Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

IE9 Preview Touts Cross Browser Compatibility 181

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the now-thats-a-brilliant-feature dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft's Internet Explorer 9 development team has announced the availability of the third IE9 platform preview release on the IE blog. Dean Hachamovitch writes, 'The third Platform Preview of Internet Explorer 9, available now, continues the deep work around hardware acceleration to enable the same standards-based markup to run faster. This is the latest installment of the rhythm we started in March, delivering platform preview releases approximately every eight weeks and listening to developers. You'll see more performance, same markup, and hardware-accelerated HTML5.' The announcement focuses on cross-browser compatibility, noting that when 'developers spend less time rewriting their sites to work across browsers they have more time to create amazing experiences on the Web.' Curiously, however, the video embedded in the page works only in some browsers. Dear Microsoft, IE9 supports many royalty-free, web-compatible formats out of the box (HTML, CSS, WOFF, PNG, and the like) so why not at least one more?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IE9 Preview Touts Cross Browser Compatibility

Comments Filter:
  • by capnchicken (664317) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @08:33AM (#32676884)

    I'll be writing shit web code for IE6 forever anyway.

    • I'll be writing shit web code for IE6 forever anyway.

      That really blows. We're informing our web clients that we're no longer supporting IE 6 and that any IE 6 visitor will land on a "nice, soft" page requesting that they upgrade to one of the many other available browsers. We just got one client to agree to upgrade their 25 employees from IE 6 to IE 8 (they already had FF installed but they have some 3rd party sites that require ActiveX).

      If you're stuck doing it for an employer or client you may be better served by spending some time nudging them away from

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by capnchicken (664317)

        When one of your biggest clients happens to be GM or Blue Cross, it doesn't happen very quickly or ever. I think there are still quite a few Win 2000 machines over there.

        • by hairyfeet (841228)

          They DO know that Win2K support ends in less than a month [wikipedia.org] yes? I switched my 2K customers over to XP post SP2, and anybody that allows 2K loose on the net after EOL is just asking for it, as unlike Win9X most of the bugs that can hit XP WILL hit 2K as well and there won't be any patches.

          As for TFA While I have been playing with IE9 I just haven't seen anything that would make me want to switch myself or my customers away from FF. Firefox with ABP has cut infections WAY down, and makes the web faster and e

          • by nschubach (922175)

            They DO know that Win2K support ends in less than a month [wikipedia.org] yes?

            What if you don't need support? ;)

            • So you will be writing security updates for Windows 2000 by yourself, or backporting them from XP? Or just hoping that firewall and antivirus are all the updates you need?

        • When one of your biggest clients happens to be GM or Blue Cross, it doesn't happen very quickly or ever. I think there are still quite a few Win 2000 machines over there.

          Those monsters make changes at a glacial pace. You'll be on IE 7 by 2015. Good luck and invest in lots of ice cold beer.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        I am not a web developer, so I am a bit confused about why websites are unable to provide even a basic level of support for IE6 -- perhaps a simple page without any fancy effects that just gives people whatever information they were looking for. Is it really that necessary to use Javascript for everything?
        • Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)

          by denis-The-menace (471988) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @08:54AM (#32677138)

          Because IE 6 was designed to fail horribly when it can't understand the web page. Therefore web site developers have to make it work in IE or give it a way to fail nicely.

          • Actually, there was no designing involved in the failing parts. The code just ran into unspecified territory. You could say the outcome was determined by natural selection. ;)

            • Re:Doesn't matter (Score:4, Informative)

              by RobertM1968 (951074) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @11:39AM (#32679522) Homepage Journal

              Actually, there was no designing involved in the failing parts. The code just ran into unspecified territory. You could say the outcome was determined by natural selection. ;)

              Or... you could say it was designed into it in many areas where Microsoft intentionally ignored standards and inserted their own method of doing things. I would agree with you, if it weren't for all the memos, emails and such that went back and forth at Microsoft about trying to kill Netscape dominance by doing such things (see the DOJ case against MS for more info).

