Microsoft: IE 9 is the most important IE launch in company history

Microsoft's Internet Explorer platform is hurting; it is facing stiff competition from Google, Mozilla, and a host of other vendors who want their piece of the consumer pie. While Microsoft has been publicly pushing IE 9, internally, Microsoft knows that if this version of IE doesn't make waves with the consumers, it will give up the title as the most used platform for browsing the web.

Microsoft has been busy posting new job openings all around the world while it gears up for the IE 9 launch and one recent job opening states:

Beyond setting the agenda for our IE plan for consumers, you will help drive the most important launch of Internet Explorer in the history of Microsoft. You will work closely with your counterparts across the Windows Business group, field and engineering teams to prepare the team for a rapidly approaching worldwide launch.

While no specific date is mentioned in any of the job postings, some did point to an early release in 2011. While there were hints in several postings that IE 9 would come onto the scene in early 2011, at this point it's still anyone's guess. Nevertheless, CES, which is taking place in January 2011, could be a key target for Microsoft to promote the new platform to a wide audience, as it is the largest consumer electronics show in the world.   

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

TechSpot: Iomega eGo 1TB USB 3.0 Portable HDD review

Next Story

Review: Archos 32 Internet Tablet

85 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Come on ...M$ ..get it out already ...
Let's see what you got ..compare to Chrome "Speed ..people ..speed .."

Anyone know if IE9 will be included in Windows 7 SP1 when it's released? Or is there a way to slipstream IE9 into SP1 when SP1 comes out officially?

I see a lot of people discounting anything IE or MS and/or loving their browser and promising to never touch IE or consider changing browsers.

One thing to consider...
Go to this web site: http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/

It is just a developer test site for IE9 and HTML5 features and dynamic content, a VERY important feature of HTML5 and other standards that work with HTML5 like SVG, etc.

(Use your favorite browser, heck even use the latest test/pre/beta release of your favorite brower that has their GPU rendering and GPU acceleration features turned on. -Chrome,Firefox, etc.)

How many of the tests could you get even 30fps out of on your system with your browser of choice?

If you took the time to install the IE9 preview, how many tests was your browser faster than IE9?

Sadly, unless you only look at a couple of the JavaScript tests, IE9 wins, and by a lot.

When you look at any of the dynamic content, animations, onscreen drawing/rendering type tests, most browsers, even with the new Direct2D in Firefox and the GPU rendering/CSS features in Chrome can't even manage 30fps for basic tests.

Heck just do the silly fish test, on my personal system here, IE9 doesn't drop below 60fps until I go over 500 fish in the test, yet on the latest and greatest Firefox or Chrome/Chromium or Opera with GPU features turned on in all of them, at around 25 fish on the best non-IE browser, it can't even hold 30FPS.

Also the margin of 'winning' becomes massive as the power of your hardware goes down. (Meaning a Netbook with IE9 can probably beat your fastest computer using your browser every time.)


Why is this important? Well everyone is excited about HTML5 and newer web applications, but until browsers makes a MASSIVE leap in performance, the fun and important aspects of HTML5 features and concepts will be worthless to most users.

At least Firefox and Google are finally paying attention to IE9, and considering adopting the IE9 model wheren all web content from SVG and CSS to HTML and Javascript is treated more like code rather than content that has to be rendered.

This shift in how web content is handled and 'processed' is what makes IE9 impressive, as they are shoving as much as they can through JIT concepts so that even CSS and simple things likes images and SVG being animated run closer to the hardware for a massive jump in performance.

So in IE9, they are not just doing final rendering via Direct2D like the new Firefox, or trying to use some GPU optimizations and WebGL surface rendering like the new and experimental Chrome builds, they are basically making IE9 a vast JIT code interpreter for everything, and using the CPU and GPU for computing the content along with async concepts and of course a speedy final GPU based rendering to give non-static page content speeds that are normally only seen in structured platforms, not just streams of web content being displayed on a page.

