Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Sep 2009 19:17 UTC
Internet Explorer Earlier this week, Google launched Chrome Frame, a plugin for Internet Explorer 6/7/8 which replaces the Trident rendering engine with Chrome's rendering and JavaScript engine for better performance and superior standards compliance. Microsoft has responded to this release, claiming it makes Internet Explorer less secure. Note: What database category do I put this in? Internet Explorer? Google? Choices, choices!
Order by: Score:
Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Thu 24th Sep 2009 19:22 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

When someone fixes your crap for you, you thank them. And Google Chrome Frame is basically a copy of Chrome, sans, er... the chrome. It uses the same automatic, silent update system as Chrome. Any security flaws can literally be fixed for all users within 24 hours. You have no argument left Microsoft. Get your act together and instead of scaremongering, fix your crap.

Reply Score: 20

RE: Comment by Kroc
by gustl on Thu 24th Sep 2009 19:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

I am also utterly displeased with Microsoft's response to this.

FUDing around never made Microsoft look good, and with motivations as transparent as here ("let's hold HTML5 back until we get Silverlight shoved down people's throats") is shooting themselves in the foot publicity wise.

Yes, dear Microsoft, it will hinder your controlling the internet protocols, but PLEASE will you give it a rest and start playing nicely?

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kalessin on Thu 24th Sep 2009 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kalessin Member since:
2007-01-18

Unfortunately, FUD from Microsoft is likely to be at least somewhat effective. The less technically-inclined are likely to actually listen to what Microsoft says, and if they do and they have the say as to what plugins get installed on their corporate network, then lo and behold, Chrome Frame won't get installed on their corporate network, and Microsoft won that small piece of the battle.

Anyone who really pays attention and actually knows anything about the issue will know that it's pure FUD, but unfortunately, FUD still affects what people think - especially when the people doing the listening aren't all that well-informed. So, this move may very well look stupid, but from Microsoft's point of view, it's likely better to spout FUD than admit that Google is actually helping to clean up Microsoft's mess.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Thu 24th Sep 2009 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Unfortunately, FUD from Microsoft is likely to be at least somewhat effective. The less technically-inclined are likely to actually listen to what Microsoft says, and if they do and they have the say as to what plugins get installed on their corporate network, then lo and behold, Chrome Frame won't get installed on their corporate network, and Microsoft won that small piece of the battle. Anyone who really pays attention and actually knows anything about the issue will know that it's pure FUD, but unfortunately, FUD still affects what people think - especially when the people doing the listening aren't all that well-informed. So, this move may very well look stupid, but from Microsoft's point of view, it's likely better to spout FUD than admit that Google is actually helping to clean up Microsoft's mess.


This would all be true and of great importance if Microsoft's reputation was still what it once was.

However, Microsoft's reputation is very heavily tarnished. They have virtually no credibility left. Their announcement is clearly and demonstrably self-serving (and very transparent) FUD. Everyone with half a brain can see it for what it is.

Microsoft might even be digging a bigger hole for themselves here, if that was even possible.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by 0brad0 on Fri 25th Sep 2009 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


Everyone with half a brain can see it for what it is.


More and more that seems to be asking a lot from people in general.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by Stratoukos on Thu 24th Sep 2009 23:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

The less technically-inclined are likely to actually listen to what Microsoft says.


The people who read Microsoft press releases on Ars and the less technically-inclined usually don't overlap.

Since 99% of the people that are going to hear about this either "know better" or don't have much respect for what Microsoft says, I don't think that this was a wise move.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc
by JayDee on Thu 24th Sep 2009 19:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
JayDee Member since:
2009-06-02

When someone fixes your crap for you, you thank them. And Google Chrome Frame is basically a copy of Chrome, sans, er... the chrome. It uses the same automatic, silent update system as Chrome. Any security flaws can literally be fixed for all users within 24 hours. You have no argument left Microsoft. Get your act together and instead of scaremongering, fix your crap.


In this case, like Thom previously stated, this is a slap in the face for the IE team at MS. Thanking google (a competitor in the browser market) would be like saying thank you for showing us that the work we've been doing for the last few years has been completely and utterly useless. If they had conceded that, it would have meant a restructuring of that team for sure.

Hopefully they can get this right next time around now that the've been shown a lesson.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Fri 25th Sep 2009 00:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Hopefully they can get this right next time around now that the've been shown a lesson.


How have they been shown a lesson? They don't want people to use IE6 and they don't want an outside company to encourage its use. Did you notice that IE8 contains an IE7 compatibility mode but not one for IE6? That's because they want people to dump IE6, not use hacks to keep it working.

As I stated earlier the real problem is with IT department heads, not MS.

Even though this plug-in has obvious benefit to some it is going to allow a lot of el cheap-o companies to extend the life of their Windows 2000 workstations.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by umccullough on Fri 25th Sep 2009 00:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Even though this plug-in has obvious benefit to some it is going to allow a lot of el cheap-o companies to extend the life of their Windows 2000 workstations.


Which they could have done anyway by installing another browser such as Firefox, etc.... so you need to narrow your statement further:

It will allow *users* in el-cheapo companies moronic companies that demand usage of only an outdated version of IE browser to finally view the modern internet.

These same companies could allow dual-browsers, or could upgrade IE for their users, but they choose not to for some reason... and now Google has provided another option for them to consider.

