Jump to content



Photo

Microsoft begs Web devs not to make WebKit the new IE6


  • Please log in to reply
150 replies to this topic

#136 Yogurtmaster

Yogurtmaster

    Neowinian

  • 1,225 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:08

First of all.. this right here shows that you are uninformed or too young to remember/know.

Other browsers died or didn't get popularity in the time of IE5 and IE6 because Microsoft held a monopoly with Windows and made IE defacto standard due to forcing it on everyone. Netscape and other browsers at that time didn't stand a chance against Microsoft because Microsoft had IE on both Windows and they had IE even on a Mac. Not to mention that Microsoft did something even worse then (what they are actually doing now) is that they took Javascript and made their own standard JScript that was slightly different from ECMAScript based Javascript so they could make others build websites and stuff and it wouldn't work on other browsers. In essence, the most evil and destructive thing for innovation and progress they could do. I remember this very vividly because I built websites back then and I remember the nightmare we had with it..

Only when Microsoft was legally pushed by DOJ and others to stop with monopoly other browsers started getting a fair share of spotlight.

It had very little to do with the "quality" of other browsers.

Second, Google is pushing Webkit because it's an open source HTML rendering engine. Google doesn't own webkit and they dominate the web because their browser is hands down the best browser, and it's not the only webkit browser. They are not forcing the browser on anyone. They are NOTHING like MIcrosoft. Google invests in open source technologies because they want web to be open, unchained from proprietary garbage because they know that if there's a fair competition they will win out due to quality products and by killling proprietary dependencies they can offer advertising more freely. Yes, they want to sell advertising. Nothing wrong with that and if they push everything proprietary the whole web and market is better off because products and services will compete on quality and not proprietary chains and monopoly and unlike with Microsoft ANYONE can make better product than Google and compete on the same webkit base or anything that's open source because they are not blackmailed by anyone with licensing fees or platform holder. This is why they bought and invested and opened the WebM and VP8 video codec. Because they wanted to get rid of the proprietary h.264 format and offer something that is truly free and open source and where NOONE will have to pay licensing to anyone to use video and audio on the web.

The beauty of open source is that it's not dictated by Google. It's dictated by everyone who contributes to it. So if Google stops innovating with Chrome, Webkit will continue evolving and innovating because it's not owned by Google and someone else will rise up as the next best webkit browser because they continue innovating . That's what open source allows them. How can you not get that? Some of you can't really understand, or are unwilling to understand that there's a HUGE difference between Microsoft and proprietary software and something that is completely open and not owned by anyone. Webkit has nothing to do with Google. They just contribute to it just like everyone else.

Microsoft OWNS IE. It's completely proprietary This means that if Microsoft drops the ball again, you have ZERO choices. You are stuck with garbage like we were with IE6. Not to mention that it's not cross platform, it's tied completely to Windows and furthermore Microsoft wants to have developers build apps and everything for IE10 for Metro and desktop that will tie into WinRT with more proprietary hooks and IE exclusive crap that won't work anywhere else BUT on IE for Metro/Windows.

It's absolutely not the same as you claim. Stop trying to justify Microsoft because what you are claiming makes zero sense.


Not only do you start by rewriting history, you try to rewrite the present with non-sense. I use chrome (check the logs on the website). Everything you said was just outright wrong.
I mean I don't even know where to start because it's all just propaganda and pure lies. I bought my first PC in 1991 (it's not my first computer, my first computer was the Atari 800XL back in the early 80's).
I used the Internet before Trumpet Winsock was used with Mosaic. I used Netscape for years when you could even get a beta before 1.0 and it fit on a floppy disk. So, I remember what happened and you are wrong.
Netscape was free for education and if I remember personal and non-commercial use only. If you were a corporation you had to buy it. Netscape screwed themselves because when they start adding in Java it kept crashing all of the time when you visited a web page with Java and it became really bloated where it crashed a lot and was huge. Microsoft's browsers sucked for a long time and were not even usable until 5 came out and then 6 which did add in proprietary crap, you are right. IE did dominate but it did so because Netscape became unusable. It went like this for me... Unix Lynx (Text based that I used on Windows from Dialing in to a Unix system at a University from a Terminal program on Windows), Mosaic, Netscape, IE 5, IE 6, FireFox, and then Chrome for today. The first versions of IE were crap and everyone was using Netscape at the time, but because Netscape started screwing up and became unstable a bunch of us switched to IE because by then IE was just a better browser at the time. Those two were the only viable versions out and one was getting terrible and the other one was getting better, then Firefox came out and changed the world once again. Competition is a good thing and I agree with that, but you don't understand the history of what us nerds went through on Windows OSes before everyone else was on the Internet. I am speaking to a Windows only history here, Unix and Linux will have a different story.,