It will take a while for some of the other browser makers to get to this level of performance, as pulling off the OpenGL and OpenCL and redesigning how all web content is processed will be a major struggle, and even then, inherent flaws in OpenGL and OpenCl and the video architectures of various OSes they run on will be problematic. As a browser using too much OpenGL and OpenCL could bring other processes in a OS to a grind, because other OSes doesn't have GPU scheduling and GPU concurrent/sharing features managed by the OS like Windows Vista or Windows 7 does. (Which is also why IE9 WILL NOT RUN ON XP EITHER)

No matter how advanced IE get it will still lack in terms of customization and addons.
I don't like the 'Accelerators' they introduced in IE8 at all.

Maxthon kind of wrap round Trident making a better 'IE' but with Maxthon 3, they are moving into Webkit.

NinjaGinger said,
Firefox is using just over 246meg of ram. IE9 uses a lot less (62)but then again I have a lot of plug-ins for fox.

A lot of the IE components are loaded with and are apart of Windows, so that's not a true reflection of the memory usage.

Flawed said,

A lot of the IE components are loaded with and are apart of Windows, so that's not a true reflection of the memory usage.

+1

IE is dead, let it go already. When Firefox first came out, i switched and never went back. Firefox and other browsers such as Chrome and Opera offer so much more.

3dfxman said,
IE is dead, let it go already. When Firefox first came out, i switched and never went back. Firefox and other browsers such as Chrome and Opera offer so much more.

Such as...? What does Fx4, Opera 11, and Chrome 8 offer that IE9 doesn't?

The extension support is really only a result of having a place on the web for extensions to come together. IE is a perfectly addon-capable platform. The only thing Fx and Chrome have going for them is the mystical label of being 'open', which really hasn't done anything to prevent Fx's descent into sluggishness or Chrome's ability to progress so many versions without adding a single new feature to the GUI (hello? customizable toolbar anyone?).

The only browser that really offers 'more' out of the box is probably Opera, which is practically at Netscape Communicator levels of OOTB features. For many users, that's a bit much, but I admit it's a nice browser. It's a shame it just doesn't seem to work on a few sites (some of the famous Google logos over the summer simply didn't load in Opera), standards compliance or no.

Though I'm in Minefield right now, I'm not so ignorant as to think a product is 'dead' simply because I don't use it. Mozilla was absolutely disgusting by the end of the 90s, and Netscape deserved its fate with AOL. By your kind of mentality, nobody should've wasted their time on Phoenix when it first appeared.

Heck, Opera went free only after years of kicking and screaming. Pay browsers, no matter how much you rub off to their innovations, WERE dead. As a door knob. But look what made your list of approved browsers.

Joshie said,

Such as...? What does Fx4, Opera 11, and Chrome 8 offer that IE9 doesn't?

The extension support is really only a result of having a place on the web for extensions to come together. IE is a perfectly addon-capable platform. The only thing Fx and Chrome have going for them is the mystical label of being 'open', which really hasn't done anything to prevent Fx's descent into sluggishness or Chrome's ability to progress so many versions without adding a single new feature to the GUI (hello? customizable toolbar anyone?).

The only browser that really offers 'more' out of the box is probably Opera, which is practically at Netscape Communicator levels of OOTB features. For many users, that's a bit much, but I admit it's a nice browser. It's a shame it just doesn't seem to work on a few sites (some of the famous Google logos over the summer simply didn't load in Opera), standards compliance or no.

Though I'm in Minefield right now, I'm not so ignorant as to think a product is 'dead' simply because I don't use it. Mozilla was absolutely disgusting by the end of the 90s, and Netscape deserved its fate with AOL. By your kind of mentality, nobody should've wasted their time on Phoenix when it first appeared.

Heck, Opera went free only after years of kicking and screaming. Pay browsers, no matter how much you rub off to their innovations, WERE dead. As a door knob. But look what made your list of approved browsers.

