Beta
×

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 Breaking Microsoft's Web Standards Promise?

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the not-too-promising dept.

Microsoft 329

An anonymous reader points out a story in The Register by Opera Software CTO Hakon Lie which tells the story of how Microsoft's interoperability promise for IE8 seems to have been broken in less than six months. Quoting: "In March, Microsoft announced that their upcoming Internet Explorer 8 would: use its most standards compliant mode, IE8 Standards, as the default. Note the last word: default. Microsoft argued that, in light of their newly published interoperability principles, it was the right thing to do. This declaration heralded an about-face and was widely praised by the web standards community; people were stunned and delighted by Microsoft's promise. This week, the promise was broken."

cancel ×

329 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

There's a saying.. (5, Insightful)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811677)

When things sound too good to be true, they usually are..

Re:There's a saying.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24811821)

Score:4, Interesting ????

Not interesting - just a glib, mindfart.

Re:There's a saying.. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24811855)

You must be new here. Seriously. Go read the Hans Reiser post. People are often modded up for preachy, glib, and obvious. If all three it's almost a sure thing.

Re:There's a saying.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812229)

... and spearchuckers!

It smells, but it's a lie not a fart. (-1, Troll)

GNUChop (1310629) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812173)

Adherence to standards is not "too good to be true" it's the way the vast majority of things actually work. M$ and IE are exceptions, not the rule, and they will go the way of all obstructive technology.

Re:There's a saying.. (4, Interesting)

mrbah (844007) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811889)

Considering IE's pattern of "improving" standards compliance over the last decade, a "more compliant" IE8 wouldn't necessarily be a good thing. MICROS~1 seems to think that fixing support for one thing and breaking support for 50 others is an improvement. It isn't. Even IE8's true "standards mode" is just as non-compliant as IE 7, 6, and 5.5. The only thing that has changed over all these revisions is the nature of the rendering errors. One version might treat a certain block element as inline, while the next fixes that issue only to draw inline borders incorrectly. All they do is change the errors, never fix them.

Anyone who thinks IE standards support has improved from IE7 to IE8 is sadly mistaken, and while we'd all rather have a truly compliant IE, it just isn't going to happen. I know I'll get a lot of hate for this, but I'd rather have one broken web browser to develop hacks for than 4.

Re:There's a saying.. (4, Interesting)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812405)

Anyone who thinks IE standards support has improved from IE7 to IE8 is sadly mistaken

It has improved. The difference between 6 and 7 wasn't too great, basically just bugfixes and additional selectors, but there are significant improvements in Internet Explorer 8, for instance CSS tables. Internet Explorer 8 passes the Acid2 test now, where 6 and 7 were miles off. While it's not a conformance test, it does give a good indication of how far they've come, and it's a result of additional support, not merely "rearranging bugs" as you seem to think (which would actually be far more work than just doing things properly).

Re:There's a saying.. (0, Flamebait)

nametaken (610866) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811919)

Yeah, no kidding.

To all the douchebags over at MSFT... thanks for the aggravation and millions of posts we're all going to have to make over the next few years. You've sealed our fate.

We hate you... again... and can't wait for the day when you're all out of a job.

Re:There's a saying.. (5, Informative)

jmpeax (936370) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811985)

Actually, the summary is misleading. Only intranet pages are not rendered in standards mode by default, presumably to encourage enterprise customers to upgrade (most I know of use IE6 at the moment). From TFA:

The dirty secret is buried deep down in the "Compatibility view" configuration panel, where the "Display intranet sites in Compatibility View" box is checked by default. Thus, by default, intranet pages are not viewed in standards mode.

The article uses some dubious statistics to back up the sensationalist headline ("intranets account for about half of all page views on PCs"), but ignores the reality: many intranet systems use IE-specific extensions (normally because they were developed a while ago) and, unlike websites, don't often benefit from constant revision and attention from a development team. To me, viewing intranet pages in compatibility mode by default makes sense.

or it could be... (2, Insightful)

toby (759) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812313)

Only intranet pages are not rendered in standards mode by default,

Because SharePoint (and other denizens of the MS ghetto) does not, and never will, comply with relevant open standards.

