Linked by Kroc Camen on Sat 26th Jun 2010 10:48 UTC
Internet Explorer Microsoft have released IE9 Platform Preview 3, an application that gives developers access to the IE9 rendering engine (it's not a full browser). In this update they have added hardware accelerated HTML5 Video, Canvas, Fonts (using WOFF) and big improvements in JavaScript with ES5, DOM Traversal, L2 and L3 events and 83/100 Acid3 score. It sits between Firefox and Chrome 6 on JavaScript speed, but outperforms every browser in real tests.
Order by: Score:
Real tests
by geleto on Sat 26th Jun 2010 11:40 UTC
geleto
Member since:
2005-07-06

It sits between Firefox and Chrome 6 on JavaScript speed, but outperforms every browser in real tests.

Are there any real tests to back this up? Like startup times, loading and displaying complex pages, working with some heavy websites. I did some searching and only found synthetic tests, showing that IE9 has finally caught up with other browsers in JavaScript speed and that it is very fast when drawing scaled bitmaps using the GPU.

Edited 2010-06-26 11:42 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Real tests
by Kroc on Sat 26th Jun 2010 11:51 UTC in reply to "Real tests"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Microsoft are focusing on more than just raw JS execution speed as most of the browser’s time is spent outside JS doing DOM and layout. In this respect, IE9 is faster as everything is hardware accelerated right down to the text.

IE9 is neither released, nor finished but it shows an approach that is ahead of the other vendors. I doubt it will last though, hardware acceleration is planned to arrive with the other browsers who will still ship first.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Real tests
by Neolander on Sat 26th Jun 2010 13:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Real tests"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Why should one need hardware acceleration in order to display text and pictures, which the current Web essentially is from a display point of view ? I know that current code is unoptimized, but I didn't know that it was *that* bad...

Edited 2010-06-26 13:22 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Real tests
by Kroc on Sat 26th Jun 2010 13:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Real tests"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It’s not about _need_, it’s about availability. If a GPU is there and it’s “only 14x faster” than the CPU, then why not use it, for everything; even text—which is a whole lot more taxing than most give it credit.

Reply Score: 9

v RE[4]: Real tests
by lemur2 on Sat 26th Jun 2010 13:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Real tests"
RE[5]: Real tests
by sukru on Sat 26th Jun 2010 14:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Real tests"
sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

Yes, that's called Aero and Windows Presentation Framework.

Seriously, even after all these anti-trust sanctions, people still think MS is using hidden APIs for non-core OS functionality. The APIs are openly documented, they - legally - cannot use hidden ones.

Reply Score: 10

v RE[6]: Real tests
by lemur2 on Sat 26th Jun 2010 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Real tests"
RE[7]: Real tests
by Nelson on Sat 26th Jun 2010 16:38 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Real tests"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Why doesn't Microsoft just write the browser for them? Seriously? A system-wide canvas library? What on earth?

Microsoft does the best that they could, Direct2D is a relatively simple API (though still a COM API, but ugh), but simple nonetheless.

HW Accelerated canvas drawing is simply a consequence of the entire renderer being written in Direct2D.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Real tests
by Moochman on Sat 26th Jun 2010 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Real tests"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem is that Windows APIs are unique to Windows, and they don't use a common API (such as something similar to Canvas) that could accelerate all applications.

Therefore, each cross-platform application on Windows is required to write its own hardware-acceleration for rendering built in to the application, rather than it being available as a system-wide library to call.


There is a system-wide library to call, it's just not the same one that's available on Mac or on Linux, each of which have their own (multiple, in fact) system-wide libraries to call.

It's really unclear what you are asking for that isn't already present in Windows, and what you think Windows lacks that is somehow magically present elsewhere. Cross-platform apps that use normal widgets can use cross-platform toolkits like Qt... which already offers native hardware acceleration on a number of platforms. Or they can just use OpenGL directly.....

The reason Firefox and apps written in other toolkits don't already support hardware-accelerated rendering is as I understand it because they use low-level, CPU-based (not GPU-based) calls to figure out how to render stuff. There's really not a whole lot that can be done without some sort of rewrite.

Edited 2010-06-26 17:09 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Real tests
by dpJudas on Sat 26th Jun 2010 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Real tests"
dpJudas Member since:
2009-12-10

What a silly conspiracy theory.

The hyped hardware acceleration in IE9 is nothing more than IE changing from using the GDI scanline renderer to the Direct2D renderer they added in Windows 7. This is a public API and so any competitor can also use this for their rendering if they so desire.

Just like any other modern windowing system, Windows Vista and Windows 7 stores each window in a texture on the GPU, regardless of what technology you use for the rendering. The windowing system then offers a series of different technologies to fill that texture with contents. In Windows those are GDI, DirectDraw, Direct3D, Direct2D and OpenGL.

