Microsoft begs Web devs not to make WebKit the new IE6


Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 2

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.

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.

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.

  • Like 1

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)
  • Like 1

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.

  • Like 1

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.

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.

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

...

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?

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).

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.

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,

nIP

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

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.

  • Like 1

...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • These are not "great" prices... just "less awful". Apparently "Those who forget the past are doomed to pay higher prices and think they've won."
    • Russia was able to invade Crimea because of those people. But my point is that I've personally heard how great it was to be "back in Russia" right afterwards - look how great it is now. I've asked you a question in another comment which you haven't answered, so I'll ask it again: is it better now without "Europrats"?
    • ZimaBoard 2 1664 Starter Kit review: it's a cool and affordable DIY NAS by Steven Parker IceWhale Technology reached out to me asking if I was interested in testing the ZimaBoard 2, and after convincing them to send me the Starter Kit, it arrived at my doorstep in May. A bit of background: it is a Shanghai-based Chinese company founded in 2020, which specializes in single-board servers and personal cloud solutions. From searching around online, user feedback on the company and ZimaOS is mostly positive, so we're off to a good start. In addition, I should probably point out that although they do not have a large portfolio of NAS devices, with just four of what they do offer, they seem to have covered everything from a relatively low-priced entry point with the ZimaBoard 2, right up to the high end, with the ZimaCube 2 Creator Pack that even includes an NVIDIA RTX PRO 2000. Anyway, as already mentioned, what we have today is the ZimaBoard 2 Starter Kit, and here are the full specifications: ZimaBoard 2 Model 832, 1664 CPU Intel Core N150 (4x E Cores/Threads, Max burst up to 3.6 GHz) TDP: 6W (Base) 10W (Max) Graphics Intel UHD Graphics 24 EUs (1.00 GHz) Memory 8 GB, 16 GB DDR5 4800MT/s non ECC SODIMM (soldered) Disk Capacity 60 TB (30 TB x 2) Supported RAID Types TRAID, TRAID +, RAID0, RAID1, RAID5, RAID 6, RAID 10 Storage 2 x SATA 3.0 6Gb/s Ports with Power Bootloader 32 GB, 64 GB eMMC Network 2x RJ-45 2.5 GbE PCIe 1 x PCIe 3.0 (via LPC) USB Ports 2 x USB-A 3.1 (5 Gbps) Display Mini-DisplayPort 1.4 (4K@60Hz) Hardware Transcoding Engine H.264, H.265, MPEG-4, VC-1 Maximum resolution: 4K (4096 x 2160); Maximum FPS: 60 Virtualization Intel® AES New Instructions Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) Size (H/W/D) 140mm x 83mm x 31mm Weight 0.4 kg (only ZimaBoard 2 device) Power 12v 5A Power Supply Warranty 1 year (Global) 2 Years (EU) OS ZimaOS v1.6.1 MSRP $339, $399 ($548.60) As you can see above, there are two variants of the ZimaBoard 2. The lesser variant has half the eMMC storage and 8 GB less RAM, although it also costs $60 less than the top variant we are testing today. The above pricing is only for the ZimaBoard 2. I put the MSRP of the Starter Kit next to it in brackets, although as of publishing, it is discounted to $534.50. The ZimaBoard 2 started life on Kickstarter and shipped to backers in August last year. It became available via the official website in late 2025 and Q1 2026. This hobbyist NAS contains the still relatively new N150 Intel CPU released in the first quarter of 2025, with support for DisplayPort 1.4, HDMI 2.1, although in this case, the memory is integrated into the board itself, so it will not be possible to upgrade or expand the amount. It also supports AV1 decoding, as well as H.264, VP8, VP9, H.265 (8 bit), and H.265 (10 bit). The different capabilities in the Alder Lake-N (and Twin Lake) series are listed below. Processor E-cores L3-cache Turbo clock GPU GPU-clock TDP Intel N355 8 6 MB 3.9 GHz 32 EUs 1.35 GHz 9 W Intel Core 3 N350 3.9 GHz 1.35 GHz 7 W Intel Core i3-N305 3.8 GHz 1.25 GHz 9 W Intel Core i3-N300 3.8 GHz 1.25 GHz Intel N250 4 3.8 GHz 1.25 GHz 6 W Intel Processor N200 3.7 GHz 0.75 GHz Intel N150 3.6 GHz 24 EUs 1 GHz Intel N97 1.2 GHz 12 W Intel Processor N100 3.4 GHz 0.75 GHz 6 W The CPU is part of the Twin Lake series that sits near the bottom of the N-series, designed for low- powered systems and entry-level laptops, and as such has a base level TDP of just 6W. As I