(Should we be thankful they still use TCP? Or should we pray for the ultimate ghettoisation - let them isolate themselves behind their own proprietary walls.)

Re:There's a saying.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812097)

Hey...six months is a good run for a promise from Microsoft...

Not Surprised! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24811695)

Given MS' history this was almost a given.

Why should this surprise anyone? (0, Flamebait)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811701)

It is MSFT's interest to promote their own quasi standards to encourage Windows platform lock-in.

Re:Why should this surprise anyone? (0, Flamebait)

mrbah (844007) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811973)

The problem (for MICROS~1) is that web developers got wise to this, and have gotten pretty good at hacking around IE's awful errors while still maintaining standards compliance. So MICROS~1 has turned around and actively started changing the nature of the errors in each version, just to make life harder for developers. They haven't truly improved standards support since IE 5.5, they've just changed the rendering errors in an attempt to stop developers from creating standards complaint pages. If that's not anti-competitive, I don't know what is.

Exactly - tag: AndThisSurprisesYouBecause (2, Insightful)

toby (759) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812317)

n/t

Probably the corporate customers (5, Insightful)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811727)

I'd imagine that there are a lot of intranet apps that are coded to work around a lot of IE only quirks, and would require a lot of effort to update.

MSes volume license customers probably asked MS to make IE7 mode the default. And when money talks, companies listen.

Re:Probably the corporate customers (5, Insightful)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811773)

I agree that it makes sense for the intranet pages to be viewed in Compatibility Mode.

However showing a broken page icon next to standards-compliant web pages is another issue altogether. Clearly the broken page icon should apply to pages that aren't standards compliant!

Re:Probably the corporate customers (3, Interesting)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811847)

The icon should be different. Their meaning makes some sense, but the purpose of the icon would be clearer if they added a question mark to the "broken page" (so the icon would convey "is the page broken?")

Re:Probably the corporate customers (4, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812435)

I agree, having installed IE8 beta for the first time about five minutes ago. I clicked the broken page button, and sure enough, the page broke (on a site I've been working on and haven't gotten to IE6/7 hacks yet). Works as promised, I guess. Thankfully, the default strict compliance mode either works correctly or close enough that my lack of IE-conditional stylesheets didn't matter.

I think a little explanation that pops up in that first-load box would be sufficient. They could even use it to paint themselves in a good light - "By default, IE8 will show websites using the latest web standards. Some websites have not been developed to the latest web standards, and may not appear correctly. If this happens, click the compatibility mode icon (image) and the page will be drawn in a less standards-compliant mode that should be closer to the website designer's intentions."

Seriously, attack the web devs and designers in the firstrun message if you have to. Use it as an opportunity to brush up on your doublespeak and make us look bad. We don't care, so long as you render the page as well as the Gecko and Webkit engines by default.

Intranet sites, whatever. I think that should be done within the network rather than the browser's defaults directly, but that's not a major concern to me really.

Re:Probably the corporate customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812449)

Well, the icon isn't to indicate that the webpage is broken. It's a toggle button that appears if the webpage is rendered strictly (meaning it has an appropriate DOCTYPE). If it's being viewed in compatibility mode (IE7 mode) then the toggle button is depressed (pushed in, not suicidal).

I don't disagree that the icon is a bit confusing. IE8 is still at the point where user feedback counts, so if you think that you have a better idea for an icon that represents the state of the current webpage as well as represents the action to modify the current view then I'm sure they would be willing to listen.

Re:Probably the corporate customers (4, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812237)

Companies with intranets that don't work in a standard web browser can set all their clients to use the broken backwards compatibility mode by default as part of their policy settings.

Re:Probably the corporate customers (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812311)

there are a lot of intranet apps that are coded to work around a lot of IE only quirks

They're not coded to work around the IE only quirks.
They're only coded to work with IE.

There's a marked difference between the two. The first assumes that they work with other browsers. The second makes it obvious that there is no concept of 'other browsers' on a corporate intranet.

