×

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!

Internet Explorer 8 Delayed Until 2009

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the ready-when-it's-ready dept.

Internet Explorer 204

Barence writes "Microsoft has confirmed that Internet Explorer 8 will not be officially released until 2009. According to a blog posting on the Internet Explorer 8 development site, a release candidate of the browser will be released in the first quarter of next year, to be followed by a final release at an unspecified date. This news comes on the same day that Google is considering bundling its Chrome browser with new PCs. Will the IE delay and Google's tactics help to steer users in Chrome's direction?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

204 comments

how (5, Insightful)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857095)

does a company with so much cash and resources is unable to release a good browser is beyond me

must be all the bureaucracy or some sort of internal politics

IE does so much harm to microsoft's image, are they just blind in the Death Star to notice the bad will being generated?

Re:how (2, Funny)

kandela (835710) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857117)

Yeah, how long will it take before Google gets it right?

Re:how (2, Informative)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857125)

google are a marketing company they dont have to get it "right" technically, they just have to make it appear that they got it right

Re:how (4, Insightful)

Kent Recal (714863) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857921)

Ehm, you confused google and microsoft there.
Microsoft is the marketing company. Google is a product company.

Google sets industry-standards with their products (search, gmail...) and people flock to them because they are better, not because google markets them anyhow. Seriously, have you seen an ad for google search or google mail ever?
Microsoft puts out crappy products and forces them down the consumers throats through their OS monopoly and aggressive marketing.

Re:how (5, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858327)

I beg to differ - Google is the very epitome of a marketing company, and your post is a damn good example of why. Googles products are you, not Gmail or search, you. Googles customers are its advertisers. The fact that you think Google is a product company proves that their marketing is second to none.

Re:how (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25858395)

I see ads for Google all the time on T.V. It's called product placement.

Re:how (4, Funny)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857143)

Yeah, how long will it take before Google gets it right?

Dunno. How long before Gmail gets out of beta?

Re:how (3, Insightful)

kandela (835710) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857339)

Ok, modded as a troll it is. However, not so long ago we were calling microsoft evil for the way in which they proliferated their O/S and browser by having it bundled with new PCs. Now that Google is doing this it is suddenly ok? For me their priority should have been perfecting their browser (and it isn't as good as its competition yet) before engaging in the "evil" aggressive marketing tactics of its competitor. That is what I call 'getting it right'.

And I also agree with someone else who pointed out 2009 is only 6 weeks away. That's not so long for the successor to a browser that is still very competitive. Microsoft 'have it right' in this instance: make sure the successor is air tight before replacing a solid product.

Re:how (1)

sveard (1076275) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857395)

Microsoft 'have it right' in this instance: make sure the successor is air tight before replacing a solid product.

Internet Explorer 7 is NOT a solid product, and I'm sure Internet Explorer 8 will NOT be "air tight".

Also, Google bundling Chrome is surely different from what Microsoft has done with Windows and Internet Explorer, no?

Re:how (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25857535)

You make it sound like Firefox is air-tight, when it has issues of it's own. Is there a single air-tight Browser out there, really?

Re:how (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25858259)

Actually, IE7 on Vista IS a solid product by any reasonable definition. (I don't have to cite any sources since you didn't). The halcyon days of drive by download malware are OVER with IE7 and Vista. You haven't noticed that? These days they have to get lusers to click on malware - they can't just auto-load it when you click a questionable link anymore.

Try running the new stuff before bashing it.

That said, I still do prefer Firefox (this post is written in FF 3.04) to IE7 and IE8 - mostly due to Adblock Plus. IE8 has gotten very close to FF otherwise.

Re:how (2, Interesting)

msromike (926441) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858335)

It's the best browser that has ever been distributed for the average computer user to use. IE 8 will be better. That's why they use numbers at the end of the name to let you know there is a better one out there.

Firefox may be superior in some respects and not in others. I use both. When IE won't render a page correctly then I go use Firefox. Works well for me.

I am not sure what part of IE 7 is not solid. It never crashes and it displays web pages, media content and downloads files. What more is it supposed to do?

Re:how (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25857465)

>Now that Google is doing this it is suddenly ok?

You must be new here.

