Microsoft makes the case for businesses to use IE10

Microsoft launched Internet Explorer 10 along with Windows 8 and Windows RT in late October, and launched a "preview version" of its latest web browser for Windows 7 users in mid-November. So far, IE10 is currently only being used by a tiny fraction of PC owners.

That isn't stopping Microsoft from making the case to businesses they need to upgrade to IE10, while also trying to show that they don't need to use any other competing web browser, such as Google's Chrome and Mozilla's Firefox. In a recent post on the Exploring IE blog, Microsoft reveals data for Forrester Research that claims businesses lose money if they use more than one web browser at work.

The blog states:

Forrester found that firms spend an extra $4,200 per web app annually to support multiple browsers. For a large corporation, that translates to almost $400,000 per year just for web apps. Any potential benefits were clearly outweighed by support, maintenance, and other costs - as most firms with multiple browsers experienced cost increases in excess of 20% overall.

So why should corporations pick IE10 over other web browsers? Microsoft claims IE10 has a number of advantages, including better security, support for modern web language standards and many more. Microsoft also says that IE10 is faster than other web browsers, which was reported a month ago in a separate study by New Relic.

Source: Exploring IE blog | Image via Strangeloop

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Review: Nokia Lumia 920

Next Story

Windows Phone 7.8 update may be rolling out

66 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Up to IE8, IE sucked at standards support but its UI was great. With IE9, it became competitive but the UI was oversimplified to remove all customization. IE10 just continues that bad UI.

It is Microsoft's pandering to those who want to use the kiddy toy interface. So, as long as Microsoft keeps using the the bad UI, people will stick with what they have with IE9/Windows-7, or start thinking seriously of moving elsewhere.

TsarNikky said,
A much stronger case can be made when IE10 can be coupled with Windows-7.

This...

I want to use IE10.. BUt with only the preview out im holding off

Lord Method Man said,

Why wait?

I used IE10 for a few days (in Windows 7)...I finally got sick of having to hit F12 and select "IE9 Standards" whenever I'd go to Facebook to post, or other pages...finally uninstalled and went back to IE9. Lord Method Man, you ask, "Why Wait?" How about "Until they get some of the bugs figured out."

Lord Method Man said,
Don't blame IE10 for Facebook's problem. I don't have any problems here, but then again I know enough not to use Facebook.

Facebook was *one* of *many* sites that I had to use the "IE9 Standards" option. My original sentence was "whenever I'd go to Facebook to post, *or other pages*..." The "other pages" included this one (Neowin.net).

If it were just one site, I wouldn't point the finger at IE10. But with multiple sites not allowing me to do certain things (post comments, "likes," etc.), unless I choose "IE9 Standards," I am forced to the conclusion that IE10 is a large part of the problem.

Lord Method Man said,
Well I've definitely had zero issues with Neowin.net with IE10. Like I said, don't point the finger at IE10 for your own problems.

Are you using Windows 7 or Windows 8?

Also, companies may have a mix environment, with PCs, Macs, Unix, and last time i checked, IE was not for anything but windows... So, here, IE10 shouldn't be used in a company, but use something more portable.

Our internal test here also put Chrome and also Opera above every version of IE including 10. IE is now slightly ahead of Firefox though in our internal test.

But we make our test on very big pages with lot of stuff. One of our test page took approx 1 minute to render in IE6 and approx 30 sec in IE 7 XD all current browsers are able to render the same page in less than 10 sec lol

ProChefChad said,
Where is IE's support for extensions?

AdBlock, FlashBlock, AutoPager, Greasemonkey... the list goes on.


Adblock... build in.
flashblock.. basically build in if you mean for flash ads/junk.
Its fast enough to not need autopager.

IE's lack for greasemonkey is not MS's fault. There have been GM projects for IE which worked (trial and error on many scripts tho).
MS has offered an extensive plugin library with ActiveX for years now.

ie10 is pretty damn fast. I was pretty surprised when I upgraded from ie9 how much speedier it was. also, the ui is very crisp. me gusta

Has IE10 fixed the issues with Postscript Type 1 fonts that currently exist in IE9?

Also, Microsoft... clue... if it weren't for Firefox and Chrome, you would not have been driven as much to improve IE.

Z'Loth said,

Also, Microsoft... clue... if it weren't for Firefox and Chrome, you would not have been driven as much to improve IE.

this ^

Z'Loth said,
Has IE10 fixed the issues with Postscript Type 1 fonts that currently exist in IE9?

Also, Microsoft... clue... if it weren't for Firefox and Chrome, you would not have been driven as much to improve IE.