What we are talking about here is simply a new interface that is more compatible with the way a modern GPU works. The original GDI graphics API makes some assumptions about the graphics card that isn't true anymore and therefore virtually everything in GDI has been running in software. Microsoft gave up on accelerating it and instead wrote Direct2D and now are bragging how fast IE gets if they use that instead.

If you wonder what is wrong with GDI, then its small subtle things like being able to render directly to the screen (which doesn't make sense when your display window manager does that) and the entire way bitmaps were designed.

Reply Score: 8

v RE[6]: Real tests
by lemur2 on Sat 26th Jun 2010 14:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Real tests"
RE[7]: Real tests
by Tuishimi on Sat 26th Jun 2010 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Real tests"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Then you design YOUR UI with wrapper code that is able to reference two different underlying libraries and rely on build scripts to know which to compile into the application. There are ways to do this on the developers' end and once the work is done it's done.

Hopefully you will have designed it with the future in mind and the ability to add to the API when needed and not to have to rewrite large chunks as things change underneath.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Real tests
by Moochman on Sat 26th Jun 2010 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Real tests"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

OpenGL on Windows is crippleware.


Where do you get that from? There are plenty of Windows games and 3D software packages that run on OpenGL, and I've never heard of any issues, at least not any that were actual Windows issues and not just related to the drivers....

Edited 2010-06-26 17:16 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[7]: Real tests
by siride on Sat 26th Jun 2010 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Real tests"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

I'm sorry, but what the hell *are* you ranting about? You seem to be upset that Microsoft has APIs at all, as if this is some cardinal sin. Yes, it's true that if you use an API to write your program, you will be stuck with that API if you are not careful when constructing your program. This is not news and it's just as true on Linux, OS X, BeOS, OpenBSD, etc. as it is on Windows. If you use Xlib, then you will be stuck with Xlib. Who cares?

And also, why should MS write all of their programs to run on every GD operating system out there? It's not in their interest and honestly, it's a waste of time.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Real tests
by Nelson on Sat 26th Jun 2010 16:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Real tests"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Why not simply use the GPU to accelerate the whole desktop, even text?


Windows comes dangerously close. At least on Windows7 GDI is more hardware accelerated than before, but not all the way. There is a real tradeoff between HW accelerating such an old API, and maintaining a decent memory footprint.


This way, all applications will equally benefit from accelerated performance, not just the browser ...

Oh, wait a minute, perhaps I see. Even your commercial competitor's application would benefit if you used the GPU to accelerate the whole desktop.


However, just the API has landed to do this on Windows Vista and Windows 7. It's called Direct2D.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Real tests
by kaiwai on Sun 27th Jun 2010 10:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Real tests"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

However, just the API has landed to do this on Windows Vista and Windows 7. It's called Direct2D.


If I remember reading an article by a Microsoft developer - one of the questions I asked was regarding whether Microsoft could/would port GDI to Direct2D/DirectWrite so that GDI ran on top and merely relayed GDI calls through to Direct2D/DirectWrite. The reasoning he provided pretty much came down to two reasons; firstly they had limited time and would have loved to do it. Secondly the other problem is that it would have been very complex and very messy when one considers all the possibly variables one has to take into account.

I hope that with Windows 8 that full Direct2D and DirectWrite acceleration will come to the desktop but I have a feeling that that the grandparent (lemur2) to this thread is simply grasping at straws to justify his hate of Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[7]: Real tests
by lemur2 on Sun 27th Jun 2010 10:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Real tests"
v RE[5]: Real tests
by dylansmrjones on Sun 27th Jun 2010 02:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Real tests"
RE[4]: Real tests
by Neolander on Sat 26th Jun 2010 14:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Real tests"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Okay. It's just that when I hear about browser hardware acceleration, I see in the future Canvas-powered websites which use the GPU for stupid things, just like Flash currently does. I see laptop battery life continue to go down. I see a Vista effect where developers require ultra high power from the user's machine because their own machine is powerful. I see users which don't have fast 3D acceleration being penalized because they use open-source drivers or AMD's crappy proprietary drivers, or just because their old laptop includes a crappy intel GMA chipset.

If you make the feature available, you can safely assume that people will use it. Hardware acceleration in browsers is just like composited desktops : it's fine as long as it's optional and people can survive without it. Sadly, the web is not a desktop, where disabling compositing will just make windows look ugly. If developers require hardware acceleration and it's not available, the site won't work. That's the kind of things which I'm fearing.

