Look Out, Firefox 3 — IE8 Is Back On Top For Now 662
CWmike writes "Internet Explorer 8 has shipped in its final version and is ready to take on its rivals. Preston Gralla reviewed it and says the latest version of Microsoft's browser leapfrogs its closest competition, Firefox 3, for basic browsing and productivity features — it has better tab handling, a niftier search bar, a more useful address bar, and new tools that deliver information directly from other Web pages and services. IE8 has also been tweaked for security and includes a so-called 'porn mode,' new anti-malware protection, and better ways to protect your privacy. The most noticeable new features? Accelerators and Web Slices. Think of an Accelerator as a mini-mashup that delivers information from another Web site directly to your current browser page. Web Slices deliver changing information from a Web page you're not actively visiting directly to IE8. There's one big problem for many, though. No add-ins, and there doesn't appear to be such an ecosystem on the horizon. So if you're a fan of add-ins and customizing the browser itself, writes Gralla, Firefox is superior. But for the actual browsing experience, IE8 has the upper hand — for now."
Fluff (Score:5, Insightful)
Firefox will continue to be superior (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fluff (Score:5, Insightful)
No add-ins? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does it adhere to standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
My first question with every new release of IE is, "How well does it render valid HTML+CSS?"
Yeah, I don't really care if it's fast and has "Web Accelerators". Will it display properly written pages properly? Are developers going to have to keep putting hacks into their pages to deal with IE quirks? If they aren't adhering to standards, then it's not really worth much.
Re:Firefox will continue to be superior (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, Put simply, "No matter how slow it is, at least it has Adblock"
Re:Best attribute (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, I think that whoever is using Firefox will continue to use it regardless of what IEX Browser comes out. The people that will be moving to IE8 will be those people that have used are privy to the previous IE Browser incarnations.
new and innovative security issue (Score:4, Insightful)
I have this set up with widgets. It is useful to have certain snippets of web pages at ones fingertips. So I agree that it is a cool feature.
OTOH, implanting this in the browser seems like a serious security risk to me. How many times have we seen something like this used to steal someone's password to their bank account or otherwise make people believe they are on a secure site? How will they keep this feature from being hijacked?
In the end this sounds like feature bloat. It is not part of what MS said IE8 would be, which is a faster, more standards based browser.
Love these exciting new features from MS! (Score:2, Insightful)
Think of an Accelerator as a mini-mashup that delivers information from another Web site directly to your current browser page.
So it's a frame/iframe?
Web Slices deliver changing information from a Web page you're not actively visiting directly to IE8
So it's RSS?
Re:Firefox will continue to be superior (Score:5, Insightful)
And NoScript. And greasemonkey. And GMail Manager. And... The list goes on and on and on... Any one of my 'necessary' plugins makes Firefox more desirable than any other browser.
Re:Firefox will continue to be superior (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes.
And don't forget NoScript.
The thing is, with Adblock and NoScript, browsing on Firefox *is* faster than on any other browser. A
Re:Firefox will continue to be superior (Score:4, Insightful)
AdBlock is the first add-on I download whenever I setup Firefox. I've gotten so used to browsing with it that I am dumbfounded every time I have to browse the web without it.
Re:Security? (Score:2, Insightful)
Plus, web accelerators are loathed by all web site managers -- who watch as their bandwidth is leached by browsers whose operators aren't necessarily intending to visit.
The loathing extends to people in parts of the world with metered traffic and/or quotas imposed and extends further to companies with fixed bandwidth pipes who'll now have them flooded with likely unnecessary requests.
Who on earth comes up with these "features" and why do they still have jobs?
Re:Firefox will continue to be superior (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does it adhere to standards? (Score:3, Insightful)
<a href="http://www.getfirefox.com">Page doesn't look right? Click here.</a>
Innovation is back! (Score:3, Insightful)
Good to see innovation is back in town. I won't be using IE anytime soon, at least not until there is a Linux or OS-X release of the browser. But I'm sure the Firefox, Opera, Chrome, etc. developers are going to take a good hard look at those features, and we'll see the best innovations appear in other browsers really soon. And hopefully even more nifty functions inspired by this.
