| 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 makes changes to browser ballot screen; user testing to commence | |
|
||
| Time: 11:40 EST/16:40 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
The inclusion of a ballot screen — which will be delivered to XP, Vista and Windows 7 PC users in Europe via Microsoft’s Windows Update patching mechanism — is one of the concessions Microsoft made to try to appease the European antitrust regulators in their investigation of Microsoft’s practice of bundling Internet Explorer (IE) with Windows. The investigation was the result of an antitrust suit brought against Microsoft in 2007 by Opera Software. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 229 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:14:22 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 10/7/2009 2:47:20 PM |
| I've said it before and I'll say it again. Browser choice is ruining the flippin' web. Now I've got to have three browsers just to find one that renders a site properly. Sheesh. |
| #2 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 10/7/2009 2:47:39 PM |
| I've said it before and I'll say it again. Browser choice is ruining the flippin' web. Now I've got to have three browsers just to find one that renders a site properly. Sheesh. |
| #3 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 10/7/2009 2:49:26 PM |
| Such a fabulous comment I thought I'd post twice :(. |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/7/2009 3:07:31 PM |
| #1: I would think that lack of standards is what was ruining the web, but that is changing. I've been using Firefox for a few years now and I can't remember it not rendering a site properly. |
| #5 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 10/7/2009 4:23:02 PM |
| #4 "More Standards" - circa 1995 |
| #6 By 143 (216.205.223.146) at 10/7/2009 6:15:48 PM |
| Opera is running 100% on acid3 test. |
| #7 By 116 (99.128.108.87) at 10/7/2009 6:53:07 PM |
| Try getting Firefox to display transparent flash content correctly! I hate firefox! |
| #8 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 10/7/2009 7:56:11 PM |
|
ok... look, we build a lot of web applications and keep about three or four running in dev at any given time.
Each browser has subtle anomalies that impact the process and one can code to strict standards compliance all day long and still run into weird glitches with different browsers. For the moment, forget ACID 3, it's not yet a "standard" and not fully baked. Similarly, stuff HTML 5, it's not even close and Microsoft is all over advancing its most evolved and beneficial components now - though other claim greater advocacy. By far, at least in our work, the most troubled browser is Firefox. Opera can be as bad, but doesn't stumble on new implementations of JQuery as often as FF does. The most CSS2 compliant browser is IE 8 and it is also the most forgiving. Oldog is quite right, all this "standards" talk is largely just that and most often trotted out by people either hiding behind it or not participating in it at all. Guys paying for it really have some legit gripes and it can be very frustrating. You can fully validate a site and still see any of the modern browsers have a fit with it - less IE 8, which seems to simply get it done all the time. And finally, competition? BS. This is not about competition among browsers. This noise is all about search and how broswer companies have deals with Google opposite default search engines and how many ad dollars they drive. To call it otherwise is simply not being sincere - after all, all the browsers are free so where else is the money coming from and Google has already admitted that it sustains FF/Moz and I believe in no small measure, Chrome is there to keep the DoJ off of them over their deal with FF/Moz and how earnings and taxes are reported, and to later push the Chrome OS, at which point I am betting FF is absorbed up into Google and Moz is left to die. That's just how I see it from then end that has to fund a lot of this and suffer the oddities that pop up and their associated costs and delays. |
| #9 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 10/7/2009 8:01:32 PM |
|
So... #8. Who is supporting Opera? What the heck is Safari doing on the PC?
Sometimes choice just stinks. |
| #10 By 23603 (96.21.51.190) at 10/7/2009 8:04:53 PM |
|
I am happy with IE8
Super fast, light...why would I need another browser? |
| #11 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 10/7/2009 8:17:21 PM |
|
#9, Safari uses Google as its search and is there to seed PC's with iTunes and other Apple cruft and draw people into their ecosystem - and do know that Apple captures a ton of data about every lick of media a user has on their PC - including naughty bits that they are alleged to share with the likes of the RIAA.
