Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

152 comments

Frist Prost (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31637398)

Frist Prost

Re:Frist Prost (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31637758)

My sister is doing her internship at one of those astroturfing companies in Beijing right now. She's not an actual astroturfer, but she showed me the software her guys use and how they bill the client (one of them was a major American software company specialising in OSs). It's very sophisticated--the client gets to see what has been said about them and the company's response. According to her, they don't flame negative posts on forums, but rather give measured information (from a script) and link to more positive information/reports. Their tactics against trolls are to question them, ask for justification and try to make them seem unreasonable and silly. Their job is more damage control than brainwashing. So the next time you see a well-thought-out, reasonable-sounding response to an obviously-trollish comment on Slashdot remember: IT COULD BE AN ASTROTURFER

Re:Frist Prost (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31637882)

Hey twitter, long time?

Also Ballmer eats babies - my mother-in-law once knew a guy who saw him.

Re:Frist Prost (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31638114)

Your mother-in-law hangs around with Ballmer watchers

Re:Frist Prost (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638536)

Or perhaps Fuzzybunn [reddit.com] ?

Re:Frist Prost (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638590)

"So the next time you see a well-thought-out, reasonable-sounding response to an obviously-trollish comment on Slashdot remember: IT COULD BE AN ASTROTURFER'

Sounds sweet. Can we have some of those?

Nothing new (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637400)

It's just more mulling over the recently released IE9 preview, which went through the /. torture rack pretty much as soon as it was announced. SVG support was already there, and was discussed alongside all the other newly supported standards, so what's the point of TFS?

Re:Nothing new (4, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637690)

Yeah I was thinking pretty much the same thing, but this is another article for a difference crowd with its own purpose. And with all that said, perhaps it's time to put Microsoft's SVG implementation through the /. torture rack.

Even during the previous article's discussion, a question on my mind (that I was afraid would have been modded offtopic) was "how faithful will their implementaiton of SVG be?" Microsoft is quite famous for doing things in such a way that it makes the world believe everyone else is broken. So now I am left to wonder about this too.

Re:Nothing new (5, Informative)

maestro371 (762740) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637762)

I've tested with an application that I'm developing that generates complex SVG network maps (that validate as SVG 1.1 with the W3C validator with no errors).

Linear gradients don't work at all, stroke and fill colors appear to be sporadic. JavaScript doesn't work (but I didn't expect it to as it's targeted to Chrome and Safari primarily right now).

I expect that MS will add more functionality as the preview progresses. They have a lot of work to do, regardless.

Re:Nothing new (4, Insightful)

Ralish (775196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638432)

Yes, the SVG support in the Platform Preview is definitely a work in progress; it really should be viewed as an early alpha in overall completeness and quality. However, MS has apparently committed to a full and proper SVG implementation in IE9. Some links worth checking out:

Platform Preview gives Web developers first taste of IE9 [arstechnica.com] - Scroll down to SVG heading for a nice summary

SVG in IE9 Roadmap [msdn.com] - Official IE blog post on SVG

IE9 on SVG Test Suite (2, Informative)

shis-ka-bob (595298) | more than 4 years ago | (#31639094)

If you look at Haavard's blog [opera.com] on the Opera site, you will find a reference to run of the SVG 1.1 Test Suite on IE9 [codedread.com] . In contrast to Microsoft's SVG test suite (of about 104 individual tests in 7 areas), the W3C's test suite has 275 tests, each of which typically has a dozen or so subtests. On the standard test, IE9 passed 28.36 % of the tests. All other browsers are above 60%. Once SVG becomes viable, I expect that all of the other browsers will quickly advance into the 90%+ range. Opera is already well above 90%. So I welcome IE9 into the SVG crowd, but they are far behind the competition.

A skeptic, that is to say, anyone who can recall Microsoft's behavior over the past 20 years, might wonder if Microsoft ran the official SVG test suite on all competing browsers to find areas where they failed. They then built a second test where they know the others will fail. The developers then focused on implementing them correctly in IE9. This would give them bragging rights when they ran their specially crafted SVG test that focussed on these areas. But it would not help improve interoperability if they grade themselves on a new test, rather than the W2C test suite. I hope I a wrong, but like the little boy who cried wolf, Microsoft has a history of misleading the community.

