| 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 |
 |
Microsoft releases Internet Explorer 8 RC1 | |
|
||
| Time: 13:35 EST/18:35 GMT | News Source: Neowin | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
The Guys over at Neowin just noticed that Internet Explorer 8 RC has been released:As we reported last week, Microsoft has just launched Internet Explorer 8 RC 1 with build number 8.0.06001.18372. Microsoft has not yet released a changelog, so if you spot any new features or major changes let us know. Download: 32-Bit Vista | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 329 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:44:42 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 1/26/2009 3:34:50 PM |
| So... If I'm running Vista 64 and want to use IE8 for daily browsing should I download both the 32 and 64 bit version. By that I mean to say does IE8 64 bit support Adobe flash? |
| #2 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 1/26/2009 3:50:15 PM |
|
dog,
the 64 bit version will update both 32 and 64 bit instances on your x64 bit Vista computer. As you know, the deault appliction on both 32 and 64 bit Vista PC's is, 32. One may select and run IE 64 bit, which does not have FLASH support. |
| #3 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 1/26/2009 5:24:58 PM |
| Lloyd, will it be a problem to migrate from RC1 to the final release? If not I'll get it tonight. |
| #4 By 3746 (72.12.161.38) at 1/26/2009 5:26:07 PM |
|
#3
You will be able to install the RC and remove it if you have to as well as upgrade right to the final release. |
| #5 By 143 (96.28.64.17) at 1/26/2009 6:38:22 PM |
| Very stable on Vista 32bit. |
| #6 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 1/26/2009 10:43:46 PM |
|
Dog,
Yes, you may install IE 8 RTm over the top of IE 8 RC1 - it will see the earlier version, remove it and install the release software. I would use IE 8 32 bit - the default, unless you were doing searches from among sites you may not trust. In such cases, use IE x64. It is the safest browsing experience available. *Tip.. in IE 7/8 there is a check box that allows one to run in Protected Mode for Trusted Sites. Check that box for site you have in your trusted sites list to enhance security for sites like company Extranets. Run x64 Vista/Windows 7; use IE 7/8 in its default protected mode; leave hardware NX on; ASLR+DEP (the defaults) are on by default - leave them on; run UAC in Vista and at its highest level in Win7; leave the admin account disabled (again a default (all users in Vista/Win7 are standard users)); patch each second Tuesday; keep Quicktime off your computer; patch Adobe FLASH and Reader as updates come out; use ESET NOD32 until Morrow ship this summer AND NEVER WORRY ABOUT Mal-Ware! Aside from your AV, one has to do about nothing to remain entirely safe with Vista/Win7 - just don't approve any UAC prompts that do not result from actions - like new software installs - that you do not intend to take. |
| #7 By 143 (96.28.64.17) at 1/27/2009 3:56:14 AM |
| Spoke to soon "Not Responding" on five different sites now. :( |
| #8 By 8556 (12.208.163.37) at 1/27/2009 9:54:09 AM |
| I like to watch full episode streaming Fox TV shows. IE7 plays them perfectly. IE8 alternated between a bright flash of white and a black screen. After uninstalling IE8 from my Vista SP1 Home Premium 32-bit system, IE7 again plays Fox shows perfectly in HD, which by the way looks stunning on a 1080p HDTV. I'll keep IE8 at arms length until the things I want to do on a browser, both work and play, function fully. |
| #9 By 37 (192.251.125.85) at 1/27/2009 12:56:40 PM |
| People still use IE? WTF |
| #10 By 89137 (65.255.137.29) at 1/27/2009 1:03:31 PM |
| Yes, awbrian. People still use IE. In fact, 7 out of 10 people still use it. Walk around your office and see what your coworkers are using to access the internets. I bet they all use IE. I bet you yourself use IE at work as well... |
| #11 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/27/2009 1:32:00 PM |
| There once was a time when 7 out of 10 didn't use seatbelts, and 7 out of 10 smoked in their cars with kids. |
| #12 By 16797 (65.93.27.27) at 1/27/2009 2:03:27 PM |
|
#8 Have you tried to click Compatibility View button? It should switch IE8 back into IE7 mode.
If it works, you can even add that site to Compatibility View list (Tools-> Comp. View Settings). This post was edited by gonzo on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 at 14:06. |
| #13 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 1/27/2009 2:27:12 PM |
| #12 with Gonzo, I recommend IE 8 users leave the checbox in IE 8's compatibility service enabled - it will provide users with a more seamless view of sites not coded to what now passes for modern "web standards" |
| #14 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 1/27/2009 2:36:02 PM |
|
funny bit o'trivia....
The site http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/ which presents the Acid 2 test, which IE 8 passes, must be viewed in compatibility mode in order for it to render properly... Think IE 8 is broken? ..... No! IE 8 in its default mode is very strict and the web standards org site is not compliant itself... Ok... on ups this or that aside... it shows that what we think are standards are not quite "standards" and what influences what one codes and therefore sees on the web, is about what technologies and methods are available and being used. Please get this... the web 2.0 and worse, enterprise 2.0 is a sewer... stinking of out of control scripting and very poorly authored doo dads... (and investors are dumping billions on this stuff and again without clear revenue streams...) .. this was all a really long way around the barn to say that I am really glad jQuery's team is partnering with MS and will ship with VS in the future. |
| #15 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/27/2009 3:25:34 PM |
|
#14: Think IE 8 is broken? ..... No! IE 8 in its default mode is very strict and the web standards org site is not compliant itself...
