Slashdot Mirror
IE8 Released As Critical Update For XP
Binestar was one of several readers writing in to note that Microsoft is listing IE8 as a critical update to Windows XP. CNet reported a couple of weeks back that Microsoft would be rolling our IE8 to users in a gradual fashion, and requiring an opt-in before installing it. Opinion has been split as to whether IE8 is worth installing or not. Binestar notes delicately, "For those not interested in upgrading to IE8 at this time, the MSDN released information back in January on how to keep IE8 off your machine."
shouldn't they patch the version XP shipped with instead?
They're using their grammar skills there.
IE6 needs to die... yesterday.
I didn't even know that IE8 would be available for XP. I wonder how well it renders MathML.
I use Firefox as my default browser. Should I care what version of IE is on my (XP) system?
"For those not interested in upgrading to IE8 at this time, the MSDN released information back in January on how to keep IE8 off your machine."
Install Linux
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
...the better!
So this means that more of the browser market will be standards compliant?
What exactly? I don't know. I am a bit confused though.
So MSIE8 is more standards compliant in a significant way. Is this still the case? Is the "default" mode standards mode or compatible mode? I ask this because I want to understand what Microsoft's expectations are going to be.
If the default mode will be standards mode, then I have to say that this is a courageous move on Microsoft's part.
If the compatible mode will be default, then I still have to applaud Microsoft for taking some initiative on this. Even if it doesn't break everything or anything, it's still a gutsy move and is clearly a step in moving in the direction of standards compliance. While this move might potentially slow the growth in use of alternative browsers, Microsoft will potentially lose their edge when it comes to maintaining their lock-in status in IT. And potentially losing some of that edge is a really gutsy move.
Microsoft can lose me and I am sure quite a few others here as Microsoft-haters if they were to just straighten up and fly right. I am hopeful that they will. I once loved Microsoft and all they did when it was still an exciting time... I know... but I speak the truth.
Whenever I encounter a computer running ie6, I want to take a sledgehammer to the computer.
Fuck Beta
I was hoping they would fix the issue where WMP11 Media Sharing stops working after installing IE8 on Vista before rolling it out like this.
I've reported it myself, and so have many others. I guess they will wait until the masses have it via automatic updates and they get a significant number of complaints the next day before they do anything about it.
I.O.U One Sig.
It's good news because it will help kill IE6, which has serious CSS rendering problems and doesn't support PNG24 graphics.
As of today, IE6 still has significant market penetration. My guess is that corporate users keep that number high.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
Why, because IE7 sucked! And to be honest I use Firefox or Chrome for almost all my web browsing.
s/trollmagnet/cocksocket/
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I do end up using it for about .001% of my web browsing (when I'm running Windows instead of Linux, and when I'm running IE instead of Firefox) and I just feel more comfortable using the most up-to-date software whenever possible. Besides, IE6 sucks and IE7 is nothing special anyway-- what's the big deal with just upgrading your backup browser?
And space is no excuse. IE8 takes up marginally more space than IE6/7 and with the cheap cost-per-gigabyte there's no reason to worry about running out of room for all your pron!
Perhaps a bit OT, but it seems apropos to me.
I have no problem upgrading to IE8, as I use FireFox as my primary browser, but I do use it to test web applications and design. Even as a critical update, IE8 won't take out the huge number using IE7 and IE6 for some time; and there are still a small number using IE5.5 (horror of horrors). Since IE is tied into the OS, it's my understanding that you can only have one version installed at a time.
Is there some way to use older versions of IE on the same PC? I've seen an "IE Pack" of sorts, but it got a lot of bad reviews and haven't tried.
Not being a fan of DRM I've so far avoided installing WGA on my system. Can I install IE8 without installing WGA or does it force it on you?
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
The same is true for Windows 2003 and Server 2008. But isn't it still in beta? It does not have a real uninstaller as some people at work have found and it breaks tons of web apps.
