Microsoft claims IE8 is 'a leap forward in web standards' Microsoft may have failed the Acid3 test with the release of its Internet Explorer 8 browser, but that hasn’t dampened Redmond’s spirits a jot – in fact the company is busy making all sorts of noises about its new-found web standards credentials. The software giant claimed on Friday that the arrival of IE8 represented “a leap …
Because it means IE6 is that one step closer to dying a horrible painful death. IE8 isn't perfect, and it isn't up to the standards of Firefox or Opera, but c'mon, kudos at least to MS for making it worlds, leagues, whole galaxies better than that IE6 piece of shit we still have to fudge our code for. When the world is ruled by IE 7 and 8, you'll notice how much easier it is to code for the web, and when IE7 goes, you'll really notice.
That said, I'd rather have FF any day of the week. ;-)
The software giant claimed on Friday that the arrival of IE8 represented “a leap forward in support for web standards” even though Microsoft notched up a miserable 20 out of a possible 100 in the Acid3 browser test.
Epic fail in every sense of the word!
From this point forth Microsoft has officially lost the plot.
I get: IE 8 - 20/100,
Firefox 3.07 - 71/100,
Opera 9.64 - 85/100.
The question is, how unbiased is ACID? Benchmarks and products can co-evolve to reinforce each other, but that doesn't mean Firefox is a better browser or even that it displays more webpages correctly.
In fact, firefox fails to display a lot of older web content correctly, because it obeys W3C rules that retroactively broke the semantics of some commonly used pre-style-sheet tags (like <font>). Both Opera and IE chose to ignore some of those rules, because much more of the web is displayed the way it was intended to appear.
It is also likely that the W3C is an arena of battles between corporate forces, trying to change the standard definitions to their own advantage and to their competators' disadvantage. That's the reality of big standards committees.
> From this point forth Microsoft has officially lost the plot.
Microsoft lost the plot years ago. Minimally, with Vista.
The problem - at least, a problem for anyone who cares about things like standards, freedom, openness, or computers generally - is that Microsoft has enough of an installed base, and enough of that base is terrified of trying something different (I'm talking about corporate-type entities, not just individuals), that Microsoft has more than enough inertia to carry itself on for a good long time yet. Apple simply doesn't want to play, and much as I personally love using linux, I still don't see it as much more than a nominal competitor in a handful of areas.
Nobody with a brain voluntarily uses Microsoft products, but that fact alone will never constitute a serious threat to Microsoft's dominance.
OK, so they still can't even get the standards right on their newest browser that promised the world and delivered nothing. They introduced it last year promising 100% standards compliance with a compatibility mode for older sites. Oh dear, not quite what we've got.
To top it all, they have totally f*cked up the UI in the process so now it looks absolutely terrible - what the hell are those stupid buttons doing there, where the new tabs should go?
Google Chrome is a much better, leaner and faster browser - and they are not even trying. They have said they don't even want to get a big share of the browser market, they just want to use it to push new web technology.
MSIE8 and beyond: rest in peace. I can see it now - when Windows 7 comes out the reviews will be along the lines of great OS, shame about the browser.
"I wont even bother with safari lol"
You should: it gets 100/100 on Acid 3 and has since the last major patch.
Acid 3 is a pretty tough test, however. Acid 2 is more than sufficient for rendering traditional web pages (which is what it tests for). Acid 3 is designed with highly dynamic content in mind, and tests howa browser responds to lots of scripted and AJAX-like events. Many quite basic asumptions about how a browser behaves will need to be reevaluated to cope with that sort of content. Passing the test is only a first step.
All of the ACID tests are based on adherence to a well-established set of design principlas, however, so please, don't question its bias. WaSP assembled these test to assess compliance with a very well documnented set of engineering specs; not some political agenda. In software, as in metal: good engineering is not a matter of personal opinion.
And a new pair of lungs. I just breathed coffee as I guffawed at this, which I took as a masterpiece of understatement:
"IE8, which is a Windows-only browser, finally landed last Thursday. It is the first version of Microsoft's browser to be compliant with some key industry standards including HTML and CSS."
Upon reflection I suppose it means the *whole* HTML and CSS standards, but it still made me laugh like a drain, and then nearly drown.
Steven R
... do I finally discern the long-trumpeted anti-Microsoft bias for which this publication is supposed to be known (it always seems more anti-Apple to me)?
Passing ACID 3 was never a stated goal of IE8; the very laudable goal was to make IE fully compliant with CSS 2.1. This will definitely make developers' lives easier, while ACID 3 is quite esoteric. I'm pretty sure I read all this here, so shame on you for going the easy I-strangle-your-newborn route.
Of course, Microsoft are still playing catch up with the other browsers after IE's six dead years, but I feel that praise is due for picking the right first step towards proper standards compliance.
