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

Internet Explorer Browser Collection

my-internet-explorer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 70 posts

Re: Internet Explorer Browser Collection

#41

Post by wink »

stiGGG wrote: post #40
wink wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe my filter bubble, but VRML was kind of talked about in the late 90s (when we got on the internet) but the implementation, features, and general application state was more of a running joke. Also that's probably why it faded so relatively quickly, nobody used it.

I remember the most famous techno club from my nearest city used that to provide a virtual room tour on their website. I was too young then to get past the bouncers and liked that feature :)

That's really cool. I honestly don't remember seeing anything besides Hello World examples and they didn't really impress me :|

Re: Internet Explorer Browser Collection

#43

Post by bitwize »

creativeembassy wrote: post #33

Internet Explorer 2, in 1995, had support for VRML. A full 20 years before the Oculus Rift officially launched. I had never heard of that markup language and had to Google it. Talk about being ahead of its time...

The VR hypetrain left the station in the early-mid 90s. There were movies and TV shows about it. VR was going to be the revolution that changed everything -- William Gibson's cyberspace in your living room. But it was all experimental -- big clunky headgear and CPUs and GPUs that were too weak to produce any but a clunky, janky, laggy, polygon-y experience. And most people couldn't afford the fancy gear; for the most part VRML happened on people's monitors.

The recent VR hype happened because with modern PC hardware, the tech finally caught up to sustain an immersive, low-latency experience -- and some very smart dudes had the ambition to make 90s retrofuturism real.

Re: Internet Explorer Browser Collection

#44

Post by micmil »

hajile wrote: post #13
userbinator wrote: post #8

For some reason, that domain name arouses my suspicion... if I saw that in the search results I'd probably think "SEO spam site" and skip over it. One of the obvious things you can see between the versions is the gradual trend of dumbing-down and flattening the UI, most apparent between 8 and 9. The older versions' UI give the impression that they are very customisable and powerful , while the newer ones seem to be i…

IE4 -- 11MB IE5 -- 56MB IE6 -- 13MB Their sizes seem to be off (or including something extra). But there definitely is a huge change in IE5 requirements. I'm guessing that's related to the US v Microsoft antitrust bundling lawsuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_4#System_req... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_5#System_and... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_6#System_req…

That seems likely. What's funny is how Edge (and eventually IE) became even more entrenched in the system than before, yet nobody cares anymore. Almost like the whole thing was a bunch of arm-waving by nerds and regulators that wanted to pretend they knew what was going on.

Re: Internet Explorer Browser Collection

#45

Post by dspillett »

pedrocx486 wrote: post #21
usermac wrote: post #16

Wow. Version 1 was August of 1995. I discovered the Internet in September.

Two years after the infamous September that never ended. Kinda curious here, but it being September so I guess college?

> it being September so I guess college?

Yes. September was the month that many new users discovered the Internet for the first time, because they were given access at University and other higher education establishments, which had many and varied implications.

For instance there was an influx of beginner questions in Usenet groups, questions to which the answer was "please read the FAQ before asking more questions".

There was also just a general influx of activity: groups would see a bump in user numbers and activity that didn't fall back off over time.

New users arrived all through the year of course, but in smaller numbers and tended to be more technically proficient (and aware with network etiquette) to start with because they had sought (and paid for) access for a reason, rather than being given it and being told to go explore.

From 1993 onwards the public more generally were becoming a lot more aware of the Internet and being told about the things it could potentially do for them, so there was a more constant flow of new (often relatively non-technical) users & activity rather than just a big glut each September, which is why that year was referred to as "the September that never ended".

Re: Internet Explorer Browser Collection

#46

Post by ma2rten »

micmil wrote: post #44
hajile wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IE4 -- 11MB IE5 -- 56MB IE6 -- 13MB Their sizes seem to be off (or including something extra). But there definitely is a huge change in IE5 requirements. I'm guessing that's related to the US v Microsoft antitrust bundling lawsuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_4#System_req... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_5#System_and... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_6#System_req…

That seems likely. What's funny is how Edge (and eventually IE) became even more entrenched in the system than before, yet nobody cares anymore. Almost like the whole thing was a bunch of arm-waving by nerds and regulators that wanted to pretend they knew what was going on.

