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!

IE9 Flaunts Hardware-Accelerated Canvas

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the flaunting-not-flouting dept.

Internet Explorer 265

An anonymous reader writes "Over on the IE blog they have a rundown of IE9's hardware accelerated support for the canvas element. They write, 'With the recent release of the latest IE9 platform preview, we talked about how we're rebuilding the browser to use the power of your whole PC to browse the web, and to unlock a new class of HTML5 applications. One area that developers are especially excited about is the potential of HTML5 canvas. Like all of the graphics in IE9, canvas is hardware accelerated through Windows and the GPU. In this blog post we discuss some of the details behind canvas and the kinds of things developers can build.'"

cancel ×

265 comments

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

If ya got it... (0, Redundant)

King InuYasha (1159129) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783582)

If ya got it... flaunt it!

Re:If ya got it... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32783640)

I've got a horsecock.

<=======================3

I've got a horsecock.

I've got a horsecock.

Re:If ya got it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32784354)

Yeah but you don't know how to program in Linux! Now who's the jealous one?

Zero to botched in 60 nanoseconds? (4, Insightful)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783700)

It's fast but can it render the page correctly? It doesn't much matter how fast it is if it doesn't do it right. IE8 is still a big turd - have they actually fixed IE9 or is it all smoke and mirrors by posting speed results? The last results I saw proved that they could pass the tests they wanted to pass but that they failed horribly at real world results. I guess if it's good enough for the education system then it's good enough for web browsers eh?

Re:Zero to botched in 60 nanoseconds? (2, Flamebait)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783770)

And when they say that they want to use all PC resources - are they really providing anything useful with that or are they just going to hog the whole computer?

Maybe Microsoft should take a course in how to write efficient and safe code first. By integrating and using a lot of features like GPU:s and other stuff you will also limit which platforms the software can be used on as well as building a solution that contains a complexity that can be hard to grasp and maintain in the long run. A great opportunity for malware producers because they can now start to scan for new interesting attack vectors in a solution.

Re:Zero to botched in 60 nanoseconds? (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784048)

And when they say that they want to use all PC resources - are they really providing anything useful with that or are they just going to hog the whole computer?

For me, a browser is mostly a clumsy way to find and read documentation, buy shit, or waste time on Slashdot. For an increasing majority, it seems, a web browser is everything.

By integrating and using a lot of features like GPUs and other stuff you will also limit which platforms the software can be used on ...

For Microsoft, there can be only one platform. That's not to say they've "evolved" over the years, but any positive steps they've taken toward openness have been mostly the result of factors and developments they've not (yet) been able to control, and only begrudgingly accepted.

Re:Zero to botched in 60 nanoseconds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32784084)

The actual article is a long blog post arguing that it is providing something useful -- a large performance boost for canvas (and SVG on previous posts).

Earlier articles actually seem to be demonstrating that by using the whole computer, they are hogging less of it because they aren't wasting CPU time on tasks much better suited to the GPU. They have all kinds of nifty graphs where Chrome, Safari, and Firefox are pegging the CPU and idling the GPU and getting low FPS, whereas IE has high FPS and has staccato spikes on the CPU and GPU.

Microsoft isn't the only browser doing this sort of thing. Firefox and Opera have betas working toward it.

I don't get why so many people on slashdot seem so adequately opposed to using a computer to do computer things. It's just weird to insist that browsers should continue to operate with their hands tied behind their backs. SVG and Canvas are exactly the sort of things that GPUs are designed to work with efficiently rather than the GPU. It's almost silly to implement modern standards without such things. I see the same attitude with RAM. At the far extreme there's that one guy who makes hard-to-read anonymous posts who keeps going on about the 15 MB of hard drive space he loses in his HOSTS file by not being able to summarize an IPv4 0.0.0.0 address as 0. Or some damn thing.

Re:Zero to botched in 60 nanoseconds? (4, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784158)

Glad to see I'm not the only one thinking PC resources are there to be used not to just sit there. One of the things I like the most about Windows 7 is that unlike XP my RAM actually is being used for something useful, instead of sitting empty most of the time. I have about 500Mb of my 8Gb free, because thanks to Superfetch Windows knows which programs I use and when and has them waiting in RAM for me.