Edited 2010-06-26 14:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Real tests
by WorknMan on Sat 26th Jun 2010 15:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Real tests"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Okay. It's just that when I hear about browser hardware acceleration, I see in the future Canvas-powered websites which use the GPU for stupid things, just like Flash currently does.


If we're lucky, somebody will create a 'Canvasblock' extension, so we can only turn it on only when it's needed, which, if it's like flash, will be about 2% of the instances where it's actually used.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Real tests
by reconciliation on Mon 28th Jun 2010 12:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Real tests"
reconciliation Member since:
2009-07-02

-

Edited 2010-06-28 12:36 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Real tests
by zdzichu on Sat 26th Jun 2010 15:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Real tests"
zdzichu Member since:
2006-11-07

Using GPU accel isn't straight performance win: http://blogs.gnome.org/otte/2010/06/26/fun-with-benchmarks/

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Real tests
by kaiwai on Sun 27th Jun 2010 10:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Real tests"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Using GPU accel isn't straight performance win: http://blogs.gnome.org/otte/2010/06/26/fun-with-benchmarks/


Maybe that might explain why Microsoft noted that there are some things that 2D hardware acceleration improves in some areas and makes no difference in others. I think they did a benchmark after re-enabling hardware acceleration of GDI and it wasn't an across the board speed increase.

I guess as the blog you pointed out notes, hardware acceleration isn't the panacea to cure all of life's problems which probably explains why Apple was so reluctant to provide a interface for hardware accelerated decoding - I've run Flash 10.1 Gala and the hardware offloading of decoding has had negligible impact on over all CPU utilisation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Real tests
by rdean400 on Sat 26th Jun 2010 20:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Real tests"
rdean400 Member since:
2006-10-18

If you look at the HTML behind Web 2.0 applications, you'll find that they're not simple anymore, and the complexity can bog down a software-based renderer. Being able to offload the layout processing to the GPU helps a lot.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Real tests
by Linuxhippy on Sat 26th Jun 2010 22:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Real tests"
Linuxhippy Member since:
2010-06-26

FireFox has hw accel on Linux since Version 2.0

Reply Score: 2

wow
by bjesus on Sat 26th Jun 2010 11:48 UTC
bjesus
Member since:
2010-03-29

it sounds almost like a real web browser!

Reply Score: 1

RE: wow
by Kroc on Sat 26th Jun 2010 13:41 UTC in reply to "wow"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It’s not a browser yet (IE9pp doesn’t even have a back button), it’s just a Trident instance. Microsoft still have every capability to totally screw up IE9 with the GUI. Almost nothing could be worse than IE8, but we will see…

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: wow
by Tuishimi on Sat 26th Jun 2010 16:37 UTC in reply to "RE: wow"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes... let's hope they stay focused on end features and functionality and also manage to get this thing completed in some reasonable amount of time.

I haven't used IE regularly(except for unit testing at work, or in the past where sites were designed for IE) for at least a decade. Maybe MS can do something right here that fits nicely with Win 7... or they can drag their feet or even cancel the project... that wouldn't surprise me either.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: wow
by Phloptical on Sat 26th Jun 2010 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE: wow"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

It’s not a browser yet (IE9pp doesn’t even have a back button), it’s just a Trident instance. Microsoft still have every capability to totally screw up IE9 with the GUI. Almost nothing could be worse than IE8, but we will see…


How is the UI of IE8 that much different from IE7? How many more ways are there to present Tabs, the address bar, and Navigational buttons?

Reply Score: 2

Finally
by Hiawatha on Sat 26th Jun 2010 11:49 UTC
Hiawatha
Member since:
2005-08-29

It took them 9 versions, but FINALLY it's starting to look like they're able to build a decent browser...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Finally
by AmigaRobbo on Sun 27th Jun 2010 11:29 UTC in reply to "Finally"
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

MS5 was at the time, by far the best browser for Windows, especially compared to new version of Netscape that had just escaped from some mental institution.

Which is why they stuck with it for far too many years.

Reply Score: 2

IE9: Getting there
by lemur2 on Sat 26th Jun 2010 13:28 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

83/100 Acid3 score, that is significantly better than any previous version of IE. IE might slowly be getting there, and that is very welcome news.

For comparison purposes: I'm using Mozilla Firefox 3.7a6pre on Kubuntu right now, here is a screenshot I took of the previous version:

http://ourlan.homelinux.net/qdig/?Qwd=./KDE4_desktop&Qif=minefield_...

This alpha version of Firefox includes Webm support, and crash protection, but it does not yet include hardware-accelerated Cairo (for Canvas) rendering:
http://blog.mozilla.com/joe/2010/05/25/hardware-accelerating-firefo...

nor does it yet include JaegerMonkey for javascript speed-up:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/JaegerMonkey

So the development of IE9 is apparently ahead of Firefox 4 in some areas, and behind in others (it is still a little way behind in standards support), but nevertheless IE9 is showing a lot of promise indeed. This is a very good thing, IMO.

