×

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!

IE 10 Almost Finished For Windows 7 With Final Preview

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the check-it-out dept.

Internet Explorer 187

Billly Gates writes "IE 10 just hit the final preview yesterday for Windows 7. Windows XP and Windows Vista support has been dropped. Most slashdotters have a complex relationship with Internet Explorer. Many of us hate it but have to use it in the office. Microsoft had tried last year to make IE good again with the release of IE 9 which had some fanfare on slashdot, such as hardware acceleration and better standards compliance. MS even launched a full campaign to get us to switch. IE 10 is supposed to continue the new process and promises to be much faster and support more HTML 5, CSS 3, W3C HTML 5.1 and CSS 3.1 with a score of 320 on HTML5test. As a comparison, last years IE 9 only scored 138. "

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

187 comments

Microsoft Internet Explorer (5, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987553)

"It's the best way to install Firefox!"
  - Steve Ballmer

Re:Microsoft Internet Explorer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41987619)

Fuck you, you piece of shit!

You are nothing compared to me! Why are you cowering in a corner, you worthless coward?

I regret to inform you that your very life is... One With Dump.

Re:Microsoft Internet Explorer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41988225)

"It's the best way to install Chrome!"
    - Steve Ballmer

Re:Microsoft Internet Explorer (3, Interesting)

bondsbw (888959) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988927)

Disagreed. Installing anything requires clicking a banner at the bottom (a click that takes 10 seconds to register), then going through some security scan, then clicking on a dialog, and then clicking cancel on the 3 other dialogs I got because the lag made me think the first click didn't register.

And if you're on a server... Fuggiduhbadit! You'll have to enable anywhere from 1 to 12 security exceptions by clicking a few times and typing a website address, each. Then you have to reload the page, and get past the security warning that pops up every time. THEN you get to go through the above process.

I'm thinking next time, I'll just use telnet and a pipe.

IE 9 scored 0 over here. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41987613)

Since update from IE 8 never worked on my W7 computer.

Unfortunately I had to buy a Windows PC -- well, not that I wasn't expecting problems, but being unable to merely install a program -- that's surely quite lame, even for M$ standards... 8-/ (and, no, automatic troubleshooting didn't work -- so much for "professional" support...)

Seriously, who cares? (1, Insightful)

Johnny Loves Linux (1147635) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987635)

It's like the guy selling the best buggy whips in the era of the car. Or the crazy homeless guy spewing crap about Soviet communism will triumph over capitalism any day now. It's only been 20+ years since the Berlin wall fell. Why does IE anything even matter? It's not going to be on your Android phone, or iphone. Who cares?

Re:Seriously, who cares? (5, Insightful)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987687)

It matters because we have to deliver content to several hundred sites via Web/Intranet, and we can't dictate the end user's infrastructure. They will invariably use IE as a standard. This is industry talking...

Re:Seriously, who cares? (4, Insightful)

tftp (111690) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987949)

It matters because we have to deliver content to several hundred sites via Web/Intranet, and we can't dictate the end user's infrastructure.

But many end users will be glad to dictate their infrastructure to you. Starting from President/CEO and his VPs, and going down to program managers, and then to senior engineers... when your (IT) interests and their interests collide the IT will not be the winner. Those guys are bread winners, and IT is the cost center, with the sole purpose of supporting bread winners. They tell you what they have and you accomodate. Not the other way around.

For example, there may be a frantic phone call from one of your sales guys. He is trying to set up an elevator pitch since he just arranged for three minutes with the Big Customer. But his iPad cannot access your Web site!!! Disaster!!! Can you tell this sales guy that he should bring the customer in front of a company-issued laptop? These three minutes may well be on a golf course or when jogging. Nobody will be on your side (nobody who matters, at least.)

Besides, your Web delivery of materials will be just fine unless you go out of your way to support only this or that version of the browser.

Re:Seriously, who cares? (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#41989229)

For example, there may be a frantic phone call from one of your sales guys. He is trying to set up an elevator pitch since he just arranged for three minutes with the Big Customer. But his iPad cannot access your Web site!!! Disaster!!!

If your company's website doesn't already work on the iPad (or Android phone/tablet), your company's web developer(s) and IT supervisor should probably have been fired by now.

Re:Seriously, who cares? (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988663)

Don't forget that Windows RT users are forced to use IE, one of the many limitations of the OS.

Re:Seriously, who cares? (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987929)

or.. like the guy screaming THIS is the year of linux on the desktop???

/ducks ;)

Re:Seriously, who cares? (4, Insightful)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988313)

As a web developer, I care. And as as user, you should care.

