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

Internet Explorer is evil (1996)

toastytech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 85 posts

Re: Internet Explorer is evil (1996)

#41

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Lammy wrote: post #37
tech-historian wrote: post #6

If you want some IE nostalgia, here's a visual history of IE starting in 1995 (v1.0): https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/internet-explorer Factoid: There were versions of IE for both Mac and Solaris.

Please forgive my pedantry, but the suffix `-oid` means `-like`, i.e. not a fact. I should start calling minor-facts "factlets" lol https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Diminutive+suffix

In UK English usage I'd say it means a "minor fact". Compare planetoid, meteoroid, for other examples of -oid being used specifically to indicate a diminutive or minor form of something.

You can possibly blame Steve Wright, Radio 2 talk show host/DJ for popularising the term with that meaning in the UK.

Re: Internet Explorer is evil (1996)

#42

Post by blacktriangle »

Joeri wrote: post #40
blacktriangle wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the answer would have been for Java desktop apps to take off. I think if we had had a more diverse desktop landscape in the late 90s / early 2000s Java desktop apps would have won. As it was that was peak Windows and Java desktop apps were never given the time they needed to mature since the cross platform pitch was at its least compelling. The browser pretty much won because it was able to unseat the Windows…

Web apps won because they didn’t need to be installed on the device. They were vastly inferior to desktop apps built with any framework (even java), but they were “good enough” and IT departments liked them because they were easy to deploy. Anything that required a local install never stood a chance. That advantage for web apps is still there, which is the thing that keeps web app dominance in place.

I feel like this could have been overcome by Java Web Start, which at the time it was released was too little too late. Even embedding applications as applets could have been a good solution.

Re: Internet Explorer is evil (1996)

#43

Post by AshamedCaptain »

OliverJones wrote: post #15

Yes, the Redmond Middle School Science project called Internet Explorer, now in the dumpster of history where it always belonged, was evil. Its over-engineered idiocy (monikers? apartment threading? quirks mode? wtf?) slowed down the development of good internet applications by decades, and caused tens of thousands of lost developer and tester hours that we can never get back. Gates was too greedy to understand why i…

IE was not bad at all, at least technically and at least when it was still being actively developed (i.e. The bad things (and what the web page is mostly complaining about) are the political shenigans from MS; e.g. bundling it with Windows, and then slowing down development significantly when they got to the monopoly position.

And for those that believe MS is now politically better than it was a couple decades ago, just try a recent Windows 10 build. Not only it _still_ bundles Edge as if the EU court ruling was a joke, it will periodically nag you about making it your default browser, even in completely irrelevant places such as Settings.

This is all like 20 years ago except that no one seems to care about desktop browsers anymore.

Re: Internet Explorer is evil (1996)

#45

Post by Joeri »

iamgopal wrote: post #30
ebiester wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But nobody chose the alternatives. Java or single operating system applications were the alternative. Where would we be today if you couldn't swap between Mac and Windows laptops -- or worse, had to have both -- because you depended on applications that had no common operating system? The reason we can use linux as a desktop is because of web applications. Now, it's possible that we could have ended up with Web Start…

Was there ever a JVM web browser?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HotJava

Re: Internet Explorer is evil (1996)

#46

Post by Semaphor »

Lammy wrote: post #37
tech-historian wrote: post #6

If you want some IE nostalgia, here's a visual history of IE starting in 1995 (v1.0): https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/internet-explorer Factoid: There were versions of IE for both Mac and Solaris.

Please forgive my pedantry, but the suffix `-oid` means `-like`, i.e. not a fact. I should start calling minor-facts "factlets" lol https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Diminutive+suffix

> A factoid is either a false statement presented as a fact, or a true but brief or trivial item of news or information.

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid

Re: Internet Explorer is evil (1996)

#47

Post by Joeri »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #26
OliverJones wrote: post #15

Yes, the Redmond Middle School Science project called Internet Explorer, now in the dumpster of history where it always belonged, was evil. Its over-engineered idiocy (monikers? apartment threading? quirks mode? wtf?) slowed down the development of good internet applications by decades, and caused tens of thousands of lost developer and tester hours that we can never get back. Gates was too greedy to understand why i…

> quirks mode? Quirks mode was a necessary measure to ensure backwards compatibility for a majority of websites at the time (circa 2000 - this was IE5). If they had switched every website to standards mode, most of the internet at the time would have appeared broken, and people would have blamed Microsoft, not the websites. (To be fair, IE5 through IE7 had a very broken standards mode, but it was much less broken tha…

I remember some web developers would deliberately build for quirks mode because it was a stable target, unlike the always shifting standards mode.

Re: Internet Explorer is evil (1996)

#48

Post by [deleted] »

iamgopal wrote: post #30
ebiester wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But nobody chose the alternatives. Java or single operating system applications were the alternative. Where would we be today if you couldn't swap between Mac and Windows laptops -- or worse, had to have both -- because you depended on applications that had no common operating system? The reason we can use linux as a desktop is because of web applications. Now, it's possible that we could have ended up with Web Start…

Was there ever a JVM web browser?

[deleted]

Re: Internet Explorer is evil (1996)

#49

Post by Turing_Machine »

kolinko wrote: post #36
bri3d wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness, "DHTML" / programmatic manipulation of the DOM was just invented in 1996 and eventually ended up being the envisioned successful client application runtime implemented across browser versions and runtimes. Now, of course with the Chromium hegemony we have an old-is-new-again set of problems on the web, but I do think that for a time, people _did_ listen to this advice and stopped writing applications for…

There’s also WASM that might pick up where Flash/Flex/Java left off.

WASM doesn't have any UI stuff, which is where Flash really stood out. Java did also, but OMG, that startup time hit...

Re: Internet Explorer is evil (1996)

#50

Post by kitsunesoba »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #32
bri3d wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness, "DHTML" / programmatic manipulation of the DOM was just invented in 1996 and eventually ended up being the envisioned successful client application runtime implemented across browser versions and runtimes. Now, of course with the Chromium hegemony we have an old-is-new-again set of problems on the web, but I do think that for a time, people _did_ listen to this advice and stopped writing applications for…

It’s worth remembering that Flash was in fact extremely successful. I think we’d still be using it today if not for some combination of (1) Steve Jobs and (2) Adobe mismanagement. People say Flash was bloated but try running Slack on 2008-era hardware and let me know how it goes. And there’s no reason Flash couldn’t have been adapted to use responsive breakpoints and such for mobile friendliness.

Slack and other ill-optimized Electron apps are not great, but Flash was far worse, at least in my experience. With Flash a single banner ad in some tab you forgot you had open could consume half or more of your G4/G5/C2D, whipping your fans into a frenzy and roasting your lap (if using a laptop). Slack, etc are a detriment in terms of heat and battery life too, but not to such an extreme extent and at least you're getting a reasonably functional app in exchange.
Post reply on HN