Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chrome browser for businesses

enterprise.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 282 posts

Re: Chrome browser for businesses

#241

Post by reitanqild »

angry-hacker wrote: post #152
reitanqild wrote: post #30

For me Chrome is already the new IE: good enough to saturate the market to the point where devs stops caring about standards compliance. Personally I have tried to like it, multiple times but I always get annoyed and go back to FF. But then again I prefer Linux over Mac and Netbeans over IntelliJ so maybe it's just me.

What standards do they not follow? The biggest issue is the experimental features webmasters use and then force rest to use Chrome. I'm not so sure Chrome themselves not caring about standards.

I meant web devs stop caring about standard compliance ("already works in Chrome, moving on to next interesting feature").

Does this clarify?

Re: Chrome browser for businesses

#243

Post by reitanqild »

imaginenore wrote: post #158
reitanqild wrote: post #30

For me Chrome is already the new IE: good enough to saturate the market to the point where devs stops caring about standards compliance. Personally I have tried to like it, multiple times but I always get annoyed and go back to FF. But then again I prefer Linux over Mac and Netbeans over IntelliJ so maybe it's just me.

What the hell are you talking about? Chrome's support for standards is stellar. It's actually better than FF's. https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/ https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es2016plus/ http://caniuse.com/#feat=async-functions http://caniuse.com/#compare=ie+11,edge+14,firefox+50,chrome+...

I actually meant web devs stop caring, not Chrome devs.

Apologies for creating the misunderstanding.

Re: Chrome browser for businesses

#244

Post by SeanBoocock »

qwertyuiop924 wrote: post #203
SeanBoocock wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not true. Games released physically for video game consoles must pass platform certification requirements and only then manufacture, distribute, and release the game. The lead time required for this in my experience is on the order of 2-3 months, during which time the development team cannot touch the "gold master" build of the game. The build that ends up on the disk is not "completely broken or even mostly…

>The build that ends up on the disk is not "completely broken ...Well, then. Would you care to explain Assassin's Creed Unity, and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 5? I suppose you classify them as "not completely broken"?

Assassin's Creed Unity suffered from a lot of bugs for its PC release, namely graphical glitches on some (not all) hardware. Additionally, it had a number of bugs that could be broadly described as "open world jank": funny physics interactions, NPC spawning issues, etc. The game should have been delayed more on PC to allow for better hardware compatibility testing, but no, I wouldn't classify it on release as completely broken.

Tony Hawk Pro Skater 5 was a rushed project and generally poor game. It was buggy but that was the least of its problems. Many people considered it the worst, or at least one of the worst, major releases of that year. I don't think it is representative of contemporary games as your comment would imply.

Re: Chrome browser for businesses

#245

Post by hfsktr »

shandor wrote: post #168
ggregoire wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you talking about Final Fantasy XV? This case is ridiculous, they are even modifying the story after the launch day. It would be like releasing a movie and changing the end one week after the release because of the bad reviews. Hopefuly the sales of FFXV are relatively bad.

Sorry but why is that a bad thing? I can understand that it's "bad" that their story was lacking at release, but isn't it awesome that they'd go to such lengths to serve fans and buyers and have a good product in the end, if not in the beginning?

pretty quick we will end up with nothing but the worst graphics/story when you buy a game because you can just patch it and fix it later.

Re: Chrome browser for businesses

#246

Post by runeks »

reitanqild wrote: post #241
angry-hacker wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What standards do they not follow? The biggest issue is the experimental features webmasters use and then force rest to use Chrome. I'm not so sure Chrome themselves not caring about standards.

I meant web devs stop caring about standard compliance ("already works in Chrome, moving on to next interesting feature"). Does this clarify?

Chrome doesn't have enough market share for any sensible developer to behave like this.

Re: Chrome browser for businesses

#247

Post by colejohnson66 »

runeks wrote: post #246
reitanqild wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant web devs stop caring about standard compliance ("already works in Chrome, moving on to next interesting feature"). Does this clarify?

Chrome doesn't have enough market share for any sensible developer to behave like this.

I thought Chrome had over 50% of the market share? https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx

Re: Chrome browser for businesses

#248

Post by cvburgess »

reitanqild wrote: post #27
m-p-3 wrote: post #15

This isn't a new thing at all, but more awareness to the sysadmins shouldn't hurt. Also, let me point you to the Legacy Browser Support extension. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/legacy-browser-sup... With proper GPOs you can force a domain/subdomain to open in IE directly from any links.

For Firefox there is (was?) IETab which lets you open websites in IE tabs inside Firefox. I think there was even an option to specify that certain websites (e.g. the Intranet, certain banks) should always open in IETab. Haven't used it for years but back when I was a Windows sysadmin it was the final proof that FF was better than IE: in addition to being Firefox it could also be IE : )

After a quick search, it looks like this may still be a thing for Chrome? https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ie-tab/hehijbfgiek...

Re: Chrome browser for businesses

#249

Post by eikenberry »

dingaling wrote: post #73
jpochtar wrote: post #61

Is anyone else concerned that this means IT can choose to hold back the version of Chrome in their organizations? Auto-updating Chrome has been low key one of the best solutions to the pain of backwards compatibility with older browsers. In the past we not only had to worry about compatibility between browsers, we had to worry about compatibility between browser versions. Further, auto-updating Chrome as dramatically…

Companies have far too much internal plumbing to permit browsers to auto-update themselves. Being feature-compatible with the latest SV-poster-child website is insignificant compared to maintaining stability for the tax-management team's internal web app. I was once involved in an IE6 -> IE8 upgrade for a Fortune 100 corporation. It took nine months to analyze all the possible impacts and implement mitigations before…

IE6 upgrades were much different than other browser updates because it was the last IE to support ActiveX applications. There were many internal enterprise apps written in it that kept IE6 alive for years until they could be rewritten. There is no equivalent in modern browsers.

Re: Chrome browser for businesses

#250

Post by angry-hacker »

reitanqild wrote: post #241
angry-hacker wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What standards do they not follow? The biggest issue is the experimental features webmasters use and then force rest to use Chrome. I'm not so sure Chrome themselves not caring about standards.

I meant web devs stop caring about standard compliance ("already works in Chrome, moving on to next interesting feature"). Does this clarify?

That clarifies it a bit yes. I read your sentence the devs of Chrome.

But it's true, interestingly Safari is often holding them back because so many devs use Macbooks and Safari.

Post reply on HN