Slashdot Mirror
IE 11 Getting WebGL, SPDY/3, New Dev Tools
rescendent writes sends this report about new features in Internet Explorer 11:
"Microsoft released Windows Server ("Blue") to MSDN subscribers today, ahead of the BUILD conference later this week in San Francisco. The build provides us a number of clues as to what we will see in the official Windows 8.1 (Blue) preview. The server build number is 9341, the Windows 8.1 preview build will be: 6.3.9431.winmain_bluemp.130615-1214. IE11 scores 351/500 + 2 bonus point, and 25/25 for WebGL. Since this is a server build, the score may be a little higher than IE11 on Win 8.1, but this confirms WebGL for IE11. IE11 WebGL Conformance Test Results: 14,748 of 20,509 tests pass (71.9%). Many things seen in the Server 2012 R2 preview will also show up in the Windows 8.1 preview."
Still no mention of WebRTC?
why would that make a significant difference?
IE11 scores 351/500 + 2 bonus point
Wow, that's ... pitiful.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Wasn't sure if they were ever going to support this, but I guess it was just a matter of time
Is the name of the submitter rescendent writes?
Is this article about a web browser or a web server?
"IE11 scores 351/500 + 2 bonus point, and 25/25 for WebGL."
So 25 for WebGL and 351+2 for ??
And why the fuck are we even reporting some M$ marketing FUD to begin with?
By 2014 they will be caught up to where other browsers were in 2011, for Microsoft that's pretty impressive. Usually IE is about half a decade behind real browsers.
Monstar L
GPU drivers however upgrade that. Current NVIDIA+AMD drivers will raise that to 4.3.
Why would the score be higher for a server build? What use would a server have for a web browser? Surely they should be making more effort on the client version of the browser, where it might actually be used?
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
At least there's one organization that tries to save IEs reputation as a horribly bloated browser. For a while, I thought Firefox was going to win that race...
And that is irrelevant. All that matters is what the drivers themselves implement. You can program to any OpenGL version as long as the drivers support it (which they do).
How about, windows 8 is an even stupider idea on a server than it is for a desktop?
You know for a little variety.
Not really. Everyone and their mothers implement WebGL with DirectX on Windows, anyway (using ANGLE) – due to the shotty state of OpenGL support on Windows.
ok, so it is still considered harmful or was that the usual guff about how DirectX (or whatever brand-name they're pushing today) is vastly superior to anything standard.
Have they done anything with WebGL to "fix" the mentioned problems, or have they just realized no-one listens to their FUD anymore?
I know supporting XP is against two (different?)major strategies; Selling people on Microsoft's stupid everything is a tablet so we are winning(the new strategy of copying Apple), and the old we are Monopoly, buy a new version by crippling(discontinue) the old version so we can can roll around in cash(The old strategy when they were called Micro$oft).
Ignoring problems from fragmentation, and support...and it holding back the web for many years, or how Microsoft basically won against the United States by building IE into the OS (a partially successful strategy for them). Google has started separating its first party Applications from the underlying OS(in Android) by giving its users a great internet experience.
I notice that chrome continues to rise in usage as Internet Explorer continues to Dive(Firefox too, but for different reasons)
These graphs say it all http://www.w3counter.com/trends.
WebGL is basically almost the same as OpenGL ES 2.0, which is missing on Windows Phone, Windows RT and Windows 8 modern.
Nowadays most mobile apps use this API for 3D, which makes porting to their platform a big hassle (Only D3D in 9_3 profile is supported, which is even more limited than GL ES 2.0).
Im sure that this is done with a wrapper over their D3D driver, so I hope they make it available for the C++ APIs.
I can't wait to support the wonderful features in IE11. Going by my site stats for IE over the 2 past years and W3Counter's graphs (http://www.w3counter.com/trends), I look forward to 10% of my IE users (themselves only 15% of my visitors) using it in 2 or 3 years. (Or, I can support wonderful new features in Chrome, FireFox, and Safari and cover over 75% of my users.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
IE11 scores 351/500 + 2 bonus point
Again a reasonable post marked flamebait. The quote *directly* from the summery presented the score in a preview browser as great when in reality it is pitiful. The figures are from http://html5test.com/ and the Browser I am currently rocking is Firefox 22 (A released browser) which scores 409/500 + 10 bonus points.
By 2014 they will be caught up to where other browsers were in 2011, for Microsoft that's pretty impressive. Usually IE is about half a decade behind real browsers.
