Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Dec 2018 01:33 UTC
Windows

Well, I sure didn't expect this kind of news to land in the middle of the night.

Microsoft's Edge web browser has seen little success since its debut on Windows 10 back in 2015. Built from the ground up with a new rendering engine known as EdgeHTML, Microsoft Edge was designed to be fast, lightweight, and secure, but launched with a plethora of issues which resulted in users rejecting it early on. Edge has since struggled to gain any traction, thanks to its continued instability and lack of mindshare, from users and web developers.

Because of this, I'm told that Microsoft is throwing in the towel with EdgeHTML and is instead building a new web browser powered by Chromium, a rendering engine first popularized by Google's Chrome browser. Codenamed Anaheim, this new web browser for Windows 10 will replace Edge as the default browser on the platform. It's unknown at this time if Anaheim will use the Edge brand or a new brand, or if the user interface between Edge and Anaheim is different. One thing is for sure, however; EdgeHTML is dead.

I use Edge, but not necessarily because of the rendering engine - I use it because of its proper Windows UI and snappy overall performance. If Microsoft can maintain those strong points while switching to Chromium, that's a plus in my book. It does raise concerns about the further consolidation of the web on Chromium (or Blink, more accurately) and WebKit, but since nobody used or cared about Edge anyway, I doubt this news has any real impact on this specific issue.

Order by: Score:
Standards compliance
by kwan_e on Tue 4th Dec 2018 01:40 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

Microsoft, for whatever reason, just can't seem to take standards compliance seriously. Just look at all the HTML5 sources out there with browser compliance matrices, like MDN.

If there's a major platform browser you can always depend upon not to support a standard feature, it's a Microsoft browser.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Standards compliance
by Lennie on Tue 4th Dec 2018 15:59 UTC in reply to "Standards compliance"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I know people love to complain about Microsoft browsers (I had a lot of things to say about IE), but Edge really did close a large gap after they forked from IE/Trident.

Have a good look at the scores on http://html5test.com/compare/browser/index.html

It's Apple iOS Mobile Safari that lags the most behind. This is a real problem, because other browsers are NOT allowed on iOS to bring their own engine, they have to use the Mobile Safari engine.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Standards compliance
by Odwalla on Tue 4th Dec 2018 16:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Standards compliance"
Odwalla Member since:
2006-02-01

Just looking at PC browsers on that page Edge scores equivalent to Firefox and beats Safari by a good margin. Only Chrome and Opera score higher. But yeah, whatever, Microsoft is a bunch of lazy navel gazers who are going to ruin the web for all of the rest of us. Just like they've supposedly been doing since 1995...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Standards compliance
by daveak on Tue 4th Dec 2018 19:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Standards compliance"
daveak Member since:
2008-12-29

Mobile Safari scores 488 for me, although I have most experimental features turned on. Firefox 60 according to the site, 497. Not that much difference, and you also need to look at what the difference is regarding. Quite a few points can be accounted for by non finalised specifications that will have no impact on 99.99999% of developers / sites.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Standards compliance
by zima on Fri 7th Dec 2018 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Standards compliance"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

You probably overdo the 9s... ;) (I mean, there are probably no more than few dozen millions of web devs; your 9s suggest there is only ~one of them affected ;) )

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Standards compliance
by kwan_e on Tue 4th Dec 2018 21:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Standards compliance"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

You didn't read the actual differences did you?

http://html5test.com/compare/browser/chrome-68/firefox-60/edge-18.h...

There's a separate entry for each different type of input element, but there's one single entry for something like WebGL2, or Web Animations API.

Really? Support for each attribute of an input datetime-local element is as individually on the same level as the entirety of WebGL2? How about one entry for every WebGL2 API function, then we'l talk.

There's other iffy ones like support for proprietary video and audio codecs, which sure enough, only Edge can support. But given I have no trouble with video and audio on all the major video/audio hosting websites, there's something not quite right about that list.

CSS is also barely mentioned for something so integral to HTML5.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Standards compliance
by kwan_e on Wed 5th Dec 2018 23:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Standards compliance"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Apparently there's a person who hates digging into what numbers mean and apparently prefers to take things at face value.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Standards compliance
by zima on Fri 7th Dec 2018 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Standards compliance"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I upvoted your previous post ;) (though I couldn't help but read it in a slightly abrasive tone ;) ...but that's just you ;) ) / so the system mostly works. ;)

Edited 2018-12-07 00:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Standards compliance
by kwan_e on Fri 7th Dec 2018 00:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Standards compliance"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

(though I couldn't help but read it in a slightly abrasive tone ;) ...but that's just you ;) )


On it's own, I don't think it would read abrasively. I think it's just my apparent reputation at the moment ;)

Reply Score: 2

I still won't use it
by WorknMan on Tue 4th Dec 2018 01:45 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

IE6... never forget. Karma's a bitch ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE: I still won't use it
by grat on Tue 4th Dec 2018 19:37 UTC in reply to "I still won't use it"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

You know you're holding a grudge on a 17 year old product?

