IE 11 Getting WebGL, SPDY/3, New Dev Tools 119
rescendent writes sends this report about new features in Internet Explorer 11:
"Microsoft released Windows Server ("Blue") to MSDN subscribers today, ahead of the BUILD conference later this week in San Francisco. The build provides us a number of clues as to what we will see in the official Windows 8.1 (Blue) preview. The server build number is 9341, the Windows 8.1 preview build will be: 6.3.9431.winmain_bluemp.130615-1214. IE11 scores 351/500 + 2 bonus point, and 25/25 for WebGL. Since this is a server build, the score may be a little higher than IE11 on Win 8.1, but this confirms WebGL for IE11. IE11 WebGL Conformance Test Results: 14,748 of 20,509 tests pass (71.9%). Many things seen in the Server 2012 R2 preview will also show up in the Windows 8.1 preview."
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe why they aren't bothered to much, as far I know all WelGL implementation on Windows use DirectX.
Re: (Score:1)
OpenGL and Direct3D do the same things, the same way, on the same hardware.
So it shouldn't really matter how the OpenGL API is implemented, as long as it's done competently.
Given Microsoft's past of half implementing things and blaming the specification for their problems, I suspect IE 11 WebGL may be botched purposely.
server build? (Score:1)
why would that make a significant difference?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
why would that make a significant difference?
well, because it's SERVER it has a much stabler kernel and supertuned internals and therefore is better for running an irc client... that's what one ms fanboi once told me anyhow.
seriously though, dunno, maybe it boots straight to desktop and has couple of flags so it will run ms servers with higher connection counts..
Re:server build? (Score:5, Interesting)
Server installations by default have the scheduler configured to prioritise services over UI applications, and to provide more deterministic scheduling at the expense of responsiveness to user input.
Re:server build? (Score:4, Informative)
You are correct - you can get the same results by adjusting settings and policies to match on pro and server. It's only the defaults that differ. Also, yes the included userland functionality is the big difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Kind of like /proc/sys/vm/swappiness, which decides that if you copy over 10GB junk to a backup drive, all your running processes get swapped off to make space for file cache because "it improves throughput".
Re:server build? (Score:5, Insightful)
Swapped? What is this swap? I have 8GB of RAM, I neither need nor have swap. For people with too little memory to run anything without it, it's mandatory. To everyone else, it's just a way to slow down your computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only time my machine ever uses swap is when a program has a memory leak and takes much more memory than it needs. Usually this is garbage data and I want the program killed. Without swap, the out-of-memory killer would do exactly that for me. With swap, my machine desperately tries to keep it running by swapping out everything I'm trying to use, and wasting 5 minutes of my time.
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing how many people don't get this, but posted (mostly anonymously) in response to my comment anyway. If you have more RAM than you're using then the only time you're going to swap is when something goes badly wrong, and then it just leads to a lot of disk thrashing before either the OOM killer comes into play or the kernel panics, whichever comes first. Either way, I'd rather not sit there trying to gain meaning from the HDD LED. 8GB may not be a "lot" but it's more than I need to run several siz
Re: (Score:2)
It matters more on low memory systems
No, it only matters on low memory systems. It doesn't make a big difference whether I have 2GB of disk buffers or 4GB of disk buffers if I have a SSD. And meanwhile, swap will get used when from my point of view it really shouldn't, and then when I switch tasks I'll wind up swapping again. I'm glad to be rid of all that nonsense, and you're imagining things if you think that letting your kernel swap out a couple hundred megs of crap that never should have been loaded is going to make any big difference in p
Re: (Score:2)
It does make a difference when you copy large files,
Wrong again, tailgunner joe. It doesn't actually make the copy take place any faster. It only makes the copy _appear_ to be faster, because the write-back cache accepts the data and returns success before the data is actually written to the disk. That returns control to the user sooner, but it does not make an improvement in the time it takes before the data is written to the disk. Having some caching is required for that to be true, but adding more caching won't make long copies faster. Having more caching
Re:server build? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only valid reasons to disable swap are for security or to reduce wear on SSDs.
