7 ms·

IE8 is leaps and bounds better than IE6. In IE8 you barely even need to tweak sites to get them to look right. I'd be tickled pink if IE8 was all I had to worry

IE8 is leaps and bounds better than IE6. In IE8 you barely even need to tweak sites to get them to look right. I'd be tickled pink if IE8 was all I had to worry about. IE9 is going to be much better than IE8 -- by leaps and bounds -- but it's still in beta. At least the release candidate is out. Some people are never satisfied and always need something to complain about. I'm sure you'll find something else once IE9 is out (it doesn't work on their 10 year old operating system). Edit: So much idealism in this thread and not enough people being realistic. Here are the facts: -Web developers hate IE. All versions of it. -We live in a world with IE. -Microsoft IS NOT going to suggest that people download Firefox or Chrome. -It IS NOT in their interest to do so. -The next best thing is for them to suggest IE8 and then IE9. -It is in the users' best interest who don't know any better and it is in Web developers' best interest that people are at least using something better than IE6 or IE7 -Windows XP is 10 years old. -The only thing that's going to be holding back users from upgrading to IE9 is refusal to upgrade their decade-old operating system. -It would be like people being mad at Apple because the latest version of Safari isn't compatible with OS9.

MiguelHudnandez 16y ago
IE8 is better than IE6, but if someone is going to upgrade their browser, they should upgrade to the best one available. On windows XP, they can't get IE9, but they can get Chrome, Firefox, or Opera. It'd be like making a trip to a gas station and filling up to half a tank. Because half a tank is better than an empty tank, right? But... while you're going to all that trouble, why not top it off? Of course this strategy is good for Microsoft, but web designers should be doing what's good for the web.
- coderdude 16y ago
  >IE8 is better than IE6, but if someone is going to upgrade their browser, they should upgrade to the best one available. On windows XP, they can't get IE9, but they can get Chrome, Firefox, or Opera. As I said in an earlier comment, it's not in Microsoft's best interest to move people off Microsoft browsers but it is in developers' best interest to have them move to at least IE8. It's a much better browser that requires very little hackery to get layouts working on. When people finally stop dragging their feet and upgrade their decade old OS then we will have a better Web experience. Don't get on Microsoft about this, blame the people who refuse to upgrade their software.
  - EGreg 16y ago
    But it's in the developers' even BETTER interest to move them to Chrome or Firefox. Why wouldn't they just install this? http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/ http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/ Microsoft is obviously doing this to keep IE relevant.
    - coderdude 16y ago
      I know it's in developers' even better interest to have all users using Chrome or Firefox. I've said this numerous times and I don't think anyone is arguing against that. But there isn't going to be a link on Microsoft's site to Firefox. I can't figure out why people keep bringing this up. It's not like it hasn't occurred to me -- I'm a designer too. I know how much it sucks fixing IE problems in layouts. What I also know is that there are waaay fewer problems with IE8 than with IE6 and since this is the best we can hope for that's what I'm trying to convey here.
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      If IE wasn't relevant, this wouldn't be a discussion here.
SwellJoe 16y ago
Somehow the Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Opera teams manage to provide a modern browser on Windows XP. This isn't about "finding something to complain about". I want a modern web, and I want Microsoft to get out of the way of that happening.
- coderdude 16y ago
  I think you're being a bit unreasonable here. IE9 relies on parts of Windows that just don't exist in XP. Windows XP is ancient by software standards. Sure, Chrome et al. work in all operating systems, but you're upset at Microsoft because they don't want to support an operating system that they want people off of already. It's their decision and I'm glad they want people to upgrade. People got mad because users didn't want to get off of Windows 98 because of how dated it had become but fewer people are upset at the "Windows XP is good for a lifetime" crowd. IE9 is coming and it's much better. When the people holding back on upgrading finally upgrade then you'll have your better Web.
  - texel 16y ago
    That's exactly the point- since they're holding off on upgrading their OS, potentially for a much longer time, they won't even have the option of updating their web browser. An OS upgrade is a much more monumental decision than a browser upgrade, and the inertia is much greater. At any rate, the fact that IE9 can't backport parts of its OS dependencies is kind of an implementation detail. We're saying Webkit has no problems providing a self-contained modern browsing experience, so IE9 doesn't have to be any different.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - coderdude 16y ago