Its Microsoft that has been pushing the web forward allot more then Mozilla and Google combined.
It lacked tabbed browsing, but for MS the 'tabs' where in your taskbar. And outside that its MS pushing forward web standards. Even during the first browser wars.
You do know that many HTML5 features have their origin in IE6

Please, IE 6 was the crappiest browser of all. You needed to literally re-encode almost 50% of the code to make it work for it.

HTML 5 has seen a big rise on IE10. IE9's is quite lacking.

Web developing for IE can be maddening when your code works in Firefox and Chrome already. Nothing like Googling around for a fix when it should just be working anyway.

It's not really true anymore with IE 10. Usually when my standard compliant web site works in FF it's gonna work in IE 10 as well. There might be some adjustement but nothing requiring too much work.

IE 7 it's another story. It did not even support inline-block properly ...

While developing web apps, I have found no browser is the same. Something that works on IE and FF will not on Chrome, something that works on Chrome and IE but not on FF, and something that is fine on FF and Chrome does not on IE. We hear people calling for IE to switch to WebKit, which makes compatibility problems between Chrome and Safari even more humorous/maddening, since they cannot even get things to work right when using the same code base.

So while you may want to slam IE for supposedly not following the standard, or having bugs, all browsers suffer from the same problems. Just look at the compliance tests, if FF/Chrome were so standard, they would both have a perfect score, which they don't.

This is my experience as well. The differences are getting smaller with each version but there is still need to test web apps in multiple browsers.

Then you can throw in all the mobile browsers, which despite mostly being Webkit-based, will again support a different feature set. For example I've gotten different results in Chrome and Safari on iOS (Chrome being the one that works as expected btw). The Window Phone 7.x IE's are actually pretty terrible - I've seen things like no support for touch events (apparently 7.5 does), terrible scaling for form elements etc.

The main problem with Microsoft's thinking is that it's exactly what brought the whole IE6 mess around in the first place. Internal webapps developed to only work on a single version of a specific browser. While companies should absolutely upgrade to IE10 if they are going to stick with IE, I just don't see it being a good long term move as IE's development cycle is much much longer than Chrome or Firefox. The afore-mentioned get a new version almost every month whereas IE seems to get an upgrade only when there's a new Windows OS to go along with it. Over a year is a long time in browsers and with this speed, by the time IE 11 is released it still won't support the new web technologies that Chrome and Firefox do.

Last thing is that the IE user interface is hardly the most user friendly or elegant. But then again when has MS ever delivered an UI that is simply fantastic to use...

KSib said,
Web developing for IE can be maddening when your code works in Firefox and Chrome already. Nothing like Googling around for a fix when it should just be working anyway.

Learn to code. There where a few things IE8 didnt have that Fx/Chrome/Opera did have.
But since IE9 I have absolutely no issues coding sites to look identical over multiple browsers without using any browser specific code.

'Forrester found that firms spend an extra $4,200 per web app annually to support multiple browsers. For a large corporation, that translates to almost $400,000 per year just for web apps'
Easy way to save all that money -> don't install IE because it can only be used on windows! Install chrome or firefox and design sites to work in that, then you've got windows, mac, linux, ios, android and buckets more compatibility all without the high cost to support ie!

They are spending that money to support older browsers like IE6 and 7 (which as a web dev i can tell you is a pain in the ass).

With new browsers (IE10, last Chrome and FF) when a standard compliant web site is perfectly working in one you can expect it to work in all of them minus some subtle display differences (text rendering is one of them) you can safely ignore in most of the cases.

Making a standard compliant web site that works in IE 10, last version of FF, Chrome and Opera is effortless in comparison of supporting IE6 and 7.

Or, you could standardize all your desktops and laptops on Win8, your tablets on WinRT, phones on WP8, and need to support only one browser.

See, with your contrived example, you still need to support multiple browsers since FF does not run on iOS. If you were to go with FF or Chrome, then you have higher costs since they put out a new version every couple months. This would require your IT department to test for compatibility and then update all those desktops, laptops, tablets, and some phones, when not all those devices have administrative support. And if they do support remote administration then they are different methods for doing so, your costs will be much higher than of you were to use one consistent platform.

In other words, rather than controlling costs across your entire fleet of devices, you want to control costs in just web apps, which will get you a smaller savings when you could get bigger savings by controlling the entire ecosystem.

I hate IE10's UI. Personal opinion. The worst part is Microsoft does not allow us Indians to use Google as default search provider. We have to resort to URL hack to get Google search by changing region to US during adding search providers.

Love Google chrome. UI is perfection and looks balanced.
Most of the employees in local companies here demand Firefox or Chrome.

sanke1 said,
The worst part is Microsoft does not allow us Indians to use Google as default search provider. We have to resort to URL hack to get Google search by changing region to US during adding search providers.