Re:how (2, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857469)

There's a difference here. Putting chrome on a PC that automatically has IE (thanks, microsoft) means you have a choice. If we included firefox and safari, even moreso. It is at this point people can then say that they want IE completely removed from a PC. It may not be the same as selling PCs that don't have windows bundled but it is a step in the right direction.

Microsoft have nothing right or wrong in this instance, all they are doing is pushing back development as they are doing a crappy job as always.

Re:how (1)

drei0003019 (1191767) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858037)

I already hear the phone ringing, my father on the other end, asking me which of the 5 pre-installed internets is the right one. And then there are still 3 browser to remove and one to cripple as much as possible to do no harm...

Re:how (2, Insightful)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858051)

also, the problem with Microsoft's bundling was that they were abusing their monopoly. they used the monopoly Windows held in the desktop OS market to gain an unfair monopoly in the browser market. this included integrating IE into Windows (making it impossible to uninstall) and forbidding OEMs from bundling competing browsers with their systems. this was a clear case of anticompetitive behavior.

there's nothing inherently wrong or illegal with bundling software with hardware. Nero does it, Apple does it, AOL does it, Microsoft certainly does it, and so do countless other companies. saying that Google is being just like MS by bundling their software is just demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the antitrust case against Microsoft.

Re:how (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858095)

What are you talking about? You can uninstall chrome, and you know what I mean by that comment.

Re:how (1)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858723)

What are you talking about? You can uninstall chrome, and you know what I mean by that comment.

In my experience, knowing (or having the ability to know) what you meant does little to nothing to stop people from setting up a straw man that sounds similar to what you were saying and then talking about how wrong you were when they proceed to tear down that straw man. My favorites are when I anticipate this and go out of my way to explicitly clarify what I am saying and what I am not saying and someone proceeds to argue against a claim I was careful not to make. That people can do this and sincerely believe that they are right and that they really told me off is amazing.

An example of my own experiences with people who refuse to really listen to what you're saying and decide to respond to it anyway are here [slashdot.org] and this one is a particularly good example [slashdot.org].

This is from http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1171 [thunderbolts.info], which is a completely unrelated discussion. Yet, I believe this paragraph applies:

I've repeated on this forum a few times, if anyone wants to posit there [sic] own self-consistent framework I will follow it for the purposes of discussion with that person. My experience with communication is that people do not take this kind of care. As a result they read someone else's words but, instead of learning something new, they simply think of what THEY would be thinking if THEY were using those words. Nobody actually learns anything new (something that wasn't already in their head). Everyone stays stuck in their own head, although they have the illusion of communication because they unknowingly think/say the same things in many many different ways

Re:how (5, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857155)

They give it away from free and still have a huge majority of the market share.
So...
1. They don't have any financial motives to make it excellent just to keep it from being left behind.
2. As long as they keep the majority in market share developers will still develop and test with it.

All the changes and features are basically keep up features with some easy to program "innovative" stuff just to keep it on the radar. If you have done any software development you need to realize it is difficult to have a clean timeline of code especially with scope that Microsoft needs to have (Works for all Systems, Business and Personal Use, Good Security, Huge Flexibility...) In general Microsoft hates saying no to its customer so they often end up creating applications that meet all the customer request but fail to do what the customers want.

This is part of the Apple popularly surge. Apple likes to say no to a lot of good features. As they realize if it is implemented the majority may suffer to make the minority a little bit happier.

Re:how (1)

DiLLeMaN (324946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858115)

Apple likes to say no to a lot of good features. As they realize if it is implemented the majority may suffer to make the minority a little bit happier.

Dude, all that counts is that it makes Steve Jobs happy. If he wants Feature X, it goes in. If he doesn't, it's out.

(this was intended +5 funny, not -2 troll -- I'm an Apple fanboy myself, thank you very much)

Re:how (5, Insightful)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857167)

You're not looking at the whole picture.

IE does a lot of things right, which no other browser does.

Centrally managing IE in a Windows Environment is a breeze - everything can be configured using Group Policies, a powerful tool that automates application customization.

Deploying and upgrading IE is also easy, as it utilizes the same Windows Update infrastructure that is already in place - using the free WSUS product in small businesses, or WSUS/SCCM in larger businesses.

IE also allows powerful intranet applications and custom security zones that can also be configured centrally - yes, this feature has been the source of many a security problem, but businesses don't buy computers because they're secure, but because they solve business problems.

