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 Releases IE10 Platform Preview 2

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the take-a-look-at-this dept.

Microsoft 95

BogenDorpher writes "Microsoft today has announced the availability of the second platform preview for its upcoming browser, Internet Explorer 10. The first platform preview was released in April. This new platform preview contains the same HTML5 engine seen in the recent public Windows 8 demos."

cancel ×

95 comments

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

IE10 Selling Point (-1, Troll)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616128)

"It's better than a sharp stick in the eye, walking on hot coals and being eaten alive by a Burmese Python of unusual size ... just."

Re:IE10 Selling Point (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616248)

""It's better than a sharp stick in the eye, walking on hot coals and being eaten alive by a Burmese Python of unusual size ... just."" ... and that is more tollerable than Firefox 5 with lots of plugins.

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616302)

I'd like to see them just adopt Google's re-write of the javascript interpreter. That alone would be a vast improvement.

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616802)

What's wrong with IE9's all new javascript engine?

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

nonicknameavailable (1495435) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616894)

Doesn't exist for IE9 64bit

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 3 years ago | (#36618212)

Okay... is there anything wrong with the 32bit version? Nobody is forced to use 64-bit IE9 that I'm aware of.

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36618414)

It's about track records, really
Because a problem noted now with IE9, seeing how IE6 quirks still pop up and MS tends to not fix certain things... reminds us of how Mozilla's version breakage problem didn't matter to ANY of you while I was mentioning it just 9 months ago. So, when suddenly we're jumping major versions like a tsunami's behind us, the breakage is finally evident to the less-attentive.

And then, there's the problem of you people who will be getting computers with IE9 by default, soon as Windows 8 launches. Couple that with the FACT that you just cannot find new Windows PC's under 4GB any more, forcing a 64 bit OS on him, and me, and you... might not be such a good idea all of a sudden. But you can bet your Geek Badge (tm) that 99% of users will NOT be downloading IE9 32bits, by lazyness or unawareness that 32bits solves the problem, or just plain Joe User ignorance.

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36618608)

Uhhhh...you don't actually USE a Windows OS, do you MR AC? On the x64 versions you get BOTH the 32bit and 64bit IE, you don't have to download anything at all. Just pick which IE (which are clearly labeled 32bit and 64bit) and away you go.

That said here in the shop I've found that old joke becomes more true every day...IE is what you use to download a better browser. Up until recently that better browser was Firefox but after their version jumping killing plugins mess I've been switching my customers to Dragon and I've noticed more and more folks coming in off the street have Chrome set as default.

So while I wish the IE guys luck (ANYTHING is better than IE 6) with the exception of locked down business boxes I frankly just don't see IE users anymore, and the businesses have an old version of IE (thankfully not 6, most I see are on 7) and will stay on it until the last possible second because of the PITA that is testing. So good luck IE guys, you're gonna need it.

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622402)

Microsoft lost this round of the browser war, probably for good. Now if only someone could beat them in the office suite war. As much as I don't like IE, even IE6 isn't as bad as using Office.

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

shortscruffydave (638529) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620718)

the FACT that you just cannot find new Windows PC's under 4GB any more, forcing a 64 bit OS on him, and me, and you...

A 64bit OS is not being forced on anyone. I bought a new PC which came with 4GB of RAM. However, for legacy reasons I needed a 32bit OS rather than a 64bit one (long story, not relevant here). All I did was ask the shop to supply and install the 32bit version of Win7 instead of the 64bit version. Job done.

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621792)

Calm down. 64 bit Windows still downloads and runs 32 bit IE, by default.

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 3 years ago | (#36650024)

When Windows 8 ships, it'll ship with IE10 not IE9.

IE 9 is a good browser. IE10 will surely be a better browser.

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616574)

Which ones still don't work. Vimperator, adblock and flashblock all seem fine here.

Re:IE10 Selling Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620040)

Which ones still don't work. Vimperator, adblock and flashblock all seem fine here.

