Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rivals Mock Microsoft's 'Native HTML5' Claims

Posted by Soulskill on from the framing-the-narrative dept.

CWmike writes "Mozilla and Opera are mocking browser rival Microsoft's use of the term 'native HTML5' to describe Internet Explorer 9 and the in-development IE10 as an oxymoron, an attempt to hijack an open standard and a marketing ploy. On Tuesday, Microsoft's Dean Hachamovitch, the executive who runs the IE group, used the term several times during a keynote at MIX, the company's annual Web developers conference, and in an accompanying post on the IE blog. Hachamovitch claimed in his keynote that, 'The only native experience of the Web of HTML5 today is on Windows 7 with IE9.' Asa Dotzler, Mozilla's director of community development, replied mockingly in Bugzilla: 'I'm pretty sure Firefox 5 has "complete native HTML5" support. We should resolve this as fixed and be sure to let the world know we beat Microsoft to shipping *complete* native HTML5.'"

145 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. MIcrosoft has gone native... by aapold · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think what they mean is they are employing natives in third world countries to write their HTML.

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
    1. Re:MIcrosoft has gone native... by jonadab · · Score: 2

      No, that's wrong. If you read what the Microsoft dude wrote, it's extremely clear: "native" in this context means "not cross-platform" and specifically "not built on cross-platform libraries or abstraction layers (like, presumably, Webkit or Gecko or XUL or anything along those lines)".

      Really. I'm not making this up. He specifically mentions "avoiding abstractions, layers, and libraries".

      Leave it to Microsoft to herald the same old archaic non-portability we used to suffer in the bad old days as a positive achievement now that everyone has finally realized the importance of moving away from it.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    2. Re:MIcrosoft has gone native... by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Of course Microsoft means native in the sense of using the Windows APIs. This is of course to be expected from them. They have been eating their own dog food for a long time now. I fact, I would argue that this is the default meaning of the term "native" regardless of whether or not the actual API set is cross-platform in nature.

      A native Gnome application uses GTK and other Gnome based interfaces. A native KDE application uses native KDE APIs, and so forth.

      Then you have something like Plan 9 or Inferno which while cross platform, uses it's own entirely native set of APIs.

    3. Re:MIcrosoft has gone native... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It all seem to be nothing more than an exercise in marketing. M$ is just cranky that the majority of people are no longer upgrading their OS and simply sticking with the one that came with the system (ignoring all the dual booters, that's a whole other issues), especially those that upgraded from Vista to XP (what a Ballmer bungle that was).

      So M$ is getting mocked for once again attacking it's own customers when they refuse to tow the corporate marketing and profit yarn. Consider how many other software companies produce software that specifically wont run on windows XP (even the softies now call it stale piss). PS it certainly doesn't seem like ten years ago when M$ were forced to revitalise XP to stay in the netbook market because of the Vista failure.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:MIcrosoft has gone native... by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > M$ is just cranky that the majority of people are no longer upgrading
      > their OS and simply sticking with the one that came with the system

      That's been the case for two and a half decades, maybe longer, and it's what put and kept Microsoft in the dominant position that they're in. Microsoft knows this, too, and they vigilantly protect their OEM-install market from competition by having "our software exclusively on every unit in the whole product line and no dual-boot setups" clauses in the contracts that the big OEMs have to sign to get special pricing. (That's how they killed Be, among other things.) If people were willing to install new operating systems on their own, they'd be just as likely to try alternatives as to upgrade to Microsoft's latest. I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't want that.

      They're probably hoping to convince people to go out and buy a new computer (with Seven on it), but it'll most likely be a few years before everyone toes that line, methinks.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  2. Re: goat link, don't click by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 2

    n/t

  3. Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by pecosdave · · Score: 1, Informative

    Still grumbling about pages that passed the w3c validater, looked beautiful in Mozilla, Opera, and Konqueror and I had to redo them because of IE.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      You are accurate. At the time I chose to fix them because so many people were on IE. Now IE users can just suck it. Of course newer versions of IE actually work better, so whatever, if I write something I'm not testing it in IE but it will probably work now.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    2. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      Counter attack.

      I said Mozilla, as in the suite, so I wasn't referring to "in this day and age".

      Also, I was writing my website in VIM, and I was using Cascading Style Sheets, I had the W3 site up and was referencing it constantly to make sure I was writing my HTML properly. It's probably been 8 years since the time I was talking about, doesn't mean I don't still hold a grudge against IE for that and other reasons.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    3. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by riegel · · Score: 2

      I suspect thats mostly because you're bad at web development. ... In no way is this a defense of Microsoft, its just an attack on you.

      Actually, you are wrong and misdirecting your attack. If a browser vendor wants to boast HTML5 compliance then it is completely fair to ask about compliance with previous iterations of the HTML standard.

      And yes you can have w3c compliant html that fails miserably in IE. Competent web developers can/will, and do cajole their code to work correctly in IE. That doesn't mean as you state, that the code in its original incarnation was wrong or the developer was incompetent. It simply means he had to tweak his/her code to comply with a non-compliant web browser. And many including myself do that begrudginly because so many people use an depend on said non-compliant browser.

      --
      http://p8ste.com - Web based Clipboard
    4. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by riegel · · Score: 1
      smelch said:

      In no way is this a defense of Microsoft, its just an attack on you.

      smelch follows up:

      That wasn't an attack!

