It's a mess
And here's a typical post from a.n.other poor soul trying to code for proprietary black box code typical of MS et al:
Microsoft has been working on a new scheme to strip away some of the legacy bloat that has burdened its Internet Explorer web browser, sources claimed. According to the prolific Redmond rumormongers at Neowin, the software giant has forked the code for IE's Trident rendering engine into a new, leaner version that should …
And here's a typical post from a.n.other poor soul trying to code for proprietary black box code typical of MS et al:
More likely someone doing the typical mediocre developer rubbish of deciding they're so clever that they can learn a framework not by reading the documentation but just by poking around, and then being surprised when all the things that they figured out empirically and all the code that seemed alright when they ran it a few times fails under a different version of the framework because they're relying on a whole bunch of things that were never API guarantees — many of which the documentation probably explicitly offers the correct approach for. But, you know, developers are too clever to need to read things, right?
If anybody here has never worked with such a person then you have my envy.
It quite possibly isn't Microsoft's fault, given that the OP's link's contents are all about bugs caused by iOS8 changes breaking the dev's app. Nowhere were MS or IE mentioned.
Look, I dislike MS as much as the next guy, but at least try to understand what you are posting about. Goes for the OP too, his link had nothing to do with IE 12.
@ThomH - I agree with you dissing ditzy devs, and the reasons for it, but this could very well have been a crossword puzzle aficionado who's new to coding.
From IE 6 up to IE 11, it's all been the same thing again and again, along multiple decades !
Only some UI changes, some ActiveX deactivation (late), but that's all, same code, same patches over and over again, same bloody virus nest ...
It's too late, MS, for a rewrite you've been promising for too long, now, move along, mates, you're now history to Web browsing ...
Security awareness were promised decades ago, again, move along, this didn't happen.
>Even more interesting if they made it available for Linux.
No, no it wouldn't. Linux users are suspicious of anything which comes out of Redmond. If you are trying to use an two-prong MS+Open Source approach, you should only be doing it for a migration, with a fixed end time. MS will always try to push you towards Windows and degrade other platforms. Remember IE for Solaris?
The more standards based a browser is, the less important it becomes in a field of other standard-based browsers. The browser is only important when you start adding extensions. Those may be proprietary (for lock-in) or to gain a foot hold on another platform and devalue other software on that platform (webrtc vs skype).
I said 'interesting', not 'desirable' :)
Yep, I take the point that you can't trust MS not to try to screw with the Linux experience and to lure people away.
Though given a choice between 'Free' and 'Costly with impossible to understand licensing terms', I don't think they'd be too successful at luring Linux users away.
Anonymous Coward has inferiority complex about Linux...and in other irrelevant news M$ has release a browser that no-one will *choose* to use, but will have it strung around their neck like the albatross choc-ice it is....
Some will not use it....
1) because it will be a donkey (and not a penguin).
2) because it will not run on their OS.
3) because they don't trust browsers that aren't open source.
There you are, three more reasons I'm glad to be running Linux...
Linux desktop market share 1-1.5% Why would they bother to expend the time and effort coding for a very small minority OS?
Right. What Microsoft should do is release it for Android, since it will likely overtake desktop OSes of all sorts for web browsing in the near future. Fortunately for your argument, Android has no relationship whatsoever to Linux.
(I don't do much web browsing on my phone, but statistics suggest that more and more people do.)
" A few more incidents as big as Sony and they will find money to replace insecure in-house legacy web garbage."
The persistent failures to secure customer data suggest otherwise. TJX was hacked in 2007, Sony PSN in 2011, Target was hacked in 2013, Neiman Marcus the same, and Home Deport still got hit in 2014, along with plenty of others.
Now cast your mind (or rather web browser) back to 2010, and search for the Verizon 2010 Data Breach Investigations Report. Have a scan of it. A good piece of work, as relevant today as it was then.