Firefox, Opera and Chrome seem to have little to no interest in being used in corporate IT environments, where automated deployment and central management is key.

Re:how (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25857439)

but businesses don't buy computers because they're secure, but because they solve business problems.

Urm, hopefully both?

Anyway, I thought we were tlking about sw, not computers.

Re:how (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857521)

Urm, hopefully both?

No, most definitely not. Have you looked at the security setup in most ERP/LOB software packages out there?

Re:how (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25857447)

Centrally managing IE in a Windows Environment is a breeze - everything can be configured using Group Policies, a powerful tool that automates application customization.

Microsoft leveraging the fact that it owns the OS.

Deploying and upgrading IE is also easy, as it utilizes the same Windows Update infrastructure that is already in place - using the free WSUS product in small businesses, or WSUS/SCCM in larger businesses.

Again, leveraging the fact that MS owns the OS and IE.

IE also allows powerful intranet applications and custom security zones that can also be configured centrally - yes, this feature has been the source of many a security problems, but businesses don't buy computers because they're secure, but because they solve business problems.

Well, there you go. The source of security problems. I wonder how long businesses will be able to ignore security before someone starts bringing the negligence suits? Or have they already started?

Firefox, Opera and Chrome seem to have little to no interest in being used in corporate IT environments, where automated deployment and central management is key.

Most of the "things IE does well" that you mention are properly the function of the OS, not the browser. MS is only able to achieve these things because the OS and the browser are still so closely tied, something that just isn't possible on the same level for the other browsers.

Re:how (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857509)

Microsoft leveraging the fact that it owns the OS.

Integration is certainly one of the big selling points of Microsoft, but Group Policy is an open platform, there is absolutely nothing preventing Chrome/Opera/Firefox from adding GP support. Heck, there's even a third-party Firefox build out there that implements this to some extent (Frontmotion).

MS is only able to achieve these things because the OS and the browser are still so closely tied, something that just isn't possible on the same level for the other browsers.

Sorry, but many other vendors have got their central management and update of applications on Windows working perfectly well.

Re:how (1)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857853)

Indeed, I feel bad when people are as ignorant as the GP.

I've never actually looked for it simply because IE6/7 + The IEAK (and its handy MSI's) are precisely what my company needs in order to effectively manage internet usage.

Until I see either some kind of "Firefox Deployment/Software Update Server," a-la Symantec Anti-Virus/Endpoint Protection, or an MSI Generator + well honed ADM/ADMX files for Firefox, it's not showing up on our corporate network outside of the IT Dept.

Firefox and Linux zealots tend not to understand this, I'm afraid. Much like a Linux Desktop OS, better for you != better for everyone.

Re:how (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858403)

Until I see either some kind of "Firefox Deployment/Software Update Server," a-la Symantec Anti-Virus/Endpoint Protection, or an MSI Generator + well honed ADM/ADMX files for Firefox, it's not showing up on our corporate network outside of the IT Dept.

Good thing Firefox is open source.

  1. Make your own FF server
  2. Sell server package to enterprises
  3. ?????
  4. Profit!!!

Avoiding the issue (5, Informative)

markdowling (448297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857919)

Firefox has been asked for years for better corporate deployment support. The answer was some wiki pages [mozilla.org] and a Client Customisation Kit which is currently listed as supporting FF2. [mozilla.org]

Firefox still ships as an .exe, not a Mozilla branded MSI, despite one being requested in January 2004 (bug 231062). Despite being listed as P1 for FF3 [mozilla.org] there's no sign of it yet.

There is an MSI linked from Mozilla pages, but it is not a Mozilla MSI. With all respect to Frontmotion for the work they have done, if I'm bringing an MSI inside my firewall it has to say Mozilla on it.

Reaching IE's integration level would be beyond most companies but Firefox's level barely reaches baby steps.

(incidentally for those who wish to mod me down "cuz that post hatez teh firefox", this is being posted with Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.4) Gecko/2008102920 Firefox/3.0.4)

Re:Avoiding the issue (1)

Kent Recal (714863) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858349)

I still don't get what *exactly* you are missing?
A checkbox in your SMS to have Firefox deployed?

How do you treat other third party packages (most of which probably don't provide a MSI either) and why don't you treat Firefox the same way?