IE 9 and 10 is a complete rewrite of the HTML/Javascript engine (google channel9 an msdn channel to educate yourself). It is a rewrite based on the latest standards of the W3C standards.
Webkit is an engine that is open source (I believe this to be the case) that is also based on the W3C standard. IE uses 3D acceleration of the HTML5 standard to make things faster, this is not in the W3C standards, but it doesn't affect rendering other than speed.

Microsoft does not support WebGL which is not a part of the W3C HTML5 or CSS standard.


#137 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,443 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:30

Everything you said was just outright wrong.


I fail to see in your response what I'm exactly wrong about, when you actually agree with quite a few things I wrote. I've been using WIndows from version 1.0 and before that I built programs on Commodore 64. Though this is highly irrelevant. Everything I wrote is absolutely true.

Microsoft worked actively to block everyone else on Windows using any other browser by implementing proprietary things into IE so companies and people would write only for their platform and browser.

Everything I wrote is absolutely correct.

Microsoft should NEVER EVER be trusted again with anything. As long as they own and write everything on proprietary IE, they are a danger to the web. Webkit is open source, Gecko is open source and thus are positive for the web because everyone can join in and push them forward. IE is ONLY Microsoft and no one else can do updates and changes to keep it up to standards in the future and that's the end of that. That's why they need to either:

A) Open source IE
or
B) Join Webkit open source initiative along with many others and contribute
or
C) Shut up and let it die

#138 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • 19,401 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:59

...
What is going to happen and is happening is you have Google doing their own thing with Chrome, Apple is adding specific things to safari that only run on their platforms and OSs, Mozilla is doing their own thing while Microsoft, well, Microsoft has their own idea.

I am not against HTML5 at all, I'm glad it's improved, however, I am very pessimistic where it's going. This is (maybe not to the same extent) similar to what we had in 1990s with browsers and everyone spinning their own things. This was always a problem with web in general and I dont' think it will ever become a nirvana some people believe.
...


So which is it, are standards good or bad?

#139 Yogurtmaster

Yogurtmaster

    Neowinian

  • 1,225 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:03

I fail to see in your response what I'm exactly wrong about, when you actually agree with quite a few things I wrote. I've been using WIndows from version 1.0 and before that I built programs on Commodore 64. Though this is highly irrelevant. Everything I wrote is absolutely true.

Microsoft worked actively to block everyone else on Windows using any other browser by implementing proprietary things into IE so companies and people would write only for their platform and browser.

Everything I wrote is absolutely correct.

Microsoft should NEVER EVER be trusted again with anything. As long as they own and write everything on proprietary IE, they are a danger to the web. Webkit is open source, Gecko is open source and thus are positive for the web because everyone can join in and push them forward. IE is ONLY Microsoft and no one else can do updates and changes to keep it up to standards in the future and that's the end of that. That's why they need to either:

A) Open source IE
or
B) Join Webkit open source initiative along with many others and contribute
or
C) Shut up and let it die


Microsoft only was a threat to the web because there were not any serious competitors. Once Firefox came on to the scene as a serious competitor (Netscape had been falling apart for many years and if nobody creates a serious product, you can't have serious competition so the web would stagnate for a long time). then things changed. This is the real story.

IE is no longer a threat because Microsoft is in no way a threat you have Safari, Firefox, Chrome, and Opera, so there are serious competitors out now that did not exist when IE5 and 6 came out. This day and age you also have many platforms, Android, ios, Ubuntu, Mac, and Windows. So again, no threat like you had back then. So, you are wrong.

I vote for D, keep it going and keep improving it. FireFox also does not use Webkit either, I don't think Opera does either (checked the wiki list and nope), so please Shut up already. Your ignorant babbling is complete non-sense.
You do know what W3C is for right? It's a standard so we all don't have to use the same engine (webkit).

