Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 20:21 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Internet Explorer "With the latest releases of Opera, Google Chrome and Firefox continuing to push the boundaries of the web, the once-dominant Internet Explorer is looking less and less relevant every day. But we should expect Microsoft to go on the offensive at its upcoming MIX 2010 developer conference in Las Vegas, where, it has been speculated, the company will demonstrate the first beta builds of Internet Explorer 9 and possibly offer a preview release of the browser to developers. Several clues point to the possibility that the next version of IE will include broad support for HTML5 elements, vector graphics and emerging CSS standards. If Microsoft plays its cards right in Vegas, IE 9 could be the release that helps IE get its groove back in the web browser game."
Order by: Score:
Trident engine
by poundsmack on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 20:52 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

I am wondering how long MS can use the Trident engine that powers IE before running into enough technical limitations that they need a clean break or MASSIVE refactoring and change. It looks like IE 9 is going to be more evolutionary than revolutionary, makes me wonder if 10 is going to be their "let's start over" release.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Trident engine
by emilsedgh on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:02 UTC in reply to "Trident engine"
emilsedgh Member since:
2007-06-21

I suppose we will never know when they do some refactoring, cause you, know, its a damn close sourced product.

Of course the company will be too proud to say they have done a refactoring on it. It was always so great, you know ;)

I just hope IE9 will be a real standard compilance browser.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Trident engine
by poundsmack on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Trident engine"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

you would be suprised, they are pretty vocal about this stuff, see for yourself: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Trident engine
by WereCatf on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Trident engine"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

you would be suprised, they are pretty vocal about this stuff, see for yourself: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/

Indeed, and it's just a good thing they are: Microsoft has been bashed for years about IE so it's good PR for them to publish as much news regarding their ongoing development regards IE, and it's good for developers to know where IE stands so they'll be in a better position to decide what features they can use on their websites and/or web applications.

One thing that's REALLY important about all this: the more standards compliant and the more secure IE becomes the better it is for all those end-users who don't use alternative browsers.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Trident engine
by Delgarde on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Trident engine"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Indeed, and it's just a good thing they are: Microsoft has been bashed for years about IE so it's good PR for them to publish as much news regarding their ongoing development regards IE, and it's good for developers to know where IE stands so they'll be in a better position to decide what features they can use on their websites and/or web applications.


Yeah, they've gotten a lot better at communication in recent years. I think they've realised that while they keep silent and secretive, they're excluded from the communities that form around their more open and more responsive rivals. It's *really* bad for business when that happens.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Trident engine
by Karitku on Thu 4th Mar 2010 08:58 UTC in reply to "Trident engine"
Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

I am wondering how long MS can use the Trident engine that powers IE before running into enough technical limitations that they need a clean break or MASSIVE refactoring and change. It looks like IE 9 is going to be more evolutionary than revolutionary, makes me wonder if 10 is going to be their "let's start over" release.

Sigh always this same "restart" bullshit. Should Linux kernel be restarted, I mean it's based on 40 year old technic! Didn't we have this same conversation over Windows couple of years ago?!? It's pointless, stuff will be rewritten eventually if product is updated. Some products have gone transformation from VB6 to .NET and yet they never were rewritten from scratch, yet they hardly have any original code left.

Reply Score: 2

ROFLMAO!!!
by CaptainN- on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:52 UTC
CaptainN-
Member since:
2005-07-07

Folks will never learn. MS will NOT embrace enough of HTML5 to matter (and what they do embrace will have extensions and bugs). Short memories for the win!

Reply Score: 1

RE: ROFLMAO!!!
by Ford Prefect on Thu 4th Mar 2010 15:02 UTC in reply to "ROFLMAO!!!"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

So true. I love when they always come up with "if Microsoft would..." stories. Dream on, Microsoft fans.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 22:12 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Microsoft will define HTML5.

I know that a majority of developers live on the coattails of Microsoft. If it's not in IE, then it can't go in a site.