      No additional comment is necessary

      --
      http://p8ste.com - Web based Clipboard
    5. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by smelch · · Score: 1
      pecosdave said:

      Counter attack.

      In response smelch said:

      That wasn't an attack!

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    6. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by smelch · · Score: 1

      He said he had to redo the pages. I'm not misdirecting my attack. If I had a designer who had a layout that worked great in Chrome and Firefox then they had to scrap it and redo the whole thing for IE I would kick them in the jimmy. Being a good [any profession] isn't about doing everything by the book, its about knowing the pitfalls, seeing them coming, and working around them. Knowing all the quirks of all the browsers is part of the job. The subject is for them to implement 3 and 4 correctly. Largely they have, or are at least as close as some of the othe browsers that get almost no heat for when they break the standard. Where they haven't, others have worked around. If you're rewriting pages because you can't get them to work in IE then you probably fucked up.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    7. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by riegel · · Score: 1

      Gothcha, makes perfect sense now. I was amused as I read it initially. I understand what you were saying now. Thats the problem with written communication sometimes we misread what others are saying.

      --
      http://p8ste.com - Web based Clipboard
    8. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      Would it blow your limited mind less if I would have wrote "rewrote tags and lines on pages" instead of "rewrote pages"?

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    9. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by ilsaloving · · Score: 2

      Clearly you've never done any real web development, or you would have never said something so asinine. When you make a website, you have to make two: One for IE and one for everyone else. This was especially true with ie6. IE7 and IE8 are somewhat better but they still don't come close to being on par with the other browser makers.

      The only 'quick little work around' is to use a tool that deals with these problems on your behalf. The parent was (rightfully) bemoaning the fact that you are adding a minimum of an additional 50% to your development effort just to make it work properly in IE. This is an accurate statement. I've seen web shops that charge an premium for IE support just because it's so annoying.

    10. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 1

      No don't destroy the true native HTML 5 experience!

      The native experience you can only feel while surfing the web with IE9 on Windows 7.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    11. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by smelch · · Score: 1

      If I were you I would update my skills a little. The HTML/CSS I've seen for cross browser sites usually ends up being just a little different CSS for some specific stylings. Just crap a little bit of in there, use the ie6.css to adjust the styling for IE 6 and you're done. Bingo bango. Sure its a little more work, but 50%? Come on.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    12. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I'm not the greatest. I haven't wrote pages in quite a while, that was mostly a learning exercise that I did it all in Vim using W3C. I edit a little source from time to time, but when I have to bust out a static page for whatever reason, which isn't often, I usually download SeaMonkey and use the editor in that. (Last time I used it there was beautiful compliant code)

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    13. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by fredclown · · Score: 1

      Amen. So many forget this.

    14. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      If you think all there is to making browsers work is to use different CSS files, then you haven't done much work. CSS!=HTML. Take for example HTML button:

      Always specify the type attribute for the button. The default type for Internet Explorer is "button", while in other browsers (and in the W3C specification) it is "submit" . . .
      Important: If you use the button element in an HTML form, different browsers will submit different values. Internet Explorer will submit the text between the and tags, while other browsers will submit the content of the value attribute. Use the input element to create buttons in an HTML form.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    15. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by RazorKitten · · Score: 1

      Ya know then someone has to like, write ie6.css ...

    16. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If you're browsing the web, and you're using IE, you're doing it wrong.

      Nobody should have to use any sort of workaround. Code to the spec and it should work. If it doesn't that is the browser vendors fault period.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    17. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      That isn't a very good example, as the obvious answer (which you quoted) is "Use the input element to create buttons in an HTML form." In other words, just don't use <button>.

    18. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Well, IE will stop being so bad when they release IE 10, and everyone upgrades to it. Otherwise, I have a list of things that are holding us back or wasting tons of development time because we still need to support IE 7. On the other hand, I also have a list for firefox, Opera, Safari, and Chrome, but they aren't nearly as long.

    19. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by rbollinger · · Score: 1

      Hate to say it, but many companies and government agencies will force their users to use IE.Plus, IE is still leading in browser market share. Although the market share does vary based on the type of content you provide, it would be irresponsible to just say "IE users can just suck it." At least if you are trying to make your website available to the broadest available audience.

    20. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      So Internet Explorer supports MathML?

    21. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by Endophage · · Score: 1

      If I write a site and it validates and displays perfectly in every browser other than IE than imo it's IE that's broken. Standards should be defined by the majority and now that IE usage has fallen below 50% across all versions, that should no longer be Microsoft.

    22. Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. by asa · · Score: 1

      Plus, IE is still leading in browser market share.

      This really isn't the case. IE6 is not IE7 is not IE8 is not IE9. They are each very different browsers. IE9 will never surpass Firefox's latest browser in market share.

      IE9 will top out around 20-25% in two years if their historical trends of browser and OS upgrades continue. Firefox 4/5/6/etc (the latest available version) is ahead of IE9 today and will stay ahead for the foreseeable future making Firefox 4 the most widely used browser in a month or two when it passes Chrome.

  4. Native? Complete? by ifrag · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course there's no such thing as complete HTML5 either since it's still a draft.

    --
    Fear is the mind killer.
    1. Re:Native? Complete? by smelch · · Score: 1

      Didn't they just give up finishing it entirely? HTML5 and 4G have pretty much been defined as "more better than the last version".