Good move, getting all those XP users to a standards compliant browser that's reasonably secure will be a Good Thing. Even if you completely jock FF, at least this improves standards support, so you should support this. Hopefully, it won't take as long for IE8 to get the majority of the market as it took IE7, too. I can't remember if IE7 was ever released as a critical update or not, but we really need to get rid of IE6, pronto. They need to release this as critical for Vista as well, Vista + IE8 = very secure browsing, which is what most people need, just basic and secure browsing.
"...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
I'm currently unemployed and don't have to deal with the fallout from this!
As an FYI, to block updates to your FireFox, check Edit | Preferences and then, on the Updates tab, under "Automatically Check for Updates To ... uncheck "Firefox", "Installed Add-Ons" and "Search Engines". Then, under "When Updates To FireFox are Found", check "Ask me what I want to do."
That makes FireFox only check for updates when you trigger it, and, if it finds an update, gives you the option of installing it.
This is my sig.
n/t
Does this include the XP version shipped on netbooks? I have enough space problems without worrying about how much IE8 will consume - especially since I will never actively use it. ...A Firefox using Anonymous Coward
"A system and methods for protecting innovation by preventing environment simulation or open systems adoption"
Method 1: Protection from open systems installation images.
Method 2: Protection from unauthorized network access software applications.
If you hurry you might get the patent on this one.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Normally I'm opposed to Microsoft pushing out feature updates as compulsory (versus security fixes and bug patches), however, in this particular case I'd have to say this is a good move. The benefits are many and the negatives few.
IE might have a bad reputation, and not at all unfairly much of the time, but no matter how much you hate IE, IE8 brings a lot to the table; even if what it brings is long overdue. Improved security, much better standards support, and even some genuine innovative features.
The debate can rage on about the ethics and legality of bundling the browser with and integrating it into the OS, but the reality is this is the case, and the security benefits alone make the upgrade sensible in my view.
However, the upgrade should be done in the background and in no way alter any preferences. Provided no configuration settings the user has set are changed (in particular, default browser), then the background benefits are gained, and the user can check out IE8 at their leisure if they wish, or ignore it completely.
Oh, and finally, this helps to kill off IE6, which really does need to FOAD.
This is off topic from the story at the top, but on topic for the quote at the bottom of this page. I just wanted to note that Robert Frost is my first cousin, five times removed (blood relation). Yay.
By working faithfully eight hours a day, you may eventually get to be boss and work twelve. -- Robert Frost
In the same way that being Monica Lewinsky is better than being Ashley Alexandra Dupre.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
If your watching Netflix Instant View, I'm sure you will care. Its the only thing I use IE7 for.
I'll eat my tinfoil hat if they don't make IE8 a requirement for Netflix Instant View much like IE7 and Silverlight are right now.
open source software advocates have recently discovered that microsoft, long considered to be a vile foe, follows their own basic ideologies.
:)
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Microsoft's definition of "critical" is not "critical for YOU" it's "critical for THEM". WGA? Now IE8? One to supposedly give you some advantage and some peace of mind for the "millions of users who have been begging Microsoft to tell them they are not theives" and one to hopefully get some market share before more users switch to better browsers. Both ARE critical.....to Microsoft, as far as the user is concerned, their job is to STFU and open their wallets when required. Remember, Microsoft own the OS, you only license it under their conditions.
Slash dot is FILLED WITH INSENSITIVE CLODS!!!
Think of the decision makers at Microsoft. They invested all that time and money into IE8, so that they could claim to have a secure browser, and make some lame claims about being "standards compliant".
Bill is giving Steve HELL for not pushing that high dollar investment out into the wild, where it can work to MS benefit. Bill wants MARKET SHARE that he can show to investors.
Those insensitive, inbred, illiterates who are still using IE6 are costing precious MARKET SHARE on IE8!!
Get with the program, all you idiot Windows users!! Bill has given you so much, it's time to give something back to Bill!! Upgrade NOW!!!
I feel sorry for Steve, having to admit to his boss that IE8 has a poor showing in the market share.
Alright guys, just kidding. I don't feel one bit sorry for Bill, Steve, or any other Microsoft Zombie. But, now, those who don't understand the corporate mind know why IE8 is being pushed as a priority update.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
My thoughts too, initially. But the people that use automatic updates will already have been forced to install IE7. Whether or not IE8 is forced will do very little about IE6.