So corporates have the answers on a plate (and have had for years). They have seen the wolves tear into other members of their pack. They've seen the financial pain and embarrassment caused. But they choose to do nothing. Hacks will continue, lazy corporates will simply strike cheap deals with the credit record agencies as a "solution" for hacked customers, and go back to doing what they've always done, of preferring to put money into marketing rather than IT infrastructure.
You can pass all the laws you want and nothing will change until independent IT audit is a legal requirement, requires the auditor to be changed every two years and legally bans IT auditors from disclaiming responsibility for any failings that they fail to identify but that subsequently come to light.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Have a downvote in response, since you're evidently not clever enough to see that my comment on a legal need for IT audit isn't statist, simply a practical response to the persistent failure of corporates to address IT security. Moreover, if you've read any of my other posts you'd see that I'm avowedly opposed to most forms of government interventions, and that is why I proposed IT audit rather than prescriptive legal forms of compliance or retribution.
But rather than trade insults, let's hear your ideas for preventing the continuing data breaches at major corporations? The 250 million user records in the handful of major examples I listed (ie excluding the breaches not known or not publicly disclosed) show that companies concerned could have learned from experience and good practice, but have chosen not to. If they aren't going to fix the problem, and government won't act, is your solution to do nothing, or to mumble some cobblers about "market solutions"?
What has this got to do with Sony Pictures?
Sony's problems were down to two factors, neither of which had anything to do with corporate IT security.
1/ They had an idiot CEO that preferred personal convenience over security, giving his passwords out over email. (show me an IT system that can prevent this...)
2/ A disgruntled ex-employee in IT kicked off the ball rolling, putting the keys the city on Pastebin for anyone to take advantage of (this guy/gal is going to be eating prison food for a VERY long time)
Here is a very interesting article, on how none of it would have happened if they used Google For Buisness... Food for thought indeed and some very compelling arguments for simply ditching corporate email and office.
"1/ They had an idiot CEO that preferred personal convenience over security, giving his passwords out over email. (show me an IT system that can prevent this...)"
Sure, that would be any system which uses two factor authentication (with one-time tokens). i.e. One where simply having the passwords and keys isn't enough to give you access to any of the systems.
If you read the link I posted alongside, you will see it talks about enforced 2 factor auth with the cloud storage, and because it's all in the cloud, there are no locally stored emails to scrape for data.
I was referring to preventing idiots writing info into emails and sending them, which are then stored somewhere else, and then open to attack.
Your comments just further enforce what this guy is saying. To be WAY more secure than 99% of all non government companies are, at a fraction of the cost, Google Docs for business with enforced 2 factor auth is clearly the way forward.
Problem is, too many people working in IT are either scared of the cloud (idiots should be flipping burgers), or have a vested interest in trying (and failing) to do a better security job themselves (in which case, they need to personally accountable when it all goes wrong).
So let me see, I'm not American, but if I put all my data in the cloud on Googles servers, its in the US jurisdiction and I don't have any say in where my data is stored and in fact, who has access to it. If Google and I have a disagreement, I could lose access to my data. That would mean I've lost total control of any data stored in Googles cloud services and in fact have allowed the US government access to my data without my knowledge as all they have to do is apply to a US Court to get a hold of my data. Thats a really clever move and its perhaps you who should be flipping burgers as you obviously haven't got a clue.
Never mind IE8, I've recently been working on a large UK finance company's Intranet - that had to support IE6 because some offices were still running Windows XP/IE6!
It hadn't gotten any better since I last had to ('pixel perfect' rather than 'functional and usable') code for it...about 5 years ago.
So Windows 10 will come with two separate versions of the same web browser? Add this to the already disjointed mix of different icon and theming styles and the whole OS is beginning to look incredibly amateur. And yes, I've spent plenty of time with the Windows 10 technical preview so I say this out of my own experience.
Microsoft have really lost their way since Windows 7. While in the last few years most Linux distros have become more polished and visually consistent, Windows has been heading in the other direction with 8 and 10. I really can't figure out how Microsoft can justify the retail cost of their OS these days given what alternatives are now available.
