7 ms·

> "We’ll continue to have Internet Explorer, but we’ll also have a new browser called Project Spartan" Oh joy, another browser from Microsoft to test. :\

mariusmg 12y ago
Yes, let's all use Webkit. Much better....... Later edit : Multiple implementations of a standard is a good thing.
- integraton 12y ago
  > Multiple implementations of a standard is a good thing. I agree, as long as they are by companies, organizations, and teams other than Microsoft. And that's what we indeed have already: Gecko, WebKit, Blink (and Blink is new, which is great). I very much look forward to additional open engines (and POSIX-compliant operating systems, for that matter) by companies, organizations, and even unofficial teams of dedicated individuals that are not Microsoft, of which there are many.
  - wlesieutre 12y ago
    Microsoft is in much less of a position to screw with standards than they were back when IE was a problem. I'd be more worried about Apple and Google running the browser show if I were you.
    - wantab 12y ago
      I was more concerned when Microsoft did. I have no issue with Apple or Google. In fact, if it weren't for Google and Mozilla, we'd all be using IE6 right now.
      - wlesieutre 12y ago
        I don't have any concerns with Google, but Apple's "No browsers allowed except for new UIs tacked on the iOS WebKit framework" is not my favorite thing ever. Firefox on Android is pretty great.
- aikah 12y ago
  > Multiple implementations of a standard is a good thing. Except that is hardly the case.Competition is good,that's what forced IE to evolve as it was losing marketshares. But let's not kid ourself thinking all the players are in it for web standards. > Yes, let's all use Webkit. Much better....... Because IE supremacy used to be better...
  - nostromo 12y ago
    I think IE supremacy was different and much worse than a Webkit supremacy would be because Webkit isn't controlled by a single company and is open source. Different Webkit implementations still compete for marketshare. I dare say that if all operating systems were nix, that might also be a good thing. It certainly would make life easier for developers. I understand the problems of monocultures when they are controlled by a single profit-motivated company, but is a monoculture based on open source software so bad? Besides, both webkit and *nix systems aren't exactly monocultures because they have so many different implementations.
    - mreiland 12y ago
      > I dare say that if all operating systems were nix, that might also be a good thing. It certainly would make life easier for developers. How? Windows and Unix have evolved entirely different ecosystems. Most developers have a tendency to exist entirely in 1 or the other with only a little interaction between them. I personally am able to use either environment comfortably, but that's actually a big part of the value I bring to certain environments. But that isn't the norm.
    - mreiland 12y ago
      > I dare say that if all operating systems were nix, that might also be a good thing. It certainly would make life easier for developers. How? Windows and Unix have evolved entirely different ecosystems. Most developers have a tendency to exist entirely in 1 or the other with only a little interaction between them. I personally am able to use either environment comfortably, but that's actually a big part of the value I bring to certain environments. But that isn't the norm.
    - 12y ago
- OmarIsmail 12y ago
  Why is that a good thing? For a developer's perspective being able to write once and have it work everywhere is pretty darn big "pro". What are the practical "cons" that outweigh this?
  - dblohm7 12y ago
    The reason why everybody hates developing for IE is that, back the, everybody made your argument for writing for IE instead of WebKit.
    - Retra 12y ago
      The difference is that IE was Microsoft-owned and Webkit is open-source.
- wantab 12y ago
  Apparently you think Chrome still uses WebKit
cssmoo 12y ago
I don't know why you were down voted. We have to support Ie7,8,9,10,11 and 11 for metro in and out of compatibility mode across three fucking platforms due to control styling differences. Now we have Spartan and whatever shtcrock will ship as legacy. We'll lose IE7 when vista is dead. We'll be left with enterprise IE11 well into 2028! Why? In financial services all our clients are cheap, dumb and incompetent. Unpatched win7 from "managed service providers" is the reality. If yore lucky they're not some hideous terminal services shit crock. This is why we go "oh joy". Its also why everyone who works at the places goes home to Apple and Android kit.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  Legacy will be IE11.
- gsnedders 12y ago
  As of Jan 2016, only IE9 (on Vista), IE11 (on 7/8), and Spartan will be receiving security fixes. See <http://support.microsoft.com/gp/Microsoft-Internet-Explorer> http://support.microsoft.com/gp/Microsoft-Internet-Explorer>.
- freehunter 12y ago
  Is that really any different than if enterprise clients were demanding support for Firefox 2, Firefox 3, Firefox 4, etc? I've actually been in that situation, a place I worked in 2011 had a web app that only worked properly in Firefox 2.something. Blame companies for demanding an app specific to one version. Blame the developers for writing apps that only work on one version. Blame Microsoft for making breaking changes between versions. But only one of those things is Microsoft's fault. They've been pushing people hard to update their browser since IE7 was released.
  - cssmoo 12y ago
    Actually its ensuring that all the show stopping bugs that IE has don't take our app out or make it unusable. Unfortunately clients don't upgrade their browsers if cost is involved.
- 12y ago
ubernostrum 12y ago
Honestly, I am prepared to welcome a clean-start browser from Microsoft that rips out all the layers upon layers upon layers upon layers of legacy support and emulation layers it had accumulated. That, not the browser itself, has been the increasing problem with IE in this decade.

