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!

A First Look At Internet Explorer 8 RC1

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the well-lookit-that dept.

Internet Explorer 271

bogaboga writes "TG Daily reports that Microsoft quietly released the first update to its IE8 beta 2 to its closest partners last week. This new version only scores a dismal 12/100 on the Acid 3 test, though the score improves significantly if one leaves the [browser] window open for at least a minute. It is marked as 'Release Candidate 1.'"

cancel ×

271 comments

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

Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26144749)

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.
You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.

CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER
Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat

HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.

FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.
Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.

MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.
Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most prominent anatomical feature, after all, its oversized buttocks, which have evolved to make it more comfortable for your nigger to sit around all day doing nothing for its entire life. Niggers are often good runners, too, to enable them to sprint quickly in the opposite direction if they see work heading their way. The solution to this is to *dupe* your nigger into working. After installation, encourage it towards the cotton field with blows of a wooden club, fence post, baseball bat, etc., and then tell it that all that cotton belongs to a white man, who won't be back until tomorrow. Your nigger will then frantically compete with the other field niggers to steal as much of that cotton as it can before the white man returns. At the end of the day, return your nigger to its cage and laugh at its stupidity, then repeat the same trick every day indefinitely. Your nigger comes equipped with the standard nigger IQ of 75 and a memory to match, so it will forget this trick overnight. Niggers can start work at around 5am. You should then return to bed and come back at around 10am. Your niggers can then work through until around 10pm or whenever the light fades.

ENTERTAINING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger enjoys play, like most animals, so you should play with it regularly. A happy smiling nigger works best. Games niggers enjoy include: 1) A good thrashing: every few days, take your nigger's pants down, hang it up by its heels, and have some of your other niggers thrash it with a club or whip. Your nigger will signal its intense enjoyment by shrieking and sobbing. 2) Lynch the nigger: niggers are cheap and there are millions more where yours came from. So every now and then, push the boat out a bit and lynch a nigger.

Lynchings are best done with a rope over the branch of a tree, and niggers just love to be lynched. It makes them feel special. Make your other niggers watch. They'll be so grateful, they'll work harder for a day or two (and then you can lynch another one). 3) Nigger dragging: Tie your nigger by one wrist to the tow bar on the back of suitable vehicle, then drive away at approximately 50mph. Your nigger's shrieks of enjoyment will be heard for miles. It will shriek until it falls apart. To prolong the fun for the nigger, do *NOT* drag him by his feet, as his head comes off too soon. This is painless for the nigger, but spoils the fun. Always wear a seatbelt and never exceed the speed limit. 4) Playing on the PNL: a variation on (2), except you can lynch your nigger out in the fields, thus saving work time. Niggers enjoy this game best if the PNL is operated by a man in a tall white hood. 5) Hunt the nigger: a variation of Hunt the Slipper, but played outdoors, with Dobermans. WARNING: do not let your Dobermans bite a nigger, as they are highly toxic.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD NIGGERS.
Niggers die on average at around 40, which some might say is 40 years too late, but there you go. Most people prefer their niggers dead, in fact. When yours dies, report the license number of the car that did the drive-by shooting of your nigger. The police will collect the nigger and dispose of it for you.

COMMON PROBLEMS WITH NIGGERS - MY NIGGER IS VERY AGGRESIVE
Have it put down, for god's sake. Who needs an uppity nigger? What are we, short of niggers or something?

MY NIGGER KEEPS RAPING WHITE WOMEN
They all do this. Shorten your nigger's chain so it can't reach any white women, and arm heavily any white women who might go near it.

WILL MY NIGGER ATTACK ME?
Not unless it outnumbers you 20 to 1, and even then, it's not likely. If niggers successfully overthrew their owners, they'd have to sort out their own food. This is probably why nigger uprisings were nonexistent (until some fool gave them rights).

MY NIGGER BITCHES ABOUT ITS "RIGHTS" AND "RACISM".
Yeah, well, it would. Tell it to shut the fuck up.

MY NIGGER'S HIDE IS A FUNNY COLOR. - WHAT IS THE CORRECT SHADE FOR A NIGGER?
A nigger's skin is actually more or less transparent. That brown color you can see is the shit your nigger is full of. This is why some models of nigger are sold as "The Shitskin".

MY NIGGER ACTS LIKE A NIGGER, BUT IS WHITE.
What you have there is a "wigger". Rough crowd. WOW!

IS THAT LIKE AN ALBINO? ARE THEY RARE?
They're as common as dog shit and about as valuable. In fact, one of them was President between 1992 and 2000. Put your wigger in a cage with a few hundred genuine niggers and you'll soon find it stops acting like a nigger. However, leave it in the cage and let the niggers dispose of it. The best thing for any wigger is a dose of TNB.

