21–30 of 35 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... IE6 introduced a lot of useful features back then. Cannot agree more. People tend to forget things like AJAX came from IE.
But they probably did it by mistake or at least inadvertently. If they had known what would occur they probably won't have done it.
Agreed.
> If they had known what would occur they probably won't have done it.
Huh?
The reason to be unhappy about IE9 is that it won't run on XP. That means it is essentially meaningless for 90% of the web developers on the planet for all practical purposes.
It sounds like a conspiracy theory - make IE standards complaint -> get the market share -> introduce new nonstandard features. PS Safari runs on linux only under Wine as far as I know.
You can debate whether IE6 was a good or bad thing in this regard, but it still happened.
Who benefits from IE9 being available for other platforms? Not users. What would the ability to run IE9 add to the Linux or Mac desktop? Another web browser? Do we really need one? Not Microsoft, who would have to invest massive amounts of effort into porting it, and large parts of the Windows codebase too. Honestly, I wonder if the author of this article was deliberately trying to think of something to criticise abo…
Hey ! Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. I'm sad that you think I was trying to come up with something - I just wrote about this strange (but honnest !) feeling I got, as people talking in nice terms about IE hasn't happenned in a while. In fact I don't think I'm criticizing IE itself at all. Perhaps I could re-phrase my point more simply: I don't think IE 9's standards support means "the web wins" in th…
I don't think your argument makes any sense, sorry. If you were talking about IE6, I'd agree, but standards compliance means never having to use the exact same browser for anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they probably did it by mistake or at least inadvertently. If they had known what would occur they probably won't have done it.
> But they probably did it by mistake or at least inadvertently. Agreed. > If they had known what would occur they probably won't have done it. Huh?
There are many things I dislike in this article. The first thing is this primal "everything microsoft does is evil" reaction. The author tries to rationalize, but in the end it's just "well IE9 is bad because it can be good for Microsoft". The use of fallacies such as "most of them are probably Microsoft fan boys" is also quite irritating. People disagree with you? Fanboys! Blinds! Fools! Heretics! Then, the article…
I would fully expect a higher percentage of "fanboys" in the population of IE9 users, given simply that IE9 is just a beta. The crowd is basically limited to technophiles running Windows. Not that this is the same as "fanboy", but I would expect a significant correlation. And you don't have to believe MS is evil to know that they are still pulling these Windows power-grabs. Windows promised Mac compatibility with Sil…
Which is exactly what they’ve been doing the past two releases. IE7 was a sincere attempt at catching up in the CSS department and get with the program on web standards adherence/compliance. IE8 was a sincere attempt at getting up to speed with the JavaScript side of things. IE9 is a sincere attempt at getting up to speed with HTML5 and CSS3, and whilst they aren’t yet including some of the things we may personally wish to see most (e.g. CSS Transitions), claiming they have yet to “change their ways” is nothing more than an unhelpful attempt at putting Microsoft in the “evil“ corner.
Microsoft themselves have long been trying to get people to upgrade from IE6 and Windows XP. Sure, part of that is just for their own business purposes, but at the same time they honestly want to help the web forward—the current state of affairs hurts them more than us, these days. There is no chance they’ll ever go back to dominating the industry like they did in the late ’90s and early ’00s, because of the steady “re-mergence” of the Mac and the myriad mobile platforms we’re collectively shifting to. All they can do now is to provide a browser on the Windows platform that isn’t so far behind on things that it becomes a compelling reason for people to leave Windows itself behind. And to do that, they know they have to play along in the standards game, which has long taken over the industry.
Who benefits from IE9 being available for other platforms? Not users. What would the ability to run IE9 add to the Linux or Mac desktop? Another web browser? Do we really need one? Not Microsoft, who would have to invest massive amounts of effort into porting it, and large parts of the Windows codebase too. Honestly, I wonder if the author of this article was deliberately trying to think of something to criticise abo…
Hey ! Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. I'm sad that you think I was trying to come up with something - I just wrote about this strange (but honnest !) feeling I got, as people talking in nice terms about IE hasn't happenned in a while. In fact I don't think I'm criticizing IE itself at all. Perhaps I could re-phrase my point more simply: I don't think IE 9's standards support means "the web wins" in th…
So what? How is the Web threatened or at risk or even _impacted at all_ by IE9 being Windows-only? With IE9 supporting standards so thoroughly, it very directly means that IE9 being Windows-only doesn't make a lick of difference anymore.
The game for the Web is standards. With all major browsers supporting standards, browser and platform themselves are irrelevant factors for the Web to prosper as a platform and a medium.
There are many things I dislike in this article. The first thing is this primal "everything microsoft does is evil" reaction. The author tries to rationalize, but in the end it's just "well IE9 is bad because it can be good for Microsoft". The use of fallacies such as "most of them are probably Microsoft fan boys" is also quite irritating. People disagree with you? Fanboys! Blinds! Fools! Heretics! Then, the article…
That doesn't ring true. We already have four other excellent web browsers on Windows, as mentioned by the article. All are relatively similar in terms of features and under active development by great teams. At best, Microsoft could only hope to very marginally improve on what already is available for free. So a nice standards-compliant IE9 will not make Windows any more or less attractive an OS than it already is.
Browsers are expensive and onerous to create. What could Microsoft's motivation possibly be to produce one for free, besides embrace-and-extend?
There are many things I dislike in this article. The first thing is this primal "everything microsoft does is evil" reaction. The author tries to rationalize, but in the end it's just "well IE9 is bad because it can be good for Microsoft". The use of fallacies such as "most of them are probably Microsoft fan boys" is also quite irritating. People disagree with you? Fanboys! Blinds! Fools! Heretics! Then, the article…
I would fully expect a higher percentage of "fanboys" in the population of IE9 users, given simply that IE9 is just a beta. The crowd is basically limited to technophiles running Windows. Not that this is the same as "fanboy", but I would expect a significant correlation. And you don't have to believe MS is evil to know that they are still pulling these Windows power-grabs. Windows promised Mac compatibility with Sil…
The writing was on the wall.
Apple stopped supporting PowerPC six months later.
There are many things I dislike in this article. The first thing is this primal "everything microsoft does is evil" reaction. The author tries to rationalize, but in the end it's just "well IE9 is bad because it can be good for Microsoft". The use of fallacies such as "most of them are probably Microsoft fan boys" is also quite irritating. People disagree with you? Fanboys! Blinds! Fools! Heretics! Then, the article…
I would fully expect a higher percentage of "fanboys" in the population of IE9 users, given simply that IE9 is just a beta. The crowd is basically limited to technophiles running Windows. Not that this is the same as "fanboy", but I would expect a significant correlation. And you don't have to believe MS is evil to know that they are still pulling these Windows power-grabs. Windows promised Mac compatibility with Sil…