I work in an IE only intranet shop. I'm the 'rogue' using Firefox to ensure that at least what I produce is robust (I mean, you can't beat the web-dev tools for trouble shooting, and they aren't much good if you can't see what you're producing in at least FF and IE.)

It's Microsoft (0, Troll)

nickswitzer (1352967) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811731)

What do you expect? They said that their operating systems were supposed to be extremely secure, and were they? No. Microsoft is not a software company driven by good morals, they are driven by money and their marketing department. So it was a publicity stunt. Microsoft has had many publicity stunts in the past and have broken many promises.

Re:It's Microsoft (2, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812079)

I wouldn't say that personally. I don't think that the security issue is a morality problem so much as they apparently don't employ people that are going to say that something doesn't work.

I'm not sure what other explanation there could be. MS hires some of the best experts in the world and yet has an OS which really, really doesn't reflect the talent. It's almost as if the CEO is demanding the design be a specific way without keeping current on technology.

You can suggest immorality or conspiracy, but realistically most of the things which cause Linux, Mac, *BSD, etc., trouble cost them money as well.

INTRANET only (5, Informative)

tankrshr77 (170422) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811743)

The article only says that INTRANET pages are not shown in standards-compliant mode by default.

Re:INTRANET only (5, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811849)

Presumably because internal corporate apps are going to be a dozen years old and already so finely tuned to the intricacies of IE6 that reworking them would cost too much—and so companies wouldn't upgrade to IE8. I think The Register is being a little unfair in this case, although their comment about the icon (which takes up too much space and uses language so loaded ("discrimination") that it verges on being connotatively wrong) is much easier to appreciate. Perhaps the CTO of Opera is not the ideal person to expect to deliver an unbiased commentary.

I guess this all reflects the same woe preventing any standard's adoption: is it cheaper for the corporate sector to go with it or go against it? In the case of Intranet apps, I suspect the answer is a resounding "no," and it would most likely just be seen as breaking compatibility for an abstract reason.

I bet that, with enough poking and shit from the community, however, the MS guys could be convinced to have it default to compatibility mode for intranet sites only on Business versions of Vista.

wow (1)

toby (759) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812327)

already so finely tuned to the intricacies of IE6 that reworking them would cost too much

NOBODY SAW THAT COMING!

Re:INTRANET only (0, Redundant)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812413)

Perhaps the CTO of Opera is not the ideal person to expect to deliver an unbiased commentary.

Who else? Mozilla's CTO? That's the same thing. Icrosoft? Nope. Unbiased thing is kinda hard to come by.

Re:INTRANET only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24811953)

combined with internet explorers outstanding record in deciding what is and what is not an intranet page this will prove to be really helpful ...

Re:INTRANET only (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811967)

The article only says that INTRANET pages are not shown in standards-compliant mode by default.

And beyond that this is a BETA release, not the final release. But hey, why let reality get in the way of a good Microsoft trashing.

Re:INTRANET only (4, Interesting)

telbij (465356) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811969)

The article only says that INTRANET pages are not shown in standards-compliant mode by default.

Yeah the article is too harsh on this point, but...

Furthermore, web standards are discriminated against in IE8 by the icon that appears next to standards-compliant web pages

This is just terrible. This sounds like Ballmer came down there personally and mandated this. On the other hand...

First, I suggest that IE8 not introduce version targeting which only perpetuates the problem of non-compliant pages. Instead, IE8 should respect the established conventions which don't need manual switching between modes.

One of the things Microsoft does very well is maintain backwards compatibility. This is of tremendous value to enterprise customers. The least evil way to do this is with rendering modes. You can argue that standards should be the default, but to suggest that Microsoft should stab its most profitable userbase in the back and completely break backwards compatibility just to altruistically further the state of web standards compatibility is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I wish it would happen, but it would be a pretty stupid move.

Huh? How does IE8 determine internet vs. intranet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812013)

My employer's intranet spans dozens of domains and partner sites. How does a browser determine what's intranet and what's internet?

Are you dense or just an ms ballmer fan boy?

Re:Huh? How does IE8 determine internet vs. intran (1)

toby (759) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812339)

Check if the site is on a routeable IP (or on a local subnet). Another is if its hostname is in the public DNS. Etc.

