Microsoft begs Web devs not to make WebKit the new IE6


Recommended Posts

IE across the board sucks and from IE6 to IE9 has broken the web over and over again.. and then Microsoft starts coming out and complaining how everyone is using webkit (an open source browser engine that is absolutely KICK ASS) and because they are adding new features (who btw, will most likely be adopted by WHATWG and W3C eventually).

Wtf are we talking about.. and yes.. IE 10 sucks compared to every other browser. Just because it's a bit more compliant with HTML5 as a standard still doesn't make it great.. it makes it suck less.

Amazing how using webkit only prefixes breaks the web too right?

According to your logic (again) IE6 had 90%+ of the browser marketshare so everyone should have just followed Microsoft's broken standards because you know they "eventually" would have made it in.

The Microsoft "sponsored" HTML5 test that you keep claiming is BS comes DIRECTLY from the W3C, you know the people who are responsible for maintaining the specification. What are you going to claim next Microsoft pays off the W3C?

You and others didn't refute anything but just whine and defend garbage that Microsoft is and was in regards to IE browsers. The reason web is still have trouble moving forward is Microsoft and IE and nobody else.

You should learn to read. Microsoft is asking people to move the web forward by NOT using browser prefixes.

The reason why IE6 was so terrible was because Microsoft used IE only prefixes and refused to follow set standards, by using webkit only prefixes you're just repeating the same mistakes MS made.

It's about time for you to shut up because yet again you just proved that according to you Microsoft can do no right and Google can do no wrong. It's sad because if this was a post about how Apple was pushing the web forward with HTML5 and dropping proprietary extensions you'll be all up in arms and start claiming that HTML5 is terrible and how flash is the savior of the internet. But since supporting HTML5 makes Google look good in this topic (according to you anyways), you're all for it.

Microsoft isn't asking people to use IE, they aren't asking people to not use Webkit. They're asking people to follow standards. Too bad you're too much of a fanboy to realize that.

  • Like 5

You don't know what you're talking about which is why you have to rely on insults. You constantly undermine your own arguments with your nonsensical personal attacks and it's not worth discussing anything with you if you can't post sensible comments.

That's ridiculous. Ignoring the fact that webkit has a tiny share of the desktop market and the mobile market isn't big enough yet to matter, what you're advocating is no different to the situation that existed when IE6 owned the market. The only standards that matter are the ones agreed by W3C and other bodies and it's up to browsers to maintain compatibility.

I'll just let this assertion that the rendering engine of choice for the number 1 web browser for the desktop "has a tiny share" speak for itself :laugh:

Duh.. so they will use IE.. LOL..

I sugest you re-read what you quoted again, and this time ACTUALLY read it.

I'll just let this assertion that the rendering engine of choice for the number 1 web browser for the desktop "has a tiny share" speak for itself :laugh:

The number one what ? http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&qpcustomd=0

  • Like 2
I sugest you re-read what you quoted again, and this time ACTUALLY read it.

It's gone from him trying to defend a "point" and completely ignoring what's right in front of him to "screw standards derp Webkit". You're wasting your time.

  • Like 2

Don't know where they get their stats from because every other site I look at puts Chrome ahead of them

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

http://gs.statcounter.com/

Yeah, the only difference is that Webkit is open while IE was and still is proprietary. It's a night and day difference. Not to mention that browsers who use Webkit (Safari, Chrome) are updated transparently to the user making the very latest version immediately adopted at 90% marketshare.

It's not even beginning to compare to IE6 and never will.

IE10 will continue to linger just like everything microsoft and IE long after IE 11 is out and this fragmentation is the worst thing that has caused the web the biggest damage in progressing forward.

Like it or not, MS has the corporate world to think about where controlling versions is paramount to the IT staff. Having IE simply update transparently like Chrome or FF would be a massive no. All updates have to be approved and having WSUS manage windows updates is how things work. It maybe an idea to have a setting that can be managed via group policy (and is default on domain joined machines) which stops transparent updating and all other machines (home users etc.) do get the latest versions, but MS also has to deal with the EU and browser ballot (which is just mind numbingly annoying now - EU, we want a browser ballot choice, I don't want it).

Again, the standards organizations MADE a standard for touch controls that all browsers decided to follow. Google decided to make their own incompatible and non compliant and in fact a worse implementation. of touch controls and not implement the standard one.

you keep ignoring this little fact, the standard already existed, Google's method isn't going to be a standard, they already had a standard, a better standard.

And we're not defending MS, we're arguing to Google shouldn't make their own standards when there are already standards for it.

standards.png

Don't know where they get their stats from because every other site I look at puts Chrome ahead of them

http://www.w3schools...wsers_stats.asp

http://gs.statcounter.com/

And btw, that's not IE10.. that's IE all versions in existence combined.

One of the major problems why other browsers and Webkit especially are all better than IE is the speed of updates.

For example.. Chrome and Firefox and pretty much every major browsers today (minus IE) updates the browser automatically and transparently. This means that over 90% of the users will always have the latest version of the browser at any time. They don't have to worry about updates.. Chrome and Firefox, upgrade themselves transparently and next time you click that browser icon to start it you will be running the latest version.

This is HUGE for moving the web forward as all of these browsers innovate and add features much faster than Microsoft and that's one of the biggest reasons why IE will always break the web. Next year, every webkit and other browsers will support the very latest HTML5 spec as they are officially added and IE users will have to wait for Microsoft to release IE11 and in the meantime you will have a certain amount of people still using IE 10. This si why Microsoft was and will be toxic for moving the web forward.. aside from their tendency to completely tie IE and everything they do to their own business interests and platform.

Like it or not, MS has the corporate world to think about where controlling versions is paramount to the IT staff.

