Microsoft has sent an e-mail to a select number of its previous beta testers regarding the upcoming release of IE8 beta 1. “We are nearing the launch of Windows Internet Explorer 8 Beta 1 and we will be making it available for the general public to download and test. IE8 Beta 1 is focused on the developer community, with the goal of gaining valuable feedback to improve Internet Explorer 8 during the development process.”
I have been holding out on getting vista because i have been waiting for 2 things to be bundled in it and not required as a seperate install, SP 1 and IE 8. I am glad to see development is moving along and i am even more excited that it apparently is much more standards compliant. I look forward to reviews on the beta when it is released.
I got Vista, and let me tell you: hold off! Trust me!
As for IE8, I welcome it. I’m sure it will hit the torrents within seconds of being offered for dl.
I’ll second that. I just got Vista for my wife last week and it is s-l-o-w.
The installer is a big improvement over XP, but other than that, I’m not seeing too much to be happy about.
I just hope that it’s going to be better than FireFox 3.0 Beta 3.
I’m having problems with it, from disappearing menu, right click menu that just open a black box. I’ve got some problems with Flash media player where the GUI of the applet seems to flicker all the time. And some problems with layout of web pages. (I’m using Vista X64).
FireFox 2 is much better and they have a long way to go until FF 3 turns Gold.
That’s why they call it beta ^_^
Get filing bug reports if you want to improve FF3 then. I’ve not experiences any of theose problems in my FF3b3 install, so it could be that you are an edge case that the devs aren’t aware of yet.
You should have tried FireFox 3 Beta 2… I haven’t had any issues with beta 3 yet.
It sounds like your problem is not specific to Firefox, if you’re having problems with Flash, etc. You may want to try uninstalling it and doing a clean install. I know someone who earlier this week suddenly had Windows tell him that the Firefox executable was not a valid win32 application (I talked him through reinstalling it), so don’t be so quick to blame the application and not Windows. @.~
You might also try the nightly builds. I’ve been using them as my default browser for over two months, now, and they have some very spoiling features (the new location bar, for one) that are not duplicated in any other browser. It’s unbelievably awesome to be able to type part of the title of a page to pull it from history in the location bar (e.g. a movie title to get pages on IMDb that do not contain this in their URL).
From what I’ve heard so far, the only notable feature about IE 8 will be that, if you include a tag that will fail validation, IE will finally give something close to standards support. I’m completely underwhelmed. Just one more flawed browser to support when designing pages.
It’s not over by a long shot, how does Microsoft try to put a holt to Firefox’s momentum, Opera trying to sue them.
It seems Microsoft has decided to do something and change their stance and try the compatibility/standards way but does that mean a softer hand, harder kick while your not looking?
The browser wars are really just getting geared up again.
It actually really seemed like IE wasn’t even going to be in the running this time around (IE7 can be summed up as “It sucks less”), but from all reports, IE8 is going to be very fast, very secure, and very standards compliant. Webkit is lightning fast, very standards compliant, and with some big js improvements coming down the pipe is turning into a very compelling choice. FF3 isn’t going to be standing still on standards and will pass acid2, finally tracking down the memory and stability issues, and offering native UIs on every platform.
Trouble is, all the reports about IE8 have been coming directly from Microsoft at this time. As noone else has had a chance to try it.
Just like all the glowing reports about standards compliance that were released about IE7, before it was GA.
The goals for IE7 were security, then rendering bugs, then standards. They accomplished the security issue, they fixed the majority of the huge, embarrasing ie bugs that every web guy knew about, and it was more standards compliant then ie6.
IMO IE7 gives the new team the benefit of the doubt, if you take IE4-6 into account, IE7 was a hell of a release. Based on what they have already accomplished, I wouldn’t be suprised at all if they delivered on what they are blogging about IE8.
Even if they don’t though, webkit is still turning into a kickass platform, and will definately give gecko a run for its money. The browser wars are still gonna happen, its just IE will be a sideliner.
It will all depend on their bets.
I believe that going Vista-only would give Firefox a chance to stand up again(FF4) after the blow that IE8 will be to the Windows version if the latter really is faster and more standards-compliant than FF3.
You think Firefox should artificially limit it’s own user base? What good could that possibly do?
There is virtually nothing available in Vista that isn’t either available in Windows XP as well, or available as a portable library that can be used across all platforms supported by Firefox, including Mac OS X and Linux. The Firefox team have already shown that they can support three separate platforms (Windows, Linux, Mac OS X), so what’s wrong with adding a fourth (Windows Vista)?
Even Microsoft aren’t dropping XP support yet. Which is a relief – the sooner web developers can ignore IE 6 and IE 7 the better, and tying IE 8 adoption to Vista adoption would have crippled it.