Re:INTRANET only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812029)

A browser fetches URLs and renders them. How the hell is it supposed to know if a page is on the intranet or not? If it knows out-of-the-box, then there's piss poor isolation between the networking layers, and the browser is looking at bits it has no business looking at. Or if in some other setting window the browser is told which IP addresses or URL pattern comprises the intranet, then you actually have to go out of your way to enter intranet information into each broswer at the company for the purpose of triggering the "default" legacy mode for those.

Re:INTRANET only (1)

tchiseen (1315299) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812281)

What is the INTRANETS? Does not compute. In other news, when I heard this, my internal surprise meter registered only the tiniest of blips. This blip coincides not with the news itself, but with the fact that anyone else is surprised by this. Someone remind me why we care about IE8 agian? Are they banning Firefox and Opera when IE8 releases? Is IE8 going to be cross-platform? I thought people stopped using IE once they invented Netscape...

Oh hey (1)

kjzk (1097265) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811747)

I think I'm going to put a "Download Firefox" button on every website I make from here on out. Assholes.

better yet - (4, Informative)

toby (759) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812349)

Use this [explorerdestroyer.com] .

No, intranets are not the web (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24811753)

Sounds like the same old backward compatibility for corporate intranets, sharepoint, etc.

And the GUI shown that controls this can be changed with a single click of a checkbox.

Sounds good enough for me, though I suspect nothing MS does will be good enough.

P.S. Opera is my default browser, and I have used it since they made it free, but their CTO's claim
is mostly all wet.

Alarmist article. Boring. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24811781)

The dirty secret is buried deep down in the ÂCompatibility view configuration panel, where the ÂDisplay intranet sites in Compatibility View box is checked by default. Thus, by default, intranet pages are not viewed in standards mode.

So they use standards compliant mode by default over the internet, but not for internal sites that are probably aimed at the specific browsers supported by the company's IT department. Sounds reasonable to me. Anyone have a problem with this?

Re:Alarmist article. Boring. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812395)

Anyone have a problem with this?

Yeah, the anti-MS fud merchants who didn't bother reading the article.

Re:Alarmist article. Boring. (2, Interesting)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812451)

Yes! Yes! Yes! Micro$haft is t3h evilz0rs! Th3y mu$t bu|2n! ... er... we must berate them for everything they do, no matter how logical.

Misleading summary.... it's INTRANET ONLY (5, Insightful)

aengblom (123492) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811785)

MS is "breaking" that promise only for intranet pages and, honestly, intranet pages are a very different. If you think corporations are going to be updating all these internal applications when all they have to do is switch on compatibility mode, well you've got another thing coming.

And, if intranet pages stop working I'd wager a whole lot of users and corporations would just turn on compatibility mode for EVERYTHING and be done with it. One could argue even more people will use the regular IE8 mode if this is left as default.

Wait, I don't know what I was thinking. M$ IS EVIL LIAR!

Re:Misleading summary.... it's INTRANET ONLY (-1)

tom1974 (413939) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811875)

MS is "breaking" that promise only for intranet pages and, honestly, intranet pages are a very different.

And IE8 differentiates between intranet and extranet how?

Re:Misleading summary.... it's INTRANET ONLY (3, Informative)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811937)

Domain

Re:Misleading summary.... it's INTRANET ONLY (1)

bb5ch39t (786551) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811965)

I would guess by IP address. 10.a.b.c and 192.d.e.f are defined to be "local" and not to be routed over the Internet. Or maybe it's by the site's classification that you can give somewhere in IE. I don't remember where, I don't run Windows at home.

Re:Misleading summary.... it's INTRANET ONLY (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812231)

It's a guess.. and a pretty poor one on anything other than a simple home network.

Once you have multiple IP ranges it falls apart and just assumes everything is internet.

Re:Misleading summary.... it's INTRANET ONLY (5, Informative)

aengblom (123492) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812011)

The same way IE7, IE6, IE5 and I'm pretty sure lesser IEs did? IE has long allowed different security settings for intranet vs. internet pages.

As I hinted about above, the dynamics of Intranet and internet are very different.

