11 ms·

YES! 1-2-3-4, I declare a browser war! Finally. This is the Microsoft I've been waiting for! No more rolling over and no defeatist talk of adopting WebKit o

YES! 1-2-3-4, I declare a browser war! Finally. This is the Microsoft I've been waiting for! No more rolling over and no defeatist talk of adopting WebKit or whatever. Microsoft is going to use its muscle and position to make a truly competitive browser. We need more competition, and we need the default browser in Windows to be just as good as Chrome and Firefox. Microsoft, I hope you pull every -ms- vendor flaggin', ring-0 kernel hookin', micro-optimizatin', site-specific D3D driver tweakin' trick in the book as you reach for parity. This is going to be so fun to watch.

melling 12y ago
We have a already have lot of competition. In fact, it's never been better: Chrome, Firefox, WebKit, Chromium, Opera. You can even get the source code for Firefox and Chrome and contribute. I'm glad Microsoft is making a better go at it, but honestly, Microsoft could have built a more compliant browser any time they wanted too. https://html5test.com/results/desktop.html https://html5test.com/results/desktop.html
- infogulch 12y ago
  > Microsoft could have built a more compliant browser any time they wanted too. That time is now, can we not be excited for it? Have you heard the parable of the prodigal son?
- Mithaldu 12y ago
  Chrome and friends aren't webkit anymore, but only by way of forking. Otherwise Chrome, Chromium and Opera 15+ are the same engine. The family tree kind of looks like this: -- Internet Explorer -- Firefox -- Safari \ -- Chrome, Chromium, Opera 15+ -- Opera 12 (abandoned) I'm a little unclear on how differentiated Webkit and Blink are in practice, but sadly we have only 3.5 major engines competing at this point.
  - Touche 12y ago
    -- Konqueror \ -- Safari \ -- Chrome, Chromium, Opera 15+ If you want to go further Firefox's lineage is interesting but it's parent browsers are all dead.
    - mkr-hn 12y ago
      Everyone forgets the people who created/invented the things Apple puts in its software.
    - RoyOfTheEdge 12y ago
      -- NCSA Mosaic \ -- Spyglass Mosaic \ -- MSIE \ -- Spartan I'd be really interested to know how much code from Spyglass or NCSA Mosaic survives in modern versions of Internet Explorer (and even Spartan). Spartan/IE engineers -- any info?
  - icantthinkofone 12y ago
    Blink unloads a lot of legacy components in a way that Microsoft is attempting to do now.
  - kenko 12y ago
    Let's not forget links and w3m.
    - indians_pro 12y ago
      I'm surprised no one mentioned lynx first.
      - kenko 12y ago
        I would have mentioned lynx but wasn't sure it still existed.
  - gcb0 12y ago
    -- Internet Explorer 6-8 -- Internet Explorer 9-10 -- Internet Explorer 11 -- Internet Explorer new? -- Firefox -- Konqueror (abandoned?) \ -- Safari \ --Chromium, Opera 15+ \ -- Chrome \ --IOS safari -- Opera 12 (abandoned) and that's why i use and only advertise firefox. It is the only browser that respect webdevelopers.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  Haven't they? Since IE7, every new version is more and more compliant. IE11 gives a good experience and seems easy to work with (at least with the web dev I do). It just seems that they got sick of the baby steps approach and needed to start from scratch. They figured out yet another way to handle legacy code and want a new engine, and by new I mean, a Trident-based engine without some/most of the fluff IE has for legacy sites. Especially the active-x fluff that has no place in non-enterprise browsers. I really don't see this as some big move. They've been doing this stuff for years. I think the consumer oriented Spartan browser is a clever move, but MS was getting there anyway. Seems like they're being clever and using Spartan and web-standards as a way to sell Win10. We're not getting these toys on 7 or 8. Want the new fancy browser? Get Win10.
  - icantthinkofone 12y ago
    No. Despite the experience of those who do a little bit of web dev, those of us who treat the web as our operating system still curse IE on a daily basis. I hope that all those who currently talk about how wonderful IE11 is take note that Microsoft is, essentially, saying they're abandoning it for all these reasons.
    - Aldo_MX 12y ago
      If I were to rank the browsers in the order in which they give more issues to me: 1. Safari iOS 2. Firefox 3. Chrome / Chrome Android 4. IE11 / IE11 Metro I only curse IE9/IE10 when they don't support a moden feature, but I don't mind using display:table instead of flexbox (to name an example) as long as it gets the work done in IE9/IE10. Although I don't bother testing IE10- to be honest, I just blindly trust the document modes of IE11, I'd rather spend time testing different mobile devices than testing different IE versions. PS. I might be biased in the sense that I have been doing web development since like 15 years ago, and I'm already accustomed to the broken box model of IE. With Firefox I literally have to ask myself every time "what the f%@k did I do wrong???", but with IE literally is "oh you silly IE, I just have to set X and Y extra attributes and it's done".
      - 12y ago
- wnevets 12y ago
  Opera, Chrome and Chromium are based off the same engine which is a fork of WebKit. If anything competition has gone down the last couple of years with WebKit based browsers becoming the standard despite its bugs & non-standard behavior. It reminds me of IE6 in its heyday.
  - icantthinkofone 12y ago
