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!

Microsoft Previews IE9 — HTML5, SVG, Fast JS

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the this-time-stop-after-embrace dept.

Internet Explorer 473

suraj.sun sends this excerpt from CNET on Microsoft's preview of IE9 in Las Vegas just now. "At its Mix 10 conference Tuesday, Microsoft gave programmers, Web developers, and the world at large a taste of things to come with its Web browser. Specifically, Microsoft released what it's calling the Internet Explorer 9 Platform Preview, a prototype designed to show off the company's effort to improve how the browser deals with the Web as it exists today and, as important, to add support for new Web technologies that are coming right now. Coming in the new version is support for new Web standards including plug-in-free video; better performance with graphics, text, and JavaSript by taking advantage of modern computing hardware. One big change in the JavaScript engine Hachamovitch is proud of is its multicore support. As soon as a Web page is loaded, Chakra assigns a processing core to the task of compiling JavaScript in the background into fast code written in the native language of the computer's processor." Microsoft didn't say what codec they were using for the HTML5 video demo, but the Technologizer says it's H.264.

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

first comment! (-1, Offtopic)

arief.utama (1689566) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498568)

woot! (dont really care what ie9 really is :D)

Agreed. (0, Troll)

ADHVfFsvjLIViaglKlqo (1766800) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499088)

IE9 won't have Adblock, so who cares?

H.264 (4, Funny)

bflong (107195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498582)

Of course it's H.264. That's the superior standard! And by superior I mean it allows a superior level of control over the once free and open Internet.

Re:H.264 (4, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498608)

Once free and open Internet? What is Flash then? It's both proprietary closed platform and H.264.

It's of course H.264 but for different reasons - Windows 7 has build-in support for H.264, and Theora kind of lost the war already.

Re:H.264 (4, Interesting)

bflong (107195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498760)

Flash is an optional addon. There is no optional addon to play h.264. The support for the video is built into the browser, and once it's built in the browser cannot be redistributed due to patents. This is why Firefox can't play H.264, and the reason Theora doesn't have support from some key players. Without the patents, there is no control.

Re:H.264 (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498858)

GIF is also patented format and had an uproar before as they required license fees from applications that output GIF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Interchange_Format#Unisys_and_LZW_patent_enforcement [wikipedia.org]

In August 1999, Unisys changed the details of their licensing practice, announcing the option for owners of Billboard and Intra net Web sites to obtain licenses on payment of a one-time license fee of $5000 or $7500.[15] Such licenses were not required for website owners or other GIF users who had used licensed software to generate GIFs. Nevertheless, Unisys was the subject of thousands of online attacks and abusive emails from users believing that they were going to be charged $5000 or sued for using GIFs on their websites.[16] Despite giving free licenses to hundreds of non-profit organizations, schools and governments, Unisys was completely unable to generate any good publicity and continued to be vilified by individuals and organizations such as the League for Programming Freedom who started the "Burn All GIFs" campaign.[17]

The US LZW patent expired on June 20, 2003.[18] The counterpart patents in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy expired on June 18, 2004, the Japanese counterpart patents expired on June 20, 2004 and the counterpart Canadian patent expired on July 7, 2004.[18] Consequently, while Unisys has further patents and patent applications relating to improvements to the LZW technique,[18] the GIF format may now be used freely.

I don't think MPEG-LA is so stupid that it will try anything similar. In that case they also even didn't try to get licenses from 99% of websites. MPEG-LA has a long history in video formats and their usage on the Internet and other devices, it would be stupid of them to start charging individual websites and users.

Re:H.264 (1)

bflong (107195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499040)

If they really felt this way then they would allow players and transmission without patent royalties. They would make it official and permanent. They have not. "I don't think", "99% of websites", and
"It would be stupid of them" doesn't cut it. If you want to put faith in them, go ahead. I'd like to think we know better then that.

Re:H.264 (2, Informative)

mweather (1089505) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499180)

"GIF is also patented format and had an uproar before as they required license fees from applications that output GIF." And that's exactly why PNG was added to web standards.

Re:H.264 (-1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499292)

PNG was added because it supported alpha level transparency, and 24 bit color, in a non-lossy image format. Patent free was just an extra bonus.

Re:H.264 (5, Insightful)

arose (644256) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499380)

PNG was developed because of patent problems with GIF. Alpha channel, 24 bit color and better compression were just extra bonuses.

Re:H.264 (3, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498998)

Flash is an optional addon. There is no optional addon to play h.264. The support for the video is built into the browser, and once it's built in the browser cannot be redistributed due to patents.

There's nothing precluding the browser from using the OS centralized codec repository, to which an H.264 codec can then be added (if not there already).