              While the PP may seem like a conspiracy theorist, the fact is, ensuring web code would fail on IE unless written to Microsoft's specs/"standards" was indeed an intentional move on their part, combined with their push into the business world for their various technologies that only worked on IE. The intent, as I noted above, was to ensure that they would gain more marketshare over Netscape and take the Internet playing field away from them. They succeeded, and hence, we have IE6 (and IE7 and IE8) to code workarounds for.

              I for one still remember the day of going to websites that were IE6 only...

        • Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)

          by dagamer34 (1012833) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @09:01AM (#32677208)
          Because that keeps enabling IE6. And providing even "basic support" takes a lot of work because of the number of hacks needed to make anything look decent. It's basically designing a different site just for IE6. No one likes doing that, which is why web developers want to explicitly not support IE6 to avoid that headache.
          • "And providing even "basic support" takes a lot of work because of the number of hacks needed to make anything look decent"

            So make it look indecent in IE6? Why is that necessarily worse than telling someone who, for reasons unknown, is continuing to use IE6 that they are not allowed to view your website unless they use the browsers you think they should be using?
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by imakemusic (1164993)

              Because it could double your development time and therefore development cost.

              I agree with you...most of the time. Most people should design their sites for standards compliance and leave as is for IE=6. You can use a "IF IE 6" tag to show a banner at the top of the site saying something to the effect of "This site doesn't look right. That's because your browser is a piece of crap. You can, however, continue to use this site. It just won't look very nice or work very well. Here's a link to list of reasons w

              • "For example, I don't know if Google Maps works on IE6 but I wouldn't be surprised that, for something of that complexity, most of the client-side code would need to be written twice - once for the standards and once for IE."

                As it turns out, Google provides a non-Javascript version of Google maps, on which all the processing is done server side and then returned to the client. So, click on "+" (which is just hyperlink text -- no CSS) and a new page loads with a zoomed in map, and likewise for the other
                • Hmmm...that's interesting. And quite impressive, really. Congratulations to Google!

                  However Google are a big enough company, and Maps is an important enough product that gets enough visitors, that it was worth their while to do this. For most people the extra time, cost and the low percentage of IE6 hits makes it not worth the effort.

        • Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)

          by watermark (913726) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @09:03AM (#32677230)

          IMO, with the existence of javascript libraries like jQuery or prototype, javascript isn't the issue. IE6 has so many bugs to keep up with (double margin, float bugs) that it forces you to create 1 1/2 websites (code that only runs on IE6 is the 1/2.) You tell it I want a a 6px border and place it 10px from the top and you can end up with a 12px border and 12px from the top. So you end up writing code to say, if its IE6, give it a 3px border and 8px from the top (knowing that it will double your 3px and add a few pixels to the latter.) So to answer your question, if we didn't write code specifically for IE6 (even without javascript) some sites would look so bad that they would be unusable in IE6. Stupid blue E.

          • Well, not exactly. It does not force you to do anything. It’s the irrational need to support the die-hards and thereby reinforce the belief that their behavior is correct.
            Meanwhile 99% of the web users regularly update their Flash client because otherwise the sites “stop working”.

            So in my book it’s the own fault of the industry, that it did not have the spine but the irrational fear to lose the worst part of their customers.

            I quickly dealed with this, by making using their “the

            • Well, not exactly. It does not force you to do anything. It’s the irrational need to support the die-hards and thereby reinforce the belief that their behavior is correct.

              It's RATIONAL to support the 60% plus Internet base out there, in order to have a site that can continue to make money (because one sells a product or information) regardless of one's desire to see IE6 die a horrible and quick death. Fixed that for ya!

              Meanwhile 99% of the web users regularly update their Flash client because otherwise the sites “stop working”.

              So in my book it’s the own fault of the industry, that it did not have the spine but the irrational fear to lose the worst part of their customers.