What's worse is that it's sad that most folks buying retail computers get no choice on the matter (except for Apple). Slowdown over time, eventual crashing and then complete hardware replacement as a result just seems to be accepted by most folks I talk to. As a result I try to steer them towards tablets and Chromebooks unless they have a use case that actually requires a general purpose machine.
Microsoft have really lost their way since Windows 7. While in the last few years most Linux distros have become more polished and visually consistent
I'm a long time Windows user, and I used to bum Microsoft. I installed Linux mint a few months ago, just to see what all the fuss was about. I can now see why the Linux fans here are so keen and smug.
the number of random windows 8 systems that i have been dealing with lately that have randomly trashed themselves is bit higher for me at the moment (probably user fault for blindly installing 15-30 unwanted softwares on there pc and one of them makes a change that makes the system unbootable)
only good thing about windows 8 is only takes 5 minutes to use the reset windows back to when it was first installed (be nice if there was a simple automatic weekly backup like windows 7 had as that makes system image of the system as well)
i been finding the Refresh option bit unreliable as takes to long to do it and i still have to mess around to Fix broken things that break after using refresh option, the first one was UAC boxes Not working (as in not popping up, fix for that was make new admin account delete borken account re add the account)
the newest one is when installing software the installer starts as Normal app will fail to unpack setup files (says it does not have access to Temp folder) unless its run as admin or it asks for admin right from the start (most installers now ask midway for admin), i got to the point with windows 8 now where not going to use refresh any more as its faster to just backup the data and use the reset option (but thats really the poor mans low intelligence Tech way to fix it as i like to know what caused the issue in the first place, at least with windows 7 you can norm fix it in windows 8 once Metro start screen brakes you lose access to over half of the parts of the OS you can norm access)
They've needed to split (not merely fork the code) for years - a Trident based intranet browser and another (webkit?) one for browsing the web would be more sensible - for maintaining standards compliance *and* having a proving ground for new functionality and MS specific functionality.
Hopefully they're beginning to realise there is more than one audience they need to cater to.
see it being used once.
To download firefox or chrome onto the machine
Make it run web standards, make it available for Windows, Macs, and Linux and you may 'just' have a product people may want to use.
Sadly, it will have the m$ tainted legacy still and no one will use it unless forced to at gunpoint
Yes, MS has displayed its corporate backside to consumers on multiple occasions, but if you weeded out all products solely based on the way the producing company acted, you would be stuck building all your own kit, writing all your own code, heck growing all of your own food, either by yourself or with others who feel the same way. My advice is to get over it, at least in cases that do not involve major crimes, and focus on the product itself. Yes, open source software is arguably a good route to follow, but it is not the only viable way. I don't know too many business models that are strictly open source, especially for larger entities and especially in regards to hardware.
I have run into issues with both Chrome and Firefox, so I would not be too quick to tout their virtues compared to IE. Professionally, my choices are proscribed by my employer, so I use what is available in my environment. Personally, I use a variety of browsers as I like to check how my website (such as it is) looks on each, but tend to gravitate to Opera. Make of that what you will.
The trouble is with microsoft is that for a long time is was a de-facto monolopy OS
It did'nt matter the m$ product was shit, you still had to use it as thats all there was.
The only reason M$ are making IE to web standards is because Firefox and Chrome have snatched 50% of the market and unless M$ make IE compatible, it will lose even more market share leading people to think "If IE is so crap, why exactly are we using a M$ operating system and M$ office?"
And yes I do know about the problems other software has, the weekly updates to FF (with illogical numberings)
But when I can do a fedora 14 install from the DVD on a laptop, and it finds the wireless connection, the right drivers for everything, even manages to load up the HP printer scanner/drivers and run the scanning /printing functions over the network (win 7 could only manage printing ) you think.. why are we using a m$ product apart from the obvious legacy of the years of the monolopy
And my spelling sucks :)
The trouble is with microsoft is that for a long time is was a de-facto monolopy OS
It did'nt matter the m$ product was shit, you still had to use it as thats all there was.