Change on the Internet is very difficult because site developers must develop towards the most common denominator and this is rarely the cutting edge. Even if it's better for everyone to move towards the standards, there is a disincentive for anyone to move first.

An intranet is completely different. If a company finds there is an advantage to moving off of IE6/7 and on to IE8, well they just need some guy in IT to sign off on redeveloping any things that would be broken.

Re:Misleading summary.... it's INTRANET ONLY (2, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811885)

If corporations need this it still doesn't have to be the default. They can set it in group policy. It's Microsoft that needs nonstandard IE mode (aka compatibility mode) to be the default for intranets, to lock in SharePoint.

Re:Misleading summary.... it's INTRANET ONLY (2, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811949)

Actually, you can browse and use Sharepoint 2007 (MOSS 2007) sites perfectly fine in Firefox - I do it every day without issue.

Re:Misleading summary.... it's INTRANET ONLY (2, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812031)

If only... I have a few businesses from which my company subscribes services and some are actually using Sharepoint as a portal to those services and completely blocks out my Firefox browser. Another is a security company that will only allow Safari and MSIE. But perhaps they aren't using a newer Sharepoint installation.

Re:Misleading summary.... it's INTRANET ONLY (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812101)

Possibly - theres nothing in MOSS 2007 that blocks Firefox or Safari by default.

I'm surprised (1)

toby (759) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812361)

At this rate, the shareholders will sue.

Can you [deep] link to SharePoint content by URL?

What functionality is missing when you use a browser other than IE?

Re:I'm surprised (2, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812399)

Yes you can deep link - even to documents in Document Libraries (http://sitename/subsitename/libraryname/foldername/documentname.txt).

Basically the only thing I have found in several months of using MOSS 2007 with FireFox is that you can't drag and drop webparts around in 'edit page' mode - you have to move them through the webpart settings. Otherwise, everything seems to work fine.

Stop the press. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24811789)

It's Beta, you idiots.

Re:Stop the press. (-1, Troll)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812105)

No, you're the idiot. Alpha means all features and defaults are not locked in. Beta means it is open for testing and supposed to be feature and configuration complete. Beta is for identifying bugs or other things that could be a problem. In this case, it is not a bug but "another thing" which needs to be identified and complained about... in this case, PROTESTED. You don't just file a bug report with Microsoft. It will be ignored. Microsoft has to be publicly protested in order to get them to do what is needed... even then there is no guarantee that they will.

Public opinion of Microsoft is a strange thing. When viruses and worms live in the holes and cracks of the Windows platform, people blame the writers of said malware exclusively and hold Microsoft blameless, or worse, paint them as the victim of being so successful. (Of course the writers, designers and more importantly the people who pay to have malware written and deployed are very responsible for its existence and the problems that result, no denying that.) Microsoft is the enabler in most of these situations and the public needs to be reminded of that fact until it is generally accepted and understood.

I wonder if people can read... (5, Informative)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811791)

1.) IE 8 is still in Beta. I'm sure most folks remember what that means. As in not quite feature complete yet?

2.) If people bothered to take a few minutes to read, you would see that it only impacts INTRANET sites, people do understand what that means correct?

I know a good portion of Slashdot just wants to flamethrower all that Microsoft does, but at least take the time to read.

PS: This post coming to you from IE 8 Beta2.

Re:I wonder if people can read... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24811825)

Considering your username, you are bound to lie for M$. M$ will pay people to do anything for them, including sending death threats to people who oppose Windoze or M$ in general.

Re:I wonder if people can read... (0)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812019)

You could have spent the 15 seconds it would take to verify his claim that it's only Intranet sites if you weren't so hung up on his username, Mr. "Anonymous Coward".

And no, Microsoft does not pay people to send death threats to people who oppose it. If you find evidence of that, take them to court, immediately, with my blessing. Otherwise, you're just making shit up, aka telling lies.

The article is Hixie bitching about the intranet default, and disagreeing with an icon (I guess he didn't notice, or thinks it's too subtle, that the broken page is "on" when in IE7 mode and "off" when in IE8?). He suggests just having no icon and putting up with broken websites on principle.