              I quickly dealed with this, by making using their “the site does not work” logic on themselves: The “browser outdated” error page I redirected them to, looked exactly like the genuine IE error pages. Including a link to complain to customer support to fix IE’s bugs. To the users it looked like their browser failed. So they fixed it. Done. :)

              Meanwhile... prompting people with what seems like a malware message, since they already ignored Windows' suggestion to upgrade IE to a more recent version (via Automatic Updates), probably wont work very well. While it works for high profile software that p

          • by b4dc0d3r (1268512)

            What about using conditional includes, which IE supports, to display a message that says "this website will look like crap until your idiotic browser is updated"? You seem to be mostly worried about layout, a better example would be one of those bugs where legit code actually hides or overwrites content. An ugly but functional website is one thing, a non-functional website is a whole different story and equally possible.

            If your customer is a corporate type entity then you code to what they want and inform

        • Re:Doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Trevelyan (535381) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @09:04AM (#32677246)
          If you still see websites as just online magazines then I guess you're somewhat stuck in the 1990's.

          What you suggest is like asking: Why can't we make programmes also run on Windows 95, just without all the fancy effects of Aero?

          Like it or not websites will become more interactive, even /. is using AJAX these days.
          See also Google Docs, or http://www.jsdesk.com/ [jsdesk.com]
          • "Like it or not websites will become more interactive, even /. is using AJAX these days."

            Note, however, that the AJAX version of /. is not mandatory -- I do not use it, for example, because I prefer to keep Javascript disabled except when absolutely necessary.
          • Re:Doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)

            by BenEnglishAtHome (449670) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @10:06AM (#32678174)

            If you still see websites as just online magazines then I guess you're somewhat stuck in the 1990's.

            I am, I suppose, well behind the times. Some years ago, websites were able to publish information and update the databases they sat in front of (to do things like take orders for merchandise or carry on a conversation), all over secure connections. Thus, in the beginning the web established usefulness as a publishing medium. Then it was a tool to get things done.

            Since then, pretty much everything I've seen in various "WebX.0" applications has done the same stuff in different ways.

            So...beyond what we had years ago, what sorts of "interactivity" actually serve a useful purpose?

            I'm not trying to be an obtuse old man. Seriously, I'd like to know. Maybe there's some really useful thing that I should be doing via the web that I'm not doing now. But I can't really think of what that might be and I'd like some help to figure it out. What new interactivity justifies the visual pollution and system crud that are (apparently) required to make use of it?

            Note - "Mobile" apps don't count. I can understand why I might need some specialized program when I'm trying to get something done while moving around. I haven't bought into the "I live through my smartphone" lifestyle, though. I'm asking about things that are useful to me when I sit down at my desktop computer.

            • Just minor things like... form input validation for your database update forms without having to do a form submit. Auto-complete for common fields. Drop-downs that can be updated based on what you select from another drop-down.

              Oh, and fancy UI stuff too, but since you wanted information related to publishing information and updating databases, I limited my response to those activities.

        • Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)

          by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @09:06AM (#32677272)
          We absolutely can provide 'basic' or better support for IE 6 but we make sure the entire site works the same in all browsers. The real questions is "how many man hours, and how much of our client's money, should we spend trying to handle IE 6 compatibility and functionality?"

          Some of our sites are relatively simple and use formats & javascript libraries we've developed that support IE 6 without any issues at all. If a new or existing client wants this kind of site we don't "break" the IE 6 support - we simply let them know that any future upgrades or additions may not be able to do everything they want (either we can't add the 'fancy' stuff because it would require reworking of the infrastructure or it would break IE 6 compatibility). We always give them the option and if they are willing to spend the extra money on IE 6 compatibility we'll do it but we design the entire site to work the same in all browsers so they have a limited feature set to choose from.