I will agree, IE is a perfectly capable addon platform but will MS incorporate it? Probably not. I think IE would sky rocket to the top if it did support addons.

As much as MicroSoft wants to corrupt the internet, it has no god-given "right" to the web browser. For interoperability, standards, and competition, it's better have market share divided and not concentrated on one single platform. How quickly people forget the h3ll that was IE6...

IE9 looks promising, I ran the beta for a week but found it too buggy (yes ofcourse because its a beta before 100 people point it out) but apart from that it did feel much lighter and faster.

IN MY OPINION I think FF is starting to die out a bit too, the main competition is now between Chrome vs IE.

Also I still dont understand why MS and Google have decide to remove the status bar, especially on some dodgy websites you can just hover the mouse over a link to know if its going to be legit or not.

I checked it out for a few days. Don't generally do beta, but HAD to see what it was like. At least it uninstalled pretty darn well!!

For the few days I used it, had no problems at all. Definitely can't be as bad as IE7 was.
I hope!!

Take your time and get it right, Microsoft. I doubt consumers will dump Chrome or even flinch when it comes out, but web developers will and that's what matters.

As far as the beta goes, I only installed it so I would have updated core components. I don't even use it. The text rendering is awful and some pages don't even work at all.

I think IE7 was more important than this. People were waiting on IE6 to get basic things like tabs and other stuff for a very long time.

No wonder MS is racing to release ie9, for the latest stats indicate it has dropped to 48%. Wow! that's down from 90-95% at one time. Talk about getting pwned by Firefox and Chrome rofl.

auziez said,
still dont get what the point is for making a web browser....what i mean is - where is the profit?

Since the browser is locked with the hardware then it is not for free.

And MS being MS decide to cut out XP, which still has a huge following.

Talk about throwing your customer base at the competition for the sake of a few more upgrades.

Orange Battery said,
And MS being MS decide to cut out XP, which still has a huge following.

+1 That's going to be the biggest killer. Things would be different if the netbook market hadn't exploded(and Vista being mal-tuned) and gave people a reason to keep XP as long as they have.

XP as an operating system is old, but last year I could still walk into Best Buy and purchase an off-the-shelf computer with it installed. For a buyer, that means its still relavant.

NXTwoThou said,

+1 That's going to be the biggest killer. Things would be different if the netbook market hadn't exploded(and Vista being mal-tuned) and gave people a reason to keep XP as long as they have.

XP as an operating system is old, but last year I could still walk into Best Buy and purchase an off-the-shelf computer with it installed. For a buyer, that means its still relavant.

The trick here is the way IE9 processes web content.

IE9 is using several async layers of CPU and GPU computing added with GPU rendering. The XPDM in WinXP can't handle many of the features being used.

Trying to implement what they are doing with IE9 would also be impossible on Linux and OS X due to their video architecture restrictions and lack of GPU scheduling, virtualization, and memory management as well.

This is why WinXP is being 'cut out' - it was not some arbitrary decision.

If it was just final rendering on the GPU via Direct2D like Firefox is doing, they could have left that out for XP or even used the backported .NET; however, IE9 is using several GPU features that depend on the API sets that work from the WDDM architecture in Vista and Win7.

I just can't go back... I simply cant... Chrome is so... simple!

Sorry MS... don't throw money away, just get over it...


I left Microsoft in the past.
Now I'm with Apple on my awesome hackintosh setup!

Still, I tested IE9 before and it was a pretty good browser for the beta. Can't wait for the RC so I can install it on my mom's crappy DELL laptop.

If you look at the reliability monitor, starting with IE8 on the Windows 7 BETA, up until and including the current beta, IE has ALWAYS been the #1 application that crashed. EVERY SINGLE TIME, on EVERY computer I EVER looked at. (I fix the damn things for a living BTW.) IE 9 BETA has been no better. I like the browser, but until they make it stable and fast, it's going to be very hard to make it #1.