Who cares? I don't care if they have corporate world to think about.. They have ruined the web and because of their approach they are unable to quickly upgrade and innovate. Who's fault is that? This is why they are being steamrolled by everyone. Nobody is going to wait for them anymore.

Hopefully more and more enterprises switch to webkit powered browsers and dump IE once and for all, especially now when they are adopting iOS and Android tablets and other stuff across Fortune 500 companies.

And btw, that's not IE10.. that's IE all versions in existence combined.

One of the major problems why other browsers and Webkit especially are all better than IE is the speed of updates.

For example.. Chrome and Firefox and pretty much every major browsers today (minus IE) updates the browser automatically and transparently. This means that over 90% of the users will always have the latest version of the browser at any time. They don't have to worry about updates.. Chrome and Firefox, upgrade themselves transparently and next time you click that browser icon to start it you will be running the latest version.

This is HUGE for moving the web forward as all of these browsers innovate and add features much faster than Microsoft and that's one of the biggest reasons why IE will always break the web. Next year, every webkit and other browsers will support the very latest HTML5 spec as they are officially added and IE users will have to wait for Microsoft to release IE11 and in the meantime you will have a certain amount of people still using IE 10. This si why Microsoft was always toxic for the web.. aside from their tendency to completely tie IE and everything they do to their own business interests.

way to completely miss (or ignore) the post 2 above yours

Like it or not, MS has the corporate world to think about where controlling versions is paramount to the IT staff. Having IE simply update transparently like Chrome or FF would be a massive no. All updates have to be approved and having WSUS manage windows updates is how things work. It maybe an idea to have a setting that can be managed via group policy (and is default on domain joined machines) which stops transparent updating and all other machines (home users etc.) do get the latest versions, but MS also has to deal with the EU and browser ballot (which is just mind numbingly annoying now - EU, we want a browser ballot choice, I don't want it).

For example.. Chrome and Firefox and pretty much every major browsers today (minus IE) updates the browser automatically and transparently. This means that over 90% of the users will always have the latest version of the browser at any time. They don't have to worry about updates.. Chrome and Firefox, upgrade themselves transparently and next time you click that browser icon to start it you will be running the latest version.

Starting with IE10, IE updates the browser automatically:

ie10-about_thumb.png?w=373&h=298

You really need to stop being a hypocrite and recognize that proprietary extensions are bad for the web... they were bad when IE6 ruled, and they are bad today. And as proponents of webkit have argued before, competition drives innovation... so why advocate for the elimination of all competing rendering engines like you have?

And your assertion that webkit is the standard because it has the most marketshare is silly and majorly hypocritical. Standards bodies make standards, not the browser with the largest marketshare.

It's amazing how the tables have turned.

Hopefully more and more enterprises switch to webkit powered browsers and dump IE once and for all, especially now when they are adopting iOS and Android tablets and other stuff across Fortune 500 companies.

And the first thing those corporations will do (if they switch) is disable auto-update. If you think corporations are going to allow silent auto-updating you're insane.

So you're going to be stuck with the same problem, just with a different browser.

And MS does update the browser in between major versions, you just don't know about it unless you're looking at WU and the full version string. Granted its not as frequent as chrome but starting with 10 it will be.

And btw, that's not IE10.. that's IE all versions in existence combined.

One of the major problems why other browsers and Webkit especially are all better than IE is the speed of updates.

For example.. Chrome and Firefox and pretty much every major browsers today (minus IE) updates the browser automatically and transparently. This means that over 90% of the users will always have the latest version of the browser at any time. They don't have to worry about updates.. Chrome and Firefox, upgrade themselves transparently and next time you click that browser icon to start it you will be running the latest version.

This is HUGE for moving the web forward as all of these browsers innovate and add features much faster than Microsoft and that's one of the biggest reasons why IE will always break the web. Next year, every webkit and other browsers will support the very latest HTML5 spec as they are officially added and IE users will have to wait for Microsoft to release IE11 and in the meantime you will have a certain amount of people still using IE 10. This si why Microsoft was and will be toxic for moving the web forward.. aside from their tendency to completely tie IE and everything they do to their own business interests and platform.

Who cares? I don't care if they have corporate world to think about.. They have ruined the web and because of their approach they are unable to quickly upgrade and innovate. Who's fault is that? This is why they are being steamrolled by everyone. Nobody is going to wait for them anymore.

Hopefully more and more enterprises switch to webkit powered browsers and dump IE once and for all, especially now when they are adopting iOS and Android tablets and other stuff across Fortune 500 companies.

Ignored the important stuff again huh, and the fact you didn't read you last quote

Yeah, the only difference is that Webkit is open while IE was and still is proprietary. It's a night and day difference. Not to mention that browsers who use Webkit (Safari, Chrome) are updated transparently to the user making the very latest version immediately adopted at 90% marketshare.

It's not even beginning to compare to IE6 and never will.

IE10 will continue to linger just like everything microsoft and IE long after IE 11 is out and this fragmentation is the worst thing that has caused the web the biggest damage in progressing forward.

That which has market dominance is the de facto standard. Or that which is ratified by a Standards organization. Which is Webkit? It's open, open does not equal standard.

If you prefer it, fine. Just don't become another liar. It is either a standard, or it is not. Whether or not it's open source (which I generally find to be inferior and less secure, my personal opinion and experience) is irrelevant to whether or not it is a standard unless it has market dominance making it the de facto standard.

I think the fact there are idiots still defending this after being clearly told this is about standards and not Microsoft, clearly illustrates that Webkit is already far worse than IE6 ever was.

Time to start notifying Webkit users that their browsers are enemies of the open web.

  • Like 3

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.

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.

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.

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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!