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

IE10: How does it really stack up?

lucidchart.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#51

Post by striderxiii »

bornhuetter wrote: post #21
monsterix wrote: post #6

Well, let's agree that IE10 does well whatever it is designed to do well. Cool. Now what? We have an IE10 browser that compares well with Google Chrome, Opera and perhaps Firefox too (I don't know the exact details about your tests that were making Firefox crash as often as you've claimed in your article). So is this the point where Microsoft takes on the real challenge? Will it go beyond its typical high-speed sales…

How do you suggest Microsoft goes about convincing the millions of East Asian users running IE6 on a pirated version of XP to upgrade to IE10?

You gotta suspect they'll be forced into upgrading eventually. Developers simply can't continue supporting those archaic versions.

But then I suppose the operative word there is 'eventually' which can't come soon enough.

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#52

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

Jabbles wrote: post #36
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #13

The real problem is that while there will be a new and better Chrome and in a month and a half, and similar for Firefox, we'll have this build of IE10 for 2 years or maybe more. How they compare at the start of the cycle is not typical, how they compare at the midpoint will be more average, how they compare at the end (where IE7 or IE8 is now) is the worst case.

Internet Explorer will start automatically updating. http://blogs.windows.com/ie/b/ie/archive/2011/12/15/ie-to-st...

That article is interesting, but rather vague.

> "With automatic updates enabled through Windows Update, customers can receive IE9 and future versions of Internet Explorer seamlessly without any "update fatigue" issues."

How often will these updates come out?

And what about the usual tying of browsers to OS. IE 10 will come out for Windows 7 ... which means that people running XP (or Vista) won't get it. So IE9 will still be in play for a while, and by the time this fades into irrelevance like IE6...

Will IE11 be Windows 8 only? What about IE12? Or is there going to be an IE10.1 with new features in only six months time. We don't know. It does not dispel the (currently correct) perception that for the foreseeable future, some version of IE will be the boat-anchor holding the web back.

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#53

Post by nkassis »

bornhuetter wrote: post #21
monsterix wrote: post #6

Well, let's agree that IE10 does well whatever it is designed to do well. Cool. Now what? We have an IE10 browser that compares well with Google Chrome, Opera and perhaps Firefox too (I don't know the exact details about your tests that were making Firefox crash as often as you've claimed in your article). So is this the point where Microsoft takes on the real challenge? Will it go beyond its typical high-speed sales…

How do you suggest Microsoft goes about convincing the millions of East Asian users running IE6 on a pirated version of XP to upgrade to IE10?

I think they should see if they can release a strip down demo version of windows. No frills or anything just the basic required functionality with clear path for upgrading. That version should be able to work on WinXP level hardware and be easy to upgrade.

I would probably be hard to offer something like this without cannibalizing some of their sales but in Asia, they have tons of users who will never purchase a legitimate version of windows but are sizable enough that they have to cater to them for other services.

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#54

Post by keypusher »

paranoiacblack wrote: post #12

Wait, did you make the other browsers your default before running the tests? I was under the impression that IE is the only first-class browser and the other browsers would work as third-party apps with limitations on things like the amount of processes it can open, etc. I ask because I supremely doubt that Mozilla Firefox couldn't pass your benchmark, although I don't use it myself.

Do you have any article source for this claim?

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#55

Post by bradleyjg »

bornhuetter wrote: post #21
monsterix wrote: post #6

Well, let's agree that IE10 does well whatever it is designed to do well. Cool. Now what? We have an IE10 browser that compares well with Google Chrome, Opera and perhaps Firefox too (I don't know the exact details about your tests that were making Firefox crash as often as you've claimed in your article). So is this the point where Microsoft takes on the real challenge? Will it go beyond its typical high-speed sales…

How do you suggest Microsoft goes about convincing the millions of East Asian users running IE6 on a pirated version of XP to upgrade to IE10?

If they aren't your (potential) customers and/or those of your advertisers, do you really care?

All the countries in North America, Europe and South America ex-Chile and and Venezuela are at less than 1% IE 6 usage.[1]

7 & 8, which are better but still not great developer-wise, unfortunately still have a ways to go before passing that threshold. But at a minimum you should think long and hard before pouring time into IE 6 compatibility.