And I KNOW that it is the add-ons that cause all of the crashes, but in the minds of the consumer, to quote Bill Gates from Pirates of Silicon Valley, "THAT DOESN'T MATTER STEVE!"

jimmyfal said,
If you look at the reliability monitor, starting with IE8 on the Windows 7 BETA, up until and including the current beta, IE has ALWAYS been the #1 application that crashed. EVERY SINGLE TIME, on EVERY computer I EVER looked at. (I fix the damn things for a living BTW.) IE 9 BETA has been no better. I like the browser, but until they make it stable and fast, it's going to be very hard to make it #1.

And I KNOW that it is the add-ons that cause all of the crashes, but in the minds of the consumer, to quote Bill Gates from Pirates of Silicon Valley, "THAT DOESN'T MATTER STEVE!"

An internet browser has a higher chance to crash than a regular application. Think about it.

jimmyfal said,
If you look at the reliability monitor, starting with IE8 on the Windows 7 BETA, up until and including the current beta, IE has ALWAYS been the #1 application that crashed. EVERY SINGLE TIME, on EVERY computer I EVER looked at. (I fix the damn things for a living BTW.) IE 9 BETA has been no better. I like the browser, but until they make it stable and fast, it's going to be very hard to make it #1.

And I KNOW that it is the add-ons that cause all of the crashes, but in the minds of the consumer, to quote Bill Gates from Pirates of Silicon Valley, "THAT DOESN'T MATTER STEVE!"


maybe your a bad luck charm, ever thought about that?

When you say number one application that crashed, is this per capita (ie. crashes/cpu time)?

I think most people use their browser 5x or 10x more than their next most frequently used app. It stands to reason the the absolute number of crashes attributed to the browser is higher than anything else.

I haven't used IE on any of my boxes in years.
I used IE8 on a friend's machine this week, and it's lack on resources so infuriated me, that I offered to install a real browser on her machine. M$ will have to perform some real magic (for them the ordinary for the rest) to even make me look.

Considering that the S key is a lot less effort to hit than Shift+4 I'd say you need to scale back the Microsoft hatred and open your mind before you take a look. Otherwise your mind is already made up, i$n't it?

C_Guy said,
Considering that the S key is a lot less effort to hit than Shift+4 I'd say you need to scale back the Microsoft hatred and open your mind before you take a look. Otherwise your mind is already made up, i$n't it?
lol
But I do understand Blindii. Just that he should have said MS instead of ... well you get the picture.

Blindii's said,
I haven't used IE on any of my boxes in years.
I used IE8 on a friend's machine this week, and it's lack on resources so infuriated me, that I offered to install a real browser on her machine. M$ will have to perform some real magic (for them the ordinary for the rest) to even make me look.

Hmm, IE8 isnt much slower at rendering pages then chrome is, if you have a proper machine that can run vista/w7 smoothly, IE8 will run as smooth as a baby's bottom. especially the 64bit version. Besides the fact that IE8 is still the most secure browser, and its basically the OLDEST browser on the market. FF 3.6/7 is allot newer, chrome's 6830 is also allot newer.

Been beta testing it. It has alot of bugs. Can't interact with buttons on 4chan and other similar websites. Gives be BSoD with more than 6 tabs after a few hours. Flash lags like a bitch, or refuses to load. Tabs are nice, but slow and unresponsive causing crashes. The average "web" parent/dumb camwhore that only use it for youtube and facebook will find it okay. But anyone using it for more will be hard done by.

And no spellcheck..

Xerax said,
Been beta testing it. It has alot of bugs. Can't interact with buttons on 4chan and other similar websites. Gives be BSoD with more than 6 tabs after a few hours. Flash lags like a bitch, or refuses to load. Tabs are nice, but slow and unresponsive causing crashes. The average "web" parent/dumb camwhore that only use it for youtube and facebook will find it okay. But anyone using it for more will be hard done by.

And no spellcheck..