Firefox 14 released July 17, 2012 scored 252/500 so realistically its more like 2 years of Non-Microsoft released browsers vs Microsoft unreleased browsers. there is a graph at the bottom of the page here http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html that shows the lag in Microsofts development.
All other major browsers have had this no-brainer security feature for years now and still crickets from MS land. Not cool.
Every company discontinues support for older products
Except Microsoft's competitors haven't; which is the point Firefox and Chrome latest versions are still available for XP, and unlike Microsoft's business Model there business models demands it. You should reread my post. Its about questioning Microsoft's Business Models, not about Microsoft's unsavoury business practices and continued Monopolistic abuse.
In answer to your question "Do we need to run IE11 on MS-DOS?" the answer is yes if the costs of supporting it are less than the potential revenue generated from *converting* a customer to Internet Explorer and its defaults to its Bing search engine (and other web services), as well as a whole host of intangibles(Its online office and Windows Phone looking more attractive). In reality IE should work on Linux.
Maybe your arguing that Internet explorer cannot compete on its own merits(and never will) and has to use monopolistic abuse as a means of staying relevant, and I think I maybe agree with you.
I know. IE11 doesn't run on my C64's MS-developed BASIC, either. I therefore conclude that Microsoft are a bunch of mindless jerks.
Except that Later versions of IE does not run on competing platforms or earlier iterations of itself still in use. I don't think it makes them Mindless Jerks...losers perhaps, it means that Chrome experiences continued to grow market share on the Desktop while IE continues to plummet...even without throwing in Mobile browsing where its presence continues to be non existent.
What do you mean shotty support?
I wonder where they are getting this statistics from, who is their sources, if there is any bias, etc.
none
If the server is configured as a terminal server then users need to be able to run desktop applications.
For one thing, I'm not sure how much use the terminal server gets in practice other than a single administrator remotely logging in at once. Microsoft's standard operating procedure has been to charge excessive rates for the client access licenses needed for terminal server operation. For another, I'm not sure how well WebGL will pass through an RDP connection.
so this means that there's still people using ie?
Windows XP was released in October of 2001. That's also the same month Red Hat 7.2 was released. I guess you could say that was a good month for operating systems.
You know when Red Hat 7.2 was end-of-lifed? December 2003. Ten years ago.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
With rapid releasing the new IE 6 is webkit. MS is being conservative as it does not want another box model scandal for 10 years as developers write 2 different standards. I know its cool to hate IE but it does have 90% of Firefoxes features and is updated annually now. W3C already changed standards which hurt older phones as they recognize webkit css for Android 2.3.
http://saveie6.com/
Windows XP was released in October of 2001.
Yet was not replaced for till Vista was RTM as of January 30, 2007...although XP was still the only viable alternative till Windows 7 in July 22, 2009, although still massively too bloated an OS for most existing XP machines. You measure from the last sale not the first one :)
But that has nothing to do with my comment which is Browser market share...and the benefits from having one. Personally I love the fact your defending Microsoft treating its customers with second class versions of its software. I am running Firefox 22 on my preferred GNU/Linux right now :)
But it's obviously an additional attack surface which is largely outside of a browser's control
A poorly written 2D graphics driver is likewise. What makes a 3D graphics driver substantially more so?
ask on a site by site basis whenever JS attempts to access the API via the canvas.
Which runs the risk of creating a "Cancel or Allow" type scenario where every site wants to use it, and you end up having to click "Allow" for every site you visit.
Supporting XP is especially complicated for IE,
Then perhaps they should have designed IE explorer to be cross platform :). The fact that IE does not run on Android soon to be the most dominant platform is an example of what a failure it is. The fact that is supplies its own customers with a second class experience.
Oh? Where can I find the repository for security patches for linux 1.0?
https://www.kernel.org/.
The reality though by compitors I unsurprisingly meant (but not limited to :) Firefox http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ and Chrome https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/
XP exists on about 20% of computers...or about 220,000,000 which is why the point is about XP :)
Oh cry me a river.
I work for a dirt cheap client. Even we have been moving off XP for a year now.
Not pretending to be a Linux user today. I like you more as a straight Microsoft Apologist. XP exists on 220,000,000 computers. I personally love the fact that you use an Apple excuse to defend Microsoft it, shows how overpriced and under-supported Windows is.
WebGL does things like compile shader code, directly manipulate texture memory and transfer large vertex buffers to video hardware. Traditional DHTML can't do anything like that. WebGL truly is an exposure of GPU hardware and driver software directly to web applications.