      So the problem is actually users refusing to upgrade their OS, not Microsoft not supporting XP after 10 years. It seems like we jump on people for not upgrading anything -- except when it comes to their OS.
rbanffy 16y ago
> IE8 is leaps and bounds better than IE6 A brick is leaps and bounds better than IE6 I learned not to attribute to malice what could be explained by incompetence, but, sadly, incompetence alone cannot explain a company the size of Microsoft being unable to offer a modern standards-compliant browser.
- coderdude 16y ago
  >A brick is leaps and bounds better than IE6 That's why it's great news that Microsoft wants users to upgrade to at least IE8. They will have IE9 once they upgrade their ancient OS as well. We all know how you feel about Microsoft. Your comment being down-voted into oblivion at the bottom of this page is a good show of how you're approaching my comment. Microsoft is making good progress here.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > That's why it's great news that Microsoft wants users to upgrade to at least IE8. Which is the worst browser you can easily download these days. > They will have IE9 once they upgrade their ancient OS as well. After they failed miserably to move Windows users out of IE6, forgive me if I am a little skeptical when they suggest the move from IE7 and IE8 to IE9 will be an easy one.
    - coderdude 16y ago
      >Which is the worst browser you can easily download these days. This isn't some utopia where we can all get what we want. If I had my way there would be no IEs. I hate Internet Explorer. The reality of the situation though is that IE8 is the best option available [for people who don't know any better] in the world we live in. IE9 will soon be the best option for people who have an up-to-date operating system. Then we can all whine about XP users refusing to upgrade their old software so that we can also have more up-to-date browsers surfing the Web. >After they failed miserably to move Windows users out of IE6, forgive me if I am a little skeptical when they suggest the move from IE7 and IE8 to IE9 will be an easy one. Most users have IE8 already. The move to IE9 won't take as long as you think. I'd like to know where you got the impression that Microsoft failed to move huge swathes of people over to IE8. IE is installed via automatic updates.
albemuth 16y ago
>In IE8 you barely even need to tweak sites to get them to look right Yes, but that is today. As the web moves forward and these users are stuck on IE8 we have the same problem again.
wheels 16y ago
-Microsoft IS NOT going to suggest that people download Firefox or Chrome. I really don't understand the benefit of IE having its own rendering engine. While I can't imagine MS abandoning IE, I can't see any business reason (other than hubris) for them maintaining a worst-of-breed rendering and JS engine at great cost to themselves. (And just for the record, basically agree with you on all points.)
- statictype 16y ago
  Because a lot of companies rely on IE's rendering engine. There are a lot of sites (mostly internal but external as well) that use technologies like ActiveX which only work on IE's engine. For example, almost every site served up by an ip camera uses an activex plugin to view video.
  - wheels 16y ago
    I don't see any reason why ActiveX couldn't be bolted on to Webkit. As for backward compatibility they update their engine all of the time; perhaps quirks mode could be left as the old engine.
- ryanwatkins 16y ago
  I guess you missed the articles here about about Microsoft's massive commitment to backward compatibility and why they do it? From just the other day :http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2281045 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2281045 and http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html Ditching the current rendering engine would break a ton of apps.
  - alanh 16y ago
    Those “web” apps are then already broken, by definition.
    - bzbarsky 16y ago
      They are broken from the _user's_ perspective, yes. They are not necessarily broken from the app developer's perspective. Changing IE so as to break them would cause MS a good bit of grief (and depending on the contracts they have with people might cost them money directly).
jiffifrazik 16y ago
You know Safari DOES support XP? No one uses OS 9 anymore. Loads use XP. Get it? It's Microsoft's mess to clean up, and browser-wise, three separate efforts can do it! If Microsoft can't, they should pass the ball to someone who can. Anything else hurts the web. You may have posted the most one-sided, thick-skulled, baseless comment I've ever seen on HN.
patrickaljord 16y ago
> In IE8 you barely even need to tweak sites to get them to look right. You're kidding, right?
drdaeman 16y ago
> Microsoft IS NOT going to suggest that people download Firefox or Chrome. I've heard (I don't own or use Windows) that they were legally forced to enable choice in Windows (like shown on screenshots at http://www.freeemailtutorials.com/microsoftWindows/defaultWebBrowserOnWindowsXP.cwd http://www.freeemailtutorials.com/microsoftWindows/defaultWe...)