I fell the same about the GPU, I have a GB of RAM and a fast stream processor sitting there and if I'm not gaming use the thing! But while I have been personally playing with IE9 and it is shaping up to have some cool features, I'm too hooked on FF to give it up. The guy at Mozilla that invented the extension framework needs to be given a company car and a big fat raise, because they couldn't have asked for a better lockin! Once you have a set of extensions you like giving it up is VERY hard. Even my dad who is about as clueless when it comes to PCs as they come is hooked. When he visits a relative that doesn't have FF he calls me to walk them through "giving them something that doesn't suck like that damned blue E" because he simply can't stand the web without ABP and Imagezoom.

Re:Zero to botched in 60 nanoseconds? (2, Informative)

stiller (451878) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784364)

Their Acid3 score has gone up from 68/100 to 83/100 since the last platform preview, so yeah, it seems they're definitely making progress. IE8 only scored 20/100.

GO SPEEDRACER GO !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32783594)

But in the end, did it ever matter?

Re:GO SPEEDRACER GO !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32783624)

I tried so hard and got so far..

what about the video tag? (2, Interesting)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783618)

will ie9 support that?

Re:what about the video tag? (3, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783658)

Er... I'm pretty sure that MS said they would support the video tag back when IE9 was announced. A few months back, they said which format it would support (H.264), although just a week or two ago MS said they would also support WebM if the codec was installed.

Re:what about the video tag? (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784156)

It already does... seriously, it's not like the platform preview is hard to find, or hasn't been discussed in the tech news world lately, or anything like that.

Actually, since Video playback is hardware-accelerated (as with Canvas), it turns out that IE9 handles video streams better than the released browsers that implement it, such as Chrome.

I seem to have missed why we'd want this (0, Flamebait)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783622)

So basically instead of just writing a windows app, people are going to write IE-9 specific HTML 5 extended (or enhanced) pages that load only on Windows systems and pretty much perform the same things a windows app would do (hardware accelerated).

Isn't this a really long roundabout way of just allowing apps to run off the web in a sandbox? Why the smoke and mirrors?

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783696)

Why the smoke and mirrors?

See what you wrote above:

So basically instead of just writing a windows app, people are going to write IE-9 specific HTML 5 extended (or enhanced) pages that load only on Windows systems

That.

--
BMO

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (4, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783702)

I tried these canvas-based apps on Windows 7 in various browsers.

The ones I tried work in Firefox 3.6.6, Opera 10.60, and Chrome 5.0.375.99.

On Firefox 3.6.6, they're all horrifically slow.

Opera 10.60 worked a little better than Firefox did, but not by much.

Chrome 5.0.375.99 worked about the same as Opera 10.60 did.

Note: My nVidia drivers are from back in November last year, due to a bug in newer nVidia drivers with the game Shattered Horizons. Not sure if that would affect rendering speeds or not.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (3, Insightful)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783816)

Side note:

I installed the IE9 Preview just to see what they would run like in there... they run quite fast.

Then again, MS provided demos aren't exactly the best way to test this.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (2, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784258)

The provided demos really specifically test how fast the browser can draw N images (or whatever), with variations (alpha channel, scaling etc). I don't see what's wrong with such a test if you want to specifically test 2D rendering performance.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32783908)

Try a Firefox 4.0 nightly with Direct2D support:

http://www.basschouten.com/blog1.php/2010/03/02/presenting-direct2d-hardware-acceleratio [basschouten.com]

I'd be interested to hear how it compares to IE9 and the other browsers on your system.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784004)

I would try it, but I don't seem to be getting Direct2D rendering... their SVG rotation test page is still really SLOW when I make an image full screen.

Weird thing is, all my addons show up as disabled.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784056)

I should note that this is after I set the font directwrite mode to true and font rendering mode to 6.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

ShagratTheTitleless (828134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784166)

Direct2D is for Vista and Win7 only. Which begs the question: what the hell was GDI for?

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (2, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783706)

And this time they would do it not by breaking standards, but by implementing them really well.

Those devious bastards, how dare they!

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783728)

And this time they would do it not by breaking standards,

You really believe this? Really? After Microsoft abandoning its *own* approved ISO standard for the busted ECMA document standard, the one that never passed ISO?

Shill or gullible. You pick.

--
BMO

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783810)

IE9 now passes all of css3info's test suite for CSS3 and HTML5. (That doesn't mean it has 100% support for HTML5/CSS3, just the css3info test suite).