That's like 5 generations of computer tech.

Don't forget to yell at those kids on your lawn.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: I still won't use it
by WorknMan on Wed 5th Dec 2018 00:37 UTC in reply to "RE: I still won't use it"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

You know you're holding a grudge on a 17 year old product?


Yeah, well... like so many other people in the tech industry, that POS product caused me a lot of misery over a lot of years. Not only from a support standpoint, but also from having to use it at work for so long, because most of my employer's back-end tools depended on it.

I'll be dammed if I'm going to take part in giving MS another chance to try and break the web again. Some sins can never be forgiven.

Reply Score: 1

whelp that sucks!
by xristos on Tue 4th Dec 2018 03:38 UTC
xristos
Member since:
2014-04-25

1) Edge has been rock solid for me for quite some time.

Sure IE was a mess, but Edge is not IE.I realy get confused when some people hate on Edge.


2) Im not sure what's better: innovation through competition? or innovation through collaboration by having all dev teams working in one browser source only?

Either way,if this news is true, it makes me sad. I realy liked where the Edge developers were taking things.

Reply Score: 6

v RE: whelp that sucks!
by The1stImmortal on Tue 4th Dec 2018 07:31 UTC in reply to "whelp that sucks!"
RE[2]: whelp that sucks!
by avgalen on Tue 4th Dec 2018 09:45 UTC in reply to "RE: whelp that sucks!"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

"Sure IE was a mess, but Edge is not IE.I realy get confused when some people hate on Edge.

Edge is Trident, with normal evolution added, a bunch of legacy compatibility stuff stripped out, and a Metro based UI.
So yeah it's basically IE with some optimizations and a facelift.
"
"some optimizations, normal evolution"...That is not how I would quantify the difference between IE11 (Trident) and the latest Edge (EdgeHTML). I love the reading mode from Edge (still miss that on mobile/Android) and standards-compliance, speed and "it just works" are all so far above IE that it doesn't feel like just a bit of progress. And of course "no activeX" is pretty much the sole important differentiator for businesses.
All that said, the important difference between Edge and Chrome is not the rendering engine, but the synching functionality. I like having 2 different "personalities", 1 for work and 1 for my private life. So as long as reading mode remains I am fine with changing the rendering engine in the background.

I am also torn which is better: Having everyone working on 1 codebase or having different teams competing on implementation/progression of the standards. This move by Microsoft would fit their "open everything"-mantra but it would clash with all the effort that they put into Edge in recent years. I wonder how this will affect developers that used the COM-Interface/Web-Control with EdgeHTML

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: whelp that sucks!
by tidux on Tue 4th Dec 2018 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: whelp that sucks!"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

Reading mode existed on Firefox years before Emosoft Edgy had it, including on mobile.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: whelp that sucks!
by avgalen on Wed 5th Dec 2018 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: whelp that sucks!"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Sure, and Chrome has a reading mode as well, but none of them are very good. The one from Edge on Windows 10 Mobile worked great

Reply Score: 3

RE: whelp that sucks!
by A.Dev on Tue 4th Dec 2018 10:03 UTC in reply to "whelp that sucks!"
A.Dev Member since:
2017-10-10

> I realy get confused when some people hate on Edge.

Look at caniuse - here is one picked at random
https://caniuse.com/#feat=custom-elementsv1

Note how Edge support is red.

That's why people hate it - not complicated.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: whelp that sucks!
by avgalen on Tue 4th Dec 2018 15:28 UTC in reply to "RE: whelp that sucks!"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Look at caniuse - here is one picked at random
https://caniuse.com/#feat=custom-elementsv1

Note how Edge support is red. That's why people hate it - not complicated.

I doubt you picked that one at random. I clicked the 5 "Most searched features" (Flexbox,CSS Grid,SVG,CSS transforms, CSS Filter Effects) and 4 out of 5 are fully supported with the 5th having partial support. As a webdeveloper I don't hate on Edge for standard-support. I hate on Edge for being "yet another browser to test"

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: whelp that sucks!
by A.Dev on Tue 4th Dec 2018 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: whelp that sucks!"
A.Dev Member since:
2017-10-10

Your right in that I didn't develop a number to URl mapping algorithm and seed it with random noise.

I did however think of something I wanted to use that's relatively new and yep - first one I chose Edge didn't support.

I have to say only fully supporting 80% of the top 5 is pretty much supporting my view.... they are behind on stuff - and that's probably why they are switching.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: whelp that sucks!
by avgalen on Tue 4th Dec 2018 17:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: whelp that sucks!"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Your right in that I didn't develop a number to URl mapping algorithm and seed it with random noise.

I did however think of something I wanted to use that's relatively new and yep - first one I chose Edge didn't support.

I have to say only fully supporting 80% of the top 5 is pretty much supporting my view.... they are behind on stuff - and that's probably why they are switching.