MY NIGGER SMELLS REALLY BAD
And you were expecting what?

SHOULD I STORE MY DEAD NIGGER?
When you came in here, did you see a sign that said "Dead nigger storage"? .That's because there ain't no goddamn sign.

real FP (1, Insightful)

CheshireFerk-o (412142) | more than 5 years ago | (#26144759)

damn he hoped me. but really if m$ cant get their users to update/upgrade whats the point of a new version?

Re:real FP (0, Offtopic)

CheshireFerk-o (412142) | more than 5 years ago | (#26144865)

o yeah thanks, real off topic.

Re:real FP (0)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145281)

Twitter, is that you?

But does it fix the critical vulnerability? (3, Insightful)

Van Cutter Romney (973766) | more than 5 years ago | (#26144781)

Does it fix this [slashdot.org] ?

Re:But does it fix the critical vulnerability? (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145191)

of course it fixes it. why do you think they put it in there to begin with? To get you to stampede to 8 to get away from it. It just got discovered a little earlier than anticipated...

Re:But does it fix the critical vulnerability? (1)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146675)

Does it fix this [slashdot.org] ?

It fixes it. It also irons my socks and underwear, and leaves me squeaky clean and springtime fresh.

Why It Takes an Extra Minute (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26144795)

This new version only scores a dismal 12/100 on the Acid 3 test, though the score improves significantly if one leaves the [browser] window open for at least a minute.

It's true, it improves to 100/100! The reason you need to leave the browser open for at least a minute is because that's how long it takes to download this extension [opera.com] , install it, run the extension and put the acid 3 URL into the extension's address bar.

I recommend anyone who loves IE to do this!

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute (3, Insightful)

docgiggles (1425995) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145257)

Does anybody really love IE anymore. There are so many more secure open source browsers that using the Microsoft utility that came with the computer seems like it cannot possibly be the best choice

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute (3, Funny)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145643)

i never liked IE in the past, but 7 was ok, and I find myself actually liking IE 8. I've never looked at the source code to Firefox, so I could care less about my browser being open source. As far as security holes go... well I have vista with UAC enabled, so I'm not too worried. All browsers have security holes.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute (1, Interesting)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145977)

I liked IE4/5 compared to NN at that time. I've been less inclined to like IE since around Firebird/fox 0.6 or so, when I switched. It's the plugins that sway me to FF over Opera. IE7/8 isn't so bad, but still has some quirks to it. IE6 in today's web world is an abomination that must die. If people are using older windows, Opera 9 is a far better option. For people on at least Win2k/XP they have very little excuse for the older IE.

At this point it's nowhere near a fav. but the IE8 version is a vast improvement, even if passing ACID3 wasn't as high of a priority.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute (2, Funny)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146243)

well I have vista with UAC enabled, so I'm not too worried. All browsers have security holes.

Yeah--Just like every car has it's problems, that why I choose to drive a Yugo. I mean--why go with a quality car that has fewer problems, when you could get a POS Yugo? All cars break eventually, so why not get one that will break within 5 minutes of owning it?

Even better, get one with no door locks, or even doors themselves--because all cars have security weaknesses...

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute (2, Informative)

Amouth (879122) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146567)

i just go with the best of both worlds.. i own a volvo and an MG.. one is basicly maintence free for 120k miles.. the other required me to bring my tools to get it running so i could drive it home (well half way.. the other half i used a tow truck)

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute (5, Informative)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146577)

You COULDN'T care less.
You could not care any less, because you absolutely do not care.

If you COULD care less, then you care some non-minimal amount.

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute (0)

edmicman (830206) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146893)

No, I *COULD* care less, but choose not to. Hah!

Re:Why It Takes an Extra Minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26146021)

I love it. It's the only browser that works with some %&*@)^ stupid websites.

This might not apply to most people, but for the few who it does: LEARN TO CODE! I don't care if YOUR organization uses it, don't code for JUST IE! There's others out there who need to use your damn website too.

IE needs a new slogan... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26144845)

How about:

Internet Explorer: Holding the Web Back Since 2001!

Re:IE needs a new slogan... (4, Funny)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145209)

I prefer the older standby - empowering 0wners since 2001

Re:IE needs a new slogan... (1)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146317)

How about:

Internet Explorer: Holding the Web Back Since 2001!