#140 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,633 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:24

First of all.. this right here shows that you are uninformed or too young to remember/know.

Other browsers died or didn't get popularity in the time of IE5 and IE6 because Microsoft held a monopoly with Windows and made IE defacto standard due to forcing it on everyone. Netscape and other browsers at that time didn't stand a chance against Microsoft because Microsoft had IE on both Windows and they had IE even on a Mac. Not to mention that Microsoft did something even worse then (what they are actually doing now) is that they took Javascript and made their own standard JScript that was slightly different from ECMAScript based Javascript so they could make others build websites and stuff and it wouldn't work on other browsers. In essence, the most evil and destructive thing for innovation and progress they could do. I remember this very vividly because I built websites back then and I remember the nightmare we had with it..

Only when Microsoft was legally pushed by DOJ and others to stop with monopoly other browsers started getting a fair share of spotlight.

It had very little to do with the "quality" of other browsers.

Second, Google is pushing Webkit because it's an open source HTML rendering engine. Google doesn't own webkit and they dominate the web because their browser is hands down the best browser, and it's not the only webkit browser. They are not forcing the browser on anyone. They are NOTHING like MIcrosoft. Google invests in open source technologies because they want web to be open, unchained from proprietary garbage because they know that if there's a fair competition they will win out due to quality products and by killling proprietary dependencies they can offer advertising more freely. Yes, they want to sell advertising. Nothing wrong with that and if they push everything proprietary the whole web and market is better off because products and services will compete on quality and not proprietary chains and monopoly and unlike with Microsoft ANYONE can make better product than Google and compete on the same webkit base or anything that's open source because they are not blackmailed by anyone with licensing fees or platform holder. This is why they bought and invested and opened the WebM and VP8 video codec. Because they wanted to get rid of the proprietary h.264 format and offer something that is truly free and open source and where NOONE will have to pay licensing to anyone to use video and audio on the web.

The beauty of open source is that it's not dictated by Google. It's dictated by everyone who contributes to it. So if Google stops innovating with Chrome, Webkit will continue evolving and innovating because it's not owned by Google and someone else will rise up as the next best webkit browser because they continue innovating . That's what open source allows them. How can you not get that? Some of you can't really understand, or are unwilling to understand that there's a HUGE difference between Microsoft and proprietary software and something that is completely open and not owned by anyone. Webkit has nothing to do with Google. They just contribute to it just like everyone else.

Microsoft OWNS IE. It's completely proprietary This means that if Microsoft drops the ball again, you have ZERO choices. You are stuck with garbage like we were with IE6. Not to mention that it's not cross platform, it's tied completely to Windows and furthermore Microsoft wants to have developers build apps and everything for IE10 for Metro and desktop that will tie into WinRT with more proprietary hooks and IE exclusive crap that won't work anywhere else BUT on IE for Metro/Windows.

It's absolutely not the same as you claim. Stop trying to justify Microsoft because what you are claiming makes zero sense.


Wrong. IE got popular long before it was included by default, simply because it was better than Netscape, which was horrible. After it became default that's not why Netscape died, it died because it was still horrible, and all the computer and internet users back then where advanced users more than capable of downloading browsers.

And other browsers didn't become popular because of lawsuits against MS. Firstly the browser select screen came long after that, and secondly other browser became popular because Firefox was actually a good browser and a good alternative.

Also, you're still ignoring the earlier replies.

#141 engii

engii

    Neowinian

  • 39 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:34

LOL, telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about and then comparing an open source HTML rendering engine that everyone can contribute to and improve with IE6 is hilarious. I think it's pretty clear who doesn't know what they are talking about here.

The problem with IE is that it's proprietary. That's why it stagnated. Company who owned it, Microsoft, got lazy and didn't do anything to improve it while not allowing everyone else to contribute nor even get access to it which is a HUGE difference.

And btw,

Posted Image

43.2% of browser marketshare belongs to Webkit, while 99% on mobile makes it a standard.