In fact, Opera 10.50 does just that on Linux (it uses gstreamer). In fact, it also uses its own copy of gstreamer on Windows and OS X, to which you can add codecs if you want to.

Re:H.264 (1)

bflong (107195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499374)

That is a solution that would allow Mozilla to continue to keep Firefox open while supporting h.264. However, anyone who uses an unlicensed h.264 decoder are still technically breaking the law (at least in the U.S.). I'd rather not have to break the law to watch a video online, but I suppose that would make enough people happy.

Re:H.264 (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499014)

>>>Flash is an optional addon.

Yeah except not really. I'm on dialup with my laptop and sometimes block Flash to speedup the connection, but there are many sites that simply don't work. You need to either use Adobe's software or an open-source Flash Alternative.

Also H.264/MPEG4 is really no different than the MPEG2 we used in our HDTV/DVDs or the MPEG4 in our HD Radios/Bluray players. These formats are "proprietary" but open standards which are maintained by a neutral non-profit organization. Is it perfect? No but still better than if the standard was owned by just one single company (like the CD and VHS formats).

Firefox not playing h264 is a political decision (1, Insightful)

melted (227442) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499436)

Both Windows 7 and Mac OS X ship with h264 codecs preinstalled, and in the grand scheme of things, the (capped) $5M/year MPEG LA licensing fee would not really cripple Mozilla Corp (which gets $85M a year from Google for search box placement), so even if using built in h264 codecs is not an option for whatever reason, they could still ship ffmpeg.

Now let's assume they don't want to pay $5M. Even then there's an option which they deliberately declined to provide - have a plugin architecture in place which would allow third party codecs.

I'm not sure why they think Theora will win in the end, but at this point I'm fairly certain this isn't going to happen, no matter how hard Mozilla pushes Theora. With Chrome nibbling at Firefox's marketshare from one end, and IE9 offering h264 support on the other end, the lack of de facto compatible HTML5 video is a crippling disadvantage.

Re:H.264 (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498800)

Once free and open Internet? What is Flash then?

Not part of the official standard.

If you and a thousand idiots want to run their lolcat websites with h.264 videos, be my guest. Just keep your own goddamned patented technology *off* the official standard.

Re:H.264 (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498916)

Once free and open Internet? What is Flash then?

Not part of the official standard.

Neither H.264 nor SWF/FLV is part of the official standard, but the <video> and <object> elements respectively are.

Re:H.264 (1)

mweather (1089505) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499208)

They tried to make h.264 part of the standard. Instead they settled on nothing at all. What good is a standard embedded video tag if there is no standard coded with which to play with it?

Re:H.264 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31499294)

How do you feel about the img tag?

Compare to the img element (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499326)

What good is a standard embedded video tag if there is no standard coded with which to play with it?

What good is a standard embedded image tag if there is no standard coded with which to play with it? Notice that HTML's definition of the <img> element [w3.org] doesn't require support for any specific image format.

Re:Compare to the img element (1)

arose (644256) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499428)

Notice that no one is demanding Firefox expose OS image decoding so that we can use JPEG XR on the net.

Re:H.264 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31499416)

They tried to make h.264 part of the standard. Instead they settled on nothing at all. What good is a standard embedded video tag if there is no standard coded with which to play with it?

Well, sooner or later, the critical mass will come up with a de facto standard instead. Just like it decided on JPEG and GIF (and, eventually, PNG, mostly) for images.

When it comes to video, it looks like that mass is building around h.264.

Re:H.264 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31499152)

The way things look like, both H.264 and Theora are loosing the war. Rumors are that the major players in the field including Google/YouTube, Nokia, Microsoft, Apple, etc. (except for Adobe...) have put their animosities aside and started talks about settling on Dirac and even setting up a new standards body for it: http://diracvideo.org I personally think it's a good thing, especially since Dirac seems to deliver quite a bit better video quality per bandwith and per resource consumption than either H.264 or Theora.

Re:H.264 (2, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499278)

It's of course H.264 but for different reasons - Windows 7 has build-in support for H.264, and Theora kind of lost the war already.

Pretty much everyone is on board for H.264. AVC/H.264 Licensees [mpegla.com]

773 of the biggest names in media and tech. Canonical is on the list. Lockheed Martin is on the list.

Re:H.264 (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499420)

this kind of assumes people care about what internet explorer uses. That's becoming less relevant by the day.

Oh bollocks (1)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499312)

What a twat! Nuff said..

firefox is getting old (5, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498588)

It seems that even IE beat Firefox in Javascript performance [com.com] now. Firefox sure has been slacking recently. There's still road ahead though, Chrome and Opera are leading.