The 20-30% of computers that still use IE6 either have updates turned off, or they are in some company that won't switch to IE7 yet, because of outdated intranet software, or just an incompetent IT staff.
Golf
Dinner meetings
Management retreats
Foreign trips
Which results in probably the same four hours tops of productivity as the people on the workface do, though they're relegated to reading slashdot, checkong home email and bumming free coffee to count as "work".
Mind you, all that eating, travel and stuff is expensive, which may be why the board get over 50x the pay of their average worker.
The plan is all coming together nicely.. eeeeexcellent!
Most people have better things to do than concern themselves with the latest in browser security. It's sad, but true. Aggressively pushing newer, and generally more secure browser technology on users is good thing. Sure, it might be a pain in the ass for the kind of people who read this site, but overall it's the right move.
Does anyone know if this is still in effect?
http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/02/19/ie8-standards-mode-opt-in/
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/12/03/compatibility-view-improvements-to-come-in-ie8.aspx
Does this seem like a way for Microsoft to require people to mark their pages as "standards compliant" in a Microsoft-specified syntax?
It seems like IE8 users would click the compatibility mode button not because they think the site should render better in IE7, but because it doesn't look right. Won't this populate Microsoft's "render as IE7" list with sites that are just poorly rendered in IE8? Surely this can't be what's going on. It'd be a train wreck in progress. Any good, standards-compliant pages IE8 can't render very well get rendered even more poorly unless you put MS markup in them?
Can't be.
My guess is that MS are engaged in some kind of gambit to pollute the existing DOCTYPE standard somehow, by requiring browser-specifying markup, but it's not clear to me exactly how. Well, IE8 is here. We'll see what happens.
It is not critical.
It is not an OS update. It claims to be an integral part of the OS, but as the result of lawsuits, as well as the many available "stand alone" versions of previous "integral parts of the operating system", it has been proven that IE was written to make it appear to be so but in fact was not.
It's release via automatic update is not, as they claim, more convenient. It is more convenient to initiate your own download when you choose to that to have to start to download this fairly "required" software when abd because you're told to, then cancel or delay that download.
That process is the normal one for refusing an automatic update download. It is not, as the headline states (with an exclamation mark no less) an IE8 Blocker Toolkit.
Simply put, Microsoft is lying about these things. If they're lying about these, what else are they lying about? Anything?
Well, for one, they're faking the popularity of related searches/links on IEBlog. The "Tags" box lists related items with different sizes of fonts. Elsewhere these are usually generated by user searches, the larger the font, the more often requested. However, the links from these are hard coded to constant items which frequently have nothing to do with IE. Some of them contain a single line blurb such as a statement from an IE development team member saying they're going to tell you something, but haven't posted that promised nugget in months since their first statement.
Let's say I'm your car's mechanic. I've been been charging you for your car's muffler bearing. I keep telling you it's a necessary part of the motor, even though there are plenty of people driving around with no muffler bearing, but rather an entirely different and optional piece of equipment, like a Kentucky Gofaster (that's a raccoon tail on the radio antenna) that does the same thing better. But I'm also insisting that it's my muffler bearing, not yours, and you're only paying for my permission for you to use it. Now I tell you that for your convenience I'm going to put your car up on the rack, start to replace your muffler bearing with a new, chrome plated muffler bearing, which you can then choose not to have installed. What would you do? Nod your head and say "uuuuuuuh, yep, uh huh, put her on up there bub", or find a mechanic who doesn't lie to you and try to sell you a "required" piece of equipment that's not required?
But wait! There's more! With this new chrome plated muffler bearing you will only be able to have certain things done at my garage, unlike your old muffler bearing which allowed you to have anything done at my garage. Last I checked, there were parts of msn.com that wouldn't work with IE8.
NOW how much would you pay? Call in the next 15 minutes and we won't charge you anything, except you'll have to have our Genuine Advantage mechanic take a look at it monthly to make sure you haven't fiddled with it to make it look like you own it rather than it still being our property installed on your car. And if you don't call in the next 15 minutes, we'll call you and make the same offer again, because it's for your own good. We promise.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
If you're a home user, figure it out yourself.