Not because you should use IE. Use what you like, that's what makes standards with multiple implementations great. But there are tons of things that simply aren't done because browsers don't provide the necessary infrastructure, or because it'd be extremely difficult. Like it or not, as a major browser, IE dictates a lot of what happens on the web, even if you don't personally use it.

IE better supporting standards means those standards are more likely to be used, which means that your standards-supporting browser will work better, faster, and take less development time. For the browser developers, not having to implement work arounds for web pages that work around IE bugs means more time can be spent on new features, so your own preferred browser gets better, faster. Web pages take less time to create, so they're better, and us developers can work on more interesting things than working around some weird focus bug. Maybe the Slashdot developers will even have time to implement UTF-8 support so we can all post Zalgo and smilies that accurately depict our feelings.

It's a good thing all around! Lighten up!

Re:Seriously, who cares? (1)

trudslev (693655) | about a year and a half ago | (#41989215)

You are so right. :) New standards are usually so hard to adopt because we usually have to wait for Microsoft to invent their own version of the same paradigm and then we have to make exceptions in our HTML/code.

Re:Seriously, who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41988719)

If you really think handhelds are the only thing that matters or will matter in the future, you're an idiot.

How will it perform, I wonder (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987665)

We have a major national network, and IE9 is the standard. It's not without problems, not all of Microsoft's making. I wonder how it will perform with add-ons like Adobe Reader XI (yes, we're required to use that too). With all that new functionality/compatibility, will IE10 take a performance it?

Corporate use (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987667)

Many of us hate it but have to use it in the office.

Yes, and that's mostly because Firefox developers steadfastly refuse to add integrated domain authentication, which a lot of corporations use for their intranet access. The other component is group policies; Which again, Mozilla in its infinite wisdom has made its product neigh-impossible for administrators to configure and control remotely. Open Source often fails in corporate environments not because corporations are opposed to its licensing terms, but because the software can't have its functionality limited or modified via a centralized framework. They jabber on about how it's restricting the "freedoms" of its users, but nobody has freedom at work. It's work, dammit, not a playground, and your IT staff needs to be able to control and restrict things -- not because they're some kind of authoritarian jerks but because corporate environments have a very different set of requirements than consumer environments.

Internet Explorer would be dead by now if Mozilla and friends would just get with the program and include group policies and the ability to restrict software functionality (like automatic updates!) from a centralized source. But the community keeps bringing it back because it simply refuses to listen to what corporations ask for.

Re:Corporate use (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41987775)

Using the word "consumer" to describe computer users is offensive.

Re:Corporate use (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41987867)

get off your high horse

Re:Corporate use (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987913)

Users would entail corporate and consumer groups of users. It was proper to distinguish between differing environments.

Re:Corporate use (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988043)

Users would entail corporate and consumer groups of users. It was proper to distinguish between differing environments.

Hmm... how come macs aren't more popular then? Could it be because people are already familiar with the systems they use at work, and when they go home, they make purchasing decisions based on that familiarity? Nah, that's crazy talk!

Re:Corporate use (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988187)

Crazy talk? Whether it is crazy or not doesn't change the fact that very few people at home have to worry about HIPPA, SOX, and SEC regulatory measures, lost profits from systems being down, lawsuits from intrusions that gain access to customer data, lost revenue from secretes like bid proposals or designs, launch dates for products, legal strategies, and a skew of other issues most corporations have to worry about.

Now I know some consumers run windows servers, but do you really think they are representative of the bunch?

Re:Corporate use (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988283)

Crazy talk? Whether it is crazy or not doesn't change the fact that

... The whooshing noise was the point going over your head.

Re:Corporate use (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988379)

perhaps you could explain it then.

Re:Corporate use (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988585)

perhaps you could explain it then.

I used to explain things on slashdot like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.

Re:Corporate use (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988667)

oh, you got slapped down in mid flight did ya,. Oh well, I guess your point will remain a mystery to me.

Re:Corporate use (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988943)

oh, you got slapped down in mid flight did ya,. Oh well, I guess your point will remain a mystery to me.

It's really for the best. The last time I tried to correct someone on the internet who was wrong, I woke up three days later in a cornfield covered in hot sauce and little else...

Re:Corporate use (2)

naugrim (323145) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987795)

Firefox supports integrated domain authentication on windows. The big difference between it and other browsers like IE and Chrome is that in Firefox you have to whitelist every domain you'd like it to authenticate to.

Re:Corporate use (2)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987829)

Uhhh.. Methinks you don't quite understand the concept of Integrated authentication. You don't have a "list of domains", there is only one domain.. the domain you are joined to.