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32783860)

I wouldn't care if it had 100 percent support for blowing me every 5 minutes. I'm done with ie. Microsoft has enough influence and money. It's time to give someone else a chance.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (2, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783992)

Yeah, it could pass every test suite on the planet, but that doesn't mean they can't *add* their own little bit of kit to "extend" it in an incompatible or even *patented* way. Look at what they did with kerberos, or like, *any other standard* they've dealt with. To Microsoft, "standards are for chumps."

Saying "Microsoft is standards compliant THIS time" is just too much to swallow.

Go ahead, softies, mod this one down too. I have more karma than you.

--
BMO

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784024)

Passing every test suite on the planet now and in the future would keep me happy.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

andreicio (1209692) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784030)

It's fine by me if they add bits, as long as they correctly support the existing standards, allowing the designers to create content that works on all borwsers. In a fast evolving browsers world like we have today, added bits have to be pretty convincing to make designers adopt them so fast that the other browsers cannot addapt.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784106)

You're forgetting fast here. Remember Active-X? Microsoft supported HTML well back in the day, and extended it with their own active-x... Result, hundreds of websites that wouldn't work cross platform because they used active-x, not html.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784172)

to be honest i'm happy to see this whole thing where they're competing without any crutches or advantages, i have nothing against microsoft except their abusing those things, if they make a better browser based on it's own merits then more power to them, about time. if they win then decide it's time to extend, then fuck them, they're gonna get some other company like mozilla screw them over again and it's gonna be a long road back, just like the last time.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (3, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784264)

Yeah, it could pass every test suite on the planet, but that doesn't mean they can't *add* their own little bit of kit to "extend" it in an incompatible or even *patented* way

You mean, like every other browser out there does? Have you seen how many "-webkit-*" CSS properties are there?

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783708)

Uh, well it depends on something that isn't clear to me: Is >canvas< and the specific features thereof they're talking about IE9 specific, or is it part of the html5 standard? If it's part of the standard, but hardware accelerated through IE9, then that's probably okay. Even if it means developers assume an IE9 target and do more with the tag than would be practical to do on non-accelerated browsers. I mean sure IE has a, shall we say, privileged position on Windows, but it's not like other apps can't access the graphics hardware.

If it's IE9-specific extensions to html5, then yeah, that's bullshit.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (3, Informative)

bashmohandes (1194771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783720)

Canvas tag is in the HTML 5 proposal

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

ashridah (72567) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783710)

Except that the only way to do so will be to use the standard, w3c provided tags... If other browsers accelerate it to (protip, they're working on that), then that's a win for everyone, no matter what.

We're not talking silverlight here, just plain ole html(5)

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (4, Funny)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783754)

Maybe you could take your non-IE9 browser to the demo pages linked from the article you'll be able to see if they're doing something standard or something non-standard.

Here's a link:

http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Graphics/DeepZoom/Default.html [microsoft.com]

Rather than telling you what will happen if you go to that page in, say, Safari, I'll let you go ahead and experience it for yourself. Just think of the thrill you'll get when finding that you're totally right that MS just can't do anything to spec, or maybe you'll be thrilled to find that, OMG!!!!, they're adhering to the draft standards as they exist today.

Which do you think it is? The anticipation almost makes you want to pee, doesn't it?

(Next time spend ten seconds to find out before you shoot your mouth off and demonstrate the accuracy of the old saw: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.")

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (-1, Troll)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783876)

You almost had a worthy point until you ruined it by acting like an obnoxious jackass. That's right about the time I lost interest in whatever else you had to say.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32783966)

It's mods like this that have made this site indistinguishable from digg. Stay classy Slashdot.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32784082)

It's mods like this that have made this site indistinguishable from digg. Stay classy Slashdot.

And with the busted metamoderation (I used to metamod every day) which NOBODY USES ANYMORE because the INTERFACE SUCKS and POLLUTES YOUR COMMENT HISTORY, bad moderators never get slapped.

This is what Web2.0 does. It takes something once useful, wraps shit around it, and then all you smell is the stench of bad javascript.

And that's just the metamoderation problem. I haven't even mentioned the story picking, which is not only atrocious, but lags behind Digg which lags behind Reddit.

It's a real shame to have watched Slashdot go from one of the leading sites on the 'net to just another busted blog. /rant.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784198)

which mods? the downs or the ups? you do realise that it could have been down or up modded since your post? you do realise that what you have just said is basically irrelevant *even as you clicked submit* because it's passive aggressive wittiness makes it indistinguishable from white noise?