Bullshit, and also bullshit.
Disabling swap causes less unused memory to be allocated to buffers and storage caches which only hurts performance.
It would hurt performance, but I have more RAM than I actually need, so it doesn't. Meanwhile, swapping out so that you can have more room for buffers hurts performance, especially if you wind up having to swap back in.
Re: (Score:2)
I have 12 gigs of RAM and still get about 500 megs of swap used after a long day of normal usage. Sure it's reserving 12 gigs of space for swap but never uses more than 500 megs. Long idle processes will still get pushed off to swap. It's so little usage that you won't ever notice assuming you have your overall system setup correctly.
That said, disabling swap if you run an SSD (or move the swap to a non-SSD drive) is wise because like I said, it will still get used no matter how much RAM you have. The l
Re: (Score:3)
If you have SSD but you still need swap you can set swappiness to 0, and in practice you will rarely swap. But you don't need swap unless you're short on RAM, and RAM is pretty cheap these days and has many uses. I built this system when the Phenom II was still a pretty new chip, so 8GB was actually pretty good for a desktop.
Re: (Score:2)
Swap is needed for those rare occasions, like, when testing various compilers, clang takes more than 13GB (failed with 8GB RAM + 5.5GB swap) for building something that with gcc takes 154 minutes on raspi. Or, if you run several ordinary builds in parallel (proper use of -j is quite rare, so it's safer to build several tasks with -j1 each), and you get a rare pairing that takes enormous amounts of memory. Swap makes the difference between working slower and a failure.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that if I am doing untested things with untested compilers I might get into a situation where one of them does something really stupid and sucks up all the memory? So basically, even few developers will ever hit this limitation? Just checking.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It used to be the case that non-server versions of Windows had limits on simultaneous connections in the TCPIP stack, which could affect web browser benchmark performance.
Re:server build? (Score:4, Funny)
maybe they're going for "year of the windows server"?
Terminal Server CALs; WebGL over RDP (Score:2)
If the server is configured as a terminal server then users need to be able to run desktop applications.
For one thing, I'm not sure how much use the terminal server gets in practice other than a single administrator remotely logging in at once. Microsoft's standard operating procedure has been to charge excessive rates for the client access licenses needed for terminal server operation. For another, I'm not sure how well WebGL will pass through an RDP connection.
351 +2 (Score:1, Flamebait)
IE11 scores 351/500 + 2 bonus point
Wow, that's ... pitiful.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Considering IE 10's score, I seriously doubt that the fact that it's a "preview build" matters. It's not likely to improve much, if at all.
Hell, give it another 10 points and it's still behind a number of televisions.
Get over it.
Re:351 +2 (Score:4, Insightful)
I still prefer Chrome over Internet Explorer, but IE 10 (the "Metro" version anyway) isn't a mind-numbingly terrible piece of software in comparison to the competition. It's good to know that, however ironic it may be, Microsoft, Mozilla, and Opera are all working opposite Google to keep the web away from just a different monoculture.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually there's nothing wrong with an open source "monoculture" - maybe if everyone used their own fork of webkit web development would be simpler without any of the players being able to stop innovating without falling behind.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, those TV's are probably all running Webkit. I still prefer Chrome over Internet Explorer, but IE 10 (the "Metro" version anyway) isn't a mind-numbingly terrible piece of software in comparison to the competition. It's good to know that, however ironic it may be, Microsoft, Mozilla, and Opera are all working opposite Google to keep the web away from just a different monoculture.
I've not had the personal "pleasure" of using IE10, since my long experience with previous MS products led me down a different path. But it is kinda of good to see MS is not shitting all over their own customers any more, just because they can and their customers don't know any better.
Re: (Score:2)
Opera? Opera is now a Chrome skin.