If you're on a corporate LAN, you should be using WSUS to control updates yourself anyway. its a free download with minimal updates, all you need is a domain controller or copy of regedit to push your workstations to the WSUS server's IP instead of microsoft directly.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Seriously.
This idea was invented by Shampoo.
Does anyone know if it is possible to run IE6, IE7 and IE8 on one system without multiple VMs for my web site testing..?
I've been using MultipleIE http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE for testing in IE6 & IE7 alongside each other, but it is not compatible with IE8 and it looks like there is no intention to make it so...
Am I just gonna have multiple VMs or is there a more elegant solution?
Not if you're on Windows, it will fuck up your entire system. I had to reimplement most of my Windows tweaks after I tried installing IE8, and I haven't been able to get suspend/hibernate back.
Disable iexplore.exe and install IE8 in this nice sandboxy wrapper: http://www.xenocode.com/start/?a=IE8
I guess they somehow forgot a severe security issue in Silverlight 2 which their bribed partners forced users to install, when Silverlight 3 is ready, they will somehow magically find that issue and roll out "Silverlight 3" as critical security update.
Of course, somehow Silverlight 3 will be very late for OS X (which only Intel supported) and lacking a feature. Sorry Moonlight team, I won't even bother mentioning you ;)
This is a company which can happily put Macromedia Flash 6! to their SP3 just to make sure the large corporations have outdated version of their rival plugin. They are capable of anything.
... for broken web pages designed for IE6 like the ones "maintained" by my government?
The entire IT community solutes you in this decision! Finally something I can be happy about when reading about Microsoft! :D:D:D
-V!NCENT, Linux user
Here be signatures
A standards compliant page would render well in IE8, because IE8 implements the full scope of CSS 2.1, the currently highest published level of CSS.
Where I work, we're rolling out this POS bug tracking system called HP Quality Center(HPQC) that installs about 20 ActiveX controls. It ONLY works in IE 6 or 7, not 8. It will work in the Firefox IE tab but that most likely relies on whatever IE you already have installed. I think it might be pretty funny in the next few weeks if this gets auto installed on a bunch of machines and breaks this crappy software.
Golf - rage, and breaking clubs on your thighs.
Boxing - rage, and breaking rib cages on your thighs.
Driving a Vw Golf car - road rage, and breaking piggy banks (wallets) on your thighs. (Disclaimer: I love Volkswagen cars. I just can't afford them!)
regardless of all the OS/Browser partisanship out there, if you are an IE7 user, it would be wise to switch to IE8 due to known security holes in IE7, major javascript issues, plus IE8 is a lot more compliant with web standards.. if you're a Firefox user, then you really have no business on this article since you've probably been using FF since IE7 came out anyway..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
But the people that use automatic updates will already have been forced to install IE7.
IIRC even with updates on full auto the user is still asked if they want to install IE7 (it's listed in the critical updates but there is a popup when you actually try to install it asking if you want IE7)
Does anyone know if this will be the case again with IE8?
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Hurricane78, but I am sadly used to the wacked out zealot-moderator's agenda scores...from both sides.
The funny thing is that I am completely anti-Microsoft and anti-Windows, and have only used GNU/Linux since Ubuntu 5.10, and have no interest in installing or using anything from Microsoft.
I was just trying to give good advice to someone that was asking, and not trying to harass him, convert him to *nix, or flame him for using Windows.
I don't have a 'mission' to convert anyone to my choice, and resent when someone tries. Why do that to someone else?
Yeah, I'll joke about it here-no denying my posting history, but this is too ludicrous to take seriously.*ROFLMAO* (This is where you need to tune out-none of the following is for/at yo)
Mainly I feel sad for...GHAAGHH! I can't say that with a straight face! LOL!!
I laugh at, and despise the clueless, and myopic idiot/s that modded me flamebait because of his/her agenda.
You are a sad, pitiful excuse for an intelligent being, and I hope many get amusement from your stumbling through life.