Google have a WebM codec for Directshow, but AFAIK in order for IE9 to be able to make use of WebM video there will have to be a codec for Media Foundation. I'd expect that Google are working on that right now.

Reply Score: 3

RE: IE9: Getting there
by Tuishimi on Sat 26th Jun 2010 16:41 UTC in reply to "IE9: Getting there"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I tried using 3.7a but the 64-bit version for Windows is still buggy. ;) Screen goes black when you hover over certain parts of pages. Otherwise it looks nice (FF overall, that is).

HW acceleration doesn't work in Chrome (or if it does, very badly). Not that I/we NEED it yet. Anyway, when FF stabilizes a little more I will check it out again, it is looking pretty decent.

Reply Score: 2

RE: IE9: Getting there
by Nelson on Sat 26th Jun 2010 16:47 UTC in reply to "IE9: Getting there"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Difference between doing standards correctly, versus just doing standards.

Check the CSS tests on all of the major browsers, it offers a much clearer picture of the actual situation.

WebKit (the darling of the rendering engines) is particularly notorious for buggy or lacking implementations.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: IE9: Getting there
by siimo on Tue 29th Jun 2010 06:41 UTC in reply to "RE: IE9: Getting there"
siimo Member since:
2006-06-22
RE: IE9: Getting there
by Eddyspeeder on Sat 26th Jun 2010 17:22 UTC in reply to "IE9: Getting there"
Eddyspeeder Member since:
2006-05-10

I'm actually really happy to see Microsoft having improved in this area so much. It would be nice if it is a precursor to their entire organizational mindset.

And no, there is no sarcasm in this. I'm genuinely glad.

Reply Score: 1

RE: IE9: Getting there
by Fergy on Mon 28th Jun 2010 05:48 UTC in reply to "IE9: Getting there"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

So the development of IE9 is apparently ahead of Firefox 4 in some areas, and behind in others (it is still a little way behind in standards support), but nevertheless IE9 is showing a lot of promise indeed. This is a very good thing, IMO.

Firefox 3.7a5 already supports Direct2D on windows.
gfx.font_rendering.directwrite.enabled;true
mozilla.widget.render-mode;6
And you should stick to 32bit versions for now because the 64bit versions haven't had enough development time.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: IE9: Getting there
by WereCatf on Mon 28th Jun 2010 09:40 UTC in reply to "RE: IE9: Getting there"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Firefox 3.7a5 already supports Direct2D on windows.

Any idea if they are going to support HW acceleration under Linux (or other OpenGL-supported platforms) and if so, when? Or will this again be a Windows-only feature?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: IE9: Getting there
by lemur2 on Mon 28th Jun 2010 10:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: IE9: Getting there"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Firefox 3.7a5 already supports Direct2D on windows.

Any idea if they are going to support HW acceleration under Linux (or other OpenGL-supported platforms) and if so, when? Or will this again be a Windows-only feature?


it is not crystal-clear from this post, but it seems to indicate that hardware acceleration for Firefox is ordinarily via openGL, and optionally via Direct2D can be enabled instead for those people on Windows whose system's support for openGL is abysmal.

http://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/04/mozilla-developer-preview-4-ready-...

Although Windows is being implemented first, support for OSX and Linux is promised to follow soon, and since it primarily uses OpenGL this shouldn't be that difficult to get working on all platforms.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: IE9: Getting there
by Fergy on Mon 28th Jun 2010 11:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: IE9: Getting there"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Any idea if they are going to support HW acceleration under Linux (or other OpenGL-supported platforms) and if so, when? Or will this again be a Windows-only feature?

Firefox's developers really like the Direct2D api because it is so easy to use. They are also working on a opengl version for other platforms such as linux. Ati seems to have ported Direct2D functionality to their linux driver so that might also be a possibility. Firefox wants to provide the same experience on every platform even smartphones.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: IE9: Getting there
by lemur2 on Mon 28th Jun 2010 13:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: IE9: Getting there"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Any idea if they are going to support HW acceleration under Linux (or other OpenGL-supported platforms) and if so, when? Or will this again be a Windows-only feature?

Firefox's developers really like the Direct2D api because it is so easy to use.
"

Says who?

They are also working on a opengl version for other platforms such as linux.


The OpenGL functionality was first. Lately the Firefox developers have added the yet-to-be-fully-debugged option of using Direct2D instead (this is not enabled by default) only to the Windows version of Firefox because OpenGL performance is abysmal on many Windows systems compared to what it should be.