Html5 Test at http://html5test.com/ (Score:3)
IE11 scores 351/500 + 2 bonus point
Again a reasonable post marked flamebait. The quote *directly* from the summery presented the score in a preview browser as great when in reality it is pitiful. The figures are from http://html5test.com/ [html5test.com] and the Browser I am currently rocking is Firefox 22 (A released browser) which scores 409/500 + 10 bonus points.
Re:Html5 Test is webkit, not W3C html 5 (Score:1)
With rapid releasing the new IE 6 is webkit. MS is being conservative as it does not want another box model scandal for 10 years as developers write 2 different standards. I know its cool to hate IE but it does have 90% of Firefoxes features and is updated annually now. W3C already changed standards which hurt older phones as they recognize webkit css for Android 2.3.
Re: (Score:2)
Weird, I get 410 + 14 with my FF 22. It's biggest failing points are the various FORM INPUT TYPE= test. I can live with that.
Still I like Chrome more. Seems faster on my laptop. I also like the sync options to keep me laptop and desktop settings in sync. The FF sync system would keep failing on and off for months and they seemed to never get it fixed for good.
Holy confusion Batman! (Score:1, Funny)
Is the name of the submitter rescendent writes?
Is this article about a web browser or a web server?
"IE11 scores 351/500 + 2 bonus point, and 25/25 for WebGL."
So 25 for WebGL and 351+2 for ??
And why the fuck are we even reporting some M$ marketing FUD to begin with?
Re: (Score:2)
Is the name of the submitter rescendent writes?
Yes.
Is this article about a web browser or a web server?
Yes.
So 25 for WebGL and 351+2 for ??
Yes.
And why the fuck are we even reporting some M$ marketing FUD to begin with?
Yes!
Lag in features from Microsoft by 2 years (Score:3)
By 2014 they will be caught up to where other browsers were in 2011, for Microsoft that's pretty impressive. Usually IE is about half a decade behind real browsers.
Firefox 14 released July 17, 2012 scored 252/500 so realistically its more like 2 years of Non-Microsoft released browsers vs Microsoft unreleased browsers. there is a graph at the bottom of the page here http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html [html5test.com] that shows the lag in Microsofts development.
Re: (Score:1)
Fud
I have firefox esr 17 which just came out. Not even e year old. 2 years ago it was Firefox 4
Server build (Score:2, Troll)
Why would the score be higher for a server build? What use would a server have for a web browser? Surely they should be making more effort on the client version of the browser, where it might actually be used?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the score be higher for a server build? What use would a server have for a web browser? Surely they should be making more effort on the client version of the browser, where it might actually be used?
It is the same version, but running on the server it may disable some features because of security settings. Actually I'm surprised that WebGL is enabled on a server build, given that WebGL has the potential to inject and run code on your GPU.
However, there needs to be a server version for 1) those who install and maintain a server through it's own GUI and 2) servers used as "terminal servers". Yes, 1) is bad practice but it actually allows small shops to run their own server. Microsoft recommends installin
but what about security (Score:3)
ok, so it is still considered harmful [technet.com] or was that the usual guff about how DirectX (or whatever brand-name they're pushing today) is vastly superior to anything standard.
Have they done anything with WebGL to "fix" the mentioned problems, or have they just realized no-one listens to their FUD anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
But it's obviously an additional attack surface which is largely outside of a browser's control and it requires the driver author to declare robustness but how does it know? It's a
You moved your mouse. Cancel or Allow? (Score:2)
But it's obviously an additional attack surface which is largely outside of a browser's control
A poorly written 2D graphics driver is likewise. What makes a 3D graphics driver substantially more so?
ask on a site by site basis whenever JS attempts to access the API via the canvas.
Which runs the risk of creating a "Cancel or Allow" type scenario where every site wants to use it, and you end up having to click "Allow" for every site you visit.