          We see dwindling IE 6 visitors but we're also aware that some of our clients still have a large percentage of IE 6 visitors. Because of that we don't offer certain features or enhancements to them. We're upfront about it and they are willing to live with the less fancy site as long as it meets the needs of their visitors.
          • Re:Doesn't matter (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Rockoon (1252108) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @10:02AM (#32678132)

            The real questions is "how many man hours, and how much of our client's money, should we spend trying to handle IE 6 compatibility and functionality?"

            Thats for the client to decide.

            Its as if you think that if IE6 was eliminated from the landscape, that you would get to do the job in less time for the same money. Thats not how markets work. If your job gets easier, so does your competitions job.

          • by ClaraBow (212734)
            Why couldn't you advice your clients to keep IE 6 for older sites and to use a newer browser for future development? Firefox with IE tab? Just curious why this isn't a solution.
        • Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)

          by Sleepy (4551) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @09:46AM (#32677856) Homepage

          "I am not a web developer, so I am a bit confused about why websites are unable to provide even a basic level of support for IE6 -- perhaps a simple page without any fancy effects that just gives people whatever information they were looking for. Is it really that necessary to use Javascript for everything?"

          Good question, but it's not that simple.

          See, CSS and Javascript were DESIGNED to "fail gracefully". You could put some useful style on say a list or a heading, then use CSS to format it. If the browser support was not there, you would see the base elements.

          Now this failback would understandably be UGLY (your prettified CSS list menu would look like a 1994 bulleted list), but it would WORK.

          If Microsoft chose not to support the CSS standards, they could have done so. It's optional.

          The ONLY way Microsoft could ruin CSS and Javascript was by agreeing to go along with the standard, and then change all the meaning. It's like if you spoke a slightly different language than your neighbor, and every 3rd word you spoke had different meaning to your neighbor (as in, every 3rd word was a normal term to you, but an unexpectedly offensive curse word to them).

          If a browser did not support said standards, we could have all designed for CSS and IE6 would get a vanilla plain text page.

          Microsoft knew that novice web developers would code and test in the "popular" browser first, then test other browsers afterwards. If that was how you developed, you were an unwitting tool in Microsoft's effort to destroy the open web.

          It worked, for a time.

          Then web developers revolted, by figuring out how to document Microsoft bugs. In the end, we developed this pseudo-language that ran on top of CSS and Javascript, so we could "hide" markup and styles from either IE or from the standards browsers.

          All this effort wasted uncountable hours of web developers.

          Was this deliberate sabotage by Microsoft? Let's just say that in the US anti-trust trial against Microsoft, emails from Bill Gates were revealed. Bill's emails essentially stated he didn't want to see MS developers "wasting time fixing bugs in HTML that only affect competitive browsers". (Meaning, if your HTML/CSS generation in some desktop app generates horrible invalid code... DON'T fix it... just let the IE guys know so they can write undocumented code to show your page "properly").

          Literally, there's a story here how grass-roots web developers fought back to save the "information highway" from being effectively privatized as one company's property.

          This is why so many people HATE IE and IE6.. even if they're not the type of people who normally hate Microsoft.

        • by gad_zuki! (70830)

          I'd like to see people with IE6 browser just forced to use the mobile page. Kind of a passive aggressive way of saying "upgrade now."

        • by diegocg (1680514)

          IE6 has approximatedly a 10% of browser share, and it's falling quickly. Why bother.

          • Not according to NetMarketShare [hitslink.com] and others. The marketshare is still higher than that.

            As a point of reference to how it would affect us... with 17% marketshare, one of my sites has 170,000 unique visitors that would be "left out in the cold" if I did not support IE6. That number is higher per other browser share sites that point to around 20% and around 23%... meaning near a quarter of a MILLION potential lost site visitors/customers.

            Perhaps if you run a small site with a few visitors, (let's say 1000),

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by kimvette (919543)

          I'd like to invite you to check out the lynx [isc.org] and links [sourceforge.net] web browsers.