Lets see.... DustMe Selectors, FiddlerHook, Selenium IDE.

So, only half of my development tools, then.

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621254)

Which ones still don't work.

HTML Validator. Well, you can download it from a shady site [derhofbauer.at] , but addons.mozilla.org [mozilla.org] doesn't even have the FF4 version yet!

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36618622)

I use firefox 7.0a1 and it works great so what exactly is your problem with the old firefox 5 ?

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

BreezeC (2040184) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619680)

Old firefox 5? I just update to firefox 5 about three days.
firefox 7.0a1? Cool! I'm out.Why not firefox 10 ,firefox 100 or firefox 10000000.Yeah,that's a big number and someone like it.

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621272)

Old firefox 5? I just update to firefox 5 about three days.

What! That's more than 72 hours ago! Are you crazy to still use a browser that old?

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36622630)

the old part was a joke .... I am not good at humour it seems

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

CSMoran (1577071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36631682)

Or firefox googol!

Re:IE10 Selling Point (2)

DemonGenius (2247652) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616444)

Here's one:

"Internet Explorer: the only single platform web browser in existence."

Actually, not a selling point, but many people would take the above as something good anyway.

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 2 years ago | (#36617226)

"It's better than a sharp stick in the eye, walking on hot coals and being eaten alive by a Burmese Python of unusual size ... just."

"But it's a whole heckuva lot better than running Firefox 5!"

Re:IE10 Selling Point (1)

caywen (942955) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619784)

I used IE9 and found it pretty decent and fast. I tried the sharp stick in my eye and found that to be significantly worse.

Gaaay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36616142)

IE is gay!

link is blogspam (5, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616150)

Instead of the blogspam link you could have linked the official page [msdn.com] that has far more useful information than useless article on the submitter's blog.

Re:link is blogspam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36616658)

how many time the editors spent on slashdot each day? 5 minutes? 10 minutes?

Re:link is blogspam (-1, Troll)

BogenDorpher (2008682) | more than 2 years ago | (#36617006)

haters gonna hate... just enjoy the content and quit being trolls. The content is there for you.

Re:link is blogspam (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36617166)

Shut the fuck up. You're useless. You serve no purpose. In fact, you're worse than useless; you take up space that could be used for something useful, like a table or a chair. Fuck you.

Re:link is blogspam (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36617778)

What content? You just regurgitated the official blogpost with a picture lifted from it. You provided nothing of value other than driving ad clicks for yourself.

Re:link is blogspam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36618416)

I agree, you are a troll.

Re:link is blogspam (1)

Memroid (898199) | more than 3 years ago | (#36618480)

Instead of the blogspam link you could have linked the official page[...]

Are you new here? It's a requirement for Slashdot submissions to have at least two levels of indirection from factual information. The first level of indirection is the addition of a bias and the replacement of actual facts with misinformation -- this would be the referenced "blogspam link". The second level of indirection provides a summarization of misinformation, with the addition of opinions regarding a misquoted section of the misinformation -- this would be the summary. If the second level of indirection lacks any of these characteristics, said misinformation must be present in a third level of indirection -- this would be commenting system.

I would recommend a down-vote of the parent poster, for disrespecting the Slashdot submission system and the Slashdot culture as a whole, by spreading factual and/or relevant information.

Re:link is blogspam (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36618770)

You forgot to mention slathering each level of indirection with ads.

Play the game another way. (0)

Mr Yummy (1334917) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616166)

I think it's time for Microsoft to realize they need to make a solid browser instead of releasing one version after the other... Cause all of the IE's that have been released were crappy and will be crappy if they keep this pase.

Re:Play the game another way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36616208)

IE9 is crappy? What universe are you living in?

Re:Play the game another way. (1)

Mr Yummy (1334917) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616254)

Yes, IE9 is crappy. I don't like the UI, it's not as snappy as I like it to be and I don't like it that I still have to write IE-hacks for my websites.