And what's wrong with Windows 2000? If placed behind a firewall (for security reasons), it's still a perfectly usable OS that still runs most modern windows software without problems.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Fri 25th Sep 2009 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Which they could have done anyway by installing another browser such as Firefox,


Well of course that is always an option but for a lot of companies adding a plug-in to IE6 is much more appealing than adding a browser that isn't designed to be used with active directory. Most people have no idea has to how entrenched IE is in the workplace due to active directory integration/central updating.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by umccullough on Sat 26th Sep 2009 00:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

"Which they could have done anyway by installing another browser such as Firefox,


Well of course that is always an option but for a lot of companies adding a plug-in to IE6 is much more appealing than adding a browser that isn't designed to be used with active directory. Most people have no idea has to how entrenched IE is in the workplace due to active directory integration/central updating.
"

Doesn't matter anyway, according to the Google Frame download page, it only supports XP SP2 and newer. (responding to your previous assertion that this allows corporations to continue using Windows 2000)

Edited 2009-09-26 00:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Thu 24th Sep 2009 22:38 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

What is exactly is being fixed? MS already has a fix for IE6, it's called IE8. They just aren't forcing the update because a lot of software was built around IE6.

If you want to direct your anger anywhere it should be at IT departments who refuse to upgrade or even install an alternative browser along IE6. A lot of IT departments will only upgrade if they absolutely have to.

IE6 only has about 9% share in North America and will continue to drop in the next few years as many businesses dump old xp machines for windows 7.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Ford Prefect on Thu 24th Sep 2009 23:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

The problem is that IE8 is also lagging behind! Its the same crap with MSIE as always. All browsers support feature X but IE. All browsers support feature Y but IE. Same old story, again and again and again.

And if there would bei IE20, and if they even would force it down everybody's ass, you could bet again on the fact that it would be missing standard features, has its own opinion on CSS, etc. and so on.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Fri 25th Sep 2009 00:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

What are you saying? That people would be better off with IE6+Chrome plugin than IE8? That's a terrible idea from a security standpoint.

The real problem is that there is a large contingent of people that don't want anyone to use IE8 simply because it is made by Microsoft. They're ideologically driven and have no desire to judge software based upon technical merit.

It doesn't seem to matter that IE8 follows strict standards by default since there are just as many negative posts about IE8 as there were about IE6. If IE20 ever comes out we'll probably have to endure a thousand posts about how it doesn't follow standards because it hasn't adopted a 3 month old Skynet proposal.

Browser evangelism has really gotten old, especially on tech sites which are already visted by people that are more likely to use an alternative browser. It's preaching to the choir and I have to deal with enough religion/politics in real life.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by Ford Prefect on Fri 25th Sep 2009 08:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

No, I'm not saying that at all. People should use IE8 if they want to. They will use an inferior product given current competition, but then at least it is not a terrible product anymore like its predecessors.

Note that the Chrome plugin is also available for IE8 and for a reason. The only thing I state is that it is true that IE8 is still missing important features that other browsers already have, and it is valid to call the Chrome plugin a fix for that. It is also true that if you look at the history of IE, Microsoft is very reluctant to participate in the evolution of browsers. As a matter of fact, IE7 and 8 are only there as they finally lost their monopoly on the market. Now they are playing catch up, but always only up to the point where they would start to bleed. And they try to avoid the endorsement of any standard which does not benefit them, probably just out of caution, just not to loose anything on the market...

Microsoft's strategy unfortunately does not benefit the customers, as it stalls the state of the web. The features missing in IE8, btw, are all listed in the original Chrome Frame article...

Edited 2009-09-25 08:54 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Fri 25th Sep 2009 19:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

What are those important features? Draft proposals like HTML5?

We already went through this in another thread.

I don't mind if you bash IE but at least provide specifics. IE8 supports 4.01 strict which is a massive improvement compared to IE6.

I've worked on webpages and have had the hell of dealing with IE6. However IE8 hasn't been a problem so I think a lot of bashing is a mindless echo.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by B12 Simon on Fri 25th Sep 2009 09:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
B12 Simon Member since:
2006-11-08

It depends hugely on your customer base. If you're writing web apps for consumers, broadly speaking they're reasonably up to date.

If, like me, you're writing webapps for schools and local government (or, unlike me, for corporations) you'll be supporting IE6 and loathing every minute of it for some years.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by tomcat on Thu 24th Sep 2009 23:43 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

When someone fixes your crap for you, you thank them. And Google Chrome Frame is basically a copy of Chrome, sans, er... the chrome. It uses the same automatic, silent update system as Chrome. Any security flaws can literally be fixed for all users within 24 hours. You have no argument left Microsoft. Get your act together and instead of scaremongering, fix your crap.


Um, dude, Chrome doesn't "fix your crap for you." Chrome has an abysmal security record.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Thu 24th Sep 2009 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Um, dude, Chrome doesn't "fix your crap for you." Chrome has an abysmal security record.


Um, dude, no.

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/microsoft-google-chro...

After that though, Google made sure to stay on top of things, and it has paid off. In March 2009, for example, Chrome was the only browser left standing after day one of the famous Pwn2Own contest, where security researchers competed to exploit vulnerabilities in web browsers, while Firefox, Safari, and Internet Explorer were all successfully compromised. Microsoft argues that Chrome only remained unscathed because nobody attempted to exploit it, but the fact remains that none of the researchers had vulnerabilities for Chrome in mind before going into the contest.


Do try to keep up with things.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by tomcat on Fri 25th Sep 2009 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Do try to keep up with things.


Read for comprehension. I said that Chrome has an "abysmal security record." There's nothing in the paragraph that you provided that refutes the previous paragraph:

"Soon after Chrome was first released in September 2008, vulnerabilities were discovered and loudly trumpeted. The new browser was quickly labeled insecure days after it was made available, and remained so until a patched version was released."

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Fri 25th Sep 2009 05:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Do try to keep up with things.
Read for comprehension. I said that Chrome has an "abysmal security record." "

Read for comprehension yourself.

Chrome's security record is superlative compared to IE's security record. Absolutely wonderful ... even if a very early version of Chrome did once have a security hole think about the long and utterly abysmal history of IE ... shudder!!

