5 ms·

Microsoft really needs to break away from the major version number releases for IE and go with an iterative approach like Google does with Chrome. For something

Microsoft really needs to break away from the major version number releases for IE and go with an iterative approach like Google does with Chrome. For something like Windows or Office it probobly still makes sense to have major version releases because for the average computer user a new major version number means there are a bunch of new features and that they should consider upgrading. But Internet Explorer is a free product. I don't see the marketing value in only releasing major version numbers. Instead they should be constantly pushing out new stuff. At least in my opinion, that would still provide the feeling of having something fresh and new if I was receiving a constant stream of new features and bug fixes. Even if they did get every conceivable feature implemented for IE9, it would only be current for a short time after the release. It would then sit basically unchanged for a year or more (thus seeming old and outdated) while they work on IE10. Meanwhile Chrome would have put out a ton of new features that are all added a few at a time.

kenjackson 16y ago
Unfortunately they likely won't due to IE being big in the enterprise. This is also why they tend to not add features in between revs, just bug fixes. And even then they won't fix a standards comformance bug unless there's a security issue. Enterprise users want to be able to say, "Use IE9 to access your expense reports, period". They don't want it to be "Use IE9.0.1.2.1.a or above" or "IE9 shipped before 10/1/2011". Pushback from the enterprise is probably driving this more than anything else. They could go to a model where they have a consumer and enterprise branch. And the enterprise branch syns up with the consumer branch on major releases. But that starts to sound a little chaotic (but I think doable).
- yuhong 16y ago
  But I'd suggest at least doing a IE 9.5.
- noibl 16y ago
  > Enterprise users want to be able to say, "Use IE9 to access your expense reports, period". Every time people bring this up they make it sound like it's a legitimate requirement. It's not, and the cost of supporting a given browser's rolling release schedule in-house at these companies is miniscule compared to the global cost to the web development industry and user productivity of having to support three (possibly four) different versions of IE at any one time.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    and the cost of supporting a given browser's rolling release schedule in-house at these companies is miniscule compared to the global cost to the web development industry I hate to break this to you, but nobody cares about this amorphous global cost to the web dev industry. It's a cost that isn't accounted for and accrues in a uniform way that makes it inactionable. If MS were to start telling the Fortune 500 companies that it was going to start screwing them over and not supporting old browsers -- IBM would immediately step in and start doing it. MS would lose most of their revenue (guess what, web devs don't generate much revenue for MS) and IBM would become the fastest growing company in the world. It's just stupid to PO paying customers to help people who whine, but pay nothing.
    - noibl 16y ago
      You're missing the point (I hate to break it to you). The F500 and Microsoft can do as they please, but stop expecting the web dev community to take seriously this claim that they need to standardise on version X of a browser. We don't care anymore.
      - Silhouette 16y ago
        Then you won't be getting many contracts from large organisations, and people who work at large organisations won't be using anything public that you develop on their lunch break. If that doesn't matter to you, that's OK, to each his own. But it does matter to a very large group of people in the web development community who make their living building professional sites for professional clients.
        noibl 16y ago
        > Then you won't be getting many contracts from large organisations I would appreciate it if you and the other guy would stop making this personal, but I'm not expecting much. Nowhere did I talk about development practices. What I talked about was the justification often held out to web developers that such-and-such state of affairs is absolutely and perpetually necessary. My professional conduct has nothing to do with that, thank you very much.

kenjackson 16y ago

Unfortunately they likely won't due to IE being big in the enterprise. This is also why they tend to not add features in between revs, just bug fixes. And even then they won't fix a standards comformance bug unless there's a security issue. Enterprise users want to be able to say, "Use IE9 to access your expense reports, period". They don't want it to be "Use IE9.0.1.2.1.a or above" or "IE9 shipped before 10/1/2011". Pushback from the enterprise is probably driving this more than anything else. They could go to a model where they have a consumer and enterprise branch. And the enterprise branch syns up with the consumer branch on major releases. But that starts to sound a little chaotic (but I think doable).

yuhong 16y ago
But I'd suggest at least doing a IE 9.5.
noibl 16y ago
> Enterprise users want to be able to say, "Use IE9 to access your expense reports, period". Every time people bring this up they make it sound like it's a legitimate requirement. It's not, and the cost of supporting a given browser's rolling release schedule in-house at these companies is miniscule compared to the global cost to the web development industry and user productivity of having to support three (possibly four) different versions of IE at any one time.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  and the cost of supporting a given browser's rolling release schedule in-house at these companies is miniscule compared to the global cost to the web development industry I hate to break this to you, but nobody cares about this amorphous global cost to the web dev industry. It's a cost that isn't accounted for and accrues in a uniform way that makes it inactionable. If MS were to start telling the Fortune 500 companies that it was going to start screwing them over and not supporting old browsers -- IBM would immediately step in and start doing it. MS would lose most of their revenue (guess what, web devs don't generate much revenue for MS) and IBM would become the fastest growing company in the world. It's just stupid to PO paying customers to help people who whine, but pay nothing.
  - noibl 16y ago
    You're missing the point (I hate to break it to you). The F500 and Microsoft can do as they please, but stop expecting the web dev community to take seriously this claim that they need to standardise on version X of a browser. We don't care anymore.
    - Silhouette 16y ago
      Then you won't be getting many contracts from large organisations, and people who work at large organisations won't be using anything public that you develop on their lunch break. If that doesn't matter to you, that's OK, to each his own. But it does matter to a very large group of people in the web development community who make their living building professional sites for professional clients.
      - noibl 16y ago
        > Then you won't be getting many contracts from large organisations I would appreciate it if you and the other guy would stop making this personal, but I'm not expecting much. Nowhere did I talk about development practices. What I talked about was the justification often held out to web developers that such-and-such state of affairs is absolutely and perpetually necessary. My professional conduct has nothing to do with that, thank you very much.