Re:Play the game another way. (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616360)

I was under the impression that IE 9 and higher does not need IE-hacks anymore, unless you set the doctype tag to imitate IE 6 or 7 compatibilitiy. You do not need that with IE 9. At least I didn't.

Re:Play the game another way. (1)

Mr Yummy (1334917) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616408)

Too bad I have customers that still use IE7 that wan't their site fully compatible with IE7. But heck, I got used to it, I just don't like the browser, never like it, never will like it.

Re:Play the game another way. (1)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616636)

What does IE7 have to do with IE9?

That's like hating on Windows 7 because you hated Windows Me. Kind of ridiculous.

Re:Play the game another way. (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616728)

"What does IE7 have to do with IE9?

That's like hating on Windows 7 because you hated Windows Me. Kind of ridiculous.
"

Both AOL and RealPlayer did the "Hey we are sorry! We are better now. Give us another chance" needless to say that didn't work out well with us. Many still cling to Ubuntu and hate Windows 7 because they are still mad at Windows ME and NT 4 server and remember the days of hell. I finally switched back to Windows full time and tried IE 9 out, when Ubuntu and Firefox kept pissing me off. It took years and I do not blame Mr. Yummy at all. The only reason I care about IE 10 is because I expect new users to come back after Firefox 5 from the office and I plan to open a business oriented website. IE unfortunately is going to become popular. I pray by next summer that IE 8 or later will be more than 85% of my users. I am contemplating even bother with IE 7 or earlier at all, as I would love to have HTML 5 effects for users who use a later browser. That might be an encouragement ;-)

Re:Play the game another way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619416)

Many still cling to Ubuntu and hate Windows 7 because they are still mad at Windows ME and NT 4 server and remember the days of hell.

how can they do that given the headaches with graphics and sound drivers on linux? and i suppose the same people won't touch an iphone because of the ROKR or the ipad because of the newton or any future versions of Final Cut Pro?

Re:Play the game another way. (2)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616526)

IE will always need hacks so long as Microsoft clings to it's JScript interpretation of Javascript, especially with DOM Events handling. It's code is IDENTICAL to the W3C standard except it changed the name and the parameters sent in (like 'onclick' instead of 'click') and while most JS librarys worth their salt replace the event model wholesale (like JQuery) it's still a hurdle to overcome.

I'm not much of a designer so I can't speak for the CSS compatability first hand, but my designer co-worker assures me that there are some parts of the CSS spec that IE 9 still doesn't do that he would love to use. (Something about border images) but it seems like most of the CSS spec is implimented in some form or another.

Re:Play the game another way. (2)

theArtificial (613980) | more than 2 years ago | (#36617140)

I'm not much of a designer so I can't speak for the CSS compatability first hand, but my designer co-worker assures me that there are some parts of the CSS spec that IE 9 still doesn't do that he would love to use. (Something about border images) but it seems like most of the CSS spec is implemented in some form or another.

Off the top of my head the border-radius and background gradient support comes to mind. IE9 is superior to the previous versions as far as CSS support is concerned. However, when using a radius + a gradient, the gradient overrides the radius property which makes the div look boxy. There are a few dirty tricks to emulate it but it's still a hack. For a more hands on example which you can see how things vary subtly from one browser to another, take a look at the Layerstyles.org [layerstyles.org] builder. I'm not affiliated with them, it's simply a neat interactive toy.

I like the direction things are going and browser support for "new" technologies grows daily which enables designers to do more. CSS3 is fun stuff and it's great how it degrades gracefully but it's still not something you can depend on, yet.

Re:Play the game another way. (1)

eric_brissette (778634) | more than 3 years ago | (#36617554)

IE9 does finally support border-radius, but I know it doesn't support text-shadow.

Here's a comparison between IE versions:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc351024(v=vs.85).aspx [microsoft.com]

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how well new versions of IE support new standards. The masses won't be using it until they buy a new computer that already has the latest version pre-installed. Most of them are too terrified of breaking their computer to proceed with the upgrade they're prompted with through Windows Update.