          The problem with MSIE6 is that it adds nonstandard extensions to HTML and CSS, does not (natively) support the full PNG spec, it is pathetically insecure, it adds padding to certain HTML elements in a lot of situations where everybody else assumes padding=0 so by making a web page in standard HTML/XHTML that looks gorgeous in every single other web browser will be horribly broken in MSIE6.

          MSIE7 and MSIE8 have progressively gotten a TON bett

          • "those "fancy effects" led to the possibility of google docs, web-based photoshop elements replacements, "

            Neither of which I use -- there are plenty of desktop applications, including no-cost applications, which are just fine for that and generally do more.

            "online banking that doesn't take weeks to navigate"

            I have never had any trouble with online banking, and I doubt it is because I am some kind of super-leet hacker.

            "even legal free and low-cost on-demand video programming"

            Which I saw and us
            • by danaris (525051)

              Hey, you can make fun of me all you want, and claim that I am stuck in the 90s, but there is really nothing that Javascript heavy websites bring to the table except for fancy effects in web browsers.

              And there's nothing that a GUI brings to the table except for fancy effects on a computer screen?

              If you seriously can't see any useful purpose for Javascript, then I submit that you really don't understand people, software functionality, or the ways of the world in general.

              Dan Aris

        • I am not a web developer, so I am a bit confused about why websites are unable to provide even a basic level of support for IE6 -- perhaps a simple page without any fancy effects that just gives people whatever information they were looking for. Is it really that necessary to use Javascript for everything?

          Or anything but the most basic HTML? Or CSS? Yeah... I guess if you skip all of those, it's possible...

          But here's the thing... doing that also means doing a bunch of extra work for the "IF IE6..." section. It is more intelligent to spend that time adding a bunch of IE6 workarounds to get the same functionality that users of better browsers have.

          The only other alternative is to have a very basic site with limited capabilities for everyone - in this day and age, for any complex site, or content driven sit

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Hal_Porter (817932)

          Yeah, I don't get it either. A long time ago I worked on a web app that supported IE3, IE4 and Netscape. All the layout was done with tables. Validation was done both on the server and in JavaScript. We sniffed the browser and turned off JS if the browser was not whitelisted. The site would still work - it just needed to round trip to the server if a form contained an invalid date for example. On a browser with decent JS support you could skip that step and reduce the server load a bit.

          IE3 was very quirky,

        • Because designing a page for modern browsers. You put in all the new cool effects to enhance the user experience... (Normal non-tech people actually like a nice modern interface). If you are going to make a non-effect version that is just more work for you to do... For a small group of people who should upgrade anyways.

      • I'll be writing shit web code for IE6 forever anyway.

        That really blows. We're informing our web clients that we're no longer supporting IE 6 and that any IE 6 visitor will land on a "nice, soft" page requesting that they upgrade to one of the many other available browsers. We just got one client to agree to upgrade their 25 employees from IE 6 to IE 8 (they already had FF installed but they have some 3rd party sites that require ActiveX). If you're stuck doing it for an employer or client you may be better served by spending some time nudging them away from IE 6 because it will save you painful hours in the long run.

        When your "clients" are "anyone who uses the Internet and may be interested in your product or information" such a tactic does not work. Trying it, and checking the bounce rate on Google Analytics will confirm this.

      • by tlhIngan (30335)

        That really blows. We're informing our web clients that we're no longer supporting IE 6 and that any IE 6 visitor will land on a "nice, soft" page requesting that they upgrade to one of the many other available browsers. We just got one client to agree to upgrade their 25 employees from IE 6 to IE 8 (they already had FF installed but they have some 3rd party sites that require ActiveX).

        If you're stuck doing it for an employer or client you may be better served by spending some time nudging them away from IE

    • by steelfood (895457)

      Easy. Just put it into a flash applet and you're guaranteed cross-browser compatibility.

      And people wonder why Flash is so popular on the web.