Microsoft baking in a ton of new features is going to send a shock up these developer's backsides that will take them years to recover from. They will hide behind IE6, 7 & 8 quoting usage figures as an escape from shaping up.

If Microsoft cock this up, they will do untold harm to the web, they will derail so much progress wrought with hard work by Firefox, Opera and Safari/Chrome.

Microsoft's choice of video codec (or lack thereof) for HTML5 video will decide the HTML5 video / Flash / OGG / H.264 debate.

There is no way I can express just how fundamental to change IE9 will be. It is the ticket developers have been waiting for to move the state of web software forward. Microsoft will make or break HTML5. So much rests on their shoulders. I can only hope the market has beaten them with the cluestick for so many years now, they understand what is required--nothing less than full compliance.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 23:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Microsoft will define HTML5. I know that a majority of developers live on the coattails of Microsoft. If it's not in IE, then it can't go in a site. Microsoft baking in a ton of new features is going to send a shock up these developer's backsides that will take them years to recover from. They will hide behind IE6, 7 & 8 quoting usage figures as an escape from shaping up. If Microsoft cock this up, they will do untold harm to the web, they will derail so much progress wrought with hard work by Firefox, Opera and Safari/Chrome. Microsoft's choice of video codec (or lack thereof) for HTML5 video will decide the HTML5 video / Flash / OGG / H.264 debate. There is no way I can express just how fundamental to change IE9 will be. It is the ticket developers have been waiting for to move the state of web software forward. Microsoft will make or break HTML5. So much rests on their shoulders. I can only hope the market has beaten them with the cluestick for so many years now, they understand what is required--nothing less than full compliance.


I'm thinking that Microsoft is too late. They are just talking about SVG now, over ten years after SVG became the web standard for vector graphics. They still make no mention of compliance and performance for ECMAScript, nor do they mention even DOM2 let alone DOM3.

They have refused to implement these standards many times in the past, even closing off feture requests from their users as "will not implement", and now it appears they are being forced to. They are eating crow, and playing catchup. Their arrogance has caught up to them.

They are so far behind it will take them years to reach parity.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by flanque on Thu 4th Mar 2010 02:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

With that much money, it's never too late.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Thu 4th Mar 2010 03:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

With that much money, it's never too late.


Microsoft don't make money from IE through sales of IE. IE's only real purpose (from a MS financial POV) is to try to lock users in, to make it so that in order to surf the full extent of the web one must use IE. Silverlight is an extension of this ... an attempt to make rich web content available only to users of Microsoft's platform.

To this extent, incompatibility, and non-compliance with web standards are normal fetaures of IE.

It hasn't worked. IE's incompatibility and non-compliance with web standards is driving people away from IE. Even worse, from a Microsoft POV, is that once people wean themselves from IE, they realise that there are alternatives to Microsoft software, and those people find (often to their surprise) that the alternatives are cheaper, have better license terms, faster, more secure and less restrictive than Microsoft's offerings.

People find that they don't need to use Microsoft software at all. They escape from this kind of burden:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9164438/Microsoft_s_security...
http://ostatic.com/blog/improve-internet-health-with-a-microsoft-ta...

(as if there isn't enough Microsoft tax already!)

From a Microsoft POV, that is a disaster for Microsoft (from a user POV it is an enormous relief).

Edited 2010-03-04 03:05 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by flanque on Thu 4th Mar 2010 03:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I was talking about the company as a whole and yes I still believe it's not an issue for them to fix the problems and catch up - they just have to want to.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by r_a_trip on Thu 4th Mar 2010 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

...they just have to want to.

Which they won't. HTML5 is designed to make a standard webpage much more conducive to offer RIA capabilities. HTML5 is a level playing field standard and it could be a direct threat to MS's fat client computing model.