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    2. Re:Native? Complete? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      What MS is claiming is even more ridiculous than that. They are not claiming HTML5 "compliance." What they are claiming is that their browser in Windows runs HTML5 "natively" which they didn't really explain what the heck that meant. Browsers normally translate HTML and CSS and Javascript using the browser engine. MS might be claiming that their new IE9 engine (Trident 5.0) is more integrated with Windows and allows Windows to do the HTML5 translation. That's the only thing I can think of that makes any sense. So MS is touting more integration with Windows as a feature.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Native? Complete? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      And neither FF nor IE implement enough to pass the HTML5 test "completely".

    4. Re:Native? Complete? by asa · · Score: 1

      Once again, I didn't claim "complete HTML 5 support". I claimed "complete native HTML 5 support". There's a joke there, see?

  5. Not supporting other OS is cool! by diegocg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Web sites and HTML5 run best when they run natively, on a browser optimized for the operating system on your device," said Hachamovitch. "We built IE9 from the ground up for HTML5 and for Windows to deliver the most native HTML5 experience and the best Web experience on Windows".

    Translation: IE only runs in Windows, so it's better. In fact, IE is so native that it doesn't support Webgl. Take that, Firefox and Chrome!

    1. Re:Not supporting other OS is cool! by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      Well duh..... If it's not D3D then it's not "native". We all know that OpenGL is a hacked version of D3D.

    2. Re:Not supporting other OS is cool! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      That much stress on "natively" does not make sense. Looks like they are fighting some kind of rearguard/flankguard action with VMWare, rather than with Firefox or Chrome.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:Not supporting other OS is cool! by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Or IE runs natively on the OS, no sandboxing going on here.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:Not supporting other OS is cool! by blair1q · · Score: 1

      So you're saying it's not just native, it's savage?

    5. Re:Not supporting other OS is cool! by asa · · Score: 1

      Firefox uses D3D on Windows Vista and Windows 7. Microsoft has no exclusive access to D3D and in some well documented cases Firefox's architecture makes Firefox's employment of D3D even more effective in pushing graphics operations off of the CPU and onto the GPU than does IE's. Firefox accelerates scrolling, for example, where IE falls on its face.

    6. Re:Not supporting other OS is cool! by jrumney · · Score: 1

      WebGL is an inefficient compatibility layer hindering Microsoft's precious native HTML5 performance. Just take a look at their demo where they get a whopping 1000 fish swimming around an empty fishbowl at once, only obtainable using native IE10 on native Windows 7. The Firefox guys were only able to get a paltry 50,000 swimming around their finely textured aquarium using WebGL.

  6. Re: goat link, don't click by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Who found a way to monetize goatse at this late date?

    If we got half the effort of that campaign on real stuff we'd all have better software by now.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  7. Mission Accomplished! by mpapet · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, Firefox remains the red headed stepchild to Microsoft because money talks.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    1. Re:Mission Accomplished! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Sorry you are wrong. Firefox wins the contest and the others do not even finish the race. For the simple fact that vimperator only exists for firefox. Sure they are some VIM like keyboard input plugins for chrome, but they do not make the browser modal nor do they remove all the menus and such.

    2. Re:Mission Accomplished! by riegel · · Score: 1

      Actually the ordering you promulgate indicates a bias. Chrome and Safari should be in close proximity to each other as they are both based on the same underlying technology. I love them both.

      --
      http://p8ste.com - Web based Clipboard
    3. Re:Mission Accomplished! by smelch · · Score: 2

      I know they have the same underlying engine, but here's my problem with Safari: It runs so slowly when not on OSX. So my non-OSX bias is in fact showing. To be honest, the only reason its at the bottom is because Chrome will render almost 100% identical to each other every time and Chrome is so much lighter on resource consumption. It makes Safari kind of useless.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    4. Re:Mission Accomplished! by LoganDzwon · · Score: 2

      I agree that Safari in windows is a completely different experience then safari on OSX. On OSX I use Safari exclusively. On Windows I use a mix of Firefox and Chrome.

    5. Re:Mission Accomplished! by Rhaban · · Score: 1

      The ranking of browsers should be Chrome first, then Opera, then Safari, then Firefox, then IE8+, then all other browsers.

      Fixed that for you.

    6. Re:Mission Accomplished! by icebraining · · Score: 1

      While I'm also a Firefox (Iceweasel) and Vimperator user, you might want to try uzbl, it supports VIM and Emacs-like UI/keybindings but uses the Webkit engine.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    7. Re:Mission Accomplished! by icebraining · · Score: 1

      They use different Javascript engines, though. V8 and Nitro, respectively.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    8. Re:Mission Accomplished! by smelch · · Score: 1

      How about this: Chrome first, then all the other browsers.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    9. Re:Mission Accomplished! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Chrome light on resources? Is that the same Chrome that insists upon having a completely separate process for each tab, rather than just the portions necessary to keep the tabs isolated?

    10. Re:Mission Accomplished! by smelch · · Score: 1

      Hey, buddy, it does make total sense. Different JavaScript engines makes a big difference, the fact that Safari runs like molten hot shit (which is not very fast) outside of OSX is another big difference. But no, you're right the rendering engine is totally the only part of a browser that matters, as its the one thing that there is a standard for. The stuff that different developers are free to implement as they see fit can't possibly have any impact on the usability or performance. All the differences are in the standardized portion of the browser.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    11. Re:Mission Accomplished! by smelch · · Score: 1

      Lighter than Safari on Windows, yes.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    12. Re:Mission Accomplished! by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I would rank them Firefox, IE 9/10, Safari, Chrome, Opera, then IE 7, with IE 6 so far down the list that fails to continue existing.

