×

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!

Microsoft Releases Internet Explorer 8 RC1

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the too-little-too-late dept.

Microsoft 319

mikemuch writes "IE8 has left beta as of noon Pacific time today. The development team now considers the browser platform- and feature-complete, but won't say how long until it goes gold. PCMag.com got an early look and has posted a full review of Internet Explorer 8 RC1. The release candidate differs only slightly from Beta 2, most notably in tweaks to its InPrivate Browsing feature, aka porn mode. That feature has been decoupled with InPrivate Filtering, which blocks third-party content providers from creating profile of your browsing habits. RC1 also improves on performance, especially in startup time, but still trails Firefox and Chrome in JavaScript speed. Protection against the relatively new threat of 'clickjacking,' where a site tries to get you to press buttons underneath a sham frame page, has also been added — the first browser to include such protections. Versions for 32-bit and 64-bit Vista, as well as for 32-bit XP are available, but Windows 7, which will ship with IE8, is stuck with an older beta for now."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

319 comments

No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (5, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26613569)

They can keep all their little incremental security and interface updates. What use are a few little tweaks in IE8, when Firefox offers me add-ons like adblock plus, noscript, slashdotter, etc.? Besides, I can always open a site with IE Tab if I need to.

Firefox is even nice enough to spell check my form entries for me (it caught me misspelling "incremental" just now).

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26613611)

User that know that they're doing need plug-ins.
Designers who know what they're doing need standards compliance.

I therefore dub IE the browser for people who don't know WTF they are doing.

Dear net-surfers: (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26613667)

If you use any version of IE and you are not:

1) Using it out of the box just to download another browser, or
2) A web developer who needs it on a test box

Then GTFO idjit.

Re:Dear net-surfers: (1)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614851)

My schools uses IE6 on everything. They refuse to let you install Firefox and even block it in their firewall. Are they asking for viruses? It's such a pain to use a browser that doesn't have tabs (though the huge, screen eating tabs in IE7 didn't help much).

Re:No shortcuts (5, Interesting)

conureman (748753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26613847)

The only way to open IE at the house is in the "run" tab, the wife and kid don't know where that is.

Re:No shortcuts (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614049)

I feel sorry for your wife and kid. Do you hide your gay lover from them too?

Re:No shortcuts (1)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614587)

I'm not sure why you got modded troll here, but that's how I set things up for a lab back in the college days. Any trace of the 'Blue E' was hidden and replaced with the orange fox, its label changed from 'Mozilla Firefox' to 'Internet'. Management became a lot easier from that point forward.

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (0, Flamebait)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26613805)

They can keep all their little incremental security and interface updates. What use are a few little tweaks in IE8, when Firefox offers me add-ons like adblock plus, noscript, slashdotter, etc.?

Competition is good. And firefox has its share of problems. Hell, about 1 time in 3 when I close it it doesn't exit, and I have to terminate the process.

Besides, I can always open a site with IE Tab if I need to.

a) Why would you need to do that if Firefox was so perfect?

b) You do realize that IE Tab uses the IE rendering engine you've got installed. So if you have IE6 installed IE Tab uses IE6's rendering engine. If you have IE7 installed IE Tab uses IE7's rendering engine... etc. There is a reason IE Tab does sweet fuck all on Linux. You need IE to use IT Tab.

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (1)

denmarkw00t (892627) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614087)

Just in response to point A: Firefox may be damn good, but if you are a web developer and need to make sure your site works across all browsers, IE Tab isn't a bad thing to have.

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (2, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614315)

Just in response to point A: Firefox may be damn good, but if you are a web developer and need to make sure your site works across all browsers, IE Tab isn't a bad thing to have.

True, but since you have to have a copy of IE around anyway, you might as well just use it.

IE-Tab doesn't really simplify things that much, and its not inconceivable that something will work differently in actual IE than IE-tab. (basic rendering of course will be the same, but some of the more goofy stuff like how various IE preferences and internet zones impact things might be different. I'm really not 100% sure where "Trident" ends and "Internet Explorer" begins, so to speak), nor exactly where IE-Tab fits -- is it 100% on top of IE or just on just on top of Trident?

So for casual layout testing I'll use IE tab, but for serious testing its done on 'honest-to-goodness-IE' and multiple versions of it to boot.

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (2, Informative)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614547)

I haven't tried (but will now...), but couldn't you use IETab with Firebug to actually figure out how to fix all of the stupid rendering problems caused by IE (read: screw with the CSS via Firebug until it works)? To the best of my knowledge, there's no good way to do real-time stylesheet editing with IE/the Trident engine, unlike Firefox which has Firebug and Safari/Webkit which has several tools on the Mac such as CSSEdit.