Ati seems to have ported Direct2D functionality to their linux driver so that might also be a possibility.


http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Nzk5MQ

ATI has enabled their closed source Linux driver to use some of the same internal code for 2D acceleration as their Windows Direct2D driver. The Linux driver APIs remain unaffected, and there is no actual Direct2D API implemented in Linux (other than a partially-working dll in Wine).

With some luck, this improvement may eventually reliably bring ATI's closed driver Linux 2D performance up to almost the level of 2D performance of the ATI OSS drivers. There have been some positive reports based upon the vast feedback in forum threads, while others are experiencing problems like the driver not even working.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_new_2d&num=1
Since the release of the Catalyst 10.6 Linux driver, we have been running a new set of tests on their new ATI 2D acceleration architecture, but the results are not what you may expect when compared to the open-source ATI Linux driver.


Firefox wants to provide the same experience on every platform even smartphones.


Which Firefox does via using the OpenGL graphics API, since almost all smartphones don't run Windows, and the Direct2D API is Windows-only.

Edited 2010-06-28 13:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v Does anyone....
by chris_l on Sat 26th Jun 2010 15:26 UTC
RE: Does anyone....
by Tuishimi on Sat 26th Jun 2010 16:44 UTC in reply to "Does anyone...."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

It's just a simple app to make use of the rendering engine. It is the rendering engine we are talking about here - not the the functionality of the application as a whole.

You CAN navigate to other sites - there is a primitive pop up text box where you can enter URLs. But this isn't meant to be a complete and useful application, it is meant to showcase the most important part of the browser.

Reply Score: 2

Not to be persnickety
by tbutler on Sat 26th Jun 2010 16:07 UTC
tbutler
Member since:
2005-07-06

But I always have meant to ask. Why do you talk of companies like Microsoft and Apple using plural verbs instead of the standard (in English, that is) of singular verb? E.g. "Microsoft has..."

It always sounds odd when I see "Microsoft have" or "Apple were" here on OSNews. :-)

Edited 2010-06-26 16:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not to be persnickety
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 26th Jun 2010 16:38 UTC in reply to "Not to be persnickety"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I would think t3h int4rweb would know by now that there are two main branches of English today (en-gb and en-us).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not to be persnickety
by Tuishimi on Sat 26th Jun 2010 16:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Not to be persnickety"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

And everyone knows that GB-ers drive their cars on the wrong side of the road, too. ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Not to be persnickety
by tbutler on Sat 26th Jun 2010 19:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Not to be persnickety"
tbutler Member since:
2005-07-06

It is just an odd notation when referring to things as impersonal as large corporations. The singular collective usage seems to be more frequent than plural collective in most British books and publications I read. More interestingly, I've noticed OSNews will sometimes vary its usage within a given article, which makes it stand out more.

Typically a collective plural verb seems to be best applied when trying to emphasize the individuals within the collective.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not to be persnickety
by nt_jerkface on Sun 27th Jun 2010 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Not to be persnickety"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Classic British English or some new bastardized form?

Try finding an old British headline that reads Germany have invaded Poland.

Single organizations use the singular form.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not to be persnickety
by Eddyspeeder on Sat 26th Jun 2010 17:15 UTC in reply to "Not to be persnickety"
Eddyspeeder Member since:
2006-05-10

The use of "Microsoft have" rather than "Microsoft has" is because of the way collective nouns are treated. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differenc...

The logic is that you wouldn't refer to Microsoft saying, "He has released IE9PP3." Instead, you would say, "They have released IE9PP3." The British take it one step further. They stick to the plural sense at all time, out of consistency:
"[The people who develop IE] have released IE9PP3."
"[They] have released IE9PP3."
"[Microsoft] have released IE9PP3."

Or in short, every time you refer to something that describes several people, even when the noun is singular (band, corporation, team, gang, fanclub, OSNews), you can treat it as plural. So, OSNews have done well. Kroc has done well.

______________
EDIT: I accidentally wrote "He have released IE9PP3." in the example line. So much for confusion! Haha.

Edited 2010-06-26 17:17 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Not to be persnickety
by tbutler on Sat 26th Jun 2010 22:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Not to be persnickety"
tbutler Member since:
2005-07-06

The neuter form is one of the strange parts of English. I suspect "they" is often used since most people seem to prefer it to "it" or the "generic masculine." Hence, people will speak of a singular person using "they" if they do not wish to specify a gender -- even though that is incorrect.

Probably the best usage would be "Microsoft has announced... It will make the updates available..."