Re:Nothing new (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31639568)

I don't find this surprising. It's a policy Microsoft has used since circa 1990:

EMBRACE an existing standard/format that has gained popularity.

EXTEND the format with new functions which are copyrighted by Microsoft, so competing products can't display the pages properly.

EXTINGUISH the competing companies by telling users that those companies' products only provide half the functionality, therefore you should use Microsoft's product. And oh yeah, MS provides it for free with Windows, so it's doubleplus good.

"Business is war."
- Jack Tramiel

Re:Nothing new (4, Informative)

jlp2097 (223651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638894)

And with all that said, perhaps it's time to put Microsoft's SVG implementation through the /. torture rack.

Not necessary - here is a nice comparision for all current browser implementations of SVG and how much tests of the official SVG test suite they pass : SVG Implementation Table [codedread.com] . If you click on the chart you get a very detailed view.

To summarize:
IE9: 29% of the SVG test cases,
Firefox: 72%,
Chrome/Safari: 83
Opera: 93%

IE9 is way behind, Opera is the winner in this test

Re:Nothing new (2, Interesting)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 4 years ago | (#31639560)

Whenever anyone runs objective tests of browser functionality, Opera usually does very well. I'm amazed it doesn't have more market share.

Well, that's a surprise. (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637406)

I commend the decision, but I don't trust them.

-jcr

Re:Well, that's a surprise. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31637432)

I'm sure they'll find a way to fuck it up for everyone.

Re:Well, that's a surprise. (1)

Kryptonut (1006779) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637448)

Such pessimism!

Re:Well, that's a surprise. (2, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637574)

Well, they are the guys that couldn't even get "ping" right when they were given the source code.

Re:Well, that's a surprise. (5, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637454)

Yes, when they create a proprietary extension to SVG that allows embedding smart code. Perhaps they'll call it ActiveSVG.

Actually I'm not sure if that's a EEE joke or a security problems joke.

Re:Well, that's a surprise. (1)

ProfessionalCookie (673314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637476)

mmmm. Then they'll add a video codec, and call it Flasvg.

Re:Well, that's a surprise. (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637488)

They say that SVG is an abbreviation of SilVerlight Graphics extension.

Re:Well, that's a surprise. (0, Troll)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637532)

Sir, how dare you question the integrity of Microsoft.

Oh, wait, Microsoft is a corporation. It has no integrity.

Re:Well, that's a surprise. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31638756)

Actually, it's called WPF, aka SilverLight. The object models are almost exactly the same as SVG already, from pronames down to the Converters.

Re:Well, that's a surprise. (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 4 years ago | (#31639662)

Embrace, enhance, ...

They've been down that road many times before.

Re:Well, that's a surprise. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31637470)

Ironic.

"Well, that's a surprise. A SlashDot neckbeard doesn't trust Microsoft."

Pull Factor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31637472)

Always need those "teaser features" to act as a pull factor when making software that doesn't support older platforms.

Re:Pull Factor (1, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637542)

Agreed. The new browser probably won't run on XP such that people will be forced to buy Windows 7 to run MS's newer browser.

Re:Pull Factor (5, Informative)

portalcake625 (1488239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637558)

So much fucking FUD, people.
Windows XP (Server 2003/R2 is still mainstream, but they won't port IE9 to it becaus of the same reasons like they did with 2000 and IE 7), is in extended support, which means no more new features, just security updates until 2014.
Now, if you'd like those features, Microsoft has a program in which you pay the devs extra to port it to (insert older Windows OS here).

IE 9 will run on Vista and 7.

Re:Pull Factor (2, Insightful)

xigxag (167441) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638426)

Problem with that little theory is that the "pull" is stronger in the other direction. If you're running XP and IE8, and you need SVG, instead of paying $100 to upgrade to IE9, you'll just download FF or Chrome and Microsoft loses more browser share.

Whaaa... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31638686)

>>> The new browser probably won't run on XP such that people will be forced to buy Windows 7 to run MS's newer browser.

Yes. The critical part of your phrase being "to run MS's newer browser". Considering M$ security track record, pardon me if I'm less than enthusiastic about M$ software.

> Now, if you'd like those features, Microsoft has a program in which you pay the devs extra to port it to (insert older Windows OS here).