WebGL doesn't necessarily "expose" the GPU to the web application any more than a site that allows HTML comments "exposes" the viewer's browser to the user posting a comment. Slashdot and several other web sites allow users to post comments with a subset of HTML. Arbitrary HTML can perform cross-site scripting using <script> elements, attributes whose name starts with "on", and URLs using the "javascript:" scheme. To prevent this, forum software used by these sites parses and sanitizes the provided HTML before passing it to the web browser. Likewise, a web browser should sanitize WebGL shader code before passing it to the host OpenGL implementation.
Fact is that IE still fills a number of needs for enterprise and corporate customers.
Its not a fact. In reality any firm wanting a cutting edge advantage (as well as others) will avoid IE like a plague. The reality is targeting a platform dependant in today BYOD rather than a cutting edge browser specification, for internal...or mobile deployment is incredibly foolish.
Less like comparing brands...more like hiring a serial killer as a baby sitter.
XP in my mind is like IE 6.... IE is growimg up
Ironically the Problem with IE6 was it was tied to the OS through monopolistic abuse, outdated(And in the absence of competition did not update it), and everywhere, and simply wasn't very good when compared to its competitors. Its net result is it held back the web for a many years.
XP on the other hand, Microsoft has tied to the hardware :) was better than its replacement...and better than its current offering. Still has 20% of the market about 220,000,000 users, and again IE will not work on it.
Internet Explorer is still tied to its platform, and massively behind its competitors from any other company a joke browser...the only thing that has changed is Internet Explorers dominance with has taken years to whittle despite a paradigm shift in the computing market, and competition available for free and orders of magnitude faster; leaner; secure; advanced.
Its no wonder potential customers are looking elsewhere - for both browser(chrome) and platform(Android, Chrome and Linux)
No I am not a MS fanboy but just stating the obvious. I welcome Chrome and FF leaving XP behind and using directX11 for win64 to catch up. IE really is ahead for multimedia heavy sites.
LOL no you are an MS shill a fanboy has something to be fanatical about; if I could get dollar every time you said "back in the day" and made out you used something other than Microsoft.(It kills me every time)
Ironically in context of your comment this article is about Internet Explorer(in an unreleased version) finally catching up with WebGL after lagging behind.
In context of this article FF both FF and Chrome are measurable ahead :) by about 2 years.
Official information on the IE blog: https://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2013/06/26/introducing-ie11-the-best-way-to-experience-the-web-on-modern-touch-devices.aspx
That's nice, but none of those site address any of the issues. kernel.org doesn't have all the latest security patches with backports to linux 1.0. Firefox and Chrome don't install on Windows 2000. And Windows XP doesn't represent 20% of the computers.
Sorry I didn't realise you were trying to be deliberately obtuse. I find it hilarious that your response to Microsoft not supporting its customers on XP (which is still on 20% of 220,000,000 of it)s Desktops since IE9, is *third party* Web Browsers don't support Windows 2000. The answer is simply money. The cost of supporting a Windows 2000 which according to NetMarketshare currently has https://www.netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?qprid=11&qpaf=&qpcustom=Windows+2000&qpcustomb=0 0.07% of the market. Is the cost of supporting the platform outweight the benefits. Microsoft on the other hand Deliberately don't support its users!!
The Kernel 1.0 patches are included on Kernel.org sorry the fact that they are not wrapped up in backports for a (open) *source code* project, is somewhat lost on you, because most people don't go "I don't want better support, I want worse support" (Ironically something Microsoft actually delivers), and the Kernel works by input from companies many of them, and if it was needed someone wanted it, it would have done it, but for the Desktop unlike Windows which is slow moving. Linux is every evolving released for free to the OS, and everybody gets a new version every 6Months. While Windows is tied to a machine users are pushed to paying for a new version (essentially a new computer) to get a new browser.
If you really didn't know this from my initial response I suggest a college course.
hate MS
*sigh*...this is what arguments have become not on *technology* but because of emotion against Tax Avoiding mega corporations.
Ironically I get my Whole OS updated for free every 6 months, and my browser moved to the latest version, thats not hypocrisy but an empirical fact. While Microsoft customers can't even update their browser for free.
Microsoft doesn't owe a new version of Internet explorer to users of windows XP. Considering that the upgrade to the latest version of windows was available for $40 for a long time,
Skipping your hate. Microsoft owes Internet explorer to users of windows because they paid for it, an now due to it being irremovable by monopolistic bundling, and you lie about the upgrade...In costs $199 for the less crippled *udgrade* edition http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/buy more if you live elsewhere.