If you are going to prattle about "ah but IE8 is much better, and ancient history about older IE browsers is not relevant" ... then be advised that Google Chrome Frame has a PERFECT security record ... because (according to that muddle-head thinking) we should not after all worry about previous versions.

Edited 2009-09-25 05:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by 0brad0 on Fri 25th Sep 2009 00:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


Chrome has an abysmal security record.


Because IE has such a stellar record. Keep smoking crack.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by tomcat on Fri 25th Sep 2009 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

" Chrome has an abysmal security record.
Because IE has such a stellar record. Keep smoking crack. "

Thanks for the productive comment. I'm sure that increasing the malware attack surface area within IE6/7 is really going to help users. LOL!

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by gustl on Sat 26th Sep 2009 13:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Microsoft shills are on the way.

Interesting how the first posts never see such stupid and beside-the point-replies from Microsoft shills.
I guess they have a list which news outlets they have to shill first. Slashdot gets shilled first (has probably higher number of readers), and only after some time osnews is "worked on".

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Sat 26th Sep 2009 13:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Microsoft shills are on the way.

Interesting how the first posts never see such stupid and beside-the point-replies from Microsoft shills.
I guess they have a list which news outlets they have to shill first. Slashdot gets shilled first (has probably higher number of readers), and only after some time osnews is "worked on".


Not to worry, the shills have another spot fire on this topic to try to stamp out over on slashdot, so they might not bother us here.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/09/26/0257216/Google-Barks-Back-A...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Lennie on Fri 25th Sep 2009 00:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Kroc, I do think it's not as secure as normal Google Chrome, because I don't think this uses process-seperation, does it ?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by malxau on Fri 25th Sep 2009 02:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

What I'd really like to understand is the meaning of "crap" in this context.

Microsoft was criticized for IE6 stagnation, so it re-formed the team and got to work. It was criticized for not having tabs, so it did tabs.

Then it was criticized for not being perfectly standards compliant, since IE5/6 predated the standards. So it worked on standards. And then it was criticized for that not being the default, so it broke IE5/6 compatibility - a huge leap in the dark - and shipped IE8, which gave everyone what they wanted, and struggled to gain any users in the process.

Now IE is just "crap." Not a good analysis of a clear deficiency, just "crap."

I don't work on IE, but I feel really bad for those guys right now. They've tried hard to give people what they want, and the result is just dismissive, unconstructive criticism.

Really, if you, the reader, want to see further standards compliance in IE, the best thing you can do is use IE8 to send a clear message that if Microsoft embraces standards, you will embrace Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Fri 25th Sep 2009 02:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What I'd really like to understand is the meaning of "crap" in this context. Microsoft was criticized for IE6 stagnation, so it re-formed the team and got to work. It was criticized for not having tabs, so it did tabs. Then it was criticized for not being perfectly standards compliant, since IE5/6 predated the standards. So it worked on standards. And then it was criticized for that not being the default, so it broke IE5/6 compatibility - a huge leap in the dark - and shipped IE8, which gave everyone what they wanted, and struggled to gain any users in the process. Now IE is just "crap." Not a good analysis of a clear deficiency, just "crap." I don't work on IE, but I feel really bad for those guys right now. They've tried hard to give people what they want, and the result is just dismissive, unconstructive criticism. Really, if you, the reader, want to see further standards compliance in IE, the best thing you can do is use IE8 to send a clear message that if Microsoft embraces standards, you will embrace Microsoft.


Microsoft doesn't embrace the standards.

Exactly those standards that can deliver a "rich, interactive, multimedia" performance from the web via a browser, those are the standards that Microsoft does NOT include in its browser.

Here is a short list where IE falls short:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Standards_tested

IE8 incorporates only about 20% of that lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Acid3ie8rc1.png

Google Chrome Frame incorporates 100%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Acid_3_Test_Chrome_2.0.170.0.jpg

The reason why IE does NOT incorporate those standards? It is pretty simple, really. If IE incorporated those standards, there would be no need for Silverlight (or Flash for that matter). If there is no need for Silverlight or Flash, then one can run a compliant browser (and therefore fully functional) on ANY platform.

That is worth repeating: One can run a compliant and fully functional browser on ANY platform. This was always the design intent of the web in the first place.

One doesn't need Windows or IE to view the web in all its glory.

Edited 2009-09-25 03:06 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by malxau on Fri 25th Sep 2009 03:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

Here is a short list where IE falls short: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Standards_tested IE8 incorporates only about 20% of that lot. Google Chrome Frame incorporates 100%. The reason why IE does NOT incorporate those standards? It is pretty simple, really. If IE incorporated those standards, there would be no need for Silverlight (or Flash for that matter).


Your theory is possible, although the official stance of the IE team is that Acid3 includes requirements that are not yet defined standards (HTML5, CSS3, etc.)

Microsoft previously got itself into trouble with IE4/5/6, trying to support things not fully standardized, ultimately resulting in a perception of non-standards compliance afterwards when the standards arrived. They are trying not to repeat a past mistake.

Other browsers are taking a different approach. FireFox 3.5 implements HTML5 video, for example, and did so before it was decided which codec(s) to use. A standard tag without a standard codec is not terribly useful. Obviously in the coming years we'll discover whether FireFox implemented video support "correctly" or not.

This example is not isolated. Firefox, Chrome and Safari have all implemented standards that are not yet standards. It will be interesting to see what the state of things will be five years from now; it's very unlikely that all of these implementations will be conformant with the final standard.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Fri 25th Sep 2009 03:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Here is a short list where IE falls short: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Standards_tested IE8 incorporates only about 20% of that lot. Google Chrome Frame incorporates 100%. The reason why IE does NOT incorporate those standards? It is pretty simple, really. If IE incorporated those standards, there would be no need for Silverlight (or Flash for that matter).
Your theory is possible, although the official stance of the IE team is that Acid3 includes requirements that are not yet defined standards (HTML5, CSS3, etc.) "

There are a very few tests in the acid3 suite that are not yet finalised W3C standards.