I strongly suggest that someone who fails to integrate Firefox (of all things) with a large scale deployment infrastructure better not be responsible for said deployment.
And yes, I have seen Firefox (alongside with IE btw.) in 1000+ seat installations with fully automatic provisioning.

Re:Avoiding the issue (2, Interesting)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858739)

A 1000+ seat installation means you have lots of resources available. Guys dedicated to packaging software and testing it.

Now think of a 100 seat installation, where you often don't even have one full time IT employee.

Almost no resources - now create your own deployment package, and update it everytime Mozilla releases an update, and deploy that alongside an already existing webbrowser that more or less does it's job?

Why? Where's the business case? It costs hell of a lot time and money, of which you have neither, and doesn't really change all that much about the situation.

Re:how (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25857625)

You're right. It's excellent in every way; except for rendering HTML.

Re:how (1, Insightful)

Kent Recal (714863) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857967)

Ehm, what exactly needs to be "centrally managed" about a friggin' Web-Browser?
Drank a bit much of the MS kool-aid lately, did you?

Firefox can auto-detect the proxy server to use and updates itself over the intertubes.

What more do you need in your "corporate environment"?

Re:how (4, Informative)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858093)

Ehm, what exactly needs to be "centrally managed" about a friggin' Web-Browser?

For example, which extensions may or may not be installed. Or what the homepage is set to. Or, disabling the Phishing Filter or enabling the Lookup-Portion of the Phishing Filter. Enable certain privacy settings by default, or disable them.

Firefox can auto-detect the proxy server to use and updates itself over the intertubes.

A feature which requires local administrative privileges, which is not the case in a corporate IT environment.

What more do you need in your "corporate environment"?

Lot's. You've obviously never worked in one, which is perfectly fine. But don't attack me just because you don't understand a large part of the global IT economy.

Re:how (4, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858407)

What more do you need in your "corporate environment"?

Considerably more than auto detecting the proxy server and updating - you really seem to be missing the point.

Some very good examples are default Favourites, very helpful in a lot of corporations (have you ever got the shit job of having to add a new favourite to a thousand PCs?), default Homepage, again very helpful, default popup blocker and security settings for known good websites that you have no control over but need to use, and local browser security settings for when you don't want your employees from setting their own proxy server or otherwise mess with the browser setup.

In short, everything you need to be applied to every one (or a majority) of your desktops - you can either have your PC setup bods do it manually, or you can just ghost a new machine and let the central management server do it. I know which I would rather do.

From the sound of it, you haven't had to deal with an corporate environment with more than a dozen or so desktops. Believe me, central management becomes extremely handy when you are dealing with a thousand desktops in multiple locations (or even 100 in one).

On the other hand, Firefox does have an Active Directory GPO template available for doing many of the things corporate admins require.

Re:how (0, Flamebait)

uassholes (1179143) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858375)

IE does a lot of things right, which no other browser does.

Bwaaah haaw haaaa haaa.

Stop it, you're killing me!

Haaaa haaa haaaaaaaw. Choke, snortle.

Re:how (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857237)

Developing a browser seems very expensive. The Mozilla foundation spent $20m last year alone. I'm not sure how much Apple, Nokia, Google, Adobe, and all of the other WebKit contributors have spent jointly, but I'd imagine it's a lot.

Re:how (4, Interesting)

mfh (56) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857243)

must be all the bureaucracy or some sort of internal politics

It's definitely part of the recipe for these kinds of projects. The main thing we see in big projects that are beyond a first or third iteration (like IE) is that most of the original team is gone and most of the original vision has changed, either for political reasons or for necessary course corrections, and both of which must be true for IE. Nobody on the IE team shares the exact same vision for IE. Many fragments of the IE userbase have likely caused conflicts between team members from design to production. Conflicts cause issues in every aspect of development, but also they cause turnover.

We know people were promoted out of the IE team, and promoted out of the company. In a case like Microsoft, it's been years since the first iteration, and IE has gone through so many revisions that there is a high likelihood for spaghetti code and feature creep to crush project fluidity. They have rewritten the whole thing, how many times now?

While team members wielding political weapons must be crushed on sight by worthy adversaries, it doesn't happen enough because people are afraid of repercussions. Unless you are Steve Ballmer, then you throw a chair and hit the wrong person.

