They killed that brand ages ago. Now they're going to stop mentioning its name.
Heh, exactly my thought when I saw the headline. As a webdeveloper since 1995, I can only say "phew, finally" - that browser probably cost me 2-3 years of my life, spent hacking various webprojects to make them work in IE.
> webdeveloper since 1995
Those were terrible, terrible times. Mostly due to IE.
I'm willing to give Spartan a chance, honestly. The ModernIE initiative taken by Microsoft the past few years feels like Microsoft gave IE to a team of competent engineers and told to run with it. They dropped support for older versions of IE and upgraded the technology behind it. Firefox is too slow. As a power user I notice millisecond differences in page render times. I may be an outlier but I think most people wh…
I'll give it a chance as soon as I can add simple extensions (like ublock, vim bindings, etc). And when they make the UI not look unfinished. Maybe it's silly, but those ugly square tab things look like a prototype before the design team had their turn. Petty as that is, I really find it annoying. Also not a fan of sharing the address bar with tabs, but that's minor in comparison. (I used IE for a long time, until well after Chrome was shipped, so I'm not inherently biased.)
What's the word with Firefox performance? My company's app is critically slow in JUST Firefox. It's an Ember app, but we use D3 and Immutable.js. We aren't doing anything weird AFAIK
What has profiling turned up? Because in my experience, Firefox is faster on the apps I work on for Javascript performance, so I'm really curious what sort of performance profile your app has.
I've noticed that SVG performance in Firefox is about 10x slower than Chrome -- is that what d3 is using?
Oh you can easily figure out render performance differences in milliseconds with your eyes. Try that. For example, a difference of 300 milliseconds is noticeable by me. I don't know what are you 'attesting' there. I'm not a web-developer, but just 'a developer'. Also, what evidence you have that says Firefox can't be slow(even with all the add-ons it supports). In fact, those hundreds of bugs will be quite a sufficie…
When you say “I notice millisecond differences”, that means “one millisecond”. If you meant something more on the order of hundreds of milliseconds, you should probably clarify that.
I can survive on milliseconds of sleep every night. Preferably 27 to 28 million milliseconds, if you have to be so picky.
Everything gets faster: computers have 4x the memory and processing power of 10 years ago, browsers are easily 10x faster than they were 10 years ago. However it appears that the average web page has gotten more than 40x slower. (They're also not really pages, they're "apps".) People my age or a bit younger (early 20s) say craigslist and hackernews look "hideous" but dammit this is how web pages are supposed to be.
The big problem that I see, and it applies to any browser, is that every page is loading tons of crap from ad or tracking sites including twitter or facebook. When one of these sites stalls the whole page stalls and it is a chronic problem. As an interim fix I block these domains using my host file pointing to localhost 127.0.0.1 but sometimes that stalls the loading because it doesn't get a reply so it waits for the…
Eh, not totally. For instance, the backoffice UI of Umbraco CMS was rewritten using Angular or something, and now it's just...slow. Unreasonably sluggish. I've seen other work from agencies with no 3rd party dependencies that use all this crazy JS and animations that unless you're on a top line MacBook, it's just sluggish.
I've been using the web for a long time, and while loading was slow, I don't remember UIs feeling so sluggish and unresponsive.
With this new CEO, Microsoft is a different company. Cloud & Mobile all the way. .NET/CLR is open-source. First class support for Linux and OS X. Commitment to standards. At the risk of sounding like a complete lunatic, here's my prediction for the next 10 years: * Microsoft abandon traditional Windows development. * They take a FreeBSD/Linux distro and add a "Windows" layer on top, ala Apple. Unix and Unix-like OS's…
Can you elaborate on what MS would gain by tossing their rather fine kernel and using Linux/BSD? Particularly since that'd lose the massive amount of hardware support from current drivers.
Exactly. At least it may not be worth $200. Apple's $25 or free updates are much more reasonable and get people to actually stay current. The older hardware slows down gradually and people warm up to the idea of faster/newer hardware gradually, rather than thinking that the new OS broke their working computer. Please, Microsoft, switch to an evergreen OS model like Apple has.
Windows has moved to an evergreen OS model: http://blogs.windows.com/bloggingwindows/2015/01/21/the-next...
But it's for people running 7 and up, for one year. The 70% of Chinese users on XP aren't going to see the benefit of this.
(Why didn't Microsoft make it for XP too? They want to squeeze that last sale out of people. They don't realize the greater threat is people leaving their platform entirely.)
Windows has moved to an evergreen OS model: http://blogs.windows.com/bloggingwindows/2015/01/21/the-next...
But it's for people running 7 and up, for one year. The 70% of Chinese users on XP aren't going to see the benefit of this. (Why didn't Microsoft make it for XP too? They want to squeeze that last sale out of people. They don't realize the greater threat is people leaving their platform entirely.)
I think you're being too mild in your side note. The first half of the IE6-9 era was part of a deliberate scorched-earth strategy to harm the open Internet, and the second half was them furiously backpedalling from that when it failed. It wasn't a technical decision, it was cynical business strategy, and having their IE brand get trashed is the least of what they deserve. I'm kind of annoyed with how quickly people a…
I don't care who does it or why - I just want higher quality software platforms. I'm glad that Microsoft didn't immediately give into the "open web" because it's a horrible mess of designed-by-committee compromises. I wish someone would just make a new browser that lets people browse a mix of native apps and web pages so we can stop bolting more crap on top of HTML/JS/CSS.
Sure, you can decide to just spectate, but like it or not we all have to share this tech ecosystem. If there's no consequence for companies or people that behave in ways that harm the whole industry, we're all going to suffer.
> Multiple implementations of a standard is a good thing. Except that is hardly the case.Competition is good,that's what forced IE to evolve as it was losing marketshares. But let's not kid ourself thinking all the players are in it for web standards. > Yes, let's all use Webkit. Much better....... Because IE supremacy used to be better...
I think IE supremacy was different and much worse than a Webkit supremacy would be because Webkit isn't controlled by a single company and is open source. Different Webkit implementations still compete for marketshare. I dare say that if all operating systems were nix, that might also be a good thing. It certainly would make life easier for developers. I understand the problems of monocultures when they are controlle…
> I dare say that if all operating systems were nix, that might also be a good thing. It certainly would make life easier for developers.
How?
Windows and Unix have evolved entirely different ecosystems. Most developers have a tendency to exist entirely in 1 or the other with only a little interaction between them.
I personally am able to use either environment comfortably, but that's actually a big part of the value I bring to certain environments. But that isn't the norm.