He also bullshits about how intranet sites are more important to the web than internet sites. Corporate users can easily tweak the setting company-wide through group policy, but admittedly the default is IE7.

Honestly, I figure the effect of removing the intranet IE7 option would me people sticking with the real IE7, which would mean the Internet still has a huge IE7 marketshare, which in turn means -- no web standards.

His suggestion for an alternate icon is the Acid2 smiley, which is an astonishingly bad suggestion used just for inflammatory purposes. Frankly, broken page conveys what the button does. Smiley face does not, particularly to non-technical users. There might be a more politically correct icon to choose from. Mostly, though, he's reading a lot into there that it's hard to really agree with.

Re:I wonder if people can read... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812053)

Shuddup, twitter [slashdot.org] sock.

Re:I wonder if people can read... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24811839)

that's because a good portion of slashdot are a bunch of faggots eating shit out of other faggots asses. fucking homos.

Re:I wonder if people can read... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812477)

(Score:8, Insightful)

Re:I wonder if people can read... (2, Informative)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811869)

IE 8 is still in Beta. I'm sure most folks remember what that means. As in not quite feature complete yet?

Ixnay on the condescension there MSFanBoi2. While there are no hard and fast rules, beta software usually is feature complete (in as much as the term 'feature complete' applies to anything that dribbles out of Redmond).

Re:I wonder if people can read... (1)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811873)

I know a good portion of Slashdot just wants to flamethrower all that Microsoft does, but at least take the time to read.

What I love about that is that most 'Microsoft haters' I know use Windows. Years of bitching, but still using it.
I use it too, and Linux, lots of Linux, and Unix. Not Macs though, the ones I would need cost too much.

The trick is to quit foaming at the mouth about Microsoft and realise that actually a lot of their stuff is pretty good, and where they fall down, there's always a FOSS alternative.

For me they fail on HPC, badly, so I use Linux or freeBSD for that.

Re:I wonder if people can read... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812151)

There really is a difference when they choose to compete. I mean their hardware products are usually pretty solid, as are there non-Office, non-Windows software offerings.

Ms Money is significantly less evil than that Intuit crap is. MS software users can't even begin to comprehend vendor lock in until dealing with an outfit like Intuit. Want to move to Intuit from a current version of Money, no you don't get to do that, just buy an older copy and import through that. Want to use a non approved bank, you're going to be inputting the entries manually. Or, how about use older files from previous version, not going to happen without a lot of work.

I'm sure a bit of that has changed since I tried their software, but compared to the relatively minor annoyances which keep people using MS' software, there are worse outfits out there.

And yes, I do hate Windows, it's set up and design pretty much completely fails as far as I'm concerned.

Re:I wonder if people can read... (-1)

mwolfe38 (1286498) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811903)

wow IE users can view and make comments on slashdot now. I thought you IE guys only wrote conditional comments.

Re:I wonder if people can read... (1)

cyb97 (520582) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812291)

Re1: Just picking your nits here, but a beta should really be feature complete. It would be setting your self up for the epic fail if you introduce new features AFTER the beta-cycle.

Betas are usually the first release outside your closed development environment and at this stage you should have sorted your shit out and focus on fixing bugs and critical errors that usually don't show up until you release your software to the "monkeys" (so to speak).

Re:I wonder if people can read... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812367)

it only impacts INTRANET sites

It only affects [slashdot.org] intranet sites. This is Slashdot, not a marketing department or a boardroom. Let's use English instead of Marketese. Further reading [mtholyoke.edu] .

Re:I wonder if people can read... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812469)

"1.) IE 8 is still in Beta. I'm sure most folks remember what that means. As in not quite feature complete yet?"

That's a funny statement since you don't seem to remember what it means. Beta is a phase where all features should be implemented, but not fully tested to be at the designed level of functionality. Of course people have become very loose with the terms Alpha and Beta in software development with some software developers relying on crap like release candidates (RC1, etc) to represent what should actually be a beta phase.