Re:how (1)

springbox (853816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857739)

We know people were promoted out of the IE team, and promoted out of the company.

So, they were fired?
Help! Help! I'm being promoted!

Re:how (1)

mfh (56) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858467)

Yeah the concept of being "promoted to customer" is synonymous with "being fired" -- especially in retail but it also applies to pretty much any company where you would end up using the product you were working on (many MSFT products are used daily by everyone). The customer is always right and is therefore your boss!! You can also promote yourself by taking a job with the competition.

Re:how (5, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857297)

Having a lot of money isn't necessarily going to speed up development. Developing complex software (which MS Internet Explorer is) takes time. You can use money to hire more developers, and that can speed things up, but, after a certain point, having more programmers will actually slow down development. You can use money to hire better programmers, but that has its limits, too. The same goes for buying faster hardware and better development tools. At some point, you just can't make things go faster, no matter how much money you have.

Re:how (1)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857427)

In the past, Microsoft was able to catch up and kill Netscape -or any other competitor-, no matter how "complex" it was to build the software needed. Why they can't do it anymore is a mistery for me.

Re:how (2, Insightful)

DiLLeMaN (324946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857831)

They didn't catch up only by coding a better browser. Making it a default part of the system surely helped things along too.

Also, the first IE was not built by MS anyway, it was NCSA Mosaic under a different name.

That being said: I really liked IE3 or IE4 on the Mac when it came out. It was simply a better browser than Netscape 2 or 3, which was bulky and slow. Web standards didn't count back then, so all people wanted was a browser that was relatively easy to use, and displayed most of the web somewhat OK. When IE5/Mac came out, it was at that point the most standards-compliant browser out there, IIRC. Too bad they axed that engine rather than use it as a replacement for trident.

But anyway: Microsoft tends to "catch up and kill" competitors by throwing wads of cash around, buying tech and marketing that straight to the top. Having to do stuff themselves often results in massive fail.

Re:how (1)

uassholes (1179143) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858541)

No, it had nothing to do with technology. IE has always been inferior. Bundling it with Windblows is what killed Netscape.

But there's no "mystery", they're still a brutal, cut throat, win at any cost company that's totally uncaring about the advancement of computing; only making money through domination. For a recent example, look at the "Office Open XML" vs. "Open Office" farce: http://www.groklaw.net/search.php?query=office+open&keyType=phrase&datestart=&dateend=&topic=0&type=all&author=0&mode=search [groklaw.net]

Re:how (0, Offtopic)

dcrooks_ea (1187511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857733)

Oh pish-posh, I bet if I hired a thousand programmers, I could create an Algol compiler in less than six months.

Re:how (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858731)

At some point, you just can't make things go faster, no matter how much money you have.

Pft. That is just a sign that they aren't being inventive enough. The obvious solution here is to create a new programming language that will facilitate and speed up of IE developement. In fact, they should call the magical languge CIE (with available CIE++ and CIE-sharp bindings). [/bad joke end]

Re:how (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25857643)

More likely, M$ is waiting until its R&D department ( everybody else ) has finished development of their next generation browsers. Then they can harvest the most popular features of each, include them in ie8, and call it innovation.

Ummm.... (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857101)

This is not massive news as it is Late November in 2008. Meaning if IE 8 was release it would have to be released within 6 weeks. Heck it would need at least that much time in the RC levels just to make sure things are kinda going smooth.

Re:Ummm.... (0, Flamebait)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857133)

This is not massive news as it is Late November in 2008. Meaning if IE 8 was release it would have to be released within 6 weeks. Heck it would need at least that much time in the RC levels just to make sure things are kinda going smooth.

Yeah, well, 2009 is a year that is going to be but a day shorter than this year. And the date of IE8's release is as of yet unspecified, which, if our past experiences with Microsoft are in any way significant, means that we have about a year before release. At best.

Now taking bets: which will come first - IE8 or Win7?

Re:Ummm.... (2, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857173)

I would say IE8.

Internet Explorer tends to be released slightly before the OS is. Remember integrated browser. That means in order to make sure all the new features of the OS are completely integrated they need to make sure the browser works first.

Bloatware delayed until 2009! (1)

davidfree (886279) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857109)

"Google Chrome is a browser that combines a minimal design with sophisticated technology to make the web faster, safer and easier" Now who want to be that IE8 was going to be the complete opposite of this. I expect to see usual MS bloatware, slow, buggy and non standards compliant!