WTF(riend)?
What I am suggesting is that FF3 will have problems to contest IE8 in the Windows platform if IE8 is the second-coming everyone’s suggesting and FF3 keeps being just good.
If Microsoft does as usual and keeps IE8 to Vista users as a way to push Vista adoption, FF4 will have a chance of optimizing for speed and be back into competition in the Windows arena before XP gets phased out.
In Linux, and free-OSes in general, FF has a virtual monopoly, and there’s no chance of Windows-only IE8 ever contesting it.
Of course this all assumes that the information about fastest and more compliant than ever IE8 is true.
Edited 2008-02-26 08:48 UTC
Sorry – I obviously misunderstood what you were saying.
I really don’t think anyone can say that IE 8 will be any better than Firefox 3 at this stage, based only on a couple of blog posts by the IE development team.
The performance and standards-compliance bars have been set very high by Opera, and by the latest development snapshots of both Firefox and Safari. The chances of Microsoft being able to beat everyone else on the first go are virtually zero, especially considering the head start everyone else has.
Even if IE 8 does turn out to be comparable to modern versions of Firefox, Safari, and Opera, that’s good too. At least we won’t all be held back by IE as much as we are today.
Fact sheet:
What’s known about IE8 & Firefox3?
IE8: Shit all
Firefox 3: Download the beta here http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html , and the source code here http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.0b3/…
Web developers care about standards compliance, it has been shown that noone else really does.
What is important is that using IE6, especially pre XP SP2 was downright dangerous to peoples computers, and the word really got around. People were more then willing to put up with the performance issues of firefox if it meant that surfing the web didn’t infest their machines with spyware. If MS makes a big enough splash with IE8, FF may start losing some of its windows base.
Honestly, if this boils down to technical superiority, my bets are on webkit. They need a better javascript engine, but when that comes their speed will beat IE (and totally pants FF), and their codebase is far cleaner then anything else out there.
This isn’t exactly on topic (and I’m sorry about that), but I’ve been wondering.
I don’t much care for Internet Explorer anymore, though back in the day I preferred it over Netscape Communicator. I’ve been caught up with the Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox movement, and have found it to be a ‘comfortable’ browser. Except that it ‘feels’, well, bloated now.
I’ve tried using Opera, but I miss the combination of Adblock/Flashblock/All-In-One Sidebar like crazy. I’ve tried the css hacks, but the UI doesn’t feel right either.
I’ve tried Apple’s port of Safari, but I can’t get past the abrupt difference in UI on a Windows machine. (I use Windows XP. Please don’t turn this into a debate over my choice of OS.)
…What alternatives are there left for me to try? Are there free (or cheap) plug-ins for Opera to make it ‘feel’ more like Firefox with adblock/flashblock/a download sidebar?
Thanks!
As for the adblock function in Opera, try this:
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=216736
FF Ad-block might still be better but there is a way of avoiding ads in Opera.
Flash block…. try this:
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=220642
I hope it helps, otherwise please try and search the Opera forums….
“a download sidebar”
It’s there, only that it’s called “Transfers”.
If it is really important for you for it to be caleld “Downloads” you can change that in the language file.
What about the UI? It uses a bit different approach than FF, but is really quite flexible. (You can get it to look like FF if that’s what you want.)
When if comes about having the wrong “feeling” it might be the way Opera behaves when closing tabs? Personally it’s something I love about it, but it *is* customizeable.
Look here: http://operawatch.com/news/2008/02/firefox-like-tab-behavior-now-in…
That’s all I can help though. If you look at the web you’ll probably be able to tweak Opera to your needs, and I at least don’t think Opera feels at bloated. (Otherwise I guess you could try FF3, it had fixes on some memory leak stuff and that’s probably what’s causing the “bloated feeling” anyway.)
As KDE is coming for Windows you’ll eventually get WebKit for Windows in more adapted UI. (Safari looking like Windows.)
Edited 2008-02-26 08:27 UTC
Here’s my feedback on IE 8 for Microsoft…
1) Download the CSS specs
2) Implement them to the letter
3) No matter how tempted you are to add Microsoft “improvements”, DON’T!
Unless they are downright lying, IE8 will be more css compliant then FF2
I’m thinking of the Gates deposition during the DOJ proceedings, in which he was asked a whestion about the IE “browser”. He looked quite confused, and claimed he did not understand what the questioner meant by “browser”. Windows doesn’t come with a “browser”, you see. It comes with web technologies. QED
Maybe they would lie, and maybe they wouldn’t. But they most certainly have no problem with deception, subterfuge, misinformation, and diverionary tactics, as their history clearly shows.