Re:Play the game another way. (1)

theArtificial (613980) | more than 3 years ago | (#36618196)

IE9 does finally support border-radius, but I know it doesn't support text-shadow.

Sorry if my wording is confusing but my post mentions supporting border-radius AND a background gradient. I thought this was clear in my second sentence:

However, when using a radius + a gradient, the gradient overrides the radius property which makes the div look boxy

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how well new versions of IE support new standards. The masses won't be using it until they buy a new computer that already has the latest version pre-installed. Most of them are too terrified of breaking their computer to proceed with the upgrade they're prompted with through Windows Update.

True! The faster we can get away from IE6(7,8) requirements the better. I think many of these people aren't using Windows Update on dubious installs anyway so it's moot, right? On the bright side we're in a better place than one year ago as far as CSS3 support is concerned across the board. This is a good thing!

Re:Play the game another way. (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#36618258)

I think IE9 finally supports DOM level 2, before I think the DOM was mostly unchanged since the outdated IE5.

Re:Play the game another way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36616530)

[pretentious biased fuck detected]

Re:Play the game another way. (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 2 years ago | (#36617042)

Yes, IE9 is crappy. I don't like the UI, it's not as snappy as I like it to be and I don't like it that I still have to write IE-hacks for my websites.

For non-JS, IE9 and Opera are the fastest browsers around in Windows. My peeve is having low framerates while scrolling through very long websites with lots of images/whatnot. IE9 and Opera have the smoothest non-js html rendering, followed by a big step down to Firefox (which I use because noscript is amazing and I don't like the Opera or IE9 UIs), then Chrome (my backup, but too slow to use more than a couple times a week without cringing), then Safari.

Re:Play the game another way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36616290)

A universe where we use Aras Innovator for our PLM. Sadly requires IE6,7 or 8. IE9 doesn't work.

Re:Play the game another way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36616326)

I'm not sure why you think the release cycle is inappropraitely fast. Firefox and chrome are releasing every 2-3 months now. IE is really taking its time by comparison; It's likely to be 6 months to a year between releases.

Re:Play the game another way. (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 2 years ago | (#36617066)

yeah, they were on to a good thing with the ie 6 to 7 release cycle

Is HTML 5 support better than IE 9? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616210)

According to www.html5test.com, the other preview is no better than IE 9. Not to say IE 9 is bad, it is just behind Chrome.

With the latest fallout from Firefox 5, I expect IE 10 to become quite popular and as much as we hate Microsoft here, I think the newest releases of IE 9 and IE 10 are tollerable and I may even say cool to develop with. ... I feel I am trapped in the twilight zone for that last sentence.

I am hoping this will change, but IE is very conservative and only tends to support tags and CSS that are finalized to avoid incompatibilies. Part of me thinks this is a great idea, and part of me thinks it will always be 5 years behind as a result. Either way I would like to see HTML 5 forms, websprockets, and a few other things in IE 10.

Re:Is HTML 5 support better than IE 9? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616240)

They've already updated the score for Preview 2:

Microsoft Internet Explorer 10 PP 2 231 6

That's 106 higher score than Preview 1.

Re:Is HTML 5 support better than IE 9? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616434)

I eat my words. Preview 1 scored lower than IE 9 (141) when I tested it a week ago. Better but still HTML 5 support is between Firefox 3.6 and 4. Still it is a vast improvement, and any work shifted to the GPU is important for the sub netbook and tablet market with the new CPU/GPU combos. Webworkers and more CSS 3D will surely help.

Re:Is HTML 5 support better than IE 9? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616320)

According to www.html5test.com, the other preview is no better than IE 9.

Possibly the test is incomplete; this page [msdn.com] says theyve improved a number of HTML5 aspects. And this isnt exactly a beta, so one would surmise that theres work yet to be done.