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

anss123 (985305) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784232)

http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Graphics/DeepZoom/Default.html

That photo was awesome. Wonder how they took it.

Oddly enough it ran better in IE8 than FF3.6.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784270)

I'm not sure but it looks like Norway. They probably took like 20 photos and stitched them together.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783790)

MS is rewarming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Chrome [wikipedia.org] from the late 1990's.
Now we have the cpu, gpu, bandwidth and OS, they can rebuild that walled garden and milk us all dry again.
Pay per play 3d for the masses done MS style.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783874)

Why we would want this? The real question is why Microsoft is the one doing this first. What's the point of a canvas tag if we have to go back to rendering everything on the CPU? I have a video card for a reason.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784114)

You have a GPU generally for accelerating 3D things. What microsoft is doing is also accelerating the 2D stuff. For 3D, it's widely expected that WebGL will become the standard for drawing to a canvas, and as it's so so so similar to OpenGL ES 2.0, it's highly unlikely to not be hardware accelerated.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784234)

People look at GPUs for 3D acceleration because that's both the most noticeable improvement vs. software rendering, and because we're still pushing the limits on GPU 3D capability. However, GPUs are also widely used for 2D acceleration, and have been for many years - since before 3D hardware acceleration in conventional PCs was even available. Things that the GPU commonly does to speed 2D up include cursor rendering, font antialiasing, alpha blending, and more. The Direct2D API is just another way to utilize capabilities that are already present in the hardware, and replaces the legacy DirectDraw API which did the same thing. OpenGL has 2D acceleration capabilities as well.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784278)

Why we would want this? The real question is why Microsoft is the one doing this first.

Being first at something is good for PR, and implicitly casts shadow on the competition. For example, Chrome was first at JITed lighting-fast JavaScript, and that gave it a hefty popularity boost among web developers, and forced other browser vendors to scramble to reimplement their JS engines.

At the same time, canvas (and SVG) acceleration is pretty much pristine ground - and it is also easy to show off with cute demos...

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783912)

Huh? Canvas is canvas. Hardware-accelerated canvas is just faster and smoother to interact with. As a web developer I'm all for hating on IE, but Microsoft has made IE8 fully tolerable and it's looking like IE9 might actually be on the same level of other modern browsers.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784100)

Uh no, this is a way of coding cross platform, cross browser applications that run on any platform. All MS are pushing here is that IE9 is especially fast at rendering them. It'll take not very long for all the others to catch up.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784254)

So basically instead of just writing a windows app, people are going to write IE-9 specific HTML 5 extended (or enhanced) pages that load only on Windows systems and pretty much perform the same things a windows app would do (hardware accelerated).

It's not "HTML5 extended". It's vanilla HTML5, there's nothing special the app has to do to enjoy accelerated canvas and SVG in IE9.

Consequently, an app written that way is still cross-platform. What's more, IE9 is not the only upcoming browser that's going to offer hardware acceleration - Firefox has it in unstable builds already, as well (though on Windows only so far, IIRC), and I believe Chromium is catching up as well?

In any case, the rationale is the same as why Chrome introduced V8, raising the bar for JavaScript performance in the browser significantly.

Re:I seem to have missed why we'd want this (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32784262)

Eh? What rock have you been sitting under?
CANVAS is a standard HTML5 element.
Hardware acceleration is coming to, or already is in some browsers.

Why would you NOT want this? Microsoft are actually competing for crying out loud, that is like a miracle if i ever saw one.
The only stupid part about all of this is MS don't seem to be backporting IE9 to XP because "Direct2D" is apparently only possible because the pure AWE of Windows 7...
At least, this was the last time i heard about it, they could well be doing it now since they want as many people away from IE6, which is plain not going to happen since they seem incapable of understanding exactly WHY people still use IE6!
The only people who still have to suffer IE6 is businesses who Microsoft got stuck in the ActiveX trap, which they then killed...

I love that they are adding HWA to it, especially considering how i will be building something around CANVAS pretty soon. IE9 isn't all that bad actually. I wouldn't even mind if they were using that browser anymore as it passes a fair amount of standards to the point where worrying over layout is a very small issue now.
I still personally hate it, the UI is awful.