I still pray that someone will use one of IE's security flaws to force an upgrade to ANY standards-compliant browser, even IE8 by the looks of things.

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (3, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614903)

I'm 90% certain that there's no way for you to use firebug with IETab because firebug relies on hooks into the rendering engine that Trident won't provide. However, I do know that IE has a web developer toolbar that's moderately useful. I've used it when there's an IE specific bug that I can't narrow down without some help. It doesn't make IE as easy to develop in as Firefox + web developer toolbar + Firebug is, but it's better than nothing.

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (1)

michrech (468134) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614625)

IE-Tab doesn't really simplify things that much, and its not inconceivable that something will work differently in actual IE than IE-tab.

Must be nice to have enough screen space to have two browsers open. Even with 2 22" monitors, I *still* find myself moving windows around, and constantly minimizing/maximizing windows (though just not as often as when I had a 17" and a 19").

Having all browser windows open in *one* program, in my mind, seems better in several situations.

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614945)

Must be nice to have enough screen space to have two browsers open. Even with 2 22" monitors, I *still* find myself moving windows around, and constantly minimizing/maximizing windows (though just not as often as when I had a 17" and a 19").

We're not that different. I have a 24" (HP LP2475w S-IPS) and a 19" (Viewsonic VP930b P-MVA), I had a 19" Viewsonic VA912b, which is TN, but it really was a terrible screen compared to the *VA and IPS panels. I had two of the Viewsonic VP930b's until one died. I'm extremely happy with the new HP unit though, and highly recommend it.

More on topic, having two browser windows open vs having two tabs in one window open doesn't really seem like much of a win to me, since its just as many clicks to switch between them, and besides --- I like to see FF and IE side by side for testing anyway, so that differences are more immediately apparent.

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (4, Funny)

not already in use (972294) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614163)

If you're going to post here on slashdot, you will need to follow a few easy-to-remember rules:
  • Microsoft is inherently evil, their products are assumed to be inferior, whether or not you've actually used them.
  • Firefox and Linux are inherently good. Any shortcomings are to be overlooked. Any references to either must be qualified with "(PBUI)" or "Praise Be Upon It."
  • The only closed-source software in which praise can be given is Opera. You will receive bonus points for non-conformance, especially if you use the e-mail and bit torrent client.
  • Google is evil because they haven't yet ported their browser for a community who will refuse to use it until they also release a plug-in that circumvents their primary revenue stream.

Thanks! And happy posting.

One Additional And Vital Posting Rule (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614611)

* When you are composing your +5 Insightful masterpiece of a post that utterly eviscerates a company for an alleged GPL copyright violation you have to do so while listening to your multi-terrabyte pirated(aka copyright violation) music collection.

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614397)

And firefox has its share of problems. Hell, about 1 time in 3 when I close it it doesn't exit, and I have to terminate the process.

Are you using vista? Because vista thinks things break all the time.

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (2, Informative)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614609)

a) Why would you need to do that if Firefox was so perfect?

Because we don't live in a perfect world where getting Windows' updates can be obtained via Firefox.

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (1)

Mr. DOS (1276020) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614761)

I never thought I'd say this, but score one (the first?) for Vista and 7 over XP - on both of those, Windows Update is in its own separate control panel, and isn't directly tied to Internet Explorer. You can still launch it through IE, sure, but it pops up in its own Window and you're not required to go through IE to get there either.

On a related note, I thought it interesting that Vista (and maybe 7 too, I haven't checked) provides an option in its newfangled file association manager to use as few Microsoft applications as possible. Are they - *gasp* - maybe coming to the realization that not everybody wants to use their stuff?!

      --- Mr. DOS

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (5, Insightful)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614089)

If it weren't for Chrome and IE8's privacy mode, then that probably wouldn't be the top priority it is right now for Firefox 3.1. Competition is good in the browser market. They'd still be on IE6 if it weren't for the success of Firefox.

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (4, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614283)

and that my friend should be the whole point. MSFT basically stopped all browser development for 5 years. Then Firefox came along and showed people that you could have a free browser that could do more than IE(Opera wasn't free but adware). MSFT lost marketshare and then started to fight back.

MFT is and always has been reactionary to change. If their products are good enough they don't get improved upon. If MSFT only had 60% marketshare I would be happy. as MSFT would be forced to fight to keep customers by improving software.