  • Is that a euphemism for standards compliant?
    • by The MAZZTer (911996) <.megazzt. .at. .gmail.com.> on Thursday June 24, 2010 @08:35AM (#32676912) Homepage
      Browsers can be made to be standards compliant. Web pages can be made to be cross-browser compatible (since not all browsers are standards compliant).
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by capnchicken (664317)

      Nope, they don't want to be tied down to such non-marketable terms such as "standard" or such constricting terms like "compliant".

      "Cross Browser" sounds WAY sexier and "compatible" sounds much less like they HAVE to do something.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by IntlHarvester (11985)

        No, "cross browser" accurately describes what people want. Nearly always, when some internet nerd starts whining about "standards-compliance", they no clue what the standards actually are, and what they really mean is "Make it work like Firefox".

        Realistically, there are hundreds of "standards" which no browser supports, and there are numerous de facto unofficial standards which people expect to work. (Prime example of the latter is transparent PNGs.) "Cross-browser" accurately describes this set of common p

        • by IntlHarvester (11985) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @09:51AM (#32677940) Journal

          (Apologies for replying to myself.)

          The biggest problem when discussing web standards is that the vendors themselves propose the standards. So Apple is the most compliant with Apple's proposed standards, while Microsoft is the most compliant with Microsoft's proposed standards, etc. From the W3C's POV they are all the same, while the marketplace sorts these things out into common "cross-browser" features versus things which are considered "proprietary".

          In other words, nobody cares that CSS3 rounded borders aren't an official "standards compliant" feature, it is a "cross browser" feature and they want rounded fucking corners on their website.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Nah. Microsoft seems pathologically unable to acknowledge the possibility of an objective standard.

      A few browsers which more or less by accident behave similarly, now that's a vision that Microsoft can get behind! That situation can be manipulated. Objective standards, on the other hand, are the enemy of relativism.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by IntlHarvester (11985)

        Actually, Microsoft is generating a tons of CSS test cases, which more of an objective measure than the checkbox marketing which usually is used by browser vendors.

    • by Dracos (107777)

      Yes, that makes it seem like they're going out of their way to avoid using the phrase "standards compliant". People familiar with IE's history of compliance should take this with a grain of salt. Maybe redmond is slowly starting to realize that the web isn't about their browser, it's about standards. Or it's just another case of their usual corporate verbosity.

    • by Blakey Rat (99501)

      I don't know if you've noticed, but the standards are pretty shit. (Well, HTML5 is much better.) All browsers venture outside of the standards for various things, so it's more important to be cross-browser compatible (i.e. venture outside of the standards in the same direction the other guys are going) than it is to be strictly standards-compliant.

  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @08:34AM (#32676906) Homepage
    With smoother and more convenient Ring 0 [wikipedia.org] integration than ever!
    • Hey, he’s not trolling but exactly right. This exact thing is the single biggest problem with IE.
      If I missed them taking it out of there (Got proof? Since MS did already lie about this more than once.), I take my statement back.
      But if not, the moderator is the troll here.

  • At least IE 9 will be much closer to "standards compliant" that all the other versions of IE combined.

    Dear Microsoft, IE9 supports many royalty-free, web compatible formats out of the box (HTML, CSS, WOFF, PNG, and the like) so why not at least one more?

    I guess it can't hurt to ask, but I doubt MS is going to come that far in just one major version upgrade.

    • IE9 supports many royalty-free, web compatible formats out of the box (HTML, CSS, WOFF, PNG, and the like) so why not at least one more?

      Is this a game of "Spot the Star Trek reference"? Because I think they spelled his name wrong...

      • Apparently it's actually a font format. I had to look it up - it looks more like a racial slur than a standard name.
  • Bill Gates: IE9 will support ALL browsers

    that's right both of them.

    IE6 AND IE7!

    And yes I like country music!