However, if one were to make a browser that passed only the acid3 subtests for standards that have been established for over, say, five years ... then one would still socre over 90 on the acid3 tests.

IE8 scores just 20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Acid3ie8rc1.png

Microsoft previously got itself into trouble with IE4/5/6, trying to support things not fully standardized, ultimately resulting in a perception of non-standards compliance afterwards when the standards arrived. They are trying not to repeat a past mistake.


The fact that MOST of the tests within acid3 are for standards that are over 5 years since they have become a W3C recommendation (and therefore stable) well and truly debunks this contention.

Here is just one example ... the acid3 tests include some tests against SVG 1.1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Vector_Graphics

SVG 1.1 became a W3C Recommendation on January 14, 2003.


Over six years ago. IE still, after six years, includes absolutely no SVG functionality.

IE8 could at least quadruple its score against acid3 simply by incorporating agreed standards the have been stable and standard for over 5 years now.

That is how far behind IE is.

PS: from the same page: "SVG 1.0 became a W3C Recommendation on September 4, 2001". Now I can almost hear your protest ... "see, it isn't stable". Sorry, but that just isn't so. SVG 1.1 is a superset of SVG 1.0, and not a revision of the earlier standard.

Other browsers are taking a different approach. FireFox 3.5 implements HTML5 video, for example, and did so before it was decided which codec(s) to use. A standard tag without a standard codec is not terribly useful. Obviously in the coming years we'll discover whether FireFox implemented video support "correctly" or not. This example is not isolated. Firefox, Chrome and Safari have all implemented standards that are not yet standards. It will be interesting to see what the state of things will be five years from now; it's very unlikely that all of these implementations will be conformant with the final standard.


The only reason why there is any contention here is that the vested interests who want to require you to have their particular platform to view the web have sabotaged agreement on the codec(s) for the HTML5 standard.

It is not hard to replace a codec, or indeed support a few different codecs simultaneously. This is no reason to defer from going ahead with HTML5.

Every browser apart from IE supports HTML5 with Theora. Even Safari will support Theora if one simply downloads the codec.

Now, happily, with Google Chrome Frame, even IE8 will support this.

So it will become a defacto standard, even though the vested interests have successfuly delayed it becoming a formal de jure standard.

Edited 2009-09-25 03:41 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by werpu on Fri 25th Sep 2009 07:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
werpu Member since:
2006-01-18


Your theory is possible, although the official stance of the IE team is that Acid3 includes requirements that are not yet defined standards (HTML5, CSS3, etc.)

Please read the list instead of quoting Microsoft fud and lies. ACID 3 does neither test for CSS3 nor for HTML5 all it does is to test against existing standards.
One of the reason why Microsoft falls flat for at least 20% is the absolute non compliance to any SVG.
The other 60% simply are bugs or half implemented other standards! The only thing IE8 is really good at is CSS 2.1 compliance, kudos to them that one is really excellent, the rest is still shoddy.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Fri 25th Sep 2009 08:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Fri 25th Sep 2009 12:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You claim that Microsoft doesn't follow standards but you are aware that IE8 renders strict W3C standards by default, don't you?


It follows a small sub-set of W3C standards, but it doesn't implement most of them.

So don't you mean that while they support current W3C standards you feel they should support more?


No, I mean that IE8 doesn't support most of the current W3C standards.

Which is what I said.

What you should have specifically said is that IE8 doesn't pass the Acid 3 test,


That is true as well.

which contains draft CSS3 elements that may in fact be changed or removed in the final proposal.


Here is the list of W3C standards that acid3 tests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Standards_tested
Standards tested

The following standards are tested by Acid3:

* DOM Level 2 Traversal (subtests 1–6)
* DOM Level 2 Range (subtests 7–11)
* Content-Type: image/png; text/plain (subtests 14–15)
* <object> handling and HTTP status codes (subtest 16)
* DOM Level 2 Core (subtests 17, 21)
* DOM Level 2 Events (subtests 17, 30–32)
* CSS Selectors (subtests 33–40)
* DOM Level 2 Style (subtest 45)
* DOM Level 2 HTML (subtest 60)
* DOM Level 2 Views
* ECMAScript GC (subtests 26–27)
* Unicode 5.0 UTF-16 (subtest 68)
* Unicode 5.0 UTF-8 (subtest 70)
* HTML 4.0 Transitional (subtest 71)
* HTML 4.01 Strict
* SVG 1.1 (subtests 74, 78)
* SVG 1.1 Fonts (subtests 77, 79)
* SMIL 2.1 (subtests 75–76)
* ECMAScript Conformance (subtests 81-96)
* Data URI scheme (subtest 97)
* XHTML 1.0 Strict (subtest 98)
* HTTP 1.1 Protocol


Sorry, but there is no CSS3 tests there, the only CSS tests are CSS 2.1.

Here we have people calling IE "crap" for not following draft standards that may not even be part of a proposal that in itself is merely a suggested guideline.


Did you actually read the list of tests included in acid3?

Which of these is still draft, do you think?