With the latest fallout from Firefox 5,

What fallout would that be? The 5 people on slashdot who think Firefox devs are pegging version numbers for numbers sake (rather than to signify a new development model)? Yea, the average user REALLY cares about that.

Either way I would like to see HTML 5 forms,

According to the page I linked, they are adding that to IE10, as well as other CSS3 tags and a number of other features. I recommend you check that link; not being a web dev, I can only sort of understand what each of those things are, but the page is nicely laid out and quite concise (they have a bulleted list...).

Re:Is HTML 5 support better than IE 9? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616334)

Yea, the average user REALLY cares about that.

No, they just care about the fact that their plugins fail to work after an update because the version number was bumped for no good reason. If Firefox would fix their stupid policy about what you can set maxVersion to there wouldn't be any issues but at the rate they are going to bump version numbers they are going to continuously cause headaches.

Re:Is HTML 5 support better than IE 9? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36616412)

The Firefox addons site (addons.mozilla.org) now runs addons through automated tests to determine their compatibility with new Firefox versions, then bumps their maxVersion requirements automatically. Most addons should be fine.

Re:Is HTML 5 support better than IE 9? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616456)

Well it's good that they addressed the issue.

Re:Is HTML 5 support better than IE 9? (1)

porl (932021) | more than 2 years ago | (#36617056)

Oh, I see! Then I guess everything is wrapped up in a nice neat package! ...

Really, I mean that. Sorry if it SOUNDED sarcastic.

(Homer quote for those who missed it)

Re:Is HTML 5 support better than IE 9? (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616442)

If Firefox would use an internal plugin API version number that plugins could check against so that users wouldn't have all their shit broken because FF and plugin devs are throwing hissy fits at each other, the entire problem would be solved.

IE sidesteps this by making sure all three plugins work in the new browser before deploying it.

Re:Is HTML 5 support better than IE 9? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36618068)

Im pretty sure PLUGINS dont break between firefox versions. You are perhaps thinking of extensions, which are utterly different.

Re:Is HTML 5 support better than IE 9? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36616426)

"[...] but IE is very conservative and only tends to support tags and CSS that are finalized to avoid incompatibilities."
IE = Internet Explorer, right?

It seems... (1)

kakyoin01 (2040114) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616300)

...that releasing browsers quickly is becoming mainstream now (competition is a fickle beast). As long as the URL bar is still there and the layout doesn't change that often, then I don't mind much. But the moment browsers try to remove the URL bar, the gloves will come off. The browser does not need to be minimized too much more, thank you.

Re:It seems... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616538)

I read somewhere that Microsoft plans to update IE annually. If the browsers are better quality and actually implement standards properly it wont be as drastic an issue as the past. For example Chrome mainly just updates its Javascript and adds additional tags rather than implement the way old HTML 4.01 is rendered.

IE was low quality during 5.5 to 7. You could follow the standards and dumb race conditions would make certain elements load at different times and cause it to create a mess. To get around these required hacks that fucked up Firefox and others. Those days are gone ... hopefully.

IE will have a strong resurgence thanks to Asa's big mouth with Firefox 5 from corporate America. We can only IE 10 and 11 break this. I am pleased to say with IE 9 in standards mode it does behave much more like Firefox or Chrome and supports HTML 5. Thank GOD.

Expact constant releases that hopefully wont break old sites written for IE 8 or later. At least with MS or even Chrome you can control the upgrades at work through policies so it is tollerable. HTML 5 is vastly different than the past and is exciting. It is a true platform that does more than just display cute text and pictures now and will be a force to wreckon with thanks to IPADs and smartphones.

Re:It seems... (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616788)

You could follow the standards and dumb race conditions would make certain elements load at different times and cause it to create a mess.

Not to mention crashes and security vulnerabilities too. For example, as I mentioned in another thread, IE's parsing of plain HTML tag soup is robust, but as soon as you add some CSS, even something as simple as <table style=position:absolute;clip:rect(0)> would result in an exploitable crash that had to be fixed in a security update. Not to mention this [crashie8.com] and this [blogspot.com] example, and there are probably more.