have noted before, we are seeing another NAS with a great amount of RAM. It's important to mention that the ZimaBoard 2's memory is integrated into the base board (which is why they have two variants of it). As a reminder, up until a couple of years ago, it was commonplace to only get 2 or 4GB max on a flagship Synology or QNAP home NAS. Ever since the likes of TerraMaster and more have entered the market with ample RAM sizes included in their NAS offerings, it has gone a long way in forcing the hands of the traditional makers to up their game a bit. First impressions The Starter Kit came in one outer box with several packages inside it (shown above). I forgot to take pics of it because when it arrived, it wasn't clear what was inside, and I had to confirm with my contact that I received the entire Starter Kit. In the box ZimaBoard 2 ZimaBoard 2 HDD Expansion Bracket + PCIe card frame Zimaboard Mini DisplayPort Male to HDMI Female Cable 4K 60Hz Zimaboard PCIe 3.0 x4 to Dual NVMe M.2 SSD Adapter Card Quick guide [full online guide] Limited warranty notice Screws Design Where to start? You'd be forgiven for mistaking it as an SSD enclosure if not for all the ports on it. It is completely made out of metal, and the top is an entire heatsink. It has a premium feel about it, but it definitely looks like a hobby device. As you will see, the completed build looks like it belongs in a server or meter closet rather than as a showpiece on someone's desk. On what I am calling the rear, there's a Mini DisplayPort (1.4), two 2.5 GbE ports, with Type A 3.1 USB ports, and then the barrel connector port. Around the front, there are two SATA6 ports with a power connector in the middle. Left side Right side One side is completely free of ports. On the other there's a slit that allows for the feed of a CPU fan cable, and a PCIe 3.0 X4 slot. Top Bottom The top is entirely made up of a heatsink except for the extended height for the I/O on the rear. Around the other side, you can find the ZIMA branding and some regulatory information stamped near the bottom. As you may see from the bottom of the ZimaBoard 2, it scratches quite easily from just moving it around on my Ikea island. Teardown Before we get started, let's have a look at this thing on the inside. The steps to get to the board are as follows: Remove the four smaller Torx screws on the bottom of the ZimaBoard 2; Remove the four larger Torx screws on the sides of the device; Carefully unstick the CMOS battery from the PCB; Remove two Phillips screws on the PCB; Lift out the PCB. Yes, as you can tell from the instructions, you need three different tools to remove Torx and Phillips screws (10 in total), and unhelpfully, one of the screws is located under the CMOS battery, which is stuck onto the PCB. Building Now comes the fun part. Because the ZimaSpace website does not provide any guidance on how to put the Starter Kit together. They only have guidance for connecting the CPU fan. However, they did upload a video to their YouTube channel that shows the entire process. To install the fan, first remove the four screws on the bottom of the ZimaBoard 2, then on the inside, there is a CPU FAN connector where you can attach the fan, reattach the ZimaBoard 2 frame, and feed the fan cable through the provided slit. Then remove the nearest screw on the side and attach the fan frame to the side of the device using the same screw. ZimaBard 2 screws Aligning the screws Bottom view Remember those four screws we removed to access the CPU FAN? Longer screws are provided in the box with the HDD Expansion Bracket, which is what you will now need to attach the ZimaBoard 2 to it. Helpfully, the orientation on how to attach it is made obvious when the frame can only be screwed on at the same overall length as the ZimaBoard 2. If you do it the wrong way around (which is what I did initially) one side hangs off the frame, and it becomes difficult to attach the PCIe Adapter Card cable. PCIe card frame Other side PCIe slot connector Next, it's time to attach the PCIe card frame, which is fastened with the help of 3.5-inch SATA HDD (3 screws). These are toolless screws that you can just use your fingers to fasten them with. Then it is time to connect the provided PCIe cable with the slot connector on one side of the ZimaBoard 2, feed it through the bottom of the HDD frame, and fasten it with two standoffs. Both bracket options 2280 standoffs with 2x 4TB MP44Q The PCIe 3.0 X4 card comes with a short bracket option, handy if you decide to place it inside a different NAS or rack server, but here we need the long bracket. Oddly enough, the M.2 standoffs were preinstalled into the 22110 position, but extra standoffs are included in the box, which I installed at the 2280 position for our use. I added a couple of MP44Q M.2 PCIe 4.0 SSDs (2 x 4TB) that can be availed on Amazon for $478.99 (the lowest price for 3 months) that TEAMGROUP supplied us with Then we have the almost