    13. Re:Mission Accomplished! by asa · · Score: 1

      Chrome and Safari are only based on *some* of the same underlying technology. They share some rendering code. They don't share a JavaScript engine (one of the hottest areas of browser development of the last three years) and they don't share the same graphics pipeline (where hardware acceleration, another hot topic of the last few years, is a critical differentiator) and they don't share security and networking and various other critical underlying technologies either.

      It is a myth that they are the same except for slightly different UI choices. They are fundamentally different beasts.

    14. Re:Mission Accomplished! by jalefkowit · · Score: 2

      It's true, the key requirement for mainstream success for a Web browser is vim keybindings. The public demands them.

      In fact, my grandmother was just asking me which browsers offered vim keybindings so she would know what to use to browse her favorite scrapbooking site. That meant I had to beat her to death with a table lamp, of course. People should know better than to ask questions like that to an emacs user.

      --

      Read my blog.

    15. Re:Mission Accomplished! by garaged · · Score: 1

      Personally I love FF but uses way more resources than chrome at the longer term, a few hours of usage. Chrome works much faster even with is forking of processes, specially with sites like gmail

      --
      I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
    16. Re:Mission Accomplished! by vigilology · · Score: 1

      You might want to check out Pentadactyl.

  8. important update by netdigger · · Score: 1

    So microsoft is calling the update to IE9 an important update. lol

  9. Re:yeah by obergfellja · · Score: 1

    whatever happened to the Java killer? wasn't it called J# or something like that? I think that microsoft needs to fall in line with the rest of the world. lol

  10. Re:yeah by Giometrix · · Score: 1

    whatever happened to the Java killer? wasn't it called J# or something like that? I think that microsoft needs to fall in line with the rest of the world. lol

    It's called C#. It's not killing Java, but it's certainly doing well. And why does one platform have to "kill" another to be successful?

    --
    Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
  11. Most surprising news ever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Vendor claims their product is better then other similar products from other vendors.

    Other vendors disagree!

    Full story at 11!

    1. Re:Most surprising news ever! by asa · · Score: 1

      Vendor makes up nonsense technical jargon in an attempt to co-opt the Web and other vendors call them on it with humor. No need for follow-up stories.

    2. Re:Most surprising news ever! by MBC1977 · · Score: 1

      Wow.. Marketing doing its job: Generating interest in company product. Great story.

      --
      Regards,

      MBC1977,
  12. Re:yeah by smelch · · Score: 1

    No, it was called J#.

    --
    If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
  13. Um, wtf? by trifish · · Score: 1

    How can anyone, whether Mozilla or MS claim their product has or will soon have complete support for HTML5 when HTML5 is still a draft (subject to change) and it will remain a draft at least for a couple of years?

    1. Re:Um, wtf? by itsenrique · · Score: 1

      Sort of like the Pre-N spec 802.11n routers that were touted as being 100% compatible with the wireless n spec before the spec was finished? The catch of course being that its compatible with the latest draft at the time they were coding it (hopefully).

  14. Re:yeah by haruchai · · Score: 2

    You should ask M$ that question.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  15. Re:Are you kidding? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1, Funny

    Uh you know you can change any tinyurl.com/whatever link to preview.tinyurl.com/whatever to see where it's going right?

    You're washed up. A has-been. Go home with what dignity you have left.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  16. Firefox 5? by yoghurt · · Score: 1

    Are they shipping Firefox 5 now? It may have "native HTML 5" whatever that is, but if it ain't shipping then how does Mozilla ship a native HTML 5 browser?

    --
    Yoghurt
    1. Re:Firefox 5? by jwegman · · Score: 1

      Thank you. The current version of FireFox is 4. It was just released a couple of weeks ago. Sorry, but beta doesn't count here.

    2. Re:Firefox 5? by PickyH3D · · Score: 1

      I thought the exact same thing. Mozilla has been a bit petty recently and their PR has been nothing except bad.

      Mozilla needs to tout their innovations. I am tired of them claiming betas are somehow the real deal. Firefox 4 was no different.

      Firefox is a good browser, but compared to IE9 and Chrome especially, it is not a great browser. It's slower. It crashes. And when it does, it takes down the whole browser.

    3. Re:Firefox 5? by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      I am on firefox 6 you are one version late ;)

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    4. Re:Firefox 5? by Digital11 · · Score: 1

      I liked Firefox 6 before it got signed. I even have it on vinyl.

      --
      I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    5. Re:Firefox 5? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I used to pal around with Firefox 6 when we were in high school.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    6. Re:Firefox 5? by grcumb · · Score: 1

      I used to pal around with Firefox 6 when we were in high school.

      Meh, Firefox 6 let me fuck his sister.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    7. Re:Firefox 5? by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      to play with his trumpet winsock ?

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
  17. ACID-moment for HTML5! by ciantic · · Score: 1

    ACID-moment for HTML5? Promote http://html5test.com/ in these big screens to undermine Microsofts statements.

    130 + 5 bonus points from IE9

    291 + 13 bonus points from Chrome 12.0.733.0 dev

    Though I'd like to see DirectWrite support for Chrome too (just like in Firefox5 and IE9).