It sounds like those websites perhaps ran 'hacks' to make it work in older versions that had poor standards support but didn't run a check of if version < 9 and so they're still trying to 'fix' it on a browser that doesn't need fixing.

It's rare that software (especially a browser) should give a BSOD and I haven't seen many more crashes on IE9 than my primary browser, Chrome. It sounds like the problems you are having are a mixture of being deeper than this application (possibly memory problems with BSOD) and unlucky experiences with badly made websites.

Xerax said,
Been beta testing it. It has alot of bugs. Can't interact with buttons on 4chan and other similar websites. Gives be BSoD with more than 6 tabs after a few hours. Flash lags like a bitch, or refuses to load. Tabs are nice, but slow and unresponsive causing crashes.

Mine did the same thing until Adobe put out Flash 10.2 beta.

NXTwoThou said,

Mine did the same thing until Adobe put out Flash 10.2 beta.


Most browser crashes are because of flash, on chrome, FF and IE, 9 out of 10 times anything crashes, its goddamn FLASH!

this Brad Sams seems to be brain dead. keep posting one liner quotes as "News".

Microsoft: IE 9 is the most important IE launch in company history
MS: "Too many people with too much money invested to let Apple win"

leo221 said,
this Brad Sams seems to be brain dead. keep posting one liner quotes as "News".

Microsoft: IE 9 is the most important IE launch in company history
MS: "Too many people with too much money invested to let Apple win"


If MS was so afraid of Apple, they wouldnt have bailed Apple out.
If MS didnt bail Apple out years ago, there would've been no more Apple.

If anyone even keeps their own competition alive, its Microsoft itself.

I always finds IE is a memory hogging #@!$£% Since 6 I have had to change my mum to firefox/chrome as she has little memory available on her laptop, and the same with my GF who loves to multi-browse with 10-13 windows on media rich sites. Chrome can deal with it where as MS just seems to bloat out.

Spell check was a god send though when it came out and hope IE follows.

xXTOKERXx said,
I always finds IE is a memory hogging #@!$£% Since 6 I have had to change my mum to firefox/chrome as she has little memory available on her laptop, and the same with my GF who loves to multi-browse with 10-13 windows on media rich sites. Chrome can deal with it where as MS just seems to bloat out.

You are joking right? if there is a blowser that is a memory hog the it's firefox, Even chrome hogs more memory than IE. So please next time you want to make a imaginary claim make sure it's factual you fangoist!
Spell check was a god send though when it came out and hope IE follows.

nickcruz said,

exactly, when i use IE, its on what, 50-80MB ram TOPS, with as long as im not running site with flash bull****, not CPU intensive either.

at least IE doesnt have Chrome's cache problem, where every random time a random number of tabs just crash... even when idling.

blahism said,
it needs a damn spell checker!

Here Here! All others browsers have it why not Internet Explorer ?

They need a better add on platform too.

max2 said,

Here Here! All others browsers have it why not Internet Explorer ?

They need a better add on platform too.


ActiveX is a good add on platform, i've seen some addons for IE8 that are allot smoother then most FF addons, and dont make it so bloathy and resource intensive as FF.
besidse, if an addon is installed in IE8, no need for browser restart, at best a pagerefresh.
oh and if an IE8 addon crashes, it doesnt take the whole browser and all of its windows with it.

think before thy posts, thank you.

Not it isn't. The world has already moved to greener pastures long ago.
But from another point of view, yes, it is. The web will finally be able to evolve, and businesses will start dropping IE6 for this version.

thartist said,
Not it isn't. The world has already moved to greener pastures long ago.
But from another point of view, yes, it is. The web will finally be able to evolve, and businesses will start dropping IE6 for this version.

The world...being... considerably less then 50% of the market? yeah, that's a weird view of the world. Sorry, but IE9 is a huge deal, despite the fact that most of us aren't using it.

I meant the conscious world, which of course includes some authentic IE users. The rest is the rest and probably won't ever know the name of the thing the use for logging into facebook.

AgentGray said,

The world...being... considerably less then 50% of the market?