Google is also the dealer of the day with Opera, http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/02/27/google-lands-default-search-position-in-opera-mobile/ mobile and desktop, http://operawatch.com/news/2007/10/opera-and-google-renew-search-agreement-for-desktop-browser.html I have had no issues with IE 8 and Windows 7 Ult RTM. Process isolation and recovery is nice and fewer crashes of tabs are noted. It is fast and safer than any other browser out there. We only test Safari on Mac OS X, so I cannot speak to how it is on the PC. While I have seen it installed on a PC, I have not seen anyone actually willing use it. |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/8/2009 8:13:15 AM |
|
#8: That post could have come straight from Redmond. But then again, most of yours do.
No, open web standards is not "just talk" and to believe that is idiocy. Open web standards are the way to escape the proprietary web. We all saw for ourselves what happened when MS won the browser war, and by extension, control over the web: viruses and malware galore, and a complete lack of innovation in favour of the status quo. Users overwhelmingly rejected the proprietary web, and open standards began to take on more importance and relevance. Once again, you seem to adopt a position that is beneficial to Microsoft alone, and detrimental to everyone else. Why is that? |
| #13 By 12071 (124.170.164.216) at 10/8/2009 8:48:44 AM |
|
#8 "Each browser has subtle anomalies that impact the process and one can code to strict standards compliance all day long and still run into weird glitches with different browsers."
Agree! That's why you need to code to the standard and then add workarounds where required - IE is largely responsible for the sheer amount of workarounds that have been required in the past so it's not innocent here. "ACID 3, it's not yet a "standard"" I'm sorry.. what? Why? oh that's right! because IE scores 20/100...the browser on my iphone does a better job. And what is this crap about it not being a standard? It covers the following standards: * DOM Level 2 Traversal (subtests 1–6) * DOM Level 2 Range (subtests 7–11) * Content-Type: image/png; text/plain (subtests 14–15) * <object> handling and HTTP status codes (subtest 16) * DOM Level 2 Core (subtests 17, 21) * DOM Level 2 Events (subtests 17, 30–32) * CSS Selectors (subtests 33–40) * DOM Level 2 Style (subtest 45) * DOM Level 2 HTML (subtest 60) * DOM Level 2 Views * ECMAScript GC (subtests 26–27) * Unicode 5.0 UTF-16 (subtest 68) * Unicode 5.0 UTF-8 (subtest 70) * HTML 4.0 Transitional (subtest 71) * HTML 4.01 Strict * SVG 1.1 (subtests 74, 78) * SVG 1.1 Fonts (subtests 77, 79) * SMIL 2.1 (subtests 75–76) * ECMAScript Conformance (subtests 81-96) * Data URI scheme (subtest 97) * XHTML 1.0 Strict (subtest 98) * HTTP 1.1 Protocol "stuff HTML 5, it's not even close" Of course it's not... and it wont be finished until 2012 or so (based on current predictions)... that doesn't mean you can't start supporting it now - just be aware that changes may occur. http://idreamincode.co.uk/ie8-bugs #10 You don't! You've made your choice and you should be happy with it! Others want a browser with more features/addins, a faster browser, a more configurable one or perhaps one that has a much richer toolset for development needs etc... everyone has their reasons for selecting their primary browser. Choice is good... too much choice is confusing, but it's always better than no choice! |
| #14 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 10/8/2009 9:18:14 AM |
|
#13, Crap? Fact, IT IS NOT YET A STANDARD! Acid 3 is no more a standard than HTML 5 is finalized.