Too bad for IE9... (0)

phizi0n (1237812) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783630)

Firefox 4.0 betas are slightly faster than IE9 previews using the same hardware acceleration API's (Direct2D and Directwrite).

Re:Too bad for IE9... (1)

bashmohandes (1194771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783748)

Since both are very early previews, IE9 didn't even reach the beta stage, we will all wait and see, however I really don't think FireFox will ever be faster in this area exactly because of the overhead of its cross platform nature, IE on the other hand, can utilize DirectX & Windows API better than any other browser and without having any abstraction layers in between the application and the those API's

Re:Too bad for IE9... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32783766)

I really don't think FireFox will ever be faster in this area exactly because of the overhead of its cross platform nature

chrome. 'nuff said.

Re:Too bad for IE9... (1)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783882)

Chrome doesn't use anything that is as cross-platform as XUL, its elements (esp. the engine; yes it's webkit but it's not the exact same version of webkit everywhere) are more local.

A house built on sand cannot stand. (5, Interesting)

stavrica (701765) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783638)

We developed a web based game BattleCell [battlecell.com] that uses Ajax/CSS instead of Flash for all the heavy lifting. We discover at least one new bug in the IE rendering engine every month. Our pile of IE bugs in the back room that we have to track every time we develop a new feature is testament to the dread with which we view this new hardware-based rendering engine. We know what we're doing.

Just last week, we learned that once you have a stack of enough semi-transparent layers (combination of PNGs with alpha channels coupled with DIVs with various opacity CSS settings), IE fails to render the top-most layers. This doesn't happen after 20-30 layers. This happens after 5-7 layers. At first we thought our code was faulty, until we realized that scrolling down such a page with multiple layers will cause text that was previously "invisible" to suddenly be rendered in its specified color... as we kept scrolling, the text would then disappear again. You get the idea.

Obviously, this all works flawlessly in Safari, Chrome, Opera. For IE, we get to re-architect all sorts of work-arounds --a house built on sand.

Re:A house built on sand cannot stand. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32783674)

Adobe should just opensource and not open spec their flash player. The money is in the tools and not the playback software. Chock it up in to HTML 5 spec integration and be done with it. That way people are starting from a point that has everything html5 offer.

Re:A house built on sand cannot stand. (2, Insightful)

silanea (1241518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783862)

You do realise that Flash is hated not only, and not even most prominently, for being closed but for being a technical nightmare?

Re:A house built on sand cannot stand. (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784212)

lol, i'm pretty sure even viewing the flash source gives you scabies.

Re:A house built on sand cannot stand. (3, Insightful)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783726)

Just drop IE support. It's not worth the effort. At least I wouldn't bother with anything alter than the newest version. Unfortunately IE still makes up half the visitors to my none geek sites but non-IE8 has dropped down to under 10% and those users convert to less revenue than other users.. so I've gradually dropped support. Nothing new is being tested for old versions of IE. I'm seeing the dropoff from IE accelerating as a whole. Firefox is at about 25%, Chrome and Safari make up another 15%, and Opera and iPod/iPhone/iPad/Android devices most of the rest. The speed of Chrome and mobile device growth is most impressive. Seriously considering versions formatted to the screen sizes of popular mobile devices.

Re:A house built on sand cannot stand. (-1, Troll)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783736)

if (navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE') !=-1)
{
alert("Please get a browser that doesn't suck.");
window.location = "http://getfirefox.com";
}

Re:A house built on sand cannot stand. (2, Funny)

naoursla (99850) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783742)

Are you entering the bugs you find at connect.microsoft.com?

Re:A house built on sand cannot stand. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32783846)

submit bug reports to a non-open source browser. Why bother?

Re:A house built on sand cannot stand. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32783894)

Because just like any piece of software if it isn't reported it isn't likely to be fixed. Open source has zero to do with trying to improve the quality of a product. You don't need to see the source to submit a bug report.

Re:A house built on sand cannot stand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32784058)

And give them bug tracking services for free for their closed source, for-profit software?

Funny guy.

Either they pay for every

Re:A house built on sand cannot stand. (4, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784154)

Are you entering the bugs you find at connect.microsoft.com?

Last time I wanted to report a bug to Microsoft, they tried to bill me for "support". OK, it was 15 years ago, but I'm not much minded to go back and see if they've stopped beating their customers. It still hurts, man. It still hurts.