The last two, three years have seen more innovation in the browser than the ten years before that. FF 1 was nice and up to par - adding tabs but not that much more, FF 2 was a serious improvement, but only in FF 3 I start to see very serious changes and improvements - it starts to feel experimental at times - in an innovative way, something that I don't feel in FF 2. Is it because MS has picked up their pace in UI innovation? Is it because Google has launched Chrome with its super-javascript-engine? Or maybe because alternative Safari has gained mainstream recognition with its Windows version and the iPhone version? Or more likely all of the above?
Interesting times ahead, for sure. Very interesting times. And a lot of hard hard work for anyone involved in browser development to keep their brainchild on top. What a little competition can do! For once I will say: go, Microsoft, go, you're starting to do well in this. Just make sure you stick to the standards as otherwise you won't make it against the competition. The competition is too strong for that kind of tricks already.
Did Someone Say Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of an Accelerator as a mini-mashup that delivers information from another Web site directly to your current browser page.
Sounds like a *wonderful* malware delivery system.
Web Slices deliver changing information from a Web page you're not actively visiting directly to IE8.
Yet another malware delivery system.
Why, in 2009, are they slapping on another layer of lard on top of their needlessly complex and largely ineffective OS security?
One thing is for sure, they aren't going to stop releasing dumb things like this so I'll never be out of work babysitting their products.
Re:Firefox will continue to be superior (Score:5, Insightful)
Explain to me how Firefox is bloated. Compared to what? Its former self? Other browsers? The executable size of Firefox has been remarkable stable since version 1.0 --- it hovers around the 10MB mark. Just what is the bloat then? Nearly everything in Firefox has a direct browsing application. It is justified to call those features not bloat. The whole "SQLite database is bloat" argument goes out the window about 5 minutes after you start using the awesome bar. Bloat is one of those words that's easy to fling around. What would you get rid of? The plugin system? Look at the other replies to your comment. The crash manager? The tabbed browsing??? Firefox currently has its problems, but bloat is not one of them.
Subjectivity Alert (Score:3, Insightful)
"...But for the actual browsing experience..."
Things like "browser experience" are so completely subjective as to have no meaning. The standard counters often include mentions of "general users" and other equally nonsensical strawmen. I don't mind people expressing opinions about their "browser experiences", in fact I think more people should talk about what they like and don't like. What I cringe at is when the difference between a review and opinion piece disappears, or becomes so ambiguous that it might as well be disappeared.
Yes, I know this is a dead horse, but even dead horses deserve a fresh flogging from time to time.
Re:Fluff (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense. Every browser EXCEPT IE can play the game in my sig. That's not the only example of such complete and total rendering failures on Microsoft's part.
Why would rendering take a back seat to convenience? If you can't view the page, all the convenience in the world isn't going to help you.
Re:Add-ins (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd bet that a faster render engine WITH ads still loses against a slightly slower one and adblock.
Sheldon
Re:Firefox will continue to be superior (Score:2, Insightful)
Even worse, like in the summary, they claim that IE addins *don't exist*. The summary doesn't say "Firefox has better addins than IE", it says "IE has no addins" which is a blatant lie-- hell, IE had addins long before Firefox even existed. (Given, in IE 5-6 they were mostly nothing but malware toolbars, but they still existed.)
I can't even count the number of times some Firefox fan has told me it's superior because it has addins and IE doesn't. I hate FUD, no matter who's spreading it.
Re:Competition driven market, it works (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it does seem to work-- just so long as the US federal government, several state governments, and the whole EU are battling Microsoft to keep them from engaging in anti-competitive practices.
The free market works, but this is a case where governmental intervention is required to keep a market free.
Re:Firefox will continue to be superior (Score:3, Insightful)
I think he means the memory management problems, that some people still seem to have, or parrot about without checking if they exist for them.
I do not have any memory problems with Firefox.
But then again, I do not use Firefox like a complete idiot, having 30-100 tabs open at the same time, with tons of flash instances included.
Yes, it sounds crazy, but people really do this.
