| 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 |
 |
IE8: Better, But Still Not Best | |
|
||
| Time: 13:34 EST/18:34 GMT | News Source: InformationWeek | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
It's been more than two years since Microsoft brought its browser development group out of mothballs and released IE7. It was a great step forward from IE6, but Microsoft was so far behind that it couldn't catch up in a single version step. Now Microsoft is on the verge of releasing Internet Explorer 8. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 313 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:00:44 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2138 (92.48.93.228) at 2/14/2009 4:19:52 PM |
|
I8 is no improvement for it totally sucks. Much too slow to load the first page when loaded, balks at its own doing, is really unresponsive and it is still to not so ready to be released to the public. My personal opinion is that M$ should just give up on this project and let the others lead and road. less law suits, etc...
Long time IE supporter and now not so sure what I ever liked with this??? |
| #2 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 2/14/2009 7:10:59 PM |
|
My 2 cents. IE is fine and so are Chrome and Safari. I use the Fox because I can customize it to better suit my personal needs with add-ons.
As I read the above referenced article, the author feels the same way. By the way the only add-on for Firefox which is indispensable is IE Tab. As I have stated in other posts it seems to me that the future is not in grand Open Source projects but in small and very functional programs which add functionality and flexibility to programs and devices. I like to point out that the most compelling part of the iPhone experience is the iPhone store. Interestingly one can make the argument that this is the precise reason that the Mac will never really compete with the PC. The ecosystem of programs for the PC make it much more compelling for business and individual users. So its not the OS; its the additional programs for doing just about anything imaginable on a computer that makes Windows compelling. Sure, the Mac can do just about anything the PC can do but not with the seemingly infinite variation and flexibility. |
| #3 By 17996 (24.16.47.66) at 2/14/2009 10:00:29 PM |
| Well, if you look at what they developed instead during the time IE was in the "mothballs" -- namely, WPF -- they are light years ahead of anything that Mozilla, Apple, Google, or Opera could ever come up with. Only Flash comes anywhere close. |
| #4 By 12071 (124.168.173.210) at 2/15/2009 12:37:51 AM |
|
#1 IE8's improvement is in web standards. Having said that it's still quite dismal in implementing those standards.
#2 IMO there's plenty of indispensable add-on's for FireFox depending on what you use it for. - AdBlock - for all uses - NoScript - for the extra cautious :) - FireBug - for developers - it's brilliant! - Live HTTP Headers - for developers - YSlow - for developers - Web Developer - for designers - Prism - for a bit of fun... it's still in development, similar to Adobe Air #3 And WPF has what to do with browser development? Not to say that it isn't a good framework, although I'd point to WCF as a better framework, but it's got absolutely nothing to do with this story. Microsoft abandoned the browser, clear and simple. The reasons behind that are numerous - one being that they don't really want the browser to become too powerful because it then largely makes the underlying OS irrelevant. |
| #5 By 17996 (24.16.47.66) at 2/15/2009 4:30:46 AM |
|
#4 -- Well let's see, WPF delivers the kinds of rich experiences that content providers want to provide and that users want to experience; its programming model is powerful, elegant, consistent and unified, compared to the disjoint, adhoc, inconsistent mess that is HTML+CSS+JavaScript. Ever wonder why acrobat.com is developed all in Flash and not on HTML+CSS+Javascript? Because the latter is not up for the task, despite what the standardistas might claim.
Back in ~2000 Microsoft looked at the state of things on the web front and knew that the technologies there just were not designed for the long haul, so they started on something that would actually be designed to handle the scenarios of the next decades. (Compare this to HTML5 which is largely focused on standardizing legacy behaviors and small increments on top of the current HTML mess.) Watch this Channel9 video -- very enlightening: http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Charles/Michael-Wallent-Advent-and-Evolution-of-WPF/ Their mistakes with WPF were taking too long and doing it largely behind closed doors. Like they did with C# and the CLS, they should have developed WPF in stages and taken it to standards groups like ECMA. (NOT the W3C which would require a completely compatible SECOND implementation by a competing vendor.) |
| #6 By 12071 (124.168.173.210) at 2/15/2009 8:06:25 AM |
|
#5 I've heard the marketing spiel :) I've even written several applications using the framework so I'm quite aware of what it is, what it isn't, what it's good at and where the holes are. But I still fail to see the immediate relevance to the topic at hand (i.e. standards support in IE).