What you did is exactly the opposite of random. You choose something relatively new and something that you wanted to use. Just for comparison, it got support from Chrom on May 29 and from FireFox on October 23. At this moment it has 83% full support, so if you think that is good enough then Edges 80% should be good enough as well right?

Edge is behind Chrome in almost all areas, there is no denying this. If you select "all 466 items" it seems IE has 45%, Edge has about 65%, Safari 75%, FireFox 80% and Chrome 85%. Of course these items are not comparable at all and reaching 100% would require 'reintroducing' things like MATHML.
However, when I look in real life I never encounter a broken website in Edge anymore.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: whelp that sucks!
by A.Dev on Wed 5th Dec 2018 10:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: whelp that sucks!"
A.Dev Member since:
2017-10-10

> However, when I look in real life I never encounter a broken website in Edge anymore.

I think that's more to do with prevalence of javascript shims for new standards, than Edge support per se.

I agree I don't often see broken sites - but I do often see much poorer performing sites.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by theuserbl
by theuserbl on Tue 4th Dec 2018 03:43 UTC
theuserbl
Member since:
2006-01-10

Possibly thats the reason, why Microsoft ports Chromium to ARM Win10, because Chromius is the future of Win10.

http://www.osnews.com/story/30886/Google_Microsoft_working_on_Chrom...

Now Microsoft can use its own Engine (a fork of Chromium) for GitHub Electron. :-)

The next interesting point is, that Mozilla/Firefox will have at last an own W3C standard supported engine, which is not based on KHTML/WebKit/Chromium.

Edited 2018-12-04 03:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by theuserbl
by Lennie on Tue 4th Dec 2018 16:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by theuserbl"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

The next interesting point is, that Mozilla/Firefox will have at last an own W3C standard supported engine, which is not based on KHTML/WebKit/Chromium.


This is crazy though, I'm not sure this is healthy.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by theuserbl
by zima on Fri 7th Dec 2018 00:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by theuserbl"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

This is crazy though, I'm not sure this is healthy.

Yeah... I kinda wish the situation with browsers was like in much of the CIS in the past, each of the four engines having roughly equal share (just look at that http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/russian-federati... ). But now also Russia is dominated by Chrome... :/

Reply Score: 3

what a horrible mess ð
by missingxtension on Tue 4th Dec 2018 04:02 UTC
missingxtension
Member since:
2011-01-14

I don't mean to hate on google, but chromium is the new IE. It is now so targeted with all the dns hijackers, ad serving add-ons, and the same general problems I would have to fix in internet explorer.
There are even uncloseable popups now. That used to be IE, let's not forget IE only websites.
Thank you Microsoft or regressing us to the dark ages....

Reply Score: 7

cosmotic Member since:
2010-01-31

Personally, I have more issues with Safari than I do with Chrome, Firefox, IE, or Edge.

Reply Score: 4

LaceySnr Member since:
2009-09-28

As a developer, I find Safari on iOS is the new IE 6.

Reply Score: 6

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

29th May 2010: "Will Apple Embrace The Web? No." https://www.osnews.com/story/23378/Will_Apple_Embrace_the_Web_No_

I do so hope that I will be wrong, but my gut feeling says that Safari will be the next IE6.

Reply Score: 4

avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Yes, Safari was turning into IE6. Barely getting changed with every release but needed to be supported because of their marketshare.
However the last releases are bigger improvements again and their marketshare seems to decline so they are now more like Edge: You don't have to support them, but doing so isn't hard anymore ;)

Reply Score: 3

avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

IE6 was a problem because it was flat out broken in support for standards that existed at the time it was released. Safari is not and was not in that situation. You may not be able to use some of the fancy experimental stuff that Google are forcing down peoples throats but that doesn't put it anywhere close to IE6.

That is because in the IE6 times there was a fixed standard while currently there is a moving standard. Apple introduced Safari as by far the best mobile browsing platform of the time because they thought the web would be the platform on mobile. A year later the appstore came but Safari had a giant advantage on everything else and Apple kept improving it rapidly for a few years keeping Safari ahead of the game. A few years ago they started to go their own way (media-codecs, pwa-support, touch) and they had changed from "ahead" to "behind" and I started to get worried. But lately they are implementing regular features again, got onboard the PWA-train, etc

Reply Score: 4

daveak Member since:
2008-12-29

Then you clearly never had to work with IE6.

Reply Score: 1

sibips Member since:
2018-12-04

Funny story - my company recently changed the web site we use for timesheet completion. It seems that our department is an old-fashioned one, because we all tried using Firefox and failed. Of course, next we tried IE, that's what you do in a Microsoft environment. Edge didn't work either.

Tickets were opened, and the answer was "Use Chrome". (I know Chrome is not Chromium), but it seems there are developers out there who think only one browser exists.

Reply Score: 3

dpJudas Member since:
2009-12-10

Tickets were opened, and the answer was "Use Chrome". (I know Chrome is not Chromium), but it seems there are developers out there who think only one browser exists.

That's how it used to be with IE. What we had was a short period in time where web developers couldn't get away with ignoring browsers and now we are back where we started.