Nothing new (2, Insightful)

Monoman (8745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857131)

This is how MS marketing operates.

1. Hype what you are working on like it is coming out any day now in hopes to avoid customers switching to a competitor.
2. Delay
3. Back to #1 until product is ready for testing
4. Release :-)

Chevy is doing the first two steps with the Volt because they can't compete with hybrids ... or is it out now. Oh wait, gas prices are down now so people don't care about fuel efficiency right now.

Did Microsoft state a 2008 release date? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25858101)

To my knowledge Microsoft had not committed to delivering IE 8 in 2008.

Delay means very little (5, Insightful)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857137)

Chances are, if you're an internet explorer user you're not on the edge of your seat about the next version coming out - because you have no knowledge about it. Furthermore, you've never heard of chrome. Some people in the office go on about Firefox but your browser works just fine - infact, you consider the browser you used in 2002 to be no different than the one you use now.

I may dump Firefox. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25857359)

I went up to Mozilla the other day for a plugin and what do I find? A login/registration screen! WTF! I am going to have to register with them too just to get a plugin? I create phony logins, but it's the principal. I'm sick of having of this registration BS. What benefit does a website gain from it? Is it an incentive for advertisers? What? It just makes the site a bigger pain in the ass.

Registration is a pain.

Re:I may dump Firefox. (3, Informative)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857479)

Some plugins are still in beta/alpha/eat your babies revision. They make you register to download those, so you can't bitch at them when it gobbles up all your bookmarks or something.

Re:Delay means very little (1)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857913)

you consider the browser you used in 2002 to be no different than the one you use now.

It's better - it now pops up helpful little adverts to guide me through the internets.

I can't say the same for my internet provider though. It's just so much slower than it used to be ...

IE8 in 09? (4, Funny)

OffTheLip (636691) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857145)

This seems to be keeping with previous Microsoft release schedules. It's an off by one problem, sort of like buffer overflows.

Steer in a direction? (1)

K3ba (1012075) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857185)

Not likely - the majority of internet users use whatever they were given when they bought their computer, and then even if there are multiple choices of browsers available, will choose the icon that looks pretty (to them). I remember the Netscape vs IE wars...

Google might start having a few more people use their browser if they do get an OEM deal - no sensible OEM is going to publish a beta product though imo.

The vast majority will never find a good browser with good plugin support like Firefox either - sucks to be them I guess.

Google not serious about browser (5, Interesting)

BountyX (1227176) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857231)

I suspect that google is not serious about chrome. Specifically, google does not see chrome as a long term product. They are simply chomping at microsoft's market share by introducing another browser into the market. The more browsers that are in the market, the more important standards become (ie's biggest weakness) and the less market share ie will have. If google really wanted to see their browser as a top dog, they would cut their 85 million dollar annual firefox donation. They are not playing to win, they are playing to have MS lose. Futhermore, if IE starts to decline, live services and ms advertising will also decline proportionally. In the end, google can care less about it's chrome, its just a UI slapped onto webkit anyways. The true agenda is to get people to question their browser and try different ones. With lower IE market share, they will see bigger ad revenues. That's more money to invent random stuff with hehe. If microsoft can keep up, then they win again, by creating a better standards complaint expirience. Standards are the opposite of vendor lock-ins ;). Oh google, you must be bored.

Re:Google not serious about browser (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857411)

That's not a Firefox donation, it's a mozilla-browser-searching-via-google. If I understand it correctly, even MS gives Mozilla money for the use of the mozilla-browser-search-box.

Re:Google not serious about browser (2, Interesting)

Monoman (8745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857545)

And MS shouldn't be either. I can see them including a basic browser to get you going. Notepad and Wordpad are free but if you want something more then you get a real word processing program.

IMHO MS stays in the browser war because they are paranoid they will miss the next big thing. Ever since MS was late to get on the Internet bandwagon they have made sure they get involved with thing across the board just enough. Just enough to have something so they don't miss out on the next big thing .... whatever that might be.