MiguelHudnandez 16y ago

IE8 is better than IE6, but if someone is going to upgrade their browser, they should upgrade to the best one available. On windows XP, they can't get IE9, but they can get Chrome, Firefox, or Opera. It'd be like making a trip to a gas station and filling up to half a tank. Because half a tank is better than an empty tank, right? But... while you're going to all that trouble, why not top it off? Of course this strategy is good for Microsoft, but web designers should be doing what's good for the web.

coderdude 16y ago
>IE8 is better than IE6, but if someone is going to upgrade their browser, they should upgrade to the best one available. On windows XP, they can't get IE9, but they can get Chrome, Firefox, or Opera. As I said in an earlier comment, it's not in Microsoft's best interest to move people off Microsoft browsers but it is in developers' best interest to have them move to at least IE8. It's a much better browser that requires very little hackery to get layouts working on. When people finally stop dragging their feet and upgrade their decade old OS then we will have a better Web experience. Don't get on Microsoft about this, blame the people who refuse to upgrade their software.
- EGreg 16y ago
  But it's in the developers' even BETTER interest to move them to Chrome or Firefox. Why wouldn't they just install this? http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/ http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/ Microsoft is obviously doing this to keep IE relevant.
  - coderdude 16y ago
    I know it's in developers' even better interest to have all users using Chrome or Firefox. I've said this numerous times and I don't think anyone is arguing against that. But there isn't going to be a link on Microsoft's site to Firefox. I can't figure out why people keep bringing this up. It's not like it hasn't occurred to me -- I'm a designer too. I know how much it sucks fixing IE problems in layouts. What I also know is that there are waaay fewer problems with IE8 than with IE6 and since this is the best we can hope for that's what I'm trying to convey here.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    If IE wasn't relevant, this wouldn't be a discussion here.

SwellJoe 16y ago

Somehow the Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Opera teams manage to provide a modern browser on Windows XP. This isn't about "finding something to complain about". I want a modern web, and I want Microsoft to get out of the way of that happening.

coderdude 16y ago
I think you're being a bit unreasonable here. IE9 relies on parts of Windows that just don't exist in XP. Windows XP is ancient by software standards. Sure, Chrome et al. work in all operating systems, but you're upset at Microsoft because they don't want to support an operating system that they want people off of already. It's their decision and I'm glad they want people to upgrade. People got mad because users didn't want to get off of Windows 98 because of how dated it had become but fewer people are upset at the "Windows XP is good for a lifetime" crowd. IE9 is coming and it's much better. When the people holding back on upgrading finally upgrade then you'll have your better Web.
- texel 16y ago
  That's exactly the point- since they're holding off on upgrading their OS, potentially for a much longer time, they won't even have the option of updating their web browser. An OS upgrade is a much more monumental decision than a browser upgrade, and the inertia is much greater. At any rate, the fact that IE9 can't backport parts of its OS dependencies is kind of an implementation detail. We're saying Webkit has no problems providing a self-contained modern browsing experience, so IE9 doesn't have to be any different.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - coderdude 16y ago
    So the problem is actually users refusing to upgrade their OS, not Microsoft not supporting XP after 10 years. It seems like we jump on people for not upgrading anything -- except when it comes to their OS.

rbanffy 16y ago

> IE8 is leaps and bounds better than IE6 A brick is leaps and bounds better than IE6 I learned not to attribute to malice what could be explained by incompetence, but, sadly, incompetence alone cannot explain a company the size of Microsoft being unable to offer a modern standards-compliant browser.