*tap tap*
(sounds of hard disk seeking like crazy)
(IE 8 splash screen appears)
Wow. This is a nice preview of IE 8.
It looks nice and flashy--sorta reminds me of Vista. Let's go look at a web site.
*click, clickity, tap, tap, click*
rooted [slashdot.org]

Re:IE needs a new slogan... (1)

6Yankee (597075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146429)

Sure, Firefox can "take back the Web", but only the might of IE can *hold* it back...

IE 10 (5, Funny)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 5 years ago | (#26144879)

I'm guessing that by the time IE 10 is released it won't run at all finally making for a safe browser experience.

Re:IE 10 (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145109)

It'll be IE X, not IE 10. Get with the times, man.

Re:IE 10 (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145361)

iX?

Re:IE 10 (3, Funny)

ianare (1132971) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145849)

That would be IE 9

Re:IE 10 (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145943)

iX?

More likely... "eX"

Re:IE 10 (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146599)

Xplorer

Re:IE 10 (4, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145673)

By the time IE 10 comes out, it will look like what Netscape 2.0 looks like to today's market. Even today, users hanging on to IE are reminiscent of the die hard users of Netscape 4. Netscape 4 was awful in comparison to IE5, but since it was the only viable alternative to IE, it hung around for quite a while. Life got a lot better when the Internet purged NS4, and it will get a lot better when it purges Internet Explorer.

The only difference between the Netscape 4 debacle and Internet Explorer is that Netscape didn't have the resources to develop a better browser. They ended up needing to spin off browser development, thus resulting in Firefox in the long term. Microsoft has no such constraints. They have nearly everything they need to make IE a better browser, but they don't want to give up their stranglehold on the web.

Well too damn bad. It's only a matter of time before IE loses its majority market share. The more the IE percentages drop, the faster the uptake of alternative browsers.

Re:IE 10 (1)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145955)

The only difference between the Netscape 4 debacle and Internet Explorer is that Netscape didn't have the resources to develop a better browser.

A little revisionism there. Netscape did have the resources to develop a better browser. That browser could've been NS5 and it could've changed the course of browsers to this very day.

So much hay about MS killing NS. They certainly hurt them, but NS killed NS.

Instead of incrementally improving NS with a release-early, release-often strategy, they decided to completely rewrite the browser. 150 internet-years later they released NS6 and by that time they hadn't a chance.

Re:IE 10 (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146181)

The netscape codebase was old and crufty, they open sourced it and people pretty much decided to abandon it and start again...
I would imagine the ie codebase is in a similarly crufty state.

Re:IE 10 (2, Insightful)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146279)

Of course it was. Show me any mature product that isn't.

But i cannot imagine any circumstances where the best strategy is to scrap and replace everything.

This isn't about purity of codebase, which is what the OSS adopters you mentioned concerned themselves with.

This is about a commerical software company who chose to cease shipping their flagship product while they redeveloped it.

If they had to do it, they should've maintained and upgraded the NS4 base with 4.x releases while the new product was in development.

Re:IE 10 (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146635)

"But i cannot imagine any circumstances where the best strategy is to scrap and replace everything."

How about when a house burns down?

Re:IE 10 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26145815)

I love the advert that came up on this item on slashdot ....

Uninstall IE 8
Completely Removes Internet Explorer 8. 100% Safe & Effective.
Removal.PCauthorities.com

Seriously? (5, Funny)

DarrenBaker (322210) | more than 5 years ago | (#26144883)

Surely you can't be serious - It scores higher if you leave the browser window open for a minute?

What is it, an Oldsmobile?

Re:Seriously? (4, Funny)

IceCreamGuy (904648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26144935)

Holy crap I miss my 1990 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme. Thanks for bringing that up. :'-(

Re:Seriously? (2, Funny)

EIHoppe (1430351) | more than 5 years ago | (#26144975)

I've heard of car engines running on diesel, but browsers?!

Now I really have seen everything...

~EI

Re:Seriously? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26145081)

There is a timed component to the ACID test. Some of the tests can take a while to run, so they have a limit set if you want to pass validation. Something IE can do apparently takes a while.

Re:Seriously? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26145219)

what's worse is the "significant" improvement is a 21/100! still pityful

Re:Seriously? (3, Funny)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146301)

You must not be in marketing. That's "A 75% performance improvement over time."

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26145243)

Slickest application of a car analogy I ever seen. +1 internets to you.

Re:Seriously? (3, Funny)

sir_eccles (1235902) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145623)

It's like high end Hi-Fi equipment you have to let the browser window burn in before you can get that richer and warmer internet experience. I always leave my browser to burn in overnight the first time I install it and find pages load quicker when I use oxygen free unidirectional tubes.

Re:Seriously? (1)

denttford (579202) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146351)

Don't you know? It takes a minute for the tubes to warm up...