Re:A house built on sand cannot stand. (2, Informative)

tokul (682258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783804)

Obviously, this all works flawlessly in Safari, Chrome, Opera. For IE, we get to re-architect all sorts

Welcome to web developer world. Standard complaint code usually works in most of browsers and IE is always an exception.

Re:A house built on sand cannot stand. (-1)

Ranx (28829) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783856)

Wow, so you found a bug in beta software? You know what beta means, do you? Apparently, not.

Re:A house built on sand cannot stand. (1)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783870)

So IE8 is still beta?

Re:A house built on sand cannot stand. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32783960)

Your list of bugs would be extremely valuable to the IE team. I suggest sending it along, or at least seeing if they're addressed with the IE9 platform preview build.

Re:A house built on sand cannot stand. (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784060)

The game is a great idea. I suggested a similar game concept to someone on Evony maybe a year ago. Props on building it, I look forward to playing.

Re:A house built on sand cannot stand. (3, Interesting)

am 2k (217885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784130)

Just last week, we learned that once you have a stack of enough semi-transparent layers (combination of PNGs with alpha channels coupled with DIVs with various opacity CSS settings), IE fails to render the top-most layers. This doesn't happen after 20-30 layers. This happens after 5-7 layers.

You're right that this is a bug. However, please also consider that your workaround has an additional bonus: Even when it works, drawing so many layers on top of each other ("overdraw" in computer graphics lingo) is a great performance strain. You might not notice it on your superfast gaming PC, but please also consider slower devices like netbooks, mobile phones and tablets. The iPad would probably render it correctly, but I guess at a single frame per second, maybe even less.

Re:A house built on sand cannot stand. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32784296)

It still uses flash though:

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.

I am disappoint.

Re:A house built on sand cannot stand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32784368)

I see it was an actual error in IE then. I thought it was just me that screwed up.
I had a bunch of semi-transparent layers that contained textured tiles as well. Tiling gaming engine not too far away from the same style you have actually.
I just couldn't for the life of me figure out what the hell was going on with IE.

I wouldn't have came across the scrolling part you mentioned though since my grid was automatically resized according to screen resolution. (which is a bit of a mess at the moment anyway, trying to figure out a better way to go about the resizing)

Projects on hold for the moment anyway, working on CANVAS to see how well it can handle it instead, at least with CANVAS i could have finer control over the layers directly in code rather than leaving it up to the browsers layout engine.
And this announcement makes me happy too since i won't need to worry about IE users being behind. (outside of those who have to suffer IE6 that is... )

I shall need to try that game out too, looks pretty damn nice. Very impressed.

just the canvas? (1)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783646)

Why not build the entire browser in OpenGL or DirectX for computers with a capable graphics card?

Re:just the canvas? (3, Informative)

phizi0n (1237812) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783694)

The whole browser is hardware accelerated by the new Direct2D and Directwrite API's. It's just that the biggest noticeable advantage is the speedup of the canvas element which is used to manipulate a lot of graphics. Firefox nightly alphas had it working before the first IE9 preview was released and it will be in FF 4.0. Firefox devs are also working on OpenGL acceleration for other platforms but that's much further away.

Re:just the canvas? (1)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783858)

I was thinking more of a true 3D environment to take full advantage of the graphics card, like shaders. We don't need or want to read text on a cube, but 3D transitional effects would be nice. Also it might be easier to support WebGL. For firefox, an OpenGL browser would probably share more code across platforms.

Re:just the canvas? (1)

ashridah (72567) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783732)

You do realize that that's what Direct2D and DirectWrite essentially are, right? Ways to render lines and fonts using the hardware instead of software rasterisers? There's no point in making the entire thing an opengl surface, however, when you can create APIs that give you finer-grained control over things than that.

Re:just the canvas? (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783750)

You do realize that that's what Direct2D and DirectWrite essentially are, right? Ways to render lines and fonts using the hardware instead of software rasterisers?

Wow! You mean like we were doing on Windows 3.0 in 1990?

When the heck did Windows _stop_ being hardware accelerated?

Re:just the canvas? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783984)

These children don't remember when Direct2D and DirectWrite were called DirectDraw, and accelerated 2D was all the hot shizzle the first time round. In another 20 years, this lot of noobs will laughing in turn at the new lot of noobs wetting their sweatpants over DirectFlatOGram, or whatever they're calling the accelerated 2D API by then.

