4 ms·

Isn't that half the point though? Developers didn't "care" about Edge, so sites break (or are incompatible), and users weren't buying in because the upsides of

Isn't that half the point though? Developers didn't "care" about Edge, so sites break (or are incompatible), and users weren't buying in because the upsides of Edge didn't out-weight the downsides (breakages). Now nobody has to "care" about Edge-Chrome because if it supports Chrome, it supports Edge-Chrome, and therefore users can use it for a lower perceived cost via the lack of breakages. Then it is just up to Microsoft to add just enough unique features/value-adds on top of Chrome to outweigh the little to no downsides. Plus Microsoft likely saves money over developing/maintaining their own HTML rendering engine. So the amount of gain they need is much smaller to make it successful.

wnevets 7y ago
>Developers didn't "care" about Edge, so sites would break (or be incompatible), and users weren't buying in because the upsides didn't out-weight the downsides. Was that the actual problem with Edge tho? My problem with Edge was always the UI and lack of customization. Edge was already very standards compliant and didn't require an abundance of special testing like IE
- Someone1234 7y ago
  In fairness I did say it was "half" the problem. :) When I tried to use Edge, I found the same as you, but I also had a lot of sites (particularly "app"-like experiences) break in unusual ways or outright refuse to load. But I am also looking at developer-targeted stuff more than a normal user might so YMMV.
- zamadatix 7y ago
  Unfortunately in a browser monoculture being highly standards compliant isn't enough. Take one of the top posts on HN today, left is a Chromium based browser and right is Edge: https://i.imgur.com/C6WRaAD.png https://i.imgur.com/C6WRaAD.png
  - wnevets 7y ago
    To be fair it also doesn't look correct in firefox either.
    - zamadatix 7y ago
      Firefox manages to do decent but the point is that just because a browser is standards compliant doesn't mean websites will look good in it if everyone is only developing for Chrome. It's not that Edge or Firefox are bad.
      - wnevets 7y ago
        Maybe but that was a terrible example IMO. It was purposefully built to work with chrome
        zamadatix 7y ago
        It's not that it was made to work only in Chrome - it was only tested in Chrome. Whether or not it worked in other browsers didn't matter. That's EXACTLY what I'm trying to point out, it's not a bad example it's literally the example that made me comment in the first place. The other browsers are very standards compliant, doesn't matter - still broke.
        wnevets 7y ago
        >The other browsers are very standards compliant, doesn't matter - still broke. because it wasn't made to be standards compliant. It's just an art project someone threw together in 2 hours, not an actual website.
        zamadatix 7y ago
        The problem being highlighted is precisely that sites are no longer being made to be standards compliant they are being made to work with Chrome. It's not a question of WHY it doesn't work in other browsers or WHY it was made that way, it's just that things aren't made based on being standards compliant anymore. Also I recommend checking out the post/page if you think it was just a 2 hour pump and dump css show off. It's multiple pieces made by handwritten LESS on the order of 4,000 lines over hundreds of commits per drawing.
- Santosh83 7y ago
  The actual problem was Microsoft gave up too quickly and switched to Chromium. Had they put in the resources (which a company of their size ought have no problem acquiring), they could've made it very competitive with Chrome and Firefox. They just stopped developing new features a long while back and it was essentially in maintenance mode, and then came the death knell announcement that they're abandoning their own browser effort after well over two decades in the area. That must have been among Google's happiest days.
sixothree 7y ago
My problems with edge were definitely not with the rendering engine.

wnevets 7y ago

>Developers didn't "care" about Edge, so sites would break (or be incompatible), and users weren't buying in because the upsides didn't out-weight the downsides. Was that the actual problem with Edge tho? My problem with Edge was always the UI and lack of customization. Edge was already very standards compliant and didn't require an abundance of special testing like IE

Someone1234 7y ago
In fairness I did say it was "half" the problem. :) When I tried to use Edge, I found the same as you, but I also had a lot of sites (particularly "app"-like experiences) break in unusual ways or outright refuse to load. But I am also looking at developer-targeted stuff more than a normal user might so YMMV.
zamadatix 7y ago
Unfortunately in a browser monoculture being highly standards compliant isn't enough. Take one of the top posts on HN today, left is a Chromium based browser and right is Edge: https://i.imgur.com/C6WRaAD.png https://i.imgur.com/C6WRaAD.png
- wnevets 7y ago
  To be fair it also doesn't look correct in firefox either.
  - zamadatix 7y ago
    Firefox manages to do decent but the point is that just because a browser is standards compliant doesn't mean websites will look good in it if everyone is only developing for Chrome. It's not that Edge or Firefox are bad.
    - wnevets 7y ago
      Maybe but that was a terrible example IMO. It was purposefully built to work with chrome
      - zamadatix 7y ago
        It's not that it was made to work only in Chrome - it was only tested in Chrome. Whether or not it worked in other browsers didn't matter. That's EXACTLY what I'm trying to point out, it's not a bad example it's literally the example that made me comment in the first place. The other browsers are very standards compliant, doesn't matter - still broke.
        wnevets 7y ago
        >The other browsers are very standards compliant, doesn't matter - still broke. because it wasn't made to be standards compliant. It's just an art project someone threw together in 2 hours, not an actual website.
        zamadatix 7y ago
        The problem being highlighted is precisely that sites are no longer being made to be standards compliant they are being made to work with Chrome. It's not a question of WHY it doesn't work in other browsers or WHY it was made that way, it's just that things aren't made based on being standards compliant anymore. Also I recommend checking out the post/page if you think it was just a 2 hour pump and dump css show off. It's multiple pieces made by handwritten LESS on the order of 4,000 lines over hundreds of commits per drawing.
Santosh83 7y ago
The actual problem was Microsoft gave up too quickly and switched to Chromium. Had they put in the resources (which a company of their size ought have no problem acquiring), they could've made it very competitive with Chrome and Firefox. They just stopped developing new features a long while back and it was essentially in maintenance mode, and then came the death knell announcement that they're abandoning their own browser effort after well over two decades in the area. That must have been among Google's happiest days.

sixothree 7y ago

My problems with edge were definitely not with the rendering engine.