Some people STILL think they should use IE (3, Informative)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26144889)

Like this guy: http://www.highdefforum.com/768120-post19.html [highdefforum.com]

I don't know how someone can say "IE is not any more vulnerable" with a straight face. And it only scored 12/100 on compatibility tests? RUN from IE.

Re:Some people STILL think they should use IE (5, Funny)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145675)

The best (worst) argument for IE I've ever heard was "to save disk space".

Re:Some people STILL think they should use IE (0)

aaron.axvig (1238422) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145933)

Nah, I'll just keep using it, and it will just keep working, day after day, causing me NO PROBLEMS.

Damn, did I really not know? (4, Insightful)

IceCreamGuy (904648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26144909)

Is a release candidate still considered a beta? I was always under the impression that release candidates were past the "beta" moniker and were part of the next phase of deployment. But I'm an admin, not a programmer, and really have no clue when it comes to that kind of stuff.
Coincidentally, I just watched Blade Runner on my Sony Superbeta hi-fi, still looks fantastic after all these years. Suck it, Blu-ray.

Re:Damn, did I really not know? (4, Informative)

will_die (586523) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145067)

In Microsoft speak a RC is a feature complete product, parts are still buggy but the capabilities are in, they still reservice the right to add features but will not remove them.
Now that is not to say that things still will not change for instance with the release of parts of Office 2007 some products would work in the RC phase on Windows 2000 but come release they stopped working. However at that phase you can usally start developing for the new product and it will work on the release with at most minor changes.

Re:Damn, did I really not know? (5, Funny)

lloydchristmas759 (1105487) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145233)

In Microsoft speak a RC is a feature complete product, parts are still buggy but the capabilities are in, they still reservice the right to add features but will not remove them.

Really? I thought that was the definition of "service pack 8".

Re:Damn, did I really not know? (1, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145745)

Whoever labeled lloyd troll obviously is a Microsoftie.

I'd be surprised if Microsoft ever decided to release a well tested and thoroughly prepared release. It seems to not be a priority to them at all.

Re:Damn, did I really not know? (1)

IceCreamGuy (904648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145949)

I think it's pretty difficult to argue that Windows Server 2008 was not well tested and thoroughly prepared. Can you name something that was seriously wrong with that release? In my opinion (keep in mind I run Ubuntu Server LTS for most of my new deployments), Server 2008 is a truly fantastic OS; it's rock solid, got great features, has full-fledged CLI, and is polished out of the box. Even the licensing is now easy. Or how about Office 2007? Aside from the initial shock at the UI change, it went very well. What about Visual Studio 2008?

I'm not defending IE, I can't stand it myself, but I think [citation needed] is appropriate here if you're going to make broad statements like that.

Re:Damn, did I really not know? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146303)

Well, it was better done than many of their other products but if you are running it I'm sure you know that HyperV was their big selling point and barely works. So, kinda same thing there.
Office 2007 still has an excess of problems, and visual studio is probably the one product people are happy with.

I'm not denying that I did make an excess of a blanket statement (I agree, I did) and on rare occasions they release things well tested, but it doesn't seem to be exactly consistent.

Re:Damn, did I really not know? (1)

sik0fewl (561285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146027)

In Microsoft speak a RC is a feature complete product, parts are still buggy but the capabilities are in, they still reservice the right to add features but will not remove them.

Ohhh... so it's a beta!

Re:Damn, did I really not know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26145105)

Depends on what we call things, I suppose.

"Traditionally" there has been the alpha phase for initial work, once all features was mostly done it would become beta for testing and optimisation and stability work would proceed. And then once everyone figured it was done you'd have a build you could call a release candidate.

But of course 'beta' has since become a buzzword that just means you can access software that may - or may not - be somewhat done. And any usage is at your own peril. I suppose an RC would fit into this category since it is generally considered to be done, but it has not got the final approval.

In some cases the RC term has also been degraded to something that is not really done and is just a fairly stable pre-release of something. I believe Microsoft did that with the Vista Service Release 1.

Re:Damn, did I really not know? (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145317)

Just like a pre-beta isn't an alpha anymore?

I'm afraid of Windows 7 if it's supposed to come out in about 6 months and we haven't even seen a beta yet...

Re:Damn, did I really not know? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146901)

Who says it's coming in 6 months?
The same people who were talking about MinWin?

Offtopic, but it needs to be said:

MinWin was (recently) mentioned by one guy during a demo of some virtualization stuff. He was running Windows 1.0 and such. He was clearly a very intelligent employee, and while he said they've been working on MinWin, he ALSO said that it's just the COMMON CORE of future Windows releases.