    No web developer worth his salt writes code for any one browser. You write code to the standard and test in browsers. Anyone doing differently should be fired on the spot. I'm not aware of any professional web developer who does that.
    - wnevets 12y ago
      what.
      - icantthinkofone 12y ago
        I said, "You don't know what you're talking about and shouldn't be replying here!"
        wnevets 12y ago
        What does your comment have to do with anything I said in mine? Its as if you replied to the wrong one.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- EdSharkey 12y ago
  We got the Gecko family of browsers, the Trident family of browsers, and the WebKit family of browsers. Sure, there are varying JS engines, and Blink and Servo are on the way, but WebKit is the 900lbs gorilla. It is a monoculture in a lot of ways. I use and promote Firefox because I want to check the other vendors. Microsoft makes, hm, how can I be positive here ... patchy software. There are always lots of rough patches reflecting pointy-haired boss decision making process, and there's cruft that builds up. But, very often you'll see these weird, beautiful bits just sticking out all over the place in Microsoft code. The weirdo geniuses at MSFT are allowed to do their thang and leave their mark. And the seminal releases of their software are always the best. Like, there are parts of IE6 that make me go, "how the HELL did Microsoft pull this tech off in 2000?" IE6 was this crumbly tower of awesome. If IE6 were a game, I won that game. Anyhow, if development on Spartan goes RIGHT, then this browser will be the 2015 version of IE6. It will be the completest vision of kickassitude. There will be weird, crazy bits, and it'll take Microsoft and the rest of us a decade to untangle the proprietary parts. I can feel my blood pressure rising already!! The rage and the triumph and the glory!
  - melling 12y ago
    Nah, it won't mean a thing. Microsoft still has almost 60% of the desktop browser market share. http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&qpcustomd=0 http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpri... Unfortunately, they have no mobile market share, and this is where most people will be browsing the web. http://9to5mac.com/2015/02/24/ios-android-duopoly-marketshare/ http://9to5mac.com/2015/02/24/ios-android-duopoly-marketshar...
    - higherpurpose 12y ago
      So they in fact don't have 60 percent market share of the browsing market anymore. The mobile markets count, if you're a developer.
      - melling 12y ago
        That's correct and that's what I said: "Unfortunately, they have no mobile market share, and this is where most people will be browsing the web."
akrymski 12y ago
Yes and no - our lives would be much easier if we could just assume that every user runs a WebKit fork. From testing to development, it would be enable devs to push apps to the limit without testing across multiple platforms. And I'm sure adding those vendor-specific extensions to a WebKit fork is also do-able. Since WebKit is open-source, I'd prefer to see companies put in more effort in enhancing its performance instead of developing new proprietary rendering engines (unless they are 10x better of course).
- masklinn 12y ago
  > Yes and no - our lives would be much easier if we could just assume that every user runs a WebKit fork. Just as our life "was easier" when we could just assumer every user ran MSIE. It was easier for a short while, then the rot set in. I'm not interested in having Google control the web in the same way, that's a road we've taken, we know where it leads and it's a terrible place.
- dblohm7 12y ago
  You weren't around for the first browser war, were you?
- Retra 12y ago
  HTML was the "universal standard", and what happened to that?
bsimpson 12y ago
Why the fuck did anyone ever think vendor prefixes are a good idea? If you want to prefix, prefix with versions. I should be able to type `-beta-mask-image: url()` and any browser that implements that version of the spec can pick it up. There's no good reason to have to type the same exact thing 3 times to target each browser engine.
- joshuacc 12y ago
  Because the vendors sometimes proposed incompatible variants of the same feature before it was standardized. And they would implement it behind their individual prefixes so that you could experiment with both the IE and FF variants, for example.
  - bsimpson 12y ago
    If you don't implement the same spec, bump the version. This is not a complicated idea. Instead of -webkit-mask-image and -moz-mask-image, have -beta-mask-image and -gamma-mask-image. When IE comes along and wants to play with WebKit's implementation, they implement -beta-mask-image and all the sites that use it get IE support for free.
    - adrianpike 12y ago
      They did. -moz and -webkit and -ms and -o. Unless we're actively working in synchrony, your "beta" won't be my "beta".
- beejiu 12y ago
  It's better than typing one thing and it doing 3 different things in 3 different browsers.
  - phkahler 12y ago
    No, that just shifts the burden onto every website instead of onto the few browsers. If they render differently someone needs to fix their browser rather than everyone has to build sites that work both ways.
engendered 12y ago
Microsoft is going to use its muscle and position to make a truly competitive browser. Isn't this the line with each and every release of IE? Why is this different? Each prior version of IE was proclaimed some revolution of some sort. EDIT: Downvotes? Really? I see the front page is starting to get curiously Microsoft heavy again. We've heard the "this time it's different" argument with IE7, IE8, IE9, IE10, and now IE11. Each time some shill would declare "finally! This changes everything! Microsoft has the resources and know-how to beat everyone" And the world moved on.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- roghummal 12y ago
