4 ms·

There is a third major independent option: Microsoft Edge. I assume (like me) a lot web of developers aren’t using Windows, but we can at least help people out

There is a third major independent option: Microsoft Edge. I assume (like me) a lot web of developers aren’t using Windows, but we can at least help people out by making sure our applications work fine on those browsers. Since IE 9, with a polyfill, most things just work unless you need some very recent HTML5 APIs. Microsoft provides free VMs for testing different browsers here: https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/tools/vms/ https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/tools/v...

gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago
If only ms would just make their software available cross platform.
- sverhagen 9y ago
  Wasn't it just released for Android and iOS? (I get that that might not be what you meant...)
  - kitsunesoba 9y ago
    The iOS version is a WebKit wrapper by necessity (Apple mandates that all alternative browsers use the system-bundled WebKit for user experience reasons), and while it’s possible they’ve ported Edge’s engine to Android I’d bet that Edge for Android either wraps WebKit or Blink/Chromium. The primary value proposition for Edge on mobile is syncing of tabs/bookmarks/history/etc, not its engine.
    - erikbye 9y ago
      > The iOS version is a WebKit wrapper by necessity (Apple mandates that all alternative browsers use the system-bundled WebKit for user experience reasons) Which is why viewport values like maximum-scale, minimum-scale, and user-scalable do not work on iOS10+, no matter the browser.
    - Sylos 9y ago
      Yes, the Android-version is also just a Blink wrapper. It's almost impossible for Microsoft to port Trident/EdgeHTML to other operating systems, because it's so deeply integrated into Windows.
      - chungy 9y ago
        Way back when, there were versions of IE 4, 5, and 6 for non-Windows OSes such as HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, and Mac OS (Classic and X both). It is not unreasonable that they could do it again.
        gsnedders 9y ago
        Note those releases were based on an entirely different codebase to the Windows version of IE.
        thristian 9y ago
        Internet Explorer for Mac was a separate codebase from the Windows version. The Unix workstation versions (HP-UX, AIX, etc.) were built with a commercial equivalent to Winelib: a library that implemented Win32 APIs on top of Unix and X11. I have no idea how they managed to build the IE code on a compiler that wasn't MSVC.
        gardnr 9y ago
        When you say "entirely different" you mean they didn't even share the same rendering engine?
        gsnedders 9y ago
        The sibling suggests that non-Mac ports shared the Trident rendering engine with IE/Win. IE/Mac used Tasman, which was totally different (and was the first implementation of many CSS 3 features); as far as I'm aware there was no code shared at all between IE/Win and IE/Mac.
        dtech 9y ago
    - techsupporter 9y ago
      > (Apple mandates that all alternative browsers use the system-bundled WebKit for user experience reasons) So far, this is the only thing that really drives me bonkers about iOS and has for a long time. I'd love to be able to use an actual third-party browser with a third-party rendering engine, even if it meant having to install a particular signing certificate or some such. Doubly so for using browser-specific extensions. Who knows, maybe iOS 15? (While I'm wishing for ponies, the ability to change OS-level default applications would be nice.)
      - saagarjha 9y ago
        Besides the obvious benefits to Apple, I believe the reason behind this is because allowing JIT execution would open up a security risk.
        rahkiin 9y ago
        Yes, because they would need to allow write-executable memory pages. Disallowing those closes the risk of executing non-verified code.
      - captainmuon 9y ago
        I wish someone would just port Firefox mobile to iOS. You don't have to put it on the app store (which is impossible). Just zip up the xcode project, let me swap in my developer key, and run it on my phone. The protections against JIT and so on are enforced by policy, not by technology. I understand it would be a lot of effort for little gain. But if more developers would offer their stuff as self-signable "xcode projects" (maybe even just a .dylib and some wrapper source), it would be really cool.
        moz23 9y ago