Expect Firefox to fall soon as it will now always the one "rendering it wrong" because nobody reads the standards but rather just tests it in 1-2 browsers. If they all agree with Chrome (because they are using Blink down under), then that becomes the de-facto standard.

With Firefox fallen the standards will no longer have any meaning. Next step is to stop keeping them up to date..

Reply Score: 4

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

sibips,

Funny story - my company recently changed the web site we use for timesheet completion. It seems that our department is an old-fashioned one, because we all tried using Firefox and failed. Of course, next we tried IE, that's what you do in a Microsoft environment. Edge didn't work either.

Tickets were opened, and the answer was "Use Chrome". (I know Chrome is not Chromium), but it seems there are developers out there who think only one browser exists.


Keep opening tickets until the web developers who programmed it get their sh*t strait. It's buggy, don't let them use excuses. Yea, I know things don't always work this way in the real world, but as a webdeveloper myself, I work hard to accommodate user requirements and I hate when other webdevelopers take the lazy way out and blame the users because of their own failures. Web dev in this day and age should support multi-browsers as a basic standard.

/gripe

Reply Score: 3

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

This is not a good trend. :-(

Reply Score: 3

jgfenix Member since:
2006-05-25

For an internal application it's reasonable to target only 1 browser.

Reply Score: 1

daveak Member since:
2008-12-29

For an internal application it is reasonable to do the job right so it works in any browser, quite handy when the IT department come along and upgrade all the boxes and the browsers. Targeting a specific browser is asking for pain in the future.

Reply Score: 2

Two reasons to use Chrome over Edge
by cosmotic on Tue 4th Dec 2018 04:10 UTC
cosmotic
Member since:
2010-01-31

1. Edge's UI is plagued by the modern Windows L&F; It's flat, featureless, and annoying

2. It doesn't sync across platforms like Chrome does

Reply Score: 2

Geft Member since:
2018-12-03

1. Edge's UI is plagued by the modern Windows L&F; It's flat, featureless, and annoying

Yes! I can't imagine how someone could consider Edge's UI good.

Reply Score: 1

avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

1. Edge's UI is plagued by the modern Windows L&F; It's flat, featureless, and annoying

2. It doesn't sync across platforms like Chrome does

In general I like Edge's UI, but I do agree it could use a few more features for me personally (a power-user). However I think that for the general public it is great.
And it does sync accross platforms since about a year

Reply Score: 3

Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

1. Edge's UI is plagued by the modern Windows L&F; It's flat, featureless, and annoying

2. It doesn't sync across platforms like Chrome does


That latter is a good thing. It can't be done without giving all your data including all your passwords essentially unencrypted to Google..

Reply Score: 2

tonymus Member since:
2006-01-15

Edge syncs with iOS and Android...

Reply Score: 2

Google's grip on the Internet
by shotsman on Tue 4th Dec 2018 07:22 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

just got a whole lot worse.

I would never have thought that MS would have thrown in the towel like this. Edge was supposed to be the way forward for browsers.
So, we may get less MS Data slurping but more Google spying on users. Frying pan into fire perhaps?

Thankfully, as I don't use Windows in anger any longer and especially IE/Edge it does not matter.

No google accounts here and I won't use Chrome under any circumstances.
Refuseniks of the world unite!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Google's grip on the Internet
by avgalen on Tue 4th Dec 2018 09:52 UTC in reply to "Google's grip on the Internet"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

just got a whole lot worse.

I would never have thought that MS would have thrown in the towel like this. Edge was supposed to be the way forward for browsers.
So, we may get less MS Data slurping but more Google spying on users. Frying pan into fire perhaps?

Thankfully, as I don't use Windows in anger any longer and especially IE/Edge it does not matter.

No google accounts here and I won't use Chrome under any circumstances.
Refuseniks of the world unite!

We are talking about the rendering engine here. This has nothing to do with Google accounts, spying, data-slurping, etc

Reply Score: 3

BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

Except that Chromium adds the features which support additional identfiers and fingerprinting. Also, Chromium phones home to Google with seemingly no option to disable.

I should add that Firefox needs substantial modifications in about:config to have it simply connect to your chosen site but it is at least possible if you care about such things.

Reply Score: 2

avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Except that Chromium adds the features which support additional identfiers and fingerprinting. Also, Chromium phones home to Google with seemingly no option to disable.

I should add that Firefox needs substantial modifications in about:config to have it simply connect to your chosen site but it is at least possible if you care about such things.

I don't think they really mean that Edge is going to be replaced with Chromium. They are talking about EdgeHTML and that means they should have said Blink. Rendering engines aren't the part where you worry about "additional identifiers" or "fingerprinting", those are browser features (and preventing fingerprinting is extremly hard: https://github.com/brave/browser-laptop/wiki/Fingerprinting-Protecti...)