I think it borders on having OCD issues. Your brain can usually not handle more than 10 things (max) at the same time. So usually, you would group things. Which can be done by storing window sessions (with TabMix plus) or just simply bookmarking them. One group per folder. Under "Things I want to read later".
But they just dump everything into active memory. The memory needed for 100 raw images alone (remember: they need to be uncompressed!) is staggering. Take a 1600x1200 screen. Now say that every page viewed has on average a size of 3 screen pages. With 24 bit (3 bytes) color, those 100 images take up: (1600 x 1200 x 3) x 3 screens x 100 tabs = 1.728 GB of RAM!!
And I still left out the in-memory parse tree, scripts, and embedded flash and images.
I say it out loud: Maybe the browser is just simply not made for this...
Re:Add-ins (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they don't do jack to modify the behavior of the browser?
Find me the toolbar that gives IE support for:
- Selective blocking of advertisements
- Experimental 3D Canvas
- DOM Inspection
- Preview page on link hover
- 3D Bookmark management
- Sidebar preview of tabs
- FTP Manager
- Warning of Site Tracking scripts
These are expansions to *core* browser functionality. Toolbars don't do that. ActiveX plugins do, but there's no real ecosystem around ActiveX these days. (In fact, it seems like everyone's trying to figure out how to get rid of it.)
BTW, when did you become a Microsoft apologist Blakey? I've been noticing you coming out in support of IE at every opportunity. I can't figure out why for the life of me.
Re:Firefox will continue to be superior (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, Put simply, "No matter how slow it is, at least it has Adblock"
The point is that with AdBlock Firefox is quick. Throw in NoScript and you can really control the "load" being thrown at the browser. Both of these mechanisms really give a superior browser experience compared to anything in IE8.
Re:Firefox will continue to be superior (Score:4, Insightful)
"Bloated" is one of the most overused words on this site. It no longer has any meaning here, except as a generic insult. It's basically the equivalent of disagreeing with someone's opinion and calling them stupid. It's just something to say when you can't think of anything reasonable or intelligent.
Re:Add-ins (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, while I loved them at first, add-ons were the killer in my decision to switch away from Firefox to Opera. I found that even using one or two extensions (including using only Adblock, perhaps the most popular Firefox extension), my browser was bloated, slow, and prone to frequent crashing. Switching to FF3, I enjoyed none of the acclaimed new improvements in memory management once I added any extensions to the mix, and in fact, Firefox would crash constantly (every half-hour or so) under any conditions.
I'd already installed Opera so I could bring it up when I was playing memory- and CPU-hungry games and not lag them any while I had a browser idling in the background, so I just switched fulltime. Aside from noticing a few more ads (easily ignored or remedied with Opera's built-in content blocker), my browsing experience has been much improved; Opera responds far better than Firefox, and has many of the functions that Firefox only has from third-party extensions. The others, I find I don't actually miss at all.
Who knew simplicity could be so simple?
Re:Firefox will continue to be superior (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Features, Shmeatures. (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows + Internet only equals Screaming assrape IF YOUR DOING IT WRONG.
Damnit, a little bit of sense, a little bit of trepidation, a little bit of intellect will save you from ALOT of hassle on the internet. Remember, the browsing internet is like running around a main Road at 2am, it looks safe, it seems safe, but you still look both ways before crossing. And to be sure, the one time you cross without looking there WILL be a truck coming.
Re:Firefox will continue to be superior (Score:4, Insightful)
> Do you not like the websites you visit? Don't you want them to keep running?
I'd rather they run without the superfluous crap that really isn't necessary and break the original intent of the Web.
Also, it's nice to be able to surf with impugnity without worry what sort of crap you might catch from some random website.
Re:Add-ins (Score:2, Insightful)
Failing that, perhaps we should just wait and see what he replies to your question.
Re:Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except they are not consumers or rather not doing it fairly.
By your argument a resturant shouldn't bitch and moan when a customer takes an entire bowel of free after dinner mints rather than just one.
Also by your logic people who can't buy/afford a large non-limited bandwidth connection shouldn't bother to make things publicly available on the internet.
