Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 15th Mar 2011 18:17 UTC, submitted by gogothebee
Internet Explorer Yes, yes, yes - that's what you get for releasing Internet Explorer 9 in the middle of the night, Microsoft! A post on OSNews that's late! I'm sure that'll teach you. Anywho, as you may have noticed, Microsoft is back in the browser game - Internet Explorer 9 has been released.
Thread beginning with comment 466255
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Not going back
by lucas_maximus on Tue 15th Mar 2011 20:05 UTC in reply to "Not going back"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

As for IE 9 not being available on XP. It just hurts their market share for IE 9. Eventually people will move Windows 7 as they buy new PC's, but many of them will familiarize themselves with some other browsers.


No it doesn't, most people don't know what a browser is and will use whatever is on their computer, which in a few months time will be IE9 ... since the browser is half decent they will not change.

Most large companies only support IE6 on Windows XP since their intranet apps will be tied to it, others will move to IE9 with their desktop refresh (like ours is doing).

Pretty much all computers come with Win 7 installed so expect IE9 uptake to be pretty good.

Windows XP was good back in it's day but tbh mainstream support is ending in 2014 .. why should they pour money into supporting an OS that is 10 years old?

Anyone that cares about HTML 5 support will already be using Chrome or Firefox, everyone else will use IE8 until they upgrade OS.

I commend them for creating better and safer software, but it was only after real competition came around. Take away that competition and they will do exactly the same thing.


Until Firefox came out every other browser was complete shit. Opera was alright, Netscape/Mozilla was terrible. IE6 was the best of breed at the time.

They rested on their laurels because their was no competition, this is as much a fault of their competitors as them. Any company that commands a monopoly does this ... isn't limited to the software industry (see British Telecom).

As for other browser such as Chrome, Safari etc, I am already seeing the IE6 effect in the mobile space (and the lesser effect desktop space) with devs targeting Webkit and letting other browsers suffer in the name of progressive enhancement.

Edited 2011-03-15 20:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Not going back
by systyrant on Tue 15th Mar 2011 20:44 in reply to "RE: Not going back"
systyrant Member since:
2007-01-18

Maybe I wasn't clear in the way I said it. I don't think Microsoft has an obligation to support IE 9 on XP. I'm not deamonizing them for not doing it. I'm simply suggesting that IE 9 growth will be stunted because it's not supported on XP and will give other browsers even more opportunity to gain market share.

I expect probably all computers with Vista and 7 on them to get IE 9 at some point.

**

That second part you lost me. I said competition is good and you more or less repeated my sentiment and then said my attitude is what caused the IE problem in the first place. Then you went off about how everybody is targeting webkit. As far as I'm aware IE has it's own render engine, Firefox has it's own, Chrome has it's own, Opera has it's own. Safari and Konquerer use Webkit. So I'm not real sure where you are actually going with that.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Not going back
by lucas_maximus on Tue 15th Mar 2011 20:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Not going back"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

That second part you lost me. I said competition is good and you more or less repeated my sentiment and then said my attitude is what caused the IE problem in the first place. Then you went off about how everybody is targeting webkit. As far as I'm aware IE has it's own render engine, Firefox has it's own, Chrome has it's own, Opera has it's own. Safari and Konquerer use Webkit. So I'm not real sure where you are actually going with that.


The problem I have is that people seem to forget 10 years ago ... IE6 was the only decent browser.

I went off about targeting webkit because it is becoming the new IE6, I see a lot of people targeting webkit specific extensions, especially on mobile devices. There is no decent competitor to webkit on smartphones and we will end up with sites just not working/looking odd on other devices because webkit has been targeted.

Edited 2011-03-15 20:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Not going back
by lemur2 on Tue 15th Mar 2011 21:52 in reply to "RE: Not going back"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

As for other browser such as Chrome, Safari etc, I am already seeing the IE6 effect in the mobile space (and the lesser effect desktop space) with devs targeting Webkit and letting other browsers suffer in the name of progressive enhancement.


Nitpick ... in some markets Firefox is the most used browser.

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-eu-monthly-201002-201102

Worldwide and in just about every individual market, Firefox has a much larger share than webkit browsers.

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-201002-201102

Given these facts, why wouldn't a developer target gecko (Firefox) first, and then enjoy the fact that other browsers such as Chrome and Safari useing webkit, or IE9 for that matter, should also work.

OK, IE9 might still be a little way off, but it won't be too bad.

After developing your website targetting Firefox, if you then get any complaints from Windows XP users, just tell them to install and run either Firefox, Chrome, Opera or Safari.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Not going back
by lucas_maximus on Wed 16th Mar 2011 09:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Not going back"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It is because Webkit is most prevelent on smart phones.

Mobile websites use something like WURFL/WALL to detect the devices capabilities (think User Agent Sniffing on steroids) or worse they use some sort of basic user agent sniffing (does the user agent contain the word iPhone) ... this can be client side or server side.

Ideally you need a combination of at least three technologies, WUFZL or equivalent to detect what the device can do, Server side logic to serve the correct content. Client side detection of its abilities i.e. video tag etc, geolocation via the browser ...

However It is easier for Devs to split this to Webkit/Smartphone and "everything else", this is the feedback I have got from working with various companies that specialise in Mobile dev.

Edited 2011-03-16 09:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Not going back
by nt_jerkface on Tue 15th Mar 2011 22:59 in reply to "RE: Not going back"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Pretty much all computers come with Win 7 installed so expect IE9 uptake to be pretty good.


But how long will that take? XP is still the #1 operating system. What needs to happen is for a major site like youtube to require a modern browser. But no one wants to lose that much traffic so everyone will just keep using Flash for years.

Until Firefox came out every other browser was complete shit. Opera was alright, Netscape/Mozilla was terrible. IE6 was the best of breed at the time.


That's BS, Opera was way better than IE6. The mistake they made was charging for the browser. The name was never that good either.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Not going back
by lucas_maximus on Thu 17th Mar 2011 10:04 in reply to "RE[2]: Not going back"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

That's BS, Opera was way better than IE6. The mistake they made was charging for the browser. The name was never that good either.


But nobody ever gives a shit about Opera ... I don't get any traffic from Opera ... in fact the only traffic I get from opera is me checking to make sure it works in Opera.

Also I get tired with nerds nitpicking ... I was pretty much right ... not 110% right ... but accurate enough ... It is tiresome.

Reply Parent Score: 2