Reply Score: 3

shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

I don't trust Google as far as I could throw Jeff Bezos. I avoid them as much as I can and will not use any of their software or services if I can help it.
They want every bit of data that can get on you in order to improve the data that they sell to the advertisers.
They probably know more about most people than they do themselves.
Just my opinon though.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Google's grip on the Internet
by Lobotomik on Tue 4th Dec 2018 10:11 UTC in reply to "Google's grip on the Internet"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

They are developing a new browser based on Chromium. That is by no means the same as adopting Chrome.

The way it looks, they are dropping EdgeHTML for Blink, and the Chakra JavaScript engine for V8, but they will be wrapped in a Microsoft application (think Opera), and will be fully integrated with Microsoft stuff. I'd be surprised if it turned out to look much different from Edge from a user point of view.

Blink is Google's HTML engine, a branch of Webkit, which is Apple's branch of KHTML, and is used by Chromium, Chrome and Opera, among others. V8 is used by Chromium, Chrome, Opera and, very importantly, NodeJS. Dropping EdgeHTML and Chakra will save MS a lot of heavy lifting, without penalty. Whether that will give them more market penetration remains to be seen (I don't see why it would), but it will be far cheaper for them to maintain.

Reply Score: 3

Servers & LTS
by The1stImmortal on Tue 4th Dec 2018 07:34 UTC
The1stImmortal
Member since:
2005-10-20

Whatever they do, they really need to have a modern browser available on Server and desktop LTS editions.
MS's refusal to support anything Metro on those platforms holds back adoption in the enterprise.
Since MS has mostly lost the school market, and Google owns the consumer market (for browsers) that's the only place left for them to grow their share.

It still seems absurd to fire up Server 2019, browse to an MS site in IE, and have it tell you to use Edge. Which can't (without license- and security-breaking hacks) be run on Server.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Servers & LTS
by avgalen on Tue 4th Dec 2018 09:54 UTC in reply to "Servers & LTS"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

I agree and normally I would just respond "you aren't supposed to do any browsing on a server OS anyway", but since I am now typing this on a Citrix-on-Server2016 session that would be hypocritical and wrong

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Servers & LTS
by The1stImmortal on Tue 4th Dec 2018 18:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Servers & LTS"
The1stImmortal Member since:
2005-10-20

I agree and normally I would just respond "you aren't supposed to do any browsing on a server OS anyway", but since I am now typing this on a Citrix-on-Server2016 session that would be hypocritical and wrong


Yeap - MS seems to have pretty much given up on the RDS model. An increasing number of modern products just don't work on it, and since 2012 or 2016 the scalability is woeful. There's weird behaviours even in the core OS - firewall rule database cruft issues, per-user services etc. They just don't care.

Which is fine, but when you do VDI and use the Windows 10 LTSB/LTSC versions, it has exactly the same issue.

Getting the distinct impression MS is working towards a future where the only places that run enterprise systems are Microsoft (Azure/365) and their pet QMTH partners.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Servers & LTS
by avgalen on Wed 5th Dec 2018 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Servers & LTS"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

I actually got the impression that after a lot of bad communication at the beginning of the year in the beta/preview there was a lot of actual work/improvements done on Server2019/10-1809. But this is going way too far off-topic and not my expertise so I am going to stop here

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Servers & LTS
by The1stImmortal on Wed 5th Dec 2018 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Servers & LTS"
The1stImmortal Member since:
2005-10-20

I actually got the impression that after a lot of bad communication at the beginning of the year in the beta/preview there was a lot of actual work/improvements done on Server2019/10-1809.

Oh yeah it's a nice update in general. More a 2016R2 but that matches their normal cadence. It's just the browser still stuck in 2014 or so is a bit worrying.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Servers & LTS
by avgalen on Thu 6th Dec 2018 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Servers & LTS"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

I wonder why Server has different versioning.
Server 2016 is basically Windows 10 "1607"
Server 2019 is basically Windows 10 "1809"

Windows 10 is on a perpetual "free" upgrade cycle, Server isn't. Of course in reality nobody buys Server 2016 without Software Assurance or another way of "free" upgrading

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Servers & LTS
by The1stImmortal on Fri 7th Dec 2018 06:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Servers & LTS"
The1stImmortal Member since:
2005-10-20

I wonder why Server has different versioning.
Server 2016 is basically Windows 10 "1607"
Server 2019 is basically Windows 10 "1809"

There's a six-monthly rapid-release version of server versioned by release date (like 1709 and 1803 etc) too, it's just server-core only and you can't crossgrade between the "big versions" and the six-month releases.


Windows 10 is on a perpetual "free" upgrade cycle, Server isn't. Of course in reality nobody buys Server 2016 without Software Assurance or another way of "free" upgrading

haha.
No, plenty of folks out there pretty much get OEM server with the hardware and leave it at that (and ugprade with the hardware refresh) or get volume licensed Server once every two versions or so (eg, 2008r2 2012r2, 2019).
For a lot of people SA is a really hard sell tbh.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Servers & LTS
by avgalen on Fri 7th Dec 2018 09:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Servers & LTS"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

"I wonder why Server has different versioning.
Server 2016 is basically Windows 10 "1607"
Server 2019 is basically Windows 10 "1809"

There's a six-monthly rapid-release version of server versioned by release date (like 1709 and 1803 etc) too, it's just server-core only and you can't crossgrade between the "big versions" and the six-month releases.
"
That last part was the point I was trying to make. Windows 10 doesn't have "big versions". Everything is a six-month release (and free)
For some reason 1809 became a "big version" for Server. This seemed more related to the "R2-like extra software" than it seems related to anything special in the actual OS.