From Shitipedia:

In October 2007, Eric Traut, a developer at Microsoft, demonstrated a self-contained MinWin system, made up of about 100 files, on which a basic HTTP server was running.[8][9] Traut noted that MinWin takes up about 25 MB on disk and has a working set (memory usage) of 40 MB. It lacked a graphical user interface and is interfaced using a full-screen command line interface. Traut explained during the demo that MinWin would not be offered as a stand-alone product, but would instead be used as the basis for future operating system releases such as Windows 7.[10]

MinWin is just the common parts of the kernel across all versions of Windows. Work on that, and you copy it over for all your versions, saving a ton of time and simplifying maintenance, support, documentation, etc. MinWin does NOT imply that Windows will be leaner. All versions of Windows use MinWin, and they all have bloat piled on top.

Re:Damn, did I really not know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26145597)

Didn't you know? M$ considers the world to be its alphaa testers! They have always released their alpha versions of OS and software as a final release!

Re:Damn, did I really not know? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26146201)

RC is equivilent to when a Linux distro does a freeze and just takes in compatibility and bug fixes before a release. Basically puts a stop to feature creep that might cause more delays.

Everything thats gonna be in is there, they are just testing and fixing now.

Re:Damn, did I really not know? (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146621)

Yeah, you'd think that a "release candidate" meant that it was a candidate for the "release" version if no huge problems popped up. That was what the term was invented to mean, AFAIK.

But people abuse these terms pretty heavily, and you have to know how each developer is using them. It seems like Microsoft considers "release candidate" to mean "late beta". They never have any intention of releasing RC1, and they usually have a roadmap includes multiple "release candidates" be released for testing purposes before they consider actually releasing the thing. When it gets up to RC3, it's probably close to release.

Re:Damn, did I really not know? (1)

sukotto (122876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146803)

If only you had the even more advanced Sony SuperReleaseCandidate :-D

If Programming Languages Were Religions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26144949)

fuddles would score all 6's on the ever infactdead bugwear, as well as the gottiesque 'business' practices. better days ahead.

Re:If Programming Languages Were Religions (1)

FlatWhatson (802600) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145367)

If that's a Markov chain, I'm impressed!

If web browsers were religions... (1)

gsgriffin (1195771) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145013)

Many people would be converting and those that have already converted would be seeking ways to destroy the old faith by any means possible. The new religion is full of love?

Could have fooled me (2, Interesting)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145023)

I actually saw an IE8 ad earlier this week on-line (geared for enterprise computing firms) I thought it was final and out already.

Yep, MS even has a slick site already up for it:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Internet-explorer/beta/default.aspx [microsoft.com]

Re:Could have fooled me (1)

jisatsusha (755173) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145315)

It quite clearly says beta there.

IE (5, Funny)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145043)

is like a bad smell that wont go away

Good (5, Insightful)

spinkham (56603) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145089)

As someone who does both web security and some web design, I couldn't be happier.
Yes, IE 8 still sucks, but it sucks less then IE 7, which sucks less then IE 6.
IE 8 has some decent rendering improvements, a built in XSS filter, and lots of other changes.
In standards compliance it still sucks versus all the compition, but as long as it helps kill off IE 6, I'm happy.

Re:Good (2, Interesting)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145177)

Just don't add a usability POV to that mix. IE7 and 8 give me nightmares.

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

Leafheart (1120885) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145251)

In standards compliance it still sucks versus all the compition, but as long as it helps kill off IE 6, I'm happy.

As someone doing web design for a living for the past 10 years I can tell you that I'm really not happy. At all. I put standards compliance much higher than any gimmick like XSS. If firefox still had all the Extensions (which is hard to live without) but was not standards compliant, I would hate it, a lot.

Another IE that is not standards compliant, means or a new set of rules I cannot use on my code, or another set of hacks (already ahve one for 5, 5.5, 6 and 7

Re:Good (0)

spinkham (56603) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145599)

A Cross Site Scripting (XSS) filter is hardly a gimmick. XSS affects ~50% of websites, and can be used to great effect against client browsers to great effect, with many fraud implications for the servers.
Microsoft's protections aren't perfect, but they're pretty good at patching the major vectors.

I agree that full IE standards compliance would be a Godsend (and how about some ability to accept XHTML?), but anything that kills off IE 6 is a step forward in my opinion.

Re:Good (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145785)

XSS affects 50% of the websites geared for IE. Not 50% of all websites. Significant difference there.