Either you're dense or worse. Or you may be young and think support means the same to you and M$. Hint: it does not.

> IE 9 will run on Vista and 7.

We have new monitor with a certain resolution (very common btw) which Vista does and W7 don't.

Actually Vista doesn't support said resolution itself, too, but it will accept the monitor maker driver CD. OTOH, W7 won't offer the desired resolution not even with the last version driver downloaded from the maker site. And yes, the monitor is claimed to be W7 compatible.

"It's not W7 fault", someone will surely say. Then why Vista works? Or XP, generally speaking, btw? (I have an HP scanner that works under XP; under Vista or W7, it's a brick)

It all boils down to "what did you expect?", "they're a capitalist company, it's natural for them to do so" etc. etc. To me, that amounts to "they're evil, what did you want?" 8-\

(post intentionally vague, since I'm not in the business of helping M$ like MIguel)

Re:Whaaa... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31639298)

I've been consistently labeled as troll in these latter times here, where I did enjoy a Insightful rate now and then.

Maybe I am now a troll without knowing, maybe moderators are wrong (or most simply don't read ACs anymore).

Either way, it's a situtation that clearly invites one to leave the room -- if one does not wish to be a troll, that is. Hmm, is there a -2, Troll? 8-)

Re:Pull Factor (1)

TheReal_sabret00the (1604049) | more than 4 years ago | (#31639322)

Actually it's as simple as GPU support, XP doesn't have it, Vista and 7 do. I reckon you could make the likes of Opera and Firefox a lot more streamlined if they dumped support for (GPU-less) OS's.

Re:Pull Factor (4, Insightful)

TheRealQuestor (1750940) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637616)

Agreed. The new browser probably won't run on XP such that people will be forced to buy Windows 7 to run MS's newer browser.

And you think this is a BAD thing? So Mr. Linux what version of the kernel are you running? 1.0? Which dist, Ubuntu 1.0? I bet your Linux install isn't a 10 year old operating system, nor would you even consider running or supporting one that is that old. So why should Microsoft? XP was written a very long time ago before any of this intertubes stuff ever was even popular. The sooner MS can kill it off, the better the entire planet will be. The only thing that MS should kill off sooner is IE6.

Re:Pull Factor (3, Informative)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637812)

1) There is not, and never has been, an Ubuntu version 1.0.

2) I don't know how old you are. If you are old enough, you may recall a period in human (and computing) history referred to as "the Nineties." It was a rough-and-tumble era in which browsers fought and bled and died, when this whole newfangled "dot com" thing happened and people all around the globe started using all kinds of intertubes-type stuff. Windows XP, by the way, was not around back then.

Granted, it was not discovered that the Internet was, in fact, a series of tubes until the eminent Ted Stevens presented his groundbreaking research in the mid-2000s, but the tubes were already in heavy operation by then.

Re:Pull Factor (1)

RMS Eats Toejam (1693864) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638232)

1) There is not, and never has been, an Ubuntu version 1.0.

Duck! *Wooooosh*

Re:Pull Factor (2, Insightful)

Tranzistors (1180307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637822)

So Mr. Linux what version of the kernel are you running?

And which version of windows are majority of users running? If most Linux users would use kernel 2.4 and FF would only support 2.6, you think it would be taken lightly?

Re:Pull Factor (0, Flamebait)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637850)

"I bet your Linux install isn't a 10 year old operating system"

Yes, but a 2.4 kernel (10 years old) can run all userspace programs that the 2.6 kernel can. And I likely suspect that the 2.2 and 2.0 kernels wouldn't have problems, though I don't feel like firing up a VM to find out. I think the only kernels that would have problems would be the ones that only ran a.out instead of ELF, and you have to go back 15 years (prior to 1.2) to do that.

Sure is butthurt Windows fanboys in here.

Maybe Windows would get more respect from the users of other OSes if Microsoft didn't pull its dirty tricks. Your much worshiped corporate bosses have stepped on a lot of toes, so don't expect hugs and kisses.

--
BMO

Re:Pull Factor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31637874)

Direct2D is an API, not a kernel.

Re:Pull Factor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31638618)

What a load of bullshit. Tons of new system calls and flags have been added in the Linux 2.6 series. Any program making use of those won't run on linux 2.4.