Re:firefox is getting old (2, Informative)

orta (786013) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498640)

Firefox has a new javascript engine called Jagermonkey that will probably beat it, as it's in part the webkit engine.

Re:firefox is getting old (5, Insightful)

weston (16146) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498696)

It seems that even IE beat Firefox in Javascript performance now. Firefox sure has been slacking recently.

The chart you linked shows IE 9 and FF 3.7 more or less at a dead heat. So, even if this were an unfortunate turn of events, it's not as if IE 9 had a terrible lead.

But I'm not sure it's unfortunate. High performance javascript in what will likely be the world's most highly used browser for a while? Sounds pretty good to me.

MS stole stuff in the past. now its easy to do (-1, Flamebait)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499160)

I don't believe for 1 second that MS with its history is not looking at Firefox and/or Webkit to save time AT MINIMUM. If not just doing wholesale copy/paste of open source code!
Unlike open source which has to be careful about volunteers with MS contractual ties getting them into legal troubles or threats of infringement without evidence, MS can steal all the open source code it wants and if they are ever caught who'd be able to go after them and win? Would the settlement be enough to offset the costs of in house development? Probably not.

I remember how hard it was for apple to force disclosure when they stole quicktime's source code - and all that time they didn't bother to delete the apple employee comments in that code... That is how arrogant they were dealing with a big company who likes lawsuits... Gates was in charge back then, now look who we have in charge...

Re:MS stole stuff in the past. now its easy to do (4, Informative)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499432)

What happens if they cut-and-paste OS into their commercial products?

They get busted and have to release their formerly closed source product into OS [microsoft.com] .

Problem solved.

MS is visibly arrogant and arguably evil, but stupid? Nyet. Count on their legal eagles making DAMN sure the little fiasco outlined in the linked article never happens again. They may be inclined to do anything they think they can get away with, but this is something they understand they can't get away with.

Re:firefox is getting old (1)

del_diablo (1747634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499388)

The thing is: Firefox does not have multicore support IE got. I got a BET that the test was run on a multicore CPU....... Which means that per core IE is SLOOOOOOOOW, also that its no longer a background application like browsers should be.

Re:firefox is getting old (5, Insightful)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498702)

Show the results from more than one test, and I'll be happy. As the browser showdown that was posted last week, one test doesn't prove anything. And considering the numerous open source tests that are available, why not show us all of them?

All that skepticism aside tho, if this is the truth (that IE9 will be standards based --and push the performance envelope--) then MS may be on the road to redeeming themselves... But the question remains, how tight will it be to the OS? Would a simple security flaw give a bit of JS access to the kernel? Or are they going to significantly sandbox the JS, and try to do everything right (as opposed to just the rendering)... Only time will tell if IE will become a browser friendly to geeks and developers (although something tells me it won't)...

Re:firefox is getting old (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31499060)

IE has been pretty good with security with 7 and 8, IMHO. Coupled with DEP (which ships turned on in Windows 7), and the protected mode that the browser runs in (so if it does get hijacked, malicious software doesn't have access to the user's file or Registry, much less the system's) have given the browser a significant security boost.

This isn't to say that IE is perfect, but because it is the focal point of almost every single intel agency, botnet client maker, malware writer, and blackhat on the surface of the planet, it has shown to be able to withstand a lot of attacks.

My recommendation, and this applies to *all* web browsers: Use something like Privoxy. This will filter out one of the biggest sources of infection, and that is third party ad-servers serving up malicious code.

Re:firefox is getting old (4, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499090)

But the question remains, how tight will it be to the OS? Would a simple security flaw give a bit of JS access to the kernel?

This kind of thing isn't possible on NT family operating systems since inception. IE does not run in the kernel, and never did.

Of course, it is possible to have a remote code execution vulnerability in JS engine, combined with a local elevation exploit, giving one root access - and from there patching OS files to get kernel access - but that is something that is possible on any OS, and not something you can fully mitigate by sandboxing (since sandbox can have its own vulnerabilities).

Or are they going to significantly sandbox the JS, and try to do everything right (as opposed to just the rendering)

IE has been sandboxing browser engine (including JS) to run in reduced elevation mode (so that it doesn't even have the privileges of user who runs the browser - so it can't access the files of that user, for example) since IE7/Vista.

Re:firefox is getting old (5, Interesting)

Jeff-reyy (1768222) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498814)

Recently? Firefox ceded the "lightweight alternative" throne to Opera years ago and it seems like ever since Chrome dropped they've just been rearranging deck chairs instead of trying to get out of the hole they're in.