I can give you some help if you want:

- DOM Level 2 was published in late 2000.
- CSS level 2 was developed by the W3C and published as a Recommendation in May 1998.
- The first edition of ECMA-262 (ECMAScript) was adopted by the ECMA General Assembly of June 1997.
- Unicode 5.0 July 2006
- December 1997 HTML 4.0 was published as a W3C Recommendation
- December 1999 HTML 4.01 was published as a W3C Recommendation.
- SVG 1.1 became a W3C Recommendation on January 14, 2003.
- The HTML 4.01 specification references the data URI scheme
- XHTML 1.0 Strict is the XML equivalent to strict HTML 4.01, in January 2000 it was officially adopted as a W3C Recommendation.
- The HTTP 1.1 standard as defined in RFC 2068 was officially released in January 1997.
- SMIL 2.1 became a W3C Recommendation in December 2005.

Funny how that is rarely noted.


That is because it isn't actually true. That means that most people don't "lie for Microsoft", I suppose.

Of course why bother stating the details when you are ideologically driven and just want people to use something other than IE.


How many details did you want?

Since I have supplied the details, don't you look more than a little silly now?

Why not just state that you just plain don't want an MS browser to be dominate? It's intellectually honest at least and you'll find plenty of support.


Sigh!

Please read the list of web standards tested by acid3, compare that to my list of dates provided above, and then point out which are still draft, and only then get on your high horse.

-- I don't suppose I am ever going to get an apology from you, am I? Oh well, c'est la vie.

Edited 2009-09-25 12:25 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by malxau on Fri 25th Sep 2009 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04


Sorry, but there is no CSS3 tests there, the only CSS tests are CSS 2.1.


That's true of the Wikipedia page. However the official page (http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3) is quite clear that CSS3 is tested.

Your earlier point that this does not fully explain IE8's low score remains valid.


Since I have supplied the details, don't you look more than a little silly now?...I don't suppose I am ever going to get an apology from you, am I? Oh well, c'est la vie.


I dream of a time when Internet discussions can be factual without escalating interpersonal conflict. It's strange that web discussions tend to go to a level which would never occur face-to-face. I still don't understand why.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Fri 25th Sep 2009 19:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Well I think you have learned a lesson in not putting too much faith in wikipedia.

Funny how your post was modded up and mine down even though the Acid 3 test clearly contains CSS3 elements:
http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3

Interesting how your position has gone from "doesn't embrace standards" to "supports a subset" in a few paragraphs.

Since IE8 supports HTML 4.01 strict please tell me what you mean by IE only supports a subset.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Sat 26th Sep 2009 11:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Well I think you have learned a lesson in not putting too much faith in wikipedia.

Funny how your post was modded up and mine down even though the Acid 3 test clearly contains CSS3 elements:
http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3

Interesting how your position has gone from "doesn't embrace standards" to "supports a subset" in a few paragraphs.

Since IE8 supports HTML 4.01 strict please tell me what you mean by IE only supports a subset.


Your problem is interpretation. Either that or you just can't read.

I never said IE supports NO standards.

I simply stated, correctly, that IE lacks support for most of the standards.

This is why IE gets a score of 20 (out of 100 tests) on acid3. IE does indeed support some of the standards ... hence its score of 20.

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?386157

IE8 incorporates only about 20% of that lot.


I also said that a very few of the tests in acid3 were against functions that were not yet stable, recommended standards.

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?386162
There are a very few tests in the acid3 suite that are not yet finalised W3C standards.


Agreed. But I also pointed out that if IE were to not bother with those few, and concentrate on passing ONLY the parts of acid3 that were stable, recommended standards of five years vintage or older, then it would get a score of over 90 on acid3.

However, if one were to make a browser that passed only the acid3 subtests for standards that have been established for over, say, five years ... then one would still socre over 90 on the acid3 tests.


Yet IE8 scores only 20.

What exactly is your point in continuing to utterly ignore all of these facts?

Edited 2009-09-26 11:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by error32
by error32 on Thu 24th Sep 2009 19:54 UTC
error32
Member since:
2008-12-10

Might I add that this is also the only way for IE to pass the acid3 test ;)

Reply Score: 12

Microsoft got one thing right
by JAlexoid on Thu 24th Sep 2009 19:58 UTC
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

Microsoft got one thing right - I would never, ever recommend any of my friends and family to use IE. Using IE is the worst fate, that even my enemy should be spared from.

Reply Score: 11

RE: Microsoft got one thing right
by nt_jerkface on Fri 25th Sep 2009 00:33 UTC in reply to "Microsoft got one thing right"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Microsoft got one thing right - I would never, ever recommend any of my friends and family to use IE. Using IE is the worst fate, that even my enemy should be spared from.


That gets a 5? With such extreme rhetoric being praised it makes me wonder if I should just hang out at slashdot for a more authentic experience.

Reply Score: 0

ROFLMAO!!!
by CaptainN- on Thu 24th Sep 2009 20:12 UTC
CaptainN-
Member since:
2005-07-07

ROFLMAO!!!

Reply Score: 3

Clearly FUD
by darknexus on Thu 24th Sep 2009 20:37 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Sadly, however, most corporate IT managers will probably believe what Microsoft says and refuse to allow the Chrome framework to be installed which, of course, is exactly what Microsoft is aiming for with this tactic.

Reply Score: 4

Microsoft is right
by foldingstock on Thu 24th Sep 2009 20:39 UTC
foldingstock
Member since:
2008-10-30

Mod me down, linux fanboys, but Microsoft is technically right.

Adding a third-party plugin, especially something that replaces the core browsing engine, does make IE less secure. With this plugin, IE can be compromised due to a security issue in IE code -or- Chrome's code. If a security flaw is found in Chrome's javascript rendering engine, any version of IE running this plugin will be vulnerable.

The same thing can be said about other plugins. Installing the Adobe Flash player plugin to IE or Firefox will make both less secure, since you are introducing additional code.

Microsoft is right because adding any plugin that expands software functionality will introduce new code that can potentially cause additional security problems.

Did Microsoft consider this before forcing a .NET add-on to be installed to Firefox via Windows Update? Certainly not.