IE is not the dominant browser anymore and Windows is not the dominant OS anymore (if you consider mobile).

Instead Google got a huge fine in Europe now for being the default search engine on Android.

Re: Internet Explorer Browser Collection

#47

Post by boomlinde »

dmurray wrote: post #27
userbinator wrote: post #8

For some reason, that domain name arouses my suspicion... if I saw that in the search results I'd probably think "SEO spam site" and skip over it. One of the obvious things you can see between the versions is the gradual trend of dumbing-down and flattening the UI, most apparent between 8 and 9. The older versions' UI give the impression that they are very customisable and powerful , while the newer ones seem to be i…

One of the attractions of Chrome when it first came out was that it had less chrome, that most of the precious screen real estate could be devoted to showing the content of the web page, or at least to ads. I'd guess IE9 was a reaction to that. When we only had 640 vertical pixels, it was a huge change not to have 150 of them taken up with rows of icons and bookmarks by default. Now we have the space to get those con…

I had roughly the same amount of rows of pixels on my desktop computer in 2008 as I have now (1280x1024 to 1920x1080). I had even more for a few years prior to that, when I had a CRT monitor that I'd gotten for free (1600x1200).

It's AFAIK pretty much only with 4k monitors that we have caught up with CRTs resolution-wise, and not a lot of people have either of those. w3schools lists a bunch of resoltion statistics. In 2008, the most common resolution was 1024x768. 1366x768 in 2018. Same vertical resolution. Since I thought those statistics may account for phone users as well, I looked further. Globalstats lists 1366x768 as the most common desktop resolution in 2019. Desktop in this case probably accounts for laptops as well, as I believe there is no way to tell the two apart with User-Agent.

https://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp

http://gs.statcounter.com/screen-resolution-stats/desktop/wo...

I also remember Firefox 2 being configurable enough that you could easily get less chrome than Chrome. The big win for me was process-per-tab.

Re: Internet Explorer Browser Collection

#48

Post by pweezy »

dmurray wrote: post #27
userbinator wrote: post #8

For some reason, that domain name arouses my suspicion... if I saw that in the search results I'd probably think "SEO spam site" and skip over it. One of the obvious things you can see between the versions is the gradual trend of dumbing-down and flattening the UI, most apparent between 8 and 9. The older versions' UI give the impression that they are very customisable and powerful , while the newer ones seem to be i…

One of the attractions of Chrome when it first came out was that it had less chrome, that most of the precious screen real estate could be devoted to showing the content of the web page, or at least to ads. I'd guess IE9 was a reaction to that. When we only had 640 vertical pixels, it was a huge change not to have 150 of them taken up with rows of icons and bookmarks by default. Now we have the space to get those con…

Seeing the size of the chrome on the old IE versions, particularly version 3 where they upgraded to the large buttons with help text, made me think about how nice it was to have the relatively plain content on the web at that time. The information density was high enough that the small space for the actual document was still enough for a decent experience. Even with those low screen resolutions, the amount of content on the screen was probably similar to that of many websites today with all their bloat.

Re: Internet Explorer Browser Collection

#49

Post by pweezy »

Browsing through the screenshots of each version on this site, I was struck by how good the IE logo looked from the version 4 installer. I realized why when I got to version 10, released some 15 years later. The flat "modern" update to the logo is identical to the one from IE4, just with a lighter font weight.

Re: Internet Explorer Browser Collection

#50

Post by kibibu »

Freak_NL wrote: post #26
maaaats wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't get it to work. But http://matsemann.com works. I think the difference is that my domain works even without a "Host" header. Edit: Not quite correct that it works. My domain responds with a different dummy-page in IE 1.5. I get the same dummy-page with curl curl http://matsemann.com -i --http1.0 -v -H 'Host:' Difference being it's served as 200, while same command for example.com with no host gives 404. I think…

Host headers are explicitly required by the spec, and there are no clients left that leave them out (including non-browser clients like curl and wget). There is simply no reason to facilitate requests that have no Host header, so servers receiving them quite rightly serve some kind of error response.

Required by the HTTP 1.1 spec, not the HTTP 1.0 spec
Post reply on HN