Effectively, you're saying that only those with enough money to afford the higher cost should be allowed free speech on the Internet.
Re:Firefox will continue to be superior (Score:2, Insightful)
...Its actually easier to write a malicious firefox plugin since it can be done in javascript alone....
Going to have to call BS on that. Firefox addons aren't installed into Windows Explorer (unlike IE6 extensions), don't have administrator access to the system (unlike IE6 & IE7), and don't operate as a website plugin (which can be copied, modified, and made to run on page load).
Call me a zealot, but I haven't had to clean viruses because of an installed Firefox toolbar.
Re:Best attribute (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Best attribute (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Best attribute (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I'd like to know who the devs are for the /. UI. I like slashdot a lot, but one has to wonder: if slashdot's own code is this bad and the interface is this bad, just how much geek cred does /. have anymore? A geek site should set the standard. Looks like they got some MBAs to redesign this site.
Re:Best attribute (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Best attribute (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll bite (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Best attribute (Score:3, Insightful)
you do realize that the -moz-* ARE allowed given the spec and that webkit has similar (i think they do -webkit-* and khtml does -html-*).
Basically part of that standard says that the browser may provide extentions with the format --*.
Why not just offer MS a /. editor post? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, when Microsoft PR gets posted on slashdot as blatantly as this, I wonder if it wouldn't just be easier to offer Microsoft an editor position/seat at slashdot?
That way we'd know which articles to lend credibility to and which to add to adblocker.
Re:Best attribute (Score:3, Insightful)
That, my friend, is the 80's talking. We're way past that stage.
There are plenty of people stuck in the eighties still. Just look at the popularity of emacs and vi around these parts.
Re:Best attribute (Score:4, Insightful)
Standards compliance and a page rendering well are not the same thing. IE6 is far less standards compliance than pretty much any modern browser, but most websites render well in it because they were written to render well in it.
If a page is not standards compliant, you can have the most standards compliant browser in the world and it will still render terribly. What you want is actually a standards *in-compliant* browser that smartly substitutes out its standards compliant mode for an appropriate quirks mode when it sees a site that is standards in-compliant.
Re:Best attribute (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree with that entirely. I think that Gecko and Webkit are doing a disservice by using their own namespaces for things like that.
The draft spec for CSS3 contains a property called "border-radius". You can see it here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-css3-background-20050216/#the-border-radius [w3.org].
That document is over 4 years old at this point. So if Gecko and Webkit want to implement a border radius, wouldn't it make the most sense to use the already-suggested identifier for it? When Firefox introduces support for CSS3, why make people change all of their stylesheets to use the official name instead of the hack? It would make a lot more sense to tell people to use border-radius, and then watch as more browsers start to support CSS3 and the site starts to look better and better without needing to change any code at all.
If I want borders to be rounded in both Firefox and Safari, why do I need to use 2 different CSS properties, where neither of them validate? Isn't the whole point to create valid code? It's nice that Mozilla and Webkit offered support for this before others did, but now what has happened is that people are figuring out that in order to get rounded borders you need to add "x-moz-border-radius" and "x-webkit-border-radius" rules, when what they should be learning is that you only need a single "border-radius" rule, regardless of who supports it at this point. The web pages online today telling people to use those rules are still going to be around in 5 or 10 years. The really frustrating thing is that a lof of the sites who tell people to use the hacks don't even mention the official border-radius property, so what happens when I visit those sites in Opera? Nothing, because they aren't even using the right properties.
Creating your own invalid identifiers for things like CSS or HTML attributes is a bad practice, period. It doesn't make it OK because it's Slashdot's Golden Boy Du Jour that's doing it. The bottom line is that using a proprietary name for these things does not offer a single advantage over using the already decided-upon name. Graceful degradation still occurs if they would have used border-radius.
Re:All alone (Score:2, Insightful)
And he owns one entire hill, and all the other kids had to share.
That's entrepreneurship at its best!
Still got ActiveX (Score:3, Insightful)
So long as it's still got ActiveX in there, I gotta consider it "not acceptable".