Is this a marketing gimmick by Microsoft to scare people from using the plugin of one of their biggest competitors? Probably.

Is Microsoft wrong in saying this? No, they are technically correct.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Microsoft is right
by sbergman27 on Thu 24th Sep 2009 20:45 UTC in reply to "Microsoft is right"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Mod me down, linux fanboys, but...

I agree, in principle, with the rest of your post. (Though I doubt the real-world difference will turn out to be significant.) But as a Linux advocate, I think it is reasonable to ask what purpose this quoted bit at the top of it was supposed to serve. Would not your post have been clearer and stronger without it?

Edited 2009-09-24 20:46 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Microsoft is right
by foldingstock on Thu 24th Sep 2009 21:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft is right"
foldingstock Member since:
2008-10-30

"Mod me down, linux fanboys, but...

I agree, in principle, with the rest of your post. (Though I doubt the real-world difference will turn out to be significant.) But as a Linux advocate, I think it is reasonable to ask what purpose this quoted bit at the top of it was supposed to serve. Would not your post have been clearer and stronger without it?
"

Simply because a large percentage of Linux users use it because they hate Microsoft as a company. I am tired of being modded down for saying something other than "OMG Microsoft sucks LOL!!!."

I have nothing against Linux or Linux users. I use Linux, Windows, and *BSD. I use whatever is best for the job at hand. I just don't like rabid fanboys.

I apologize if my comment offended anyone.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Microsoft is right
by ssa2204 on Thu 24th Sep 2009 21:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Microsoft is right"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

"[q]Mod me down, linux fanboys, but...

I agree, in principle, with the rest of your post. (Though I doubt the real-world difference will turn out to be significant.) But as a Linux advocate, I think it is reasonable to ask what purpose this quoted bit at the top of it was supposed to serve. Would not your post have been clearer and stronger without it?
"

Simply because a large percentage of Linux users use it because they hate Microsoft as a company. I am tired of being modded down for saying something other than "OMG Microsoft sucks LOL!!!."

I have nothing against Linux or Linux users. I use Linux, Windows, and *BSD. I use whatever is best for the job at hand. I just don't like rabid fanboys.

I apologize if my comment offended anyone. [/q]

Kind of sad in this world where you have to make a disclaimer to appeal to morons. Religion use to be an opiate of the masses, but now it seems software is as well. Get everyone emotionally tied to something this idiotic and they won't care about what really matters in life. Linux Sucks, Microsoft Sucks, Windows Sucks, FSF Sucks, chuck it all away and get a free $1 calculator and your life's problems are solved. Or, just freaking enjoy what you have.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Microsoft is right
by nt_jerkface on Thu 24th Sep 2009 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Microsoft is right"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

and get a free $1 calculator and your life's problems are solved. Or, just freaking enjoy what you have.


Texa$ In$trument$ $hill.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Microsoft is right
by umccullough on Thu 24th Sep 2009 21:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft is right"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

"Mod me down, linux fanboys, but...

I agree, in principle, with the rest of your post. (Though I doubt the real-world difference will turn out to be significant.) But as a Linux advocate, I think it is reasonable to ask what purpose this quoted bit at the top of it was supposed to serve. Would not your post have been clearer and stronger without it?
"

Eh, next time just mod him down for the use of a stereotype ;)

Edited 2009-09-24 21:24 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE: Microsoft is right
by Laurence on Thu 24th Sep 2009 20:53 UTC in reply to "Microsoft is right"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Mod me down, linux fanboys, but Microsoft is technically right.

Adding a third-party plugin, especially something that replaces the core browsing engine, does make IE less secure. With this plugin, IE can be compromised due to a security issue in IE code -or- Chrome's code. If a security flaw is found in Chrome's javascript rendering engine, any version of IE running this plugin will be vulnerable.

The same thing can be said about other plugins. Installing the Adobe Flash player plugin to IE or Firefox will make both less secure, since you are introducing additional code.

Microsoft is right because adding any plugin that expands software functionality will introduce new code that can potentially cause additional security problems.

Did Microsoft consider this before forcing a .NET add-on to be installed to Firefox via Windows Update? Certainly not.

Is this a marketing gimmick by Microsoft to scare people from using the plugin of one of their biggest competitors? Probably.

Is Microsoft wrong in saying this? No, they are technically correct.


You're logic doesn't really work because if 3rd party plugins are seen a security threat then it's IE which is insecure for allowing 3rd party plugins to install in the 1st place.

If you want to talk about a specific plug in (Chrome) reducing IEs security, then you have to look at what the plug in specifically performs - which is rendering. And that plug in specifically IS more secure than trident (as well as more standards compliant).

Mod me down, linux fanboys, but Microsoft is technically right.


I really don't see what Linux has to do with this.
If anything, Google have proven time and time again that Chrome's priority is Windows - so why make such a comment if you didn't want to come across as trolling?

Edited 2009-09-24 20:56 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Microsoft is right
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 24th Sep 2009 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft is right"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Well, everyone pretty much admits that in general plugins are a security problem. Chrome is trying to find a way to sandbox them to reduce security risks.

But I would assert that plugins in IE are especially a security risk. As they have historically been exploited a number of times. I think Safari plugins have been as well, but not 100% sure on that.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Microsoft is right
by license_2_blather on Thu 24th Sep 2009 22:03 UTC in reply to "Microsoft is right"
license_2_blather Member since:
2006-02-05

Technically right, maybe, but certainly not fair.

This additional code = more attack surface assertion is equally true about Silverlight. But they are not steering their "friends and family" away from Silverlight, now are they?

Bottom line, it's the only thing Microsoft could do. They got served, as the kids say nowadays. Thanks, Google, for the entertainment!

