Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IE8 Beta Released To Public

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the upgrades dept.

Internet Explorer 605

Tim writes "English, German, Simplified Chinese, and Japanese versions of Internet Explorer 8 have been released for public beta. New features include accelerators, which provide instant context menu access for a number of common tasks; automatic crash recovery, which prevents a single page's failures from taking down your entire browser; and browser privacy, a feature that didn't make Firefox 3. I'm primarily a Firefox user, and I've been using IE8 at work (MS) for the past few weeks. It's a definite improvement over previous versions, and brings a lot to the table that Firefox requires extensions for. Give it a spin, submit feedback, and help keep all browser makers on their toes by facing each other's competition."

cancel ×

605 comments

Shows what competion can do. (5, Insightful)

xzvf (924443) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777415)

While IE8 doesn't work on my chosen platform, it shows again how open source sparks development in stagnant environments. This product would never have happened without Firefox.

Re:Shows what competion can do. (5, Interesting)

Bashae (1250564) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777591)

Yup, I'm wondering why the beta is available in german rather than a language with more speakers, such as spanish. Are they perhaps trying to win back the notoriously large amount of Firefox users in Germany?

Re:Shows what competion can do. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777695)

I believe that German was chosen over Spanish for the betas because it's the second-most popular spoken language for programmers (at least, it used to be; I'm not too sure anymore). They cover the top two for debuggers out there, and then also include packages for Chinese and Japanese to test the character rendering and what-not.

Re:Shows what competion can do. (2, Interesting)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777897)

If that were the case then it would've been offered in Slovenian ... we use firefox quite extensively.

Re:Shows what competion can do. (5, Informative)

will_die (586523) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777919)

According to the European and thier language report [europa.eu] German is the 2nd highest known language in the EU at 32% of the population speaking the language. Spanish is at 15% and is 5th.
For the top 5 it is:
English 51%
German 32%
French 26%
Italian 16%
Spanish 15%

Also by mother tounue German is at 18% and Spanish is at 9%

Re:Shows what competion can do. (5, Informative)

TheP4st (1164315) | more than 5 years ago | (#24778065)

Native Spanish speaking population in the world 330 million
Native German speaking population in the world 100 million

Re:Shows what competion can do. (2)

eggoeater (704775) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777931)

Germany has the largest economy in continental Europe.

Re:Shows what competion can do. (3, Insightful)

naylor83 (836780) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777909)

Yep, it's kind of mind-boggling what the Firefox team has accomplished indirectly.

Re:Shows what competion can do. (3, Interesting)

shird (566377) | more than 5 years ago | (#24778017)

What makes you think those people seeking an alternative browser wouldn't have chosen Opera instead? (not open source, and frankly much better than both FF and IE IMHO).

Yes FF has a bigger market share than Opera, but Opera may have had that share if FF didn't exist, prompting MS to take the same action.

Re:Shows what competion can do. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24778059)

Boo Hoo. Your browser is dead. Get over it.

Oh, I'd like a version (0, Flamebait)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777417)

Can I have a version for Linux, or barring that, for OS/X so I might try it ? Thanks.

Re:Oh, I'd like a version (5, Funny)

tomandlu (977230) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777461)

You want MS to provide a linux version so that you can either state your intent to never install it, or so that you can sh*t on it? I'm sure they'll get right on that...

Re:Oh, I'd like a version (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777577)

Oh, go fuck a dick you shit.

Re:Oh, I'd like a version (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777655)

Oh, go fuck a shit you dick.

Re:Oh, I'd like a version (1)

tomandlu (977230) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777733)

Curious - the reply has an earlier timestamp than the parent.

Re:Oh, I'd like a version (1)

amnezick (1253408) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777805)

not over here

maybe you're experiencing some quantum communications side effects

Re:Oh, I'd like a version (3, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777677)

You want MS to provide a linux version so that you can either state your intent to never install it, or so that you can sh*t on it? I'm sure they'll get right on that...

No need to wait for MS to do that. I'm sure this will be in ies4linux [tatanka.com.br] eventually, thanks to Sérgio. Want it sooner? Donate time or money to either ies4linux or to Wine. Or both.