Re: (Score:2)
A poorly written 2D graphics driver is likewise. What makes a 3D graphics driver substantially more so?
Traditional web pages don't directly use a 2D API in the browser so even when vulnerabilities exist they are often beyond the reach of a web application. A web application is limited to manipulating the DOM. No direct access to blitters, compositors, video modes or other hardware features. Even with only this high level exposure there have been exploits, often in image format interpreters.
WebGL directly exposes the complete OpenGL 2.0 ES API (soon 3.0) to Javascript. WebGL apps can probe hardware for fe
Re: (Score:2)
WebGL directly exposes the complete OpenGL 2.0 ES API (soon 3.0) to Javascript
where did you get this? this is crap.
WebGL truly is an exposure of GPU hardware and driver software directly to web applications.
this is just complete FUD. WebGL is just an API.
an implementation might blindly forward everything to an apparently compatible hardware device. it would be fucking stupid if it did. especially since it's trivial to statically determine such things beforehand.
it would equivalent to having a "asm(...);" function in your browser's javascript JIT that allowed you to inject arbitrary x86 code into the function, or allowing you to write outside the bounds of arrays. this is pe
Compare to HTML formatting in Slashdot comments (Score:2)
WebGL does things like compile shader code, directly manipulate texture memory and transfer large vertex buffers to video hardware. Traditional DHTML can't do anything like that. WebGL truly is an exposure of GPU hardware and driver software directly to web applications.
WebGL doesn't necessarily "expose" the GPU to the web application any more than a site that allows HTML comments "exposes" the viewer's browser to the user posting a comment. Slashdot and several other web sites allow users to post comments with a subset of HTML. Arbitrary HTML can perform cross-site scripting using <script> elements, attributes whose name starts with "on", and URLs using the "javascript:" scheme. To prevent this, forum software used by these sites parses and sanitizes [wikipedia.org] the provided HT
Re: (Score:2)
A poorly written 2D graphics driver is likewise. What makes a 3D graphics driver substantially more so?
The 2D graphics driver isn't usable by web content.
The 3D graphics driver isn't usable by web content
Re: (Score:2)
The main requirement for WebGL is the driver supports OpenGL ES 2.0
that's bollocks. there's no requirement that the driver support any variant of OpenGL. the requirement is that the browser can perform the operations requested of it by the WebGL program and fragments. the browser is free to ignore them, send them to an OpenGL ES 2.0 driver, transform them into DirectX calls, or send them by carrier pigeon to your grandma.
somewhere along the long the line you might want to check your inputs, but this certainly doesn't need to be a function of any driver.
it's the same with J
Re: (Score:2)
no, there never was anything wrong with WebGL. it was just FUD.
Windows XP still 20%...and again unsupported (Score:1, Troll)
I know supporting XP is against two (different?)major strategies; Selling people on Microsoft's stupid everything is a tablet so we are winning(the new strategy of copying Apple), and the old we are Monopoly, buy a new version by crippling(discontinue) the old version so we can can roll around in cash(The old strategy when they were called Micro$oft).
Ignoring problems from fragmentation, and support...and it holding back the web for many years, or how Microsoft basically won against the United States by bui
Is Internet Explorer relevant (Score:1)
Every company discontinues support for older products
Except Microsoft's competitors haven't; which is the point Firefox and Chrome latest versions are still available for XP, and unlike Microsoft's business Model there business models demands it. You should reread my post. Its about questioning Microsoft's Business Models, not about Microsoft's unsavoury business practices and continued Monopolistic abuse.
In answer to your question "Do we need to run IE11 on MS-DOS?" the answer is yes if the costs of supporting it are less than the potential revenue generated
Re: (Score:3)
Except Microsoft's competitors haven't
Oh? Where can I find the repository for security patches for linux 1.0? Or how do you install safari 6.0 on OS/X 10.6 or Windows anything? I'd like to install iOS 6.1 on my iPhone 3. How about the latest firefox on Windows 2000?