Reply Score: 3

RE: Microsoft is right
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 24th Sep 2009 22:40 UTC in reply to "Microsoft is right"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

They're not wrong, they're just assholes.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Microsoft is right
by emilsedgh on Thu 24th Sep 2009 23:22 UTC in reply to "Microsoft is right"
emilsedgh Member since:
2007-06-21

Technically, what you said is not right.

Each browser is built of two main parts:
1) HTML/CSS/Javascript handling part
2) Main application

What this plugin does, is to 'replace' the first part.
So its NOT 'adding' any security whole. If there is a security whole in trident (IE's html/css/js handling stuff) it will not be applicable when this plugin is active.

And since this plugin, is actually webkit, and webkit is far more safer and cooler than trident, practically it will increase the damn security.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Microsoft is right
by foldingstock on Fri 25th Sep 2009 16:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft is right"
foldingstock Member since:
2008-10-30

Right, but if there is even one vulnerability in WebKit, it is a vulnerability that would not have been there had the WebKit plugin not been installed. That is the genius of Microsoft's statement. It doesn't matter that WebKit makes IE more secure than it is now.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Microsoft is right
by emilsedgh on Fri 25th Sep 2009 17:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Microsoft is right"
emilsedgh Member since:
2007-06-21

You are not getting my point. It 'replaces' the damn security bugs. So if you have it working on a web page, you are not affected by trident security treats.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Microsoft is right
by lemur2 on Sat 26th Sep 2009 12:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Microsoft is right"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Right, but if there is even one vulnerability in WebKit, it is a vulnerability that would not have been there had the WebKit plugin not been installed. That is the genius of Microsoft's statement. It doesn't matter that WebKit makes IE more secure than it is now.


Google disagree, perhaps unsurprisingly.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9138522/Google_barks_back_at...

Google barks back at Microsoft over Chrome Frame security
Defends plug-in, says it makes IE more secure, not less.

Google hit back at Microsoft today, defending the security of its new Chrome Frame plug-in and claiming that the software actually makes Internet Explorer (IE) safer and more secure.


Microsoft's statement was in no way "genius", it was just self-serving FUD.

Edited 2009-09-26 12:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Microsoft is right
by lemur2 on Thu 24th Sep 2009 23:36 UTC in reply to "Microsoft is right"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The same thing can be said about other plugins. Installing the Adobe Flash player plugin to IE or Firefox will make both less secure, since you are introducing additional code.


I won't mod you down (despite you attempted slurs) because I don't do that, but I will gleefully point out the huge omissions in your (and Microsoft's) logic.

Silverlight. ActiveX. Are these not plugins too? Given IE's intrinsic very lackluster performance with ECMAscript, are these not required in order to get any king of interactive content over the web (albiet constrained to Windows clients) in the absensce of a standards-complaint capability such as Chrome Frame?

The other point of note is that Chrome Frame is open source. When one adds it as a plugin, one can see exactly what it does. It is auditable. It can be verified that it introduces no functions that are not in the interests of the owner of the client machine. Any flaws can readily be fixed by anyone (even if Google are somehow reluctant to fix one). None of these latter points are true for ActiveX or Silverlight.

Edited 2009-09-24 23:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Standard practice
by kenji on Thu 24th Sep 2009 20:41 UTC
kenji
Member since:
2009-04-08

I'm not making any excuses for Microsoft but this sounds like a typical 'cover-your-ass' (CYA in my line of work) move. If Microsoft did not discourage the use of this google plugin then any security vulnerabilities that may come up due to the use of the plugin would fall back on them.

I think it was more of a move to tell users that they are using the google plugin at their own risk. So, this is not really a big deal.

Reply Score: 2

Microsoft is correct
by unoengborg on Thu 24th Sep 2009 20:47 UTC
unoengborg
Member since:
2005-07-06

Adding this plugin makes you vulnerable both to old standard ie bugs and to chrome bugs if any.

However, he forget to mention the simple solution: Just use chrome!

Reply Score: 2

BUUULLLL SHIIIIIIIT
by FishB8 on Fri 25th Sep 2009 00:25 UTC
FishB8
Member since:
2006-01-16

By that same logic, Silverlight makes IE less secure also...

Reply Score: 1

osnews
by JrezIN on Fri 25th Sep 2009 00:32 UTC
JrezIN
Member since:
2005-06-29

So,
when will OSnews ask IE users to install this plugin too?

Reply Score: 2

Speaking of plugins ...
by lemur2 on Fri 25th Sep 2009 00:32 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

As it keeps improving, Gnash is slowly becoming a viable alternative to Adobe's flash plugin:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzU1Ng

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzU1MA

... at least for browser that can use it.

The second link, whereby Gnash might gain "H.264 VA-API GPU Video Acceleration For Flash" would I believe allow Gnash running on an open source OS to play h.264 video via the hardware facilities of the video card.

Since end users who have a compatible video card have already paid money for said card, wouldn't that mean that said users have paid for any royalties that the card is encumbered with, and hence have a leagl right to use the codecs implemented on the card regardless of what OS they actually run?

As far as I can see, this seems to be a legal way to play h.264 video on Linux systems without any threat of lawsuit for patent infringements.

Now all we need is for the Chrome Frame plugin to offer the same. Perhaps using this method (i.e. incorporating elements of Gnash code into the Chrome Frame plugin, and also including a Theora decoder) embedded into the Chrome Frame plugin, as well as HTML5 sites it can also render Flash sites without requiring an Adobe plugin, so one doesn't have to have a plugin for one's plugin.

Edited 2009-09-25 00:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Works with IE6
by lemur2 on Fri 25th Sep 2009 00:48 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Since this Google Chrome Frame plugin apparently works with IE6, and hence can suddenly transform IE6 into a modern, fast, compliant browser, will that mean the end of irritating campaigns as mentioned at this link?

http://www.wisdump.com/web-programming/campaigns-to-kill-the-web-br...

