| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Has Microsoft abandoned IE? | |
|
||
| Time: 10:22 EST/15:22 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
It has been over three years since the last major update to IE... Microsoft claims that it's because it has something special planned, but do you believe it? Despite all appearances, Microsoft insists it hasn't lost interest in Web browsers. It has been years since Microsoft declared victory over browser pioneer Netscape Communications and a long time since it last released a full upgrade to Internet Explorer (IE). Now critics say the company is fulfilling old predictions that it would embrace the browser and extend its capabilities, only to extinguish it. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 248 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:43:23 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 61 (65.32.168.114) at 9/30/2004 11:42:42 AM |
|
Microsoft has stated that they had pulled the developers off of IE to work on other things... that kinda paints a picture that they've abandoned it.
Though IE7 in Longhorn ought (read better) to have some nice enhancements. |
| #2 By 24027 (167.206.235.5) at 9/30/2004 12:10:06 PM |
|
The only reason I use IE sometimes is for my intranet sites which use Active X. Firefox makes IE look as bad as Microsoft Bob. This post was edited by rickp on Thursday, September 30, 2004 at 12:13. |
| #3 By 61 (65.32.168.114) at 9/30/2004 12:37:06 PM |
|
I'm sorry, but IE can do everything Firefox can do and more. If you want tabbed browsing, you can go to one of the browsers that use the IE engine but use their own interface... though, personally, I think they are all bloated and I hate them all, but some people swear by them.
sph: IE w/ XPSP2 has built in pop-up blocking. |
| #4 By 22601 (69.194.226.220) at 9/30/2004 1:49:08 PM |
|
IE can do everything that Firefox can do? Nonsense. Do you know how often website designers run into problems because IE supports standards more poorly than Opera or the Gecko-based browsers? Too often we build something that works just fine in one of the latter browsers, only to find out that IE does not support something we used, or that IE supports it wrongly. It is reminiscent of the bad old days when we banged our heads against the wall having to deal with Netscape 4 inadequacies.
|
| #5 By 21203 (208.252.96.220) at 9/30/2004 4:26:25 PM |
|
Tabbed browsing is a subjective feature of a browser. It doesn't add value, it is a feature you can get on either engine. Maxthon adds it to IE, Firefox has it by default, but it doesn't matter. As many say, there are different ways to have organization. Your way isn't necessarily my way. I feel just as organized with stacked IE windows on my tray as you do with tabs in a single window...
Rendering standards are not "features" also, they are standards compliance. So when you say that "Firefox has better standards compliance" you're actually saying that it simply adheres to the proposals in a different way than IE, but that is not a "feature". But I will say that looking into the future, Firefox has quite a challenge in keeping up with IE. Browsers as a whole are launching pads for web services, and if you think that web services aren't the Next Big Thing, you really haven't paid attention to the direction of the internet as a whole. The best thing that Firefox has going for it is that it has no ability to extend itself in the same way that IE does ----- to be very clear, its strength in security is the same as IE's weakness in extensability and perceived lack of security. Firefox will develop itself in the direction that IE is already solidifying (security with extensibility) while IE will simply add the service support that everyone wants and pushing more standards conformance. In the end you'll end up with two browsers that both do the same thing and both need security updates. The jury's still out. |
| #6 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 9/30/2004 6:52:43 PM |
|
becker, if you don't like tabs, don't use them. They are not invasive. So... mram, whining about tabs does you no good, if you don't like them, you never see them. But, just because you two subjectively choose not to utilize them, doesn't mean that you can claim IE has feature parity with FireFox and/or other browsers. It clearly and simply does not.
Also, mram and CPUGuy, you can't claim IE can have features because other apps can use the render engine. OmniWeb uses Safari's render engine, but I don't claim that features of OmniWeb are now features of Safari. IE simply does not have these features. If you use Maxthon you are using a different browser app, you aren't using IE. Just because Microsoft wants you to believe that the render engine cannot be taken out of the browser app but that it must also be a system resource at the same time does not negate the fact that you are using a different browser with different features from IE. If IE had the features, you wouldn't be using a different app, would you? This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, September 30, 2004 at 18:56. |
| #7 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at 9/30/2004 7:05:53 PM |
|
"I'm sorry, but IE can do everything Firefox can do and more."
I'm sorry, but you dont know what you're talking about! here is a list of 101 things Mozilla can do that IE can't. Granted the list is for Mozilla, but most of it applies to firefox as well. http://www.xulplanet.com/ndeakin/arts/reasons.html |
| #8 By 21203 (208.252.96.220) at 9/30/2004 7:11:41 PM |
|
mram, whining about tabs does you no good, if you don't like them, you never see them.