If you really want to beat up the new version, why not pick Microsoft's utter silence on the subject of SVG support? Doubtless SIlverlight is to blame, but lack of SVG is now IE's main impediment to web innovation.
Amen, amen. Lo and thus it came to pass that the Young did Replace the Old. Hark ye, the News; a Sad Demise, yes; IE6, whose Extended Service Pack Release Schedule will not have been ENTIRELY IN VAIN, though its Days are now Indeed Finite and Readily Enumerable... But Witness and Wonder on this New Phoenix, Born from the Ashes to Save Our Desktops from the SCOURGE of TAN HACKS and various MARGIN BUGS and DODGY HEIGHT RULES to bring Balance To The InterTubes, etc. blather, rhubarb, whatever.
But uh, hold on... Haven't we heard this before? Didn't they say that IE7 was gonna be all about standards and shit? And didn't they ALSO say that about IE6?
YES, THEY DID. they TOTALLY TOTALLY did.
They said IE7 would be more standards compliant but it was still crap. Instead, they gave you a bit better than IE6 mode and IE6 mode. Now, apparently, we get a bit better than IE7 mode but ALSO IE7 mode AND IE6 mode free into the bargain. and extra mode to code for! O larcky larcky us. How does this make things better? It just means we have to discover more new hacks every few years and write even more useless code.
And you think IE6's days are numbered? Are they f***. How many corporate internets run IE6 only software. Truck loads, that's how many. I remember people saying IE6 was on its way out 3 years ago when IE7 came out as everyone would get the Windows Update. Complete BS. I remember people saying that about IE5 EIGHT years ago and it was still registering hits last year, NO LESS!!
And now? IE6 is still the 3rd biggest browser with ~20% of the market and we'll still be writing code for that heap of sh*t in 3 years to come, mark my words. IE6 is a F*CKING VIRUS and will be on the Internet as LONG AS THERE IS ONE.
W*nker$ always f*ck it up, don't they? It's like they do it ON PURPOSE to PISS ME OFF.
"You should: it gets 100/100 on Acid 3 and has since the last major patch."
The latest released version gets 75/100. A little ahead of firefox (71). Both leave IE8 in the dust of course.
The betas might do better but don't confuse the issue by claiming that the released versions can do something they can't.
Unfortunately, Acid3 has become the 'processor MHz' of the browser wars; while it is a very well thought out and useful test of esoteric functions, it does not really tell one much about how a browser works in the real world.
What most commenters don't realise (or just conveniently forget) is that many of the Acid3 tests are checking for compliance with *draft* specifications (CSS3, HTML5, etc) which will not be published 'standards' for a considerable time.
It should be noted that NO browser, including FF Chrome or Safari, is even 100% compliant with CSS 2.1 yet :(
"Microsoft claims IE8 is 'a leap forward in web standards' "
For Microsoft.
But in real terms it's about as much of a leap as a one-legged man who'd drunk six pints of old ale could manage.
In truth, IE is still shit compared to everything else.
The power of lock-in. IE has probably retarded web -development by about a decade. Imagine what the web would be like by now but for IE.
Unfortunately, it's never true. Why anyone still chooses to use any of their crap is an amazement to me. I gave up on MS years ago. And no, we do not have to give a software vendor a break when the 8th generation of their browser still scores so badly. Saying that this particular turd doesn't smell quite as bad as the last turd doesn't make it any less a turd.
Thus far: IE 8 20/100, IE 7 8/100, FF 3.0.7 74/100, Opera 9.64 84/100, Safari 4 (public beta) 100/100, Google Chrome 1.0.154 79/100. So IE is getting there slowly, very very slowly but surely. So by version 14 or 15 it should be getting roughly the same score as of the other semi decent browser. Yayyyy for MS /golf clap.
"What most commenters don't realise (or just conveniently forget) is that many of the Acid3 tests are checking for compliance with *draft* specifications (CSS3, HTML5, etc) which will not be published 'standards' for a considerable time."
An alternative view would be that since one browser can get 100%, there really is no excuse for every browser (or its beta) to be able to do the same.
let's all go back to using Mosaic and loading web pages without all the crap. Get rid of flash and get back to basics. When a website requires that you have a quad core and a sli/crossfire gfx setup to load the page without locking up your system for 10-30 seconds, it's gone too far. Remember the day when sites were full of the information you actually expected on the site and was presented to be read rather than make you sit through a few skits or flash presentations before getting to the info.
It's enough for me that at this first attempt by MSFT to support web standards, IE8 passes acid2 with flying colors. I don't doubt that there are bugs that will bedevil us as we learn more about it, but for now, IE8 is a welcome addition to the list of modern browsers.
It will be a Good Thing® if MSFT will continue active development and issue timely bug fixes and improvements.