Re:Pull Factor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31638092)

I run Debian you insensitive clod

Re:Pull Factor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31638162)

One of my clients has software that they depend upon that requires windows 98, and the server backend runs via telnet on Sco Unixware 3.2...

I still support it, because the vendor is out of business, no one makes software that can read these database files, and the client doesn't want to pay someone to replicate a system they already have.

In otherwords, yes you smartass, I am using a 10 year old operating system every day in production for a Ridiculously large client. Just because there's no real motivation to upgrade.

Note: we run 98 in virtualization now, but this wasn't the case 2 years ago.

WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31638546)

In otherwords, yes you smartass, I am using a 10 year old operating system every day in production for a Ridiculously large client. Just because there's no real motivation to upgrade.

Are you fucking proud of this? Your company is a joke and you should be ashamed.

Re:WTF (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638642)

It's a lot more common than you think.
Visual Basic has morphed into so many incompatible things over the years that a few places keep Win98 machines with a specific version of VB just to run a single undocumented app put together by a guy with a few dozen papers to his name too busy running a company or University department to update it.
The oddest thing I've got like that (apart from the scientific single purpose VB apps) is a plot server for a specific type of vector graphics running on a SparcStation 5 that is faster and produces better results than a more recent implementation running on modern hardware. I've got more recent sparc hardware that it can run on with just a change of hostname but there has been no need yet.

Re:Pull Factor (1)

nixNscratches (957550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638480)

I fixed it for you. This is /. after all: The sooner MS can kill it self off, the better the entire planet will be.

Re:Pull Factor (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638776)

I thought we'd addressed this point? The question is not when was XP released, it was when did they stop shipping it. They were selling it concurrently with Vista for netbooks and you can still buy machines from companies like Dell with XP preinstalled, and checking it seems that they are still licensing XP for ULCPCs until October 22, 2010.

A typical Linux user would probably be quite upset if his distribution started including software that didn't run on a version of Linux that they were shipping. A Mac user would be upset if Apple released some software that didn't work on a version of OS X that Apple was currently shipping. A Windows user, who is using the operating system with 58.4% of the market share, is expected to be happy that the company that produced it is doesn't allow them to run their latest software because the operating system is almost a decade old.

Re:Pull Factor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31638942)

Apparently, you and XP are about the same age.

Re:Pull Factor (4, Insightful)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637618)

Oh my god, they're not giving 100% support to an OS that's almost 9 years old?!? Burn them at the stake!!!

Re:Pull Factor (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638430)

You run into problems here if the systems you have to support are 15 to 25 years old though, and the software to support them does not run under anything newer than Windows XP. And telling the customer he has to rip out his whole infrastructure and replace it by something new (and to pay for it) gets ugly very fast.
We still keep some Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 boxes around for those tasks though.

Re:Pull Factor (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637848)

Oh my god, it's like the time they refused to give us 32 bit IE for NT 3.51. We had tu run the crappy 16 bit version. We eventually upgrade to 4, but ran Netscape in the meantime.

Somehow, I think all of the big businesses locked into IE6 won't care.

and web developers breathe another sigh of relief (3, Interesting)

nohumor (1735852) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637480)

this follows on the earlier announcement to support more HTML5 features on IE9. after killing netscape, IE has managed to thwart other upcoming browsers by tweaking standards in a way that developers specifically for IE and other standard compatible browser's rendering looked bad. now this was a fine business strategy except that the browser just refused to evolve. firefox happened followed by safari, chrome, etc. heck, even opera is getting more attention now, especially with euro mandated browser raffle for windows. now IE strategy of not following standards is stacking up against it, with some markets have IE share dropped to less that 50. it is trying to catch up now and actually have the audacity to suggest that they are doing a better job of following the standards, a case in point the adoption of long desired css border-radius. anyway, developers are 1 step closer to worry less about cross browser compatibility (cbc) and more about design and development

Re:and web developers breathe another sigh of reli (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31639018)

Dude, you must be new here. You could have summed that up with the cliche "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" and have been moderated to 5 already. Here, watch:
 
Microsoft is clearly trying their tactic of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish using SVG.
 
There.
 