When did we decide it was a good idea for a browser to interrupt its own startup procedure to ask you about reopening tabs and updating extensions?

When I clicked the icon, I wanted to go to a web page! Do all that other crap after you service my initial intent.

I knew Firefox was on its way out when I got a nag screen on startup asking me to upgrade. When I declined, it didn't go away and launch the browser, no, it popped up a survey web page, inside a modal dialog which was way too small and could not be scrolled or resized.

WAY TO GO, FIREFOX

Re:firefox is getting old (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498902)

For each 1 of you, there are like 200,000 other people who like those features.

Re:firefox is getting old (0, Offtopic)

Jeff-reyy (1768222) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499346)

cool story bro!

Reopening tabs (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498938)

When did we decide it was a good idea for a browser to interrupt its own startup procedure to ask you about reopening tabs [...] When I clicked the icon, I wanted to go to a web page!

How does it know you didn't want to go to the last web page you were looking at when you closed the program?

Re:Reopening tabs (3, Insightful)

Jeff-reyy (1768222) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499106)

Which is better default behavior?

1. Open the browser as quickly as possible and let the user click the page they want from the history / most visited list (Safari, Chrome, Opera do this)

2. Open the browser and check all the plugins for updates, check to see if pages were open when the browser was last closed, stop loading, present a dialog asking the user if they want to load the browser (which is going to happen anyway regardless) or load the browser _and_ try to open N tabs simultaneously.

If you said 2 you are an imbecile.

Re:firefox is getting old (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499174)

Firefox has suffered the problem of forgetting what their original goal was: create a lightweight and fast browser to replace Mozilla. Now Firefox is as feature laden and bloated with feature creep as Mozilla once was. Now Chrome and Opera are delivering that niche of a fast lightweight browser.

Re:firefox is getting old (1)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499340)

Firefox has been old.

Chrome now has firebug and adblock, and as promised everyone has left FF for it.

compiling java script (1)

cryoman23 (1646557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498602)

wouldn't compiling THEN running the java script be overall slower because of it not being pre compiled? idk just seams like it would only work better for when the java script is a certain size...

Re:compiling java script (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498630)

If the JavaScript is under a certain size, then it probably compiles so fast on modern* PCs that users won't notice.

* Meeting recommended hardware specification for Windows 7.

Re:compiling java script (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498660)

idk just seams like it would only work better for when the java script is a certain size...

What does this even mean? Size has nothing to do with it, and how is IE supposed to "pre-compile" javascripts it fetches from the websites?

But overall compiling (quickly, and taking advantage of multi-cores) then running is a lot faster approach than running non-compiled code all the time. Especially with AJAX sites most of the javascript isn't even executed right away but when user clicks something, and then it's already compiled and fast code.

Re:compiling java script (2, Interesting)

orta (786013) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498688)

I wouldnt be surprised if this is misquoted and it really means the JIT translation that the other browser engines use. But doing it on another core is a nice move, I wonder how well that affects the performance. I'd honestly have expected Apple to do that first, having a good API for doing this kind of thing.

Propriety technology (0, Troll)

Mouldy (1322581) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498636)

JavaSript? I thought Microsoft would have learnt from Active X's failings that propriety technologies don't catch on too well.

Uphill Battle (5, Insightful)

Sparkycat (1703438) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498642)

That's great and all, but Microsoft isn't competing with other browsers for market share, it's competing with its own older browsers. Anyone who knows anything about browsers is already using Firefox or Chrome or Opera, and anyone who knows nothing about browsers is using whatever came pre-installed on their computers:

IE6 if they're still on XP, Safari if they have a Mac, or IE 8 if they're running Windows 7.

Unless this is a mandatory upgrade to IE 8, it's not going to gain any ground.

And of course, the 30% of users still using IE6 will continue to do so until their computers die, or a techie relative replace it with Firefox.

Re:Uphill Battle (1, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498730)

Users aren't using IE6 because they haven't been prompted to update (they are with Windows Update), they're using IE6 because it's a workplace and a lot of intranet web applications only work with it. Other than that, Firefox surpassed IE6 in market share already.

Re:Uphill Battle (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499330)

I see IE6 used in three places:

1: Users who are just dead-set on keeping IE6, no matter what.

2: Businesses who like the parent stated, have internal web apps made by someone who wanted "job security" by making their stuff locked to IE6 where even subsequent versions of IE that are run in compatibility modes do not work.