  Being a meaniehead to Microsoft is something grandpas do. It's just not hip. Look, Microsoft is all about standards (really, not embrace/extend/extinguish!), interoperability, openness, and hugs now, okay grandpa? Yeah, yeah, this comment contributes nothing, blah blah blah.
- EdSharkey 12y ago
  Do you or I really care abouts boasts from the marketdroids? Cut The Rope doth not a great browser make! You and I know the truth. There are seminal, world-beating versions of software that Microsoft has released in the past. And then, after dominance is attained, they touch up the pig's hair and makeup a bit in the subsequent releases. IE7-11 has been hair and makeup and some botox. I don't know how Microsoft works internally, I only know history. And, reading their statements, Spartan might be a world-beater at least in quality, features, or developer interest. When Microsoft feels threatened, that's when the sparks fly. I do not EVER underestimate Microsoft. How quickly did they turn that billion dollar Mojang acquisition around, 2 days?
klenwell 12y ago
I upvoted this for sarcasm. But upon reflection I think maybe I missed the point. I guess a lot of it hinges on your interpretation of the words "competitive" and "parity". I'm hoping that it means the expression "IE issue" gradually becomes the exception rather than the norm.
- Navarr 12y ago
  These days most of my bugs are Firefox acting differently than I expect it to (though perhaps compliant to standards). I haven't really had to say "IE Issue" unless I was dealing with 8 and lower.
  - the_cat_kittles 12y ago
    web audio api :/
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  I'm glad I looked up rule 34 real quick; I don't expect there's porn of this. What's actually involved here is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
- Encosia 12y ago
  To second what Navarr said, I don't really see IE issues these days unless it's on a site that needs to support versions prior to IE9. As often as not, issues in modern IE are due to developers writing code that targets only a single vendor-prefixed version of an API instead of supporting standards, which makes IE look deficient (instead of that sloppy developer) even when it has good support for the APIs that a site uses.
  - Turing_Machine 12y ago
    To name just one thing that IE still doesn't support: setting the download attribute on a link. Neither does Safari. This makes it very clumsy/impossible to write real web apps that need to save to the local file system. The scenario is generating a document client-side using JavaScript. Now you want to let the user save it. In Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and no doubt others, this isn't a problem. Just set the download attribute on the link to the file name you want to use.
Throwaway90283 12y ago
I'd like to see some competition as well, but in my perspective, they're taking the wrong approach. This entire project seems to be about improving compatibility with older websites, by adding more algorithms and layers to the rendering process. I don't believe everyone is using Firefox and Chrome because they have better compatibility than IE. I think they should focus on cutting the fat, and making the lightest weight, fastest and standards compliant browser possible, with some popular third-party add-ons available, such as ad block. Or, leave IE11 as the default now for compatibility, and spin off a new browser called IE Lightning. If people start to switch over, then more sites will be developed to work in IE Lightning. In short, create a faster browser with a smaller memory footprint and ad block, get users, watch compatibility fix itself, then make this ship as the default browser in 5 years.
- gcb0 12y ago
  i think that is what they are going against...
- pjbrunet 12y ago
  "If people start to switch over, then more sites will be developed to work in IE Lightning." Based on this sentence, I get the feeling you don't appreciate the value of web standards? If Microsoft wants to be taken seriously ever again (they had 10+ years to make that effort with IE before they lost the browser war) all they need to do is render pages correctly, not in their own special way. That also means not inventing special-to-Microsoft codes. Microsoft has a long record of screwing the greater community for their own self-interest. For example, sabotaging Java.
  - Chronic31 12y ago
    Your last sentence describes Google.
    - anonbanker 12y ago
      Absolutely correct. We should be trusting neither.
madaxe_again 12y ago
Yes! Because trident wasn't different to WebKit and they definitely worked hard to make it superior! Wait, no, this is Microsoft we're talking about, and they'll use their monopoly to force everyone to have the "new IE", and they'll break the web, again. Honestly, I don't know why you think they'd do anything different. They've managed one release of IE that was actually innovative and good for its time - IE4. I have little faith that they won't just produce some xslt spewing horror show that only works with drm monitors and complains if the backend isn't .net.
easytiger 12y ago
> Microsoft, I hope you pull every -ms- vendor flaggin', ring-0 kernel hookin', micro-optimizatin', site-specific D3D driver tweakin' trick in the book as you reach for parity. This is going to be so fun to watch. Well that's great, but if I'm on Linux and OSX this is just a pain in the ass for devs to support YAWB

