Microsoft confirms IE 8 will ship this year


Recommended Posts

Care to elaborate how huge? IE 7 is enough for the mainstream users.

It's honestly massive. The jump from IE7 to IE8 completely re-writes the rendering engine. IE8 now renders things the way the specifications says they should be rendered. They're not also supporting more than they did in the past. This update is going to save web developers LOTS of time and money (assuming most people will upgrade)

It's honestly massive. The jump from IE7 to IE8 completely re-writes the rendering engine. IE8 now renders things the way the specifications says they should be rendered. They're not also supporting more than they did in the past. This update is going to save web developers LOTS of time and money (assuming most people will upgrade)

that's the sad part, there are many people who will still use IE6 after IE8 comes out. So in reality IE8 will probably lead to more work for web developers. Currently I have to check my websites to work under IE6, IE7 and Firefox (and I secretly check them under Opera too, although it's not required by my boss). After IE8 release, it will most likely be that I have to check my websites under IE6, IE7, IE8 and Firefox. And since IE8 still has its own quirks, that just means even more work to do. I'd rather just put a tag to force it to work in IE7 emulation mode. But if IE8 beta 1 is any indication, even the IE7 emulation mode is not 100% same as IE7, I already have an ajax tree builder in one of my websites not working correctly in IE8 even in IE7 emulation mode, and I still have no idea what causes the problem (albeit I'm not really trying too hard to solve the problem since it's just beta 1).

In the end, I think IE8 releasing this year will most likely just mean even more cross-browser programming work for us web developers :wacko:

that's the sad part, there are many people who will still use IE6 after IE8 comes out. So in reality IE8 will probably lead to more work for web developers. Currently I have to check my websites to work under IE6, IE7 and Firefox (and I secretly check them under Opera too, although it's not required by my boss). After IE8 release, it will most likely be that I have to check my websites under IE6, IE7, IE8 and Firefox. And since IE8 still has its own quirks, that just means even more work to do. I'd rather just put a tag to force it to work in IE7 emulation mode. But if IE8 beta 1 is any indication, even the IE7 emulation mode is not 100% same as IE7, I already have an ajax tree builder in one of my websites not working correctly in IE8 even in IE7 emulation mode, and I still have no idea what causes the problem (albeit I'm not really trying too hard to solve the problem since it's just beta 1).

In the end, I think IE8 releasing this year will most likely just mean even more cross-browser programming work for us web developers :wacko:

once IE8 comes out just drop support for IE6 and 7. You don't support Firefox 1 or 2, or Opera 7 or 8, so why should you support outdated IE versions? (Ok, maybe version 7 too since you might still be supporting Fx2)

In the end, I think IE8 releasing this year will most likely just mean even more cross-browser programming work for us web developers :wacko:

Well given that IE8 should be much closer to a Standards-Compliant browser, there should be less cross-browser programming because provided you script your site to be HTML/XTML compliant, then it should render almost identically in all browsers. That's the entire point of W3C standards.

In the end, I think IE8 releasing this year will most likely just mean even more cross-browser programming work for us web developers :wacko:

Uuummm no, This is a MUCH needed change that will make things much easier for web devs. IE8's Major change is a more standards complaint rendering engine! This is what web devs have been begging ms for years and years.

once IE8 comes out just drop support for IE6 and 7. You don't support Firefox 1 or 2, or Opera 7 or 8, so why should you support outdated IE versions? (Ok, maybe version 7 too since you might still be supporting Fx2)

because I'll be fired if I tell me boss I'll drop support for IE6? I don't know about you, but that sounds good enough reason for me, and my living depends on it. I won't be able to find any web developing job if I tell people I don't code for IE6 :wacko:

Well given that IE8 should be much closer to a Standards-Compliant browser, there should be less cross-browser programming because provided you script your site to be HTML/XTML compliant, then it should render almost identically in all browsers. That's the entire point of W3C standards.

well, there should be LESS cross-browser programming IF people stops using IE6 and IE7 the day IE8 comes out. But since many people will still use IE6 and IE7, and you can't exactly feed the same HTML to IE8 and Firefox, that means even more cross-browser programming :(

Uuummm no, This is a MUCH needed change that will make things much easier for web devs. IE8's Major change is a more standards complaint rendering engine! This is what web devs have been begging ms for years and years.

