Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Nov 2012 22:12 UTC
Internet Explorer "In Windows 8, we reimagined the browser with IE10. We designed and built IE10 to be the best way to experience the Web on Windows. With the IE10 Release Preview for Windows 7 consumers can now enjoy a fast and fluid Web with the updated IE10 engine on their Windows 7 devices. The release preview of IE10 on Windows 7 is available for download today."
Thread beginning with comment 542558
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
IE10 still disappointing
by lemur2 on Wed 14th Nov 2012 22:30 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

https://www.scirra.com/blog/103/ie10-review-still-disappointing-for-...

The release of Windows 8 comes with a new Internet Explorer: version 10. A new IE is still a rare event; IE9 was released about 18 months ago, whilst both Chrome and Firefox now release updates every six weeks. We've reviewed it from the specific point of view of developing HTML5 games, especially with Construct 2. We're not taking in to account the interface or general browsing experience, just the technology that powers games. We find IE10 is still behind Chrome and Firefox in both performance and features, which means another frustratingly long wait before any hope of further progress from IE.

We are disappointed to see IE10 still does not support the free Vorbis audio codec, either in Ogg or a WebM container. The web desperately needs a single audio format that works everywhere, and it's ridiculous that we are still having to dual-encode all audio to both AAC (for IE10 and Safari) and Vorbis (for all others). Vorbis is high-quality, robust, proven, free, and straightforward to implement. With such an obviously needed feature, why are Microsoft resisting it?


Edited 2012-11-14 22:31 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: IE10 still disappointing
by panzi on Wed 14th Nov 2012 22:51 in reply to "IE10 still disappointing"
panzi Member since:
2006-01-22

My hope is that Opus will find broad adoption eventually. It is not just an open codec with a great free implementation (in floating- and fixed-point variants), it is also part of the official IETF WebRTC standard. Microsoft was part of the development team (via Skype) and Opus showed to be better than Vorbis, MP3 and AAC in listening tests most of the time. It is said to be the best low bitrate and the best high bitrate lossy codec all in one (well, it does consist of two sub-codecs).

I hope opus support will come as an update to IE 10 (and thus also to Windows 7). But if not I think it should at least be supported by IE 11.

Reply Parent Score: 4

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Opus showed to be better than Vorbis, MP3 and AAC in listening tests most of the time.

Then those listeners must have been deaf, because right now, Opus is good for nothing except pure spoken word. Try encoding music with it, then try using AAC or HE-AAC (a decent AAC encoder, not FAAC) to encode the same source material. No matter the bitrate (unless you get it too high to matter) any music or other non-voice audio stream encoded via the free Opus encoder sounds like the audio is being filtered through grains of sand. Opus is a superior bitstream to AAC, but at the moment the encoder has zero psychoacoustical models to best offset the artifacts introduced by compression. Opus, at the moment, is much more of a high quality replacement for Speex than a replacement for MP3 and AAC.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: IE10 still disappointing
by kaiwai on Thu 15th Nov 2012 02:52 in reply to "IE10 still disappointing"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

1) There is a preview Media Foundation plugin for Internet Explorer: http://www.webmproject.org/ie/

2) There is nothing stopping the other browsers from linking to the API's (QuickTime on OS X, Media Foundation on Windows and gstreamer on *NIX) to obtain h264/AAC playback functionality.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: IE10 still disappointing
by lemur2 on Thu 15th Nov 2012 07:21 in reply to "RE: IE10 still disappointing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

2) There is nothing stopping the other browsers from linking to the API's (QuickTime on OS X, Media Foundation on Windows and gstreamer on *NIX) to obtain h264/AAC playback functionality.


Actually, there is. Web Standards are supposed to be royalty free.

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/

"The W3C Patent Policy governs the handling of patents in the process of producing Web standards. The goal of this policy is to assure that Recommendations produced under this policy can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis."

Having web standards being royalty free prevents anyone setting up a "toll-gate" for access to non-commercial content on the web. Anyone and everyone should be able to host and access (creative commons or public domain) media content over the web without having to pay any royalties to any third parties. Anyone and everyone should be able to build web infrastructure and clients without having to pay royalties for permission to do so. Having it this way is absolutely central to the original intent and purpose of the web in the first place.

Access to the web is defined as a human right:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/internet-a-human-right/
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/politics/diplomacy/120706/u...

This doesn't mean that commercial content is disallowed, it means only that it must be possible to access public content without having to pay royalties.

H264/AAC are not royalty free, and hence they are unsuitable for use as the ONLY media standards over the web. They CAN be used, but they must not be the ONLY means. This is not a problem for web standards since there are other codecs (namely WebM, Vorbis and Opus) which are as good or better performance-wise, and they are truly royalty free, anyone is allowed to implement them, and hence far more suited to be web standards.

Since WebM, Vorbis and Opus are royalty free, and anyone and everyone has full and irrevocable permission to implement them, what exactly is the excuse of Apple and Microsoft for failing to do so?

Edited 2012-11-15 07:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: IE10 still disappointing
by lucas_maximus on Thu 15th Nov 2012 08:18 in reply to "IE10 still disappointing"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

http://ontwik.com/html5-2/internet-explorer-the-story-so-far/

If you actually watch this, you will realise why they are always behind. Microsoft's Enterprise customers like sticking to a version number so they can test their apps against it and like the stability.

What these devs don't tell you or don't know is that that they release a platform preview every thing 6-8 weeks so they can test more features and possibly get more features in before the cut off.

While it isn't Ideal, Microsoft have their reasons for their release schedule.

Also while IE9's and IE10's JS engines aren't as fast as the competition ... they are a hell of a lot better than IE7 & 8.

Edited 2012-11-15 08:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: IE10 still disappointing
by lemur2 on Thu 15th Nov 2012 09:12 in reply to "RE: IE10 still disappointing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Also while IE9's and IE10's JS engines aren't as fast as the competition ... they are a hell of a lot better than IE7 & 8.


This is akin to saying that the current worst-of-the-bunch is a lot better than the previous worst-of-the-bunch. It holds for not only the JS engines, but also for the rest of the browser.

It isn't much to crow about, is it? With the first release of IE6, Microsoft had the best browser client of any. Microsoft had clearly lost that lead by October 2006 with the release of Firefox 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Firefox#Version_2

They have been a long way behind other leading browsers ever since.

This is clearly reflected in the market share trends:
http://gs.statcounter.com/?PHPSESSID=j2juf5bil673j4vrso39eijui6#bro...

IE10 doesn't appear to be the version of IE that can arrest this persistent slide, especially if it is the worst performed modern browser, it provides the least features, and it misses out on basic things like open codec support that could easily have been provided at next-to-zero cost.

Edited 2012-11-15 09:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1