"Windows 10 is on a perpetual "free" upgrade cycle, Server isn't. Of course in reality nobody buys Server 2016 without Software Assurance or another way of "free" upgrading

haha.
No, plenty of folks out there pretty much get OEM server with the hardware and leave it at that (and ugprade with the hardware refresh) or get volume licensed Server once every two versions or so (eg, 2008r2 2012r2, 2019).
For a lot of people SA is a really hard sell tbh.
"
Thanks for putting my feet back in reality. I completely forgot about people buying server-hardware with OEM-Server. I have only dealt with Server 2016 on bigger/virtualized environments and on Azure. I haven't dealt with Essentials since Small-Business-Server basically died.

To get a bit back on topic of "abandoning RDS" this article points out both the weirdness of the Server 2019 RTM, the lack of OEM-2019-hardware and the improvements in RDS-2019: https://redmondmag.com/articles/2018/10/03/windows-server-2019-ga.as...

Reply Score: 2

KHTML
by evert on Tue 4th Dec 2018 09:58 UTC
evert
Member since:
2005-07-06

From the KDE project... KHTML, forked by Apple (Webkit), forked by Google (Blink), now forked by Microsoft.

Let's wait till Microsoft uses the Linux kernel :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHTML

Reply Score: 1

RE: KHTML
by nicubunu on Tue 4th Dec 2018 10:22 UTC in reply to "KHTML"
nicubunu Member since:
2014-01-08

Where it says Microsoft is forking it? I saw a mention about them contributing upstream.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: KHTML
by Carewolf on Tue 4th Dec 2018 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE: KHTML"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

Where it says Microsoft is forking it? I saw a mention about them contributing upstream.


It is impossible to use for another browser without forking. Everything based on Chromium is a fork. Upstream cares only about Chrome, and is indifferent at best at other needs, and doesn't care deleting or messing up parts they don't currently need.

Making a Chromium based project means forking Chromium. That doesn't mean you can't contribute upstream and merge both ways, but it is just necessary with the way the project is run.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: KHTML
by avgalen on Tue 4th Dec 2018 15:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: KHTML"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Making a Chromium based project means forking Chromium.
I don't know if that is true, but it surely doesn't mean you need to fork Blink

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: KHTML
by Carewolf on Tue 4th Dec 2018 21:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: KHTML"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

"Making a Chromium based project means forking Chromium.
I don't know if that is true, but it surely doesn't mean you need to fork Blink "
Blink is part of Chromium

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: KHTML
by avgalen on Wed 5th Dec 2018 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: KHTML"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

"[q]Making a Chromium based project means forking Chromium.
I don't know if that is true, but it surely doesn't mean you need to fork Blink "
Blink is part of Chromium [/q]
No, Chromium has a dependency on Blink. You can surely make a new browser based on the Blink rendering engine without using all of Chromium and without forking Blink

Reply Score: 2

RE: KHTML
by The123king on Tue 4th Dec 2018 11:52 UTC in reply to "KHTML"
The123king Member since:
2009-05-28
Good news
by A.Dev on Tue 4th Dec 2018 10:25 UTC
A.Dev
Member since:
2017-10-10

Edge is about to get a whole lot better.

Edge was losing the engine race - behind on features, standards and performance. Bane of my life at work where IT insist on it being the default browser 'because it's microsoft'.

There own interface over the Blink engine will improve the browser significantly.

For all those people worried about Google spying and supremacy - www.brave.com - a browser obsessed about privacy - uses the Blink engine.

Think of it like a car - there is the engine and the body - the 'chrome' . That's why chrome is called Chrome - as it was started as a different shell over the then Apple dominated webkit engine.

Blink, while Google led in terms of engineering effort, is a collaborative project - lots of companies already involved.

Reply Score: 1

Wow the history have turned a full circle.
by dsmogor on Tue 4th Dec 2018 10:55 UTC
dsmogor
Member since:
2005-09-01

I'm old so I still remember the beginnings of KHTML engine which started with ambitions to provide open source alternative that could break Trident's engine stronghold.
At those dark times of rendering bugs and web littered with ActiveX controls it seemed like a pipe dream, everybody thought that the open web is lost for good.
Now MS is adapting it (after Apple and Google took it further). We'll if you tend towards pessimism just recall this story.

Edited 2018-12-04 10:56 UTC

Reply Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

the beginnings of KHTML engine which started with ambitions to provide open source alternative that could break Trident's engine stronghold.