Uuummm NO, your "will make things much easier" is not relevant to what I have posted here, if you have actually read through it instead of seeing only what you wanted to see yourself.

WILL make thing easier for web devs five years in the future? maybe, that's a good possibility. However when it comes to the internet, no one can really predict what will happen five years in the future. Maybe people will all use Firefox or Opera by that time :p But it surely will make things harder for web devs NOW. web devs wants the whole browser market conforming to open standards, but currently we will more likely to get 20% IE6, 30% IE7, 20% IE8, 20% Firefox, 10% others in next year, which will be a hell for web devs :wacko:

And by web devs I mean those like myself who program for a company to make a living, who are forced to code for IE6. When you are working to code websites to feed yourself and your family everyday, you tend to think less about the ideal future a decade later, but more about what you have to code tomorrow :huh:

I said "In the end, I think IE8 releasing this year will most likely just mean even more cross-browser programming work for us web developers", I'm not talking about an idealized future where people all upgrade to the latest IE and IE becomes fully standards compliant. And sincerely I don't think the adoption rate of IE8 will be too high considering a lot of the IE users tend to just use whatever comes with their OS, IE6 comes with XP, IE7 comes with Vista, those IE users just aren't used to download standalone browser installs as Firefox and Opera users. So I highly doubt many IE users will download and install IE8 when it's not bundled with an OS.

iirc IE8 retains a memory of all the current tabs open so that if it crashes it can reload them. That is huge for end users.

And this is a compelling new feature for whom? Firefox and Opera have both had this feature for donkeys. :rolleyes:

And this is a compelling new feature for whom? Firefox and Opera have both had this feature for donkeys. :rolleyes:

IE7 does it too.

Safari does it as well, just not automated.

So we have the top 4 most popular browsers all supporting the same feature, and have supported it for a while, Hopefully it'll stop coming up in comparisons.

I think IE8's "new feature" is when tabs lock up (which happens all too often when you have multiple tabs open in IE7/8), after you bring out the Task Manager and kill the iexplore process, it will not close the whole browser, but just the freezing tabs closed and re-opened, which is a feature not found in other browsers. But then at times it's more annoying since those re-opened tabs locks up the browser again and again and again... :wacko:

I thought that beta 1 felt a bit heavy/sluggish on my old XP2500+ system. :pinch:

And this is a compelling new feature for whom? Firefox and Opera have both had this feature for donkeys. :rolleyes:

A misbehaving tab will lock up FF and Opera, needing a close/restart. IE8 handles tabs better: when one starts locking up, it can close/reopen the tab gracefully without having to close/reopen the entire browser.

A misbehaving tab will lock up FF and Opera, needing a close/restart. IE8 handles tabs better: when one starts locking up, it can close/reopen the tab gracefully without having to close/reopen the entire browser.

Lol, don't get me wrong, i love the ff/ie/whatever 'restore tabs' feature but doesn't it get on your ###### when it tries to 'restore' a tab which crashes the browser!

Back on topic though, does anyone have any info about how ie8 will handle css? is it fully standards compliant? does the beta render sites well seeing as i guess most sites wont have ie8 specific code yet?

/me might try it when he gets home from work

I really hope it will be possible to integrate it into a Vista or XP install. It has always been a pain in the butt to go thru all that crap with the updating and such especially when I have to reimage a box.