  • Too bad that the IE example doesnt properly in Chrome because it *requires* hardware accelleration (if that's either to their crappy javascript or the amaaaazing speedup they finally got working i'll leave in the middle) The Good thing though: It really works! I put it through it's paces with Peter Nederlof's (A.k.a. Clay) 3d javascript engine to see what part is crappy and what's working, and for now it looks AWESOME! The only thing that doesn't seem to work is click tracking on the canvas. speed wise it'
  • And that's a good thing. I'd rather see them support H.264 than WMV.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      H.264 is still a proprietary codex.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Hurricane78 (562437)

        And still, nobody cares. ;)
        The specs are available. There are open source codecs (=encoder/decoder) for it.
        And nobody cares what MPEG LA wants.
        They gave the information out, and did not demand something in return. Now it’s too late. <stew-beef>MPEG LA, go fuck yourself!</stew-beef> ;)

  • Without Firefox... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted@slashd[ ]org ['ot.' in gap]> on Thursday June 24, 2010 @09:48AM (#32677890)

    Did anyone else think that we really have to thank the Mozilla team for this? Without Firefox, none of this would have happened. Wed’d still use IE6.

    Firefox tends do go a bit downwards in quality, lately. But I don’t care. Thank you, Mozilla team! Every single one of you. Everyone who installed and promoted it. And the team who made the great logo and CI, that’s so fashionable that non-geek women put in on their t-shirts.
    *grabs web-Oscar, steps down from the podium and runs away with it!*

    • by SharpFang (651121) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @10:56AM (#32678880) Homepage Journal

      back then I was scrapping for money, camera phones were relatively new, I needed a digital camera and couldn't afford one, and I could get a phone with decent camera, with a contract, for very reasonable money. And I needed a new phone anyway.

      So I picked one. It could make photos okay, but to get them I could only send them through MMS to my email, for exorbitant fees. To download them I needed a special RS232-based cable... and the dealer didn't have them. No import, not available, if ordered from the net, including shipping, it would cost more than the phone, and about as much as a digital camera. But hurray, there are cheap chinese USB cables that supposedly work!

      And they do, for everything EXCEPT downloading the photos. A 3rd party app can download thumbnails of the photos. The official app doesn't recognize the cable. The fora are filled with people asking how to get the photos, the universal answer is "get the official cable".

      Quite pissed off, I first hacked together a RS232 cable using the plug from the chinese one and a handful of electronics. I found out the only difference from the "unofficial RS232" was that official had DTR and RTS shorted, the knock-off - unconnected. Still not satisfied I began reverse-engineering the AT command set the phone used to talk with the computer. I found commands to request list of photos, download and delete them, then how to extract the photo from the junk the phone sends as reply to request... I wrote a Perl app that worked with any serial, even the emulated RS232 over USB. It was clunky, it worked from command line only, but it worked with any cable.

      I posted it on the official fora. To my surprise, instead of ban&delete, I received a surprised question from the developers: Why? Why would anyone want to use it? We have the official app which is infinitely better!

      I explained how there are no official cables in my country. How I bought a phone for the camera, and I can't use the camera. That I understand they want to profit from their cables, but sorry, I feel cheated, I want to use the camera. Oh, and I listed an extract from first page of the support forum, about 20 posts of cable problems, to which my program was a solution.

      That was the last I used my app. A new version of the official app was released less than a week later, and it ignored the DTR/RTS, working correctly with all cables.

    • Firefox tends do go a bit downwards in quality, lately.

      I don't want to debate this point in general, but it's worth noting that Firefox 3.7 alphas (which also have Direct2D hardware acceleration) match IE9 performance on those canvas demos.

      Still, it's a good thing that IE9 brings this to the table. It's like what Chrome did to JS - after they rolled out V8 with its insane speed improvements, and everyone saw the numbers, there was a rush of all browser writers optimizing their JS engines, adding JIT and whatnot - so even those who don't use Chrome benefit from

    • by Blakey Rat (99501)

      Did anyone else think that we really have to thank the Mozilla team for this? Without Firefox, none of this would have happened. Wed'd still use IE6.