        Gecko already runs on iOS, I just don't know what the exact build process is. The trouble is, a browser is much more than an engine, and why would people sink effort into an unreleasable product.
    - linopolus 9y ago
      > Apple mandates that all alternative browsers use the system-bundled WebKit for user experience reasons Not entirely true: Every browser developer is free to use whatever engine they like on iOS. Mozilla could use Gecko, Google could use Blink. They just don’t do it, because what’s not allowed is JITs (because security), thus 3rd-party JS-engines would always be slow. So the reason everybody uses WebKit on iOS is not that they are forbidden own engines, but only JITs, so Apples is faster.
      - yorwba 9y ago
        Would it be possible to use WebKit for JavaScript execution, but still do rendering in a different engine?
        icebraining 9y ago
        I don't think you could plug directly into the JS engine to allow it to interact with your DOM.
      - steveklabnik 9y ago
        I believe you're incorrect. First of all: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript. The JIT thing was true, but a few years back, they lifted this restriction, see "4.7 HTML5 Games, Bots, etc." for its current incarnation which also says "your app must use WebKit and JavaScript Core to run third party software".
    - kyriakos 9y ago
      Android version uses Webkit as well
manigandham 9y ago
Except Edge doesnt even support basic things like Server-Sent Events: https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/platform/status/serversenteventseventsource/ https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/platfor... They also haven't actually replaced IE11 which still has plenty of usage out in the wild. MS had a good start but they continue to stumble in their efforts today. Firefox has done much better with 1/1000th of the resources which should say something.
- skrebbel 9y ago
  To be fair, SSE never got much adoption to begin with. Their web socket support is top notch.
  - manigandham 9y ago
    Because Edge and IE11 exist, that's why. It's a fantastic standard that would make things much easier for many real-time apps. Even the dev tools in Edge are subpar compared to Chrome and Firefox.
    - skrebbel 9y ago
      I'm not convinced. There's not-terribly-bad polyfills for SSE that go down to IE8 or so. Admittedly they don't support all details of SSE but they support a good chunk. I've used SSE pretty extensively in a number of projects and I can't say IE/Edge is why I stopped using it. It's just.. there's better options out there :-)
sjellis 9y ago
The situation with Microsoft Edge is strange. Not only is Microsoft Edge not available for older versions of Windows, it is not supported on Windows 10 IoT Enterprise, Windows 10 LTSB, or, most importantly, Windows Server editions. Virtual desktop hosting (VDI/terminal servers) has to be based on Windows Server (licensing requirement). This means that Edge can't actually be the only supported Microsoft browser for Windows: if you do corporate work, you still have deal with Internet Explorer 11.
- yipbun 9y ago
  This is pure speculation. Maybe they're doing something shady with edge that would get them in more trouble(or found out) if they put in enterprise systems, but they see the regular consumer market as easy targets who can't defend themselves. That might explain why they're pushing edge so hard.
  - extra88 9y ago
    IoT Enterprise and LTSB are for embedded systems, they lack many of desktop applications and features (like Cortana) found in "regular" Windows. Windows 10 Enterprise is the desktop version, it has everything in Pro, and then some. There's nothing "shady" about Edge. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsforbusiness/compare https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsforbusiness/compare
    - ams6110 9y ago
      > IoT Enterprise and LTSB are for embedded systems, they lack many of desktop applications and features (like Cortana) found in "regular" Windows. I view that as an advantage. That's why I use LTSB whenever I set up a Windows desktop for anyone at work.
  - sjellis 9y ago
    To be honest, I think that it hurts Microsoft more than anyone else. It means that corporate desktops using VDI, and presumably Web kiosks, now have to use a third-party browser. In some cases, Edge literally can't be an organization-wide standard, and Internet Explorer is now frozen, so people will have to move away from it over time. For example, every VDI Windows desktop provided by AWS Workspaces is actually pre-loaded with Firefox.

gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago

If only ms would just make their software available cross platform.

sverhagen 9y ago
Wasn't it just released for Android and iOS? (I get that that might not be what you meant...)
- kitsunesoba 9y ago
  The iOS version is a WebKit wrapper by necessity (Apple mandates that all alternative browsers use the system-bundled WebKit for user experience reasons), and while it’s possible they’ve ported Edge’s engine to Android I’d bet that Edge for Android either wraps WebKit or Blink/Chromium. The primary value proposition for Edge on mobile is syncing of tabs/bookmarks/history/etc, not its engine.
  - erikbye 9y ago
    > The iOS version is a WebKit wrapper by necessity (Apple mandates that all alternative browsers use the system-bundled WebKit for user experience reasons) Which is why viewport values like maximum-scale, minimum-scale, and user-scalable do not work on iOS10+, no matter the browser.
  - Sylos 9y ago
    Yes, the Android-version is also just a Blink wrapper. It's almost impossible for Microsoft to port Trident/EdgeHTML to other operating systems, because it's so deeply integrated into Windows.
    - chungy 9y ago
      Way back when, there were versions of IE 4, 5, and 6 for non-Windows OSes such as HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, and Mac OS (Classic and X both). It is not unreasonable that they could do it again.
      - gsnedders 9y ago
        Note those releases were based on an entirely different codebase to the Windows version of IE.
        thristian 9y ago
        Internet Explorer for Mac was a separate codebase from the Windows version. The Unix workstation versions (HP-UX, AIX, etc.) were built with a commercial equivalent to Winelib: a library that implemented Win32 APIs on top of Unix and X11. I have no idea how they managed to build the IE code on a compiler that wasn't MSVC.
        gardnr 9y ago
        When you say "entirely different" you mean they didn't even share the same rendering engine?
        gsnedders 9y ago
        The sibling suggests that non-Mac ports shared the Trident rendering engine with IE/Win. IE/Mac used Tasman, which was totally different (and was the first implementation of many CSS 3 features); as far as I'm aware there was no code shared at all between IE/Win and IE/Mac.
      - dtech 9y ago
  - techsupporter 9y ago
    > (Apple mandates that all alternative browsers use the system-bundled WebKit for user experience reasons) So far, this is the only thing that really drives me bonkers about iOS and has for a long time. I'd love to be able to use an actual third-party browser with a third-party rendering engine, even if it meant having to install a particular signing certificate or some such. Doubly so for using browser-specific extensions. Who knows, maybe iOS 15? (While I'm wishing for ponies, the ability to change OS-level default applications would be nice.)
    - saagarjha 9y ago
      Besides the obvious benefits to Apple, I believe the reason behind this is because allowing JIT execution would open up a security risk.
      - rahkiin 9y ago
        Yes, because they would need to allow write-executable memory pages. Disallowing those closes the risk of executing non-verified code.
    - captainmuon 9y ago
      I wish someone would just port Firefox mobile to iOS. You don't have to put it on the app store (which is impossible). Just zip up the xcode project, let me swap in my developer key, and run it on my phone. The protections against JIT and so on are enforced by policy, not by technology. I understand it would be a lot of effort for little gain. But if more developers would offer their stuff as self-signable "xcode projects" (maybe even just a .dylib and some wrapper source), it would be really cool.
      - moz23 9y ago
        Gecko already runs on iOS, I just don't know what the exact build process is. The trouble is, a browser is much more than an engine, and why would people sink effort into an unreleasable product.
  - linopolus 9y ago
    > Apple mandates that all alternative browsers use the system-bundled WebKit for user experience reasons Not entirely true: Every browser developer is free to use whatever engine they like on iOS. Mozilla could use Gecko, Google could use Blink. They just don’t do it, because what’s not allowed is JITs (because security), thus 3rd-party JS-engines would always be slow. So the reason everybody uses WebKit on iOS is not that they are forbidden own engines, but only JITs, so Apples is faster.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      Would it be possible to use WebKit for JavaScript execution, but still do rendering in a different engine?
      - icebraining 9y ago
        I don't think you could plug directly into the JS engine to allow it to interact with your DOM.
    - steveklabnik 9y ago
      I believe you're incorrect. First of all: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript. The JIT thing was true, but a few years back, they lifted this restriction, see "4.7 HTML5 Games, Bots, etc." for its current incarnation which also says "your app must use WebKit and JavaScript Core to run third party software".
  - kyriakos 9y ago
    Android version uses Webkit as well

manigandham 9y ago

Except Edge doesnt even support basic things like Server-Sent Events: https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/platform/status/serversenteventseventsource/ https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/platfor... They also haven't actually replaced IE11 which still has plenty of usage out in the wild. MS had a good start but they continue to stumble in their efforts today. Firefox has done much better with 1/1000th of the resources which should say something.

skrebbel 9y ago
To be fair, SSE never got much adoption to begin with. Their web socket support is top notch.
- manigandham 9y ago
  Because Edge and IE11 exist, that's why. It's a fantastic standard that would make things much easier for many real-time apps. Even the dev tools in Edge are subpar compared to Chrome and Firefox.
  - skrebbel 9y ago
    I'm not convinced. There's not-terribly-bad polyfills for SSE that go down to IE8 or so. Admittedly they don't support all details of SSE but they support a good chunk. I've used SSE pretty extensively in a number of projects and I can't say IE/Edge is why I stopped using it. It's just.. there's better options out there :-)

sjellis 9y ago

The situation with Microsoft Edge is strange. Not only is Microsoft Edge not available for older versions of Windows, it is not supported on Windows 10 IoT Enterprise, Windows 10 LTSB, or, most importantly, Windows Server editions. Virtual desktop hosting (VDI/terminal servers) has to be based on Windows Server (licensing requirement). This means that Edge can't actually be the only supported Microsoft browser for Windows: if you do corporate work, you still have deal with Internet Explorer 11.

yipbun 9y ago
This is pure speculation. Maybe they're doing something shady with edge that would get them in more trouble(or found out) if they put in enterprise systems, but they see the regular consumer market as easy targets who can't defend themselves. That might explain why they're pushing edge so hard.
- extra88 9y ago
  IoT Enterprise and LTSB are for embedded systems, they lack many of desktop applications and features (like Cortana) found in "regular" Windows. Windows 10 Enterprise is the desktop version, it has everything in Pro, and then some. There's nothing "shady" about Edge. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsforbusiness/compare https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsforbusiness/compare
  - ams6110 9y ago
    > IoT Enterprise and LTSB are for embedded systems, they lack many of desktop applications and features (like Cortana) found in "regular" Windows. I view that as an advantage. That's why I use LTSB whenever I set up a Windows desktop for anyone at work.
- sjellis 9y ago
  To be honest, I think that it hurts Microsoft more than anyone else. It means that corporate desktops using VDI, and presumably Web kiosks, now have to use a third-party browser. In some cases, Edge literally can't be an organization-wide standard, and Internet Explorer is now frozen, so people will have to move away from it over time. For example, every VDI Windows desktop provided by AWS Workspaces is actually pre-loaded with Firefox.