Re:Oh, I'd like a version (5, Insightful)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777765)

Lots of linux users would like to have IE, because we need to test websites in it. I have the wine versions of IE6 and IE7, but they're extremely slow and mostly broken, so a version from Microsoft would be great. And if it turned out to be the better browser, of course, I'd use it regularly.

Re:Oh, I'd like a version (4, Insightful)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777991)

You want MS to provide a linux version so that you can either state your intent to never install it, or so that you can sh*t on it? I'm sure they'll get right on that...

That's short sighted.

I would try IE8 if it ran on my platform of choice, which happens to be Kubuntu. If IE won't run on it, I won't try it. IE8 might be the best browser since Amaya, but if it won't run on my system, I won't try it.

Not all Linux users hate Microsoft or are FOSS zealots. Most of us just love Linux. We are open to trying MS products, and when MS creates a better product than Linux||Firefox then we will use it. I only wish that MS Office 2007 would run on Linux, I would pay for it and use it in a heartbeat. But I am not about to use MS's bloated, insecure operating system to get it.

Re:Oh, I'd like a version (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777483)

It runs on Linux under Wine or any number of Virtual Machines, for those not too clueless to know about them.

Re:Oh, I'd like a version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777647)

And OSX and FreeBSD (where I use it).

Well, I don't use it there, but I opened it once for amusement's sake.

Then I went back to FireFox (usually native, occasionally under WINE if I have a "need" for flash).

Re:Oh, I'd like a version (-1, Flamebait)

bradbury (33372) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777789)

Why on earth would I want to try it under wine or on a VM?

Esp. when I've got multiple browsers (Firefox, Mozilla, Epiphany, Galeon) already installed under Linux and running fine (in native mode).

You sound like a Microsoft plant. If Microsoft were serious about pushing IE they would make it run on Linux in native mode.

But hey, that might slice into their operating system monopoly so maybe not such a good idea.

Re:Oh, I'd like a version (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777793)

For generously forgiving values of "runs" (wine) or curious definitions of what it means to run on an OS (virtual machines).

Re:Oh, I'd like a version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777857)

IE 5 and IE 6 work with Wine in Linux, and IE 7 with a bit of a hack. I have tried IE 8 but it fails to install with an "Unable to find a volume for file extraction" error.

Why would you want to install IE on Linux? Because if you are a web developer you need to test your sites on various browsers to check that they display properly. Ideally, you should be able to just follow the web standards and be confident that there is no problem, but this is far from true and IE is the biggest culprit. Curiously, an advantage of using Linux is that you can test various versions of IE at the same time, which you cannot do in Windows.

Great. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777421)

Another piece of software to avoid.

Standards-complient or not? (5, Insightful)

tomandlu (977230) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777443)

I assume yes. Call me naive, but I suspect MS know that they have more to lose by breaking web standards. Basically, they can't get away with that sh*t anymore - at least as far as the web goes. The average user is probably no wiser, but there are enough special interest groups to keep an eye on them in this area.

Re:Standards-complient or not? (2, Insightful)

skyshock21 (764958) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777467)

HA! Sure they can. With the marketshare they have using IE, they essentially create the de facto standards.

Re:Standards-complient or not? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777597)

Web masters do their share too. Imagine how the web would look if all the hacks went away tomorrow.
It would look great, because MS would have fixed their pile of shit browser already.

Re:Standards-complient or not? (4, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777747)

Developers, Developers, Developers.

Developers have moved on. IE is one of those things you test for once you've finished your work in Firefox.

This private browsing thing, if it wasn't a closed source application from a group that has a history of co-operating with US intelligence gathering organizations, might be vaguely interesting.

But the circumstances being what they are, it strikes me as a way to help the overstaffed NSA by red flagging your most sensitive items for their attention.

Re:Standards-complient or not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777851)

HA! IE 8 has no discernible market share at all.

IE 8 is not IE 7 ... they render differently. IE 7 has lower market share than firefox. Firefox usage is not only ahead of IE 7 but it is increasing at a faster rate.