I believe that you have been advocating the view that Microsoft has changed, turned over a new leaf, found God, and are good team players today.
Maybe they are, and maybe they aren’t. But even if they are, as with any entity with a reputation for deception, they are going to have to work very hard for a very long time to prove it. And that is how it should be.
That made me chuckle
Changed from the early 90s? definately. Turned a new leaf? I would say so. Found God and are good team players? To a degree.
What I have been saying is that we have had demonstratable proof in a serious evility reduction in the company. They are still a business, and as such are still capable of pulling shitty moves. But nowadays, I don’t think they are really any better or worse then other companies, like apple, or even google.
I saw screenshots of IE 8 – and I know it’s still beta but it looks like IE 7 with office ribbons UI. Talk about freaking innovation right there. Ha!
Now if Microsoft wants to put innovation to IE 8 – they need to put a talking dog or a wizard with a flying broomstick on the bottom right corner of the browser giving me informative advice. Like how I can close the browser window by clicking on the X button on the top right window. Or have the talking dog take a crap on the bottom right corner of the page when it detects a web site without SSL. Now that’s innovation!
Edited 2008-02-26 04:02 UTC
Will IE 8 be Vista only or will it also run on Windows XP? I’m not finding the info when I google search.
Read the article.
Microsoft has previously said it is focusing on developers (read: web standards) with version 8, which is expected to be released in the first half of 2008 for both Windows XP and Windows Vista
Edited 2008-02-26 05:44 UTC
I don’t know where the writer got that information from but it was not from the invitation nor from the IE devs’ blog.
In the invitation it is stated that the beta 1 will be available in the first half of 2008. If MS actually gets the final version in 2008(both for XP and Vista) it might not be as revolutionary as they are selling.
Maybe in the end it turns out to be more like IE7+standards-mode.
What’s worse, will it install over IE7?
Supporting IE is a joke. Every other browser vendor allows you to run multiple versions side by side and add/remove them as you please. Microsoft actually expect you to download an entire virtual machine, just to test in IE. It’s insane, and I suspect IE8 will be just as difficult, causing take up to be slow, yet again.
If IE8 is as standard compliant as they say, then there should be little need to actually test it in the browser, any method that validates that your code is standards compliant would do.
Both FF3 and webkit are resonably standards compliant so if your code looks good in them, it should look good in IE8 too. E.g FF3 passes the acid2 test, and does quite well on acid3 (59/100) that is targeted at ecma script standard compliance. Have anybody teste IE8 with acid3? Would be fun to know how well it does on acid3 (http://acid3.acidtests.org/).
The real problem is people that still runs IE6. They are the ones that will prevent web developers from building standard compliant websites that looks good in every browser.
Not testing in all browsers is a good way to get your boss/client very angry with you. None of the big three interpret standards the same way, and none of them is 100% standard compliant. IE8 won’t be either. Passing the Acid2 test and being relatively standards compliant is not a safe replacement for testing
Yeah it seems only people that actually have to develop real web sites for a living understand this. It’s not as simple as making sure your code is standards compliant and “knowing” it will work. It probably wont.
Well the big question is… Will they finally handle xhtml 1.1 correctly. Xhtml 1.1 should be sent as mime type application/xhtml+xml . If you do so, IE 7 wants to download your webpage. And this problem was known before IE 7!
What you are mentioning could also prove to be a better alternative to the proposed IE8 “activate web standards” tag.
Edited 2008-02-26 08:42 UTC
You can get IE8 to go into standards mode (and avoid the meta tag), by using a HTML5 doctype which the other browsers have no issue with “[!DOCTYPE html]” (with angle brackets obviously)
Can anyone tell me also, if you are using IE7 or IE8, then can you see the butterfly here:
http://croczilla.com/svg/samples/butterfly/butterfly.svg
… and the lion cub here:
http://croczilla.com/svg/samples/lion/lion.svg
… and do the coloured circles interact with the mouse to partly hide the crocodile here:
http://croczilla.com/svg/samples/circles2/circles2.xml
… and can you play a very slow interactive game of space invaders here:
http://croczilla.com/svg/samples/invaders/invaders.svg
If not, then no standards compliance for YOU!
Edited 2008-02-26 12:00 UTC
Does the W3C define SVG as being an integral part of the HTML standard? Does it say browsers need to integrate it to be standards compliant?
Err … yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W3C_standards#Standards
err… no. SVG is a w3c standard, but it is not part of the HTML or XHTML spec.
