If it were an IE story, there would be howls of derision that the vulnerabilities existed in the first place and questions about why Microsoft didn't fix them more quickly.
It could have something to do with IE usually leading the browser pack with unfixed major vulnerabilities at Secunia.
My firefox currently uses 13% of my 2 GB, which is 266 MB. Sometimes it becomes horribly slow.
Yes, this is an oddity I have heard about before.:-S I wonder what's going on there. I know a friend who used Firefox 2, but she can't switch to Firefox 3 due to this problem that understandably drives her mad on especially heavy sites. Personally I'm not seeing it at all, and it should of course not consume CPU especially on a static web site without Flash or many GIF animations.
I don't really care about the speed. It's already fast enough. I just wish they'd sort out the RAM consumption issue and all the memory leaks.
Firefox 3 is the best performing browser memory-wise according to all independent tests that I have seen. It barely ever creeps beyond 200 MB RAM usage for me over days of usage. In comparison, Safari 4 Beta and IE 8 easily grows to 300-400 MB after a bunch of tabs browsed. It doesn't even take much effort to get those there.
Uh I don't know about you, but it's kind of nifty to have SOME kind of HTML engine coming with the OS that you can rely on. So you don't have to reinvent the wheel and ship one yourself.
IE 8 may not be perfect, but there's pretty much complete CSS 2.1 support here and it's leaps ahead what you'd be able to do just for your own product, if you'd want a HTML renderer for your product's help system or whatever.
I noted this feature in Opera 10. The results shown in the demos were rather impressive. The web pages had more of a print-layout look to them without the classic trick of relying on images to cover all the content. This has the potential to completely change the look of the web for the better.
This wouldn't matter much if it wasn't for IE 8 also supporting it. Yeah, really!:) And Firefox 3.1 beta 3 too. So yes, this should be interesting.
with the integration between Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer.
These are not integrated as of IE 7 and Windows Vista. MS apps call it in a hard coded fashion like Live Messenger, yes, but IE is no longer integrated with Windows Explorer.
At least, not by me. I imagine that most users will be confused by the presence of more than one "internet" on their machines, and one browser or another still has to be the default.
True, but after that OS version, people will no longer treat that icon as "the internet". I mean, we aren't talking of robots here being programmed to only click on icons they believe represent "the internet". Making users aware of what their most used application is could be a good thing, especially from a security perspective.
They have grasped that Microsoft Word isn't "the paper", so they aren't unlearnable, and it's time to move on IMHO.
1. Bug 2056: display: run-in not implemented 2. Bug 115199: @page in CSS2 not implemented 3. Bug 132035: Support all page-break-* CSS2.1 properties 4. Bug 137367: Implement orphans and widows
Those are needed for CSS 2.1 support. IE 8 doesn't suffer from at least bug 115199 there, I know that for sure. The thing is, is that Microsoft aimed for full CSS 2.1 support in IE 8 rather than e.g. Acid3 work.
It can be argued whether it's more important to focus on e.g. DOM standardizing behavior for the Acid3 test scores, or to support a decade old standard completely. From how I put this, I hope at least someone, somewhere, will have a sligthly better understanding of why Microsoft *are* doing what they are. You may not agree with them, but perhaps at least understand.
Yes, when Internet Explorer 8 is released, Microsoft will finally have implemented decent support for CSS 2, a specification published over a decade ago. I hope everybody here on Slashdot will join me in welcoming Microsoft to 1998. Truly, they deserve all the credit they are going to get for being so ahead of the curve. Keep innovating, Microsoft! Don't let those slow-coaches at the W3C hold you back!
That's not the only feature IE 8 is shipping with before Firefox.:p
I actually like the idea about getting update notifications for websites that have updated themselves. I earlier used a small freeware app for it, but wouldn't have to with IE 8.
No, not the first. Maybe the first to be shipped with the functionality turned on by default.
Noscript isn't just disabled by default, it's not even included, and it's not even developed by Mozilla, it's not going through the typical QA process, and it's not exposed to novices for easy install, and...