I get the same 71 as everybody else with FF: no colour, no animation. I've quite possibly disabled the animation anyway --- I just do that sort of thing!
On a whim: tried IE7.
Just a screen-full of mess. Nothing discernable, no numbers.
And IE7 I have not, in any way, messed with, added to, or changed the configuration of: I almost never use it.
Out of 27 submitters of comments to this article (as of now) only 2 or 3 stuck up for Internet Explorer, and even then they used the word "esoteric" as regards the test IE8 actually failed.
Semantics aside, I view this as progress. Even the "Anonymous Cowards" have fallen silent on the issue of IE. Web standards, or the lack thereof, gave Microsoft an edge. Now it is considered a faux pas to just code a website for IE access only.
I think Firefox did the Internet a favour, even if that was never the intention. It raised awareness about standards and opened the door for other browsers that adhere to these standards. Maybe there is hope after all. Who wants to get locked into a one browser, one operating system and one Internet scenario?
I am waiting to hear from those that think that an Internet Explorer dominated Internet is to the benefit of mankind rather than a single corporation.
IE8 is a huge leap forward from IE7 and older in terms of standards compliance. Don't believe me? Try Acid2 on them. IE8 gets it right, while 7 is not even close. That means that IE's rendering is now much, much closer to the other browsers', to the point where it's no longer necessary to write separate code solely for it, so, while it's still some way behind the competition, at least now it's playing in the same league now.
Welp, Internet Explorer 8 doesn't render my very simple website correctly. Better than IE7? I don't think so. It seems to pass 6 tests and 1/2 dozen other tests, for a total of 11 tests. No wait, that can't be right.... Hmmm. Microsoft math :)
This is what I found.... IE7 can't render my simple website the same as any other bleeding-edge browser. IE8 corrects some of the things IE7 breaks, and throws in a few extra wrinkles, effectively negating any benefit.
I found IE8 rendered pages a tad faster, but not fast enough to warrant the additional security headaches Microsoft software is known for.
I run Firefox v3.1 Beta 3 (soon to be re-versioned Firefox v3.5):
- With Tracemonkey javascript engine enabled, javascript runs fast enough to be less objectionable.
- Web pages that matter to me layout correctly.
- Not that the ACID3 test is gospel, but Beta 3 hits 93/100, and the animation is smoother than v3.07, but still not there. It fails on one of the colored squares. Even if it hits 100/100, it needs more work.
- I'm yet to get any malware infestation. Touch wood.
Microsoft is "trying" to become standards compliant, but not "honestly trying". We're not really seeing the leaps and bounds promised, as usual. Is IE8 better than IE7? Perhaps. Faster? Yes! Safer? That's yet to be seen. The savior of the web? Far from it. Free? Not free enough. Easy add-on development? Nope! Can open sourcers audit the sourcecode?
Even if Microsoft got IE8 right, passed ACID3 100/100 and performed the animation smoothly, never let malware get a foothold, never required another security update, and came with a coupon for free Windows 7 Pentultimate, I wouldn't switch.
Attention Microsoft fanboys and fangirls - good luck! You'll need it.
Time to give my PC an IE Enema, clean out all the crud and toxins.
Ho hum, IE8 is out; nice faux effort on standards support. Let's see if IE9 hits 100 on Acid3 when their upgrade cycle deems it...hopefully not 5 yrs like from IE6 or even 18 months like IE7.
Note that (my quite stable) Opera v10a is showing a cool 100%; thank you very much. ;)
And for those that don't seem to understand what Acid3 is (and can't be bothered to search for it before posting), it's a difficult web standards test by a web standards group designed to stretch browser makers to homogenize web app development as it relates to cross-browser support...as opposed to the mud soup we have now trying to make old versions of IE display web sites properly.
Opera has been hard-charging on this (even if no one else cared to mention it), and now Apple is joining also, to make it easier on developers to support Opera Mini/Mobile, Mobile Safari and their desktop equivalents...with minimal fuss.
You have to give them points though... Since the build that went into Windows 7 beta, they've gone from getting 12/100 to 20/100. Which is a pretty huge improvement for a beta stage of a cycle.
Now on the other hand, that does show some of the problems with the way MS test things... It should function pretty well by beta time, and only minor changes should be needed after that.
Yesterday I tried that nice Mr Gates new browser IE8.
The EULA seemed to say that I could do away with much of MSN gizmo's, though further
reading said that nothing would proceed witout it all. So, Accept or Disagree...I Accepted.
Down came all the MSN junk in the universe.
After wrestling with it for 5 hours and phoning a friend
I deleted every thing I could find relating to IE8.
Friend suggested that I try FireFox.
Now I have never strayed away from the paths of MS righteousness..a big jump of fear for me.
Well what do you know ? It all worked well; no forks of lightening or pestilence arrived.
Everything on the web now arrives with a such a speed increase over MS.
