Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 22nd Oct 2010 22:11 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Internet Explorer "There, I said it. Microsoft has been bombarding the media with claims about how much better IE9 is than all the other browsers, more HTML5 and CSS3 compliant than any other browser that ever existing and ever will. It's the only browser that passes all the tests they made up. And, Microsoft has finally implemented the CSS3 selectors that were implemented by other browsers back in, what? 2003? Because Microsoft has updated IE to support CSS3 selectors and rounded corners, they want us to believe that somehow IE9 magically supports the whole slew of CSS3 visual styling. I'm afraid it doesn't. As a matter of fact, IE9's support for CSS3 visual styling is so poor that the results are shocking."
Thread beginning with comment 446798
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
SumGuy
Member since:
2010-10-24

Web surfing is a declining activity and web-browsers are going to be relegated to the scrap heap in a few years.

I'm reading this article on a P4 machine with 512 mb ram running Windows 98se enhanced with KernelEx. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.20 (but with user-agent change to make it look like some 3.x version of FF) and I have flash 10.x installed.

What does that tell you? It tells me that nothing really needs to change.

Reply Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Not sure I understand your point. That current websites work on very legacy software ?

Reply Parent Score: 2

SumGuy Member since:
2010-10-24

> Not sure I understand your point. That current websites
> work on very legacy software ?

Yes, that's correct. Websites like youtube that look at your user-agent and throw up bogus messages about incompatibility do it for no reason (well, at least when it comes to older versions of FF). I change my user-agent and the nag screens go away, and the page renders just fine, I can watch the video's just fine, etc.

I know IE6 was a joke for at least the past 5 years and it really does botch the rendering of a lot of web content, but a lot of people running win-2k or XP-sp0/sp1/sp2 are still using it.

I don't know why Microsoft plows so much money into IE. They originally did it back in the mid-1990's to kill Netscape (which was a hollow victory for them) but when you look at the millions they've spent developing and bug-fixing IE and the issues they created by integrating IE into the very core of Windoze, what did all that get them but a lot of bad PR and bad optics from the POV of platform security, the MAC guy vs PC-guy commercials, etc. How has or how will Microsoft gain back even a fraction of what IE has cost them over the past 15 years?

But the bigger picture is that as a share of total web traffic, web-browsing has now fallen behind netflix, and as dedicated apps replace browsers on hand-held devices, and as more people connect network appliances to their TV's leaving the desktop PC in the basement to gather dust, the HTTP browser will join the usenet client on the garbage heap of discarded software.

Edited 2010-10-24 15:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

What does that tell you? It tells me that nothing really needs to change.


It tells me that Firefox 2 can handle HTML 4.01.

Reply Parent Score: 2