Compatibility View works + Strict! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24811807)

Compatibility View works. E.g Myspace loads badly in IE8 but does in Compatibility View mode.
It's not about web standards but about how good things look. How many developers code in XHTML strict? Few! If developers don't give a frak about standards, browsers should give a frak as well. I'm pissed off, sorry - I'm do get my XHTML Strict and CSS validated and they do get rendered well by browsers but when you consider the fact that the sites which are not rendered correctly are those which are not even validated properly.

(Intranet vs. Internet) & Efficiency (2, Insightful)

davecrusoe (861547) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811843)

What really peeves me is that our staff, part of a medium-size nonprofit, continually switch browsers to support our IE-only "Intranet" (thanks, MOSS!) and their favored method of browsing, through Firefox. The time we lose in training on this transition - and troubleshooting this transition - is unreasonable. It surprises me further that corporations would continue to push non-compliant products despite recent pushes for increasing computing efficiency in the workplace... Of course, MS is a business - but wouldn't their money be BETTER earned increasing my efficiency (making me more likely to purchase their products) than requiring me to take more time to accomplish everything? --Dave

Re:(Intranet vs. Internet) & Efficiency (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811959)

What really peeves me is that our staff, part of a medium-size nonprofit, continually switch browsers to support our IE-only "Intranet" (thanks, MOSS!) and their favored method of browsing, through Firefox.

What problems are you having? I browse MOSS 2007 daily using Firefox as my main browser without issue - and I'm a full blown site admin.

Re:(Intranet vs. Internet) & Efficiency (1)

davecrusoe (861547) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812227)

No kidding? Most of the activex functions are inoperable; formatting (besides straight HTML) in web parts, file upload features, versioning, etc... does that all work for you in FFox? If so, is there a MOSS extension necessary to make that happen?

Re:(Intranet vs. Internet) & Efficiency (2, Informative)

sconeu (64226) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812061)

Have you tried using the IE Tab Extension [mozilla.org] ?

Re:(Intranet vs. Internet) & Efficiency (1)

toby (759) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812387)

MS is a business - but wouldn't their money

By 'their money', you mean, of course, money that was yours before you gave it to them.

There's your answer - save your money in the first place and use the better free products.

liars & touts & shills, oh my (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24811863)

nothing new/surprising about that. fear is unprecedented evile's primary weapon. that, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' greed/fear/ego based hired goons' agenda. Most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'war', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid scheme. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & the notion of prosperity, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece

Re:liars & touts & shills, oh my (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812021)

You misspelled "based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys".

It's correctly spelled "based pr ?!firm?! scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys".

it's good they did it this way... (4, Funny)

paniq (833972) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811871)

...another reason for me to stay with Firefox! sometimes i feel tempted to switch to IE8, but i heard it's not easy to get it to run on Ubuntu. >:)

Compatibility View = workaround (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24811879)

How hard is it to click Tools, Compatibility Settings and to add the most visited sites or the sites within your corporate network?
Come on! Broken promise? Maybe. But did the IE Team not provide the work around through Compatibility View? Yes. So, shut up!

Re:Compatibility View = workaround (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811927)

Note that you can't run a strict Standards mode intranet and use compatibility mode for the Internet. Hm... What's that about? Does Microsoft perhaps sell some non-standards compliant intranet services?

who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24811913)

IE is irrelevant anyway. It is just the masses that are slow to to realize this but they will eventually

Re:who cares (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812147)

Take that back! MSIE is excellent for downloading Firefox.

Laughable (1)

ilovesymbian (1341639) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811917)

When has Microsoft ever created a true web standards compliant browser?

Show me, and I'll retire to the jungles in the Amazon.

Don't see it as a broken page icon (5, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811929)

See it as a broken browser icon.

Re:Don't see it as a broken page icon (1)

ojintoad (1310811) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812183)

You mean this icon? [imageshack.us]

This is News? (1)

El Bigote (639828) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811931)

Why is this even considered news worthy enough to report. This goes on all through the picture, to quote my wife.

Believe MS? (1)

bb5ch39t (786551) | more than 5 years ago | (#24811997)

Microsoft is in my "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" category. I don't believe much of what MS says. No more that I believe most politicians. Doing so in either case just leads to frustration and disappointment.

you FAI(L it. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812093)

Genius (1, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812095)

Only Microsoft would come up with an icon to imply that standards are bad.