You idiots are entertaining on a 'slapstick comedy' level, so mod on, you're a laugh-a-minute!
Even funnier than me being anti-MS/Windows, and getting modded 'flamebait' is....one of my fellow *nix zealots probably modded me flamebait!! LOL!!! And I have no interest in their reason, as I doubt a rational person could understand something that fscked-up!
Maybe disgruntled IE6/Activex developers....who are not even worthy of my disgust! Even funnier! LOL!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
In my country (Venezuela), over 50% of the users visiting my site are using IE6, so that's what i keep using at work. I don't want to bother with virtual machines and such. For IE8, i had to modify some conditional css tags so our css menu looked all right in the browser (instead of checking for IE7, i am now checking for IE7 and up)
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
Am I the only person bothered by MS's use of the term 'patch'? To me, patching implies modifying a executable file with a binary editor. What MS does is send you a new binary or two or a thousand.
looks like it is, details on the delivery process are given at the bottom of http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/01/06/ie8-blocker-toolkit-available-today.aspx
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I logged into all of my WSUS servers and none of them have the option of Approving/Declining IE8... so much for testing before approving for deployment
What do you do? Support IE6 and up - a daunting task esp. when it's nearly impossible to have all 3 versions installed on the same machine.
Or does this mark the time to drop support for IE6?
I only use IE for 'technically challenging sites'.
On Vista my first browser is xxx (switched 10 years ago), I use FF3 on second line and if nothing goes IE7. I tried IE8, it is not compatible enough even in compatibility mode.
So updating to IE8 would certainly make my system more secure, but so does switching it of.
My company falls in the "outdated intranet software" category. Some software that is critical for us to run won't work with IE7 or IE8. So our users are stuck with IE6. Since they're using IE6, I'm forced to remain on IE6 to test out our Intranet (different intranet site, this one I designed with IE6/7/8 & FF compatibility) on IE6. However, my problem is that I still need to test out our public website on IE7 and IE8 (which outside users use). Thank goodness for http://www.xenocode.com/browsers/ . It lets me run IE7 and IE8 while still having IE6 on my computer.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I'm glad they're pushing it out more aggressively as that means more people will get better standards support and less-awful javascript performance, but I can't help wondering why they haven't put some effort into making it possible to slipstream it into an XP install image. They say it's because "Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 do not currently offer a solution for slipstreaming Windows components, which are built using update.exe." If they consider it a critical update, then given the number of new XP installations which are still happening and the needs of those trying to roll this out to tons of computers, you'd think they'd find a way around that.
It's only marked as "critical" so that Windows Update will automatically download it. This makes sure that grandma and grandpa who don't ever download optional updates get a chance to use it. Once it's downloaded, it'll pop up an opt-in window, and if you tell it no thanks, it won't bother you again. Don't really see what the big deal is.
While all the Two Minute Hate attenders are busy bashing MS for this move it seems that none of them, even those who were vocal in their support of Firefox, care to point out that Firefox is set to automatically update out of the box.
At least with Windows you're forced into making a decision on the hows and whens of your updating process on set up. No such luck with Firefox. Infact, I'm having a hard time thinking of any other software package that handles updating as poorly as Firefox does. Even Java is nice enough to ask permission first.
and a very useful feature this is too.
i recently hit an extremely badly coded website.
it was an online test (verbal & numerical reasoning) for a prospective employer (so i couldn't just move on and ignore)
i filled out all the forms and hit the 'start test' button and received an error giving the list of supported browsers.
i knew i was in trouble when the list started with netscape navigator 4.78 to 6.2 (i'm on ff3) and ended with ie5.5 or ie6 (i'm on ie8)
i have a second laptop with ie7, that wouldn't work either
however ie8 compliant mode worked a treat
i honestly believe that those still using ie6 (for whatever mis-guided application reason) need to take a good look at and properly test ie8 compliant mode.
I know I'm late to the party, but there's no way in hell my company will accept this update. They're a stingy bank and they don't want to take any chances on any "risky" updates if there's even the slightest chance of breaking one of our intranet sites. They don't even give developers admin rights to their own workstations.
This space left intentionally blank.