melling 12y ago

We have a already have lot of competition. In fact, it's never been better: Chrome, Firefox, WebKit, Chromium, Opera. You can even get the source code for Firefox and Chrome and contribute. I'm glad Microsoft is making a better go at it, but honestly, Microsoft could have built a more compliant browser any time they wanted too. https://html5test.com/results/desktop.html https://html5test.com/results/desktop.html

infogulch 12y ago
> Microsoft could have built a more compliant browser any time they wanted too. That time is now, can we not be excited for it? Have you heard the parable of the prodigal son?
Mithaldu 12y ago
Chrome and friends aren't webkit anymore, but only by way of forking. Otherwise Chrome, Chromium and Opera 15+ are the same engine. The family tree kind of looks like this: -- Internet Explorer -- Firefox -- Safari \ -- Chrome, Chromium, Opera 15+ -- Opera 12 (abandoned) I'm a little unclear on how differentiated Webkit and Blink are in practice, but sadly we have only 3.5 major engines competing at this point.
- Touche 12y ago
  -- Konqueror \ -- Safari \ -- Chrome, Chromium, Opera 15+ If you want to go further Firefox's lineage is interesting but it's parent browsers are all dead.
  - mkr-hn 12y ago
    Everyone forgets the people who created/invented the things Apple puts in its software.
  - RoyOfTheEdge 12y ago
    -- NCSA Mosaic \ -- Spyglass Mosaic \ -- MSIE \ -- Spartan I'd be really interested to know how much code from Spyglass or NCSA Mosaic survives in modern versions of Internet Explorer (and even Spartan). Spartan/IE engineers -- any info?
- icantthinkofone 12y ago
  Blink unloads a lot of legacy components in a way that Microsoft is attempting to do now.
- kenko 12y ago
  Let's not forget links and w3m.
  - indians_pro 12y ago
    I'm surprised no one mentioned lynx first.
    - kenko 12y ago
      I would have mentioned lynx but wasn't sure it still existed.
- gcb0 12y ago
  -- Internet Explorer 6-8 -- Internet Explorer 9-10 -- Internet Explorer 11 -- Internet Explorer new? -- Firefox -- Konqueror (abandoned?) \ -- Safari \ --Chromium, Opera 15+ \ -- Chrome \ --IOS safari -- Opera 12 (abandoned) and that's why i use and only advertise firefox. It is the only browser that respect webdevelopers.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
Haven't they? Since IE7, every new version is more and more compliant. IE11 gives a good experience and seems easy to work with (at least with the web dev I do). It just seems that they got sick of the baby steps approach and needed to start from scratch. They figured out yet another way to handle legacy code and want a new engine, and by new I mean, a Trident-based engine without some/most of the fluff IE has for legacy sites. Especially the active-x fluff that has no place in non-enterprise browsers. I really don't see this as some big move. They've been doing this stuff for years. I think the consumer oriented Spartan browser is a clever move, but MS was getting there anyway. Seems like they're being clever and using Spartan and web-standards as a way to sell Win10. We're not getting these toys on 7 or 8. Want the new fancy browser? Get Win10.
- icantthinkofone 12y ago
  No. Despite the experience of those who do a little bit of web dev, those of us who treat the web as our operating system still curse IE on a daily basis. I hope that all those who currently talk about how wonderful IE11 is take note that Microsoft is, essentially, saying they're abandoning it for all these reasons.
  - Aldo_MX 12y ago