And of course Linux changed all that. It was so wonderful and suited everyone so well that people flocked to it in their droves. Last I heard its meteoric rise on the desktop had exceeded 1%. Clearly punters have spoken.
It's a real shame that more people don't use Linux on the desktop. It can do relatively well.
Where I am working there is a strongly established group of Linux desktop users, but one gets the feeling that the desktop support groups that would rather they did not exist.
For example, they used to have Evolution set up to talk to the Exchange server, but they did not patch it or install later versions. The result is that rather than the problems that existed being fixed, users were left with an out of date version that crashed relatively frequently, eventually alienating some of the users.
To replace it, they installed a thin client farm using Citrix, expecting the Linux users to migrate to using Outlook via Citrix.
When a core set of users would not migrate, they then started trying to stop users using Evolution by first fiddling with the permissions, and then by removing some of the critical libraries.
Similarly, it used to be that Open Office was the default application used for documents, but now it is being changed so that it's Office in a Citrix session. Even PDF files now open by default in Adobe reader in Citrix, even though Evince is a perfectly capable PDF reader.
To make matters worse, the systems are locked down in such a way that even Firefox is difficult to configure differently than the default. It's almost as if they are trying to make Linux as unpleasant to use as possible (please note that I use Linux elsewhere, so am quite aware of how it can work well).
I sometime wonder whether there is some Microsoft back-handers going on to someone in the management team to sour the Linux experience, but I have no proof.
Another Anonymous shill....did the cheque arrive from Seattle early?
Linux isn't perfect. Neither is OSX, Solaris, BSD etc....Unixes. Including Android I guess.
But the point is M$ had a monopoly position that like all corporate monopolies, abused it to try and prevent the competitors rise. This created essentially an industry of "defacto technology" that was not selected because it was the best, but because it was either a) What M$ developed b) what could be used to screw customers. There is no c).
All companies do this. I don't blame M$ for doing it as they are like all psychopaths - it is what they do. But computing is too important to humanity to be held back by essentially the lowest common denominator to generate "uncorrelated with merit" corporate profit. Our political systems reward corrupt disregard for equality, and computing implements it fastest.
If you like using M$ products, then I am happy for you. If you don't like the look of Linux (or any other OS), that's fine too.
But don't think that the lack of desktop adoption of linux is unconnected to the decades of ongoing abuse to the "Free market". M$ products get used not because they are best, but because the game is rigged so that hardware is designed from inception to be run with M$. And they have not been shy in using "leverage" to threaten anyone who would install another OS on hardware. Or those crappy FAT patents, taking a cut of every android device.
Intel is guilty too. We all know that when AMD wasn't being pathologically uncompetitive in the desktop processor market, intel prices dropped.
This doesn't mean either company doesn't have the ability to make a fantastic product. Intel has amazing engineering (I have some of those Xeon Phi's - amazing). The Xbox controller is inspired.
But being dominant means they don't HAVE to be innovative to make huge profits.
"Sadly, it will have the m$ tainted legacy still and no one will use it unless forced to at gunpoint"
If only that were so. But many people will use it other than at gunpoint - eg the hundreds of millions of unlucky corporate users being force-fed by their IT colleagues. And the big chunk of all home users who choose not to (or don't know how or why to) install non-IE solutions. Worth bearing in mind that the browser ballot screen has now disappeared from new WIndows installs in Europe, so that's a market of 500m people that won't have all new machines actively offering alternatives.
The market share for browsers varies widely depending on whose numbers you believe, their definitions of the market and their method. As far as I can see IE probably still has a majority share of browsing, and will continue to do so in the PC market, even though it deserves nothing more than an unmarked shallow grave.
It's a nice idea, splitting the legacy code off into it's own IE (Can see it working similar to how Standard/Metro IE Did in Windows 8), but for the love of Xenu, don't follow Chrome and Firefox in the UI Department.
Yes, they're great for full screen web browsing, but I like the fact IE has a functioning menu bar by default, and doesn't attempt to hide every option and menu somewhere off the beaten track.
When did developers begin this pathological hatred of menu bars?