Another fact, YES, IE 5/6/7 were less "standards" compliant, but then again the "standards" were much less well evolved and browsers like Chrome and Safari did not exist yet. For practical reasons and against an ocean of sites and corp. web apps, IE 6/7 persisted in a less "standards" compliant state until compatibility mode was evolved in IE 8 Another fact, IE 8 is the most CSS2 compliant browser there is. "Standards" are important, but they have to be evolved fairly and responsibly and our language around them has to conform to some "standards" of their own - you cannot pick and choose and constantly move the bar around to support a position. IE 8 passes Acid 2, which is based upon approved standards and then fails Acid 3, which is based upon as yet to be approved standards.... and then holler they don't support HTML5 yet! It's just not helpful and there are very real differences and sets of requirements the browser face - IE faces all of them, a legacy and many verticals. Similarly, just because Acid 3 ALSO supports existing "standards" does not mean it is THE standard - one would expect it to support EXISTING "standards" Finally, "standards" I 100% agree they are a good thing. I 100% disagree that they should evolve based upon the politics of business. Where are forced to evolve they do so outside of practical considerations that impact (Negatively) many more companies and people than those building the browsers. Not that I am interesting in blunting progress, or even slowing it, I am interested in seeing them evolve for the right reasons and Latch's persistence in resorting to juvenile name calling and insults is exactly the kind of "crap" that should not drive this, or any process. |
| #15 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/8/2009 12:21:46 PM |
|
#14: "Standards" are important, but they have to be evolved fairly and responsibly and our language around them has to conform to some "standards" of their own - you cannot pick and choose and constantly move the bar around to support a position.
Funny how we didn't hear this out of you when MS was gaming ISO with their bogus OOXML "standard". Finally, "standards" I 100% agree they are a good thing. I 100% disagree that they should evolve based upon the politics of business. See above re: MS gaming ISO. You only believe in standards as long as a) Microsoft controls it, or b) Microsoft directly benefits from it. Otherwise, standards are anathema to you/MS as they loosen the yolk of control that MS has grasped for a long time. Standards allow competition based on merit as opposed to the monopolization of proprietary information. MS talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk, and you're right there in lock-step with them. |
| #16 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 10/8/2009 1:54:59 PM |
|
#12 Latch bro Standards have been "just talk" since they started talking about them. You talk about a browser war. It was won by the brower that took at stab at the proposed standard and picked the right one... *cough* layers.
And the "proprietary web" had nothing to do with malware and viruses. To think so is to be a bumbling idiot. That came from nobody understanding the implications on an open public network with inexperienced users. The Windows Address book was a fantastic idea until people ran malware that read it and spammed. The existance of ActiveX controls is perfectly fine until an unrestricted user blindly clicks "ok" to an install. And frankly I could walk around my office to ordinary users and talk to them about the proprietary web and they would stare back at me blankly. "Open Standards" are a joke as they've been implemented because they can't keep their scope in their pants. The W3C has taken on too much too slowly to be relevant and is more reactionary than they should be because they are so far behind. Googles blind adoption of a proposal as standard (HTML5) is exactly what MS did back with IE4 and 4.01. MS guessed right, Netscape was in it's lawyers office too much to guess right. Funny enough so much of what Microsoft did that was "propreitary" moved into standards in future releases. I don't have a problem with any company doing this even as a web developer because it spawns innovation that a standards body can't hope to figure out in all of it's yapping. I'm still laughing about the part where users give a rats ace about the "proprietary web." Jesus the bubble you live in must be a fun one. |
| #17 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/8/2009 2:24:41 PM |
|
#16: It was won by the brower that took at stab at the proposed standard and picked the right one... *cough* layers.