Re:It seems... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36616892)

If the browsers are better quality and actually implement standards properly it wont be as drastic an issue as the past.

Yeah, and if your grandma had wheels she'd be a wagon. Here in the real world, this is just going to mean ANOTHER brain-damaged set of DIFFERENT bugs that developers will have to work around, all while still maintaining compatibility with every OTHER fucktarded browser MS has stuck us with with their "NO MOAR UPGRADES FOR U!" plan (first with 8 on XP, and now with Vista!).

Note to IE dev team: please go DIAF. If at all possible, make sure that all the copies of the Trident source code are with you when you do.

Re:It seems... (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616946)

I read somewhere that Microsoft plans to update IE annually.

So in 10 years, does that mean they'll be up to IE version 20? The only other software I can think of that has a major version number of >=20 is emacs.

Re:It seems... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620932)

IE was low quality during 5.5 to 7. You could follow the standards and dumb race conditions would make certain elements load at different times and cause it to create a mess. To get around these required hacks that fucked up Firefox and others. Those days are gone ... hopefully.

No, they are not gone, because Microsoft had the great idea of not allowing Windows XP users to install IE9 or newer versions. Since the Windows XP vs Windows 7 ratio is still 2 to 1, IE7/8 is the new IE6.

Re:It seems... (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616616)

The URL bar sucks. Modal browsers rock. Browsing without vimperator is torture. I supposed there must be an emacs like browser for that faction as well.

Re:It seems... (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 2 years ago | (#36617308)

The URL bar isn't there in the IE platform previews...

Re:It seems... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36620890)

Well, I have bad news for you: The future of desktop consists on HTML5 widgets, so deep down you will be interacting with your browser without even seeing it.

I haven't looked at it. (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616304)

Will use it when it ends up on Windows Update.

Or not actually, since I don't have any Windows 7 machines, only XP and Vista ones.

Even if they did decide to support XP I'd probably keep using Opera.

Well if Opera, Mozilla and Google stopped supporting Windows I might use it.

Re:I haven't looked at it. (1)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616920)

You should update your Vista boxes to Win7. It's a dramatic improvment, and upgrade-in-place is supported. Vista does support IE9, btw... or rather IE9 supports Vista.

As for XP, unless they're running on ancient boxes with less than 1GB of memory and no video card worth speaking of, they'd probably benefit from an upgrade to Win7 as well, though the need to reinstall everything is a drawback (as is the cost). But the security gains are real and significant, as is the usability.

Everyone should be encouraging everyone else to dump XP and IE6/7 as soon as is feasable.

Can't wait for the paid reviewers praising it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36616350)

coughcoughcoughtomshardwarecoughcoughcough

I'll have to try that out... (-1, Redundant)

iceaxe (18903) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616534)

$sudo apt-get install InternetExplorer

hmmm. I guess I won't.

Re:I'll have to try that out... (3, Funny)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616762)

Did you forget to add deb.microsoft.com to your /etc/apt/sources.list, by chance?

Re:I'll have to try that out... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36616882)

I'm guessing the following commands failed for you as well:

$sudo apt-get girlfriend
$sudo apt-get out-of-parents-basement
$sudo apt-get clean-shirt
$sudo apt-get a-sense-of-dignity

Re:I'll have to try that out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36616986)

Maybe you can get lucky and try pulling down an RPM and installing. For the record, "yum install microsoft-ie" did not work on Fedora either...

Re:I'll have to try that out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36617590)

Don't you mean:

$sudo apt-get install ms-internet-explorer10p2-nonfree

Are we native yet? (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616544)

So.... Will this one have native HTML5? Or HTML6?