mariusmg 12y ago

Yes, let's all use Webkit. Much better....... Later edit : Multiple implementations of a standard is a good thing.

integraton 12y ago
> Multiple implementations of a standard is a good thing. I agree, as long as they are by companies, organizations, and teams other than Microsoft. And that's what we indeed have already: Gecko, WebKit, Blink (and Blink is new, which is great). I very much look forward to additional open engines (and POSIX-compliant operating systems, for that matter) by companies, organizations, and even unofficial teams of dedicated individuals that are not Microsoft, of which there are many.
- wlesieutre 12y ago
  Microsoft is in much less of a position to screw with standards than they were back when IE was a problem. I'd be more worried about Apple and Google running the browser show if I were you.
  - wantab 12y ago
    I was more concerned when Microsoft did. I have no issue with Apple or Google. In fact, if it weren't for Google and Mozilla, we'd all be using IE6 right now.
    - wlesieutre 12y ago
      I don't have any concerns with Google, but Apple's "No browsers allowed except for new UIs tacked on the iOS WebKit framework" is not my favorite thing ever. Firefox on Android is pretty great.
aikah 12y ago
> Multiple implementations of a standard is a good thing. Except that is hardly the case.Competition is good,that's what forced IE to evolve as it was losing marketshares. But let's not kid ourself thinking all the players are in it for web standards. > Yes, let's all use Webkit. Much better....... Because IE supremacy used to be better...
- nostromo 12y ago
  I think IE supremacy was different and much worse than a Webkit supremacy would be because Webkit isn't controlled by a single company and is open source. Different Webkit implementations still compete for marketshare. I dare say that if all operating systems were nix, that might also be a good thing. It certainly would make life easier for developers. I understand the problems of monocultures when they are controlled by a single profit-motivated company, but is a monoculture based on open source software so bad? Besides, both webkit and *nix systems aren't exactly monocultures because they have so many different implementations.
  - mreiland 12y ago
    > I dare say that if all operating systems were nix, that might also be a good thing. It certainly would make life easier for developers. How? Windows and Unix have evolved entirely different ecosystems. Most developers have a tendency to exist entirely in 1 or the other with only a little interaction between them. I personally am able to use either environment comfortably, but that's actually a big part of the value I bring to certain environments. But that isn't the norm.
  - mreiland 12y ago
    > I dare say that if all operating systems were nix, that might also be a good thing. It certainly would make life easier for developers. How? Windows and Unix have evolved entirely different ecosystems. Most developers have a tendency to exist entirely in 1 or the other with only a little interaction between them. I personally am able to use either environment comfortably, but that's actually a big part of the value I bring to certain environments. But that isn't the norm.
  - 12y ago
OmarIsmail 12y ago
Why is that a good thing? For a developer's perspective being able to write once and have it work everywhere is pretty darn big "pro". What are the practical "cons" that outweigh this?
- dblohm7 12y ago
  The reason why everybody hates developing for IE is that, back the, everybody made your argument for writing for IE instead of WebKit.
  - Retra 12y ago
    The difference is that IE was Microsoft-owned and Webkit is open-source.
wantab 12y ago
Apparently you think Chrome still uses WebKit

cssmoo 12y ago

I don't know why you were down voted. We have to support Ie7,8,9,10,11 and 11 for metro in and out of compatibility mode across three fucking platforms due to control styling differences. Now we have Spartan and whatever shtcrock will ship as legacy. We'll lose IE7 when vista is dead. We'll be left with enterprise IE11 well into 2028! Why? In financial services all our clients are cheap, dumb and incompetent. Unpatched win7 from "managed service providers" is the reality. If yore lucky they're not some hideous terminal services shit crock. This is why we go "oh joy". Its also why everyone who works at the places goes home to Apple and Android kit.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
Legacy will be IE11.
gsnedders 12y ago
As of Jan 2016, only IE9 (on Vista), IE11 (on 7/8), and Spartan will be receiving security fixes. See <http://support.microsoft.com/gp/Microsoft-Internet-Explorer> http://support.microsoft.com/gp/Microsoft-Internet-Explorer>.
freehunter 12y ago
Is that really any different than if enterprise clients were demanding support for Firefox 2, Firefox 3, Firefox 4, etc? I've actually been in that situation, a place I worked in 2011 had a web app that only worked properly in Firefox 2.something. Blame companies for demanding an app specific to one version. Blame the developers for writing apps that only work on one version. Blame Microsoft for making breaking changes between versions. But only one of those things is Microsoft's fault. They've been pushing people hard to update their browser since IE7 was released.
- cssmoo 12y ago
  Actually its ensuring that all the show stopping bugs that IE has don't take our app out or make it unusable. Unfortunately clients don't upgrade their browsers if cost is involved.
12y ago

ubernostrum 12y ago

Honestly, I am prepared to welcome a clean-start browser from Microsoft that rips out all the layers upon layers upon layers upon layers of legacy support and emulation layers it had accumulated. That, not the browser itself, has been the increasing problem with IE in this decade.