Microsoft Releases IE10 Platform Preview 2 95
BogenDorpher writes "Microsoft today has announced the availability of the second platform preview for its upcoming browser, Internet Explorer 10. The first platform preview was released in April. This new platform preview contains the same HTML5 engine seen in the recent public Windows 8 demos."
Re: (Score:2)
""It's better than a sharp stick in the eye, walking on hot coals and being eaten alive by a Burmese Python of unusual size ... just."" ... and that is more tollerable than Firefox 5 with lots of plugins.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see them just adopt Google's re-write of the javascript interpreter. That alone would be a vast improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with IE9's all new javascript engine?
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't exist for IE9 64bit
Re: (Score:2)
Okay... is there anything wrong with the 32bit version? Nobody is forced to use 64-bit IE9 that I'm aware of.
Re: (Score:1)
It's about track records, really
Because a problem noted now with IE9, seeing how IE6 quirks still pop up and MS tends to not fix certain things... reminds us of how Mozilla's version breakage problem didn't matter to ANY of you while I was mentioning it just 9 months ago. So, when suddenly we're jumping major versions like a tsunami's behind us, the breakage is finally evident to the less-attentive.
And then, there's the problem of you people who will be getting computers with IE9 by default, soon as Windows
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft lost this round of the browser war, probably for good. Now if only someone could beat them in the office suite war. As much as I don't like IE, even IE6 isn't as bad as using Office.
Re: (Score:2)
the FACT that you just cannot find new Windows PC's under 4GB any more, forcing a 64 bit OS on him, and me, and you...
A 64bit OS is not being forced on anyone. I bought a new PC which came with 4GB of RAM. However, for legacy reasons I needed a 32bit OS rather than a 64bit one (long story, not relevant here). All I did was ask the shop to supply and install the 32bit version of Win7 instead of the 64bit version. Job done.
Re: (Score:1)
Calm down. 64 bit Windows still downloads and runs 32 bit IE, by default.
Re: (Score:2)
When Windows 8 ships, it'll ship with IE10 not IE9.
IE 9 is a good browser. IE10 will surely be a better browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Which ones still don't work. Vimperator, adblock and flashblock all seem fine here.
Re: (Score:2)
Which ones still don't work.
HTML Validator. Well, you can download it from a shady site [derhofbauer.at], but addons.mozilla.org [mozilla.org] doesn't even have the FF4 version yet!
Re: (Score:2)
I use firefox 7.0a1 and it works great so what exactly is your problem with the old firefox 5 ?
Re: (Score:1)
firefox 7.0a1? Cool! I'm out.Why not firefox 10
Re: (Score:2)
Old firefox 5? I just update to firefox 5 about three days.
What! That's more than 72 hours ago! Are you crazy to still use a browser that old?
Re: (Score:2)
the old part was a joke .... I am not good at humour it seems
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's one:
"Internet Explorer: the only single platform web browser in existence."
Actually, not a selling point, but many people would take the above as something good anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's better than a sharp stick in the eye, walking on hot coals and being eaten alive by a Burmese Python of unusual size ... just."
"But it's a whole heckuva lot better than running Firefox 5!"
Re: (Score:2)
I used IE9 and found it pretty decent and fast. I tried the sharp stick in my eye and found that to be significantly worse.
link is blogspam (Score:5, Informative)
Instead of the blogspam link you could have linked the official page [msdn.com] that has far more useful information than useless article on the submitter's blog.
Re: (Score:2)
What content? You just regurgitated the official blogpost with a picture lifted from it. You provided nothing of value other than driving ad clicks for yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
Instead of the blogspam link you could have linked the official page[...]
Are you new here? It's a requirement for Slashdot submissions to have at least two levels of indirection from factual information. The first level of indirection is the addition of a bias and the replacement of actual facts with misinformation -- this would be the referenced "blogspam link". The second level of indirection provides a summarization of misinformation, with the addition of opinions regarding a misquoted section of the misinformation -- this would be the summary. If the second level of indirect
Re: (Score:1)
You forgot to mention slathering each level of indirection with ads.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I was under the impression that IE 9 and higher does not need IE-hacks anymore, unless you set the doctype tag to imitate IE 6 or 7 compatibilitiy. You do not need that with IE 9. At least I didn't.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What does IE7 have to do with IE9?
That's like hating on Windows 7 because you hated Windows Me. Kind of ridiculous.
Re: (Score:1)
"What does IE7 have to do with IE9?
That's like hating on Windows 7 because you hated Windows Me. Kind of ridiculous.