I will not be surprised if standards mode is even removed completely by the time it leaves beta. They're just easing people into the idea of not using standards mode by starting on intranet pages at the moment.

Make a nagging screen for a broken page (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812119)

Why can't all browser developers like Apple,Micrsoft,Mozilla,Opera,etc. agree and make a nagging screen when the browser encounters a broken page?

Uh. (1)

mikkelm (1000451) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812137)

Yes, in the name of unconditionally appeasing standards preachers everywhere, let's push a browser that could render a huge number of especially smaller businesses crippled due to their internal web apps being left broken from a usability perspective.

"Intranet" translates to "enterprise network" in the real world. Enterprise web applications are pretty much all written for IE compatibility. Taking this away by default would be pointless and downright ridiculous. Leaving it in, but letting you flick a switch once your apps are standards compliant, where exactly is the basis for outrage in that?

SURPRISE! Not. (2, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812199)

Does it really surprise very many people that Microsoft is acting in the same way it ALWAYS HAS in the past?

Come on, man! Metaphorically, it is about the same as expecting a long-time multiple-repeat-offense child molester to behave from now on, based on her claim that she has "Seen the light," and has been "Healed! Praise the Lord!"

Yeah, right.

For a number of years now, whenever I hear another claim from Microsoft, my response has been "I will believe it when I see it."

And sadly, the fact is that I haven't been seeing it.

It's broken anyway (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812223)

Browsers shouldn't really have contextual switching like this in the first place and should always only follow standards.

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812251)

"Thus, by default, intranet pages are not viewed in standards mode."

Wow. What a broken promise.

Usability Trumps Image (2, Funny)

RomSteady (533144) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812261)

So let me see if I get this right...

Internet Explorer has three rendering modes: normal (IE6), standards (IE7) and super-standards (IE8).

Depending on the DOCTYPE, either "normal (IE6)" or "super-standards (IE8)" will appear.

For pages that appear in "super-standards" mode, they may appear broken if the page was built for IE6/7 and has an improper DOCTYPE. They put a button next to the link that someone can click to shift into the legacy rendering mode that looks like a broken page because most users are going to look for an obvious icon.

I'm not seeing the problem here.

first Pos't (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812271)

successes with the clearly. There lizard - In other Tops responsibility as one oF the to b3 about doing clearly. There

Slashdot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812287)

Since this is slashdot, I'll ignore any possible good things coming from this new browser. Microsoft is clearly a company that rapes babies and skins puppies (but only cute ones!). And now they release a beta of a browser than could possibly break (I didn't read the article in true /. form) some standards, a crime which is worse than either of aforementioned rape and killing. How could they!? Have they no soul!?

And my eyes have now rolled right into the back of my eye.

Thanks basement dwellers, you've been swell.

Sweet a chance to complain on the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812369)

Since when does a BETA release constitute breaking promises? Maybe the default setting just hasn't been changed yet, and will be by official release.

In other news... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24812443)

...planet Earth is still revolving.

So why is MS breaking their promises news? (1)

R_Growler (84235) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812467)

Lets (that is us. The public) be honest.
They have always done that. Always!

MS is not to be trusted on anything (unless, of course, they come out with a statement saying: We are making an OS that will kill you and then rape your corpse. Then we would get ads featuring Seinfeld showing you the lighter side of having your corpse raped...) and we know this. They have done it consistently over the years.
The broken promises. The corruption. The underhanded dealings. The lies. The theft. The monopoly practices. Jeeze...
Honestly. Lets get a show of hands: Who of you, (yes even you; 7-digit-UID MS Fan Boi.) are surprised?

-RG.

Promises? (1)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 5 years ago | (#24812475)

What are we? Children? I cannot believe anyone can be adult, hear the word promise, and consider giving it any seriousness. Microsoft or anyone should never promise anyone anything. Just my advice.

Beyond that, IE 8 is still beta so I'd wait to see the final result. I know I will not be using it much because I am on Linux 90% of the time. It better be slipstreamable though.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>