[1] http://www.ie6countdown.com/#list

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#56

Post by dangrossman »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #41
andybak wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IE 6, 7 and maybe 8 users are probably running XP so can't upgrade. IE 9 users on Vista are similarly out of luck. I won't be recommending IE 10 even to my clients on Windows 7 or 8 until they have an silent auto-updater and a frequent release cycle. It's the only way we'll stop IE's user base holding back the web.

This is the one thing which always mystified me about MS and IE. Why do they continually dead end their browser to a specific OS release? I can't imagine someone in their marketing department actually thought by doing so would get people to upgrade their OS so they could have a more up to date browser.

The newer versions use features that didn't exist in older Windows. Features which are core components to how the new browsers work, both in terms of rendering and security. Someone made the decision that having these features was more important than backwards compatibility; it wasn't a marketing decision made after-the-fact. If there were no marketing department, IE10 still would not be able to run in Windows XP.

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#57

Post by thristian »

vegardx wrote: post #45
polshaw wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is how often. Adopting the firefox 2/3 model (albeit less nagging a-la-chrome) is a great step forward from the IE6 one we have had up to now, but they really need to match the rapid release schedules of mozilla and google today. At a minimum quarterly updates (features/engine updates, not just security fixes) to stop hindering the web.

Less naggy? I find Firefox to be one of the most naggy browsers about upgrades. Or have they changed this recently? With Chrome you just see a notification on the settings menu, and a restart brings you up to the next version. I really hope IE adopts this model.

I'm pretty sure recent versions of Firefox (say, since the early teens) have had nagless updates.

I find myself having to manually check the About dialog for updates now, because they're about the only reason I ever restart my browser, and if I don't manually check occasionally I'd have no way of knowing an updated existed.

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#58

Post by rbanffy »

Spearchucker wrote: post #32
eliza1wright wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think part of the problem is that IE is the browser of choice for the Dept. of Defense. If you've ever worked for the DoD, you know that updates, etc. take forever because of security concerns. I wonder if that relationship informs IE's decision to hold back on their browser capabilities.

I'm very familiar with the DoD's byzantine and prehistoric policies. You're absolutely right. And it's ironic, because changing their patch management strategy would provide better security. The DoD is stuck in a compliance world, rather that one in which they manage risk.

There is the risk of having your computers compromised and there is the risk of being fired for making someonewho writes policies look incompetent.

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#59

Post by digisign »

dangrossman wrote: post #56
at-fates-hands wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the one thing which always mystified me about MS and IE. Why do they continually dead end their browser to a specific OS release? I can't imagine someone in their marketing department actually thought by doing so would get people to upgrade their OS so they could have a more up to date browser.

The newer versions use features that didn't exist in older Windows. Features which are core components to how the new browsers work, both in terms of rendering and security. Someone made the decision that having these features was more important than backwards compatibility; it wasn't a marketing decision made after-the-fact. If there were no marketing department, IE10 still would not be able to run in Windows XP.

Chrome and Firefox both work fine on my copy of XP. So those new features can't be very important.

Re: IE10: How does it really stack up?

#60

Post by dangrossman »

digisign wrote: post #59
dangrossman wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The newer versions use features that didn't exist in older Windows. Features which are core components to how the new browsers work, both in terms of rendering and security. Someone made the decision that having these features was more important than backwards compatibility; it wasn't a marketing decision made after-the-fact. If there were no marketing department, IE10 still would not be able to run in Windows XP.

Chrome and Firefox both work fine on my copy of XP. So those new features can't be very important.

Here, learn why so you can form an informed opinion. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/04/why-mi...

IE10 and Windows 8 are even stronger on the security points. Think of PC security as somewhat akin to vaccination. It only works for everyone when enough people are immunized. Herd immunity, it's called. Your sticking with objectively less secure browsers on objectively less secure platforms hurts us all. It's not something Microsoft should be encouraging, not just from a business or marketing standpoint, but a moral one as well.

Oh, and IE10 is objectively faster than Firefox too, thanks to the integration with DirectX 10 which is already compositing everything else on the screen in Windows 7 and 8.

Post reply on HN