IE 6 is different again. IE 6 is in decline.

If you are a web designer, and you were to pick just one of these (they are all different) to make your web page work with, and you wanted it to work for the largest audience ongoing, then you would target firefox not any version of IE.

Re:Standards-complient or not? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777511)

Please stop using the ugly, retarded expression "standards-compliant". Compliant means "disposed to comply, yielding" or "pliant, yielding to physical pressure". It does not mean "complies with" or "complying".

Re:Standards-complient or not? (4, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777685)

languages change over time, word shift meaning. New words come in, old words go out.

If you want to complain about this, let me ask you, do you ever use the word 'nice'? Check the entomology on it and revert to using in it's original form only please.

Re:Standards-complient or not? (5, Funny)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777809)

I was going to ask what the root of the word "nice" had to do with the study of insects, but I guess that proves your point. :)

Re:Standards-complient or not? (4, Informative)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777873)

DAMNIT

I didn't mean entomology, I meant etymology...

But, using both the original and current meaning, that was a nice error...

Re:Standards-complient or not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777855)

You should read a good book from Kleist!

Re:Standards-complient or not? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777881)

Um, entomology is the study of insects, the word you wanted was etymology

Re:Standards-complient or not? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777887)

yes.

Now give me coffee.

Re:Standards-complient or not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777927)

If you want to complain about this, let me ask you, do you ever use the word 'nice'? Check the entomology on it and revert to using in it's original form only please.

And at which point in time entomology and etymology got the same meaning?

Re:Standards-complient or not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777953)

For someone so caught up with words you should know it is etymology...no entomology which is the study of insects. Please only use the correct form of words.

Re:Standards-complient or not? (5, Informative)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777699)

According to Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] , sites with proper HTML information will display in standards mode, and sites without will not. There's a button at the bottom that allows you to switch between the two. I have to say, I like IE8. It won't make me switch from Opera, but it's much speedier to use than IE7, and I'll probably find myself using it instead of Firefox whenever I come across a website that doesn't work in Opera. (Which is rare, and whenever that happens and I launch Firefox, it prompts me if I want to update, which gets annoying).

Excellent feature... (5, Insightful)

HetMes (1074585) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777455)

..that will definitely be craved by many Slashdot users, and not because of the gift shopping or use of public terminals. Question is how long it will take before Firefox sees its market share diminish because of this feature, and, consequently, how long it will take Firefox to include it in an update.

Anon (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777469)

But does it function properly?
I.E. 7 was a step-down in function for Microsoft as
it fail to connect as quickly to sites as version 6 and despite all its new features, performed quite poorly compared to IE 6 as one's exclusive web experience.

Crap... (-1, Flamebait)

qmaqdk (522323) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777471)

...in a new package.

My 2 cents.

Re:Crap... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777515)

Betcha a dollar above poster hasn't even tried it.

Re:Crap... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777689)

And the thing is, he doesn't have any incentive to. If good reviews start coming back then maybe he will. But as far as Microsoft products are concerned, better to just leave them to rot and let others do the testing, rather than wasting time on what will still be a buggy product once it is released. Yes, I'm a little bitter. I don't let XP upgrade to IE 7. I don't like the interface and it still 'feels' wrong. Probably because as someone pointed out above, it is even slower than IE 6 (which I liked okay).

Pointless anecdote: the other day one of my users was having a problem accessing his shared drives, the machine was complaining about a lack of resources. He did have a few applications open, but nothing crazy, and the task manager claimed that he had plenty of free RAM. I scanned the apps that were open and suggested he tried closing IE as I know that IE and explorer probably use the same components. He closed it, and his shared drives were working again. I don't want to install software that is going to affect the underlying OS in such a fundamental way, especially if it's only in beta.

Besides, the new features are not worth it for me - I get better functionality out of Firefox 3 with a couple of plugins. I agree that we need to keep competition in areas where we want products to improve, but I've given up on MS products for now. I'm not going to help them with their testing until they make a better effort with their internal testing. Handing out wristbands [slashdot.org] isn't much of an incentive.