I'm sorry, what? Link? it shows that what we think are standards are not quite "standards" and what influences what one codes and therefore sees on the web, is about what technologies and methods are available and being used. I tend to think that one single example isn't indicative of anything and is, in fact, statistically insignificant. Now, if you had other supporting data that could be used to extrapolate a trend... |
| #16 By 82766 (211.26.160.18) at 1/27/2009 3:44:16 PM |
|
@15 - One of my favourite past times is using Chrome to "Inspect Element" or similar with FF. It really is quite funny how many sites do not follow the so-called "web standards".
The call for everyone to follow web standards really is a waste of time because those standards are floating all over the place with no consistency!! |
| #17 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/27/2009 3:59:50 PM |
|
#16: One of my favourite past times is using Chrome to "Inspect Element" or similar with FF.
You need ot get out more often ;) It really is quite funny how many sites do not follow the so-called "web standards". 'Sad' would be my adjective of choice. The web is evolving slowly. There are still lots of IE-only sites, but they are shrinking as awareness increases. Other sites wsupport standards only as far as making their site look nice in the top browsers. The call for everyone to follow web standards really is a waste of time because those standards are floating all over the place with no consistency!! You can't really believe that, can you? It should make less work for web developers and ensures all users can participate. I don't believe the standards are floating all over the place. The implementations are another story, however. |
| #18 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 1/27/2009 4:39:49 PM |
|
Latch....
you really think it is that cut and dried, huh? It isn't at all. The "Org's" own site isn't compliant! The mess and noise around "standards" is just that... a mess and a costly one. Self-appointed... and inconsistent. |
| #19 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 1/27/2009 4:43:16 PM |
|
oh... here is my standard... simple:
"Does it render properly in all browsers in their default modes Yes, or No?" If yes, cool. If no, fix it so it does. Do we ever say: "Ummm what do the standards say?" Uh... NO! to do so is nuts and does not work - since one, or two browsers will interpret that standard differently. But do notice.... We coded once, right? Only once and the test was: "did it render well?" That is the standard that allows one to pay people a living wage - CONSISTENTLY! |
| #20 By 15406 (99.240.65.32) at 1/27/2009 6:20:11 PM |
| #18,19: Nonsense. Standards in various forms make your life easier every day. You wouldn't be able to sell your systems without standards,and we wouldn't be able to have this debate without them either. I suspect what you really mean is that there should be no web standards so that the dominant player (whoever *that* would be) can dictate as it pleases and everyone else just follows along. Sorry, but we've all been down that road before and it leads straight to MS Lockin Avenue. That's why people, companies & countries around the world are trying to set standards in these areas so that they are not dependent on the whims of a single entity. |
| #21 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 1/27/2009 8:16:27 PM |
|
"Trying" is the very relevant word here... and equally, arbitrarily and according to something of an agenda...
No... what I am saying is that "our" standard is simple: Does the site render in all browsers? Yes, or No? If yes, cool. If no, fix it. We do not, despite writing very clean code, pull out the latest iteration of "the standards" because EXPERIENCE has taught us that we'll get our backsides handed to us if we make any assumptions based upon that. Hence why it is perhaps ironic, but no surprise, that the site hosting the standards tests (Acid 2) is not compliant, http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/ So the "standards" in this context are far more practical and working as we do, keeps people in their jobs vice slobbering all over ourselves paying lip service to the W3C (or any other "standards" group). By the way.... working this way is why our country was actually able to land men on the moon - vice sitting on our hands talking about why we shouldn't try. Pracitcal people who get things done - that also work! (in this case, in any browser). |
| #22 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/28/2009 9:38:37 AM |
|
#21: "Agenda"? You make it sound so sinister.
Does the site render in all browsers? Yes, or No? If yes, cool. If no, fix it. That is very inefficient. A better solution is to author to a standard so that it looks good on all compliant browsers. Those that aren't compliant should fix their browser instead of expecting the world to write code specifically for them. What you're describing has been the status quo for the past decade; people want better. And that is why MS is being forced, bit by bit, into supporting developing web standards. |
| #23 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 1/28/2009 1:25:54 PM |
|
#22, right... and wait until the browsers catch up to a changing standard..... and then have all visitors upgrade...?
sure. I guess... if the socialist collective is paying no matter what one does... I guess that works... Meanwhile, back out here is the real-world where one can still (but for how long) be good enough to prosper.... we're busy getting things done... - THAT STILL WORK IN ALL BROWSERS. Stalin called and said he wants his flag back. |
| #24 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/28/2009 2:26:41 PM |
|
#24: and wait until the browsers catch up to a changing standard....
It's not like the standard changes month to month, and it's not like the browser companies only update every 5 years or so after they've won the browser wars of the 90's... oh wait.... and then have all visitors upgrade...? So upgrading to close security holes is good, but upgrading to enable better standards compliance is bad? Why is that? And since both IE and FF have simple upgrade mechanisms, it's not like it's the end of the world. if the socialist collective is paying no matter what one does... I guess that works... What the hell are you talking about?? How does socialism figure into this at all? You know, you aren't doing yourself much good by trying to smear those who support web standards. I recognize that MS doesn't like them, therefore you don't like them, but you have to realize that people are starting to take off the shackles of proprietary data & protocols. we're busy getting things done... - THAT STILL WORK IN ALL BROWSERS. Good for you. Some people choose to work harder; some choose to work smarter. Enjoy all the extra work coding for different browsers? Stalin called and said he wants his flag back. I didn't know you & Stalin were that close that he has your phone number. Just give him his flag back and he'll likely leave you alone. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 329 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:44:42 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