I agree with the rest though, IE6 is bad and IE7 is worse, so hopefully IE8 won't be too broken. From everything I have seen so far unfortunately, it will be. I seem to recall some controversy with IE8 a few months back too, something about putting it on an XP service pack or something.

Re:Good (3, Informative)

spinkham (56603) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145923)

Actually, ~50 % of websites tested in the past year by WhiteHat Security. It's the best metric we currently have for security flaws, as WhiteHat has many customers across quite a few industries, and they are all automatically retested over time. It has little to do with the browser targeted, and everything to do with the web frameworks used, the knowledge of the programmers, and the testing or lack thereof most websites get before deployment.

If you check xssed.com [xssed.com] you'll see that near 100% of websites have had XSS vulnerabilities in the past.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26145735)

Exactly.

It's still an improvement over IE 7 (which was a minor improvement over IE 6), but it's still lagging far behind.

Since I still have to support at least IE 7 for the foreseeable future, and will probably have to support IE 6 for at least a couple more years, this doesn't make my life any easier, and it doesn't let me actually do anything I couldn't do before.

It wouldn't be so bad if IE 8 actually manages to kill off IE 6 once and for all, but I don't think that's going to happen. Everyone stuck on IE 6 is probably going to stay there until they throw their computer away and buy a new one. It's probably just going to eat away about half of IE 7's market share, so IE's market share will be split into thirds, making it impossible to ignore any of them.

Re:Good (1, Troll)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145991)

Standards compliance is a non-feature. Give end-users a list of browser features, ask them to rank them, and I can guarantee standards compliance will come in last. The ONLY people who care are web developers, because it makes their job slightly easier. Cry me a river. (And web developers have to QA their page anyway.) Microsoft's time is much better spent on features users actually care about.

Demanding that browser makers drop everything and work only on standards compliance is like telling Toyota they should immediately stop production of all their cars so they can make it easier for mechanics to operate on. It's ridiculous, it doesn't help any end-users (you know, the people we're here to serve), and it's a huge waste of time for Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, and everybody else who makes a browser.

Here's a challenge for Slashdot: explain to me how standards compliance benefits the end-user of the browser.

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

Rearden82 (923468) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145625)

IE6 is still very popular despite the fact that 7 came out over two years ago. If users haven't upgraded by now, I see no reason why they would when 8 is released.

I'm sure IE8 will be broken in slightly different ways from 6 and 7. So all this really means is we will have to implement hacks for three different versions of a shitty, non-standards-compliant browser for the foreseeable future, instead of two.

Re:Good (3, Informative)

spinkham (56603) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146509)

IE8 gives a number of mechanisms for either you or Microsoft to request the legacy IE7 renderer for your website. <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=7"> is all it takes to not have to add IE 8 specific version of your website.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26145655)

IE6 was already killed when Microsoft put IE7 into the force feeding tubes last summer. All the Windows computers have updated already unless if someone has on purpose blocked that update.

Re:Good (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145847)

Or is still running Windows 2000.

Re:Good (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145755)

IE8 gets 12/100 on the Acid 3 test for standards capability. even IE 7 gets 14/100 (and 8.0 beta2 got 21) this 8.0 beta/RC/whatever, standards wise, is a major step backwards

Re:Good (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145831)

I won't be happy until they retire IE6 and somehow all the corporations out there upgrade their standard browser to at least IE7.

IE6 is the bane of my existence as a web developer and yet one of my biggest clients uses it by default as their corporate standard, so I have no choice but to develop for it.

Re:Good (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146483)

We've just had a similar problem arise today. We tested a site on IE 7, working fine, Firefox, working fine. IE 6, the logo is hidden off the top of the screen. IE 5.5, works fine (even the scripting shockingly). IE 6 was the browser that made me turn to Firefox and i've never looked back.

Re:Good (1)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145879)

Problem: IE >= 7 is for XP and Vista only. There are still a bunch of users out there using IE 5.5 (or worse yet 4 or 3) because they do not want/know how to update. Maybe they are on dial-up and updating is too slow (although I would update on dial-up). Then there are the IE 6 users on Windows 2000. That is the highest they can go, and for a lot of these computers, it makes no sense to upgrade to XP.

When I develop a page, I develop a whole different sheet (that tries its best to look like the original for COMPLIANT browsers) for IE 6. For IE 7, a few changes but not many. For IE 8, hopefully less. The point of a compliant browser is I do not have to do any of the above because it should work in any compliant browser. I do not consider IE of any version to be a compliant browser. Not until its engine gets 71 or more on the Acid3 test, preferably 100.

Re:Good (1)

spinkham (56603) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146473)

Problem: IE >= 7 is for XP and Vista only. There are still a bunch of users out there using IE 5.5 (or worse yet 4 or 3) because they do not want/know how to update.