    If I were to rank the browsers in the order in which they give more issues to me: 1. Safari iOS 2. Firefox 3. Chrome / Chrome Android 4. IE11 / IE11 Metro I only curse IE9/IE10 when they don't support a moden feature, but I don't mind using display:table instead of flexbox (to name an example) as long as it gets the work done in IE9/IE10. Although I don't bother testing IE10- to be honest, I just blindly trust the document modes of IE11, I'd rather spend time testing different mobile devices than testing different IE versions. PS. I might be biased in the sense that I have been doing web development since like 15 years ago, and I'm already accustomed to the broken box model of IE. With Firefox I literally have to ask myself every time "what the f%@k did I do wrong???", but with IE literally is "oh you silly IE, I just have to set X and Y extra attributes and it's done".
    - 12y ago
wnevets 12y ago
Opera, Chrome and Chromium are based off the same engine which is a fork of WebKit. If anything competition has gone down the last couple of years with WebKit based browsers becoming the standard despite its bugs & non-standard behavior. It reminds me of IE6 in its heyday.
- icantthinkofone 12y ago
  No web developer worth his salt writes code for any one browser. You write code to the standard and test in browsers. Anyone doing differently should be fired on the spot. I'm not aware of any professional web developer who does that.
  - wnevets 12y ago
    what.
    - icantthinkofone 12y ago
      I said, "You don't know what you're talking about and shouldn't be replying here!"
      - wnevets 12y ago
        What does your comment have to do with anything I said in mine? Its as if you replied to the wrong one.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
EdSharkey 12y ago
We got the Gecko family of browsers, the Trident family of browsers, and the WebKit family of browsers. Sure, there are varying JS engines, and Blink and Servo are on the way, but WebKit is the 900lbs gorilla. It is a monoculture in a lot of ways. I use and promote Firefox because I want to check the other vendors. Microsoft makes, hm, how can I be positive here ... patchy software. There are always lots of rough patches reflecting pointy-haired boss decision making process, and there's cruft that builds up. But, very often you'll see these weird, beautiful bits just sticking out all over the place in Microsoft code. The weirdo geniuses at MSFT are allowed to do their thang and leave their mark. And the seminal releases of their software are always the best. Like, there are parts of IE6 that make me go, "how the HELL did Microsoft pull this tech off in 2000?" IE6 was this crumbly tower of awesome. If IE6 were a game, I won that game. Anyhow, if development on Spartan goes RIGHT, then this browser will be the 2015 version of IE6. It will be the completest vision of kickassitude. There will be weird, crazy bits, and it'll take Microsoft and the rest of us a decade to untangle the proprietary parts. I can feel my blood pressure rising already!! The rage and the triumph and the glory!
- melling 12y ago
  Nah, it won't mean a thing. Microsoft still has almost 60% of the desktop browser market share. http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&qpcustomd=0 http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpri... Unfortunately, they have no mobile market share, and this is where most people will be browsing the web. http://9to5mac.com/2015/02/24/ios-android-duopoly-marketshare/ http://9to5mac.com/2015/02/24/ios-android-duopoly-marketshar...
  - higherpurpose 12y ago
    So they in fact don't have 60 percent market share of the browsing market anymore. The mobile markets count, if you're a developer.
    - melling 12y ago
      That's correct and that's what I said: "Unfortunately, they have no mobile market share, and this is where most people will be browsing the web."