      Firefox tends do go a bit downwards in quality, lately. But I don't care. Thank you, Mozilla team! Every single one of you. Everyone who installed and promoted it. And the team who made the great logo and CI, that's so fashionable that non-geek women put in on their t-shirts.

      And if Netscape hadn't screwed the pooch in the first place, IE wouldn't have obtained

    • I would argue that Apple et. al. and Webkit is forcing Microsoft to up their game rather than Mozilla/Firefox because of the mobile market. Very few outside of Mozilla uses FireFox's rendering engine. Google, Palm, Apple, and soon Blackberry are all adopting webkit. That means in the mobile market there is webkit with an overwhelming dominance in that market. Especially when RIM switches their browser. I see very few Windows Mobile devices anymore and even those I do see are usually running some versio

  • HTML5 Canvas Support (Score:5, Interesting)

    by butlerm (3112) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @09:51AM (#32677944)

    The best part about this preview is the addition of HTML5 Canvas support, the lack of which would be a serious impediment to cross platform deployment of a large number of useful applications.

  • IE9 and WebM (Score:4, Interesting)

    by VGPowerlord (621254) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @10:45AM (#32678716)

    I saw another article [theregister.co.uk] over at The Register about the new IE9 preview.

    There was one section I found particularly interesting in there:

    And speaking of standards, director of IE product management Roger Capriotti told The Reg that although patent-backed H.264 is Microsoft's video codec of choice for IE9, it will also support Google's recent open source gift to the world, WebM/V8, if a user has that codec on their machine. However, Redmond has yet to make a decision, Capriotti said, about how to handle the open source Ogg Theora codec.

    So... IE9 will support WebM if it's installed, but not Theora.

    While this is not supported out of the box, this could actually be a tipping point for WebM.

    Without IE9's WebM support, things looked like this:

    H.264 support: IE, Safari, Chrome
    WebM support: FireFox, Chrome, Opera

    In that case, H.264 looked like the winner. But if you add IE9 to the WebM column, you suddenly have support for WebM from everyone but Apple.

    Now the trick will be to convince MS to support this out of the box...

    • Now the trick will be to convince MS to support this out of the box...

      I suspect it would go like this:

      1. Wait for a few years to see if Google (or someone else) gets sued over WebM.

      2. If the above doesn't happen, add support for WebM out of the box.

      Why risk it when you can let others do so at their own expense?

      In the meantime, if WebM becomes the codec for YouTube, I'd expect OEMs to preinstall it on sold machines in the same way they typically preinstall Flash (and other crap) today. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised to see Google pay them for it (they already have some deal

    • IE9 will support WebM if it's installed, but not Theora.

      I somewhat support this. Codecs should be system libraries and provide support equally to all requestion applications, rather than an application specific library.

    • So... IE9 will support WebM if it's installed, but not Theora.

      While this is not supported out of the box, this could actually be a tipping point for WebM.

      Without IE9's WebM support, things looked like this:

      H.264 support: IE, Safari, Chrome
      WebM support: FireFox, Chrome, Opera

      In that case, H.264 looked like the winner. But if you add IE9 to the WebM column, you suddenly have support for WebM from everyone but Apple.

      Apple/Safari will support Theora if the Xiph quicktime component is installed, too. So Apple already offers the same level of "support" for Theora that Microsoft is promising.

      Requiring users to download and install some codec is probably a non-starter in both cases, though.

  • HTML, CSS, WOFF, and PNG are vendor-neutral open standards. So are AVC and AAC. WebM is not a standard.

    W3C and ISO/IEC are standards bodies and Google is not. An AVC-based YouTube competes fairly with all other Internet video, but WebM creates incompatibilities and confusion that will drive publishers to YouTube.

    HTML, CSS, WOFF, PNG, AVC, and AAC are not vulnerable to submarine patents, and WebM is.

    There is a ton of content in HTML, CSS, WOFF, PNG, AVC, and AAC, and there is nothing in WebM.

    AVC is the same

If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong. -- Norm Schryer

Working...