<Snipped>

the whole idea of an INDEPENDENT standards committee like W3C is so that no one company can dominate and push the web where it likes....ALl the browser devs contribute here and make recommendation at this level not at the software or framework level... Just because Apple and Google did not have teh capability to build a browser from the ground up and decided to use an open source engine doesn't mean this should suddenly be the default standard or promoted to standard by shear volume of numbers...When MS dominated browser market in the order of 80% plus they still had no sway over w3C and standards and could claim standardization abased on the argument you've used...so you can sell that **** somewhere else

On the html5test.com test and which browser does what...WebGL is not an agreed standard orr some other areas that chrome etc gets points for but rightfully shouldn't be included in the test unless it is ratified by W3C....so 1e10 being at 320 vs FF, Home etc being at 400 etc is all bull****...

lastly in the corporate and business space, IE is the only browser that rally counts for its integration with active directly, active x support for intranet apps etc and general group policy management and control....the other browsers a generations behind in these areas....Like it or not, just because you use a browser in your own time doesn't mean that suddenly that's how browsing should be in every facet of life from personal to business...there are reasons that certain pseudo standards are not adopted by MS and also reasons why big business continues to support IE...

MS is the only company to date that has the same exact browser operating in all spaces and has done excellent work in the browser space with teh release of ie 10....you got to give credit where its due and you need to think outside your tiny life dude....

Edited by Anaron, 20 November 2012 - 07:59.


#142 Soldiers33

Soldiers33

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,454 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 06
  • Location: London
  • OS: Windows 7 Professional

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:05

I have so far never used a browser as good as ie9 and above. Tried chrome, firefox, opera and everything but just cannot let go of ie9. I love the simple design and its fast and also very simple to use.

#143 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • 19,401 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:34

...
On the html5test.com test and which browser does what...WebGL is not an agreed standard orr some other areas that chrome etc gets points for but rightfully shouldn't be included in the test unless it is ratified by W3C....so 1e10 being at 320 vs FF, Home etc being at 400 etc is all bull****...
...


The W3C isn't the one managing WebGL, Khronos is. Just because they don't have control over it doesn't mean it's not a "web standard" (Both HTML and JavaScript are managed by bodies other than the W3C, etc.)

And the initial WebGL standard has been finalised, so now they're working on updates for it.

#144 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,443 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 19 November 2012 - 12:08

So which is it, are standards good or bad?


Standards are good, but I still stand behind what I wrote.. the problem is that we have too many browsers with everyone trying to go their way. Consolidating everything under open source Webkit (as it is the most popular and open) and everyone contributing to one code based would solve that problem. Even if Google for example stagnates with Chrome, everyone else would continue to improve webkit and other webkit browsers would take over instead of Chrome. Not to mention that it is cross-platform and having Microsoft and Mozilla join it and improve it would be beneficial to everyone. We would finally have a single unified web platform that everyone would contribute to evolve and compatibility problem would go away. Unfortunately, Microsoft wants to control the browser and web and simply can't switch to something that's open source because they lose control which shows clearly their underlying politics.

HTML5 in general has issues not because of Webkit but because there are too many cooks in the kitchen and Microsoft does their thing, others do their thing and in the end developers have to write spaghetti code to accomodate every browser. If everything was webkit this wouldn't be a problem. If anything web standards such as W3C ones would bee integrated at a much much faster pace than every decade.

#145 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,443 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 19 November 2012 - 12:13

This thread can be summarized with "Morons continue to exist and continue thinking they're correct no matter what you tell them."

Just in the case half the forum arguing against 1 incorrect person wasn't evidence enough.


The whole point of the argument is that Microsoft is far greater danger for the web and always will be as long as it peddles it's own proprietary technology and hypocritical for "warning" anyone how Webkit is the new IE6. A platform that is developed by multiple parties and open source. Complete and utter nonsense and anyone who defends them is doing it purely to defend Microsoft.

Just because IE10 now has ok HTML5 support, Microsoft is now "pioneer" and "champion" of standards and everyone else is now destroying the web. Please. Reality is that they are behind in everything and better technologies have advanced and gotten adopted by everyone Up until IE10 Microsoft created a MESS. Even IE9 is terrible. They don't have ANY right to say a single word about anything.