akrymski 12y ago

Yes and no - our lives would be much easier if we could just assume that every user runs a WebKit fork. From testing to development, it would be enable devs to push apps to the limit without testing across multiple platforms. And I'm sure adding those vendor-specific extensions to a WebKit fork is also do-able. Since WebKit is open-source, I'd prefer to see companies put in more effort in enhancing its performance instead of developing new proprietary rendering engines (unless they are 10x better of course).

masklinn 12y ago
> Yes and no - our lives would be much easier if we could just assume that every user runs a WebKit fork. Just as our life "was easier" when we could just assumer every user ran MSIE. It was easier for a short while, then the rot set in. I'm not interested in having Google control the web in the same way, that's a road we've taken, we know where it leads and it's a terrible place.
dblohm7 12y ago
You weren't around for the first browser war, were you?
Retra 12y ago
HTML was the "universal standard", and what happened to that?

bsimpson 12y ago

Why the fuck did anyone ever think vendor prefixes are a good idea? If you want to prefix, prefix with versions. I should be able to type `-beta-mask-image: url()` and any browser that implements that version of the spec can pick it up. There's no good reason to have to type the same exact thing 3 times to target each browser engine.

joshuacc 12y ago
Because the vendors sometimes proposed incompatible variants of the same feature before it was standardized. And they would implement it behind their individual prefixes so that you could experiment with both the IE and FF variants, for example.
- bsimpson 12y ago
  If you don't implement the same spec, bump the version. This is not a complicated idea. Instead of -webkit-mask-image and -moz-mask-image, have -beta-mask-image and -gamma-mask-image. When IE comes along and wants to play with WebKit's implementation, they implement -beta-mask-image and all the sites that use it get IE support for free.
  - adrianpike 12y ago
    They did. -moz and -webkit and -ms and -o. Unless we're actively working in synchrony, your "beta" won't be my "beta".
beejiu 12y ago
It's better than typing one thing and it doing 3 different things in 3 different browsers.
- phkahler 12y ago
  No, that just shifts the burden onto every website instead of onto the few browsers. If they render differently someone needs to fix their browser rather than everyone has to build sites that work both ways.

engendered 12y ago

Microsoft is going to use its muscle and position to make a truly competitive browser. Isn't this the line with each and every release of IE? Why is this different? Each prior version of IE was proclaimed some revolution of some sort. EDIT: Downvotes? Really? I see the front page is starting to get curiously Microsoft heavy again. We've heard the "this time it's different" argument with IE7, IE8, IE9, IE10, and now IE11. Each time some shill would declare "finally! This changes everything! Microsoft has the resources and know-how to beat everyone" And the world moved on.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
roghummal 12y ago
Being a meaniehead to Microsoft is something grandpas do. It's just not hip. Look, Microsoft is all about standards (really, not embrace/extend/extinguish!), interoperability, openness, and hugs now, okay grandpa? Yeah, yeah, this comment contributes nothing, blah blah blah.
EdSharkey 12y ago
Do you or I really care abouts boasts from the marketdroids? Cut The Rope doth not a great browser make! You and I know the truth. There are seminal, world-beating versions of software that Microsoft has released in the past. And then, after dominance is attained, they touch up the pig's hair and makeup a bit in the subsequent releases. IE7-11 has been hair and makeup and some botox. I don't know how Microsoft works internally, I only know history. And, reading their statements, Spartan might be a world-beater at least in quality, features, or developer interest. When Microsoft feels threatened, that's when the sparks fly. I do not EVER underestimate Microsoft. How quickly did they turn that billion dollar Mojang acquisition around, 2 days?