"
Both AOL and RealPlayer did the "Hey we are sorry! We are better now. Give us another chance" needless to say that didn't work out well with us. Many still cling to Ubuntu and hate Windows 7 because they are still mad at Windows ME and NT 4 server and remember the days of hell. I finally switched back to Windows full time and tried IE 9 out, when Ubuntu and Firefox kept pissing me off. It too
Re: (Score:3)
IE will always need hacks so long as Microsoft clings to it's JScript interpretation of Javascript, especially with DOM Events handling. It's code is IDENTICAL to the W3C standard except it changed the name and the parameters sent in (like 'onclick' instead of 'click') and while most JS librarys worth their salt replace the event model wholesale (like JQuery) it's still a hurdle to overcome.
I'm not much of a designer so I can't speak for the CSS compatability first hand, but my designer co-worker assures me
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not much of a designer so I can't speak for the CSS compatability first hand, but my designer co-worker assures me that there are some parts of the CSS spec that IE 9 still doesn't do that he would love to use. (Something about border images) but it seems like most of the CSS spec is implemented in some form or another.
Off the top of my head the border-radius and background gradient support comes to mind. IE9 is superior to the previous versions as far as CSS support is concerned. However, when using a radius + a gradient, the gradient overrides the radius property which makes the div look boxy. There are a few dirty tricks to emulate it but it's still a hack. For a more hands on example which you can see how things vary subtly from one browser to another, take a look at the Layerstyles.org [layerstyles.org] builder. I'm not affiliated wit
Re: (Score:2)
IE9 does finally support border-radius, but I know it doesn't support text-shadow.
Here's a comparison between IE versions:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc351024(v=vs.85).aspx [microsoft.com]
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how well new versions of IE support new standards. The masses won't be using it until they buy a new computer that already has the latest version pre-installed. Most of them are too terrified of breaking their computer to proceed with the upgrade they're prompted with through Windows Update.
Re: (Score:2)
IE9 does finally support border-radius, but I know it doesn't support text-shadow.
Sorry if my wording is confusing but my post mentions supporting border-radius AND a background gradient. I thought this was clear in my second sentence:
However, when using a radius + a gradient, the gradient overrides the radius property which makes the div look boxy
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how well new versions of IE support new standards. The masses won't be using it until they buy a new computer that already has the latest version pre-installed. Most of them are too terrified of breaking their computer to proceed with the upgrade they're prompted with through Windows Update.
True! The faster we can get away from IE6(7,8) requirements the better. I think many of these people aren't using Windows Update on dubious installs anyway so it's moot, right? On the bright side we're in a better place than one year ago as far as CSS3 support is concerned across the board. This is a good thing!
Re: (Score:2)
I think IE9 finally supports DOM level 2, before I think the DOM was mostly unchanged since the outdated IE5.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, IE9 is crappy. I don't like the UI, it's not as snappy as I like it to be and I don't like it that I still have to write IE-hacks for my websites.
For non-JS, IE9 and Opera are the fastest browsers around in Windows. My peeve is having low framerates while scrolling through very long websites with lots of images/whatnot. IE9 and Opera have the smoothest non-js html rendering, followed by a big step down to Firefox (which I use because noscript is amazing and I don't like the Opera or IE9 UIs), then Chrome (my backup, but too slow to use more than a couple times a week without cringing), then Safari.
Re: (Score:2)
Is HTML 5 support better than IE 9? (Score:1)
According to www.html5test.com, the other preview is no better than IE 9. Not to say IE 9 is bad, it is just behind Chrome.
With the latest fallout from Firefox 5, I expect IE 10 to become quite popular and as much as we hate Microsoft here, I think the newest releases of IE 9 and IE 10 are tollerable and I may even say cool to develop with. ... I feel I am trapped in the twilight zone for that last sentence.
I am hoping this will change, but IE is very conservative and only tends to support tags and CSS that
Re: (Score:2)
They've already updated the score for Preview 2:
Microsoft Internet Explorer 10 PP 2 231 6
That's 106 higher score than Preview 1.
Re: (Score:1)
I eat my words. Preview 1 scored lower than IE 9 (141) when I tested it a week ago. Better but still HTML 5 support is between Firefox 3.6 and 4. Still it is a vast improvement, and any work shifted to the GPU is important for the sub netbook and tablet market with the new CPU/GPU combos. Webworkers and more CSS 3D will surely help.
Re: (Score:2)
According to www.html5test.com, the other preview is no better than IE 9.
Possibly the test is incomplete; this page [msdn.com] says theyve improved a number of HTML5 aspects. And this isnt exactly a beta, so one would surmise that theres work yet to be done.