I don't know, KHTML was more for having an engine nicely integrated with KDE; where Trident of course isn't available anyway...

Reply Score: 2

v Comment by Geft
by Geft on Tue 4th Dec 2018 11:08 UTC
RE: Comment by Geft
by The123king on Tue 4th Dec 2018 12:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by Geft"
The123king Member since:
2009-05-28

Chromium IS an open-source project lead by Google.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Geft
by Geft on Tue 4th Dec 2018 13:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Geft"
Geft Member since:
2018-12-03

Well that's news to me... Since when is it like that?

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by Geft
by The123king on Tue 4th Dec 2018 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Geft"
The123king Member since:
2009-05-28

Well that's news to me... Since when is it like that?

Since Chromium was released as open-source software by Google in 2008

https://blog.chromium.org/2008/10/google-chrome-chromium-and-google....

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Geft
by Geft on Wed 5th Dec 2018 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Geft"
Geft Member since:
2018-12-03

That means I've been wrong about Chromium all this time.

Reply Score: 2

This is BAD
by The123king on Tue 4th Dec 2018 12:11 UTC
The123king
Member since:
2009-05-28

I know there's a lot of people going "Waheyyy!", because microsoft are axing Edge, but this isn't a positive thing in the grand scheme of things.

Back in the IE6 days, nearly every browser was IE6, with nearly 95% market share at it's height. Despite this incredible monopoly over browser share that microsoft had, we still had plenty of competing rendering engines. We had Firefox (Gecko), Safari (Webkit), Opera (Presto), as well as multiple smaller browsers with their own rendering engines, such as KHTML, NetPositive, etc .

Now we're in an era where there's a near monopoly on rendering engines. With Chrome being based on a fork of webkit (blink), Opera using a fork of blink, and Microsoft now also using Blink, we're in an era where there's really only 3 rendering engines now, and 2 of those (Webkit and blink) are nearly brothers. The only true non-related renderer is Firefox's Gecko.

So surely this is a good thing? If everyone uses the same renderer, the web will look much more consistent right? Yes, that's true. But consistency and standards compliance are not the same thing. In the age of IE6, the web was very consistent, as every website was written for the quirks in Trident, but now we're going to see an era where websites are designed for Chrome, because every browser uses the Blink/webkit rendering engine.

This change isn't a positive one, oh no. Quite the opposite

Reply Score: 5

RE: This is BAD
by Alfman on Tue 4th Dec 2018 14:41 UTC in reply to "This is BAD"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

The123king,

This change isn't a positive one, oh no. Quite the opposite.


This was my opinion too. I don't want google to win the browser war any more than I wanted microsoft to win it. The ideal scenario (to me) is a competitive market with a multitude of viable players. For better or worse though, it seems that markets naturally tend to converge on a dominant one or two players at the top that completely trounce the rest of the market due to market advantages in other lines of business.

As the years pass, a smaller number of increasingly powerful corporations end up owning the majority stake in just about everything.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: This is BAD
by Lennie on Tue 4th Dec 2018 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE: This is BAD"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

The irony is, Microsoft created the situation again just like the time of IE6.

Reply Score: 1

Why not just use Chrome?
by cmost on Tue 4th Dec 2018 12:35 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

I don't understand why Microsoft has to reinvent the wheel. They tried that with Edge and it was a disaster. Why not just program a pop-up window that asks users which browser they'd like to use as the default (i.e., Chrome, Firefox, Opera, etc.) and then just install and configure it?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Why not just use Chrome?
by BushLin on Tue 4th Dec 2018 13:34 UTC in reply to "Why not just use Chrome?"
BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

The EU forced them to do that some years ago and they intentionally broke the interface so the file open dialogue appeared behind the window. They never fixed that bug.

I don't see them providing such a feature of their own accord.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why not just use Chrome?
by ultrabill on Tue 4th Dec 2018 15:06 UTC in reply to "Why not just use Chrome?"
ultrabill Member since:
2008-08-07

I don't understand why Microsoft has to reinvent the wheel. (...)
Do you think the same about Gnome or KDE: "don't try to reinvent the wheel, guys, use Windows".

Seriously, the fact that Blink is number one today doesn't mean MS can't try to make is own engine. Just remember KTHML was built when IE was at the current place of Chrome ;) Competition, you know...

Reply Score: 2

v Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Tue 4th Dec 2018 13:56 UTC
RE: Comment by jigzat
by The123king on Tue 4th Dec 2018 14:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
The123king Member since:
2009-05-28

Standalone Office will be first.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by ultrabill on Tue 4th Dec 2018 15:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
ultrabill Member since:
2008-08-07

Office is a cash cow.
The next product to die would be Hololens, or all the VR stuff in Windows.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Tue 4th Dec 2018 15:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jigzat"
RE[4]: Comment by jigzat
by Adurbe on Tue 4th Dec 2018 17:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by jigzat"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd suggest you look again rather than guessing.
The company's biggest business segment, "More Personal Computing" -- which includes Windows, devices, gaming and search ads -- produced $9.92 billion in revenue, up 13 percent year over year.
Gaming was a massive driver of that revenue growth.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by jigzat
by The123king on Wed 5th Dec 2018 08:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jigzat"
The123king Member since:
2009-05-28

It'll be more of a cash cow if you have to pay a yearly subscription to it.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by avgalen on Tue 4th Dec 2018 16:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Microsoft killed the Zune, Windows Phone, Paint, currently uses Linux for Azure, and now basically killed Edge, what's next? Windows?