completed build, you just need to push the card into the PCIe slot. Unfortunately, IceWhale Technologies did not provide a screw for the PCIe card frame (this is also apparent in their own video). Here it is at several different angles, with the last pic showing the SATA Y-Cable connected to the two WD Red Plus 4TB drives. Setup and Usage Next, you connect your cables to the I/O, and the ZimaBoard 2 powers on automatically, as there is no power button on the device. Power is controlled through the Settings in ZimaOS. BIOS The ZimaBoard 2 includes an Aptio BIOS from American Megatrends [1, 2, 3], and you can setup pretty much everything here including the boot order, which is locked to the UEFI OS, however above that choice you can enable or disable booting to a SATA/USB bootloader so this would still allow you to switch to an alternative bootloader and boot from it, or disable it to instead always start from the first disk with an OS installed on it. Initial Setup Upon connecting to the LAN and booting up, the ZimaBoard 2 can be reached by navigating to the IP address (shown if you have a monitor connected), or you can find it using the ZIMA Client desktop application, which is essentially a Zima device finder. Initializing the ZimaBoard 2 The ZimaOS setup process is pretty straightforward, through a wizard, and in full above, it basically consists of setting up an account and some handy tips, and that's that! Post Setup (ZimaOS update) Upon first boot, you are alerted that there is a ZimaOS update from 1.5.0 to 1.6.1, which I applied; the full process is shown above with the changelog. ZimaBoard 2 Storage Setup Next, it is time to set up the storage. ZimaOS actually throws everything onto the eMMC flash drive; it is also the default location of AppData, which is definitely something to be wary about, as the 45GB available storage could fill up quickly. HDDs I first attempted to create a Storage Pool using the two 4TB WD Red Plus NAS drives, and got an error message: After several attempts and then looking online, I discovered it was a bug with ZimaOS where the fix was simply to reboot ZimaOS and then try again, this time I was able to create a RAID mirror using the two drives. SSDs I did the same for the SSDs, as you will see in the above gallery, when I created the second Storage Pool, it only allowed me to select available drives. ZimaBoard 2 AppData ZimaOS comes with an App Store that includes a repository of almost 400 apps, so you will be able to find most of what you'll need for a NAS (although after a quick search, I wasn't able to find a Surveillance Manager), and now comes the important part: moving the default AppData location off the 45GB eMMC and onto a larger volume: Open Settings Then Apps Then, in the Select a new location field, click on the new Storage volume you want to move it to (in my case, the Apps Storage Pool), which is the SSD RAID mirror. Confirm the Migration warning Be praised! You can also do this for Docker (which by default installs onto the 45GB eMMC flash drive) and the User database. Plex Setup Next, I tested the configuration by installing the Plex Server app from the App Store. The library folders must already exist (which I placed into the Storage Pool). Plex Server setup is straightforward and requires very little configuration. In my case, all I had to do was add the media path I just created, which you can also browse to using the folder icon in the path field. In addition, you can now map the new Media library in Windows Explorer using the Zima Client. Oddly enough, it is not possible to access the ZimaBoard 2 over the Network Neighborhood; you must map drives using the client, which is shown in the last image in the above gallery. I watched one of my Blu-Ray rips, which is Dolby Vision with Dolby Atmos, and the content played fine with no stuttering or buffering, which is what anyone needs in this scenario. ZimaBoard 2 Zima Client mobile app There's also a client for mobile. It is pretty barebones, as shown in the above gallery, for example, the Apps screen launches the WebUI for that app, and the Backup must be done manually. On opening Backup, you can select internal storage folders on your phone to backup to the ZimaBoard 2's storage, and although this is constantly scanned, the backup action itself must be manually triggered. There is an option to allow foreground backup (last image in the above gallery), but this basically means the queued backup gets triggered when you manually open the app. Benchmarking SATA PCIe 3.0 X4 A CrystalDiskMark test on a mapped network drive from within a Windows 11 25H2 PC (image above) connected over a 2.5 GbE was well within acceptable ranges. Writes were generally better on the SSD RAID mirror. SATA PCIe 3.0 X1 I also ran the NAS Performance tester, which tests the link speed performance. As you can see, it pretty much maxes out the 2.5GbE connection. Of course, you can also opt to bond the two 2.5 GbE