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

#121 ArialBlue

ArialBlue

    var lulz;

  • 1,768 posts
  • Joined: 24-June 10
  • Location: Democratic People's Republic of Korea
  • OS: Windows Master Race

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:21

Riiight.. the ONLY proper test is the one sponsored by Microsoft that shows IE10 doing well with HTML5.. GOT IT!

Tests sponsored by Microsoft actually test something.
HTML5 tests that you cling to for your sanity (or endless trolling) are like political push polls.

Yet update process is drastically outdated. Still long and requires reboot...

Newsflash: Some updates still require you to reboot your Windows PC. Le Shock and Horror! An integral part of the Operating System required a reboot to update.


#122 rfirth

rfirth

    Software Engineer

  • 4,116 posts
  • Joined: 11-September 09
  • Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 620

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:33

But there is IE10 RC itself, which shows installation procedure very well. It didn't change.


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.

#123 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,383 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 19 November 2012 - 04:21

Tests sponsored by Microsoft actually test something.
HTML5 tests that you cling to for your sanity (or endless trolling) are like political push polls.


Sites objectively testing open source browsers are a "political push polls" (whatever that means) while in your eyes tests paid by a corporation trying to show their browser as good for their own benefits is A OK..

Logic escapes you.

#124 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,372 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 19 November 2012 - 04:26

Sites objectively testing open source browsers are a "political push polls" (whatever that means) while in your eyes tests paid by a corporation trying to show their browser as good for their own benefits is A OK..

Logic escapes you.

Still ignoring the earlier replies I see.

#125 still1

still1

    Neowinian Senior

  • 6,990 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 09
  • Location: United States

Posted 19 November 2012 - 04:31

MS is just scared. they already are not the popular browser. with how lazy they got with IE6 I moved on.

#126 siah1214

siah1214

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,155 posts
  • Joined: 09-April 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 04:41

Still ignoring the earlier replies I see.


That's all you're going to get from the Google shill :)

I love how no one is talking about Firefox here.. no one has a problem with Firefox not being webkit based.

#127 +Aheer.R.S.

Aheer.R.S.

    I cannot Teach Him, the Boy has no Patience!

  • 11,527 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 04:41

sooo, what happened to netscape navigator...?

#128 +SharpGreen

SharpGreen

    Now with built-in BS detector.

  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 04
  • Location: North Carolina
  • OS: Ubuntu 14.04, 12.04 and Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Nexus

Posted 19 November 2012 - 05:17

sooo, what happened to netscape navigator...?

It died because they were stupid enough to try to charge you for it.

#129 ArialBlue

ArialBlue

    var lulz;

  • 1,768 posts
  • Joined: 24-June 10
  • Location: Democratic People's Republic of Korea
  • OS: Windows Master Race

Posted 19 November 2012 - 05:19

Sites objectively testing open source browsers are a "political push polls" (whatever that means) while in your eyes tests paid by a corporation trying to show their browser as good for their own benefits is A OK..

Logic escapes you.

"It is open source therefore I am right" is not an argument. I can't fathom why you use it as an argument.

You also you fail to realize that you are defending a corporation known as Google.
Very nice of you to tell me that paid tests are bad by a corporation while dry humping everything Google makes and repeating everything Google tells you.
Very nice of you to defend a browsers that is "paid by a corporation" to be spammed in every installer and every advertisement on the web while bashing another one which is nowhere as obnoxious.

I am not sure if you are a troll or paid by Google. Either way, you are ****ing me off.

#130 migo

migo

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,955 posts
  • Joined: 02-May 05

Posted 19 November 2012 - 06:06

Netscape didn't die because they charged for it. They stopped charging once IE went free, but they still couldn't keep up because Netscape 4 was crap compared to IE4. Ever since IE4, there was nothing else that was remotely as good. That's how IE6 ended up on top, because everything else was crap. IE6 stagnated because there wasn't any competition, it took FireFox years to kind of catch up and become a viable option because it used tons of memory back when a system with 256MB of RAM was a lot, and a good IE shell could have multiple tabs open with 10-15MB of RAM usage.

Google is pushing Webkit, and Chrome in particular because they want to dominate the web - just like Microsoft wanted to. Everything they're doing with Chrome is exactly the same, and once they hit the same kind of marketshare they'll sit on their laurels, because there's no more reason for them to innovate.