    1. Re:ACID-moment for HTML5! by cforciea · · Score: 1

      258 and 7 bonus points for Opera here, for those of you keeping score.

    2. Re:ACID-moment for HTML5! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's embarrassing given that they presumably get points for supporting h.264 and mpeg-4, as well as some of the other codecs that they presumably expose for IE to use.

      By comparison my Firefox 4.0 install got 255 out of 400 without the benefit of those free points.

    3. Re:ACID-moment for HTML5! by KingMotley · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem with that is that it's just testing specific features, and it tends to spend a lot of time (and points) on things that aren't typically relevant, but may (or may not) even make it into the final HTML 5 spec. The more important features are simply glanced over, giving them 1-2 points, while stupid things are given 20+ points that the vast majority of sites will never use. That site is nice as a checklist, but terrible at determining how well a browser is fit for today's and tomorrow's web pages.

  18. Who are they trying to fool? by frank_carmody · · Score: 2

    When they say stuff like this, what's the point?

    Consumers don't know what html5 is and even if they did they wouldn't care. And developers, etc. know what they're saying is lies. So it's a lose-lose type of comment.

    1. Re:Who are they trying to fool? by robus · · Score: 1

      It's for CIOs - how think they should care *and* actually know nothing.

    2. Re:Who are they trying to fool? by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      Where the presentation was made, it was pointless, or even a "lose".

      But for the average web-goer, if they saw a chart like:
      IE___________| Other__________
      Native HTML5 | No Native HTML5

      They go "ooh" the background in that box is green, the other is red... go with green, doesn't really matter if it's factual or not.

    3. Re:Who are they trying to fool? by itsenrique · · Score: 1

      You might be surprised how many "developers" lap up Microsoft's cock and bull.

    4. Re:Who are they trying to fool? by game+kid · · Score: 1

      Hell, I'm still waiting for browsers to decently implement SGML.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  19. Native HTML5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Reminds of this set of speakers I purchased a while back. It says right on the box, "Now with enhanced MP3 support!".

    Sad thing is, I saw someone reading the box who got all excited because all they had were MP3s.

    1. Re:Native HTML5 by Clueless+Moron · · Score: 2

      Reminds of this set of speakers I purchased a while back. It says right on the box, "Now with enhanced MP3 support!".

      Maybe it has a muffled high end so you don't hear the squishy mp3 artifacts so much?

      A good marketer can turn any weakness into an asset!

    2. Re:Native HTML5 by man_the_king · · Score: 1

      A good marketer can turn any weakness into an asset!

      I agree. A while back, I purchased a Gillette shaving gel (I don't remember which type it was now), but it was advertised as "Fragrance-free!".

      I guess they weren't able to get any kind of fragrance to work with that gel.

  20. The answer is simple. by Graham+J+-+XVI · · Score: 1

    Were FireFox's villages raped and pillaged by ship-borne whites from the East then its people relegated to the outskirts of society where they lie, marginalized, in wait for the capitalistic anarchy that, any day now, will avenge them?

    No? Sorry Mozilla.

  21. Re:yeah by crazycheetah · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.basschouten.com/blog1.php/2009/11/22/direct2d-hardware-rendering-a-browser

    I would say Firefox has hardware rendering, and has it for a while (that blog post I linked to is from 2009 and they were far enough to get performance stats). "Firefox doesn't have such at all" is totally incorrect...

  22. Re:"Most native"? by jc42 · · Score: 1

    ... what the heck does "native HTML5" even *mean*?

    Well, I took it to mean the obvious: IE9's HTML-rendering code is written in machine code. Not java, not C#, not C, not even assembly language; they wrote it as a string of hex bytes.

    I wouldn't be surprised ...

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  23. Re:yeah by dave562 · · Score: 1

    It looks like VMware is using it. I installed their client software yesterday and part of the installer routine had to install J# first.

  24. Use of Native APIs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure they mean they're the only browser to use native hardware acceleration APIs, like DirectX.

    If use of native APIs mean you run faster and provide a better user experience, that's something to advertise, but by itself is pretty meaningless. Hell, I can ship a web browser that uses the native Windows 3.1 APIs, doesn't mean it won't suck.

    1. Re:Use of Native APIs by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that's not true. Firefox uses Direct2d where available.

    2. Re:Use of Native APIs by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they mean they're the only browser to use native hardware acceleration APIs, like DirectX.

      Probably, except for s/DirectX/Direct2D/. But that, of course, would still be incorrect, because Firefox also uses Direct2D.

      The blog post seems to say that IE9 is somehow magically better by virtue of using those APIs directly, and not via any platform abstraction layer that is otherwise needed for cross-platform UI. But it seems to be a very silly argument to me, almost like a marketing guy trying to come up with a technical explanation that sounds plausible (to him)... oh, nevermind.

  25. Microsoft's choice of words was silly... by sideslash · · Score: 2

    ...but the performance demos in the MIX conference were entertaining, as all such demos are. I liked the one where the Windows Phone browser smoked Android, which in turn smoked iPhone 4. But contrived demos and marketing aside, it's nice to see Microsoft join the party in pushing the performance envelope on HTML and javascript.

  26. Re:Yeah, how dare they? by thedonger · · Score: 1

    Even the W3C uses HTML5 as a marketing ploy. How else do you think upper-management will ever back the adoption of standards? They need to be marketed to since they don't know how to read.