Edited 2009-09-25 00:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Benchmarks, getcha benchmarks here!
by lemur2 on Fri 25th Sep 2009 01:17 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Google Chrome Frame - ten times faster than IE8.

Getcha banchmarks here.

Get 'em while they are hot.

http://news.techworld.com/networking/3202572/internet-explorer-8-ru...

Reply Score: 3

WGF
by johnney on Fri 25th Sep 2009 01:40 UTC
johnney
Member since:
2009-07-17

Opera is the most secure browser by far. It's fast, stabile, and uses fewer resources. I really don't GAS about html5 nor silverlight.
The internet will update itself without the lame help from ms, google, or any other entity which strives to control content.
I just switched from using k-meleonccfme.

Edited 2009-09-25 01:41 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Eddyspeeder
by Eddyspeeder on Fri 25th Sep 2009 07:23 UTC
Eddyspeeder
Member since:
2006-05-10

Even *less* secure? But... but... that's like saying Chrome would make a strailer leak!

Reply Score: 1

IE Scored 100% on Acid3!! Haha :)
by OSGuy on Fri 25th Sep 2009 09:41 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

I voluntary installed Google Chrome Frame and you can actually force the WebKit engine by prefacing the URL with "cf". Example: cf:http://acid3.acidtests.org/

Acid3 test scores 100% ;) Cheeky Google ;)

I am sure MS isn't happy about this. May be they will block this with Windows Update so Google will have to catch up and re-enable it again if they do so. Pretty much like Apple and Palm.

Hopefully there is a switch in the registry to enable this feature on by default.

Edited 2009-09-25 09:42 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Comment by FealDorf
by FealDorf on Fri 25th Sep 2009 09:44 UTC
FealDorf
Member since:
2008-01-07

I'm actually quite confused -- what IS the definition of a browser nowadays? I used to define it by the HTML engine, but with WebKit that idea is now flawed.. I don't understand if Google Chrome Frame is Internet Explorer or Chrome pretending to be Internet Explorer; if it's the latter case then this is more of a marketing (albeit consumer-friendly) move for me..

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by FealDorf
by dragossh on Fri 25th Sep 2009 12:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by FealDorf"
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

Google Chrome Frame replaces the crap Trident rendering engine and their 1999 JavaScript engine with WebKit and V8.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by FealDorf
by lemur2 on Fri 25th Sep 2009 13:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by FealDorf"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Google Chrome Frame replaces the crap Trident rendering engine and their 1999 JavaScript engine with WebKit and V8.


Can you tell me if Google Chrome Frame can show this page properly?

http://tinyvid.tv/show/axnpp13n2qej

It works just fine in Firefox 3.5. AFAIK, it should work in Google Chrome Frame.

It doesn't work in IE at all.

How about this page:

http://tinyvid.tv/show/2tbf9gddalxmh

(or the web app that it describes).

That should work too (but not in IE, of course).

Edited 2009-09-25 14:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

What will happen next
by OSGuy on Fri 25th Sep 2009 09:51 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

I think I know what Google is trying to do (and I like it!). Google knows that their Wave will become the next Facebook (in popularity) and it is a win-win situation for them. Users will either install Chrome where Google will get greater market share OR install Chrome Frame where Google will get market share anyway!

So Google gets greater market share either way! This is just too funny ;) ;)

Now, imagine all of the IE users in the world utilizing Chrome Frame from their IE browsers (because they want to use Wave). Google's market share will sky rocket!

Even if it's not Chrome they choose, say it's Firefox, then Firefox gets the market share so this move is also good for Firefox! I have a bad feeling, something tells me MS will make an update to block this.

Even funnier though, when they ask the user to install a browser, Opera isn't listed - well based on the screenshot ;)

Edited 2009-09-25 09:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: What will happen next
by gustl on Sat 26th Sep 2009 13:35 UTC in reply to "What will happen next"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

If Microsoft makes a move towards blocking this, I guess the EU competition commissioner will be informed by google right away.

And the EU competition commissioner are not really known for handing out uselessly small fees.

If Microsoft makes an attempt to block this, they will get issued a fine none of us has seen before, I am quite sure about that. The EU commissioner will say: "Fining them obviously did not change their behavior, when they repeat their actions, we need to make sure the message sinks in this time around"

Reply Score: 2

Ahh... the Microsoft deception
by rgathright on Fri 25th Sep 2009 12:50 UTC
rgathright
Member since:
2009-09-24

The only positive news from this is that we know that Microsoft is still up to its old Anti-Trust tricks.

Hello Intel Moblin!

Reply Score: 0

MS definitely in the right
by joshbaptiste on Fri 25th Sep 2009 16:15 UTC
joshbaptiste
Member since:
2008-09-09

Guys can we stop thinking “geeky” for one moment, yes IE is less secure and Google has improved their Javascript engine yada yada. But this doesn't matter in the business world, if you are the CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation you don't want the competition providing replacement and/or corrective functionality for your software stack regardless of what it does, this is not the FOSS world. In the proprietary world it would be seen as weak to formally accept any patches from the competition and would definitely hurt your business. Shareholders and board members would not accept this, thus your business shouldn’t either.

Reply Score: 1

control
by aragaran on Fri 25th Sep 2009 21:31 UTC
aragaran
Member since:
2009-09-25

i wonder if anyone imagined that this kind of scenario wouldnt have happened if there were tight controls on windows as they are on things like the iPhone, imagine if there were a MS Windows App Store, they could simply drop out the google chrome plugin just saying that it replace "core features" of their product.

Isnt this kind of frightening?

Reply Score: 1