Re:Crap... (2, Insightful)

daveime (1253762) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777951)

So not like Firefox 2 then, which has upgraded itself no less than 16 times on my PC here ? Firefox pushes out beta stuff too, then try to cover it with automatic patches. But they're OSS, so that makes it okay ...

Browser privacy (5, Interesting)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777493)

I wonder how the browser privacy feature will work regarding external content from sites:

flash files store preferences outside of explorers' reach.
java applets get placed outside of the cache.
movies files play outside of ie.
pdfs might open outside.
word documents listed in word recent files list.

theres many more programs and protocols which would leave tracks.

people expecting privacy mode to actually keep things private are going to be in for a BIG shock.

good luck

Re:Browser privacy (3, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777703)

Use Opera Portable [kejut.com] . It obliterates (erases AND overwrites) any and all signs of your activity when you exit. And it's had that feature for several years. Perfect for visiting internet cafes or libraries.

Re:Browser privacy (5, Interesting)

GeckoAddict (1154537) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777823)

I wouldn't count on this new feature to do much of anything... an article [foxnews.com] from FoxNews says the following scary line:

Although casual users cannot see the previous user's search history, authorities such as the police will be able to access it if necessary.

Kind of makes it seem like it's still stored somewhere, and while I don't know how the data is stored, I can't imagine it will take too long to figure out how to view the history of others.
Also interesting is that people at MS apparently nicknamed it 'Porn Mode'.

Re:Browser privacy (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 5 years ago | (#24778037)

If the police can reliably access it, then it takes only a slightly non-casual user to access it.

I much prefer the "guest account" feature of Mac OS X, where data only exists until logout.

Re:Browser privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24778101)

Who cares? you are just browsing pr0n. Most pr0n sites use just flash and .jpg images.

Extensions are bad? (5, Insightful)

Cryophallion (1129715) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777519)

and brings a lot to the table that Firefox requires extensions for

You say that like it is a bad thing. I prefer the use of extensions for my browser, instead of the bloatware that tends to happen. What if I don't care about privacy? I don't need that installed then. I like that I can choose the features I want, instead of having everything thrown in there.

Also, extensions have a great benefit with regards to updates. they can be updated at any time, and therefore don't have to wait on a new browser update for tweaking things and adding functionality. They also allow me to leave an extension that I don't want to update as is while still being able to update the browser (and possibly its security).

This is not to say that Firefox is not getting large, or that microsoft is not trying to assist people who don't have the savvy to look for extensions. I'm just saying extensions have a lot of benefits, and can be a very important tool.

Re:Extensions are bad? (2, Interesting)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777623)

What Firefox could do is add the most used extensions in by default. That way tech savy people can still do whatever they like, while people who do not know how to get extentions, still will be able to have the functionality.

Best of both worlds. And if bandwith download is an issue for you, then perhaps you should not download Firefox in the first place.

Re:Extensions are bad? (5, Interesting)

Cryophallion (1129715) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777841)

Interesting. Let's take a slightly deeper look, by looking at the most popular add-ons, and see if most non-savvy people would want them:

1.Ad-block plus - Users might like it, but people running the sites and companies would absolutely hate it. Get ready for a huge backlash on enabling this one in the base package.

2. DownloadHelper - Again, users may like it, but the people running the video sites would be fuming. As would people who do simple paid-for web tutorials, who would have everyone able to get their stuff extremely easily. Once again, good size backlash. This also has features that may need to be updated more frequently, such as when embedding code changes or something on the popular sites changes.

3. No-Script - I don't know if this would really help most non-savvy users, as they wouldn't understand why many more popular sites won't work that well, not to mention all the ajax-y things they'd miss.

4. Download-them-all - May be a good thing to implement (along with Download Status bar, a personal favorite). I'm not sure how many people would use its benefits though, but this one is a serious contender.

5. Flashgot (See Download Helper)

6. Firebug - No real use to non-savvy people.

7. Fast-video Download - See Download Helper

8. Cooliris - Cool, but no real functionality. Of course, Compiz, Widgets, Apples, etc all live off of cool, but I don't think this should be standard, especially since it is windows only.