There's a post on the IE blog that details exactly this.

because I'll be fired if I tell me boss I'll drop support for IE6? I don't know about you, but that sounds good enough reason for me, and my living depends on it. I won't be able to find any web developing job if I tell people I don't code for IE6 :wacko:

well, there should be LESS cross-browser programming IF people stops using IE6 and IE7 the day IE8 comes out. But since many people will still use IE6 and IE7, and you can't exactly feed the same HTML to IE8 and Firefox, that means even more cross-browser programming :(

Uuummm NO, your "will make things much easier" is not relevant to what I have posted here, if you have actually read through it instead of seeing only what you wanted to see yourself.

WILL make thing easier for web devs five years in the future? maybe, that's a good possibility. However when it comes to the internet, no one can really predict what will happen five years in the future. Maybe people will all use Firefox or Opera by that time :p But it surely will make things harder for web devs NOW. web devs wants the whole browser market conforming to open standards, but currently we will more likely to get 20% IE6, 30% IE7, 20% IE8, 20% Firefox, 10% others in next year, which will be a hell for web devs :wacko:

And by web devs I mean those like myself who program for a company to make a living, who are forced to code for IE6. When you are working to code websites to feed yourself and your family everyday, you tend to think less about the ideal future a decade later, but more about what you have to code tomorrow :huh:

I said "In the end, I think IE8 releasing this year will most likely just mean even more cross-browser programming work for us web developers", I'm not talking about an idealized future where people all upgrade to the latest IE and IE becomes fully standards compliant. And sincerely I don't think the adoption rate of IE8 will be too high considering a lot of the IE users tend to just use whatever comes with their OS, IE6 comes with XP, IE7 comes with Vista, those IE users just aren't used to download standalone browser installs as Firefox and Opera users. So I highly doubt many IE users will download and install IE8 when it's not bundled with an OS.

I know it won't help as son as it is released, but you have to start somewhere. Would you rather they just keep using their non compliant rendering engine making things worse and worse? This is a good step.

Lol, don't get me wrong, i love the ff/ie/whatever 'restore tabs' feature but doesn't it get on your ###### when it tries to 'restore' a tab which crashes the browser!

Back on topic though, does anyone have any info about how ie8 will handle css? is it fully standards compliant? does the beta render sites well seeing as i guess most sites wont have ie8 specific code yet?

/me might try it when he gets home from work

still doesn't support XHTML, but is almost as (if not exactly as) good as the other major browsers for HTML and CSS (and JS too, I think? someone verify).

It passes the ACID 2, yay!

Apparently DOM support is better, but that might only be a few functions are improved (and more standards compliant)

Other things like Cross Site XMLHTTPRequest aren't implemented like the standard are, so that's going to require a standard way and an IE way when people use it.

I hope it can make some big stides. Firefox 3 is a pretty big hit in my household.

Ditto here. No computer in my household has IE as the default browser - it's Firefox on every PC.

Short of Microsoft sending in their Men in Black into Mozilla Headquarters and doing a 'Netscape' - Microsoft has an uphill road to climb with IE8.

It's time for the EU and US to get themselves organised and demand that Microsoft ships Windows with 'an option' to install IE or not during the Windows install process. I would like not to have Internet Explorer on my Windows PC's.

Ditto here. No computer in my household has IE as the default browser - it's Firefox on every PC.

Short of Microsoft sending in their Men in Black into Mozilla Headquarters and doing a 'Netscape' - Microsoft has an uphill road to climb with IE8.

It's time for the EU and US to get themselves organised and demand that Microsoft ships Windows with 'an option' to install IE or not during the Windows install process. I would like not to have Internet Explorer on my Windows PC's.

And then how do you propose that people like those who are illiterate get on the internet to get firefox, or so you assume we should put firefox on all machines rather than IE making this a fight that people will see the opposite way we see things now?

It's time for the EU and US to get themselves organised and demand that Microsoft ships Windows with 'an option' to install IE or not during the Windows install process. I would like not to have Internet Explorer on my Windows PC's.

So you want your computer to do nothing but crash. A lot of other programs use the IE engine. :rolleyes:

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Maradona if hydration breaks had existed in Mexico 86.
    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!