Re:Google not serious about browser (1)

gladish (982899) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857709)

I don't think google is bored. I think they're in "Throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" mode. They've made themselves into a global superstar with their search engine, which in my opinion, is clearly the best for general search, but now what? Cell phones, online office apps, virtual worlds, green energy, web browsers. They even gotten into the business of giving money away with google.org. And not a single one comes close to the success of the search engine. I'm betting google won't ever come close to producing anything remotely close to being as successful and influential as their search engine.

Re:Google not serious about browser (1)

DiLLeMaN (324946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857903)

If they had been really serious about grabbing some actual marketshare with Chrome, they would've had a Mac and Linux client ready from day one. None of this "Just windows now, but we're working on the other guys! really!" crap. They missed two very vocal groups of users there.

RIght now it's sitting at 1.39% usage -- that's visitors to MY site, IE scores 62% there, Firefox 26%, Safari just under 7%. AFAIK, those are somewhat "common" numbers.

Maybe 1.39% is not that bad for a "new" browser, but it's certainly nowhere near world domination. But I think that was kinda your point, too. =]

Re:Google not serious about browser (2, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858179)

Google tries to reduce IE's marketshare - that's the reason they don't need to have a browser for Linux or Mac - on those platforms IE is nonexistent and irrelevant, respectively.

Re:Google not serious about browser (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858111)

Google is starting to seriously market their webapps to businesses and schools. The browser is an integral part of that. I'm pretty sure that they're serious about it.

Re:Google not serious about browser (0, Flamebait)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858147)

BS.

It is exactly because Google wants to reduce IEs marketshare that they are committed to Chrome's development. Chrome started from 0 and in no time captured as much browser share as Opera, and Chrome is definitely competitive with the other browsers already!

Your whole post is self-contradictory and it only makes sense with compromised logic.

Re:Google not serious about browser (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858305)

I think the parent is correct. I don't think Google cares one way or the other if they become a mainstream browser vendor or not. Its not ever going to be a big part of their revenue. What they do care about is not allowing one company to dominate the client side software stack for the WWW. An open standards based WWW leaves Google free to inovate in the form of its web offerings. They can offer any new technology or services they can develop and market to consumers and or advertizers.

If they allow Microsoft or anyone else total control of the software stack such that rest of the commercial ecosytem of the WWW can just ignore the also rans then the vendor of that software stack has a great deal of control when it comes to what the WWW looks like and what you can with it. It also means they can bias the directon of continued development just to harm other organizations they don't like that year. Google does not want Microsoft empowered in that way any more than they already are.

Re:Google not serious about browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25858669)

from what i read about chrome, i think chrome itself is essentially a firefox donation. the code is all GPL so MS can'tuse it in their browswer, but firefox being open source can. so can konqueror and...well what other full featured, open source browsers are out there? is safari closed source?

Funny, but not funny (5, Insightful)

Redbaran (918344) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857261)

I know we all like to laugh at MS for not shipping a product on time, but as a web-developer, I am not happy (nor surprised). Anything that delays the average web-surfer from having a more standards compliant browser is not a good thing. While I'm sure IE8 won't be as compliant as it should be, it's still a step in the right direction.

I'll never get back the hours and days I've wasted on browser differences and bugs, but the mirage that one day I won't have to waste that time is enough to keep me wandering through the desert with a little bit of hope.

Re:Funny, but not funny (0, Offtopic)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857305)

Perhaps they will fix the unspecified error when doing an innerHTML change to a span tag. After finding what line of code it was you need to change it to an inline div

We can only hope... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25857269)

They've realized that their current offering doesn't stack up to modern browsers, so they're buying some more time to actually make it worthwhile.

Last time I checked, their beta looked more like an alpha build. It failed to render everyday sites reliably, what's left for doing it in a timely manner.

Here's to hoping they actually engineer some of the showstoppers out of it, instead of just patching it up so that it behaves most of the time...

I bet it still be (5, Interesting)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857291)

horrible at JavaScript, HTML and standard compliance With Firefox, Opera and Chrome why would a sane person even want to use IE? IE still trails almost every other browser in JavaScript performance, try it for yourself. http://nontroppo.org/timer/progressive_raytracer.html [nontroppo.org]

Re:I bet it still be (1)

allcar (1111567) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857355)

try it for yourself

I can't. It wont run on my platform.

Re:I bet it still be (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857635)

How come? It's a JavaScript program. Any fairly modern browser will be able to interpret it.. wait, you mean your handheld/mobile platform with too limited CPU power?