"I like the fact IE has a functioning menu bar by default..."
You must be using an old version then. The version I am forced to use by corporate only has a menu bar if you find the option to enble it (and you need the menu bar to find the option).
However I have found no way to get the tabs to be part of the actual page that they are a tab of. I mean when you look at a Rollerdex, the page has your contacts and the tab is part of thst page and has the letter at the top. It doesn't have the page and then 3 lines of menu bars and then the tabs floating on top. MS response? " You want the tab bar of tabs conected to the pages that they are tabs of? Well FK you"
If it makes using Outlook Web access and share point less painful in IE then I'll be happy. I use chrome or Firefox to access OWA and the company's share point as IE 11 is so flaky with it.
I can only assume the engineers who developed OWA and share point were as fed up with IE being crap as the rest of us and coded it for decent browsers.
This would be great if it was available for Windows Vista, because they never upgraded the browser for that and it is a POS. If they are going to do such a bad job of updating their software, they may as well give up and leave it to Mozilla.
Sorry, this version of windows is not compatible with this version of Internet Explorer. And that is okay!
My problem with Internet Explorer is that an update, any update, to it requires a restart of your computer. There is no good reason to weld a browser that tight to an operating system. Windows 10 needs to fix that, making sure that IE is a separate program and not part of the OS. You should be able to get any version of IE you want, even if you are running Windows XP or Vista.
It is this tight welding of IE to the OS that makes all versions of IE such security black holes. Visit an infected webpage and BAM! your PC is infected with malware or a bot! IE and Windows Explorer share the same code and both are deeply rooted in the OS which is why any IE update requires a reboot. It's better that MS move away from this model by dropping IE completely and using only the new browser (codenamed "Spartan") IF the browser is just an application and not bound to the OS like a tumor.
I would rather use another browser when using Windows (and preferably another OS), but hopefully this will help reduce the number of infected, botted Windows machines available for attacks on the internet itself. Getting rid of IE, and technologies that depend on it, can't come soon enough!
.. that MS went top great lengths to claim that IE was integrated into windows and could not be removed. Despite this being largely untrue, they claimed it so, and kept on tightening the integration.
They had to you see, as it was a fundamental aspect of their defence in the monopoly case, their defence against what they did to Netscape.
May MS and its officers rot in hell for all eternity - those of us old enough will not forget.
Tell the banks.
I am still waiting nervously, having finally moved my employer from using IE 7, on the decision to remove NPAPI in Google Chrome.
Pretty much, the banks only care about the things that they can get working, and who cares about security? So it's ancient IE versions, or Firefox (because we have to) or Netscape (really, it lists it in their compatibility list) and ignore everything else.
And we're not talking just a bank account. We're talking full smartcard access requiring multiple PINs and multiple people to sign off on millions of pounds of money moving around each year, and doing so every single month. And we have to do it in IE 6 because that's all the bank will support, and I have to add them to the Trusted Zone, import certificates into all the machines, install smartcard reader software that hasn't been updated in years on each one, and turn off this option and that option and unblock vast swatches of their domains for it to work.
Get the banks onto something recent, and ENFORCE THAT, and I can finally ditch IE.
I love using Chrome, and was very happy when our desktop IT team decided to support it alongside IE8. However, it seems to be turning into a right old memory hog! I'm running Chrome now with this tab, a gmail tab and hangouts running. It has 9 chrome.exe processes running and is consuming about 700MB of RAM! Think Google could do with some re-engineering too.
I'd still rather poke myself in the eye than load IE though.
When chroms came out I switched from firefox to chrome to get the huge speed improvements. I have recently converted back to firefox in order to take advantages of the superior speed and performance of firefox... i kid you not, chrome got to the point where a clean install you'd type "google.com" and press enter and it would freeze, start hammering the hard drive for 5 seconds, then start resolving the domain... yes START resolving the domain, as in the very first thing that it needs to do and the thing it should have started doing before you've even released the enter key.
At university the profile directory is stored on a slow file server... meaning chrome basically doesn't work at all there. It used to when they first installed it, but it has updated itself since then.