Now, just kick back and watch the moderation roll in :)

anybody got an N280 Atom? (0, Offtopic)

Blue Shifted (1078715) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637512)

please post your java scimark score! we really need some scores for the N280, and amd's L110, thank you.

http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/run.html [nist.gov]

NT (-1, Redundant)

Antiocheian (859870) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637622)

Nice Try

Firefox. Up and Running.

Extinguish? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637632)

I guess they now want to change the standard to accommodate their bugs.

Re:Extinguish? (2, Insightful)

oh2 (520684) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637862)

Why else ? "Embrace, extend, extinguish" is the Microsoft motto when it comes to competing standards.

The problem of MS: (3, Interesting)

drolli (522659) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637638)

Browsing is also mobile browsing nowadays. Microsoft has not the capability any more to impose technologies (Silverlight etc.) on users any more. If 50% of the devices dont support your webpage and never will, you can not ignore any mor anybody who can not install some plugin. Morover IE is also loosing foothold on the desktop. So what was a move to hinder a competitor seriously (Why should i embed SVG on webpage if IE can not view it?) is slowly becoming a disadvantage. If Firefox and google chrome get the image of "just working fine" when compared to the IE and IE gets the image of causing problems, then they can stop making IE9.

Re:The problem of MS: (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637722)

SVG graphics on web pages is simply the most appropriate thing. Web developers/designers all over have been chomping at the bit to use SVG because the results are beautiful and scalable. MSIE support is and has been the one thing preventing them from actually doing it.

Re:The problem of MS: (2, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637992)

Yeah, but.... a lot of companies have dropped their SVG support after MS (or was it Adobe) decided to stop supporting their SVG plugin.

Now IE9 will have native SVG support, that just means *most* browsers will have it (ie not IE7 or 8), which still means that it is not widespread enough for adoption. Maybe in a few years when everyone has migrated from IE8 to 9, but you know how long that will be. In the meantime, all the other browsers will be running something much better like webGL and MS will be still playing catchup.

Re:The problem of MS: (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638802)

Google provides a JavaScript library [google.com] that renders SVG using native support if present or Flash if not. This works in IE. I wouldn't be surprised if MS decided to support SVG in response to this; it's one more reason for keeping the Flash plugin (which competes with Silverlight) installed.

Re:The problem of MS: (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638752)

Browsing is also mobile browsing nowadays. Microsoft has not the capability any more to impose technologies (Silverlight etc.) on users any more. If 50% of the devices dont support your webpage and never will, you can not ignore any mor anybody who can not install some plugin. Morover IE is also loosing foothold on the desktop. So what was a move to hinder a competitor seriously (Why should i embed SVG on webpage if IE can not view it?) is slowly becoming a disadvantage. If Firefox and google chrome get the image of "just working fine" when compared to the IE and IE gets the image of causing problems, then they can stop making IE9.

The mobile space really is exploding. Smart phones were fairly useless for the longest time but the tech has really matured. They're very useful machines. And with the prevalence of non-Windows netbooks, there's more and more pressure for true interoperability.

Re:The problem of MS: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31639722)

I think you've hit the nail on the head. If M$ can't use IE to lock users in to its products or to disadvantage its competitors, then it makes no sense for them to waste money on it. Just let the users use whichever browser they like and save the IE development costs.

WHY are everybody talking about svg in browsers ? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31637644)

Every time somone mentiones this I go to adobe and try the svg test... and I can't se anything except "Missing Plugin".
What's the trick ???

Re:WHY are everybody talking about svg in browsers (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637724)

To get the plugin?

Re:WHY are everybody talking about svg in browsers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31637860)

I was quite sure that there was no reason whatsoever for a plugin when the browser supports a file format.
I guess I must have been wrong...

btw. Adobe do not support their svgviewer plugin anymore.

Re:WHY are everybody talking about svg in browsers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31638784)

Look... behind your ear!! Could that be a plugin???

Re:WHY are everybody talking about svg in browsers (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638880)

The trick is to visit a site that uses SVG correctly, instead of invoking the plugin explicitly. Try something like one of the w3schools examples [w3schools.com] or others [jenkov.com] .

Re:WHY are everybody talking about svg in browsers (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31639170)

Your browser might be picking the wrong mime type for SVG. I can't find the details, but I recall that an early Adobe tool established 'image/svg-xml' in the windows registry, and firefox will inherit that; changing it to 'image/svg+xml' should fix things (I suppose installing a later version of the Adobe SVG plugin should also do that, who knows).