Which competitor were you talking about?
Where...I everywhere. (Score:1)
Oh? Where can I find the repository for security patches for linux 1.0?
https://www.kernel.org/ [kernel.org].
The reality though by compitors I unsurprisingly meant (but not limited to :) Firefox http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ [mozilla.org] and Chrome https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/ [google.com]
XP exists on about 20% of computers...or about 220,000,000 which is why the point is about XP :)
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice, but none of those site address any of the issues. kernel.org doesn't have all the latest security patches with backports to linux 1.0. Firefox and Chrome don't install on Windows 2000. And Windows XP doesn't represent 20% of the computers.
Where...I everywhere. (Score:2)
That's nice, but none of those site address any of the issues. kernel.org doesn't have all the latest security patches with backports to linux 1.0. Firefox and Chrome don't install on Windows 2000. And Windows XP doesn't represent 20% of the computers.
Sorry I didn't realise you were trying to be deliberately obtuse. I find it hilarious that your response to Microsoft not supporting its customers on XP (which is still on 20% of 220,000,000 of it)s Desktops since IE9, is *third party* Web Browsers don't support Windows 2000. The answer is simply money. The cost of supporting a Windows 2000 which according to NetMarketshare currently has https://www.netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?qprid=11&qpaf=&qpcustom=Windows+2000&qpcustomb=0 [netmarketshare.com] 0.07% of the mark
Re: Where...I everywhere. (Score:2)
You do realize that windows 2000 was released in 2000, and windows XP was released in 2001, right? I find it hilarious that you condemn Microsoft for not wanting to support a 12 year old operating system with enhancements, but everyone else gets a pass for not supporting a 13 year old OS.
No one supports old platforms forever, and they have done an exemplary job of supporting older stuff and maintaining compatibility over the years. They even extended support TWICE beyond what they were contractually obliga
I'm sorry your wrong (Score:2)
Microsoft doesn't owe a new version of Internet explorer to users of windows XP. Considering that the upgrade to the latest version of windows was available for $40 for a long time,
Skipping your hate. Microsoft owes Internet explorer to users of windows because they paid for it, an now due to it being irremovable by monopolistic bundling, and you lie about the upgrade...In costs $199 for the less crippled *udgrade* edition http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/buy [microsoft.com] more if you live elsewhere.
Re: I'm sorry your wrong (Score:2)
I lie? Google is your friend. http://m.cnet.com/news/windows-8-$40-upgrade-deal-ends-today/57566855?ds=1 [cnet.com]
I bought 3 directly from Microsoft, and upgraded one to pro.
Re: (Score:1)
KingMotley, you can't argue with people who are sold to hate MS. It's like people who hate rich people until they become rich themselves. Then all of sudden poor people are the problem. Hypocrites I say.
Poor Support (Score:2)
hate MS
*sigh*...this is what arguments have become not on *technology* but because of emotion against Tax Avoiding mega corporations.
Ironically I get my Whole OS updated for free every 6 months, and my browser moved to the latest version, thats not hypocrisy but an empirical fact. While Microsoft customers can't even update their browser for free.
Re: (Score:1)
The fact is that most people don't know why they hate IE. I've asked many and they don't even know why they use Chrome over Firefox or IE. I actually had a web developer tell me how much he hated IE because the pages he developed didn't work well in IE. I looked at his code and found out why his pages weren't rendering properly. It was a major mistake in his markup that Chrome wasn't affected by but all other browsers were. I call this stupid blind hatred.
Also, I hope the OS you refer to is not Apple's beca
It also doesn't run on iOS ro Android (Score:1)
I know. IE11 doesn't run on my C64's MS-developed BASIC, either. I therefore conclude that Microsoft are a bunch of mindless jerks.
Except that Later versions of IE does not run on competing platforms or earlier iterations of itself still in use. I don't think it makes them Mindless Jerks...losers perhaps, it means that Chrome experiences continued to grow market share on the Desktop while IE continues to plummet...even without throwing in Mobile browsing where its presence continues to be non existent.