IE is at 48% for november and dropping rapidly. At this rate, it will be at 30% by the end of next year/beginning of 2012. People still know IE means getting infected with viruses, and no adblock plus.

Flawed said,

IE is at 48% for november and dropping rapidly. At this rate, it will be at 30% by the end of next year/beginning of 2012. People still know IE means getting infected with viruses, and no adblock plus.

And then there are people like you that don't know simple facts, like IE7 and IE8 on Vista or Win7 are the most secure browsers, and have been since Vista was released.

Take any metric you want, and go look them up in comparison to any other browser and even any other browser on any platform... (Pick any security monitoring company you want as well.)

-Number of exploits
-Number of security fixes
-Number of infected systems
-Security measures that prevent unknown exploits from gaining even basic user level access
-etc etc etc...

Do you not read the security information out there? Do you not see the public demonstrations where people use Firefox, Chrome, Safari to hack systems?

If a person has 'infections' and they are running IE8 on Win7, then the user needs to be slapped up side the head, as they had to specfically give the malicious content permission to run multiple prompts with big red flags. (Even then the monthly run of the MS Malicious Software tool eliminates 99% of anything they have ever allowed to infect their system, and this is if they have no Anti-Virus software whatsoever.)

I get tired of people getting into the mindset that anything but IE is safer (which is kind of true on XP), and then they get a new system with Win7 and still run Firefox or Chrome, with confidence they are being 'secure' and have several stealth malware items running on their system.

One of our clients had to use Chrome for a specific company site they worked with. The week they moved users over to Chrome for IE8 in May of this year, they went from ZERO infections on their Win7 systems going back six months to an average of ONE per month per system, and to date every single one has been a Chrome exploit, and sadly, Chrome is pretty good, having a sandbox and psuedo restricted security mode.

The IE gives you viruses crap needs to stop. Hate it for 100 other reasons, but go do the research so the security idiocy stops.

IE with protected mode on Vista or Win7 is highly secure. People DO CHOOSE to run it for SECURITY REASONS, and by people, I mean the average user and silly companies like banks, financial companies, and even security sensitive goverment agencies.

Flawed said,

IE is at 48% for november and dropping rapidly. At this rate, it will be at 30% by the end of next year/beginning of 2012. People still know IE means getting infected with viruses, and no adblock plus.

it just depends what stats you track, IE still has more then 50% and will remain to do so.
Most browser stats are from specific website that the random computer noob wont ever visit, and there random computer noob are 1000 to 1 on the more techy people who know theres a choice in browsers and more on the internet then facebook and twitter.

I have said this once and ill say it again, IE needs to have features that the more popular browsers have in order to be able to compete in the market.

3dfxman said,
I have said this once and ill say it again, IE needs to have features that the more popular browsers have in order to be able to compete in the market.

Such as? MSIE has most of the things its competition have as far as I am aware.

3dfxman said,
I have said this once and ill say it again, IE needs to have features that the more popular browsers have in order to be able to compete in the market.

MS thinks it doesn't need to match the features of the other browsers because it relies on its desktop monopoly crutches.

Majesticmerc said,

Such as? MSIE has most of the things its competition have as far as I am aware.

The main selling point to me for Firefox is the extensions. I couldn't browse the net without Adblock, i am spoiled by it and thus ill never go back to IE unless they had something similar without having to get a 3rd party application.

3dfxman said,

The main selling point to me for Firefox is the extensions. I couldn't browse the net without Adblock, i am spoiled by it and thus ill never go back to IE unless they had something similar without having to get a 3rd party application.

1) IE has built in blocking mechanisms via the ad tracking features it disables even on IE7 and IE8, and can go even further with how you setup InPrivate browsing to kill off all ads. (Google/Bing this for the settings to just use the built in features.)

