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It's hard to say, given they were also talking about antitrust abuse in the very same sentence as they mention the tying. In any case, it is important to distinguish, since from an antitrust perspective they are still tied and that tying is still illegal.

Re:IANA Coding Guru, but....

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

And I still think they're joined. (At least in the US, I don't know about the European versions because of the court action there.)

The rendering engine is still embedded deeply, while the browser application is more separated. As for the EU, they haven't even addressed the browser bundling as an antitrust issue as yet.

Re:IANA Coding Guru, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not usually one to defend Microsoft or IE, but you can't blame MS for including their browser in Windows. A web browser is practically standard, and it makes far more sense for MS to include their own product before some other browser. Having a browser included within an operating system is a massive convenience, even more so on Windows systems than on *nix based ones. What's the first thing you do on a fresh Windows install? Open IE, download Firefox, close IE.

12/100?

[Masami Eiri]

IE6.5 gets a 12/100 on the Acid3 test if you let it sit for a few moments. No, seriously. I wish I was kidding.

Re:12/100?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck modded this informative? There's no such thing as IE 6.5. There was IE 5.5, 6.0, then 7.0.

Re:12/100?

[Curate]

What's IE 6.5?

Re:12/100?

[archen]

When an upgrade to IE 7 fails.

IE will not fill your computer with child porn

[David Gerard]

Microsoft is reeling from the vicious and unwarranted slanders of security companies and the US government's Computer Emergency Response Team that its Internet Explorer web browser has alleged "security holes" or is in any way less than the finest software known to mankind and excellent value for your money.

The festering paedophiles of CERT have gone so outrageously far as to make the ludicrous claim that just viewing a malicious webpage in IE could leave your computer open to being hacked and turned into a Russian Mafia spam server. "We don't know what could have triggered such vindictiveness," sobbed Microsoft marketing marketer's marketer Steve Ballmer. "Do they hate free enterprise that much?"

There are things you can do to make your computing experience even more secure. Microsoft's official suggestion — make sure your anti-virus software is up to date and using an entire CPU doing nothing much, click through five screens to run IE in "protected mode," click through four screens to set zone security to "high," click "JUST BLOODY DO IT WILL YOU" when the User Access Control asks if you really want to do this, enable automatic updates with the minor side-effect of installing Microsoft DRM on your system or Windows Genuine Advantage randomly turning your computer into a paperweight, and sacrifice a goat to Microsoft at midnight on a moonless night — is simple and straightforward. "It's the quality you're paying for."

On no account should you consider that there might be other web browsers out there, as researchers have demonstrated that all of them automatically download the cover of Virgin Killer. "I saw a report," said marketing marketer John Curran of Microsoft Completely Enderlependent Analysts, Inc., "that another browser had more vulnerabilities than ours! People would be very foolish indeed to move from the latest IE to Netscape 4.01."

"These CERT wankers are Mactards and trolls," said Guardian marketing marketer Jack Schofield. "They just want to take IE users out, brutally sodomise them, gas them in concentration camps and" [This comment has been removed by a Guardian moderator. Replies may also be deleted.]

Re:IE will not fill your computer with child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

> The festering paedophiles of CERT

is this supposed to be funny?

FUD

[TheCycoONE]

I'm going to call FUD on the whole article. IE 8 RC1 isn't due until Q1 2009, Microsoft reinforced this target late in November. Also Microsoft usually announces releases on the IE team blog http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/ but there was no mention of this. Finally, I am unable to find a link anywhere - in the article, from MS, anywhere.

Microsoft should do the world a favor

[Anonymous Coward]

and get out of the software business.

Why not rename it?

[Sloppy]

One of the reasons I've heard for MS is not fixing all their rendering bugs, is that there are so many web pages out there that already work around the bugs, with user-agent sniffing. i.e. If the user-agent contains "MSIE", then use a different stylesheet, or embed a style attribute in the HTML to override the stylesheet.

But couldn't they fix the bugs if they just changed the user-agent string to not include "MSIE?" Internet Explorer is already a brand name with so much infamy and negative goodwill anyway, that renaming the product makes sense even if they don't fix any of the bugs. But if they do that, then they could fix the bugs too, without triggering all the world's websites' MSIE workarounds.

Re:Why not rename it?

[bledri]

But couldn't they fix the bugs if they just changed the user-agent string to not include "MSIE?"

It's pure speculation on my part, but maybe they are concerned that changing the user-agent string will break existing "subset of browsers only" web-sites.

Still Beta

[Alvare]

Isn't IE 7 still Beta?

--
#!/bin/python

Let's be honest

[wicka]

Microsoft has a lot more things to work on in IE than Acid test compliance. A lot.