Stop complaining about XP's EoL (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows XP was released in October of 2001. That's also the same month Red Hat 7.2 was released. I guess you could say that was a good month for operating systems.
You know when Red Hat 7.2 was end-of-lifed? December 2003 [redhat.com]. Ten years ago.
Nothing to do with EOL (Score:3, Informative)
Windows XP was released in October of 2001.
Yet was not replaced for till Vista was RTM as of January 30, 2007...although XP was still the only viable alternative till Windows 7 in July 22, 2009, although still massively too bloated an OS for most existing XP machines. You measure from the last sale not the first one :)
But that has nothing to do with my comment which is Browser market share...and the benefits from having one. Personally I love the fact your defending Microsoft treating its customers with second class versions of its software. I am ru
Re: (Score:3)
Supporting XP is especially complicated for IE, because starting with IE9 they've rewritten the rendering engine to use Direct2D and DirectWrite (Vista only), which depend on Direct3D 10 (Vista only), which depends on WDDM 1.1 (Vista only). Should they be backporting all of these APIs and kernel-mode code as well? Or maybe just maintain a large GDI fallback just for XP?
XP is 12 years old, and its last major update is 5 years old. How long should they continue to develop new software and major updates for a
Get over it. (Score:1)
Supporting XP is especially complicated for IE,
Then perhaps they should have designed IE explorer to be cross platform :). The fact that IE does not run on Android soon to be the most dominant platform is an example of what a failure it is. The fact that is supplies its own customers with a second class experience.
Re: (Score:1)
I know you hate IE as I hated it so much that I used ftp to download firefox back in the day as not to corrupt my cpu with such filth!
but IE 9 and IE 10 have supperior smooth scroll and hardware acceleration. My Galaxy 4 is smooth and Chrome and FF can't match it due to the inferior XP support!
IE is smooth when I hit up and down on the arrow keys thanks to using directx11.
No I am not a MS fanboy but just stating the obvious. I welcome Chrome and FF leaving XP behind and using directX11 for win64 to catch up
IE still not cross platform (Score:2)
No I am not a MS fanboy but just stating the obvious. I welcome Chrome and FF leaving XP behind and using directX11 for win64 to catch up. IE really is ahead for multimedia heavy sites.
LOL no you are an MS shill a fanboy has something to be fanatical about; if I could get dollar every time you said "back in the day" and made out you used something other than Microsoft.(It kills me every time)
Ironically in context of your comment this article is about Internet Explorer(in an unreleased version) finally catching up with WebGL after lagging behind.
In context of this article FF both FF and Chrome are measurable ahead :) by about 2 years.
Re: (Score:3)
How come we never hear people bitching that the newest Safari doesn't run on anything older than OS X 10.7? It doesn't look like Safari 7 will be available on anything other than 10.9, as well. Why is that any different to MS not supporting XP, which is much older than 10.6?
Re: (Score:1)
Oh cry me a river.
I work for a dirt cheap client. Even we have been moving off XP for a year now. That number is rapidly declining and non biased sites like g.statcounter show XP equal to MacOSX in the US. Only china uses it as 97% is all pirated and Windows 7 is harder to steal it. By 2014 it will be single digit marketshare in the western world.
Not a Linux user today ;) (Score:1)
Oh cry me a river.
I work for a dirt cheap client. Even we have been moving off XP for a year now.
Not pretending to be a Linux user today. I like you more as a straight Microsoft Apologist. XP exists on 220,000,000 computers. I personally love the fact that you use an Apple excuse to defend Microsoft it, shows how overpriced and under-supported Windows is.