Interestingly, surveying the BBC, they are inconsistent in usage. I found some variation even within a single piece. Sloppy.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Not to be persnickety
by Eddyspeeder on Sun 27th Jun 2010 11:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not to be persnickety"
Eddyspeeder Member since:
2006-05-10

I do see your point. "Microsoft Corporation" is a single legal entity or juridical individual. So in that context, I think it is even better to refer to it in a singular sense.

It is these types of ambiguities that have warranted the use of the singular form, which is also a form of consistency. The rule of thumb I use myself is: "if I would replace the noun with a description of what it conveys, is the description singular or plural?"
Example:
"[The legal entity] has issued more shares."
"Microsoft has issued more shares." (singular)
"[The group of IE devs] have released IE9PP3."
"Microsoft have released IE9PP3." (plural)

The use of a singular sense has even expanded to plural nouns, such as "data", the plural form of "datum". Merriam-Webster provide a clear explanation with "usage": http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/data

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not to be persnickety
by nt_jerkface on Sun 27th Jun 2010 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Not to be persnickety"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Or in short, every time you refer to something that describes several people, even when the noun is singular (band, corporation, team, gang, fanclub, OSNews), you can treat it as plural. So, OSNews have done well. Kroc has done well.

OSNews is a single organization and should be treated as such.

OSNews has done well this year.

Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Not to be persnickety
by Eddyspeeder on Sun 27th Jun 2010 21:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not to be persnickety"
Eddyspeeder Member since:
2006-05-10

Dude, you're missing the entire point!

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Not to be persnickety
by nt_jerkface on Tue 29th Jun 2010 04:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not to be persnickety"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

No you're missing an English lesson.

Single entities always use the singular form.

No sentence should begin with Microsoft have.

Edited 2010-06-29 04:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Not to be persnickety
by Eddyspeeder on Tue 29th Jun 2010 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not to be persnickety"
Eddyspeeder Member since:
2006-05-10

So you're actually saying Kroc needs a lesson in English, and I should be in the same class?

Wow! Amazing.

Reply Score: 1

ndrw
Member since:
2009-06-30

"Windows Internet Explorer Platform Preview Setup does not support any operating system earlier than Windows Vista SP2."

So much for the preview. For some XP/IE6 users that could be the first IE release worth upgrading to.

Reply Score: 0

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

10 year old operating system. There's more than IE that needs upgrading.

Reply Score: 4

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

10 year old operating system


Still for sale until October this year. *

* no really, we mean it this time!

Reply Score: 2

ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

It's only 2 years old if you count SP3 and 6 years old if SP2 (a major rework). It works very well and upgrade is not an option for many reasons. Sorry, XP is here to stay.

The problem is IE6, which is still hugely popular in some countries or organizations and its quirks are still shaping the web. I hoped IE9 would nudge at least some of IE6 users to use a standard compliant browser. Apparently that wasn't the goal for Microsoft (not really a surprise, why to fight a won war if there are challenges elsewhere).

Reply Score: 1

Curious
by Nelson on Sat 26th Jun 2010 16:50 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

I'm curious to hear if they've fixed your previous grievances with the IE9 PP1/2, Kroc.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Curious
by Kroc on Sat 26th Jun 2010 16:59 UTC in reply to "Curious"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Yes and no. My website still doesn’t work, but it has progressed. According to the HTML5 spec, the <html>, <head> and <body> tags are optional, and the <body> should be implied when the browser hits a tag that isn’t specific to <head>; IE doesn’t do this right, and in pp3 it does it, but incorrectly puts the HTML5 <header> into the <head> and not the <body>.

Before, I was not convinced they were serious about standards, especially since their announcement about H.264 was so vile (the wording was dishonest to the last period), but this new preview shows firm, measurable commitment to HTML5 and standards. The H.264 thing is a whole ’other battle that goes beyond the scope of just the web and I don’t see Microsoft moving away from H.264 any more than Apple would. For now, WebM will be available for use if installed by the user, and that will be increasingly likely given Google/YouTube.

I’ve been using HTML5 since 2008 and I’ve been advocating to people to get learning it _now_, because by the time IE9 comes, those developers that have sat around waiting for IE will already be left in the dust by developers like me who have been making the most of HTML5 for years already in better browsers. Microsoft will have a struggle getting comfortable IE developers to get a clue.