klenwell 12y ago

I upvoted this for sarcasm. But upon reflection I think maybe I missed the point. I guess a lot of it hinges on your interpretation of the words "competitive" and "parity". I'm hoping that it means the expression "IE issue" gradually becomes the exception rather than the norm.

Navarr 12y ago
These days most of my bugs are Firefox acting differently than I expect it to (though perhaps compliant to standards). I haven't really had to say "IE Issue" unless I was dealing with 8 and lower.
- the_cat_kittles 12y ago
  web audio api :/
spacemanmatt 12y ago
I'm glad I looked up rule 34 real quick; I don't expect there's porn of this. What's actually involved here is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
Encosia 12y ago
To second what Navarr said, I don't really see IE issues these days unless it's on a site that needs to support versions prior to IE9. As often as not, issues in modern IE are due to developers writing code that targets only a single vendor-prefixed version of an API instead of supporting standards, which makes IE look deficient (instead of that sloppy developer) even when it has good support for the APIs that a site uses.
- Turing_Machine 12y ago
  To name just one thing that IE still doesn't support: setting the download attribute on a link. Neither does Safari. This makes it very clumsy/impossible to write real web apps that need to save to the local file system. The scenario is generating a document client-side using JavaScript. Now you want to let the user save it. In Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and no doubt others, this isn't a problem. Just set the download attribute on the link to the file name you want to use.

Throwaway90283 12y ago

I'd like to see some competition as well, but in my perspective, they're taking the wrong approach. This entire project seems to be about improving compatibility with older websites, by adding more algorithms and layers to the rendering process. I don't believe everyone is using Firefox and Chrome because they have better compatibility than IE. I think they should focus on cutting the fat, and making the lightest weight, fastest and standards compliant browser possible, with some popular third-party add-ons available, such as ad block. Or, leave IE11 as the default now for compatibility, and spin off a new browser called IE Lightning. If people start to switch over, then more sites will be developed to work in IE Lightning. In short, create a faster browser with a smaller memory footprint and ad block, get users, watch compatibility fix itself, then make this ship as the default browser in 5 years.

gcb0 12y ago
i think that is what they are going against...
pjbrunet 12y ago
"If people start to switch over, then more sites will be developed to work in IE Lightning." Based on this sentence, I get the feeling you don't appreciate the value of web standards? If Microsoft wants to be taken seriously ever again (they had 10+ years to make that effort with IE before they lost the browser war) all they need to do is render pages correctly, not in their own special way. That also means not inventing special-to-Microsoft codes. Microsoft has a long record of screwing the greater community for their own self-interest. For example, sabotaging Java.
- Chronic31 12y ago
  Your last sentence describes Google.
  - anonbanker 12y ago
    Absolutely correct. We should be trusting neither.

madaxe_again 12y ago

Yes! Because trident wasn't different to WebKit and they definitely worked hard to make it superior! Wait, no, this is Microsoft we're talking about, and they'll use their monopoly to force everyone to have the "new IE", and they'll break the web, again. Honestly, I don't know why you think they'd do anything different. They've managed one release of IE that was actually innovative and good for its time - IE4. I have little faith that they won't just produce some xslt spewing horror show that only works with drm monitors and complains if the backend isn't .net.

easytiger 12y ago

> Microsoft, I hope you pull every -ms- vendor flaggin', ring-0 kernel hookin', micro-optimizatin', site-specific D3D driver tweakin' trick in the book as you reach for parity. This is going to be so fun to watch. Well that's great, but if I'm on Linux and OSX this is just a pain in the ass for devs to support YAWB