Where "bunch" is less then 0.1% for all versions lower then 6 combined. IE versions less then 6 are dead, dead, dead, and no one should feel like they need to care about them.
In my experience, the IE 6 problem is caused more by corporate users who have some IE 6 only internal app that keeps them from upgrading their browser. My day job is security testing websites, so I have to keep a copy of IE 6 around also. There are a few people using win2k or earlier out there, but they are by far the minority(estimated 2-3% market share according to wikipedia [wikipedia.org] ). IE 6 has and estimated 20-30% market share.

Maybe they are on dial-up and updating is too slow (although I would update on dial-up). Then there are the IE 6 users on Windows 2000. That is the highest they can go, and for a lot of these computers, it makes no sense to upgrade to XP.

When I develop a page, I develop a whole different sheet (that tries its best to look like the original for COMPLIANT browsers) for IE 6. For IE 7, a few changes but not many. For IE 8, hopefully less. The point of a compliant browser is I do not have to do any of the above because it should work in any compliant browser. I do not consider IE of any version to be a compliant browser. Not until its engine gets 71 or more on the Acid3 test, preferably 100.

One nice thing about IE 8 is you can just put in a meta tag that tells it to act like IE 7 and only maintain that version. Until IE 9 comes out and IE 7 is dead, then you could do the same with IE 8 rendering mode. IE sucks, but at least they are good at maintaining backwards compatibility to reduce extra work...

Re:Good (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145907)

If users haven't got the sense to move from IE to Firefox or Chrome, what makes you think that they will upgrade from IE6 or IE7 to IE8? It'll be quite some time before Microsoft pushes out the IE8 update automatically.

Even simple HTML can crash IE8 (5, Informative)

VJTod (563763) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145471)

This simple HTML still crashes Beta2.  It will probably still crash the RTM.  This was a trick I found back in 2002.  I had reported it somewhere, but obviously nowhere important.

<table>
<tr>
<td><div style="width:100%;height:100%"/></td>
<td>
<div>
<span style="height:100%;width:50%">></td>
<span style="height:100%;width:50%">></td>
</div>
</td>
<td><div style="width:100%;height:100%"/></td>
</tr>
</table>

Re:Even simple HTML can crash IE8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26145753)

Cut them some slack, your html is wrong on so many levels. Poor written html is not the real issue here.

Re:Even simple HTML can crash IE8 (5, Insightful)

TeXMaster (593524) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146105)

Poorly written HTML should NOT crash a browser.

Re:Even simple HTML can crash IE8 (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26146397)

your html is wrong on so many levels.

Correct.

Poor written html is not the real issue here.

Agreed. Poorly written software is the issue here. Can you imagine if you wrote a program that crashed (instead of just giving merely nonsense results) when given bad input? Anyone making $7/hr or more, would be fired for that. But the microsofties are an exception, due to their unusually low quality standards.

Re:Even simple HTML can crash IE8 (1)

jc364 (1292206) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146125)

Interesting. Although, not only IE8 has this problem; IE6 appears to crash out as well. The latest Firefox handles it fine. It's nice to have a simple way to discourage IE users. ;)

Re:Even simple HTML can crash IE8 (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146305)

Simple question: wouldn't the reason for the crash (whether it is accessing memory out of boundaries or doing an illegal instruction), allow for a potential exploit.

Not following standards costs us (4, Insightful)

MazzThePianoman (996530) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145521)

As a web designer it really pisses me off to see Microsoft continuing to write their own standards and not follow the conventions set forth so that web pages could look the same across browsers. Passing the acid test should be mandatory and doing so would likely save millions if not billions in lost productivity time between broken websites and the extra hours of work web designers have to put in to work around IE's bugs.

Re:Not following standards costs us (5, Informative)

jc364 (1292206) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146683)

Actually, IE 8 passes the Acid 2 test (yes, they are last, but its an improvement). Not to mention that Microsoft contributed 2524 test cases [gotdotnet.com] to the CSS 2.1 test suite. I'm a web developer, and I know the horrors of developing for multiple browsers (especially IE), but I have to give Microsoft some credit for their interest in standards in this coming IE version.

Also, the acid tests are just one indicator of how well a browser does standards. To make it the defining standards test would not be completely fair. More info on that here [webstandards.org] .

BREAKING: Microsoft about to change IE's name (0, Troll)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145527)

In a controversial move to restore trust in its products, Microsoft just announced that it will rename Internet Explorer 8 as "Microsoft Firefox Downloader 1.0". A spokesperson for the company, speaking on conditions of anonymity, commented that the move was the result of a market study to identify the most common task performed by users of the product.