What a Coincidence (5, Insightful)

randallman (605329) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637668)

There appears to be an inverse relationship between IE market share and its implementation of standards. Applaud MS for good decisions, but never forget how they acted when they owned the market.

Re:What a Coincidence (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637742)

There appears to be an inverse relationship between IE market share and its implementation of standards. Applaud MS for good decisions, but never forget how they acted when they owned the market.

I mostly share your perspective, but I must admit from a business point of view it made perfect business sense for Microsoft to drag their heels for as long as they basically had a monopoly on the web browser market. Why should a company with 90+% share support standards? There's no real advantage to them - all implementing better standards support would do is make it less painful for users to try another browser.

But as a web developer, I am much happier being able to code for IE8 than I was for IE7. But let's not forget that IE8 still lags all other browsers in terms of standards support. Saying "they certainly suck less than they used to" is most assuredly damning with faint praise... but it's the truth. Oh, additionally, I will say that developing IE workarounds for our internal pages and systems takes less time now, since (for those anyway) I can say "sorry, we only support the latest version of IE".

Re:What a Coincidence (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637904)

"Saying "they certainly suck less than they used to" is most assuredly damning with faint praise... but it's the truth."

The "it sucks less" reasoning has been the case since the upgrade from DOS 1.0 to 1.1

--
BMO

Re:What a Coincidence (1)

kjart (941720) | more than 4 years ago | (#31639940)

I mostly share your perspective, but I must admit from a business point of view it made perfect business sense for Microsoft to drag their heels for as long as they basically had a monopoly on the web browser market. Why should a company with 90+% share support standards? There's no real advantage to them - all implementing better standards support would do is make it less painful for users to try another browser.

Close, but you're missing the point that, at 90+% market share, you are the standard.

Re:What a Coincidence (2, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637814)

Loss of market share is certainly a factor in this. But not the only one.

One big factor is all the legal and political pressure to play nice with others. One result is that browser choice screen that EU customers get. Another is the fact that they've given no preference to their new free antivirus software; not so long ago, they would have just added it to the Windows install and ignored the complaints.

But I think the biggest change is a cultural shift among all software people. Engineers use to be a lot more arrogant about the superiority of their own favorite way of doing things. MS was particularly bad this way, but the problem was industry-wide. The whole Microsoft-Sun legal tsuris over Java late 90s happened mainly because people in both companies had strong opinions as to what features the language needed and total contempt for other people's opinions on the same issue. Now it's all about MS-Sun (Oracle?) cooperation, even to the point of selling servers with Windows pre-installed.

Re:What a Coincidence (1)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638968)

The problem with standards is that they're generally designed more by the losers than by the winners.

The argument could be made that, given that at the time they were being devised IE had almost 90% of the market share, that at least some of the IE way ought to have been the standard. After all, Netscape was as guilty of changing and polluting the web standards as anyone else back in those days.

While there are certainly some things in IE which are just strange(the way it handles the z-axis for instance isn't even internally consistent) and stuff like ActiveX should never be included into a standard, there's no real reason why the W3C box model is superior to the model used by IE. Nor is there anything particularly wrong with some of the Microsoft only javascript methods, aside from the fact that they aren't used by everyone.

While none of this excuses the fact that IE6 remained the latest version of IE for the better part of 10 years, especially a 10 years which saw leaps and bounds in the development of the web as a medium, it does at least somewhat excuse the fact that IE6 wasn't standards compliant to begin with.

Microsoft's sins with internet explorer are more that they let the application rot, than the fact that IE6 was implemented the way that it was.

Earth hour? Useless, it shall be IE HOUR! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31637694)

Earth hour? Useless! This day shall be known as IE HOUR! Everybody starts their IE's around UTC+0 12:00!

On a more serious note, why don't they do these real improvements in small increments, so that these would appear to IE8 too, but faster.

Too Slow (4, Funny)

davidjgraph (1713990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637756)

C'on guys, you're way behind. Just like it took you ages to report IE supported HTML. Oh wait....

Awesome! (4, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637774)

At this rate, IE 14 might actually be worth using!

They probably just adopted it... (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637806)

because they probably just now noticed it existed.

Just kidding, but Microsoft has been pretty insular... it seems most of the time they would rather contemplate their own navel than check to see what anybody else is doing.