Err … OK, but it is nveretheless part of the W3C/IETF Standards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W3C_standards#Standards
The W3C standards are meant to achieve “device independence” for accessibility of internet-based services:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_Independence
http://www.w3.org/2001/di/
http://www.w3.org/TR/di-princ/
Since we are talking here about all internet-based services to be accessible by all and sundry internet-connected devices, it makes sense that an independent body sets the applicable standards, as opposed to allowing control by any one vendor.
That means that the W3C, and not Microsoft, gets to say what is correct, and what is not, for internet-connected devices.
Since IE is part of an Internet-connected device accessing Inetrnet-based services, the the IE browser should indeed support SVG graphics, regardless if the SVG specification is part of HTML or separately specified.
Internet Explorer does not comply.
Edited 2008-02-26 22:28 UTC
Aside from what google_ninja pointed out, how many of those listed are supported in Firefox? Webkit? Opera?
Actually, all of those work (at least to display) in Firefox, Opera, and Safari (Webkit). Only Firefox actually seems to like the Space Invaders game, though. Opera displays it (but doesn’t let you play), and Safari (Webkit) stopped responding after starting a game.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVG#Native_support for more information.
Note: I was testing on the nightly build of Firefox 3.0b4; Firefox 2.0.0.12 may not support the Space Invaders game.
It’s pretty much a given that standards support for anything is better in any browser other than Internet Explorer. I hate having to support it, especially IE6 (which sadly, a huge percentage of people still use): 17%, 12%, 13%, 13%, and 14%, from the 5 sites on which I have access to Google Analytics data. The ironic part is the last of those sites (with 14%) makes no pretense of supporting IE6 (transparent PNG layout, done via CSS which renders the Javascript PNG fix impossible, plus other CSS IE6 basically does not render), to the point of inserting a H1 warning with text about insecurity and linking to Wikipedia, while urging the viewer to download other browsers. Despite all of this, still it has 14% of its traffic from IE6.
Web developers will still have to support that abomination for years, or get more vocal about “This page refuses to support your browser because…”
Er, are you talking specifically about SVG or all the W3C standards in the link posted by lemur?
I doubt any browser fully supports ALL of those standards in their latest stable version. The point of the story being, why can you pick out a standard IE doesn’t support (X) and cry wolf then ignore that other browsers don’t support Y and/or Z?
If current browsers DO support all of those, can you provide a source to back that claim up?
I think more to the point is that (apart from text-only browsers such as lynx) IE is by far the browser that supports the least of the W3C standards.
IE tends to “support” its own non-standards, such as ActiveX, Windows bitmap, WMF and Winforms, rather than the correct device-independent standards for effectively the same functionality.
It is that sort of non-gracious anti-social ant-competitive behaviour that makes life very difficult for web developers, when by rights it should be all standard and well understood and completely browser and platform independent.
It is that sort of non-gracious anti-social ant-competitive behaviour that Microsoft has been called out for once already by the US courts (but somehow escaped any remedy for that), and is about to be called out for it once again this time by the EU.
I think more to the point is that (apart from text-only browsers such as lynx) IE is by far the browser that supports the least of the W3C standards.
You are right, IE supports the least number of W3C standards. As well as it’s own standards (though other browsers implement non-W3C standards as well, such as XUL).
But you are missing the point here. You’re singling out a specific standard (a NON critical one at that) and criticizing IE for not supporting it. That’s ridiculous.
I’m was quite happy the first times I tried IE7. No, it was far from perfect but it showed a shift in MS’s attitude to standards. They really do seem to try to support it now. Hopefully with IE8 they’ll get as good as Opera/FF/Safari and after enough people have adopted IE8 we can enter a new era og webdesign: a time where you write ONE webpage. Good times are comming!
We are already there, a good web developer will use lowest common denominator techniques that work accross all the major browsers, browser specific hacks should be minimized as much as humanly possible. What IE8 will give us is a significant increase in the tools that are available to us to use, as IE has been behind the times for quite a few years now compared to the competition.
I can run Firefox 3 on a Windows 98 machine…
I haven’t mentioned anywhere that I consider IE to be better than Firefox, so what’s really your point?
Not that many people still using Win98 that having IE8 supporting it will make a difference anyway. (People who haven’t bothered upgrading from Win98 probably don’t bother upgrading their IE anyway…)
No, you can’t.
Windows users who’ve stuck by older versions of Windows are also going to find that Firefox 2 is the end of the line for them. With Firefox 3, Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows ME will no longer be supported.
(http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS2570000984.html)
Cairo, used by Fx3 as graphic fundation, doesn’t work on pre-Win2000 systems.
However, Cairo /could/ work on Windows 9x as it is by it’s nature a cross-platform graphics library – the simple fact is that there is not the willing talent to maintain the 9x backend for cairo as it would mean writing reimplementaions for a lot of GDI+ and above functionality.
Not support but still works