#131 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,383 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 19 November 2012 - 06:28

Netscape didn't die because they charged for it. They stopped charging once IE went free, but they still couldn't keep up because Netscape 4 was crap compared to IE4. Ever since IE4, there was nothing else that was remotely as good. That's how IE6 ended up on top, because everything else was crap. IE6 stagnated because there wasn't any competition, it took FireFox years to kind of catch up and become a viable option because it used tons of memory back when a system with 256MB of RAM was a lot, and a good IE shell could have multiple tabs open with 10-15MB of RAM usage.

Google is pushing Webkit, and Chrome in particular because they want to dominate the web - just like Microsoft wanted to. Everything they're doing with Chrome is exactly the same, and once they hit the same kind of marketshare they'll sit on their laurels, because there's no more reason for them to innovate.


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.

#132 -Razorfold

-Razorfold

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,634 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 06
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900

Posted 19 November 2012 - 06:37

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.


1. Firefox came out in 2004. The Microsoft ruling was in 1998, from 1998 to 2004 IE was STILL the only browser people used and there was no other competition and because of that IE became the pile of **** that it did with 6. What migo said was right.

2. You have a problem with Microsoft using their own made up code because it ruins the web and I agree with that. But you have no problem with Google doing the same thing? I'm going to quote you:

"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."

So yet again you prove that you're a fanboy.

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.

Why do you support flash so much then? WebGL is truly free and open source too, you should you be praising it from the rooftops. But yet you constantly claim flash is better and HTML5 and WebGL should just go die.

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

Nobody is justifying Microsoft here, your fanboyism is just too strong for you to see that.

People here are supporting web STANDARDS over vendor prefixes, and in this case MS is supporting STANDARDS too. Vendor only code is what ruined the web and made IE6 as infamous as it is and honestly all browser makers should stop using them. If the prefixes are gone it benefits EVERYONE.

Jesus Boz give it up.

#133 +Brando212

Brando212

    Neowinian Senior

  • 6,534 posts
  • Joined: 15-April 10
  • Location: Omaha, NE
  • OS: OS X Mavricks, Windows 7/8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Sony Xperia ZL, Nokia Lumia 925

Posted 19 November 2012 - 06:38

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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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

shows you don't know anything either, Netscape died because Aol bought them out and tried to turn it into a Firefox clone and in turn made it unusably slow (aka 30-60+ seconds to load and the UI was not very responsive at all for example)

#134 Yogurtmaster

Yogurtmaster

    Neowinian

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

Posted 19 November 2012 - 06:42

IE needs to die completely.. end of..

and, no, IE8, IE9 and IE10 will be the new IE6. Apple and Google along with Mozilla are following W3C and WHATWG in implementing new features and support for CSS3 and HTML and thus when we build web stuff today it just works across all of these browsers with most of the fancy effects and we are still jumping hoops and having to put up with Microsoft's IE crap.

So ironic but expected that Microsoft can't understand why they are terrible in this regard as well. IE 10 is better than all other IEs but it's STILL IE and it's still Microsoft, so we will continue supporting webkit because it evolves and browsers update themselves to be always current on user's machines while Microsoft still peddles their old proprietary crap..

Hey Microsoft, here's an idea for you.. MAKE IE based on webkit and help build a better webkit base since it's open and help developers develop for one HTML/web engine? Oh you don't want to, or you have to deal with your users who you screwed with terrible IEs? Well the web and internet in general won't wait for you. Nobody cares what you think anymore. You have shown us what web looks like with you and it's not a pretty picture and it's so ironic that we are being warned by MS about competing rendering engine not being "good" for us.

Just die already and stop whining since you are a decade late to the next generation.


Boz, can you provide me proof on what proprietary HTML/Javascript that Microsoft uses in IE 9 and 10? Because both FireFox and IE do not use Webkit, but both are built on the standards as written by the W3C.

#135 Cuteness Overload

Cuteness Overload

    Neowinian

  • 5 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 06:47

Every time I see a site broken in Internet Explorer 9 and newer, chances are somebody forgot any of the following:

A DOCTYPE without any comment before it
Unprefixed/-ms- CSS properties

If someone were to pull up HTML5Test results, keep in mind that it does not test performance or actual compliance. It only detects whether the features exist at all... And is known for excluding certain usable implementations.

I've seen my fair share of sites that are easily fixed because of some sort of typo, negligence, or configuration error. Keep in mind that the issues MS outlines also applies when ensuring compatibility with Firefox, Opera, and stuff that isn't WebKit, given that these browser has also adopted prefix-less CSS properties.




Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!