What you appear to be saying is that WPF, as it exists in Silverlight, is the "light years ahead" approach that Microsoft has developed. And you can argue that it's the future platform of choice beyond the browser. There's one big problem... DHTML (or HTML+CSS+Javascript) is compatible* across multiple environments and has several implementations - allowing content providers to target anyone regardless of what OS and browser they happen to be using. Creating content in Silverlight allows content providers to target Windows users on IE only. (Let's not kid ourselves - Mono and Moonlight are not another implementation given that they are always going to 2 steps behind by definition). Flash runs on multiple platforms so it's been embraced to some point but the number of sites that use Flash for the majority of their site is minimal - mainly because most sites written in Flash, in my opinion, are a pain in the ass to use. So personally, unless there's a Silverlight equivalent across the major platforms, it will be seen as a purely Microsoft-only technology and hence not displace the browser in any significant way, no matter how much Microsoft pushes it through Windows Update or on microsoft.com. *Note: With the exception of IE, which refuses to follow standards, all other browsers are relatively compatible. |
| #7 By 16797 (65.93.28.52) at 2/15/2009 1:45:51 PM |
|
#4 "And WPF has what to do with browser development? Not to say that it isn't a good framework, although I'd point to WCF as a better framework,"
WCF is better than WPF? That is like saying ASMX web services are better than.. Win Forms. WTF??? #6 "Creating content in Silverlight allows content providers to target Windows users on IE only." Is this a joke? You do realize that Silverlight works fine in Firefox and Safari too and that would be Windows, OSX and Linux (yes, Moonlight is one step behind, but still they have reached 1.0 a few days ago, and 2.0 should be done in september, etc --- not bad at all). Having said that, I don't expect to see Silverlight doing well on public web sites any time soon, but what you said is just plain wrong. This post was edited by gonzo on Sunday, February 15, 2009 at 13:47. |
| #8 By 16797 (65.93.28.52) at 2/15/2009 2:01:26 PM |
|
Actually, just checked with Opera. SL 2.0 runs fine there too (on Windows).
Update: OK, not every SL web site works fine with Opera :) However from what I can see, the fix to make it work is done on server so should not be problematic. This post was edited by gonzo on Sunday, February 15, 2009 at 14:08. |
| #9 By 12071 (203.210.68.145) at 2/15/2009 10:57:04 PM |
|
#7 "WCF is better than WPF?"
The design/implementation of the framework - yes. I'm not comparing their function because that would be like comparing WPF to.... a browser for instance. I'll let you work that one out. "You do realize that Silverlight works fine in Firefox and Safari too and that would be Windows, OSX and Linux" You're right, I was thinking about something else when I said on IE only. I meant that it's seen as an IE-only plugin - yes it will work in other browsers unless you happen to use Opera - which is interesting given the history of Opera and Microsoft. "yes, Moonlight is one step behind" And it always will be - just like Mono will always be behind. So whilst you can theoretically point to these examples, in practice these frameworks will not go mainstream for exactly that reason. Sure you can build an application on Windows and it's cool when it also runs on Mono on Linux but there's far too many limitations that you have to be aware of to truly make a cross-platform application in practice. |
| #10 By 9589 (76.4.22.39) at 2/16/2009 1:16:09 AM |
|
#4, I have to agree with you. Our programmers prefer Firefox because of the several developer add-ons that you mention. It is truly inconceivable that Microsoft with its programming prowess and vast developer community would not have some of these useful tools as add-ons for IE.
|
| #11 By 16797 (65.95.8.188) at 2/16/2009 7:25:02 AM |
|
#9: "The design/implementation of the framework - yes. I'm not comparing their function because that would be like comparing WPF to.... a browser for instance. I'll let you work that one out. "
Design/implementation of WCF is better? How is that? Can you provide some details please? Again: how do you even compare design and implementation of the two since those are providing *completely* different functionality??? And you did compare them by saying WCF is better than WPF. This is just ridiculous :) From what I know it was practically the same: both frameworks were so-so when .NET 3.0 was released and then both framework were improved and optimized with v.3.5 and 3.5 SP1. There was a lot of criticism addressed to WCF (perhaps even more than WPF). (You are simply pulling stuff out of your ass, I think.) "I meant that it's seen as an IE-only plugin - yes it will work in other browsers unless you happen to use Opera - which is interesting given the history of Opera and Microsoft." Well.. you can't say "it is IE-only" and then "yes it will work in other browsers" in the same sentence (Opera or not, since Firefox and Safari are much more relevant than Opera). I'll let you work that one out. which is interesting given the history of Opera and Microsoft. From what I remember, MS has already filled a bug with Opera. In any case - as I said, fix is server-side completely (plus it is a minor one) and hence no problem. Before you start another Latch-like theory let me just remind you that same code works perfectly fine with other major browsers (Safari, Firefox, IE. I don't have Chrome so can't tell, but since it's similar to Safari [= both use webkit] I'd guess it's OK too). This post was edited by gonzo on Monday, February 16, 2009 at 08:29. |
| #12 By 2960 (72.196.201.130) at 2/17/2009 12:05:23 PM |
|
"Well let's see, WPF delivers the kinds of rich experiences that content providers want to provide and that users want to experience"
Now THAT is a Microsoft response if I've ever heard one LOL Me, I just want the damned page to load in under 5 seconds, without having to wait forever due to all the useless 'glitz' all of these create. TL |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 313 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:00:44 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