Re:They probably just adopted it... (1)

gaelfx (1111115) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637926)

At risk of my own reputation, I have to ask: Is that a reference to Magic: The Gathering's "Unglued" set?

Poor Microsoft (1)

fersure (1777016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637840)

They do try, bless their little cotton socks. :

On Hugs, Stilts, and Water (2, Funny)

cffrost (885375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637852)

Shouldn't the headline read "Microsoft embraces SVG for Internet Exploder 9?"

embrace, extend, extinguish... (5, Insightful)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637900)

it's their only business model... SVG is the new target to pervert. Expect their web development tools to produce subtly broken SVG that only renders correctly on the IE version... they did the exact same with html. They will go to great lengths to ensure their development tools produce websites that don't work right on other browsers. Ever such subtle glitches, but the users will end up blaming the other browser that they picked on the ballot page.

Yup (4, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638378)

Call me a suspicious paranoid old bugger, but if you been buggered by someone decades, you tend to grow a bit cautious.

The more I read about IE9, the more I wonder "what's the catch". Because MS finally getting it and playing nice just doesn't seem to be an option.

And low and behold. No IE9 for XP, despite it still being sold by MS and still being widely used. The excuse: "we can't because we are only a multi-billion dollar company and can't afford to hire the very best and just make it work".

An MS apologists commented on the last article that it was impossible to run IE9 under XP because of the hardware rendering... clearly he doesn't know that A: DirectX entire point was to abstract hardware to the point it also (used to) support it purely running in software mode" and B: That all the other browsers have no such problem.

No, I see MS making the same mistake they made countless time before. Not killing of their old crap. Learn to clean up after yourself. You dumped IE6-7-8 on the world, now get rid of them.

It would be doable for MS, and they are not. Why? Because they are still the same old "can't do" company. MS apologists and the naive jumped in Windows Mobile 7 to, and then finally it was announced, no multi-tasking and no copy&past... so it was just like all the releases before, fundemental things that WERE PROMISED, not making it into the release.

So, I am going to see what MS finally delivers. Their promises have no value.

Re:Yup (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31639406)

No, I see MS making the same mistake they made countless time before. Not killing of their old crap.

You don't suppose that's exactly what they're trying to do by saying IE9 won't be available for Windows XP, do you?

Re:Yup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31639598)

An MS apologists commented on the last article that it was impossible to run IE9 under XP because of the hardware rendering...

They should have used OpenGL, like the others will.

Re:Yup (2, Funny)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 4 years ago | (#31639788)

An MS apologists commented on the last article that it was impossible to run IE9 under XP because of the hardware rendering... clearly he doesn't know that A: DirectX entire point was to abstract hardware to the point it also (used to) support it purely running in software mode" and B: That all the other browsers have no such problem.

This is where people get confused so easily. For IE9 to work on XP, they would have to recreate the WDDM for XP. And when you do that, there are things in the WDDM that other levels of the OS do not have or understand, so essentially you are having to build XP into Vista.

This is why DX10 was impossible on XP as well, as the XPDM does not handle the low level video functions the same way nor do they have the features that are expected that the WDDM provides like VRAM virtualization and GPU Scheduling/Threading.

For Microsoft to build IE9 for XP they would either have to mire themselves in old code, which you admit would be stupid or rebuild XP's graphical model from the ground up, essentially makding Vista once again.

Why would you want XP to be catered to and the new technologies in Vista and Win7 should never be used because they can't work on XP. There truly are some BIG fundamental changes between the WDDM and XPDM and this is the key difference between Vista/Win7 and XP that prevents XP from getting DX10/11 and applications like IE9 with Direct2D, etc.

Re:embrace, extend, extinguish... (2, Interesting)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638634)

Go look at how HTML evolved, and which browsers supported which features, and you'll see that they didn't do anything the other browser makers weren't also doing. Grab older editions of, say, O'Reilly's HTML Definitive Guide, and you'll find a large chunk of the tags are marked as non-standard Netscape extensions, for instance.

The web got big on these non-standard tags. Many eventually became standard (although sometimes in not quite compatible ways). The big difference between IE and the others is that Microsoft, until recently, has been less willing to break sites (especially corporate intranet sites) that use the old stuff.