I firmly believe that HTML5 will be the new base standard by which things get done on the web and IE9 could therefore be a runaway hit.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Curious
by Tuishimi on Sat 26th Jun 2010 18:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Curious"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't really like that aspect of the spec. I prefer it to be done explicitly. :/

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Curious
by Kroc on Sat 26th Jun 2010 20:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Curious"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Do you complain that the image tag allows multiple codecs? If it stuck with one when it was invented, then we’d all still be using XBMs for images.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Curious
by Tuishimi on Sat 26th Jun 2010 20:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Curious"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

No, just not specifying <body> and <html>. That sort of thing. I can't help it, I am a programmer and I like to be explicit. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Curious
by Kroc on Sat 26th Jun 2010 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Curious"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

HTML itself is a simplified form of SGML. *shrug* I’m just pedantic by leaving them out, I doubt most developers will.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Curious
by Tuishimi on Sun 27th Jun 2010 06:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Curious"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I am not sure I understand your reply. Pedantic?

In the general world of development, I know that few developers document, design, write to save memory, write to garner speed through efficiency, etc. It irks me that no one seems to care. All the memory, fast chips, the fancy interpreters and byte compilers, etc., seem to have made everyone sort of soft.

Sorry, not trying to poke at you. It's just one of those things with me... like when someone touches my screen.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Curious
by Kroc on Sun 27th Jun 2010 09:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Curious"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Pedant: A person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.


Only I would be concerned about an optional choice buried within the HTML5 spec that only IE doesn’t support.

Reply Score: 1

Posted via IE9 preview
by Tuishimi on Sat 26th Jun 2010 18:26 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

:P

Just thought I'd be a geek and post a comment using IE9. It works, anyway.

Reply Score: 3

3rd party tests
by Zolookas on Sat 26th Jun 2010 21:27 UTC
Zolookas
Member since:
2006-03-01

IE9 is looking great using Microsoft tests, but 3rd party tests at http://www.html5test.com/ tell a different story. Currently IE9 scores 84+1 points in that test while other browsers get at least twice as much points.

Reply Score: 2

RE: 3rd party tests
by daveak on Sun 27th Jun 2010 11:05 UTC in reply to "3rd party tests"
daveak Member since:
2008-12-29

I'm going to defend IE a little bit here I must be ill.

iPad Safari: 127 + 7
iOS 4 Safari: 185 + 7
Firefox 3.6.3: 139 + 4 (may not be latest I rarely run it so it may not have updated yet)
Opera 10.52: 129 + 4
Safari 5: 208 + 10

So out of those browsers it is only the latest versions of Safari (I don't have chrome installed) that are more than 2* what IE gets. Yes I should be trying out nightly builds of everything but I'm using what is directly at hand.

Edited 2010-06-27 11:07 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Linuxhippy
Member since:
2010-06-26

What seems to be a great archievement, FireFox does on Linux since Version 2.0 (Oct. 2010):

http://linuxhippy.blogspot.com/2010/06/ie9-to-be-gpu-accalerated-fi...

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Funny thing ;)

I get 1 FPS with 4 satellites using Google Chrome 5.0.375.70 on Windows Server 2008. With Firefox 3.6.4 on Windows I get 11-13 FPS. Looks like the hardware acceleration in Windows is rather spotty.

Reply Score: 1

Hmm ...
by kristoph on Sun 27th Jun 2010 23:16 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

The amount of work presented here (and the manner in which it is presented) shows a firm commitment by Microsoft to participate in the web in a way that makes developer’s lives easier and allows for all new innovations in the native web. (H.264 aside, mind). As mentioned before, this is in stark contrast to Apple, and the Microsoft of the IE6 years.

Could you explain why you say this?

AFAIK Safari 5 (and WebKit in general) is the most ACID conformant browser. Which, is why - one would imagine - WebKit has been adopted by Google, RIM, and Nokia.

]{

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hmm ...
by smitty on Mon 28th Jun 2010 01:56 UTC in reply to "Hmm ..."
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

AFAIK Safari 5 (and WebKit in general) is the most ACID conformant browser. Which, is why - one would imagine - WebKit has been adopted by Google, RIM, and Nokia.


I don't think they care much at all about being ACID compliant. They chose WebKit because it's fast, and therefore well suited to be run on phones and other low power devices, and because the codebase is by far the cleanest, easiest to understand, and easiest to integrate into their own products of the main browser engines.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hmm ...
by Neolander on Mon 28th Jun 2010 08:01 UTC in reply to "Hmm ..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

The amount of work presented here (and the manner in which it is presented) shows a firm commitment by Microsoft to participate in the web in a way that makes developer’s lives easier and allows for all new innovations in the native web. (H.264 aside, mind). As mentioned before, this is in stark contrast to Apple, and the Microsoft of the IE6 years.

Could you explain why you say this?

AFAIK Safari 5 (and WebKit in general) is the most ACID conformant browser. Which, is why - one would imagine - WebKit has been adopted by Google, RIM, and Nokia.

]{

True, but Apple also favors proprietary standards like H.264 and -webkit tags. Just like Microsoft did with IE in the old days : embrace (existing web standards), extend (with proprietary tags and ActiveX, unfair tactics to crush competition), extinguish...

