ie Internet Explorer 12 to feature 'substantial changes' to the user interface?

[Max Norris]

No offense Max, but Firefox barely runs ABP and Noscript without running at a snail's pace. How do you have 10+ extensions running??? That's a nightmare for more reasons than one.

It runs just fine for me, just using the standard vanilla 29.0.1. The only one I have that has a significant drain on large/complex pages is Linkification, I set that up to only run on a few particular sites where I actually need it. (It clobbers Amazon, some Microsoft sites, etc.)

 

it takes just one extension to wreak havoc on your browser and steal you data/passwords.

Yup, I've read the reports.

 

none of the extension you list make me feel I'm missing something by using IE.

Well I'm glad you're confident in dictating what everyone must use. Me, I like to have my options. Isn't choice grand? For me, I'll lose out on an awful lot of functionality, so I'll stick with what works for me. You go ahead and do your own thing, nobody cares but you what you're running, so please, save the rhetoric.

 

that's why noscript is worthless.

Obviously whitelists come into play let along basic configuring it.. but since nobody's forcing you to use it, don't f'ing worry about it eh?

 

modern browsers all have a sandbox (not Firefox unfortunately), and with EMET the risk of getting infected through a 0day is extremely low (no exploit infecting IE/EMET has ever been spotted in the wild). so why make your browser less useable by running noscript, and end up with something actually less secure?

Because my copy of Firefox is running in a sandbox? Along with any other program I so desire? Just saying.

[link8506]

It runs just fine for me, just using the standard vanilla 29.0.1. The only one I have that has a significant drain on large/complex pages is Linkification, I set that up to only run on a few particular sites where I actually need it. (It clobbers Amazon, some Microsoft sites, etc.)

and how many GB of ram do you have? ;)

[Max Norris]

and how many GB of ram do you have? ;)

16GB, but I have the identical setup on an old junker XP laptop that only has 1.5GB. Hasn't been an issue yet, unless you have some dinosaur from the late 90's anyway. Browser's only using ~530MB. Chrome I know can easily triple that. What's your point? If you want to get into a memory pissing contest, I'll fire up Lynx and call IE bloated. Cute, but pointless on anything remotely current.. I have the resources, rather not let it go to waste and sacrifice the functionality, thanks. If you're running on some 512MB junker then obviously you'll want to use a smidgen of common sense and not load up a ton of stuff when you can barely run to begin with.

If you don't like having the option, just don't use it. Simple, and it would probably bolster their marketshare too. Obviously there's people who disagree with you.

[jakem1]

why make 100% people potentially insecure just to satisfy the needs of 1%?

furthermore, if everyone used adblockers, which seems to be the only real use of extensions, do you think the web would still be free?

 

I don't see why security would be compromised by the presence of an unused feature.  If 99% of users don't install extensions then their browser is no more insecure than it was before.  Besides, I don't see why Microsoft can't offer extensions in a secure manner.  IE already runs in a sandbox and includes features like Smart Screen Filtering that could block malicious extensions.

 

As for ad blockers, that's another discussion although I think it's funny that you promote TPLs and then object to ad blockers.  Let's just say that I was using the internet before it was taken over by corporations and it was great.  If it worked without ads back then then I don't see why it can't continue to.  It was, after all, designed to allow the free exchange of ideas ;)

[Dashel]

• We don't want or need extensions.

Revamp Favorites and Settings

Make the 'new tab' page more customizable/sortable.

Improve stability/speed with other MS products. (ex Office365 portal, Ex2010 OWA, etc)

[+InsaneNutter MVC]

I personally hope this gets changed, i've always thought the back button has looked really out of place since IE9.
 

[George P Global Moderator]

I personally hope this gets changed, i've always thought the back button has looked really out of place since IE9.

 

 

They should go ahead and make the buttons look more like the ones in Modern IE at this point.

 

UI and extension support aside, I'd be happy with just more standards support and performance improvements.   But guys, let's not forget who the guy in charge of IE is now, JoeB.  You can expect more UI changes at this point I'd say.

[theyarecomingforyou]

The current UI for IE is utterly appalling and should have been updated years ago. That said, I don't have any hope that the new version will do what is necessary to make it a decent browser. Chrome has nailed what it is to be a web browser - it's simple, clean and effective.