MS wants the world locked in to Silverlight, tied to the win32 API. Windows is the millstone around MS's neck.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by Nelson on Thu 4th Mar 2010 04:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Silverlight is an extension of this ... an attempt to make rich web content available only to users of Microsoft's platform.


Yes, that mean Silverlight vendor lock-in which only works on one operating syste-- wait a minute.. no it doesn't.

From someone who gets paid to develop Silverlight, and is able to compile once, and run it across Windows, OSX, and Linux with nearly identical performance, your claims are complete and utter bullshit.

No proposed webstandard, or combination of any webstandard comes even close to providing anywhere near the productivity that I am able to achieve using Silverlight. On many browsers across many platforms. Nothing.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by MamiyaOtaru on Thu 4th Mar 2010 04:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

too bad I'll never get anything out of any of your sites then

(windows user)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by Nelson on Fri 5th Mar 2010 01:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

No you won't. I do LOB smart clients which work out of the browser and their use is probably an order of magnitude above your pay grade.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Thu 4th Mar 2010 08:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Silverlight is an extension of this ... an attempt to make rich web content available only to users of Microsoft's platform.


Yes, that mean Silverlight vendor lock-in which only works on one operating syste-- wait a minute.. no it doesn't.

From someone who gets paid to develop Silverlight, and is able to compile once, and run it across Windows, OSX, and Linux with nearly identical performance, your claims are complete and utter bullshit.

No proposed webstandard, or combination of any webstandard comes even close to providing anywhere near the productivity that I am able to achieve using Silverlight. On many browsers across many platforms. Nothing.
"

Oooooh, tetchy tetchy.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/silverlight_4_windows_bias/

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/20/2314220/New-Microsoft-Silve...

So much for cross-platform. Microsoft didn't even wait for Silverlight to get a proper foothold (i.e. finish the "embrace") before they started their "extend" phase on this one.

That would be a significant "oopsie", I believe.

Edited 2010-03-04 08:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by vaette on Thu 4th Mar 2010 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

I find those complaints rather weak. Silverlight using Trident on Windows and Webkit on OSX seems like an advantage for OSX if anything. Only having the COM interface on Windows is a bit more damning, but it is hardly the core use-case for Silverlight, and it is not immediately clear if a COM-like model would fit very well on OSX anyway.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by Kroc
by Nelson on Fri 5th Mar 2010 01:44 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Kroc"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I'm not sure if a COM like model fits well on Windows. It's the most obtuse piece of garbage I've ever had the displeasure of interoperating with.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by Nelson on Fri 5th Mar 2010 01:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

COM Automation in Silverlight is limited to Out of Browser applications, which require Full Trust, and are extremely rare in their use. Your run of the mill Silverlight website won't use it.

The most common use case for COM Automation in SL4 would be in-house clients designed for consumption internally.

The WebBrowser complaint is also something which again, requires a full trust OOB application to use. To be honest, you'd be hard pressed to find a scenario where you'd even want to embed a webbrowser inside a Silverlight canvas ontop of another webbrowser.

Anything else? No? Ok.

Find me any combination of open standards which do anything even remotely close to what Silverlight does, and I'll be glad to pick the technologies apart.

I've been following Silverlight since it was a glimmer in the eye of Avalon at PDC03, and I've seen (through various Avalon Alphas and WinFX CTPs) the extreme lengths they went through to try to mesh a bunch of sub-par webstandards together. The result was lacking in so much cohesion that they just scrapped it all.

XAML does what it does better than XUL and HTML
ControlTemplates/Styles do what they do better than CSS
XAML's SVG support is on-par with SVG to the point where the differences are really small.
and of course, the JIT Compiler of the .NET Framework slaps the shit out of the fastest Javascript engine out there.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Fri 5th Mar 2010 04:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

COM Automation in Silverlight is limited to Out of Browser applications, which require Full Trust, and are extremely rare in their use. Your run of the mill Silverlight website won't use it. The most common use case for COM Automation in SL4 would be in-house clients designed for consumption internally. The WebBrowser complaint is also something which again, requires a full trust OOB application to use. To be honest, you'd be hard pressed to find a scenario where you'd even want to embed a webbrowser inside a Silverlight canvas ontop of another webbrowser. Anything else? No?