So far I am a happy bunny...waiting for Easter.
I simply cannot upgrade IE6 on my PC - I have tried - using Windows update, downloading IE7, physically trying to remove it and nothing works! This is why there are still a high percentage of users. Microsoft should release something that forces an upgrade to at least IE7 then poor developers like me wouldnt have to worry about it so much.
"Now the Surfin Safari blog has announced that the team behind Webkit considers that they have passed the test in every aspect."
From the Acid 3 test site. So they are saying somebody out there passes it.
On this one, MS sort of reminds me of public schools in Washington DC: Despite a 4 fold improvement over past performances, they still get a failing miserably grade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_(web_browser)#Standards_support
The released version of Opera also scores the highest of the released browsers, and Opera 10 is 100/100 (as are Webkit nightly based browsers).
In short, if you want standards compliance, Opera is where you need to be heading to choose your browser...
I've just finished coding a site for a client and can tell you that IE8 is still broken.
I have a simple containing DIV with an internal DIV floated right. The internal DIV has width, padding and margin set and a background image that is set top and right. All browsers display this image in an identical place, except IE. Each version puts it somewhere a little different. IE8 is the best of the MS browsers, but it's still out by several pixels, and it needs to align perfectly for the site design to look right.
So it seems even the basics aren't right in IE8. Surely a box with a width, padding and margin should always be the same total width? I'm not sure if it's the background image that's not in the right place in IE8 or the box model that's screwed, but somethings broken.
My development process normally goes like this. Code the site. Check browsers. Firefox - Check, Safari - Check, Opera - Check, Lynx - Check (should never be a problem with good semantic markup), Screen readers - Check, IE6 - BROKEN, IE7 - BROKEN (in a different way). Now you can add IE8 - BROKEN (in another different way).
The site I've just finished has one CSS for all browsers but MS ones, then three conditional statements. If IE6, If IE7 and If IE8. So now I have to maintain 4(!) different code bases! Thanks MS, keep up the good work.
"I am waiting to hear from those that think that an Internet Explorer dominated Internet is to the benefit of mankind rather than a single corporation."
Well personally I have used Internet Explorer *cha-ching* for years and I love it. In fact I think IE6 *cha-ching* IE7 *cha-ching* and IE8 *cha-ching* are the best things ever. It is stable and a joy *cha-ching* to use. I have never had it shit the bed on me and never gotten a virus *cha-ching* from using it. In fact FF, Opera and Safari all pale in comparison *cha-ching* to the glory that is IE *cha-ching*. I always tell everyone I know how great IE is *cha-ching*. I think you all should stop knocking the glory that is IE *cha-ching* and try it.
/accepts nice compensation check for touting the goodness that is IE.
:) There you go hope your happy
You know, it's funny. Every time there is a debate over some Microsoft release all of the usual termites crawl out of the woodwork to extol the virtues of the omnipotent fox and/or and his penguin friend...
So far, the comments to this article have been quite amusing (well, some made me laugh anyway!). OK, so there are a few well balanced commentators, for example, Ed in '@Daniel - On the nature of the Acid tests', but for the most part it's the usual evangelical tune that's played at the termite disco every Friday night... 'Firefox will save your soul! IE(n) is the path of the Devil!'. Yada, yada.. *Yawn* To use the beloved Reg terminology, I say to you, 'Tw*tdanglers!' :)
I'll be the first to admit, Microsoft have made a mess of IE from the very beginning (I have had the misfortune of having had to code for IE since the release of IE3), but with the release of IE8 Microsoft have, at the very least, demonstrated that the black art of necromancy may not in fact be total hokum. If they have achieved their stated goal, however belatedly, fair play. kudos to them!
Personally, do i give a flying fig if IE8 'passes' or 'fails' Acid3? Nope. It's a non-argument. Acid3 was, to the best of my knowledge, never a stated goal of the IE team, nor should it have been. Do I care if IE8 does not support CSS3 and HTML5? Nope. Nor should I. I have code to standards, not to drafts. What I would like to see is complete support for CSS2.1 first. As Ed has pointed out above, no major browser is 100% compliant with CSS 2.1 yet. Let's finish with 2.1 before we start throwing mud about lack of support for draft standards eh people?
Whether you and I like it or not we, as developers, have to contend with IE. It's easy to sit here and knock the efforts of the IE team. It takes no degree of intelligence or technical expertise to lambast the efforts of others. As I have already said, if the IE team have achieved their stated goal and moved IE forward, however belatedly, fair play to them!
I get the feeling that the author of the original article wore an evil smile whilst writing :)
Finally, I would like to congratulate certain posters on demonstrating their obvious technical prowess with their abstractions of the words sh*t, w*nkers and f*ucked. That's what I like to see... A rational, adult and technical debate. :)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