[link8506]

I don't see why security would be compromised by the presence of an unused feature. If 99% of users don't install extensions then their browser is no more insecure than it was before.

we're talking about the future here.

upcoming core SKU of Windows will only support sandboxed WinRT apps.

no more win32 unsandboxed apps support = no more malware.

if, on the other hand, Microsoft introduces Firefox-like extension support in IE, all these efforts to sandbox apps in Windows will no longer have any sense, because malware developers will switch to browser extensions to deliver adwares or steal passwords and credit card number (remember, even if you use HTTPS sites, malicious extension can still read forms content).

ChromeOS offers support for extension, and THAT does make it less safe than WindowsRT, because chromeOS users can be tricked into installing extensions that can turn out to be malicious.

basically, extension support makes it vulnerable to the same threats as PC/MAC users (malwares that can inject ads and steal passwords and credit card numbers)

Besides, I don't see why Microsoft can't offer extensions in a secure manner. IE already runs in a sandbox and includes features like Smart Screen Filtering that could block malicious extensions.

when you allow a sandbox to read/write on a webpage displayed onscreen, there is not much you can do to prevent it from doing malicious things with your passwords/data.

As for ad blockers, that's another discussion although I think it's funny that you promote TPLs and then object to ad blockers. Let's just say that I was using the internet before it was taken over by corporations and it was great. If it worked without ads back then then I don't see why it can't continue to. It was, after all, designed to allow the free exchange of ideas ;)

I'm just saying you CAN block most ads in IE without needing an extension.

but at the same time, I say that it's not something that every user should do.

of course in the 90's things were different. There was no Flash ads, but free mail providers would add an advertisement at the bottom of every email you send.

and websites hosted for free would open a popup at each visit.

ads were already there in the 90's, and they still fund most of the internet today.

[Dashel]

How exactly is Chrome any more minimal (simple, clean)?  In fact, once you are as minimal as IE and Chrome are already, I'm not sure what radical new direction there is to take (short of chromeless metro).  I don't want the address bar at the bottom on the Desktop, but the overlays could be implemented.

 

I just hope they mash the 'titlebar' down as well.  I still hate that gap.

[Dot Matrix]

The current UI for IE is utterly appalling and should have been updated years ago. That said, I don't have any hope that the new version will do what is necessary to make it a decent browser. Chrome has nailed what it is to be a web browser - it's simple, clean and effective.

What? How is it appalling, yet you call Chrome's UI nice?

[theyarecomingforyou]

What? How is it appalling, yet you call Chrome's UI nice?

IE is visually repulsive and deficient in terms of usability. The forward/back buttons look stupid, the address bar is far too small (as is the text size), there are random icons that make little sense (like the magnifying glass and 'go to' arrow), the home button placement is completely illogical, etc. Chrome is significantly more succinct visually and aesthetically appealing.

[Max Norris]

What? How is it appalling, yet you call Chrome's UI nice?

On the desktop version anyway, lots of wasted space, could at least move the tabs into the titlebar and streamline things a bit. Buttons are a bit "big and goofy", opinion of course. No arguments against the modern version, to me anyways looks fine. Chrome (for me) isn't perfect either since it's the "their way or no way" setup.

 

upcoming core SKU of Windows will only support sandboxed WinRT apps.

Seen plenty of articles talking about unifying the platforms and all that into one code base, which makes sense... none of them mentioned doing away with over a decade's worth of software. I personally have no problem with the modern stuff, use it or don't as you see fit, but tossing millions of programs into the garbage? You can insert whatever "year of" joke here, as when another OS runs Windows software better than Windows.. Recall hearing similar with dotNET first came around, the death of Win32 was greatly exaggerated back then too. Addition to, not replacing. They're not stupid, they know it'll be the death of the platform.. hell they can't even get a quarter of their user base off of XP. Besides.. I see a Surface Pro 3.. but not the RT version.

[Guest]

Internet Options has to be redone, heck they should've redone that years ago.

 

What's wrong with it?