Sometimes it means not getting the feature at all

[Geof]

I was paid by academics to enhance a web annotation enhancement for several open source projects. They were using the software for research and could pick and choose their browser, so they weren't interested in paying extra to make the enhancements work with IE. So that's what they got - I targeted standards compliance and ensured Firefox compatibility. Since the software is open source, many other users would have benefited from IE compatibility, but neither they nor I had the resources at the time to provide it (IE support in the initial release had increased development time by about a third). Safari, on the other hand, with some minor extra testing on the side, spontaneously worked one day when Apple implemented a missing feature (something I anticipated would happen at some point).

By the way, this work was supported by three different groups. For every one of them, IE support was far enough down their priority list that it didn't get done. Until now: following about 2 years without it, I emphasized the importance and it's in the latest release.

How many projects and features like this don't break through to wider visibility and use because of IE's failings? I bet it's more than you think.

Moderators, please note: Spammer

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not 'news' or 'funny' for that matter, this user does nothing more than paste articles from his monetized blog into Slashdot, hoping to cash in on being modded up. And when someone complains about this, he whines for sympathy like some sort of fanboy by implying that anyone who objects works for Microsoft!! Please don't reward spamming.

Why?

[BCW2]

Why does anyone use IE? I have yet to see any compelling reason.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

For most of the population: "It comes with Windows". Nuff said.

Re:Why?

[One Monkey]

In addition to the other comment I've heard many people complain that any other browser (including IE7 to some people) "doesn't look like the internet".

At that point it's best to just accept defeat I think. I have plenty of things in my life that raise my blood pressure without worrying about entrenched asshats and their choice of browser. I laugh to avoid weeping.

Re:Why?

[BCW2]

Some people are too stupid to use computers.

Makes me wonder how they drive. Not really, see it every day, they are the ones causing the accident and yet never being involved in it.

I don't want your Mozilla bloatware!

[TravisO]

Are you out of your mind, my FireFox 3 folder is like 27mb, I can't afford to waste that much space!

And Opera 9.5 is 5mb! (I only checked because I know some Opera zealot would HAVE to reply to this and try to one-up me).

Re:I don't want your Mozilla bloatware!

[gzipped_tar]

I don't mean to sound surprised, but a full-fledged browser in 27 millibits is just soooo great!

I really should get out more. Get out to see today's advancement of information technology.

Thank you for the info.

</joke>

Re:I don't want your Mozilla bloatware!

[theaveng]

I think he meant megabits, like those old Nintendo and Sega carts ("27 megabits of power!!!").

So that would be equivalent to 3.3 megabytes of space. Not bad at all. That would fit inside my old 68000 Commodore, 68000 Macintosh, or an old 286 PC.

I know a dev that's already using only IE8

[TravisO]

Not somebody I work with or associate with, I recently lost a client for political reasons, and I happen to find out the new site he built, he only used IE8 beta 2 to test it out the whole time.

When it went live guess what, yep, various problems with browsers that people actually use.

Mind you, viewing your work in IE8 is probably a good idea right now, but to use IE8 beta as your production browser... absurd.

You did fool me

[Anonymous Coward]

That link doesn't point to a download for RC1. That link is all about Beta 2, it doesn't even mention RC1. Why don't you try reading the page that you link to before you post.

IE8 doesn't need that much more to be useful

[Tumbleweed]

Add some common stuff from CSS2 and 3 and I'd be relatively happy with it:

border-radius
multiple background images
border images
good opacity support (on a par with FF, so I can specify background opacity and not force the same opacity on child objects).
CSS3 columns

There are some selector issues people want that would be great, too.

At the least, turn on some things that would allow js/css libraries to overcome the shortcomings they KNOW they're gonna leave in there. At least make a way for others to work around the limitations.

But, all those things would be *useful* and good for developers, so we know what's gonna happen, don't we?

Why am I not shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

The build in question isn't actually RC1, according to the devs, and this has been known for days now. Regardless of the wisdom of having it marked as such when it's not finalised yet, who would ever have guessed that Slashdot would jump at the chance to misrepresent it. Yay FUD.

Did anyone try the damn thing? It passed acid 2

[cybrthng]

I am running the latest build on Vista X64 and it passes the acid 2 test and renders it fast for me.

What is everyone bickering about now? The fact they like to diss something they know nothing about because they think they know everything?

Re:Did anyone try the damn thing? It passed acid 2

[Shados]

They're talking about Acid 3. Acid 2 is old school now!

And hopefully

[coryking]

The market share of IE6 users will shrink to a point were we can finally write these people off. IE6 is holding the web back big time.

Any News . . .?

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . about zero-day exploits? You know they'll be there.

Chrome FTW

[froboy11]

Check out how this story came through my google reader: http://skitch.com/froboy/9bkg/chromevsie