    --
    Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
  27. Re:yeah by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    No, they extended it to make it not interoperability with the real Java, with the intention of removing any sort of portability. They then had to settle with sun and using the patents they licensed as part of this settlement created C#.

  28. Re:"Most native"? by nschubach · · Score: 1

    Obviously, native means that it comes with the computer and you don't have to download it...

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  29. Factual by ssbssb · · Score: 5, Funny

    Clearly this was not intended to be a factual statement.

    1. Re:Factual by jonadab · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has always taken a rather Kenobian view of what is factual. "What we said was true... from a certain point of view [if you are willing to set aside the obviously deceptive intent that was clearly calculated to make you think something that wasn't true and prevent you from learning something else that is true]."

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    2. Re:Factual by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Clearly this was not intended to be a sensical statement.

      FTFY.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  30. Re:yeah by Giometrix · · Score: 1

    I know about J#. I don't believe it was intended to be a Java killer.

    --
    Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
  31. Meanwhile back at the MS Cave by flimflammer · · Score: 1

    Dean Hachamovitch puts on his favorite trollface and giggles to himself at the riot he's received in response to his comments, while his market speak does its magic on the laymen PC users who think it actually has some legitimate meaning.

    Marketing has been dishonest since marketing has existed, and while we scoff at what he has said, he hasn't said it for people who really understand it. Why is everyone so hung up on it now?

    1. Re:Meanwhile back at the MS Cave by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Marketing has been dishonest since marketing has existed

      See, I don't think most marketing people are smart enough to _deliberately_ be dishonest. It's just the way they see the world.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  32. No right to mock... by RandomPsychology · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Whether it's proper use (whatever that means) of the term "native HTML5" or not, what Microsoft is implying is that their browser is the only one that runs HTML5 (specifically some of the graphics and video layers) directly on top of Windows Vista/7 graphical subsystems tied directly to hardware. I'm sure it employs technologies like WPF, DirectX, and so on. The competitors (Mozilla, Opera, Google, and Apple) support hardware acceleration, but they do it their own way--almost like they "hacked together" support for true hardware acceleration. Firefox and Chrome's rendering of complex 3D scenes is still jerky and relatively slow *especially* compared to IE. I've also noticed that Firefox's live preview renderings (for parts of Aero) are absolutely awful. They might as well not even exist at all. I'm not really an IE user, but I have to give kudos to Microsoft for the raw performance of IE 9 and 10. It really takes advantage of modern hardware. Other browser vendors should stop mocking and take some solid notes.

    1. Re:No right to mock... by Sensiblemonkey · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Firefox and Chrome's rendering of complex 3D scenes is still jerky and relatively slow *especially* compared to IE.

      That's using WebGL, right? Wait, IE isn't going to be supporting WebGL for some reason ...

    2. Re:No right to mock... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Firefox, at least, also uses Direct2D. And I've no idea what "directly on top" means - what, did they count the number of stack frames between renderPage() and drawLine(), roughly speaking?

    3. Re:No right to mock... by asa · · Score: 1

      If this is what they are claiming then they are not being stupid, they're lying. Firefox 4 on Windows 7 uses the exact same Direct3D and DirectWrite APIs that IE 9 uses. And in some cases we use them *more effectively* than even Microsoft does. And in most cases we did it *before* Microsoft.

      Maybe you're thinking of Mac and Linux where we are using different solutions. Or maybe you're just ranting without the facts and offering your guesses (in which case you should say so up front.)

      - A

    4. Re:No right to mock... by mhelander · · Score: 1

      "what, did they count the number of stack frames between renderPage() and drawLine(), roughly speaking?"

      As far as I can understand, that's roughly it. Of course, there is also translation costs between different data structures used in different layers and sometimes work is done more than once (repeated in many layers) due to lack of coordination. While I'm speaking from a general standpoint and don't know about these APIs, pretending that abstraction layers have no performance cost is not reasonable so the argument from MS bears some plausibility. But the cost may well be small enough as to be negligible, end-to-end benchmark tests could certainly turn out to demonstrate a very small real life performance impact, so while their argument may be technically reasonable it remains to be seen if it is actually very relevant.

    5. Re:No right to mock... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      While I'm speaking from a general standpoint and don't know about these APIs, pretending that abstraction layers have no performance cost is not reasonable so the argument from MS bears some plausibility. But the cost may well be small enough as to be negligible, end-to-end benchmark tests could certainly turn out to demonstrate a very small real life performance impact, so while their argument may be technically reasonable it remains to be seen if it is actually very relevant.

      Yep. I'm not saying that abstraction layers do not affect performance, but e.g. page layout algorithm would affect it much more. As with any other theoretical musings on perf, it's all conjecture unless and until someone profiles the code, and traces specifically show that abstraction layers significantly contribute.

      In any case, even if they do, and if IE9 is indeed faster because of removing them, I still take offense at the notion of "native HTML5". As described in the blog post, it sounds like something that is either there or not, which simply does not translate to anything meaningful on code level.

  33. Sales weasle speak 101 by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Funny

    You don't get it. IE is far superior from a technological point of view, because it leverages the native source console features of the HTML 5 api to produce superior page state management and rasterization of dynamic content streams. The convergent meta-buffering features alone, make IE far more optimized for modern greb-drizle frazzle dazzle alacazam gibblety gobbilty goo. Don't try to fight the marketing droids with reason. You cannot win.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Sales weasle speak 101 by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      You are my new favorite writer, and "gibblity gobbilty goo" is my new favorite phrase.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Sales weasle speak 101 by g4b · · Score: 1

      seems like kids who are forbidden to watch star trek go into marketing then?