9. IE Tab - Very nice for people who still stubbornly make IE specific sites, but still windows only.

10. Colorful tabs - cute, but not really functional. Might be a nice option though.

So, of the top 10, only one could really have a good argument made for it being in the base package. I actually think Mozilla does a pretty good job finding the middle ground of stuff to keep in the base, and stuff to have as extensions, and that helps keep the energy where they think it should be, instead of focusing on little segments.

I might add that I like extensions also since they can add new functionality before a new version comes out.

And if bandwith download is an issue for you, then perhaps you should not download Firefox in the first place.

Isn't Firefox smaller in download size than IE?

I have to agree with the Post above me (1)

Erie Ed (1254426) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777681)

and brings a lot to the table that Firefox requires extensions for

You say that like it is a bad thing. I prefer the use of extensions for my browser, instead of the bloatware that tends to happen. What if I don't care about privacy? I don't need that installed then. I like that I can choose the features I want, instead of having everything thrown in there.

Also, extensions have a great benefit with regards to updates. they can be updated at any time, and therefore don't have to wait on a new browser update for tweaking things and adding functionality. They also allow me to leave an extension that I don't want to update as is while still being able to update the browser (and possibly its security).

This is not to say that Firefox is not getting large, or that microsoft is not trying to assist people who don't have the savvy to look for extensions. I'm just saying extensions have a lot of benefits, and can be a very important tool.

This is one of the very many reasons I love using firefox because if i want something i can get it, if i don't then i don't have to worry about it bogging down my system. I love firefox because of this and will continue to use firefox. Now when I'm at work we use IE exclusevly so I'm really hoping that IE8 brings more to the table.

Re:Extensions are bad? (5, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777741)

It's not that extensions are bad, it's just more of a hassle if the functionality is not included as standard.

It's one reason I can't be bothered to try switching from Opera. Sure, I've downloaded Firefox, but I don't have to time to try to hunt down all the extensions to replicate Opera's standard functionality, and wonder if each extension is the one I want.

This is even more of an issue if you are trying to persuade a random non-geek user to switch from IE - you can't say "Go to this link", instead you have to say "Go here, then install it, then go here, here and here, and install all those things". For now, Firefox has done well because its standard features are still better than IE (and the extra standard features of Opera do not seem to be known by as many people). But you can't expect an average user to grapple with trying to hunt down extensions, just to replicate what'll be standard behaviour in IE.

As for bloatware, you need to compare real world filesizes. Last time I checked, Opera was still smaller than Firefox (even without any extensions), though I haven't checked the current sizes.

Re:Extensions are bad? (1)

Cryophallion (1129715) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777961)

I agree, it is a balancing act. That's why my last line states that Firefox is getting larger, because it is larger than Opera. I just tend to think Firefox has so far done a pretty good job of figuring out what it needs to focus one, and what can be left to the community.

Re:Extensions are bad? (4, Interesting)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777761)

> You say that like it is a bad thing.

It *is* a bad thing. Usually built in features work - extensions in my experience, often don't and can easily be incompatible with each other.

I've only got a handful of extensions (5) installed and Firefox 3 crashes about 12 times a week according to the logs. According to the same logs, IE has only crashed twice EVER since I built the machine 6 months ago and I use it almost as often (I'm a web developer).

I think it's the extension-heavy approach which makes Firefox the least stable piece of software I've ever used. I doubt it crashes if you don't install any extensions. More basic features should be built in in my opinion - so you don't need to install an extension to get an extremely rudimentary feature like a close button on each tab.

Re:Extensions are bad? (4, Interesting)

Cryophallion (1129715) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777937)

Out of curiosity, what extensions are you using? I have around 7 or 8 depending on computer, and I've had no crashes. As always, people's problems vary, but I'm curious as to what may be crashing you.

As for the most popular extensions, such as downloadhelper, firebug, etc, those tend to be pretty darn reliable, which may be due to many bug reports, the open source concept of helping out with fixes, or because people tend to use things that work, but I have had very few problems.

On the other hand, I've had VERY bad luck with active-X "extensions" in IE, and even when not allowing ActiveX, I crash more with IE.