2) IE has something called add-ons. (Something I think has existed before Netscape had plugins or Firefox had extensions) Again, Google/Bing them, or just go to the MS IE Website and download whatever IE add-on you might want. (Yes there are numerous donated free and even 3rd party add-ons that will do Adblocking or whatever you might want.)

I am surprised when basic features are deal stoppers for people, but for some reason they don't realize they can often get the same or better features in the product they refuse to use.

Flawed said,

MS thinks it doesn't need to match the features of the other browsers because it relies on its desktop monopoly crutches.
IE is a more proffesional looking browser then FF or Chrome with their kiddy messages. Besides, IE intergrates with company infrastructers, unlike Chrome, FF, opera and more.

next to that, in europe at least, it doesnt only come default with IE anymore, so thats a bull**** argument nowadys.

thenetavenger said,

1) IE has built in blocking mechanisms via the ad tracking features it disables even on IE7 and IE8, and can go even further with how you setup InPrivate browsing to kill off all ads. (Google/Bing this for the settings to just use the built in features.)

2) IE has something called add-ons. (Something I think has existed before Netscape had plugins or Firefox had extensions) Again, Google/Bing them, or just go to the MS IE Website and download whatever IE add-on you might want. (Yes there are numerous donated free and even 3rd party add-ons that will do Adblocking or whatever you might want.)

I am surprised when basic features are deal stoppers for people, but for some reason they don't realize they can often get the same or better features in the product they refuse to use.

I figured someone would bring up that stupid "InPrivate Browsing" mechanism that all IE fanboys seem to prop up so much. That feature is useless to regular users, if need be i can show you just how well that works in comparison to Adblock. Your average Joe is not going to know how to setup filters and s*it. Firefox, install Adblock, add subscription, done.. no ads.

As for the IE add-ons, does MS ever promote those so called add-ons? of course not, so who would really know about them unless they stumbled upon them.

Anyways just my two cents.

In the past I've beat up IE. But...

I have to say, IE 9 comment to standards vs splintering, and focus on Java script rendering speed impressed me. As far as IE 9 beta goes, I still like Chrome better (for now), but they have narrowed the gap a lot in my opinion.

devs (like me) wont rejoice until IE6-8 are cold and dead. though for all intents and purposes, IE6 no longer exists in the US market. i still have to hack my valid/good code for many aggravating hours to get IE7/8 behaving as ff/chrome/safari/opera do.

Leeoniya said,
devs (like me) wont rejoice until IE6-8 are cold and dead. though for all intents and purposes, IE6 no longer exists in the US market. i still have to hack my valid/good code for many aggravating hours to get IE7/8 behaving as ff/chrome/safari/opera do.

I've had to do work for every browser for earlier versions. The good thing about ff/chrome/safari/opera is you can expect users to always upgrade to the newest versions... but at one point every browser had quirks and standards failings, even as people were bashing IE. I don't find IE8 standards mode worse than other browsers, either.

Well that's what happens when monopoly abuse goes left unchecked. The EU should have acted sooner, and the DOJ should of, well, done something... Only now can web developers follow the web standards with confidence. Do you think if IE was still at 90% that MS would be doing a u-turn on web standards? Not a chance in hell. This is what happens when a company like MS abuses the market and its position.

Flawed said,
Well that's what happens when monopoly abuse goes left unchecked. The EU should have acted sooner, and the DOJ should of, well, done something... Only now can web developers follow the web standards with confidence. Do you think if IE was still at 90% that MS would be doing a u-turn on web standards? Not a chance in hell. This is what happens when a company like MS abuses the market and its position.

From the premise of your point to the evidence you offer... You have no idea about what you are talking about.

Go lookup IE 3.x, IE 4.x, IE 5.x, IE 6.x and MS's work with HTML standards - as there are lot of Web and HTML standards that were submitted, designed, and/or written by MS or MS Employees. Part of their non-compliance was implementing features too early or assuming standards would be adopted that were not. (And ironically, some of the features from the IE5 and IE6 days that 'broke' IE for standards are now actual standards.