3: Businesses who have extremely long configuration change cycles. This means that only a certain OS/browser/app snapshot is used and deployed across machines, and it is either only updated via WSUS with a chain of approvals (attorneys, license monitors, "security" monitors, regression testers, etc.) Environments like this, it can take 4-5 years before another OS/browser/office suite snapshot gets vetted. In these environments, what I have done was get the bean counters to license ThinApp from EMC so the machines can remain locked down, but users are still able to use the latest Office products. Because ThinApp saves all Registry changes into a directory, not even the HKCU is modified. This way, a company can use newer Web browsers as well as the latest Office products without having to modify the core installed image.

Market Share (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498848)

According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] , IE (all versions) is now less than 55% market share. Judging by the current pace, IE (all versions) will drop below 50% market share within 6 months. If they weren't paying much attention to other vendors 5 years ago, they most certainly are now.

IE dropping below 50% market share is a big milestone for the web, since MS will no longer hold the theoretical "majority vote" concerning web standards and web technology.

Re:Market Share (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499012)

IE dropping below 50% market share is a big milestone for the web

Just as important is IE 6 dropping below 20 percent of total share. It's currently at 21.18%. IE 7 is still new enough to show web sites almost as intended. And unlike with IE 6 to 7, any OS that can run 7 can also run 8.

since MS will no longer hold the theoretical "majority vote" concerning web standards and web technology.

To continue the voting analogy, it takes 20 percent to force a roll-call vote in the U.S. House of Representatives or Senate.

Re:Market Share (3, Interesting)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499222)

To continue the voting analogy, it takes 20 percent to force a roll-call vote in the U.S. House of Representatives or Senate.

I just recently learned about that practice. It's rather disturbing to think every little detail is recorded when you go to court for a traffic ticket, but no record is kept of who voted for what in our Legislature unless 20% of them agree to allow it.

It's not surprising they rarely do roll-call. By not keeping records, they can claim to have voted in whatever manner the group they are currently speaking to finds most acceptable... a very useful tool for each and every one of them.

Re:Uphill Battle (1, Offtopic)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498918)

I am actually quite impressed with the amount of good feedback I've had from friends and relatives when I've done a PC repair/clean/rebuild for them.

I've taken the attitude with them that if I fix stuff for them free-of-charge then I don't want to have them come back again in a hurry.

This means they get the following:

- Firefox installed with a few good addons like Adblock, Xmarks (if they've more than 1 PC so they can sync bookmarks) and Flashgot

- If they have Norton or McAfee installed, I ask their permission to remove it and tell them not to renew their licenses; in place go AVG Anti-Virus and Spybot S&D for adware defence

- With their permission, replace hooky copies of MS Office & Photoshop with OpenOffice and GIMP

- Show them how to use CCleaner and set MyDefrag to be running once or twice a week

I've been amazed at the number of people who have come back and told me how trouble-free their PCs have been as a result.

Re:Uphill Battle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31499154)

Sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding the second to last point, but...

You replaced MS Office and Photoshop with OpenOffice and GIMP? Are you out of your mind?

Free does not always mean better, and both of these are a prime example of that.

GIMP in no way compares to photoshop. Not in ease of use or in functionality (or quality).

OpenOffice in no way compares to MS Office, although there are actually some people who would argue that. Your relatives are not those people.

Re:Uphill Battle (4, Informative)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499298)

You replaced MS Office and Photoshop with OpenOffice and GIMP? Are you out of your mind?

In the cases where people are using dodgy license keys of the above, then yes - the number of trojans and back doors I've found on those PCs definitely relates to the amount of hooky keygens I've also found on them. So for those people who never paid for it in the first place, the Free Software is a better alternative.

I am not for one minute denying that there people out there into VB and complex document macros, or into professional photo editing, who definitely need MS Office or Photoshop to do what they do.

But for 95% of people, including myself, a computer expert for more than a quarter of a century who just does the occasional simple document or a quick tweak to some photos he's taken, MS Office and GIMP do more than enough.

OpenOffice in no way compares to MS Office, although there are actually some people who would argue that. Your relatives are not those people.

Then I would say you've not tried OpenOffice recently because I've found it has a very high degree of compatibility. I've been testing it with a lot of my work documents and whilst the standard at work is MS Office 2003 only, I've not found any real incompatibility issues - but again, I don't get involved with documents that have much in the way of VB macros in them.

Re:Uphill Battle (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499328)

I follow the same philosophy - Except I probably wouldn't even offer to replace Photoshop with Gimp - if they shelled out the money for PS already, its worth having.

Then I tell them about my "First Ones Free Policy". Which is exactly how it sounds. The first one I clear all their Malware off and set them up on more secure standards. If they somehow manage to catch something then - Thats when I start charging by the hour.

Re:Uphill Battle (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499440)

As I stated to the other poster, if they have a valid registered copy of the software then that's what stays on the machine.