connections for a bit more umph, but I didn't do that. Thermals Top PCIe card SATA HDDs Next, I measured some hotspots while playing content on Plex. It's fair to say this will perform better than a NAS that is enclosed in a metal or plastic case, as almost everything storage-wise is exposed! Anyway, the ZimaBoard 2 did not break a sweat with Plex streaming or disk benchmarks. ZimaOS Factory Reset ZimaOS does not include a factory reset option. Instead, you have to download the ZimaOS image and flash it to the eMMC manually. The flashing process is shown in the above gallery. The steps to do so are listed below: Download the ZimaOS image here; Open BalenaEtcher (Run as Administrator) and select the image; Select your inserted USB drive (min 8 GB) Flash to it; Connect your USB drive, monitor, keyboard, USB hub (optional), mouse (optional), and network cable (recommended) to the ZimaBoard 2; Connect power and press F11 continuously; Select your USB drive starting with UEFI in the boot device menu; Press Enter on the Install ZimaOS option; Select /dev/mmcblk0 (MMC) flash drive as target; Confirm with (three times) to wipe the target disk; Wait a couple of minutes while ZimaOS installs; Remove the USB drive and confirm with a reboot; Your ZimaBoard 2 has been factory reset. However, you don't have to stick with ZimaOS, in fact the company also offers official CasaOS images, that are based on Debian; or as they say themselves, put anything you want on this "hackable single board server" it's up to you. Conclusion I had a lot of fun putting this together. I've custom-built all my own PCs and servers since the 90s, and this is the first time I have had to put a NAS together. Even if the actual base ZimaBoard 2 was already a completed build, it still feels pretty custom. I just wish that IceWhale Technology included a getting-started guide in the box for the Start Kit, which would have really completed this kit. Instead, I had to search for the official video on the YouTube channel to make sure I wasn't doing anything wrong. So who is this for? Definitely the hobbyist who is comfortable building their own PC and servers. It also has a much smaller footprint than its nearest equivalent (in terms of specs), like the Beelink Me Pro, which is another NAS I will be testing soon. Although the Beelink does not come with the PCIe 3.0 X4 expansion, the ZimaBoard 2 Starter Kit suddenly looks to be a great bargain, even if it only offers the two 3.5-inch bays over the four in the other example. It makes a lot of sense to use Intel's N150 chip inside a NAS; it is more than capable of doing what the ZimaBoard 2 is intended for, media streaming and backup. It also looks like the IceWhale Technology staff are quite active in the official forums helping people with issues they come across with ZimaOS and the devices, peer support seems to be good as well, I was quickly able to find why I was not able to create a new Storage Pool in ZimaOS v1.6.1 even though that is quite a serious bug, hopefully it will be fixed in the next update. If you are comfortable with the command line and Docker, you'll be fine. You can do great things with this hardware. This was my first time with ZimaOS. It seems a bit barebones in comparison to the likes of Synology DSM, TOS, and UGOS, but it has a ton of apps to get you started with your home or small business NAS. Where to buy As of publishing, IceWhale Technology is running a discount of up to 5% for the Starter Kit. If you opt to get just the ZimaBoard 2 itself, it does come with a SATA Y-Cable, so you will be able to connect up to two 3.5-inch HDDs to it. ZimaBoard 2 1668 Starter Kit for $534.50 on Amazon US (was $548.60) ZimaBoard 2 832 Starter Kit for $372.88 on Amazon US (was $390.60) Zimaboard 2 1668 (16GB+64GB) for $419.90 on Amazon US Zimaboard 2 832 (8GB+32GB) for $359.90 on Amazon Disclosure: IceWhale Technology provided a free sample without any editorial input or review pre-approval. Good to know The Amazon link is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, when you purchase through links on our site, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • It's in the Insider's group so yes it's technically beta, though these days it's hard to see much of a difference unless you opt for the most extreme beta builds, which I don't. When I moved here from the Release Preview channel I did so primarily because I wanted to see how well the restored taskbar functionality (restored from Win10, and earlier) is working and whether it was time to finally abandon SAB--and it is--working fine, so far. Not as polished as SAB, but it'll do for me.
    • I've been using MWB Premium for a number of years so that along with Windows updates and updated browser should be fine. Thanks for that.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      488
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      220
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!