BTW the second test "full render" is really CPU-demanding...

Re:I bet it still be (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857557)

That's a very interesting piece of code.

Opera 9.61 gets consistantly slower on every new click on the buttons. But if you close the window and reopen it, it's fast again.

Not "100 ms slower" but 2, 4, 7, 9 seconds runtime ... strange.

Non-Techie (2, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857805)

horrible at JavaScript, HTML and standard compliance With Firefox, Opera and Chrome why would a sane person even want to use IE? IE still trails almost every other browser in JavaScript performance,

While IE may be crap, the average person is probably not tech-savie and is not aware of the alternatives or simply doesn't really care if the tool does the job. Don't be surprised how conservative people can be. In many way this is no different than your KDE user using Konquerer or your Mac user using Safari, while not considering the alternatives.

Re:I bet it still be (1)

iknowcss (937215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857839)

That's bizzare. I did this in firefox 3.0.4 and it actually took longer than Internet Explorer 7. Not just a bit longer either. It was significantly longer. More comparable to Google Chrome than Firefox. Maybe it has nothing to do with the JavaScript bit but more with rendering the <div> elements?

Re:I bet it still be (1)

DiLLeMaN (324946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857969)

Oooh, that is nifty. I'm still waiting for someone to code Doom in javascript, though...

Doubt it. (2, Insightful)

Conor Turton (639827) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857609)

Will the IE delay and Google's tactics help to steer users in Chrome's direction

I doubt it. Although IE has it's issues, Chrome has some real show stoppers and then there's the fact it phones home with shedloads of data about your browsing.

SVG engine? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857775)

Given that IE8 is missing SVG support, are there any open source SVG libraries that they could potentially use to do the work, instead of coding the support from scratch?

Microsoft delays a product? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25857795)

Surprise!

MS strategy (1)

PietjeJantje (917584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25857997)

Well, this was to be expected. After all, they have been hanging on to IE6 so long, as a sabotage strategy against the upcoming world of web apps (bad HTML, CSS and no stuff like canvas).

The past year they have been talking the talk, and now they will not be walking the walk.

What next? When IE8 will arrive, it will still not implement stuff like canvas or be on the same level with CSS compliance. It will probably not be an auto-update, and perhaps only available on the latest incarnation of Vista whatever it is called. In other words, IE7 will take over the role of IE6.

Another possibility is that they're planning something big, and all the signs point to it (Silverlight and all). They know they can't play the incapable IE6-IE7 strategy forever, but instead of catching up, they will try to change the game by offering an alternative platform, IE8 + Silverlight + OS ties + media ties, perhaps connected with cloud computing.

Well, whatever, I wish them luck (not!). Last big things they tried on the consumer front were Vista and Live. It will be interesting times for them. Enough said.

Much ado about nothing (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858137)

The trend lines for the web browsers are as flat as the Kansas prairies: Top Browser Share Trend [hitslink.com], Top Browser Share Trend [hitslink.com]
"Chrome" is right up there with "The Gimp" as a masterpiece in marketing.
It suggests nothing so much as an ugly, over-weight, tail finned Edsel. Microsoft has "Internet Explorer" and Apple has "Safari," both brand names which capture something of the excitement, the fun and play to be found on the web.

Of the 17 netbooks being offered at Walmart.com this holiday season, at least 12 run XP or Vista. Most priced at $350 with an Atom CPU, 1 GB RAM and a 120 GB HDD. Is it necessary to add that not one Linux netbook "is available in stores?"

microsoft is not in a bad position, actually (3, Insightful)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 5 years ago | (#25858207)

People are so down on Internet Explorer, and rightly so, that if they come out with something that is "competitive" with the other offerings, even if it isn't superior, it will be perceived as a huge win for Microsoft and likely win back much of the market share they've lost.

I'm basing this on the fact that many people will choose the "standard" (IE) unless there is a compelling reason to switch to something else. Especially corporate environments, excluding companies that are expressly anti-Microsoft (Apple, Sun, IBM, Google). So Microsoft doesn't have to provide a compelling reason to use Internet Explorer; they just have to ensure there are no compelling reasons to use something else.

Still no SVG support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25858303)

IE is only 8 years behind.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...