SVG Open in Paris this year (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31637928)

I hope the conference fits my schedule: http://svgopen.org/ [svgopen.org]

Hardly news... (1)

ewrong (1053160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31637994)

This was announced on the 16th of March:

http://live.visitmix.com/MIX10/Sessions/KEY02 [visitmix.com]

Re:Hardly news... (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638434)

Microsoft had announced it would join the SVG Working Group, and that IE9 would use Direct2D and DirectWrite (connect the two freakin' dots), weeks if not months ago. I hope others here are merely acting like SVG (of some sort) in IE9 is news, and not actually surprised with Acid3's breath behind their neck and all.

Now, a final version of IE9 with a perfect implem of the language, or one that rivals those of Firefox, Webkit, or Opera? That would be news.

Strategic move microsoft (1)

Device666 (901563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638462)

Flash has opposition now from two technologies, one is SVG and the other is Silverlight. The timing is very logical since Apple doesn't support flash on it's IPhone and Ipad. Microsoft first has to remove Flash from it's dominant position. If that plan would work out in the future Microsoft can always choose to drop SVG support and pushing forward it's Silverlight.

Re:Strategic move microsoft (3, Informative)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 4 years ago | (#31639020)

I've said this before, and I'll say it again.

Silverlight was not released just to watch movies and animations. Just because that's what Flash has devolved into over the years, doesn't mean that that's what Microsoft(or anyone else) wants to do with Silverlight(or JavaFX if it still exists).

Silverlight is aimed at creating Rich Internet Applications. It's more of an alternative to AJAX than to Flash because, while Flash can be used to create RIAs, no one does.

Unfortunately, the demo RIA for everyone of these platforms is a video player, mostly because it's dead simple, looks flashy and is something you can't do in Javascript, so everyone forgets that.

I really don't think that HTML5 and/or SVG taking over the animation or video playing market share is going to make any dent in Silverlight, because that's not what it was designed for.

EEE once again.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31638516)

Recognize it for what it is, Embrace, Extend , Eliminate!

Favorite SVG demos or cryptic '??? Cameron Laird'? (1)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638566)

Regrettably a broken page mysteriosly named "??? Cameron Laird" is all I get to see on Firefox 3.6 when following the link from TFA [itworld.com] which says

starting to collect my favorite public demos here [phaseit.net]

Re:Favorite SVG demos or cryptic '??? Cameron Lair (2, Informative)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638820)

Try this page: SVG WOW [svg-wow.org]

Just another tactic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31638852)

Just another tactic. First they "adopt" a known standard. Then they "tweak" it slightly, possibly requiring people to download the "extensions" - without of course making it easy for any one else to use these extensions (and of course, these tweaks are completely backwards incompatible - just enough to not make it work for anything else but their own platform). Then they try to sell it under a new fancy marketing name. Then more people start using it - they are convinced at this stage that Microsoft invented the technology to begin with. Then everyone starts say "well, look Micrsoft did this and this. Why can't do this and this?"... Then they try to claw their market hold back..

SpoNge (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31638874)

"I'M AS MAD AS HELL" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31638956)

"AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

Or should I be grateful? Recently my team was not paid for its work because we didn't make a website available on IE6. Bug off, MS. Your browser should've died in the age of Netscape. And now, your company should also die.

Imagine the bandwidth that was wasted (1)

paxcoder (1222556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31638986)

Imagine all those gradients and rounded corners - how they wasted so much pre-video bandwidth. Imagine the speed at which those pages could've loaded over a 56 kbps connection. All because Microsoft had monopoly on de-facto "standards" and is abusing it. Well we don't need you anymore, dying old browser.

Security risks and standards (1)

dremspider (562073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31639196)

Microsoft is putting their customers at risk every time they half ass these standards like they love to do. Companies spend a lot of time and money to develop these lovely web apps that only work for IE version X, then find out that because IE X+1 is trying to finally conform to standards their current app is broken. Whether we like to admit it or not, IE is getting better at security issues, but many of their customers can't upgrade b/c they built the POS that is IE 6. I have seen this again and again in organizations. No one wants to upgrade because application Y breaks when you upgrade so everyone stays with the more vulnerable IE 6. Microsoft needs to stop putting it's customers at rish in the name of vendor lock in.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...