Until XP dies, IE 6 won't die. Too many companies are scared to death of losing backward compatibility, and all those that have turned off updates will never clobber IE 6 with IE 8.
This space left intentionally blank.
If your work can't/won't spend a one-time $300 for a bargain-basement PC for you to test IE8, when they're paying you $XX,XXX for (presumably) web design, then they've got their priorities backward.
Logged into my 2K8 server this morning and it was listed as a critical update. I'm going to disable this for now see what the verdict is from other folks.
It's not a financial thing - in fact I'm running it all off a Mac Pro, with XP running through Parallels for IE6 & IE7. But it would be a pain in the ass to have to run 2 VMs (one with IE6 & IE7 the other with IE8) *just* for checking my web pages.
Maybe it's just me being lazy, but it would make a huge difference if I could check all three main browsers in the one VM...
I bet most of us like slashdot, so i consider it a good thing MS pushes IE8 as it renders Slashdot a whole lot better then IE7.
MSIE is still proprietary. Like any other proprietary program we have no idea how insecure the program is, nor are we allowed to fix those bugs, or share any fixes with others. Firefox can be free software (minus the bug reporter, which might also be free software now).
Regarding "Microsoft cannot slip a "fix" through, as they have to provide enough information for admins to take a decision whether to block or allow a given patch based on security against stability (like in fewer changes).": all proprietors can slip through any code to do anything by bundling it in a patch and not fully describing the patch, or by bundling it with an unrelated patch. It's not as if admins get source code patches and thus can make an informed decision about "whether to block or allow a given patch". Secret code is secret code regardless of the perceived depth of description accompanying the patch.
Digital Citizen
I still have not locaated the reload button, nor can ever remember where the bookmarks went, on IE7... now they want me to auto upgrad to IE8 and have half of the programs I use stop working that use html help.. I'm so glad I turned off automatic updating... on a very serious side, the real question is does it do a better job of rendering the flash based webcams on adultfriendfinder, or alt.com!
Just found an interesting article http://blog.mozmonkey.com/2008/vpc-ie6-ie7-ie8-on-mac-os-x/ not tried it out yet but will be giving it a go a bit later in the week :)
...no.
The beta version pulled out bizarre layout and coding issues already.
It seems another MS try to establish their own standards. They are relying on prevalence of Windows / IE to take over some businesses' environments (as IE4 did back in the 90's) thus weakening other platform's appliances... and messing up developers' life.
We maintain a JavaScript / php / googlemaps mashup pplication, and unless switched to 'compatibility mode' the CSS layout simply breaks (in strange and undocumented ways) . We use Prototypejs 1.6.... and its code breaks too.
The application was developed targeting IE6 / FF2. Since then it has evolved through Safari, FF3, and IE7 with relative ease. At the first glance this move is going to be tough.
For those developing complex AJAX-style applications, these are pretty bad news.
I'm aware of at least one ASP.net application that one of my clients uses that will be broken by IE8. Or at least that's what we were told by the developers. I'm sure we'll run into more issues as people begin installing IE8, or it gets installed for them. Let the games begin!!
"Oh drat, these computers, they're so naughty and so complex." Marvin the Martian
From my estimation, being a small business owner, who does hardware/software repairs, IE8 is a nasty prospect full of issues, adding complexity to the search service choice, and bringing with it a lot of issues from the upgrade.
Not to mention the fact that it is slow and doesn't support web standards properly.
It isn't a good update.
If you want a good solid browser then you should go for firefox.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Getting IE8 only as an update is discriminatory! People with no internet access will be left behind, stucked with IE6. Errr ... oh wait ...
Words are the ones' weapon and the others' last resort.
has anyone else actually checked to see if this article is true?
Does anyone have any screen shot for this? I can't see anything on the Microsoft site, and I am still waiting for SP3 on my work machine, so I can't verify the validity of this post. I just put out an e-mail to my boss, and would feel better if there was something more concrete than 'I read this on /.'.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
The biggest problem with Internet Explorer and other browsers is that there is no compatibility warning standard. The web should have taken the same approach as PC games; if you aren't using the required/latest version of DirectX, this game will not launch.