Re:just the canvas? (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784034)

I think he meant gpu accelerated vs calculating all those lines and changes with the cpu and then sending the commands to draw them.

Re:just the canvas? (1)

naoursla (99850) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783746)

All of the graphics in IE9 are build on top of Direct2D (including SVG). It is not just the canvas.

Re:just the canvas? (1)

asifyoucare (302582) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783752)

No its not just the canvas. Yet again the headline is misleading.

From the article "Like all of the graphics in IE9, canvas is hardware accelerated through Windows and the GPU" [emphasis mine].

Yes it would be ass-backwards to apply HW acceleration at the HTML component level rather than down in the graphics API (whether OpenGL, DirctX, Direct2D, or whatever).

Does IE9 Support Web Standards or Dump ActiveX? (0, Redundant)

zunipus (946278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783734)

Do Windows box users still have to wait for IE to catch up with Web standards? Or does MS still FLAUNT its use of non-standard web code?

Does IE9 dump ActiveX? Is that security scourge of the Internet finally dead and gone? Or will IE9 users still be victims of ActiveX malware?

Re:Does IE9 Support Web Standards or Dump ActiveX? (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783780)

Even worse - they will be victims of new invented features by Microsoft that opens new interesting holes that nobody can think of yet.

Re:Does IE9 Support Web Standards or Dump ActiveX? (1, Interesting)

fat_mike (71855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783802)

You mean standards like Flash and other rich content pages that don't make IE choke and take three minutes to load like Firefox?

You mean standards like full screen non-jerky/tearing video?

You mean standards like actually asking you if you want to upgrade instead of starting Firefox and five minutes later finally realizing that its taking so long because its upgrading and didn't tell you then every time you start it it brings up a restore session page along with its two minute loading :Choose your persona page" which takes so long to load because it chokes on "web standards"?

Or do you mean your standards like the fact that I have exactly four tabs open and Firefox is currently using 218,380 K and the plugin-container is using 209,572 K?

Cause my standards call for things to work. Kind of like IE 8 is doing right now with the same four tabs open and only using 91,912 K or RAM while Firefox is now at 216,652 and 213,905

Yes, lets dump ActiveX! Hell, why not just go back to Gopher!

Re:Does IE9 Support Web Standards or Dump ActiveX? (1, Informative)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783868)

Your ridiculous whining has nothing to do with standards, or with activex.

Re:Does IE9 Support Web Standards or Dump ActiveX? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32783896)

Eat a standard 9 inch dick you fat piece of shit teabagger.

Re:Does IE9 Support Web Standards or Dump ActiveX? (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784208)

You seem badly misinformed as to what ActiveX is. It's a plugin API, serving exactly the same purpose as the Netscape-derived plugin API that Firefox, Opera, and Chrome use. It's a way to run binary code in the browser window. Flash uses an ActiveX control, for example.

Now, the fact that there was a time when the default security on the plugin API was very poor (meaning any website could run any ActiveX that was installed, and many of them weren't properly secured) is undeniable, but come on, IE6 is almost 10 years old... MS will never fully live down its bad products, but that doesn't mean that they won't learn from them. These days, you have to specifically approve ActiveX controls, and installing one takes three different clicks - you don't do it by accident. Hell, I implement a basic but functional Flashblock on IE by simply setting the ActiveX control to not allowed on any page save those I specify, meaning it'll work on Pandora and YouTube, and basically nowhere else unless I decide to add permission for a specific site I visit.

Did no-one tell microsoft? (1)

Hecatonchires (231908) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783946)

The internet is being viewed on a lot of tablets, phones and netbooks that don't have the hardware support for this. It looks like their share is only going up. I'm sure some dev in a hurry is going to use this feature, but the moment they do they lock out all the new market.

Re:Did no-one tell microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32784050)

Where were your complaints when Chrome increased its JavaScript performance? After all, websites utilizing more-heavy JS would break the other browsers, yes?

Seriously, this is so dumb it hurts. Do you not understand what hardware acceleration is? Microsoft isn't adding new hardware-accelerated features; they are passively improving the existing implementation.

Re:Did no-one tell microsoft? (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784216)

Actually, most tablets, phones, and netbooks have enough GPU to do a decent job of accelerating IE9. I tried it on my tablet - ultra-low voltage core 2 duo at 1.2 GHz, with Intel Integrated 3100 crap for graphics... it wasn't as good of framerates as on my gaming box, but I could certainly get decent performance (30-60 FPS) on the canvas tests. Considering that other browsers currently get around 4-12 in most cases, even on my gaming box, I think that's an acceptable showing for the graphics of a tablet.