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614559)

MFT is and always has been reactionary to change. If their products are good enough they don't get improved upon.

This is true of most companies.

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614577)

MFT is and always has been reactionary to change. If their products are good enough they don't get improved upon.

Microsoft is? You just describe business and government in general, not just Microsoft.

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (0, Troll)

HungWeiLo (250320) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614815)

By MS "improving software", you really mean "copying the competition and releasing it 5 years later."

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614473)

IE8 also implemented individual processes per tab.

Re:No plugins like Adblock and NoScript (2, Informative)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614885)

IE is NOT the first browser to implement anti-clickjacking tech. Firefox + NoScript has had a non-obtrusive (read:it works with the "globally allow scripts [etc]" option enabled) clickjacking blocker known as ClearClick [noscript.net] for quite a while [noscript.net] now [hackademix.net]. It is inaccurate to compare vanilla Firefox with other browsers since Mozilla intended Fx to be used with addons. NoScript is a perfect example.

One giant security hole (0, Troll)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26613627)

Is IE8 still the resource pig we've been hearing about since the early betas? I'll pass.

Re:One giant security hole (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26613651)

As opposed to what, Firefox?

Re:One giant security hole (2, Informative)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#26613779)


Heh. Not in comparison to Firefox, but my copy of Konqueror on KDE leaves both of them in its dust.

But aside from resource demands (and I'll wait until I can try it properly before I make any judgements), IE8 looks quite nice. I'd certainly be willing to try it out if they made a version for non-Windows systems. How about it Microsoft - fancy branching out? :)

In related news.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26613665)

Crackers salivate at the new opportunities for exploits sure to exist in any new Microsoft "feature".

Something to credit Microsoft for (0, Troll)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#26613699)

I hope that those who loathe Microsoft for whatever reason, now have something to credit it for. This release is awesome in my opinion. Anyone in the know as to what it scores on the ACID 3 test?

Re:Something to credit Microsoft for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26613781)

Looking at the screenshot [ziffdavisinternet.com] it gets 20/100 which is wak.

Re:Something to credit Microsoft for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614527)

Which is better than the 5/100 it gets in IE7, I'd hate to see IE6

Re:Something to credit Microsoft for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26613799)

I hope that those who loathe Microsoft for whatever reason, now have something to credit it for. This release is awesome in my opinion. Anyone in the know as to what it scores on the ACID 3 test?

Maybe it reached double digits.

Maybe.

Re:Something to credit Microsoft for (-1, Troll)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 5 years ago | (#26613817)

20.

It scores a fucking 20.

So, that credit? Yeah, it's not so good around these parts.

Re:Something to credit Microsoft for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26613819)

I hope that those who loathe Microsoft for whatever reason, now have something to credit it for.

Oh? And what, pray tell, is that?

This release is awesome in my opinion. Anyone in the know as to what it scores on the ACID 3 test?

Is there a point to your post, other than earning (reinforcing?) your fanboi status?

"Here's your sign."

Re:Something to credit Microsoft for (5, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 5 years ago | (#26613907)

I hope that those who loathe Microsoft for whatever reason, now have something to credit it for.

Yes, when Internet Explorer 8 is released, Microsoft will finally have implemented decent support for CSS 2, a specification published over a decade ago. I hope everybody here on Slashdot will join me in welcoming Microsoft to 1998. Truly, they deserve all the credit they are going to get for being so ahead of the curve. Keep innovating, Microsoft! Don't let those slow-coaches at the W3C hold you back!

Left beta? Huh?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26613975)

I thought that a release candidate was still a beta, not a released, shipped version.

Granted, it MIGHT become the released code if not enough bugs are found and corrected shortly.

Shows you what little I know...years of beta testing and I had it wrong all along.

Re:Left beta? Huh?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614269)

Shows you what little I know...years of beta testing and I had it wrong all along.

Yes, apparently you did.

Re:Something to credit Microsoft for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614181)

Thank God Firefox makes supporting standards such a high priority [mozilla.org].

Re:Something to credit Microsoft for (1)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614357)

I agree that IE lagging on CSS support is a major PITA for web developers, but I don't think Netscape's CSS2 support was that great in 1998 either. Of course, I didn't know what CSS was in 1998, but I don't think it was exactly in wide use at the time, at least relative to the awesome <marquee> and <blink> tags.

Re:Something to credit Microsoft for (2, Insightful)

huckamania (533052) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614877)

Just because something is a standard doesn't mean it is a good standard and I wonder about CSS being a good standard.