    3. Re:Sales weasle speak 101 by http · · Score: 1

      Bingo!
      So what do I win?

      --
      If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
      3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
  34. Re:yeah by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    You guys talking about J++, maybe?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  35. Re:Indeed, what bunch of assholes by fredclown · · Score: 2

    That is because the Acid tests DO NOT test standards. They test fringe cases and in some cases test parts that have since been removed from the spec or nobody uses. It wastes time to develop solely to pass the Acid tests. What is more helpful is to build your browser to standards, which IE8 and IE9 are (they don't support all standards ... nobody does ... but what they do support is supported well), and one you get the standards built in all of these fringe case test will naturally fall into line. You could build IE to pass Acid 3 and still have a crappy browser that the only thing it can do well is pass the Acid test.

  36. Re:yeah by smelch · · Score: 1

    Yeah, the only different between J++ and J# is the plus signs overlap in J#.

    Actually I believe J# is supposedly able to compile java compliant code but also extended it and was to serve as a migration to J++. J# then would be exactly a Java killer intended to poach Java devs and then introduce them to non-java features so they won't go back.

    --
    If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
  37. Re:yeah by smelch · · Score: 1

    Scratch that, you're right. I'm wrong.

    --
    If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
  38. Re:Embrace, extend and extinguish by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

    Microsoft already tried the embrace, extend, extinguish tactic on HTML standards. Back in the IE6 days they even had the standards guys on the ropes. However, instead of just extending HTML in incompatible ways Microsoft tried to really push home their advantage by switching web development from being browser based to being based on Silverlight. It would have worked too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids...

    Oh wait, wrong show.

    Knowing Microsoft it is going to try again. However, for that tactic to work they have to actually get ahead.

  39. Re:"Most native"? by jc42 · · Score: 1

    ... native means that it comes with the computer and you don't have to download it...

    So "native HTML5" is HTML5 that comes with the computer? But I'd think you'd mostly want it to be able to handle non-native HTML5, that is, HTML5 in docs that you download from the Web.

    Maybe this is a truly new development: an HTML renderer that only handles HTML5 that comes with the computer, but misinterprets HTML5 that comes from "foreign" sources. If that's what they mean, it could truly qualify as an "innovative" implementation of HTML. (Nah; IE6 did that pretty well. ;-)

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  40. Re:yeah by KingMotley · · Score: 1

    You realize you just said the same thing just with a different spin. If they made it work more natively with Windows, that automatically implies that it would limit portability if you used those extensions. So they created C# so they would no longer be limited to doing exactly what SUN did (and absolutely no more than that). Which is why well written C# apps will always out perform java apps.

  41. Re:Indeed, what bunch of assholes by praxis · · Score: 1

    Edge cases are what allows a vendor that says "we support X" to validate they support X. Deprecated stuff should also be tested, but perhaps in a different suite. Incompletely supported standards mean more edge cases for the implementers; standards should be small enough to manage a simple yes/no answer to "do you support X?"

  42. Re:Yeah, how dare they? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    > They [upper management] need to be marketed to since they don't know how to read.

    More accurately, they don't know how to read past the headline.

    Geeze, someone left a magazine in the executive washroom. Now we have to switch everything over to cloud storage. (I am not kidding.)

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  43. Re:yeah by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    Yes, but they - Firefox, mind you - only added it for Windows 7/Vista.

    Any other OS doesn't get any hardware rendering, and never will, as Firefox uses DirectX to do it.

    And IE will support any other OS at all? They haven't supported a Mac version since IE5, not long after Safari, which doesn't work on many corporate sites. I don't know who I'd slap first for that, Gates or Jobs, for making all my Mac users walk to a different department to do something as simple as clock in for work.

    --
    I8-D
  44. I feel left out. by dorward · · Score: 1

    I've been mocking them too and I'm not a rival!

    A large portion of the web development community has been mocking them. It is a terrible idea to let marketing try to write technical jargon without filtering it through technical people.

    1. Re:I feel left out. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It is a terrible idea to let marketing try to write technical jargon without filtering it through technical people.

      What's sad is how any good reputation earned by the effort of developers who actually did implement large parts of HTML5 for IE9 (and keep doing more for IE10) - and there actually was quite a bit of that, if you look outside Slashdot - was instantly destroyed by one clueless blog post that not only bragged of something not worth bragging, but worded it in such a way as to make the entire project the laughing stock of web developers everywhere.

    2. Re:I feel left out. by asa · · Score: 1

      But shutdown, it wasn't just one careless blog post. It was infused through out the entire campaign around IE9 and the IE10 developer preview. It was in the stage presentations, the press briefings, the blog posts and more. This wasn't some silly little slip. This is Microsoft's well-reasoned attack on the other browsers.

      Maybe the engineering team for IE doesn't deserve this but they are the ones that chose to work for a company known for this kind of dishonesty. There are several other organizations out there employing browser developers and if I was an IE dev, I'd be seriously considering whether or not I wanted to work for a company that shits all over my great work with that kind of ugly marketing.