And, no, I don't consider it as fighting piracy, it's more to do with the PCs of friends & families staying safe and not being infested with malware - there's also, of course, a selfish aspect in as much as when their PCs are working fine, they don't bother me! :-)

Now THAT is Inovation (4, Funny)

MrTripps (1306469) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498670)

"The new software is only a framework, raw enough that it's still missing a "back" button." You can't say it isn't forward thinking if it won't let you go back.

Re:Now THAT is Inovation (1)

Nick Number (447026) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499082)

You can't say it isn't forward thinking if it won't let you go back.

Clearly the designers were familiar with the first rule of Italian racing.

Re:Now THAT is Inovation (4, Funny)

kpainter (901021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499104)

This is part of Microsoft's continuing initiative to clean up the menu bar by removing stuff. I bet in its final form, this baby won't have any buttons at all! The way you will navigate is open up notepad and type out the URL. Then, you will simply mark the text and drag and drop into the new streamlined interface. Pretty slick, huh?

Nice try with ACID3, Microsoft (-1, Flamebait)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498710)

"(There’s a pause when the score gets to 39 but the test will continue after a few seconds.)"

That's a fail then, irrespective of the score. The test explicitly states smooth animation.

Re:Nice try with ACID3, Microsoft (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498772)

OMG their technology preview isn't perfect? BURN THEM!

Re:Nice try with ACID3, Microsoft (0, Troll)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498846)

No, you've missed my point: They're excusing something that's part of the test. Nowhere else do they explain away the current score or what's missing. The text on the page seems to give the impression the pause is acceptable or 'as intended'. But it's not - it has failed ACID.

Re:Nice try with ACID3, Microsoft (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498992)

I thought the fact that it got a 55/100 on the test meant that it failed acid.

Its not like they got 100/100 but just had that one stop in the middle and thus "ZOMG they're big liars! They cheated! It stopped in the middle! I saw it."

Re:Nice try with ACID3, Microsoft (3, Insightful)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499020)

You've missed the overall point. This isn't even alpha quality software, it's in development. They aren't claiming they passed, they are just showing that they are making progress.

What you're doing is kinda like picking on a 2 year old for not having an expansive vocabulary.

Re:Nice try with ACID3, Microsoft (-1, Troll)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499080)

I know they're not claiming they've passed. But you've assumed something pretty big: "hey are just showing that they are making progress". If they've only got to 55, and the process of reaching 55 does not fulfil the rest of the test (being smooth, namely) then it actually hasn't even got to 55. It may as well be at zero.

Re:Nice try with ACID3, Microsoft (2, Insightful)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499258)

I know they're not claiming they've passed. But you've assumed something pretty big: "hey are just showing that they are making progress". If they've only got to 55, and the process of reaching 55 does not fulfil the rest of the test (being smooth, namely) then it actually hasn't even got to 55. It may as well be at zero.

To be fair, you're also making a big assumption: that someone cares what you consider the score that an alpha browser achieves against a test it's not trying to pass is.

I mean, this is a site full of geek wankery, and I mean that in the most affectionate sense, but come on.

Re:Nice try with ACID3, Microsoft (4, Informative)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499026)

No, you've missed my point: They're excusing something that's part of the test. Nowhere else do they explain away the current score or what's missing. The text on the page seems to give the impression the pause is acceptable or 'as intended'. But it's not - it has failed ACID.

They don't claim it passed ACID3. In fact, after continuing from 39, it never gets past 55. Read the IE9 arstechnica article from a few hours ago to see their comments on ACID3, mainly that they don't put any priority on passing it but that their score is going up as they improve their standards compliance.

Re:Nice try with ACID3, Microsoft (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499316)

And honestly, I don't think that should bother us all *that much*. ACID3 was not meant to be the be-all and end-all of browser tests. It's just one tool that browser developers can use to measure their progress towards standards compliance, but compliance is the goal.

So the real issues: Are how compliant is IE? Is it making good progress towards compliance? Is it an honest attempt by Microsoft, or are they giving a shady half-measure while sabotaging the standards?

I don't know the answers to those questions, but those are the questions that I'm concerned about. The overarching concern is, does your common everyday web developer need to use a bunch of tweaks and cut out features in order to get their pages to work properly on IE, or can they simply develop their pages to standard and assume that IE will work properly?

Re:Nice try with ACID3, Microsoft (4, Informative)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499064)

It's scoring a 55. That's a fail no matter what. You're latching on to the wrong point. The important part, which you've glossed over so neatly, is that Microsoft included that 55/100 on ACID3 as part of the actual news. They're freely admitting upfront, "hey, on this test, we're still doing badly, but we are working on improving. It's just not our focus."