I congratulate the committee that created it on actually getting something out the door, that is an accomplishment for any committee. However, I don't think it is too much to ask that the new standard actually work better then what was already there. Tables were clunky and misused, but for formatting a web page, they still work better and are easier to understand. It's frustrating to spend days trying to get CSS to render something simple to only tear it all out and redo it in tables in a few minutes.

Was there really a huge demand for floating elements back in 1998?

Re:Something to credit Microsoft for (1)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614073)

Can I loathe them for shipping Windows 7 with a beta version of their own browser?

Re:Something to credit Microsoft for (2, Informative)

deraj123 (1225722) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614313)

Not until they ship Windows 7. Then, if they do that, have at it.

Competitive support for W3C Standards? (5, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614099)

No? What's that? Microsoft closed out the bugs as "works as intended?" Fail.

Something to credit Microsoft for

In case it's not clear, I have a firey hatred for IE8. Not so much the product itself, but what it represents. What it represents is a flagpole in the ground stating, "We're going to stand in the way of progress for our own selfish reasons".

While I can understand that Microsoft feels that the market is slipping from their grasp, I cannot support their methods of attempting to compete. Which is to say that they are using their power to prevent competition rather than building a superior product. As Joel pointed out in his excellent article on the Windows API being lost [joelonsoftware.com]:

Which means, suddenly, Microsoft's [Windows] API doesn't matter so much. Web applications don't require Windows.

It's not that Microsoft didn't notice this was happening. Of course they did, and when the implications became clear, they slammed on the brakes. Promising new technologies like HTAs and DHTML were stopped in their tracks. The Internet Explorer team seems to have disappeared; they have been completely missing in action for several years. There's no way Microsoft is going to allow DHTML to get any better than it already is: it's just too dangerous to their core business, the rich client. The big meme at Microsoft these days is: "Microsoft is betting the company on the rich client." You'll see that somewhere in every slide presentation about Longhorn. Joe Beda, from the Avalon team, says that "Avalon, and Longhorn in general, is Microsoft's stake in the ground, saying that we believe power on your desktop, locally sitting there doing cool stuff, is here to stay. We're investing on the desktop, we think it's a good place to be, and we hope we're going to start a wave of excitement..."

If you truly want to understand what is wrong with this browser, take some time and go through these examples:

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/wrongWithIE/ [howtocreate.co.uk]

Those only scratch the surface of what is really wrong with IE and Microsoft's stance on improving their web browser. For further reference, RC1 of IE8 gets a 20/100 on ACID3. This compares poorly to FireFox3's 56-59/100, Webkit nightly's 100/100, and Opera dev version's 100/100 [opera.com](!).

Developers need to band together and stop hacking our sites for IE. Users who wish to use IE should either be directed toward download links for one of the many alternatives, or forced to deal with a degraded view of the site with a polite comment to upgrade. And by degraded, I mean "it works, but looks awful". If that right there doesn't sell users on getting an alternative browser, I don't know what will.

(Yes, I am aware that many businesses can't take the hit. But we have to start somewhere. And that somewhere can easily be everything from your personal site to your new venture that's betting on early adopters of advanced web technology. IE's market share is already plummeting. If we can get enough momentum, we can near-eliminate this unsightly browser from the web. Remember Netscape 4's inability to keep up? This is the exact same situation all over again, except this time the solution is not a total mono-culture.)

Re:Competitive support for W3C Standards? (4, Informative)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614411)

I'd like to note that the latest Shiretoko (Firefox 3.1) nightly gets around 93/100 on Acid3, since you're comparing nightly versions of Webkit and Opera. I also think it's been at 93/100 for a while, and I don't think they're focusing on getting 100% for 3.1 as much as just getting it out the door at this point.

Re:Competitive support for W3C Standards? (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614531)

Thanks for pointing that out! I didn't have the nightly figures for Firefox, so I had to go with the figures I had on hand. Comparing the upcoming releases of these browsers is (IMHO) very fair considering that they will probably be out at the same time as IE8.

Even if we put that aside, it's worth mentioning that IE8 scores lower than any competing browser did at the time the ACID3 test was introduced. As I recall, not a single browser (other than IE) fell below 40 in the initial ACID3 results. Which is pretty good when you consider that the ACID tests are designed to target features that are under-represented in the marketplace.

Re:Competitive support for W3C Standards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614607)

Very well said.

Users who wish to use IE should either be directed toward download links for one of the many alternatives, or forced to deal with a degraded view of the site with a polite comment to upgrade.

Actually, users should be directed to file a bug report with their vendor. Microsoft products are the broken window fallacy in action, it's about time everyone recognised this.