On another note, is it the sites you are working on that tend to crash, or basic browsing? Maybe IE is more forgiving of code you are still working on and may have forgotten a curly brace or two?

Re:Extensions are bad? (2, Interesting)

Rynor (1277690) | more than 5 years ago | (#24778107)

I also only use a few extensions, but as far as I know they haven't caused a single crash yet.

Most of the crashes I experience are due to Flash, and even that doesn't come close to crashing 12 times a week.

Press the button and protect your privacy .... (4, Interesting)

Cyberurchin (1343229) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777529)

> and browser privacy, a feature that didn't make

Yeah, but the user has to turn it on .... Press the button, enter "InPrivateBrowsing" and your privacy is protected .... Kind of silly. Shouldn't such a feature be activated in the first place? And then, when the application requires the long-term cookies or you want a history, you turn off certain parts of it?

Re:Press the button and protect your privacy .... (5, Insightful)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777605)

If private browsing were on by default, then everyone other than /. geeks would think their browsers were dysfunctional for not saving login cookies and whatnot.

Re:Press the button and protect your privacy .... (1)

Cyberurchin (1343229) | more than 5 years ago | (#24778071)

So the bottom line is: if the system protects the user's privacy and asks before revealing personal information, then the average user thinks that it's broken?

I tend to agree but it also shows that there is a fundamental flaw in the design of the system. Or at least something is wrong with the priorities of the designer .... or the users?

Re:Press the button and protect your privacy .... (2, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777755)

Considering a lot of people will just be wanting to browse at work or whatever and be able to easily find things in the history, I don't see why it should be on by default. Isn't 'browser privacy' basically just a way of hiding your pr0n-browsing history?

Microsoft Does Not Deserve Another Chance (-1, Flamebait)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777563)

After fighting for years with the oddities of IE6--the horrid security, the non-compliance with standards--I have found Firefox. Why the hell should I go back to using the browser that was the bane of my life for years (before Firefox)? I have made a personal vow never to bother with another tool from Microsoft. When the Manhattan company where I work switched all of us developers to Mac, the transformation was complete.

Re:Microsoft Does Not Deserve Another Chance (4, Insightful)

Bashae (1250564) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777653)

You don't have to go back if you don't want to, but there are many people still using IE, and it would be easier to write websites if every single bit of JS or CSS didn't have to have a workaround for it. If IE8 brings us one step closer to that dream, then I welcome it with open arms! Even if I'm not ever going to use it.

Re:Microsoft Does Not Deserve Another Chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777753)

Finally came out of the closet?

Re:Microsoft Does Not Deserve Another Chance (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777775)

NEWSFLASH: NO-ONE CARES

I tested it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777567)

at goatse.cz [goatse.cz] and was not impressed.

Re:I tested it (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777637)

I want goatshe back :(.

Oh, and you daddy liked the new strap on we tried yesterday. It is much better then the old one, which was too long for him. This one /just/ reaches what he wants touched.

Re:I tested it (4, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777693)

Why? Did you find a gaping security hole?

What is really worrying is... (5, Informative)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777581)

timesonline.co.uk [timesonline.co.uk] Writes:

Once the setting is chosen, others using the same computer will not be able to see which sites have been accessed. Other browsers have similar functions, but this one is far more prominent. Although casual users cannot see the previous user's search history, authorities such as the police will be able to access it if necessary.

So basically the data still exists, just people who nothing will not be able to see it, I knew we were wrong in all those security model that try and keep the experts out. It's really Joe "average" Blogs we should have been protecting against all this time.. DOH!!!

I'll definitely be surrendering Firefox for IE now..

Re:What is really worrying is... (4, Insightful)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777675)

I believe they are talking about the logs kept by the ISP rather than anything stored on the machine itself.

Its currently the same situation for users who delete their own history, its gone from the local machine, but that does not mean it was not logged elsewhere.

Re:What is really worrying is... (1)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777713)

I am just going by the way its written, though to be fair it is a journalist writting it so....