Re:Corporate use (3, Informative)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987951)

You don't have a "list of domains", there is only one domain.

Apparently you have never seen the sites button for the Local Intranet tab in the Internet Options control panel. It's where you can specify the "list of domains". IE just makes assumptions unless the user has specified otherwise or is overridden by a policy. And when you make assumptions...

Whitelising a site in Firefox [blogspot.com] is about as hard as it is for IE.

Re:Corporate use (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988001)

Whitelising a site in Firefox is about as hard as it is for IE.

Okay, now multiply that by 96,000 workstations. Oh wait, you don't think your users can be trusted to follow those steps? Well, it's a good thing we have Active Directory and PAC files to upda--oh, you mean Firefox doesn't have those? Oh. You mean, you have to update the file manually, by patching it? For every user?

Hmm. Well... I guess it's a good thing you didn't make any assumptions then about how easy it would be.

Re:Corporate use (4, Informative)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988047)

Dude. That's not Integrated Authentication. Those are security zones. Security zones turn on and off various features, like ActiveX and what not. It has *NOTHING* to do with Integrated authentication.

Integrated Authentication is when the site automatically uses your Windows domain username and password without prompting you for it.

Re:Corporate use (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988363)

I'm not the GP, but if you're talking about SSO using windows authentication through Firefox to your intranet app, I think that can be done. I could be wrong.

Re:Corporate use (5, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987901)

Firefox supports integrated domain authentication on windows.

Not exactly. With internet explorer, IWA is transparent to the user and administrator alike; You can set entire domains or subdomains to use it and be done with it. Firefox' support is clunky, and requires a list of every DNS domain, not every Active Directory domain which doesn't always match DNS records. As well, should you want the list to be updated, you have to remotely modify the configuration file of firefox for every user account on every workstation. Microsoft's implimentation is self-updating, automatic, and doesn't require organizing special deployments and patching systems to keep the list up to date.

So yes, it's possible to get Firefox working with IWA, but not exactly practical. Supporting Firefox is labor-intensive.

IWA? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41988213)

Integrated W______ Authentication... so how well does this system work in corporations that have outgrown Microsoft products?

Re:Corporate use (5, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987853)

Internet Explorer would be dead by now if Mozilla and friends would just get with the program and include group policies and the ability to restrict software functionality (like automatic updates!) from a centralized source. But the community keeps bringing it back because it simply refuses to listen to what corporations ask for.

Besides that I doubt IE would be dead, I also don't think that's a good thing.

Why is it always that competing products have to be killed? It's not just with browsers, it's with other software and hardware too (think "iPad-killer" kind of stuff).

Wikipedia lists four browsers at >15% market share, with Firefox at #3, behind IE. Corporate-developed Chrome is #1, IE is #2.

This looks great to me. There is choice, there is competition, and there are four popular choices meaning no single browser can define the web like IE did with their IE6-specific code. IE is still competing in this market, down to a 22% level, which means they have to really work to stay alive. And we see that with the vast advances MS has made with their browser.

I don't like IE, tried it recently again (new laptop with Win7) and it just didn't work right. Somehow the UI was way too cluttered for me, so I went back to Firefox. Other people may like IE, well good for them. It's not that bad a browser any more. Microsoft is actively developing it, is adding new features, and now they're pretty much done catching up to the competition in that field they can start trying to surpass the competition by adding innovative features. And if those are good, FF will copy them again, just like IE copied a lot from FF and other browsers.

That's what competition is doing to you. Just killing off all competitors, and have FF be the >90% browser will bring us back to the late 90s and early 00s, the heydays of IE6. With a stagnant web, little to no innovation. It's not something I am longing for, at all. If anything Chrome is currently the one to go after.

Re:Corporate use (2)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987911)

Choice is a illusion. Get me the number of people who actively choose to use IE over Chrome and Firefox.
Not the people who use it because it was pre-installed on their computer.

Re:Corporate use (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987999)

IE, typically the one and only browser installed on new computers, use is far more prevalent in the US than in Europe for example.

Now I assume that Americans are, on average, just as competent and knowledgeable as Europeans when it comes to alternative browsers (that browser selection screen doesn't seem to do much; MS just got fined again for failing to make it work). So I'd say there is your proof: many Americans choose IE over the alternatives.

Re:Corporate use (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988159)

So I'd say there is your proof: many Americans choose IE over the alternatives.

I don't care for your logic, but ironically you have proved the reverse, Americans don't choose IE, which is why it has a larger market share than places where a choice is mandatory.

Re:Corporate use (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988227)

There are lots of people in the EU still using IE. And as choice is mandatory there, obviously they chose to use it.