Re:Nice try with ACID3, Microsoft (1)

HamSammy (1716116) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498860)

And Chrome ran the test in 2 seconds on an old pc; 100/100, perfect rendering and smooth. At least they're acknowledging standards :P

Re:Nice try with ACID3, Microsoft (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499116)

Even if you wait, it's 55/100. But the IE9 preview page is upfront about this - it will actually tell that much before it redirects you to Acid3.

I guess that's why it's called an "early preview", eh?

Re:Nice try with ACID3, Microsoft (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499122)

>>>The test explicitly states smooth animation.

If I recall correctly, Opera 10 does the same thing - passes the ACID3 but fails the test requirement for smoothness. (Maybe they fixed it in later 10.1 or 10.5 releases? Don't know.)

Re:Nice try with ACID3, Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31499452)

Maybe they fixed it in later 10.1 or 10.5 releases? Don't know.

You know, there's a real easy way to find out.

Posted with OPERA X 10.5.

German translation... (1)

Mantis8 (876944) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498714)

Ie? nein

The real question... (1, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498716)

Does it run on the Apple iPad? :P

Microsoft should stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498752)

As a web developer, I wish Microsoft would get out of the browser business and stop making terrible "upgrades" to an already terrible browser ! Bugs + Security Flaws + Lack of Standards + (the fact that after 8 versions it's still awefule) = time to think about dropping this whole browser idea, No !?!?

Re:Microsoft should stop (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499084)

They're not "upgrading," 9 is different from 8 which is different from 6. They're not running the same core. They're just keeping the name.

plug-in-free video? (4, Interesting)

mpapet (761907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498774)

Meaning Microsoft controls the kinds of video IE can stream?

This is a big opportunity for Microsoft to force the Internet media standards AND generate some meaningful license fees. Those fees would be paid to Microsoft to enable streaming your hot-new-VC-backed media format. Microsoft would never have to deal with those pesky media streaming competitors they used to call partners.

If I made decisions at Microsoft, that's how I'd do it.

XHTML? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498778)

Wait, some of those pages are XHTML. Aren't those not viewable in IE7 and IE8? Is XHTML going to be supported in IE9?

MS Messes stuff up again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498806)

Unsupported Event Type: DOMContentLoaded Internal Line 0 Character 0

HAHAHA

So... what is the catch? (2, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498826)

The demo looks good so far, but I know my MS, there is an angle. There always is. Some subtle way in which they screw it up. Royally. There must be. They have done it for over two decades. No ways after 8 major versions and several minor ones are they suddenly going to play nice.

Paranoid? It ain't paranoia if they are out to get you.

They seem to be really honest this time about following standards, admitting they are not there yet and that it is time they did... so where is the closed source proprietary crap you just know MS is going to insist on adding.

A while ago someone asked on a forum, what would it take to use a linux library for accessing MS services. And I said there was nothing they could do. No, opensourcing it wouldn't do it, because I know MS has in the past done that and then later added closed source extensions you couldn't get on anything but windows.

And before you mod me down, if Blair/Bush (in holland this doesn't apply, Bakellende is after 4 failed goverments still available for re-election) said they were sorry, they knew what they did wrong, know what to do know to fix everything and all they ask is for another chance, would you give it?

Lets face it, they knew since version 6 that they had created a beast that to this day and for years to come haunts them. And version 7 was a beast and version 8 was a beast. So, third time is a charm? This one won't be a beast? I remember when Windows 7 came out: "Oh wow, this is so good, it ain't as crappy as Vista, MS has finally got it." And now slowly the negative is getting out and SP1 is being launched in a rush to deal with all the issues that were overlooked before. IE7 and IE8 were hauled as great improvements on IE6, only for devs to then realize that they were still spending most of their time on getting sites to work with the crappy products of Microsoft.

Will IE9 be different? Will it finally have real dev tools? Will it finally respect standards? Will it finally not introduce a thousand new proprietary and conflicting features? Will it finally perform? Will it finally not have a security hole per day that goes unpatched for years? Will it finally render a page coded to standard correctly?

And will MS finally do something serious about forcing the upgrade of everyone to IE9? Like MS disabling access to all its own extra services to anyone with an obsolete browser and releasing IE9 for EVERY single windows version from 98 on so that everyone can finally switch?

I doubt it. Que the MS apologists who will claim this is finally it. They should be ready, they said it often enough before.

Re:So... what is the catch? (2, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498934)

I know the catch. The catch is obvious. I know people who use IE 6.

IE 7 came out 4 years ago. IE 8 came out a year ago, not including the long public beta.