Actually, yes. Two OSes (Windows and OSX) does NOT qualify as "cross-platform". Sorry. How about the plethora of other platforms which can access the web, hmmmmm?

Ok. Find me any combination of open standards which do anything even remotely close to what Silverlight does, and I'll be glad to pick the technologies apart.


The entire set. Silverlight is just a re-write (in order to obscure) SVG, DOM2/DOM3 and ECMAScript.

I've been following Silverlight since it was a glimmer in the eye of Avalon at PDC03, and I've seen (through various Avalon Alphas and WinFX CTPs) the extreme lengths they went through to try to mesh a bunch of sub-par webstandards together. The result was lacking in so much cohesion that they just scrapped it all. XAML does what it does better than XUL and HTML ControlTemplates/Styles do what they do better than CSS XAML's SVG support is on-par with SVG to the point where the differences are really small. and of course, the JIT Compiler of the .NET Framework slaps the shit out of the fastest Javascript engine out there.


Blah, blah, blah.

Why re-implement SVG? Just do the real thing, then it would be acceptable. Also implement DOM3, CSS3, HTML5, ECMAscript (correctly) with a decent JIT compiler, SMIL, etc. Why scrunge it all up and regurgitate it as Silverlight? What is the point?

If Microsoft want Silverlight/.NET to be a standard, then make it so. It is simple really ... make it so that anyone may implement, no roylaties, no patented proprietary bits (such as multimedia codecs, Winforms, ASP.NET or ADO.NET), no caveats about "non-commercial development" etc, etc. No threats. No talk of any need for "indemnity".

If Microsoft did that, then Silverlight/.NET can become a public-access web standard.

Not otherwise. No way.

People just aren't going to swallow that kind of malarky from Microsoft any more.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Lennie on Thu 4th Mar 2010 21:39 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

When IE9 get's released it will be a year or so after today ? First and for all their will NOT be an IE9 for Windows XP.

If you look at the numbers of people running Windows 7 2/3 came from Vista, not Windows XP. Vista market share is dropping like a brick in comparison to Windows XP.

While Windows XP is still 75% of the OS used for browsing the web (yes, many don't use IE. But just to give you an idea).

So I don't see IE9 making much of a dent.

Sorry. :-(

Reply Score: 2

Comment by mono
by mono on Thu 4th Mar 2010 00:31 UTC
mono
Member since:
2005-10-19

I know they will never do it but I think it would be better to switch to another rendering engine (be it presto or webkit or gecko). I wouldn't say that the Trident engine has limitations or it's obsolete because nobody knows if it has. It's just about that Microsoft could concentrate on other things. I just don't get it why it's important to maintain and keep alive another rendering engine when there are other companies who work their asses off to achieve 101 scores on the acid3 test. They could still call the browser Internet Explorer.
Ok, I know they would break compatibility with a lot of websites but they already did it with IE7 and IE8... They could still keep the old Trident engine for compatibility view...
Well, after all I don't really care because I have to write many crossbrowser compatibility stuff for every browser engines. I don't see why it's useful to have many engines instead of one.

Edited 2010-03-04 00:33 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by mono
by flanque on Thu 4th Mar 2010 02:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by mono"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I don't see why it's useful to have many engines instead of one.

Competition.

Reply Score: 3

Request to all
by ramasubbu_sk on Thu 4th Mar 2010 07:11 UTC
ramasubbu_sk
Member since:
2007-04-05

I would request everyone to have very very low expectation on IE 9. Please don't find yourself in disappointment later.

I also wish IE 9 should be a better browser and should be comparable to other browsers in all aspect.

Lets wait for MIX 2010 to come and then we all can talk about IE9's good & bad.

Reply Score: 1