Re:Corporate use (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988361)

There are lots of people in the EU still using IE. And as choice is mandatory there, obviously they chose to use it.

Sorry this is not my argument. Using IE is like pulling teeth after using a real browser. If it had been my comment I would question the reasons why someone is using IE, or not choosing something else. The reality is I suspect all knowledge and capable computer users are using [choosing] an alternative browser, all the browser choice box does is reduce some of the worst excesses, but then by the very nature of a bundled browser. Choosing an alternative browser is always opt-in [amongst other things].

Re:Corporate use (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988883)

I am using it rignt now replying in this post. Pulling teeth?

I have the gradients here on slashdot. In addition, I have the rounded corners, the javascript, the baloon on the bottom and it is smooth and fast. In IE 8 I have none of that and a limited javascript run cough Jscript cough to change the comments, rough corners, and it is chop chop chop with more than 50 comments etc.

In other words from where I am it, it performs no different than Chrome or Firefox. I ran FutureMarks HTML 5 benchmark peacekeeper after I disabled webGL from Chrome and FF and did a test. IE 10 beat Chrome! Firefox was 1st place. All in all they were all within 10% of each other.

It is not 2001 anymore. I am curious to what web developers have to say and this is welcome news for you too. I want my gradients and HTML 5 but can't because XP users are still stuck on IE 8. This is great news for anyone who uses the world wide web.

Re:Corporate use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41988231)

The Browser Choice screen only shows up for Europeans.

Re:Corporate use (1)

swillden (191260) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988803)

Choice is a illusion. Get me the number of people who actively choose to use IE over Chrome and Firefox. Not the people who use it because it was pre-installed on their computer.

Irrelevant.

The key point is that the market share is well-divided. Web site authors can't code to a specific browser, and no one browser can dictate the course of the technology. Sites have to code to standards, and browsers have to implement standards, and collaborate to define new standards.

This means that choice is real enough to accomplish what it really needs to accomplish -- require the industry to focus on standards and cooperative competition, since no one is in a position to dominate. And therefore, choice is not illusory, it's truly real, because you truly can use whichever browser you want, with a reasonable expectation that it's going to work. It doesn't matter if some people don't know enough to exercise that choice, and it doesn't even matter if IE is only "chosen" by those who don't know better.

Re:Corporate use (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987937)

Why is it always that competing products have to be killed? It's not just with browsers, it's with other software and hardware too (think "iPad-killer" kind of stuff).

Take a look at the state of the art in software engineering right now. Now realize that if we built houses like that, the first wood pecker would destroy civilization. It's duplication of effort -- rather than develop one tool that does its job very well, we develop twenty tools that do the same job sorta passably okay. A lot of this is thanks to the fractally stupid idea of intellectual property, but there are other reasons. Now you're right -- competition is good. We see this kind of thing all the time in open source communities where developers can't make up their mind on how to move from idea to implimentation and fork a project. But usually one implimentation proves itself over the other(s) and those inferior forks die, or a new paradigm is established and both sets go on to do whatever specialized thing they need to do. It's social evolution, of sorts, and like all forms of evolution -- its survival of the fittest (not necessarily the biggest or strongest).

Re:Corporate use (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988035)

There are hundreds of ways to design and build a house - and houses are indeed being built in hundreds of different ways. There is no "one size fits all". Indeed OS software gets forked all the time, alternative projects are started, and often more than one survives. Just like in a real ecosystem, diversity brings strength and resilience..

Re:Corporate use (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988117)

There is no "one size fits all".

Huh. I notice that all the building materials for those "built in hundreds of different ways" come in a rather small number of varying sizes, like "two by four". And there's rules for the construction of these homes that, while flexible, ensure safety and reliability of assembly.

Just like in a real ecosystem, diversity brings strength and resilience..

You haven't programmed using Windows APIs. You should try it some time, I think you'd like it -- it's packed with all kinds of diverse APIs and ways of doing things. That's really what's so nice about Windows standards... there's so many to choose from. Anyway, my point is diversity for its own sake is a waste of resources -- an idea that's been around since the Archean era. You're the result of a single thread of evolution stretching back billions of years, the one success out of tens of billions of failed evolutionary forks.

Nature tells us that in the overwhelming majority of cases, mutations (aka diversity) do not give an advantage. That isn't to say don't try... but it is to say rampant diversity would never get us anywhere -- for the most part, we should build on what we know works, and only occasionally take excursions outside that realm.