Mind you I wouldn't be supprised if it was just moved to a hidden dir just in case on the slight offchance you (or the police) wanted to find it again.

Secure browsing is on a lot of browsers nowadays (1)

Jerry Smith (806480) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777611)

Safari for OSX nowadays has an option for "private mode": under the File menu it can be selected, and from then on 'recording' has stopped. The older history and cache remains, so it's not as suspicious as a complete history-wipe.

It's good that this specific userfriendliness is implemented throughout multiple platforms. For let's not forget: SOMEONE has to think of the children :o)

Re:Secure browsing is on a lot of browsers nowaday (1)

bestinshow (985111) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777749)

Apparently the IE private mode has that, and in addition tries to intercept cross-site tracking via third parties (the single-pixel trick, amongst others).

It won't stop things that happen off of the clients computer - ISP logs, server-side-implemented cross-site tracking, etc.

indeed. (3, Insightful)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777635)

It's a definite improvement over previous versions, and brings a lot to the table that Firefox requires extensions for.

That may be true. But given the speed that developments and innovations get put into FF and the general convenience of the plugin system I think I'll stage with the Fox. If there is anything amazingly good and useful you can be sure we'll all have it very soon indeed.

Does it have viewing options? (0, Offtopic)

netglen (253539) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777661)

Does the new IE8 have the option to change the Look-N-Feel to emulate my old Gopher client? Bonus points to emulate my old TVI-950 screen.

Thoughts (2, Interesting)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777691)

New versions of IE is a Good Thing... Competition is good with something like browsers.

For the average Joe having features which normally require extensions just be there is probably a good thing. Perhaps Firefox should have the option to enabling a set of officially sanctioned extensions while installing? Bloating is not the solution, but checking the "enable feature X" checkbox beats searching for the actually good ones...

Private browsing is a two-sided thing. It's a good feature, but sort of pointless if you actually want to store bookmarks of things like your favorite naughty sites... I run two Firefox profiles personally. Unfortunately it's a bit difficult to set up, but I get the best of both worlds.

Re:Thoughts (4, Interesting)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777817)

Many will disagree, but I feel the solution to this is to have "distributions", much like the distros of Linux.

Imagine being able to download from the official Firefox site such distributions as:

  • Firefox Standard
  • Firefox Lite
  • Firefox for developers
  • Firefox with Taco's favorite extensions
  • Firefox for teens
  • etc.

Crash recovery... (3, Interesting)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777709)

Sounds like a great feature, I can't try IE8 since I'm on Linux, but from the descriptions I've read of it, it seems like they're doing something right this time instead of just jacking up the release number.

I can't believe I'm actually sitting here hoping that Firefox will copy a feature from IE. Good game, Microsoft.

Re:Crash recovery... (1)

hellwig (1325869) | more than 5 years ago | (#24778033)

Implementing a feature Opera has had for years, now that's what I call innovation.

I'll be pleased with IE crash recovery if IE crashing doesn't bring down Exporer with it. If my window manager still has to restart just because my internet browser crashes, then MS can keep IE8. Does anyone know if IE is getting more and less tied-up into the windows kernel? I would hope with Vista's kernel security IE8 is nearly a stand-alone product now days.

Intruder (1, Funny)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777825)

at work (MS)

AHA! Get him, guys!

Re:Intruder (1)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777837)

at work (MS)

AHA! Get him, guys!

Oh, that goes well with my sig... But there are limits!

Reboot (2, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777831)

Do you still have to reboot after installing the IE8 application?

Honestly... (1)

Miladinoski (1280850) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777843)

It looks good it has really nice features, too bad I can't try it because of my chosen platform 'cause I really want to see all the features it offers (and no it comes in no consideration to install a whole OS just to try a browser).
I think Microsoft should at least consider offering IE on other platforms than Windows or maybe support IEs4Linux or Wine with devs or by donations (which is hardly to believe to happen). Microsoft will only have good props from doing that by enabling web-devs to test in other browsers without having to install yet another software to install yet another software.

The question remains.... (1)

aierwin (445651) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777845)

When will IE6 die?