Re:Something to credit Microsoft for (1)

MrMr (219533) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614159)

It's a huge improvement, they score 50% higher than IE 7.
That is 21/100
Pathetic

Re:Something to credit Microsoft for (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614677)

Pfft. I had to take it off of all the computers here. It broke some many websites it was a total joke.

Clickjacking (4, Informative)

DrYak (748999) | more than 5 years ago | (#26613709)

Protection against the relatively new threat of 'clickjacking,' where a site tries to get you to press buttons underneath a sham frame page, has also been added â" the first browser to include such protections.

No, not the first. Maybe the first to be shipped with the functionality turned on by default.

It's just that, with FireFox, anything that isn't related to bare simple display of HTML pages, is usually tucked into separate plugins.
But the Noscript [noscript.net] plugin has featured click-jacking prevention almost from the next day after click-jacking came in the news.

Re:Clickjacking (3, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614071)

No, not the first. Maybe the first to be shipped with the functionality turned on by default.

It's more than "turned on by default"; that suggests there's a checkbox somewhere that is just off. The support isn't even installed by default.

Noscript may have deserved mention in the summary, but there is a difference between "including such protections" and "has such protections available in an add-on", and the difference is much more than between "including such protections turned on by default" and "including such protections turned off by default".

not really true with Firefox (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614267)

It's just that, with FireFox, anything that isn't related to bare simple display of HTML pages, is usually tucked into separate plugins.

Firefox includes all sorts of "security" stuff turned on by default, some of it both pointless and really annoying, like the click-4-times annoyance when you want to visit any https site that doesn't have its SSL certificate signed by one of the worthless central authorities. Some of it is also useful, like popup blocking. "Clickjacking" prevention seems like it'd go in the same category of stuff, if Firefox were interested.

Re:Clickjacking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614431)

No, not the first.

Yes, the first.

Re:Clickjacking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614511)

Protection against the relatively new threat of 'clickjacking,' where a site tries to get you to press buttons underneath a sham frame page, has also been added â" the first browser to include such protections.

ooooooooh yeah
i just clickjacked off there

CAPTCHA: verility

Standards (4, Interesting)

Mrs. Grundy (680212) | more than 5 years ago | (#26613723)

I don't really care about their tabs, 'Awesome Address and Search Bars,' privacy or really anything else while they still only score 20 on the Acid3 Web standards test. IE has historically been such a pain in the ass for the entire world because of poor adherence to standards. The article says Microsoft takes standards seriously but the test says otherwise.

Re:Standards (3, Informative)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614137)

Pretty funny.. I ran it on firefox (which I can't update due to IS) and got 71, Opera (which I can't update due to IS) 85. IE Version 7.0.5730.11 (which IS may or may not update) and it was unintelligble (couldn't even see score), and IE 6 in Citrix which got an 11.

Re:Standards (1)

pablomme (1270790) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614655)

I ran it on firefox (which I can't update due to IS) and got 71

Interestingly, I get 70/100 with AdBlock disabled, and 71/100 if I turn it on. I'm a bit puzzled.. does anyone get the same behaviour?

Re:Standards (1)

cwrinn (1282510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614277)

On the flipside, do you prefer a browser that doesn't give a shit about users and only strives for the perfection of Acid3? *coughSafaricough*

Re:Standards (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614753)

I take it from your comment that you feel that Safari somehow provides the user with an inferior experience of using the software? If so then I have to disagree, I regularly use Safari, Internet Explorer, Firefox (2 & 3 due to a couple of annoying bugs in FF3), WebKit and Opera, and generally speaking I actually find Safari/WebKit to be the most pleasant ones, there's also the fact that unlike Internet Explorer they understand the application/xhtml+xml MIME-type and are able to display SVG images without installing 3rd party plugins, and unlike Firefox they actually comprehend embedded fonts in SVG images...

/Mikael

Re:Standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614711)

100% certain that you have no reason to give a shit about acid3 scores, and you are purely using it as a dick-measuring tool.

Re:Standards (5, Funny)

heffrey (229704) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614847)

None of the browsers I have tried pass the Acid 3 test so I have given up using the internet. There's really no point if you can't get Acid 3 to go to 100/100.

Re:Standards (2, Informative)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614883)

I don't really care about their tabs, 'Awesome Address and Search Bars,' privacy or really anything else while they still only score 20 on the Acid3 Web standards test. IE has historically been such a pain in the ass for the entire world because of poor adherence to standards. The article says Microsoft takes standards seriously but the test says otherwise.