True, that's possible, although I feel that's possibly an even more "geeky" reason to why they're doing it (i.e. are they even thinking of services like Google Docs and "the cloud"), but maybe I'm just not having high thoughts about the EU.;-)
Anyway... I also don't think this is the right way to achieve that. If anything, they shouldn't bundle Firefox in that case, but remove IE and when clicking on an IE icon, direct the user to a website offering a number of web browsers. That would be the "clean" way of doing it IMHO. Otherwise, imagine the fuss that would rise from the web browser competition if MS had to include IE and Firefox and that's it.:o
Why is the EU so hooked up on what browser is being used? Why not e.g. the productivity tools being bundled, or the kind of media center/player to play videos and music?
Sure, from a technical standpoint, it's always nice to see more competition here, as that would probably put pressure on Microsoft in making IE more standards compliant, but... Somehow I don't think the EU is thinking that far.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought Firefox was supposed to be a "community" project? Why isn't the community getting input?
It is a community project. Definitely. But I think you belong to the vocal minority here.
If it were an IE story, there would be howls of derision that the vulnerabilities existed in the first place and questions about why Microsoft didn't fix them more quickly.
It could have something to do with IE usually leading the browser pack with unfixed major vulnerabilities at Secunia.
I mean, come on---I'm having 50-60 tabs open but I'm only looking at one at any given moment in time...
Btw, this... IF some tabs have Flash content up, I don't think it helps to have them inactive, and I think that's a limitation of Flash / addons.
My firefox currently uses 13% of my 2 GB, which is 266 MB. Sometimes it becomes horribly slow.
Yes, this is an oddity I have heard about before. :-S I wonder what's going on there. I know a friend who used Firefox 2, but she can't switch to Firefox 3 due to this problem that understandably drives her mad on especially heavy sites. Personally I'm not seeing it at all, and it should of course not consume CPU especially on a static web site without Flash or many GIF animations.
I don't really care about the speed. It's already fast enough. I just wish they'd sort out the RAM consumption issue and all the memory leaks.
Firefox 3 is the best performing browser memory-wise according to all independent tests that I have seen. It barely ever creeps beyond 200 MB RAM usage for me over days of usage. In comparison, Safari 4 Beta and IE 8 easily grows to 300-400 MB after a bunch of tabs browsed. It doesn't even take much effort to get those there.
Maybe you shouldn't rely on it, then?
Uh I don't know about you, but it's kind of nifty to have SOME kind of HTML engine coming with the OS that you can rely on. So you don't have to reinvent the wheel and ship one yourself.
IE 8 may not be perfect, but there's pretty much complete CSS 2.1 support here and it's leaps ahead what you'd be able to do just for your own product, if you'd want a HTML renderer for your product's help system or whatever.
I noted this feature in Opera 10. The results shown in the demos were rather impressive. The web pages had more of a print-layout look to them without the classic trick of relying on images to cover all the content. This has the potential to completely change the look of the web for the better.
This wouldn't matter much if it wasn't for IE 8 also supporting it. Yeah, really! :) And Firefox 3.1 beta 3 too. So yes, this should be interesting.
Oh wait. That should be IE 7 only. Since IE 7 is released for XP as well, and the integration was removed in that version I believe.
with the integration between Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer.
These are not integrated as of IE 7 and Windows Vista. MS apps call it in a hard coded fashion like Live Messenger, yes, but IE is no longer integrated with Windows Explorer.
At least, not by me. I imagine that most users will be confused by the presence of more than one "internet" on their machines, and one browser or another still has to be the default.
True, but after that OS version, people will no longer treat that icon as "the internet". I mean, we aren't talking of robots here being programmed to only click on icons they believe represent "the internet". Making users aware of what their most used application is could be a good thing, especially from a security perspective.
They have grasped that Microsoft Word isn't "the paper", so they aren't unlearnable, and it's time to move on IMHO.