Re:Corporate use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41988531)

Nature tells us that in the overwhelming majority of cases, mutations (aka diversity) do not give an advantage. That isn't to say don't try... but it is to say rampant diversity would never get us anywhere -- for the most part, we should build on what we know works, and only occasionally take excursions outside that realm.

really, rampant diversity would never get us anywhere? what the hell are you saying? your statement is the definition of fucked up. trying to prove your point of view about software engineering by saying that nature's diversity would never get us anywhere? LMAO

Re:Corporate use (1)

swillden (191260) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988861)

Nature tells us that in the overwhelming majority of cases, mutations (aka diversity) do not give an advantage.

Have you ever looked at the massive level of diversity in nature? Even what we call "species" and choose to view as cohesive aren't, really... they're just a collection of diverse individuals who have barely enough commonality to be able to breed successfully... most of the time. And the sheer number of species is staggering -- and important, because there is strength in diversity.

In a more industrial context, the USSR tried to "optimize" production of all sorts of goods by doing exactly what you say the software industry ought to be doing: standardize on one design, build one big factory. Highly centralized, highly efficient, right? Except... no. It turns out that competitive duplication of effort is more efficient. The US destroyed USSR in terms of design and manufacturing, consistently producing products that were more advanced and less costly, and it wasn't in spite of the capitalists' wasteful diversity, it was because of the non-obvious but very real efficiency that arises from diversity.

With respect to browsers, just look at what a mess IE was when Microsoft was dominant. Consider what happened to the rate of progress when Chrome entered the picture, with its orders-of-magnitude-faster Javascript engine and streamlined UI. Look at the result of the huge waste of effort that was Konqueror -- except that it produced KHTML, AKA WebKit, which became the basis for Safari and Chrome both. Heck, go all the way back to when Marc Andreesen abandoned Mosaic development to uselessly duplicate its functionality in something called "Netscape Navigator", which later became Mozilla, and then Firefox. Look at all of the features pioneered by Opera and later adopted by the rest of the browsers.

In every one of those cases, apparently duplication of effort resulted in new ideas, new features, new approaches which then cross-pollinated to improve all of the browsers.

Diversity isn't just good. It's essential.

You're blaming the open source browser...? (1)

zakkudo (2638939) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988623)

Reeeaaaally?

How was Firefox going to stagnate the web? By having open code? By having popular derivatives like flock? By stating that their main objectives were pushing a standards complient web and ensuring competition no matter how large or small they are?

That's what competition is doing to you. Just killing off all competitors, and have FF be the >90% browser will bring us back to the late 90s and early 00s, the heydays of IE6. With a stagnant web, little to no innovation. It's not something I am longing for, at all. If anything Chrome is currently the one to go after.

Firefox is not likely to die. It came around because of the closed source company fizzling. It might slow, but it will not dies.

Do not compare browsers thinking everybody is a corporate entity and thus is trying to stagnate everything. When open source stagnates, it is forked, then a new browser is born.

The only browser than I am stille extremely weary of is IE because it represents the player with the largest gain in creating something like a "windows only" web. We've delt with this before, and it is the last thing I want to see things going back to.

Re:You're blaming the open source browser...? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988871)

Chrome is doing this harder than anyone with its own cloud based ecosystem. All your history, bookmarks, passwords, GDrive, all in Chrome only! Websites that require Chrome are popping up.

So far IE is being nice because it has too. Also Microsofts incentive is to create a great METRO environment in which it needs bug free graphically rich applets in HTML 5 and CSS 3. Think you can make it look pretty without gradients in a shitty IE 6 rendering engine? Ha! Developers would give up after the text would be all over the place.

IE 10 is shaping up pretty nicely and is usable if you really have to use it now.

Re:Corporate use (4, Informative)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988383)

Yes, and that's mostly because Firefox developers steadfastly refuse to add integrated domain authentication, which a lot of corporations use for their intranet access.

It's implemented, just not enabled by default.

Go to about:config -> search for "network.automatic-ntlm-auth.trusted-uris" -> add the domain. You can set it to a second-level domain, and anything underneath that works as well. And as of FF 14, you can set "network.automatic-ntlm-auth.allow-non-fqdn" and "network.negotiate-auth.allow-non-fqdn" to true, to allow it to work with anything that doesn't have a dot in it.

Not trying to argue your point, because the rest is both accurate and valid if a little over-strenuous (although I doubt IE would be dead even if FF supported every single one of its features, corporate inertia can be very strong), just trying to inform about something that seems to be a frustration for you.

Re:Corporate use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41988399)

Not so long ago I would have agreed, but have you tried Chrome Enterprise? I felt exactly the same way about Firefox until I recently gave it a shot, and we now have a new default browser for all workstations. I've always felt that Frontmotion Firefox was a bit of a hack, although it solves some problems to a degree. I also tried rolling a custom Firefox MSI package but it gets painful with the ever-increasing release rate.