Good ideas never die, they just rebrand (2, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32783998)

Direct2D? DirectWrite? 15 years ago, we were calling that DirectDraw [wikipedia.org] , and accelerated rasterisation was the hottest thing since sliced time. I guess what goes around comes around, and these kids today will be laughing at the new kids in another 15 years when they discover the wonders of DirectFlatOGram. Also, their Goddamn DirectNoise is too loud on my DirectLawn.

Re:Good ideas never die, they just rebrand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32784192)

So funny you wrote it twice, huh? Or did you just forget, gramps?

It's all slipping through their fingers (3, Interesting)

BeforeCoffee (519489) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784118)

Microsoft finally caved and built the canvas tag! ActiveX: Bonk with radioactive danger signs. Silverlight: Bonk. SVG? Meh, retained mode scenes with tags all over again. Souped up VML. I'm going to give that a Bonk too (even though it was hardware accelerated).

But canvas, now that's a pixel buffer: simple and beautiful! Now we are *talking*. DING DING DING!

Microsoft's building in canvas is a huge concession that they are losing mindshare to HTML5. And what they're doing is half right by building theirs faster and all micro-optimized and kernel-hooked as they love to do.

But this won't save them, they won't recapture the mojo. Well... that is, not until they backport these new HTML5 features to XP. Here's my take: adding features to an IE that is locked to Windows 7 does not make consumers want to buy Windows 7. Not when it is far simpler for the consumer to install a competing browser that runs on XP (and earlier.) I will go as far as to say that adding canvas to Windows 7's IE is really just advertising new features in the competition's browsers.

I love this canvas tag move by Microsoft, and its far overdue! But they're not back in the game until they stop all this nonsense and backport IE9 to XP (and, heck, Win2K while you're at it!) If your retort is "oh it costs too much to support, oh the API's have changed, oh you should upgrade your 9 year old turd of an OS!". C'mon. Cost? API's? We're talking about moneybags Microsoft here! They can do whatever they want; I have no pity for them when or if they fail due to another botched marketing plan and neither should you. And I will not upgrade my XP/Server 2003 until the reboots get faster on Windows 7. It takes my friend 5 minutes on cherry hardware to get a usable desktop after reboot, and his harddrive is always doing something in the background when nothing is going on! On my XP, the harddrive is quiet unless I am doing something with it, the CPU is idle unless I do something.

Upon further reflection over canvas ... Here's a thought Microsoft, maybe I can meet you half way. How's about backporting canvas to IE7/8 but with no hardware acceleration? This way you can sell the merits of a Windows 7+IE9 upgrade. See, I can be reasonable. :)

Re:It's all slipping through their fingers (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784288)

But canvas, now that's a pixel buffer: simple and beautiful! Now we are *talking*. DING DING DING!

We'll get back to this discussion after you first run into an HTML5-enabled website that will use canvas for everything so as to not let you copy/paste or block ads...

Seriously, it's a great thing when used right, but the possibilities of abuse are so huge that I'm scared of what's coming on that front.

The message this sends me (0)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784240)

Every time I hear "hardware accelerated" associated with the browser, I feel as though they have essentially given up trying to unbloat their browser and operating system so they are trying to make up for it by pushing off such tasks to the hardware.

I am down with hardware accelerated video and windows processing, especially years ago when processors were just too slow to do an effective job. But today we are working with multi-gigahertz multi-core processors on nearly every machine. It's truly a lot of processing power. Is it being wasted?

Other browsers get by just fine without hardware acceleration. Why does MSIE need it?

Re:The message this sends me (2, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32784310)

Every time I hear "hardware accelerated" associated with the browser, I feel as though they have essentially given up trying to unbloat their browser and operating system so they are trying to make up for it by pushing off such tasks to the hardware. ... Other browsers get by just fine without hardware acceleration.

So fine, indeed, that Safari [gadget-space.com] has already added it, and Firefox [icrontic.com] , Chrome [google.com] and Opera [avencius.nl] are all scrambling to implement it.

Seriously, have you even seen the demos? It's not about "needs acceleration to be as fast as other browsers" at all. It's about "5-10x faster than browsers without acceleration".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?