In comparison, web sites with new standards should prompt users to upgrade to the latest version in order to see the site as it was intended. It must not be forced, as with DirectX, but if users were prompted every time, I think we would see a large quantity of updated users.
It's a move that would make sense for everyone, because;
1) The user would be up-to-date and surfing on a secure browser.
2) Microsoft and other developers would spend less time on supporting outdated software.
3) Web developers would cut spending on making cross-browser version compatibility.
Full Tilt
Oh, the old "forced upgrade" to make sure the system runs nice and slow compared to the next horrible operating system. It also ensures that some fresh new "bugs" will be found just as the product's end of life is reached.
Need to keep herding your sheep along to the next version..
because of outdated intranet software, or just an incompetent IT staff.
Oh, so there's a difference?
Except, of course, the fact that this is total and utter bullshit.
IE8 still does a lot of stuff in an awkward not-quite-standards-compliant way and behaves oddly compared to other browsers such as WebKit, Firefox and Opera.
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Nowhere on cnet's link or the IEBlog does it say it is a critical update,.. in other words it will auto-install. On the other hand, it says yes, it will be downloaded via automatic update service, BUT!!! the user will be given the option to install. e.g. they need to opt-in..... The IEBlog page even clearly shows screen shots of the process and you can see the "don't install" button...
Or were you just going for troll points there.
If a site is standards-compliant right now and renders properly in IE 8 then it won't be added to the Compatibility View list.
If a site is standards-compliant but has improper version checks that break under IE 8, it may get added to the CV list until such time as the site is updated to handle IE 8 properly.
The X-UA-Compatible tag is mostly for sites that aren't on the list or otherwise want to force the IE 7 behavior. If they want to force IE 8 mode they can do that too, but there isn't all that much reason to. It certainly isn't required in order to get correct behavior.
Uh, like what?
I've been working with IE8 for a couple weeks, and maybe I have particularly lucky/simple JS and CSS, but I've seen no (important) differences between it and, for example Safari as far as rendering goes. Some of the legacy IE DOM stuff is still around, but you can simply ignore it if you don't want to use it and it's harmless.
Comment of the year
Well, if you google for "IE8 bugs" you'll find lots of information on bugs in IE8, admittedly they're mostly minor and nowhere near as horrible as the average IE6 bug (for a website at work we have a special IE6-only stylesheet that's 500+ lines just to make the page render almost as nicely in IE6 as it does in Safari, Firefox and Opera, IE7/8 both have some issues but they're nowhere near as bad as the ones for IE6).
My original point was that claiming that IE8 is just as good at rendering standards-compliant pages as WebKit- or Gecko-based browsers simply isn't true. But yes, it's a lot better than IE6.
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
When you're crying your lonely pathetic ass to sleep, I want you to remember this post and realize that it exposes why no one likes you.
Or they are running an unsupported OS... IE7 still doesn't run on Win 2k.
So in short, you were completely full of shit and when someone called you on it you had to Google the answer and then back-track when you found out exactly how full of shit your original post was. Oh, and to try to compensate for your full-of-shit-ness you ended up writing a post predominately about IE6, which isn't relevant at all.
Oh, and IE8 has minor rendering bugs like all browsers ever made.
My original point was that claiming that IE8 is just as good at rendering standards-compliant pages as WebKit- or Gecko-based browsers simply isn't true.
When you get around to actually providing a concrete example to demonstrate your point, please let me know.
Comment of the year
full of shit
full of shit
full-of-shit-ness
three times in two sentences, clearly the work of a genius, I applaud you.
It is much better than IE7. I tried IE8 on Windows 7 it is a huge improvement. I like IE6 more than IE coze it is more stable and user-friendly but now I can go with IE8 I don't know though if it would operate well with XP. I am a Firefox fan though but I like to be open to other options :)
Turki,
I wonder if this is how Microsoft are going to respond with new versions of both IE and WMP if they are forced by the EU not to bundle them with Windows. Just ensure that they are included as critical updates to Windows, knowing many users are still stupid enough to have automatic updates on and "accidentally" make them the default browser and media player.