Chrome seems to have answered all the problems so far as it features MSI deployment, ADM/ADMX templates for managing via Group Policy, integrated Windows authentication, works with the Windows certificate store and has frankly saved me hours over mucking about with the mess that is IE settings. Fortunately it also allows all the phone-home stuff to be turned off, otherwise I'd never have bothered.

I'd seriously recommend giving it a try.

Re:Corporate use (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988419)

Firefox certainly does some puzzling things though. For the NTLM example, the main (valid) complaint was that older versions of Windows, or current versions configured a certain way, would send insecure hashes of your credentials. But, since the browser is running on your operating system, I imagine it's fairly easy to tell whether it's configured that way or not (at worst requiring administrator access, which could be handled by an elevated stub program).

But, for all the Windows-specific things they do, they seem to draw arbitrary lines in the name of portability. I guess the real answer is, it takes a strong personality to do what they did, and that original strong, acerbic personality is still alive in the organization in some way or another. It is getting better though, if at a glacial pace, as evidenced by their adding of non-fqdn whitelisting.

Re:Corporate use (1)

perlith (1133671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988471)

Integrated authentication can be done with Firefox if you backend application(s) support it:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Integrated_Authentication [mozilla.org]

First hit off a quick Google search of "SPNEGO Firefox" - IBM WebSphere Application Server:
http://pic.dhe.ibm.com/infocenter/wasinfo/v6r1/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.websphere.base.doc%2Finfo%2Faes%2Fae%2Ftsec_SPNEGO_config_web.html [ibm.com]

.
Your point on group policies is valid .. with a good reason for having it to distribute the whitelists needed for integrated authentication! Of the two features, this should be the more trivial of the two to implement. No idea why they haven't done so yet.

Sincerely disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41988733)

I am extremely grateful that they haven't enabled corporate policies.

It would tremendously impose on my freedom at work. *My* work IS a playground and I do not want my IT staff interfering. They *are* authoritarian jerks.

Re:Corporate use (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988809)

Young people use IE 9 surprisingly.

Young people 5 years ago HATED IT as they remember IE 6 and how fucked up it was, but with newer verions not sucking why change? Old people use it who do not know what HTML is or CSS. The blue E is the internet etc!

IE always will be the most popular browser whether you like it or not. It works! Might as well be happy it acts like everyone else on the playground now so webmasters can move on and we can finally give a reason for XP loyalists who use IE to leave so we can finally enjoy HTML 5! Yes slashdot is HTML 4 becaue of these users who refuse to upgrade and who do not know what a browser is too or do not care because it is what they used for 10 years.

FOr the haters I have to say try it? You do not have to use it but it is at least in the same ballpark as the other browsers.

Re:Corporate use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41989191)

One reason corporations want centralized control in the first place is because of security vulnerability paranoia instilled in them from rolling out MS products in the first place.

A wild Internet Explorer appears (3, Interesting)

theArtificial (613980) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987721)

I'd like to begin by saying good job devs! As a developer: Yay, another version to support! IE Support already requires coddling especially for the long in the tooth IE6 & 7; granted IE9 is much better but there are still rough patches with border radius and gradients [stackoverflow.com] are used as well as transitions [mozilla.org] , see the table at the bottom. CSS transitions would be a very welcome addition. Maybe we can create a betting pool for how long until the next incarnation?

With their current strategy what are the chances it'll be a Windows 8 requirement? I'm off to find that guy who read the bones for Obama to do a browser reading.

Re:A wild Internet Explorer appears (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41987927)

I'm not a web developer, but did you read that border radius page on stackoverflow? It's not a bug. The developer was too lazy to read the documentation on what he was doing and instead took the time to flame IE. The overflow value defaults to true, thus the gradient gets painted outside the rounded border corners. Instead of fixing that, the guy chose a wacky, less capable and more resource intensive workaround.

Re:A wild Internet Explorer appears (1)

theArtificial (613980) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987965)

I quickly looked over it, here is another similar solution which illustrates the issue [jjis.me] . The fix involves using SVG. No other browser requires you to do that is my point.

Re:Fixed in IE 10 (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988845)

SVG support is implemented fully. The gradients are all W3C compliant in IE 10. Your post is a great reason to upgrade and encourage others to do so.

Windows 8 on Windows 7 (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987727)

Why the Windows 8 look and feel on a Windows 7 piece of software?

Re:Windows 8 on Windows 7 (1)

tftp (111690) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988023)

Why the Windows 8 look and feel on a Windows 7 piece of software?