#146 threetonesun

threetonesun

    Neowinian Senior

  • 11,943 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 02

Posted 19 November 2012 - 12:41

HTML5 in general has issues not because of Webkit but because there are too many cooks in the kitchen and Microsoft does their thing, others do their thing and in the end developers have to write spaghetti code to accomodate every browser. If everything was webkit this wouldn't be a problem. If anything web standards such as W3C ones would bee integrated at a much much faster pace than every decade.


Remember how cool it was when IE6 was the only browser around, and you didn't have to write browser prefixes, and you could create Active X controls and assume everyone could use them?

That sure was great, wasn't it? It didn't stagnate the entire Internet or leave 10 years of compatibility issues or anything.

#147 coth

coth

    Neowinian

  • 1,310 posts
  • Joined: 15-November 04
  • Location: Moscow, Russia

Posted 19 November 2012 - 21:21

That's for updating from IE9 to IE10. IE9 doesn't have the built-in ability to automatically update. IE10 does.

We're talking about starting with IE10.

But i'm not talking about the fact that update event fires without user actions. I'm talking about update process itself.

#148 BajiRav

BajiRav

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,640 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Location: Xbox, where am I?
  • OS: Windows 8.1, Windows 8
  • Phone: Lumia 920

Posted 19 November 2012 - 21:47

With webkit that can't happen because it is now owned, nor developed exclusively by a single company. How can you people not get that.

Which Webkit are you talking about? The Apple Webkit or the Google webkit?

Webkit is following W3C standards.. but they are able to add new features that push the boundaries and bring more stuff because W3C is too slow. Unlike Microsoft, Webkit stuff is actually open to everyone. It's not "Chrome" that does anything.. it's integrated in webkit and every browser using webkit as an engine uses it. That's why a site and everything you make in Chrome will look the same in Safari and that right there is the most important thing for developers. The fact that you can use all of these across the board.

And let's not pretend that IE doesn't have non-standard extensions. They have plenty which makes this whole argument completely ridiculous.

As far as WebGL.. WebGL works. I do prefer Flash but not because it's Flash or some bias but because it's still the most universal way to get rich interactive content out the door that works identical across all browser. With this, I am not tied to Flash at all, I would love to see WebGL and new features that Adobe is championing with Google, Apple and W3C to get some amazing things in webkit like proper wrapping around objects (like in prepress/InDesign), CSS3 gradients, CSS3 effects and blend modes, and many other things.

And btw, WebGL security issues are an excuse.. The cross-domain texture problem has been solved with latest versions of Safari, Firefox, Chrome by having it's own sandbox. The reason why Microsoft doesn't want to support it is because it's an open source alternative to their own proprietary garbage. That's why.

So Webkit pushes boundaries while Microsoft does propitiatory stuff? got it.
Oh and are you are now suddenly a champion of HTML5? Whatever happened to Flash's superiority over every technology on the planet?

Microsoft worked actively to block everyone else on Windows using any other browser by implementing proprietary things into IE so companies and people would write only for their platform and browser.

what proprietary things are you talking about? things such as XHR which was pushing the boundaries or ActiveX which are just plugins? How is that any different than Google's SPDY stuff which is not a standard (yet) but makes Chrome work faster only on Google's sites?

The whole point of the argument is that Microsoft is far greater danger for the web and always will be as long as it peddles it's own proprietary technology and hypocritical for "warning" anyone how Webkit is the new IE6. A platform that is developed by multiple parties and open source. Complete and utter nonsense and anyone who defends them is doing it purely to defend Microsoft.

Just because IE10 now has ok HTML5 support, Microsoft is now "pioneer" and "champion" of standards and everyone else is now destroying the web. Please. Reality is that they are behind in everything and better technologies have advanced and gotten adopted by everyone Up until IE10 Microsoft created a MESS. Even IE9 is terrible. They don't have ANY right to say a single word about anything.

why is IE9 terrible? at least it doesn't push me to "install apps" or "sync my stuff" or "enable desktop notifications" when I use it.

#149 Yusuf M.

Yusuf M.

  • 21,352 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 04
  • Location: Toronto, ON
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: OnePlus One 64GB

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:00

Cleaned

#150 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,443 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:23

Which Webkit are you talking about? The Apple Webkit or the Google webkit?


Your questions make no sense since there is only one webkit and both companies like many others contribute to the source of Webkit and adding new features to it so all webkit based browsers benefit from innovation.

http://www.webkit.org/