[link8506]

Well I'm glad you're confident in dictating what everyone must use. Me, I like to have my options. Isn't choice grand? For me, I'll lose out on an awful lot of functionality, so I'll stick with what works for me. You go ahead and do your own thing, nobody cares but you what you're running, so please, save the rhetoric.

I'm not dictating anything. You say extensions are a "must have"?

I say they're not.

I provided an explanation about why they'd be dangerous on modern sandboxed OSes where people have the expectations to not have to deal with malwares/adwares.

You failed to provide any reasonable use case that might make regular people actually need extensions.

Fine for you if you think you need so many things to make Firefox usable. Nobody is going to make you stop using it.

but most people want nothing more than a stable, malware-free browsing experience. No gimmicks.

[Guest]

the address bar is far too small (as is the text size)

 

You can make it as big as you want.

[Max Norris]

I say they're not. I provided an explanation about why they'd be dangerous on modern sandboxed OSes where people have the expectations to not have to deal with malwares/adwares.

You failed to provide any reasonable use case that might make regular people actually need extensions.

And again, I see millions of people who disagree with you. You do not speak for everyone, thankfully.

 

but most people want nothing more than a stable, malware-free browsing experience. No gimmicks.

I get that browsing experience now ;)

See I respect your choice. You don't like them and think they're unsafe. That's fine, nobody's forcing them to use them, myself included. I honestly couldn't care less. What you're doing however is speaking for everyone when you say even having the option is wrong to begin with and should be removed. My choice determines what happens on my system. Yours is forcing your choice on everyone with no exceptions. See the difference? The original post asked what people would like to see that would like to see in IE. I gave my opinion as that's one (of several) things that it would take me to switch. It's that exact sort of narrow-minded thinking that makes me glad I have the choice to use something else that works better for my needs. If Microsoft were so committed to rubbing out "malware extensions" then why is ActiveX still in there? That's been exploited for years.

[link8506]

On the desktop version anyway, lots of wasted space, could at least move the tabs into the titlebar and streamline things a bit. Buttons are a bit "big and goofy", opinion of course. No arguments against the modern version, to me anyways looks fine. Chrome (for me) isn't perfect either since it's the "their way or no way" setup.

Seen plenty of articles talking about unifying the platforms and all that into one code base, which makes sense... none of them mentioned doing away with over a decade's worth of software. I personally have no problem with the modern stuff, use it or don't as you see fit, but tossing millions of programs into the garbage? You can insert whatever "year of" joke here, as when another OS runs Windows software better than Windows.. Recall hearing similar with dotNET first came around, the death of Win32 was greatly exaggerated back then too. Addition to, not replacing. They're not stupid, they know it'll be the death of the platform.. hell they can't even get a quarter of their user base off of XP. Besides.. I see a Surface Pro 3.. but not the RT version.

Windows RT is the future of Windows.

Well, actually not Windows RT, but whatever replaces it that can only run WinRT apps (even on x86) is the future of Windows.

of course, Microsoft won't stop supporting win32 apps in the short term.

so it will begin with the base (free?) SKU of Win9 that will be targeted at laptops and tablets below $400. Coincidentally, this targets the kind of people who do nothing more than surfing the web with their PC.

of course, with x86 machines, you should be able to buy an upgrade to unlock the win32/classic desktop of your machine if you feel the need to run legacy apps.

and obviously, there will still be professional/enterprise/server editions of Windows during the next 2 decades.

but for the general public, killing win32 support is the short/mid-term objective.

so yes, Microsoft is starting to migrate people away from win32.

And browser extensions are not welcome in a fully sandboxed modern OS like Windows RT or Windows Phone.

[Dot Matrix]

What's wrong with it?

It's cluttered, and still using yesteryear's design paradigm.

[Max Norris]

Windows RT is the future of Windows.

Well, actually not Windows RT, but whatever replaces it that can only run WinRT apps (even on x86) is the future of Windows.

So... no real sources then, just speculation? See I can speculate the exact opposite, with the changes in 8.1 and the proposed changes in the next version plus their big push of the Surface Pro, I don't see Win32 disappearing at all. You'll notice RT devices aren't exactly doing wonders for their profit margin. Throw on slow adoption of 8.x in general, corporate reliance on desktop applications, people in general not wanting to throw away all of their software, completely disregarding servers entirely, etc etc.. yea, it's not happening any time soon.