Standalone Office will be first.

Zune, Windows Phone, Paint and Edge*...Now there is a bunch of basically unrelated products that never had much marketshare
Standalone Office has a giant marketshare and is what runs or supports the heart of businesses everywhere. Thinking that it will "get killed first" is ridiculous and both 2019 and 2022 versions are already announced

*Ignoring your Linux for Azure because Azure is booming and runs on "Windows", provides Windows and there is no way that Azure or Windows is going to be "killed next". That you can also run Linux on top of Azure is great, but in no way any indication that Windows is going to be killed. Marketshare is another reason

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Tue 4th Dec 2018 17:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jigzat"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

I don't know for sure, I read it here https://www.wired.com/2015/09/microsoft-using-linux-run-cloud/

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by jigzat
by Drumhellar on Tue 4th Dec 2018 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by jigzat"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Yes. They're using Linux to power network hardware, such as switches and routers.

Something Windows has never been designed for.

Putting Linux in a place Windows has never gone should not be used to suggest they're replacing Windows with Linux.

That's just stupid.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by jigzat
by avgalen on Wed 5th Dec 2018 15:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by jigzat"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Yes. They're using Linux to power network hardware, such as switches and routers.

Something Windows has never been designed for.

Putting Linux in a place Windows has never gone should not be used to suggest they're replacing Windows with Linux.

That's just stupid.

Exactly. But I am quite sure that jigzat just remembered something vaguely from a few years ago, saved that into his memory as "Azure runs on Linux" and now found a similar article based on the headline. Anyone reading the content of that link should understand that "Whoa. Microsoft is using Linux to run it's cloud" has just been clickbaited

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by jigzat
by The123king on Wed 5th Dec 2018 08:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jigzat"
The123king Member since:
2009-05-28


Standalone Office has a giant marketshare and is what runs or supports the heart of businesses everywhere. Thinking that it will "get killed first" is ridiculous and both 2019 and 2022 versions are already announced


If Adobe can move the Creative Suite to a subscription-only model, and with Microsoft already laying the foundations for a cloud-based office suite with O365, i can easily see standalone office being discontinued in the next 5 years

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Comment by jigzat
by avgalen on Wed 5th Dec 2018 15:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by jigzat"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Standalone Office has been a subscription model for a decade for Businesses. It is called Software Assurance.
With Office 365 another type of subscription model, with cloud-servers, became available but the standalone programs are a major component of Office 365. Being a subscription model is about licensing, it has nothing to do with being browser-based or standalone. Creative Suite is still a bunch of standalone programs as well, just in recent years online storage/sharing has become a big component.

Microsoft is working very hard to add apps and browser versions in addition to improving their standalone programs. 5 years into the future is way too early for such a product to get discontinued and it surely isn't going to be "the next thing that will get killed. Of course mobile working is going to become more and more the norm but we are still far away from permanently saying goodbye

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by jigzat
by zima on Fri 7th Dec 2018 00:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jigzat"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Zune, Windows Phone, Paint and Edge*...Now there is a bunch of basically unrelated products that never had much marketshare

Hm, Paint was probably, in some ways, one of most popular graphics apps of all time...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by jigzat
by The1stImmortal on Tue 4th Dec 2018 18:06 UTC in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
The1stImmortal Member since:
2005-10-20

Microsoft killed the Zune, Windows Phone, Paint, currently uses Linux for Azure, and now basically killed Edge, what's next? Windows?

Well, Skype for Business/Lync/Office Communicator is being replaced by Teams.
Teams is... MS's attempt to be like Slack or Discord, only worse (*everything* is an embedded iframe). It's a strange move from an IM and VoIP platform.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by jigzat
by Drumhellar on Tue 4th Dec 2018 22:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

currently uses Linux for Azure


Linux plays a small (but important) part of the Azure stack, but you're inclusion along with Zune and Windows Phone suggests Azure is almost totally Linux.

Stop doing that. It isn't true.

Reply Score: 4

Sets?
by avgalen on Tue 4th Dec 2018 16:50 UTC
avgalen
Member since:
2010-09-23

Does anyone have any idea if Sets (tabbed/grouped applications) is going to be affected by this? Edge is at the heart of Sets and replacing the rendering engine with Blink or most of the browser with Chromium seems like a way to cause delays far beyond 19H1

Reply Score: 3

Comment by motang
by motang on Tue 4th Dec 2018 19:15 UTC
motang
Member since:
2008-03-27

Can't beat them, join them!!

Reply Score: 2