They went from being the fastest to being totally unusable. And they didn't add a single useful feature in the process, just fucked around with things for the sake of it.
The logical fix for that is for everyone who benchmarks (or otherwise reviews) "Internet Explorer" to measure the performance of the highest version that runs on the oldest widely-used version of Windows (which at the moment is Win7) and quote that figure, instead of the (presumably better) figure for Microsoft's preferred version.
It seems perfectly fair to me. If Firefox and Chrome actually run on the most widely used Windows version and IE12 doesn't, IE12's score is zero for anyone who isn't prepared to fork out for the OS upgrade.
It is highly improbable that new Internet Explorer 12 (IE) can compete strongly with Chrome, or even Firefox browsers since both these 2 latter browsers are available for and run on a multidude (maybe ALL) of Desktop and Mobile devices, while IE is restricted to Windows based devices only - and to a miniscule mobile percentage - less than 4%, and losing Desktop adoption at rapid pace.
Was article written by a Microsoft shill?
I use Firefox mostly out of habit--not because I've carefully evaluated all possibilities and chosen the one that's perfect for me. I've been with it since the Netscape Navigator days.
I install it on all my devices. Because I can. And because it gives me a consistent experience no matter what I'm using.
You just can't mix and match devices with IE (not since, I think, IE5).
For me, that's the only real barrier. It's easier to be as lazy as I want to be when I've got the same browser everywhere.
sour grapes from people who never had anything to do with the development of IE.
Whaaa, your choice of browser never could and still can't compete with it so all you do is cry about it.
If you people spent one iota of the time you spend complaining about MS/IE on creating new and different software............
Not to mention that many of you got PAID good bucks to work with MS software. Not their fault you didn't charge enough for your services.
Whiners, the lot of you!
And you sir are one of these eurocratic idiots that are perpetuating the lies of the 90's "browser wars" still trying to keep crap like Opera and Netscape alive. I imagine you have an AOL account but with an equally anonymous name of "Keef" you likely too young to know any history OR understand it.
Chrome and Firefox both are memory hogs, worse than IE. IE 11 is WAY better than the IE6 crap but you wouldn't know because your head is stuck in the sand. Google Chrome is now the browser AND an OS JUST like the deep integration of IE with the MS/OS that you fools still keep railing about when the idea of merging the two was actually a good idea by Microsoft both strategically and functionally.
You people consistently complain about ANY American companys "monopoly" (superiority) and yet you have no real alternative for the desktop PC OS and don't mention the 1% of Linux users out there as they are statistically insignificant. Linux is ridiculously complicated for the average user and Ubuntu is especially privacy invasive. Mint is just a drop in the bucket comparatively
And lastly, you and your governments do not have any right to dictate policy or regulate a company that is not based in the hellhole of the EU. Only their EU based subsidiaries need comply.
I won't let that slow you down, keep wasting your time.
This post has been deleted by its author
When I read new like this I always think that in typical Microsoft fashion Internet Explorer is just not a mere browser, but an integral part of windows (Remember the antitrust trial?)
IE for the windows fan-boys out there is (among other things and at a glance): The pop3 libraries Outlook uses for connecting to pop3 servers, it is the OS HTML, XHTML, & CSS rendering engine for lots of dialogs in the system (probably less so in 8 & 8.1 but still in use), it is also used to render the .chm files (another good idea ditched by MS just because they can, and because it was good), it forms the basis of various system's services HTTP capabilities, and it is also used as part of many 3rd party APIs for lots of other things I forgot.
In light of this "integral" behaviour what MS will do is:
1) Create another bare browser with no options and barely any functionality out of "pinch to zoom" (It seems to be the norm these days anyway)
2) Ship it installed alongside a (not-so) hidden copy of the old IE, (conforms to what they always do add layer after layer of dried old crusts to the OS), if they do not, things will break, and fan-boys will complain.
3) Do lots of marketing and PR, and even claim some open source pedigree to whitewash their image.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021