Never said that. I simply stated I don't use them. sbhbecker said the same thing. I don't see how that's "whining" unless you're just trying to be disruptive. It is conceivably possible that someone doesn't like the feature you do. It doesn't deny it as a feature (again, never said that). It is subjective on it's viability to a consumer, however. I won't use it, I've tried it, it doesn't compel me (alt-tab is easier for me to use to switch focus than clicking on tabs -- years of use). As for the rest of your misinterpretations of my dialogue, you should perhaps learn to not take such a defensive stance. I don't care one way or another, but I never said Firefox was less feature-rich than IE, nor would I care if it was (haven't even examined it that closely). I use IE because it has the corporate security needs that I require. I don't see group policy and security zones available in Firefox, nor do I see patch management options available. Plus as an engine it is required in the services and products that my company uses and is easy to maintain. I have no interest in Firefox because the features it has do not compel me. It doesn't mean they don't exist, or that it isn't more feature-rich (who cares?), it simply is an evaluation and decision. So your final statement about me "using a different app" is wrong also, because I don't "use" Firefox; I simply have it installed for testing purposes against other browsers when required, and keep current with the options available to my company. |
| #9 By 1845 (67.169.248.36) at 9/30/2004 7:14:55 PM |
| I just wonder why on earth anyone would go to the trouble of coding for a browser that has like 5% market share prior to coding for one that has 90%+ marketshare. That makes no business sense at all. Code to IE first. Once it works there, then tweak to support the rest of the market, if your budget can fit it in. IE, despite its issues (and FF has plenty of issues contrary to the stories some might tell you), has more market share than all others combine nine times over. If you code to something else first, you don't value your time. |
| #10 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 9/30/2004 8:18:15 PM |
|
"Never said that. I simply stated I don't use them. sbhbecker said the same thing. I don't see how that's "whining" unless you're just trying to be disruptive. It is conceivably possible that someone doesn't like the feature you do. It doesn't deny it as a feature (again, never said that). It is subjective on it's viability to a consumer, however. I won't use it, I've tried it, it doesn't compel me (alt-tab is easier for me to use to switch focus than clicking on tabs -- years of use)."
Sounds like whining to me... "I never said Firefox was less feature-rich than IE, nor would I care if it was (haven't even examined it that closely)." I never said you did, and you are admitting you aren't qualified to participate in a conversation comparing the two, which is what this is. Also, I will quote you: 1. "It doesn't add value, it is a feature you can get on either engine." (But not IE! But it doesn't count because it is not used by YOU?) 2. "Rendering standards are not "features" also, they are standards compliance." Whatever. This is purely a retarded statement. 3. "Firefox has quite a challenge in keeping up with IE." 4. "In the end you'll end up with two browsers that both do the same thing and both need security updates. " No, they do NOT do the SAME thing! "So your final statement about me "using a different app" is wrong also..." I am talking about your claim that using Maxthon is the same as using IE; it is not. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, September 30, 2004 at 20:43. |
| #11 By 21203 (208.252.96.220) at 9/30/2004 8:29:58 PM |
| Ok, if that's the way you want to degrade this conversation, you are about as qualified to compare the two applications as you are in judging me -- which is to say, not at all. I have evaluated both applications, but not at a fine and granular level that would enable me to make a total comparison -- I have compared the two products for both business and personal use for me and the company I work for. That is all anyone should need to do. The world does not operate on a "win or lose" comparison of feature lists that one product has over another. |
| #12 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 9/30/2004 8:41:46 PM |
|
"That is all anyone should need to do."
Compare them based on YOUR personal use and the company YOU work for! Get a grip, mram. Your personal needs and the company you work for are NOT enough to make a comparison by ANY MEANS AT ALL. "you are about as qualified to compare the two applications as you are in judging me." I have not judged you nor have I mentioned a single utterence about what testing I have done or what qualifications I have... Who the fck are you to say that I am not qualified? "The world does not operate on a "win or lose" comparison of feature lists that one product has over another." And I haven't made any such claim. So what's your point? |
| #13 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 9/30/2004 9:57:40 PM |
|
#15 Very obviously also codes for a living - I agree 1000% code for IE and the client first, then adjust to support Mozilla - that'll usually cover Firefox, "if" the client has budget for it.
For the record, in six years of building web applications, I have never been paid a dime by any client that ran a browser other than IE, or IE for MAC. Firefox users are both very few and so far, not in a position to pay for a web application designed for broad distribution and subject to the demands of commercial viability. These are the rules developers play by - we don't make them, but we do have to live by them. Similarly, business uses IE, corporations use IE and these groups have IT/MIS staffs that do assess what to use - they make decisions and they trust IE, and their ability to manage and secure it. Recently, we have begun to pay more attention to Firefox, but to be real candid, that attention has more to do with vanity than anthing else - wanting to make sites run well regardless of browser. Silly really, because ordering it is costly and hazards what else we can do for our people. In the end, people decide. People decided the market not browser developers. |
| #14 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 10/1/2004 12:55:28 AM |
|
#15 "I just wonder why on earth anyone would go to the trouble of coding for a browser that has like 5% market share prior to coding for one that has 90%+ marketshare. That makes no business sense at all. Code to IE first."
Because things like standards escape you. Cupsdell more than likely builds websites to the standards, tries them out on FireFox etc only to then find that IE has interpreted something incorrectly. No-one should code to IE, or FireFox or Safari or any other browser. They should code to the standards, and then, and only then, should then make subtle adjustments required for the various peculiarities in the individual browsers. |
| #15 By 3339 (64.160.58.137) at 10/1/2004 11:52:36 AM |
|
"I agree 1000% code for IE and the client first, then adjust to support Mozilla"
Why? Take a week to learn code that works on both applications, code once without any tweaking, make more money doing less work. "Silly really, because ordering it is costly and hazards what else we can do for our people." How is it silly? It is not much costly at all and it hazards no one if done properly. You might be drinking the koolaid, but that doesn't mean everyone is. |
| #16 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 10/1/2004 4:49:21 PM |
|
I just changed FireFox to report as IE and except for sites that use ActiveX (the only one I will tolerate this with anyway is Windows Update), any snooty "IE ONLY" sites I had trouble at (including the MSKB) have worked fine.
Even my BANK site quit bitching at me :) Oh, I'm sure there are sites this won't work at. I just haven't personally found one yet. TL |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 248 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:43:23 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