I use google as default.

sanke1 said,
I hate IE10's UI. Personal opinion. The worst part is Microsoft does not allow us Indians to use Google as default search provider. We have to resort to URL hack to get Google search by changing region to US during adding search providers.

Love Google chrome. UI is perfection and looks balanced.
Most of the employees in local companies here demand Firefox or Chrome.

What's wrong with the UI? If you mean the tabs, you can move them to a separate row with one click.

As for default search:

http://www.howtogeek.com/12776...ws-8s-internet-explorer-10/

Employees can demand whatever they desire, but they won't be getting any. A company isn't a kindergarten.

sanke1 said,
I hate IE10's UI. Personal opinion. The worst part is Microsoft does not allow us Indians to use Google as default search provider. We have to resort to URL hack to get Google search by changing region to US during adding search providers.

Love Google chrome. UI is perfection and looks balanced.
Most of the employees in local companies here demand Firefox or Chrome.

Agreed so many applications clog up its interface with useless context menu extensions and accelerators. But unlike firefox or chrome you can set virtually every option in ie in a gpo and apply it to thousands of computers that's IE's biggest advantage and I don't see any third party browsers rushing to create group policy templates

sanke1 said,
The worst part is Microsoft does not allow us Indians to use Google as default search provider. We have to resort to URL hack to get Google search by changing region to US during adding search providers.

IE supports OpenSearch just like most browsers. So if Google publishes an OpenSearch file for your language/region, then you can easily add it. And if they don't, then it is hardly IE's fault that Google doesn't want you to search in your language of choice.

I still use firefox and I want to love it so badly. but I just really hate it. I like it's password security. Better than IE and Chrome as far as I know. (I learned that all saved passwords in IE are visible when logged in as a user in Windows, it's a deal breaker)

thealexweb said,
My rig is inferior to yours but it takes 10-15 on mine to load, something is wrong with your installation of Fx.

Very true, takes about 15 seconds to open here when gnome is still opening up and I've got about 20 extensions installed with cpupower set to on powersave mode.
30 seconds ? You're doing something wrong.

thealexweb said,
My rig is inferior to yours but it takes 10-15 on mine to load, something is wrong with your installation of Fx.

Ditto that.. mid-range system, nothing fancy, Firefox 20 takes maybe 2-3 seconds warm to start up, maybe 8 secs or so on a cold start. Not as fast as IE (which is virtually instant for me) but I have a lot of addons and such in Firefox too, and IE is more or less vanilla. Don't think I've ever seen Firefox take 30 seconds to load, even on my old 800Mhz Windows XP Q1 Craplet.

mdcdesign said,
I think the fact that it doesn't take 30 seconds to open on a Core i7 box unlike Firefox is the main reason to use IE10.

If it takes you 30 sec to open Firefox on a Core i7 you're holding your computer wrong.

Seriously? 10-15 seconds is acceptable to you people? IE10 opens in under 3 seconds on my Surface, desktop or tile. Switch to a better browser.

Are you freakin' kidding me?
I have a 6 year old desktop (Core2Quad & 8800GTS) and my firefox (17.0.1), with 9 plugins and 7 addons constantly on, loads between 2-4 seconds (Win7 SP1 x64).
There is definitely something wrong with your systems.10-15-20-30 secs, what?

thatguyandrew1992 said,
I still use firefox and I want to love it so badly. but I just really hate it. I like it's password security. Better than IE and Chrome as far as I know. (I learned that all saved passwords in IE are visible when logged in as a user in Windows, it's a deal breaker)

Out of curiosity, why not use a 3rd party program like LastPass or KeePass or another browser-neutral solution?

Every IE since IE7 has been VERY slow to open. I haven't started using Win8 much yet, but if the last 3 have been any indication, then I'm not very hopeful.

15 sec to load browser? You just reminded me why I switched from Firefox (after version 4 was released).
FYI, IE loads as soon as I click the icon. Chrome is almost the same (a little slower but only if you are nitpicking).

Seriously though i dont know which computer you guys have but god i just did the test on my home computer and Firefox loads in less than 2 sec. It's almost instant.

I have a SSD and good quality ram but still my comp is 3 years old (Core I5 750 with 4GB of ram) so 10 sec and 30 sec ... no way unless you're using an old notebook.

I can actually open both Photoshop + Visual Studio on my PC in under 8 seconds. Thats both at once from a cold boot. I have a high-end PC (RAID SSD's + 32GB RAM) but even on a mid range system If a browser takes more than about 8 seconds, even with a lot of add-ons, thats totally unacceptable.

Remove the SSD, use any program that uses your hdd (where ff is) a bit. See firefox taking 30 sec to load while IE/Chrome loads <1 sec.
There is a reason I stopped using crawlfox after 1 year of nightly.