They're working on it; they haven't gotten there yet. IE8 does not pass Acid3, but neither do the current shipping versions of Firefox, Safari, Opera, or Chrome. Most of these should pass Acid3 in their next major release, but Firefox won't pass Acid3 for awhile (probably not until 4.0).

IE8 does pass Acid2, which represents a major improvement in standards-compliance and compatibility over previous versions of IE.

Nobody's saying IE8 is a better browser than Firefox. If you're already running Firefox, that's great. Stick with that. Don't switch to IE. But for anyone currently running IE, this is a huge improvement (and, unlike the switch from IE6 to IE7, upgrading from IE7 to IE8 shouldn't break anything, because there's an IE7 compatibility mode for stupid broken web sites).

Hooray! (-1, Troll)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 5 years ago | (#26613739)

Yes another browser I won't be using. thanks for keeping me posted, Slashdot!

Re:Hooray! (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26613823)

As opposed to any other story, which doesn't pose any value to a decent percentage of the crowd? Nothing appeals to everybody, so why make snarky comments about a known fact of life?

Re:Hooray! (-1, Offtopic)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 5 years ago | (#26613837)

Because I like to fuck with the mods every once in a while and see if I get rated -5 Troll or +5 Funny.

Every one in a while I'll get rated -5 Overrated, and that makes my day 3.

Re:Hooray! (1)

Beyond Opinion (959609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26613961)

Of course we won't be using it to browse the web, but for those of developing for the web it's handy to keep up with this stuff.

I just want 6 to go away (4, Insightful)

bitcastle (934210) | more than 5 years ago | (#26613785)

Yeah the obligatory complaint about those 30% or so that keep using 6 (according to my stats). Maybe with 8 out 7 will become the 6.

Re:I just want 6 to go away (1)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614039)

I WISH I could use IE7. I am stuck in a tabless world with IE6. One day I went to the Windows Update site and downloaded IE7 and installed it on my work computer. Several weeks later someone dropped by my desk and asked that I uninstall it. Lame. From what I hear in CAB meetings though, we should be getting it soon (maybe before summer).

Re:I just want 6 to go away (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614455)

I was curious as to why my employer (a school division) uses IE6 everywhere, so I asked a tech. The answer: because many of our computers still run Win2k, which doesn't run IE7 apparently.

Our more recent replacements (starting around spring '08, I believe) run xp. If all the 2k machines get replaced with xp, then I suppose it's reasonable to assume that IE7 or 8 will be phased in some time thereafter. I shudder to think of having to choose between IE6 on 2k or IE8 on Win7.

Fortunately for me that's a choice I will never have to make. FF portable seems to run reasonable well from my network drive.

I need stability (3, Interesting)

skomes (868255) | more than 5 years ago | (#26613829)

I still use Opera + IE6. Why IE6? Stability. These damn browsers never give up the memory they've taken, although chrome does a better job because it actually runs each tab in a seperate process. With IE6 I open a window, browse youtube, close site, and the memory is returned. I use Opera with javascript turned off, a low overhead browser that will save all my pages if a crash occurs.

Re:I need stability (2, Interesting)

WankersRevenge (452399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614241)

You have no idea the IE6 memory leaks that our team dev deals with on a daily basis. It's pure madness. Nevermind the hell it takes to get a page to render proper. Once IE6 marketshare drops to insignificant proportions, you will start seeing its ugly face surface since devs won't be catering to its craptacular bugs. I'm sure you are already seeing the results of its drunken css renderer.

It's funny ... I used to be a diehard Mozilla supporter from .70 days. These days, I can't go a day without wanting to toss firefox out the window with it's "fat guy at the buffet" attitude towards my system resources. If it weren't for a couple of extensions, I would either be in Opera-land or swimming with chrome.

Re:I need stability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614337)

These damn browsers never give up the memory they've taken

Firefox 3.0, some tabs open: 92.89K. Take a Google tab and play a YouTube video: 104.5K. Close that tab: 87.6K. Oops, that's not fair. Open a Google tab (like at the start): 90.2K.

Sure it's one data point, but it's enough to falsify your statement. Firefox had no problem returning memory used playing a YouTube video. This is under W2K if anyone cares.

Re:I need stability (2, Interesting)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614729)

I'm seeing IE6 usage near 20% these days (I'm in the UK btw), and once it gets below 10% (9.99% will be enough for me!) then I'll be making less effort to accommodate it in new web sites. It'll take me *considerably* less time to develop web sites when I don't need to worry about IE6.... so I'm looking forward to that day! :D

Oh... and my point was that you'll probably find IE6 is less supported on many websites over the next year or two.

jsBalls Score (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26613835)

Does it improve its jsBalls score [jsballs.com]? Last I saw ie8 was once of the slowest browsers. Has it improved since beta2?