Edited 2010-06-28 08:02 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hmm ...
by arpan on Mon 28th Jun 2010 10:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm ..."
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

A browser prefix is the correct way to introduce new proposed features into CSS.

The browser prefix is a way to test the implementation practically, to see if it fulfills the need it was created for. For example, Webkit & Firefox (Gecko) implement background gradients with different syntax. I think it was first proposed and implemented by the webkit team, but the Firefox team decided that they preferred to implement it in a slightly different and simpler way.

After this is done and they get feedback, they discuss and decide which is the best implementation, and once it it finalized the prefix is removed.

Which is what was done in the latest webkit version, where the -wekit- prefix is no longer necessary to use border radius.

The prefix is used so that it is clear that this is not the final version, and to use with care.

BTW, just so you know, all the rendering engines have a prefix not just webkit.

Webkit: -webkit-
Gecko: -moz-
Opera: -o-

Reply Score: 2

Windows phone 7
by arpan on Mon 28th Jun 2010 10:26 UTC
arpan
Member since:
2006-07-30

One more incentive that MS has for making sure IE9 is fast and compatible with modern web standards is their phone OS.

At least in the beginning, for their OS to be successful, it will need to be able to work with current mobile sites. And all the best mobile sites have been designed to work with iPhones & Android devices. If their browser fails here, it could hinder their new platform severely. All current smart phones are using webkit (iPhone, Android, WebOS, Blackberry, Nokia, Samsung Bada etc.) So they need something that works atleast as well as webkit.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Windows phone 7
by siimo on Tue 29th Jun 2010 06:45 UTC in reply to "Windows phone 7"
siimo Member since:
2006-06-22

Don't mean to burst your bubble but I read somewhere that WP7 will have a variant of the IE7 rendering engine.

Link: http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-phone-7-browser-is-based-on-inte...

But yeah maybe future version of WP may benefit from all this.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Windows phone 7
by arpan on Tue 29th Jun 2010 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows phone 7"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Yeah I read about that somewhere, but I don't think it's been confirmed yet.

But it just makes no sense to me. Why go to all this trouble to prepare IE9, and then ship Windows Phone 7 a month or two early and not include IE9.

IE7 is slow, and non compliant, and will get loads of bad reviews. If MS is stupid enough to release Windows Phone 7 with an ancient browser, I'm pretty sure they will get a lot of bad reviews, and they will deserve each one.

I'm definitely not looking forward to start debugging even mobile browers for IE bugs :-(

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Windows phone 7
by arpan on Tue 29th Jun 2010 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows phone 7"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

One more thing. Right now web designers & developers need to spend time fixing bugs in IE7 because it has such a large share.

But I can't see that happening for mobile sites, where the good mobile browsers (webkit & opera) are already compliant and have a majority of the share.

The result will be that users browsing from IE7 on WinPhone7 will see a large majority of mobile sites broken, and they will rightly blame MS for that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Windows phone 7
by n4cer on Wed 30th Jun 2010 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows phone 7"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah I read about that somewhere, but I don't think it's been confirmed yet. But it just makes no sense to me. Why go to all this trouble to prepare IE9, and then ship Windows Phone 7 a month or two early and not include IE9. IE7 is slow, and non compliant, and will get loads of bad reviews. If MS is stupid enough to release Windows Phone 7 with an ancient browser, I'm pretty sure they will get a lot of bad reviews, and they will deserve each one. I'm definitely not looking forward to start debugging even mobile browers for IE bugs :-(



The latest news is that IE 9 will enter beta in August. Windows Phone 7 is supposed to be shipping in October. They simply won't have stable IE 9 code ready in time for Windows Phone 7's launch. That aside, they do plan to ship regular updates to the base platform just as they've done with Zune, so they're likely to update the browser probably within a few months of IE9's desktop release (i.e., however long it takes the mobile team to port and test the code following the desktop release).

The initial version of IE for Windows Phone 7 is a mix of 7's rendering engine and some CSS/Javascript enhancements from 8.

Some info at the links below:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff462082(v=VS.92).aspx (webkit info on this page is outdated, see the blog)

http://live.visitmix.com/MIX10/Sessions/CL23 (this session basically mentions XHTML 1.0/XHTML-MP/HTML 4.01/ES3/DOM 1.0 / CSS 2.1)

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/iemobile/

Reply Score: 2

Comment by ssa2204
by ssa2204 on Tue 29th Jun 2010 01:01 UTC
ssa2204
Member since:
2006-04-22

I think the real question on everyone's mind is when will we get 3D porn through a browser?

Reply Score: 2