Because you vill love our Windows that are made with a table saw and painted with colors from a kindergarten! Nice borders, avast! The new fashion is crude and straight and ugly, just like most of our cities are.

when will it end (2)

deathguppie (768263) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987749)

I can only pray for the day I can stop putting stuff like this into my css

/**fix for stupid old internet exploder**/
filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(src='pics/Gasworks-1024x454.jpg',sizingMethod='scale');
-ms-filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(src='pics/Gasworks-1024x454.jpg',sizingMethod='scale');

But since I have to even with IE9/10 because of the proliferation of the crappy ass IE's that they've produced in the past, I'm not going to be overwhelmed by the fact that they have finally started to get it right. Started I say IE10 320 vs Chrome 457.

Broken Document Icon ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41987761)

Will it have a broken document icon that throws it into IE7 mode ???

I can't believe how many people don't even realize they have that icon enabled and are browsing the web in IE7 mode ... which is totally backwards.

Every time MS takes a step forward they give the user the option to take 2 steps back ... annoying for web developers ....

DOA without WebGL (5, Interesting)

claytongulick (725397) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987831)

Honestly, isn't not just for graphics - it's for the whole fantastic class of problems that can be solved via GLSL shaders - GPU accelerated calculations in JS - this is simply so amazingly powerful, IE 10 is essentially worthless without it.

As people start doing high performance computing and solving wildly complex problems in the browser with GPU accelerated JS, the browser will continue to emerge as the platform of choice for a wonderfully wide range of applications. IE will sit off to the side, largely ignored (except for certain "enterprise" business users) and will become even more irrelevant.

I'd expect to start seeing more and more web sites that want to do these things refuse to support IE at all, the shims and plugins just aren't worth screwing with.

Re:DOA without WebGL (1)

Luthair (847766) | about a year and a half ago | (#41987947)

I would argue that most power users either have turned WebGL off, or will in the near future; exposing a new attack surface to the web will inevitably lead to exploits. Moreover Its highly unlikely that WebGL will become significant in the next 2-3 years, particularly if the mainstream (IE) audience isn't supported.

Re:DOA without WebGL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41987991)

You go right ahead and expose your 3D drivers directly to the web. I'll stick to sucking random hobo cock and we'll see who has AIDS first.

Re:DOA without WebGL (1)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988003)

Yeah it's a shame all those webgl websites won't work. So very many websites that need to be rendered in 3D. If only M$$$$ would wake up and see them. Yup.

Re:DOA without WebGL (0)

claytongulick (725397) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988217)

Not sure if you're being purposefully obtuse, or trolling, but in case you're serious - there are a fantastically wide range of applications that benefit from massive parallelism found in shader languages like GLSL. Just take a look at some of the books on amazon that have CUDA implementations for everything from fluid simulation to computer vision stuff.

Most recently I've been playing with the concept of doing sound synth and processing on the GPU with shaders in js.

In my original post I mentioned that WebGL isn't just for graphics. There are enormous benefits to being able to execute massively parallel operations on a web page.

Re:DOA without WebGL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41988747)

Almost all of which have no business being calculated client side in a web browser.

Re:DOA without WebGL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41988289)

Why the f**k would you solve these problems in js and a browser? Web tech is a mess of crappy technologies all thrown in a bucket. The web blows a$$.

IE10 is fast. I love it. (4, Funny)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988013)

What the hell did I just say?

Yes.. I cant believe it either, but the damn thing is actually really good. Chrome is a mess. Firefox is the middleman, and IE10 is faster, smoother than both of them. IE10 GPU acceleration is incredibly superior in every way.

Re:IE10 is fast. I love it. (1)

Sir Holo (531007) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988675)

I have never visited a web page where I thought "this needs GPU acceleration." Bandwidth is usually the constraint. Who cares about GPU off-loading?

Re:IE10 is fast. I love it. (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988727)

I disagree. THe download Firefox page renders much better and downloads quicker than ever! ... on a more serious note I notice a big difference in smoothness. As an experiment open Chrome and use the up and down arrows on www.slashdot.org? Now do the same with IE 9? One is smooth with a few chops. The other is chop chop chop. Firefox is starting to enable this by default too which is now.

Sites that have tons of pictures like entertainment mag sites are best with IE 9 for that reason. While Chrome is best for lots of ajax. IE 10 ties this.

This news made me relapse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41988073)

Been on the wagon for about 4 months. Just can't handle it. I need rum (chug)

>CAPCHA: gaging

Who is this mythical 'Us' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41988157)

There's this story about a guy who comes back from the Dr.'s office with a big grin on his face. When his wife asks him why, he replies, "The Dr. told me I'm impot_nt!" You don't really think that Microsoft targeted Slashdottr's... Do you?!