[MorganX]

As with any software you have to take a measure of responsibility for how you use it and not just blindly do "stuff". This is no exception. I currently have 20something active extensions in my browser, and somehow my computer doesn't act funny, run slow, and doesn't add pop-ups.

Can't argue with that. But 20 extensions in a web browser is a lot. I can't even imagine. Again, in the enterprise, forget about it. At home, and a consumer/prosumer level, go for it. I would think though with 20 browser extensions you may want to look for an app for some of that :)

[link8506]

And again, I see millions of people who disagree with you. You do not speak for everyone, thankfully.

I get that browsing experience now ;)

See I respect your choice. You don't like them and think they're unsafe. That's fine, nobody's forcing them to use them, myself included. I honestly couldn't care less. What you're doing however is speaking for everyone when you say even having the option is wrong to begin with and should be removed. My choice determines what happens on my system. Yours is forcing your choice on everyone with no exceptions. See the difference? The original post asked what people would like to see that would like to see in IE. I gave my opinion as that's one (of several) things that it would take me to switch. It's that exact sort of narrow-minded thinking that makes me glad I have the choice to use something else that works better for my needs. If Microsoft were so committed to rubbing out "malware extensions" then why is ActiveX still in there? That's been exploited for years.

ActiveX control are no more dangerous than NPAPI extensions supported by Chrome, Firefox, safari,...

ActiveX is just a standard for plugin support. There is no flaw in ActiveX itself (same for NPAPI)

flaws are in activeX/NPAPI components, such as Flash, Java, quick time.

that said, Microsoft has removed ActiveX support from WP and from IE/Metro not because ActiveX means unsafe, but because 3rd party plugins are generally dangerous.

[Max Norris]

I would think though with 20 browser extensions you may want to look for an app for some of that :)

Why? Almost all of them just modify how the browser works. Adds or changes functionality, removes nuisances, adds security, etc etc. I have one that could be done as a separate application, but meh, it sits happily on the toolbar and takes near zero memory, I'll get over it.

 

ActiveX control are no more dangerous than NPAPI extensions supported by Chrome, Firefox, safari,...

ActiveX is just a standard for plugin support. There is no flaw in ActiveX itself (same for NPAPI)

And yet has still taken advantage of clueless users plenty of times. That functionality should obviously be removed too then and never mind the companies who rely on it.

Should probably start gutting all of the extensibility out of Office and other products too, just to be safe.

 

that said, Microsoft has removed ActiveX support from WP and from IE/Metro not because ActiveX means unsafe, but because 3rd party plugins are generally dangerous.

They're also native Win32 code that can't execute on your typical RT/WP device, even if they wanted to ;)

[Guest]

It's cluttered, and still using yesteryear's design paradigm.

 

It is cluttered because it provides so much customisation and power?

[link8506]

And yet has still taken advantage of clueless users plenty of times. That functionality should obviously be removed too then and never mind the companies who rely on it.

I wouldn't call ActiveX/NPAPI a feature. These are mechanisms that provide plugins a way to draw on a web page content. When we'll no longer need things like Flash, these mechanisms will go away.

Microsoft is already somehow killing activeX support since the only ActiveX control supported in IE/Metro is Flash. Even WMP and Silverlight are not allowed to run in IE/Metro.

Should probably start gutting all of the extensibility out of Office and other products too, just to be safe.

that's exactly what Microsoft did.

There is no add-ins or macro support on Office for WindowsRT, WP, iOS.

although Microsoft isn't killing extensions entirely in Office, as it has introduced a new framework for that. However you can't compare these to browser extensions, since this framework doesn't even provide access to the document or the computer, which eliminates risk of data theft or malwares (but also reduces its usefulness. Fortunately MS won't kill Macro support in classic versions of Office).

They're also native Win32 code that can't execute on your typical RT/WP device, even if they wanted to ;)

indeed.

but even if there was no architecture incompatibility, browser extensions would not be allowed, as they are banned in IE/Metro on x86 too.