31–40 of 49 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not trying to detract from IE9 here, but Opera already has a similar ability: http://my.opera.com/core/blog/2009/02/04/vega The interesting parts of the article are the implementation details about the sandbox.
Opera's hardware acceleration is vaporware. It has not been included in any release of Opera, despite that article being over a year old now.
As exciting as it is for IE9 to enter the next-gen browser wars in earnest I wonder if they are already too late. IE releases are still tied to the years long windows ship cycle, which is a significant disadvantage when all your competitors are on months long cycles. Saddled with such a huge OODA disadvantage as well as all the strategy-tax BS from MS is there any hope? By the time IE9 is actually out Chrome may well…
As exciting as it is for IE9 to enter the next-gen browser wars in earnest I wonder if they are already too late. IE releases are still tied to the years long windows ship cycle, which is a significant disadvantage when all your competitors are on months long cycles. Saddled with such a huge OODA disadvantage as well as all the strategy-tax BS from MS is there any hope? By the time IE9 is actually out Chrome may well…
IE9 is a lot friendlier to a system admin trying to install on hundreds of computers. The default Chrome download doesn't even install system wide. It would help if Google has a simple MSI package that did a systemwide install and allowed for updates from a local server, not calling Google all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IE9 is a lot friendlier to a system admin trying to install on hundreds of computers. The default Chrome download doesn't even install system wide. It would help if Google has a simple MSI package that did a systemwide install and allowed for updates from a local server, not calling Google all the time.
The automatic and frequent update system is one thing which makes Chrome very good. It can pretty much be assumed that all users connected to the internet would be atleast on the latest stable version.
We all don't have the same internet connections that Mountain View has.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The automatic and frequent update system is one thing which makes Chrome very good. It can pretty much be assumed that all users connected to the internet would be atleast on the latest stable version.
Actually, in a place with a good internal network and a lower speed external connection, it makes Chrome very bad. Taking up bandwidth downloading the same thing for multiple computers is bad. Windows and OS X allow one download to be propagated to multiple machines. This is an efficient model that allows reporting on which machines didn't get the update (thus making it a lot more likely all machines will be updated)…
Luckily, Chrome use differential updates. This means each update is a tiny binary patch. If you combine them all on your network, it's still a smaller update then one single IE update of 250MB deployed to each machines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IE still has 60% market share, and it's holding steady. IE9 is going to be one of the most important products Microsoft ever ships. It will be compatible enough with web standards, and offer enough performance, that it should allow developers to build more sophisticated apps based on open standards. Html5, css3 and fast Javascript will soon be a given.
IE had 95%. Things change, sometimes things change quickly. Everyone who is capable of using facebook is capable of installing chrome or firefox. If IE truly fell behind, if a new killer web-app/site comes along that didn't work in IE the marketshare numbers would change overnight.
That could be the chrome web store with all the cool webgl 3d games (IE9 won't support webgl and google is sure going to take advantage of this).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, in a place with a good internal network and a lower speed external connection, it makes Chrome very bad. Taking up bandwidth downloading the same thing for multiple computers is bad. Windows and OS X allow one download to be propagated to multiple machines. This is an efficient model that allows reporting on which machines didn't get the update (thus making it a lot more likely all machines will be updated)…
> We all don't have the same internet connections that Mountain View has. Luckily, Chrome use differential updates. This means each update is a tiny binary patch. If you combine them all on your network, it's still a smaller update then one single IE update of 250MB deployed to each machines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We all don't have the same internet connections that Mountain View has. Luckily, Chrome use differential updates. This means each update is a tiny binary patch. If you combine them all on your network, it's still a smaller update then one single IE update of 250MB deployed to each machines.
1 250mb internet download vs. 4-8mb for a couple hundred machines on the internet line is a big difference. Particularly since I can plan when the big download happens (and update) versus all the small downloads that happen in a lab at the same time because of a class starting. Students with the first class of the day don't feel terribly happy about being the designated updater of some company's software.
Make that a few kb. And last time I checked at my work, admin updates usually happen during work hours and affects people working in the "lab". Also, it's 1 250mb that is sometimes installed on each machine on the network, so way worse than a few kb.
As exciting as it is for IE9 to enter the next-gen browser wars in earnest I wonder if they are already too late. IE releases are still tied to the years long windows ship cycle, which is a significant disadvantage when all your competitors are on months long cycles. Saddled with such a huge OODA disadvantage as well as all the strategy-tax BS from MS is there any hope? By the time IE9 is actually out Chrome may well…
IE still has 60% market share, and it's holding steady. IE9 is going to be one of the most important products Microsoft ever ships. It will be compatible enough with web standards, and offer enough performance, that it should allow developers to build more sophisticated apps based on open standards. Html5, css3 and fast Javascript will soon be a given.
You mean: "has been dropping steadily".
> IE9 is going to be one of the most important products Microsoft ever ships.
I've heard that about '95, '98, 2000, XP, Vista and windows 7 as well as a whole bunch of products. They can't all be 'one of the most important products Microsoft ever ships'.
> It will be compatible enough with web standards, and offer enough performance, that it should allow developers to build more sophisticated apps based on open standards. Html5, css3 and fast Javascript will soon be a given.
They already are, just not in the IE world. That's the reason for line one above, Microsoft has been playing catch-up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1 250mb internet download vs. 4-8mb for a couple hundred machines on the internet line is a big difference. Particularly since I can plan when the big download happens (and update) versus all the small downloads that happen in a lab at the same time because of a class starting. Students with the first class of the day don't feel terribly happy about being the designated updater of some company's software.
> 1 250mb internet download vs. 4-8mb Make that a few kb. And last time I checked at my work, admin updates usually happen during work hours and affects people working in the "lab". Also, it's 1 250mb that is sometimes installed on each machine on the network, so way worse than a few kb.