Re:Are we native yet? (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620592)

Right now, IE 8.0 only scores about 141 out of 450 points in the current June 22, 2011 release of the HTML5Test.com test page. This is really low compared to the competition:

286 -- Firefox 5.0
328 -- Chrome 12.0.742.112 (current public stable release)
253 -- Safari 5.0.5
286 -- Opera 11.50

Hopefully, IE 10.0 has to be at least as good as the current Firefox 5.0 if they want to implement HTML 5.0 features correctly.

Re:Are we native yet? (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620810)

IE 9 has a score of 141, not IE 8. IE 10 PP 2 has a score of 231.

Re:Are we native yet? (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 3 years ago | (#36624366)

i'm already using HTML9 to hack the Gibson!

WHOA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36616758)

They just announced IE 11 now! O:

Just kidding, but.... Seriously Microsoft, calm down with the new browser versions.

I miss the old Microsoft (1)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 2 years ago | (#36616876)

It took them 2 years and 5 months to release IE8, and 2 years to release IE9. Who knows when this version will be released...

Re:I miss the old Microsoft (1)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 2 years ago | (#36617096)

I'm betting it'll be released with Windows 8 in 2012 sometime.

Re:I miss the old Microsoft (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36617584)

Well they could release a new version of IE every month like certain other companies. How would you like to support that? :P

Re:I miss the old Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36645210)

And five and a half years to release IE7.

But it was all, because they had a monopoly and later first had to untangle the huge horrific digital spaghetti brain-rape snuff mess that is Trident, before being able to get up to speed. So what's your point?

why so many versions so soon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36616890)

What is with the rush to put out all these browsers now on the part of Mozilla, MS and Google?

I know some of you will replay with "competition" but in this case it seems more "a solution in search of a problem".

Re:why so many versions so soon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36617276)

They're aiming for one annual release. Thats not exactly hectic (they did faster releases in the earlier versions). The preview software is literally just a box for the engine to load stuff into. No other UI features, no address bar, no settings, no bookmarks, no plugins - and naturally no cache or cookies either. IE9 preview was available long before the release of IE9 itself as well.

31 CSS file limit finally removed! (1)

claar (126368) | more than 3 years ago | (#36618144)

At the very bottom of this page [microsoft.com] it mentions fantastic news: the removal of the 31 style sheets limit!

In Internet Explorer 9 and earlier, there is a limit of 31 style sheets per webpage. There is also a nesting limit of four levels deep for style sheets that are linked using @import rules.

In IE10 Platform Preview, this limit has been removed.

Re:31 CSS file limit finally removed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36618484)

I can't decide whether that is good or bad.

Re:31 CSS file limit finally removed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36618544)

If you use a modular system like Drupal, where each module might have its own CSS file, it's very good. (yes, I know Drupal combines these in production, but it's still an obnoxious limit during dev. that no other browsers have)

IE9 epic fail - can IE10 be worse? (0)

Serindipidude (939235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36618334)

IE9 sucked blocks and MS is in denial - haven't released an update to make it work with all the Java sites that don't work now. Their lame response was that since they now follow standards (really?) that the websites at fault should fix their code. Yeah, I can just ring my airline and say, hey IE9 & MS says your code is bad and you should fix it, would you mind please I'm trying to book a flight and all the drop down lists are empty, Thanks. Strangely these webs site all worked with IE8 and earlier and continue to work fine with Firefox, which is what I'm converting my customers to as they update to IE9 and can't use ordinary web sites any more. I half expect IE10 will fix these problems, but every tme I think Microsoft can't make a product worse than they have, they totally exceed my expectations and make it worse than I can imagine. I wonder if Microsoft will ever change their corporate attitude that shipping faulty products is 'normal' business practice.

4 versions of crap? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36618346)

It would be nice if Microsoft force updated it's users so we didn't have to start supporting 4 different versions of their crappy ass disaster of a browser.

Notice Support Commitment (1)

teslatug (543527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36621498)

Notice that in the blog post Microsoft is committing to 10 years of support for IE10. Big jab at Mozilla for sure, but that's exactly what's going to keep IE in the enterprise.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>