Also, still no XHTML, you fucking shitheads? You can XML, you can do HTML, but you can't do XHTML?

The real patch... (1)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145771)

...should be a drastic change to Windows, removing Internet Explorer, all Windows dependencies on it; minimalising the DLLs needed for old dumb applications that used IE's rendering engine, and installing a new browser out of a few, namely: Firefox, Opera, Safari, and others that are free and web-standards compliant.

IANA Coding Guru, but.... (4, Insightful)

penguin_dance (536599) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145789)

Being that M$ tied their browser to their OS to avoid a court judgment of having an illegal monopoly the main reason they're in this pickle in the first place? You can't nimbly fix bugs or create features if what you do on that level ends up crashing your OS on another level.

Seems to me they've screwed themselves in the long run. They avoided having to removed Internet Explorer from Windows, but now their browser sucks on ice, is bloated, slow and filled with bugs that affect the OS. All of this could have been avoided (not to mention the continued $ hemorrhage of having to pay programmers to work on this) had they just concentrated on a decent OS and let others create the browsers. Instead they have (and still) pig-headedly insist on taking over or competing with every bit of software that touches their computers.

 

12/100? (4, Interesting)

Masami Eiri (617825) | more than 5 years ago | (#26145809)

IE6.5 gets a 12/100 on the Acid3 test if you let it sit for a few moments. No, seriously. I wish I was kidding.

IE will not fill your computer with child porn (0, Flamebait)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146155)

Microsoft is reeling from the vicious and unwarranted slanders of security companies and the US government's Computer Emergency Response Team that its Internet Explorer web browser has alleged "security holes" [today.com] or is in any way less than the finest software known to mankind and excellent value for your money.

The festering paedophiles of CERT have gone so outrageously far as to make the ludicrous claim that just viewing a malicious webpage in IE could leave your computer open to being hacked and turned into a Russian Mafia spam server. "We don't know what could have triggered such vindictiveness," sobbed Microsoft marketing marketer's marketer Steve Ballmer. "Do they hate free enterprise that much?"

There are things you can do to make your computing experience even more secure. Microsoft's official suggestion — make sure your anti-virus software is up to date and using an entire CPU doing nothing much, click through five screens to run IE in "protected mode," click through four screens to set zone security to "high," click "JUST BLOODY DO IT WILL YOU" when the User Access Control asks if you really want to do this, enable automatic updates with the minor side-effect of installing Microsoft DRM on your system or Windows Genuine Advantage randomly turning your computer into a paperweight, and sacrifice a goat to Microsoft at midnight on a moonless night — is simple and straightforward. "It's the quality you're paying for."

On no account should you consider that there might be other web browsers out there, as researchers have demonstrated that all of them automatically download the cover of Virgin Killer. "I saw a report," said marketing marketer John Curran of Microsoft Completely Enderlependent Analysts, Inc., "that another browser had more vulnerabilities than ours! People would be very foolish indeed to move from the latest IE to Netscape 4.01."

"These CERT wankers are Mactards and trolls," said Guardian marketing marketer Jack Schofield. "They just want to take IE users out, brutally sodomise them, gas them in concentration camps and" [This comment has been removed by a Guardian moderator. Replies may also be deleted.]

FUD (1)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146341)

I'm going to call FUD on the whole article. IE 8 RC1 isn't due until Q1 2009, Microsoft reinforced this target late in November. Also Microsoft usually announces releases on the IE team blog http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/ [msdn.com] but there was no mention of this. Finally, I am unable to find a link anywhere - in the article, from MS, anywhere.

Microsoft should do the world a favor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26146497)

and get out of the software business.

Why not rename it? (2, Interesting)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146565)

One of the reasons I've heard for MS is not fixing all their rendering bugs, is that there are so many web pages out there that already work around the bugs, with user-agent sniffing. i.e. If the user-agent contains "MSIE", then use a different stylesheet, or embed a style attribute in the HTML to override the stylesheet.

But couldn't they fix the bugs if they just changed the user-agent string to not include "MSIE?" Internet Explorer is already a brand name with so much infamy and negative goodwill anyway, that renaming the product makes sense even if they don't fix any of the bugs. But if they do that, then they could fix the bugs too, without triggering all the world's websites' MSIE workarounds.

Still Beta (2, Informative)

Alvare (1430099) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146769)

Isn't IE 7 still Beta?

--
#!/bin/python

Let's be honest (1)

wicka (985217) | more than 5 years ago | (#26146829)

Microsoft has a lot more things to work on in IE than Acid test compliance. A lot.
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>