As for the monopoly, uh? How does a large marketshare have anything to do with HTML compliance in IE? At the time the monopoly ruling came down, IE was the most compliant browser of web and HTML standards. (Go look it up.)


There is a reason that IE4 and Netscape4 was a big battle and why Netscape lost. - From new web and HTML standards overlooked by Netscape, all the way to things that are considered bad today, but back in the 90s, was a benefit to IE users.

For example on a crappy or slow connection, IE would go ahead and render a page even when errors occurred, or would go on to display a table even with a missing end Table tag. So, ya, people like to point out how these 'break' the standards, as IE should never display the table with a missing end tag; however, in 1998 on a freaking crap modem with a crap ISP, it was handy to users to be able to see the freaking web page table even if all the information didn't come through.

Even today idiots look at the ACID tests, which are the epitome of tests to show where a browser compensates for bad, missing, or corrupt HTML and still tries to display it properly. So when people complain a browser doesn't get 100% on ACID tests, they are actually saying, "MY BROWSER ISN'T DUMB ENOUGH, IT IS TRYING TO DISPLAY INFORMATION FOR ME ON A CRAP CONNECTION EVEN WHEN IT DIDN'T GET ALL THE INFORMATION OR THE EXACT TAGS."
(But we have to have standards and rules over and anyone that tries to compensate for flaws in the standards or connection issues or basically uses any type of software intelligence is just PURE EVIL LIKE MS. geesh.)

If you want to talk IE history and IE standards or MS and the Monopoly rulings, as least have a coherent argument or correlation between the two. Heck even a few good random arguments about both issues would be nice. Instead you offer some inane conflated misinformation repeated because you don't know better.

Leeoniya said,
devs (like me) wont rejoice until IE6-8 are cold and dead. though for all intents and purposes, IE6 no longer exists in the US market. i still have to hack my valid/good code for many aggravating hours to get IE7/8 behaving as ff/chrome/safari/opera do.

hey erm, when something dominates a market, as IE does and did, with upto and over 80% of the market... THEY ARE THE GODDAMN STANDARD.... not something a group of bozo's made up and called it W3.
they didnt and dont have to stick to other people's standards, as MS dominates the browser market.

and except a few small things, even IE6 can display most properly if you know how too... without to much of a hassle.

Well I really hope it is a good successor because I have the beta installed right now and I think it still has a little more to go before it is able to become a default browser again, a few crashes and especially some page capabilities.(Some pages just don't work properly with capability enabled or not.)

Biglo said,
Well I really hope it is a good successor because I have the beta installed right now and I think it still has a little more to go before it is able to become a default browser again, a few crashes and especially some page capabilities.(Some pages just don't work properly with capability enabled or not.)

Did you send the crash report feedback???
I don't think so. If you understand the concept of 'BETA' you would not have posted that comment.

I hate it when people say.."OMG the beta crashes on my system..whaaaa!!!!!"
I am saying this for all browsers (Internet Explorer,Firefox,Chrome,Safari...etc).
People , please help the developers ( of any browser) by sending crash/bug reports.

Goldenlotus said,

Did you send the crash report feedback???
I don't think so. If you understand the concept of 'BETA' you would not have posted that comment.

"Beta" is the new "my bad".
:-/

Goldenlotus said,

Did you send the crash report feedback???
I don't think so. If you understand the concept of 'BETA' you would not have posted that comment.

I hate it when people say.."OMG the beta crashes on my system..whaaaa!!!!!"
I am saying this for all browsers (Internet Explorer,Firefox,Chrome,Safari...etc).
People , please help the developers ( of any browser) by sending crash/bug reports.

How about you shut the hell up! I'm not one of those users who just download things cause its new. I know what a beta is and obviously it is for testing purposes, so I send the crash report every time, its not my default browser I just use it to test sites in. I hate when stupid people like you get on here and try to flame someone as if you know it all. Like I state at the beginning of the post, I hope the successor is going to be better, never said that it was bad or unusable.