With the latest fallout from Firefox 5,
What fallout would that be? The 5 people on slashdot who think Firefox devs are pegging version numbers for numbers sake (rather than to signify a new development model)? Yea, the average user REALLY cares about that.
Either way I would like to see HTML 5 forms,
According to the page I linked, they are adding that to IE10, as well as other CSS3 tags and a number of other feature
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, the average user REALLY cares about that.
No, they just care about the fact that their plugins fail to work after an update because the version number was bumped for no good reason. If Firefox would fix their stupid policy about what you can set maxVersion to there wouldn't be any issues but at the rate they are going to bump version numbers they are going to continuously cause headaches.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's good that they addressed the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I see! Then I guess everything is wrapped up in a nice neat package! ...
Really, I mean that. Sorry if it SOUNDED sarcastic.
(Homer quote for those who missed it)
Re: (Score:2)
If Firefox would use an internal plugin API version number that plugins could check against so that users wouldn't have all their shit broken because FF and plugin devs are throwing hissy fits at each other, the entire problem would be solved.
IE sidesteps this by making sure all three plugins work in the new browser before deploying it.
Re: (Score:2)
Im pretty sure PLUGINS dont break between firefox versions. You are perhaps thinking of extensions, which are utterly different.
It seems... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I read somewhere that Microsoft plans to update IE annually. If the browsers are better quality and actually implement standards properly it wont be as drastic an issue as the past. For example Chrome mainly just updates its Javascript and adds additional tags rather than implement the way old HTML 4.01 is rendered.
IE was low quality during 5.5 to 7. You could follow the standards and dumb race conditions would make certain elements load at different times and cause it to create a mess. To get around these
Re: (Score:2)
You could follow the standards and dumb race conditions would make certain elements load at different times and cause it to create a mess.
Not to mention crashes and security vulnerabilities too. For example, as I mentioned in another thread, IE's parsing of plain HTML tag soup is robust, but as soon as you add some CSS, even something as simple as <table style=position:absolute;clip:rect(0)> would result in an exploitable crash that had to be fixed in a security update. Not to mention this [crashie8.com] and this [blogspot.com] example, and there are probably more.
Re: (Score:3)
I read somewhere that Microsoft plans to update IE annually.
So in 10 years, does that mean they'll be up to IE version 20? The only other software I can think of that has a major version number of >=20 is emacs.
Re: (Score:1)
The URL bar sucks. Modal browsers rock. Browsing without vimperator is torture. I supposed there must be an emacs like browser for that faction as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The URL bar isn't there in the IE platform previews...
I haven't looked at it. (Score:1)
Will use it when it ends up on Windows Update.
Or not actually, since I don't have any Windows 7 machines, only XP and Vista ones.
Even if they did decide to support XP I'd probably keep using Opera.
Well if Opera, Mozilla and Google stopped supporting Windows I might use it.
Re: (Score:2)
You should update your Vista boxes to Win7. It's a dramatic improvment, and upgrade-in-place is supported. Vista does support IE9, btw... or rather IE9 supports Vista.
As for XP, unless they're running on ancient boxes with less than 1GB of memory and no video card worth speaking of, they'd probably benefit from an upgrade to Win7 as well, though the need to reinstall everything is a drawback (as is the cost). But the security gains are real and significant, as is the usability.
Everyone should be encourag
Re:I'll have to try that out... (Score:4, Funny)
Did you forget to add deb.microsoft.com to your /etc/apt/sources.list, by chance?
Re: (Score:1)
I'm guessing the following commands failed for you as well:
$sudo apt-get girlfriend
$sudo apt-get out-of-parents-basement
$sudo apt-get clean-shirt
$sudo apt-get a-sense-of-dignity
Are we native yet? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, IE 8.0 only scores about 141 out of 450 points in the current June 22, 2011 release of the HTML5Test.com test page. This is really low compared to the competition:
286 -- Firefox 5.0
328 -- Chrome 12.0.742.112 (current public stable release)
253 -- Safari 5.0.5
286 -- Opera 11.50
Hopefully, IE 10.0 has to be at least as good as the current Firefox 5.0 if they want to implement HTML 5.0 features correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
I miss the old Microsoft (Score:2)
It took them 2 years and 5 months to release IE8, and 2 years to release IE9. Who knows when this version will be released...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm betting it'll be released with Windows 8 in 2012 sometime.
Re: (Score:1)
Well they could release a new version of IE every month like certain other companies. How would you like to support that? :P
31 CSS file limit finally removed! (Score:2)
At the very bottom of this page [microsoft.com] it mentions fantastic news: the removal of the 31 style sheets limit!
Notice Support Commitment (Score:2)