No matter how good IE 9 is, we'll all have to continue to support IE 6/7/8 for the next 6+ years. It doesn't matter if IE 9 was FireFox with a skin, the curse of IE will continue to haunt anyone doing web development for years.

Re:So... what is the catch? (1)

Ralish (775196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499384)

I doubt it. Que the MS apologists who will claim this is finally it. They should be ready, they said it often enough before.

Please accept my sincere apologies, but I have to prioritise, and a brief statistical analysis suggests converting the pope to atheism is a likely more rewarding pursuit than engaging in intellectual debate with you over Microsoft. Cheers!

Holy shit (3, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498832)

I had to stare at the headline for like 5 seconds before it even parsed. It just didn't seem like a reasonable configuration of words.

Re:Holy shit (1, Funny)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498978)

I had to stare at the headline for like 5 seconds before it even parsed. It just didn't seem like a reasonable configuration of words.

Oh don't worry, I'm sure by the time they release IE9 that we'll find the JS is slower than IE6, SVG support broken and HTML 5 support nonexistent.

Re:Holy shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498986)

Have you considered cutting down on you intake of drugs?

Re:Holy shit (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499302)

I had to stare at the headline for like 5 seconds before it even parsed. It just didn't seem like a reasonable configuration of words.

Next week: GPLed source code to linux drivers for all MS hardware in a GIT repository.

Oh Jesus! Why do they keep on with new IEs (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498870)

Why can't they just call it a day, adopt the Webkit or Geko engine (i.e. something that works) and stop torturing web developers with new and ever more useless versions of IE.

Ok. Keep a neutered and sanitized version of IE6 for all those corporate intranet apps that need Active X controls embedded in the browser, but othrwise let it go.

IE10 (IE X) should be based on an open/free engine that actually works and complies with standards, and Trident should be sunk with trace.

The managers at MS must be dopes - pissing away money on new IE version development when nobody wants the poisonous heap of shit that IE is, always has been, and always will be.

Stop torturing innocent web devs and kill IE (Trident) now!

New Javascript Record (4, Funny)

K-Man (4117) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498886)

This should be able to serve over 2000 popunder ads per second.

Re:New Javascript Record (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499270)

This should be able to serve over 2000 popunder ads per second.

Blasphemy! It will be OVER 9000!

Standard compliance? (1)

nedwidek (98930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498920)

So with all of the nifty, new stuff they are finally compliant, right? I mean no more body {text-align: center;} instead of body { margin: 0px auto; } to center a fixed width layout, right?

I'm sure anyone else who needs to output HTML would love it if MS would just fix their damned browser. Then they can look at adding new features. Or better yet, just drop Trident and replace it with WebKit.

Re:Standard compliance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31499288)

They probably use their new speedy Javascript engine to sort out the DOM after the page downloads to change it to use Internet Explorer's broken standards.

Re:Standard compliance? (3, Insightful)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499300)

So with all of the nifty, new stuff they are finally compliant, right? I mean no more body {text-align: center;} instead of body { margin: 0px auto; } to center a fixed width layout, right?

Those are two different things. text-align: center centers stuff in a div. the margin: 0 auto you set to a div to center that block (the div) in its container. Even IE6 works correctly with this, so I don't know what the issue is here.

For those having box-model issues with IE6, you can easily fix this by using the HTML 4.01 Strict DTD, FYI.

Microsoft should stop (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498944)

As a web developer, I wish Microsoft should stop making "upgrades" to an already awful browser.

How do you ruin your online experience??? Answer: IE .

Bugs + Security Flaws + lack of standards + the fact that no version (AND THERE IS NOW 8) helped in any of those areas = Terrible program. TERRIBLE.

Do not want (1)

daoshi (913930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499036)

3 words: Do not want IE9!

Re:Do not want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31499230)

Who gives a shit about what you want.

Re:Do not want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31499236)

4 words: Do not want IE9!

Fixed that for you.

SVG Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31499382)

I am most interested in how well IE9 implements SVG. I know many developers have waited eagerly for the day SVG is supported in the most popular Web browsers. It looks like that day may finally arrive.

Please tell MS to support Ogg Theora/Ogg Vorbis (2, Interesting)

dwheeler (321049) | more than 4 years ago | (#31499446)

Please go to http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/contact.aspx [msdn.com] and ask Microsoft to add support for Ogg Theora and Ogg Vorbis. They could add it to the browser, or add support for it to the OS and then have the browser support it. They can support both H.264 and Ogg if they want to. For example, there are many sites like Wikipedia which *ONLY* permit Ogg Theora and Ogg Vorbis for multimedia; without built-in support, IE users have trouble hearing/viewing the content.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?