Awesome revisionist history lesson there, but let's get back to reality for a moment. IE won the browser wars by tying IE to the OS and by enticing web devs to use their proprietary tech like ActiveX. Netscape didn't do itself any favours, for sure, but for you to spin it like IE won due to their standards support is just bizarre. And completely wrong. And the "proprietary web" had nothing to do with malware and viruses. To think so is to be a bumbling idiot. Is that right? So, if I create a website that forces you to use a particular browser that has more security holes than Swiss cheese, and you get a virus from said browser's general lack of security, you're saying there is no connection between the two? Please. And frankly I could walk around my office to ordinary users and talk to them about the proprietary web and they would stare back at me blankly. You could do the same with your users about CPUs, RAM, TCP/IP etc etc etc etc. Does that mean those concepts are unimportant? The ignorance of your coworkers is not an effective metric for determining the importance or need for open standards. Funny enough so much of what Microsoft did that was "propreitary" moved into standards in future releases. Microsoft had the weight to push through some of its ideas, and that is good on them. I'm all in favour of MS coming up with some grand ideas, submitting them to the appropriate standards bodies for approval, vetting them (without shenanigans) and then implementing them in an open, patent-unencumbered way. MS would rather create a standard, control it, monetize it and force everyone to use it and pay for the privilege. I'm still laughing about the part where users give a rats ace about the "proprietary web." If the world worked strictly on what the general public gave a shit about, all we'd be talking about is beer, football and Jesus. The public may not care about the concept, but they care very much about the reality when their browser doesn't render a site properly and they don't know why. My grandmother and millions like her don't care about the Internet in general, so you shouldn't either I guess by your logic. |
| #18 By 12071 (203.210.68.145) at 10/8/2009 7:29:11 PM |
|
#14 "Fact, IT IS NOT YET A STANDARD! Acid 3 is no more a standard than HTML 5 is finalized."
What the hell? Acid 3 is a TEST SUITE that validates a browsers compliance to a set of STANDARDS! And if IE8 did a better job (as if it could perform any worse than it does already!) of supporting the STANDARDS that the Acid 3 TEST SUITE tests then you'd be claiming it as valid. Because it doesn't you're here dismissing it - and making some bullshit comments about Acid 2 being valid because it's based on "approved standards" when prior to IE8 coming out you were dismissing Acid 2 in much the same way. I guess "approved" equates to "supported by Microsoft"! "IE 5/6/7 were less "standards" compliant, but then again the "standards" were much less well evolved and browsers like Chrome and Safari did not exist yet." IE7 came out in 2006, 3 years after Safari came out. So whilst Chrome didn't exist at the time other browsers like Safari, Firefox, Opera etc did - so cut the less evolved bullshit. The standards had been defined for some time it just took a long time to get browsers to support those standards due to the shit that was IE6 has created. "Similarly, just because Acid 3 ALSO supports existing "standards" does not mean it is THE standard - one would expect it to support EXISTING "standards" " It doesn't need to test everything before it... you can run Acid and Acid 2 to verify those existing standards you keep mentioning! (http://acidtests.googletoad.com/) But once a browser has managed 100% on the other two it's time to focus on the next lot... which happens to be Acid 3... a test suite in which IE8 gets 20/100! Yes there are some tests within Acid 3 that are based on specifications under consideration by the W3C but everything else is based on pre-existing standards. "Another fact, IE 8 is the most CSS2 compliant browser there is. " Excellent... it conforms to one standard, CSS2.1, now move on and see if it can get a few more runs on the board. Stop settling for mediocrity! |
| #19 By 12071 (203.210.68.145) at 10/8/2009 7:30:09 PM |
|
. This post was edited by chris_kabuki on Thursday, October 08, 2009 at 20:01. |
| #20 By 12071 (203.210.68.145) at 10/8/2009 7:49:23 PM |
|
. This post was edited by chris_kabuki on Thursday, October 08, 2009 at 20:02. |
| #21 By 17855 (98.156.78.242) at 10/8/2009 8:41:20 PM |
|
Interesting. According to Wikipedia:
"The percentage displayed is based on the number of subtests passed. It does not represent an actual percentage of conformance as the test does not keep track of how many of the subtests were actually started (100 is assumed)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3 |
| #22 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/9/2009 7:47:17 AM |
| #18: I hope your hand isn't too sore after that spanking you administered. |
| #23 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/9/2009 11:54:10 AM |
| The crickets are nice this time of year... |
| #24 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/9/2009 1:36:37 PM |
| Anyone know how to get in touch with the Scooby Gang? We need someone to solve the Mystery of the Disappearing Ketchum. |
| #25 By 23275 (24.239.223.126) at 10/10/2009 2:46:11 PM |
|
on the road with a customer
be back soon |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 229 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:14:22 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