(So the life of many webdevelopers get's so much better)

Re:The question remains.... (1)

spoilsportmotors (1251392) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777939)

Or for that matter 5.5. The answer - from a webdevs point of view - is practically never, which is really unfortunate.

InPrivate (1)

wilsonthecat (1043880) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777849)

They should just rename the InPrivate feature to "ImBrowsingPorn" although that's probably not as marketing friendly.

i disagree. (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777861)

when i see "automatic crash recovery" i cant help but think "perpetual browser spawn."

or worse, automatic crash recovery is another vector for cache clearing and exploit. what happens if i know your browser can be forced to load my page twice?

I dont mean to sound trollish, but knowing microsoft we're just keeping up with the joneses (namely Firefox 3.) if we really wanted to improve things, we wouldnt make the browser nearly inextricably integrated with the operating system. Its a marketing decision that microsoft will pay the price for over and over.

What to mod? (1)

CommieSmurf (1059186) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777895)

I'm not sure if I should post something that gets me modded flamebait or troll. You decide! Considering where this is, I could probably just do both in one and get modded insightful.

Took it for a whirl and discovered, 30 seconds... (2, Informative)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777959)

...later that the link option "Open in New Window" doesn't appear to function anymore. Well done Microsoft.

but IE7 is doing just fine on privacy (1)

amnezick (1253408) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777971)

I'm on vista (game addiction .. but I can quit anytime I want) and I use firefox (minefield actually) but when going "wiiild" and don't want "youporn" to pop up when my IE-fan girlfriend wants to actually type "youtube" I use "Tools"->"Delete browsing history" ... and there you go: browsing history gone.

Is Microsoft trying to hurt Google? (1)

startling (717697) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777975)

Is Microsoft going to leverage this new InPorn mode so that Doubleclick and Google's effectiveness is hit?

Lots of IT/Legal Depts. won't like InPrivate (4, Informative)

Jumperalex (185007) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777987)

What I'm really curious to see, and I can only assume it will be there, is if they also include the ability to LOCK-OUT the InPrivate feature. Many corporate (and especially government) IT/legal departments excplicitly WANT your browsing to be tracked. Sure I can go in and delete stuff manually (except when I am not given permissions to access that folder ... which I'm not) but right now all of our standard desktop configurations prevent you from clicking the "clear private data" button.

So not only are the advertisers (as I've read elsewhere) possibly not going to like this feature, but many corp/gov types won't install it until/unless they can excplicitly prevent its use.

Automatic crash recovery sounds interesting (2, Interesting)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 5 years ago | (#24778005)

but does it also prevent tabs from hogging resources (e.g. in Firefox, where an applet loading in one tab can lock the entire application).

IE 8 ... brings a lot to the table (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24778013)

ORLY?

Does it work at all with any of these test pages?

http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/Test_Suite_Overview

http://www.croczilla.com/~alex/fosdem2003/w3c-conformance-suite/mozillified-suite.html

Hmmph. I thought not.

Screencast of IE8 (beta1) vs Firefox 3 (1)

ianOz (988378) | more than 5 years ago | (#24778027)

A few days back I recorded a short screencast showing IE8 and FF3 in action: http://showmedo.com/videos/video?name=3150000&fromSeriesID=315 [showmedo.com]

Topics covered include Firefox's improved security record, tabs and Awesome Bar (note that the screencast is biased to FF), IE's plugins and a friendly plea to users of IE6 to upgrade.

Help! I've been dellusioned for so long (1)

omuls are tasty (1321759) | more than 5 years ago | (#24778041)

It says

Download now All Systems and Languages"

So Ubuntu is not a system! And Serbian is not a language!

On topic, how is their ACID score coming along?

ActiveX per user (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 5 years ago | (#24778077)

MS do a few step forward and later, turn 180 degrees run and jump, now IE8 will allow user installable ActiveX, being a non administrator user will not stop bad code to install on your system. From the CNET review [cnet.com]

ActiveX components will be installed per user, which eliminates the need for everyone to have administrator privileges

Hopefully they add a way to disable this, like Firefox has the "xpinstall.enabled" preference

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...