coderdude 16y ago
>A brick is leaps and bounds better than IE6 That's why it's great news that Microsoft wants users to upgrade to at least IE8. They will have IE9 once they upgrade their ancient OS as well. We all know how you feel about Microsoft. Your comment being down-voted into oblivion at the bottom of this page is a good show of how you're approaching my comment. Microsoft is making good progress here.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > That's why it's great news that Microsoft wants users to upgrade to at least IE8. Which is the worst browser you can easily download these days. > They will have IE9 once they upgrade their ancient OS as well. After they failed miserably to move Windows users out of IE6, forgive me if I am a little skeptical when they suggest the move from IE7 and IE8 to IE9 will be an easy one.
  - coderdude 16y ago
    >Which is the worst browser you can easily download these days. This isn't some utopia where we can all get what we want. If I had my way there would be no IEs. I hate Internet Explorer. The reality of the situation though is that IE8 is the best option available [for people who don't know any better] in the world we live in. IE9 will soon be the best option for people who have an up-to-date operating system. Then we can all whine about XP users refusing to upgrade their old software so that we can also have more up-to-date browsers surfing the Web. >After they failed miserably to move Windows users out of IE6, forgive me if I am a little skeptical when they suggest the move from IE7 and IE8 to IE9 will be an easy one. Most users have IE8 already. The move to IE9 won't take as long as you think. I'd like to know where you got the impression that Microsoft failed to move huge swathes of people over to IE8. IE is installed via automatic updates.

albemuth 16y ago

>In IE8 you barely even need to tweak sites to get them to look right Yes, but that is today. As the web moves forward and these users are stuck on IE8 we have the same problem again.

wheels 16y ago

-Microsoft IS NOT going to suggest that people download Firefox or Chrome. I really don't understand the benefit of IE having its own rendering engine. While I can't imagine MS abandoning IE, I can't see any business reason (other than hubris) for them maintaining a worst-of-breed rendering and JS engine at great cost to themselves. (And just for the record, basically agree with you on all points.)

statictype 16y ago
Because a lot of companies rely on IE's rendering engine. There are a lot of sites (mostly internal but external as well) that use technologies like ActiveX which only work on IE's engine. For example, almost every site served up by an ip camera uses an activex plugin to view video.
- wheels 16y ago
  I don't see any reason why ActiveX couldn't be bolted on to Webkit. As for backward compatibility they update their engine all of the time; perhaps quirks mode could be left as the old engine.
ryanwatkins 16y ago
I guess you missed the articles here about about Microsoft's massive commitment to backward compatibility and why they do it? From just the other day :http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2281045 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2281045 and http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html Ditching the current rendering engine would break a ton of apps.
- alanh 16y ago
  Those “web” apps are then already broken, by definition.
  - bzbarsky 16y ago
    They are broken from the _user's_ perspective, yes. They are not necessarily broken from the app developer's perspective. Changing IE so as to break them would cause MS a good bit of grief (and depending on the contracts they have with people might cost them money directly).

jiffifrazik 16y ago

You know Safari DOES support XP? No one uses OS 9 anymore. Loads use XP. Get it? It's Microsoft's mess to clean up, and browser-wise, three separate efforts can do it! If Microsoft can't, they should pass the ball to someone who can. Anything else hurts the web. You may have posted the most one-sided, thick-skulled, baseless comment I've ever seen on HN.

patrickaljord 16y ago

> In IE8 you barely even need to tweak sites to get them to look right. You're kidding, right?

drdaeman 16y ago

> Microsoft IS NOT going to suggest that people download Firefox or Chrome. I've heard (I don't own or use Windows) that they were legally forced to enable choice in Windows (like shown on screenshots at http://www.freeemailtutorials.com/microsoftWindows/defaultWebBrowserOnWindowsXP.cwd http://www.freeemailtutorials.com/microsoftWindows/defaultWe...)