I'm only not sure whether you can claim your own back, though.
To eat it like a true Scientologist?
Om nom nom nom.
You guys forget the "?" in the article title, like in the source you're citing.
The thing is, is that these SKU's may all be placeholders.
MS has not yet confirmed what the Windows 7 SKU's will be.
Almost all, if not all, comments here ignore this.
I sometimes don't like modern Slashdot, at all. :-(
I, for one, won't be buying it.
Who will? Most will have it in time anyway.
Also note that this is a beta against RTM releases.
It could play a role.
Better provide the bugs btw...
I'll spare Bugzilla though...
1. Bug 2056: display: run-in not implemented
2. Bug 115199: @page in CSS2 not implemented
3. Bug 132035: Support all page-break-* CSS2.1 properties
4. Bug 137367: Implement orphans and widows
Those are needed for CSS 2.1 support. IE 8 doesn't suffer from at least bug 115199 there, I know that for sure. The thing is, is that Microsoft aimed for full CSS 2.1 support in IE 8 rather than e.g. Acid3 work.
It can be argued whether it's more important to focus on e.g. DOM standardizing behavior for the Acid3 test scores, or to support a decade old standard completely. From how I put this, I hope at least someone, somewhere, will have a sligthly better understanding of why Microsoft *are* doing what they are. You may not agree with them, but perhaps at least understand.
Yes, when Internet Explorer 8 is released, Microsoft will finally have implemented decent support for CSS 2, a specification published over a decade ago. I hope everybody here on Slashdot will join me in welcoming Microsoft to 1998. Truly, they deserve all the credit they are going to get for being so ahead of the curve. Keep innovating, Microsoft! Don't let those slow-coaches at the W3C hold you back!
Be careful here in your sarcastic flaming. ;-)
Firefox 3 doesn't support CSS 2.1.
Apparently acid3 is not yet a development target for MS
Just to be clear on this one, Microsoft have blogged about this and why it isn't one the past year.
That's not the only feature IE 8 is shipping with before Firefox. :p
I actually like the idea about getting update notifications for websites that have updated themselves. I earlier used a small freeware app for it, but wouldn't have to with IE 8.
These days, I can't go a day without wanting to toss firefox out the window with it's "fat guy at the buffet" attitude towards my system resources.
Huh, I'm having far less problems with Firefox 3.0's new memory manager.
http://dotnetperls.com/Content/Browser-Memory.aspx
How is running a highly network-enabled process in a protected memory space "retarded"? I can think of far worse junk to add to a browser than that.
The article says Microsoft takes standards seriously but the test says otherwise.
That's because they're working to support CSS 2.1 first, and ended up supporting parts of that standard that not even Firefox does yet. :o
No, not the first. Maybe the first to be shipped with the functionality turned on by default.
Noscript isn't just disabled by default, it's not even included, and it's not even developed by Mozilla, it's not going through the typical QA process, and it's not exposed to novices for easy install, and...
I know this is about IE, but let's be fair here.
True, that's possible, although I feel that's possibly an even more "geeky" reason to why they're doing it (i.e. are they even thinking of services like Google Docs and "the cloud"), but maybe I'm just not having high thoughts about the EU. ;-)
Anyway... I also don't think this is the right way to achieve that. If anything, they shouldn't bundle Firefox in that case, but remove IE and when clicking on an IE icon, direct the user to a website offering a number of web browsers. That would be the "clean" way of doing it IMHO. Otherwise, imagine the fuss that would rise from the web browser competition if MS had to include IE and Firefox and that's it. :o
Why is the EU so hooked up on what browser is being used? Why not e.g. the productivity tools being bundled, or the kind of media center/player to play videos and music?
Sure, from a technical standpoint, it's always nice to see more competition here, as that would probably put pressure on Microsoft in making IE more standards compliant, but... Somehow I don't think the EU is thinking that far.
Yes, I thought it was earlier too, and maybe it is, but I just found this source before posting that. *shrug*