Supporting standards that don't exist? (1, Flamebait)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988309)

IE 10 is supposed to continue the new process and promises to be much faster and support more HTML 5, CSS 3, W3C HTML 5.1 and CSS 3.1

Wait, IE 10 is in final preview and it plans to support W3C HTML 5.1, which doesn't yet have a draft, and CSS 3.1, which doesn't even make sense given the way CSS Level 3+ is done by-module rather than as an across-the-board specification.

with a score of 320 on HTML5test.

Whoopty-frigging-do. The stable version of Chrome (23) has a 448. Chrome 10 beats IE 10 on HTML5test.

Re:Supporting standards that don't exist? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988753)

Why is this modded flamebait?

Basically HTML5test does not test just the HTML 5 spec by W3C.It tests things the authors think is cool on web mailing lists as well as WhatG.

  So W3C is dividing it into HTML 5 and CSS 3 and its .1 counterparts for the more experimental things which HTML5test.com look at. Whatg tries to put it all together in html 5 and css 3. That is the confusion.

Webworkers (example) are HTML 5.1 which IE 10 does support so technically IE 10 is very HTML 5 compliant and partially 5.1. If you look at Firefox 16, IE 10 supports 90% of the same standards! That is pretty good as the 448 is for things not implemented in draft yet. Compared to ancient IE it is excellent!

Now if we could get the corps to upgrade and the grandmas we can finally develop more modern sites!

IE10? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41988311)

IE10? Really? Somebody is working on that?

Why? It's so, like, 2005 and stuff.

Many of us hate it (1)

Psicopatico (1005433) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988505)

No. It's Internet Explorer who hates me.
It's not my fault if it doesn't run on both my Linux workstation and my Linux Notebook.

IE 9 and 10 are the only good browsers for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41988593)

Game development. Latest Firefox, Chrome and Opera are lightyears behind. Especially Firefox. It's a joke.

The total lack of WebGL support is a problem for sure, but that's for 3D. I'm talking Canvas 2D. IE 9 and 10 are the only realistic browsers to use for HTML 5 game playback unless the game is EXTREMELY simple.

It's very sad but true. I WISH this weren't the case.

HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41988683)

While it's great that it has better support, the fact that Microsoft doesn't roll out updates for the browser after release is just plain bad, meaning it will alway stay at 320, compared to other browsers that keep on evolving and supporting it better and better, like Chrome and Opera, already being over 400 with their latest regular updates.
Also, from what hole did Maxthon crawl out of? Never heard of it...

XP/Vista support (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988687)

i think their refusal to support old, but still very popular, versions of the windows OS will be there death knell as users of XP and vista will be forced to switch to Firefox or chrome to keep there favourite sites fully working. Similarly with DirectX 10/11

Re:XP/Vista support (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988777)

It is dying and according to g.statcounter.com it represents less than MacOSX users! Time to let it retire as even Firefox and Chrome are retiring it.

Re:XP/Vista support (1)

jader3rd (2222716) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988903)

i think their refusal to support old, but still very popular, versions of the windows OS will be there death knell as users of XP and vista will be forced to switch to Firefox or chrome to keep there favourite sites fully working. Similarly with DirectX 10/11

Do you think it's possible that supporting the older OS's would begin to weigh the browsers down?

Still no MathML :( (3, Informative)

jensend (71114) | about a year and a half ago | (#41988735)

IE really has come a very very long way since v7, and has gone from being a totally backwards abomination that impedes progress and gives webmasters nightmares to being a mostly OK browser. Outside of royalty-free codec support (which everyone knew MS would drag their feet on) there's only one way that its backwardness still impacts me: MathML.

Gecko-based browsers have had native support for over a decade (enabled by default starting with Mozilla milestone 0.9.9). Safari has had native support for a year and a half, and Chrome is finally about to release its first version with native support. But IE only has access via a third-party plugin [dessci.com] . Worse, the plugin was broken with the release of IE9 [archive.org] . A year ago, the developer made a "preview release" version of the plugin that's supposed to work with IE 9, but it's buggy and inconsistent and hasn't been updated.

It's frustrating that almost 15 years after MathML was standardized we've still got browser developers dragging their feet.

According to html5test, this bring IE 10 to (1)

tetrode (32267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41989337)

  - the level of Chrome 8, released December 2010
  - the level of Firefox 8, released November 2011
  - the level of Opera 11.50, released June 2011
  - the level of Safari 5.1, released July 2011

and thus

  - internet explorer 10, released December 2012

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...