Awesome compatibility for developers (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26613873)

I was about to install it when I noticed: Internet Explorer 8 Beta 2 and Visual Studio .NET (version 7.0 from 2002) are currently incompatible. If you install Internet Explorer 8 Beta 2, Visual Studio .NET will crash. No workaround is currently available. Yeah, I kind of need .NET 1.1 to work for some parts of my job.

Getting verrry old (-1, Flamebait)

djupedal (584558) | more than 5 years ago | (#26613883)

If the topic is MS....this must be /. What a shill-a-thon this site has become.

You guys can't get through one posting session without trumpeting MS in some way or another?

Why not report on Balmer toilet flushing frequency or how many times MS bullied hologram pirates in Southeast Asia...at least make it interesting since you intend to make it so blatant.

30% of the postings on any given page are given over to MS. That goes beyond happenstance and statistical probability, right into an obvious bent for the evil empire. An empire that never deserved ink in the first place. Ink that is driving away /. regulars and eroding the small bit of credibility that had taken seed over the years.

Are the mods here really that hard pressed to promote 'news for nerds' that they continually focus on one theme...?

Shame on you taco - shame on all of /. Damnation and hell for you and your kin for all of eternity. I hope the money you received burns right through your pocket and into the ground you stand on. May your petard be hoisted and forever flutter in the stench of foul winds and acrid smoke. May the bird of short-sighted bitterness fly up your rectum and build a rocky perch where only the seeds of deceit and low-mindedness find purchase until the end of time. May the echoes of time reveal your name as it is known now...an empty and broken promise to the online world that will never see prime fortune or true fame.

Re:Getting verrry old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614237)

Are you crazy? This is worth mentioning because browsers are important. Slashdot is pro-ms now? The most irrational ms haters in the world hang out here, like you. Youre so batshit insanse you see pro-ms where there isnt any.

Having this much hate isnt healthy. Chill out.

Re:Getting verrry old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614295)

Someone has a case of the "Monday's" now don't they. Forget your morning coffee perhaps?

Re:Getting verrry old (4, Insightful)

malakai (136531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614303)

This has been a very active couple of days for MS stories. Lots of big things happening between layoffs and beta releases.
Let's look at some facts though.

30% of the postings on any given page are given over to MS. That goes beyond happenstance and statistical probability, right into an obvious bent for the evil empire. An empire that never deserved ink in the first place.

Windows marketshare is 90%.
IE's marketshare is 70%
Slashdot users run somwhere between 47% and 70% MS Windows based OS.(http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=1516&aid=-1, http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=848&aid=-1 [slashdot.org])

In the last four days Slashdot has had 9 MS stories ( source: http://slashdot.org/search.pl?tid=109 [slashdot.org])
In the last four days Slashdot has has 97 stories posted ( source: http://slashdot.org/search.pl [slashdot.org] )

What percentage of stories about MS have run in the past four days?
9/97 = 0.092 * 100 = 9.2%

Facts hardly look as bad as you make them out to be.

FP to Wikizealots (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26613959)

Hi to Admin sockpuppets of the cult of Jimbo "I fucked rachel Marsden" Wales. Still "doing" it for the Child in Africa? Then why does all the African languages less than 10,000 articles!?! Fuck you all

Raul654, Spacebirdy, RickK, Lucky 6.9, TTN, Betacommand, David Gerad, CometStyles, and all their cocksucking (tacosnotting cronies @ WP:ANI)

See the Lulz in action! [wikimedia.org]

Grawp the Haggar! on wheels! The Trollvelution got you to the sixth most poupular site on the internet, now you will see that you DID feed the trolls, and they are rich and are running the encyclopedia!

Still no SVG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614031)

may we suggest upgrading to Firefox.

W3C Standards (1)

nitroscen (811508) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614051)

Before I RTFA, I was going to make a snide remark about IE's refusal to follow web standards.
Skimming through it, I was surprised to find the article praise IE 8's 'improved compatability' -

"In my standards-compatibility testing, IE8 RC1 passed the Acid2 Browser Test (which evaluates CSS support) with flying colors. But on the Acid3 Web standards test, a program that focuses on DOM (document object model) support and JavaScript, IE8 RC1 did the same as Beta 2, getting a score of 20 out of 100, still much better than IE7, which only got a score of 12. But compared with Firefox 3's 71, Chrome's 79, and Opera's 100, IE still has a long way to go. "

So! My snide remark still stands.
What a joke..yay.. conditional stylesheets...