Re: (Score:1)
I frankly dont know know where you stand? Statcounter shows its death accelerating. XP in my mind is like IE 6. Different era and on its way out. In 2011 when IE 9 came out yes it was debatable as XP loyalists were huge then. Ms is heading the direcrion though Metro is poorly executed. IE is growimg up
Microsoft delivers Poor Customer Service (Score:2)
XP in my mind is like IE 6.... IE is growimg up
Ironically the Problem with IE6 was it was tied to the OS through monopolistic abuse, outdated(And in the absence of competition did not update it), and everywhere, and simply wasn't very good when compared to its competitors. Its net result is it held back the web for a many years.
XP on the other hand, Microsoft has tied to the hardware :) was better than its replacement...and better than its current offering. Still has 20% of the market about 220,000,000 users, and again IE will not work on it.
Internet Ex
Re: (Score:1)
People are way too serious about their browser selection and take it far too personal. Some of you Slashdotters are starting to sound like broken records or a bunch of red necks arguing whether Dodge or Ford has the best trucks.
Fact is that IE still fills a number of needs for enterprise and corporate customers. It has features Chrome and Firefox don't offer and don't plan on offering. Chrome and Firefox cater to WEB USERS and they do a very good job at it. IE is still a popular browser and will continue to
Fact is...IE does not make the cut(or does it) (Score:2)
Fact is that IE still fills a number of needs for enterprise and corporate customers.
Its not a fact. In reality any firm wanting a cutting edge advantage (as well as others) will avoid IE like a plague. The reality is targeting a platform dependant in today BYOD rather than a cutting edge browser specification, for internal...or mobile deployment is incredibly foolish.
Less like comparing brands...more like hiring a serial killer as a baby sitter.
Re: (Score:1)
You opinion is clearly slanted or you don't live in the Enterprise world.
Companies that do not keep their OS updated within reason most probably don't give a damn about new features in browsers. Companies that seek an edge through technology not only keep their software up to date but they train their staff to use is efficiently. They also stream line their deployments and force applications on their staff. In some cases IE may be the #1 choice because that's what the web applications were tested with.
Many
This is perfect, now support OpenGL ES 2.0 (Score:2)
Nowadays most mobile apps use this API for 3D, which makes porting to their platform a big hassle (Only D3D in 9_3 profile is supported, which is even more limited than GL ES 2.0).
Im sure that this is done with a wrapper over their D3D driver, so I hope they make it available for the C++ APIs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I believe the WebGL implementations even in Chrome and Firefox on Windows are implemented in Direct3D/DirectX/whatever.
Don't count on it the wrapper is probably in IE itself.
Use a WebView and you can use WebGL, that solves your problem. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox and Chrome use ANGLE, yes.
http://code.google.com/p/angleproject/ [google.com]
You can use native opengl though.
In Firefox, about:config and search for webgl.
Set:
webgl.prefer-native-gl;true
In past I've needed to do this on some windows machines to get some WebGL to work. Shader issue or somesuch.
There's also:
webgl.force-enabled;true
While you're in that section, btw, if you feel you know your card/driver combo better than their blacklist does.
Oh, and:
gfx.direct2d.force-enabled;true
or even
gfx.direct2d.disabled;true
Re: (Score:2)
you can't use WebGL in web safari on the iPhone because that would allow you to write compelling content on the web that would cut into Apple's 30% of everything.
Can't Wait (Score:2, Funny)
I can't wait to support the wonderful features in IE11. Going by my site stats for IE over the 2 past years and W3Counter's graphs (http://www.w3counter.com/trends), I look forward to 10% of my IE users (themselves only 15% of my visitors) using it in 2 or 3 years. (Or, I can support wonderful new features in Chrome, FireFox, and Safari and cover over 75% of my users.)
w3counter? (Score:2)
ie? (Score:1)
Confirmed on the IE blog (Score:2)
Official information on the IE blog: https://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2013/06/26/introducing-ie11-the-best-way-to-experience-the-web-on-modern-touch-devices.aspx [msdn.com]
Re: Amazing feat. (Score:2)