  45. Re:yeah by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

    Search for "kill" in this document. The previous poster probably meant J++ and not J#, which was obviously hopeless and died a quick death. It still stands, however, as a descendent of Microsoft's most prominent effort to kill Java.

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  46. Re:yeah by oscartheduck · · Score: 1

    My understanding is that the wrote J++ with the specific intent to not allow JVM compatibility, but only with their own JVM implementation. That's a fair bit more than just adding language extensions, y'know? From the EU's research on this stuff

    “[W]e should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take more
    advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java
    apps.”
      —Microsoft’s Thomas Reardon

    And from the NYTimes article on this:

    Microsoft also licensed Java from Sun in 1996, but later began adding modifications to the code. The resulting Microsoft version of Java is tailored to run only on Windows, which negates the cross-platform purpose of Java. Sun has a civil suit pending against Microsoft on this issue, charging contract violation and unfair business practices.

    --
    How to use coral cache: http://slashdot.org.nyud.net:8090/~oscartheduck
  47. Re:yeah by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    J# was actually a stopgap to migrate existing J++ code (little as there were) to .NET. It appeared much later than J++; in fact, by the time it appeared, J++ was already a dead project (after the Sun lawsuit).

  48. Firefox HTML 5 complete? by tyrione · · Score: 1

    Well, Firefox 4 is getting there [behind Safari WebKit [not Safari 5.0.5 which is off a much older branch], Google Chrome, Epiphany 3.0, etc] but I guess somehow they will fix Elements, Forms, Microdata, Security, Communications, Files, and Local Devices all by June? Get real.

  49. My app has INDIGENOUS HTML5 support. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    beat that.

    --
    Read radical news here
    1. Re:My app has INDIGENOUS HTML5 support. by Linzer · · Score: 1

      My browser has aboriginal, autochthonous Ur-HTML5 support.

      --
      Gravitation is a theory, not a fact.
  50. Re:yeah by asa · · Score: 2

    You can make up your own opinions but you cannot make up facts. You are entirely wrong here. What is it that gives you the confidence to just post lies when there are plenty of people around that know better? Seriously?!

    Firefox usesvarious DirectX APIs on Windows7 and Vista and XP and uses OpenGL for Mac and Linux. Where it's incomplete it WILL be completed in upcoming versions.

  51. Re:"Most native"? by asa · · Score: 1

    You've just described all currently shipping browsers.

  52. Re:yeah by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

    Wow! You seriously got modded down for that post. And yet it's one of the first comments that actually is informative about what was actually said. Slashdot Hivemind is in full-force tonight!

    --

    Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  53. Re:yeah by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    You can get the same thing with Gecko, it is called Kmeleon CCF ME and it uses native APIs and only runs on windows.

    That said, is there anybody besides corps using IE anymore? I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a consumer box in my shop running IE. For the past couple of years it has been Firefox everywhere, and now I'm seeing a LOT of Chrome icons on folk's desktops. Personally after having to clean up after IE 6 for a couple of years they could come out with IE "dancing hooker edition" and I wouldn't use it, but before it actually took effort to get folks off IE and now frankly I just don't see anybody not in corporate using it.

    One thing I WILL give them credit for though is low rights mode, which is what got me off of FF for Comodo (Chromium based). Running the browser in the lowest rights mode simply is good security policy, especially with so many zero days coming out lately.

    That said I think MSFT may have finally fatally shot themselves in the foot by keeping IE9 off of XP and IE10 off of Vista. They could get away with that shit when there weren't any competition, but now there are browsers galore and there are WAY too many users still on XP/Vista to just abandon them when the competitors haven't. It is just a stupid move that will make IE even more fractured, and give that many more people a reason to try the competition.

    But frankly bragging about "being native" when Chrome is already as fast as most folks connections will go is just dumb. People aren't gonna give a crap about "native" they care about what they can see! And right now the Chromium based are so fast it is scary, and the amount of plugins are quickly coming close to equaling FF, one thing that IE has never been great at(unless you count an assload of toolbars as great). whats next, "IE has electrolytes"?

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  54. Re:"Most native"? by BZ · · Score: 1

    So 64-bit IE9 isn't native by that definition, right (no JIT there)?

    Whereas Firefox 4 and Chrome dev builds are?

  55. Re:yeah by ilovejesusontoast · · Score: 1

    When I wrote a java applet many years ago, the Microsoft VM was about ten times faster (doing mainly graphics) than Sun's, using only "pure" Java. So for my project at least, the Microsoft VM was far superior.

  56. CSS's Text-shadow on IE9? by closer2it · · Score: 1

    After all this years and all the fuss around IE9, still it doesn't support CSS's propriety "text-shadow".

  57. Re:yeah by KingMotley · · Score: 1

    That is a nice quote, and it sure makes a nice sound bite, but unfortunately, Thomas Reardon was a programmer working on IE. He had no direct influence on the direction of the server & tools group at Microsoft, so you might as well be quoting some random noob from the internet. It's included in the EU's "research", which is a very nice way of saying absolutely anything the EU's prosecutors could spin to their favor. Notice how the EU never did anything based on it? There was no backlash regarding java? Well, there was a reason for that.

  58. IE9 still has big issues by choochb71 · · Score: 1

    It is slow to load and doesn't completely support certain CSS properties. That is my biggest point of contention with Microsoft.....you will do things our way!!! I hate having to write code specifically for IE when the code works fine in other browsers. That is what is frustrating and they don't care. They want developers to bend to their will.