Re:W3C Standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614525)

But on the Acid3 Web standards test, a program that focuses on DOM (document object model) support

And such urgently needed features as SVG animation, SVG font support, as well as problems found in commonly-used browsers, i.e. FF and IE. The tests are incredibly biased.

David Baron said it best [dbaron.org]: what matters more, standards support before or after the test? After all, would you rather see worked on first or (one of the Acid3 tests) proper whitespace preservation of the class attribute?

Re:W3C Standards (1)

Fully Functional (1174407) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614807)

A lot of web developers are going to be very angry about this. They said there was going to be a 3rd Beta before RC1. RC1 wasn't to be expected before the Mix conference that MS has. Also originally IE9 was meant to be using the new Triton engine instead of being based on the Trident engine that started in IE3 and is in all the other ones since then. It looks like that isn't true anymore. Some more details about IE8 and IE9 here http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/01/more-details-ab.html [wired.com]

Favorites: Make Available Offline (1)

imuffin (196159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614107)

I wonder if the put the option to make favorites available when offline back in IE? It's not in IE 7 anymore. It was actually kinda useful for traversing and downloading webpages to store offline for use while traveling. Though I must say HTTrack [httrack.com] does a fine job of it.

Doens the popup blocker work on /.? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614127)

So, how good is the popup blocker in IE8? Does it block popups on /. ? I don't know, but why have both /. and SourceForge decided to revive those ugly methods of advertisement?

Interesting statistic (4, Interesting)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614195)

IE shipping with a feature before FF has it ( private browsing mode).

Well that's something you don't see every day.

Re:Interesting statistic (5, Interesting)

Matthieu Araman (823) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614561)

humm, both IE8 and Firefox 3.1 will include a private browsing feature but neither have "shipped".
But you're right that IE included it before in a beta and that increased the priority on the firefox people...
Time will say which of these version ship the first (in a non beta, non rc mode)

Download resumption still missing (1)

phlegmboy (1067452) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614215)

I gave IE 8 a test drive on Vista 2.0b. I was not impressed. Plugins? What are they? But the biggest pain in the ass as far as I am concerned is that the IE crapware STILL does not support the incredibly simple function of resumption of interrupted downloads. This is typuical Macro$lut bullshit.

after how you've treated me? (5, Insightful)

Onymous Coward (97719) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614259)

There may be a number of good technical and use-oriented reasons not to bother with IE8. I don't know the details on it just yet. But it could be twice as good as the next browser and I still wouldn't use it. Not after what Microsoft did to us all with earlier versions. The standards compliance problems have been infuriating for developers. How much human effort has been wasted trying to cope with this? And the vulnerabilities have made popular computing a diseased seething mass. How many geeks have had to spend evenings or whole weekends taking care friends and family members' systems?

All of that and Microsoft let IE rot for how many years? Half a freakin' decade in the midst of humanity's glorious ascension into a networked era? It took competition forcefully wedging its way into IE's monopolistic stranglehold before Microsoft got off their asses to do anything.

Well, it's too late. Fuck off.

I'm no battered wife. I know that MS isn't "really a good husband, he just..." whatever. I'd rather other people not drag me into another round of this same neglected-until-it-matters-to-Microsoft bullshit. The fewer people who use IE, the better.

Re:after how you've treated me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614763)

Amen to that!

Does this read like a political report to you? (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614375)

IE8 has left beta as of noon Pacific time today.

Doesn't this sound like some wartime political report or something? "Leaving beta" as if it's an actual physical act of moving somewhere else?

"President Truman boarded the naval vessel at 2PM local time, and departed on his return voyage to the US from the island archipelago."

Page-Ad (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26614563)

Did everyone else get the Google Chrome page-ad when loading this page?

Third party tracking (2, Interesting)

AnalPerfume (1356177) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614663)

I notice one of the features listed is the ability to prevent third parties from tracking your web browsing habits, which would presumably mean "anyone other than the owner". Since Microsoft believe in retaining ownership of the software and licensing it to you, do they consider themselves a third party? Or is this just a convenient little "block the competition, while leaving a loophole for us"?

TFA is wrong (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 5 years ago | (#26614941)

XP professional x64 edition is supported using the same version as server 2003 x64.

There don't seem to be any downloads for any version of windows on itanium though.

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...