The death of IE?

**TheOriginalH** · Jul 28, 2005, 03:04

Seems that the opportunity to proudly raise two fingers at the open source community and regain market share has been squandered by MS.

After following a link in Kev's recent blog entry, and reading the comments of the people who've tried the latest version of IE (and these would be people who are happy to pay for the privalege), it seems clear that they've fallen well short of target.

...PNGS not properly supported, still.
....RSS seems to be tied to the OS - meaning people running old-win/non-win miss out?

...and much, much more.

I think that an unsuccessful IE release could truly put the nail in the coffin of this browser...I'm sure that could have been turned around had the dev team listened.

**Sorccu** · Jul 28, 2005, 03:21

Maybe that's why they made it a closed beta. As long as it's not out there's some hope left. I'd really like to think that they are trying to do something..

**jpatterson** · Jul 28, 2005, 04:08

Well if they don't bring out PNG Support and at least a little more CSS Support, Microsoft will be in trouble because no-one will trust them anymore. They need to get their act together and listen to what people want rather than just taking the "We're the experts" approach.

Oh well, on the bright side, at least they won't be fined millions of $ for monopolising the browser industry!

**lo0ol** · Jul 28, 2005, 07:15

Well, they've still got a gigantic chunk of the market share. It'll still take time for that to degrade.

**ethanp** · Jul 28, 2005, 08:18

I think it is time for web developers to just revolt and block IE from viewing our websites. Sure it sounds like suicide, but if 60% of websites didn't show up in IE, people would probably switch much faster. Could you imagine if Google did that? Talk about switching probably instantly.

I've heard quite a bad amount of news about IE7. You can read Anne's opinions on it:

http://annevankesteren.nl/2005/07/ie7-beta

It seems like there isn't too much giving M$ a boast with developers.

**Czaries** · Jul 28, 2005, 08:18

Originally Posted by TheOriginalH

I think that an unsuccessful IE release could truly put the nail in the coffin of this browser...I'm sure that could have been turned around had the dev team listened.

While it is true that the browser share of IE will further decline without many wanted improvements, it will hardly "put the nail in the coffin", as most people who browse the net still know nothing of proper CSS support, RSS, etc. With still close to 80% market share and IE still shipping as the default browser for every new Windows computer, this beast isn't going to go anywhere for a long while, even with the bad so-called "upgrade" that IE7 appears to be.

So if IE7 does turn out to be a bad "upgrade", the major and more noticeable side-effect will be the further loss of respect for Microsoft from the developer community for continually ignoring requests for standards-compliant software. The general public will likely not care or be effected at all.

**MG315** · Jul 28, 2005, 08:29

the only people who will switch are the computer literate people who actually know what PNG is - and that's a small percentage of their market share. the majority of people will use internet explorer regardless of how bad it is, and think its the websites' fault for not displaying correctly.

you know how you hafta take a drivers ed class before you can get a car? i think they should have a computer ed class before you can use a computer

**Beaker** · Jul 28, 2005, 08:32

the _only_ way that IE will cease to be the majority browser is if they are forced in some way to remove it's integration with the OS. Even if that does happen it'll take months if not years for them to ship a Browserless version.

At that point normal users are also stuffed, because they would have no way to download another Browser. :/

it doesn't matter how "good" or "bad" the next version of IE is, it will still be used by the non-technical majority.

**megamanXplosion** · Jul 28, 2005, 09:12

I don't think it is really fair to judge Internet Explorer based on "news" - most of the "news" online is really just opinionated sludge. Look at the coverage of Windows Vista for example, there is not a single news outlet that has gotten the facts straight yet; I don't imagine the media reporting on Internet Explorer developments accurately either.

I think that Internet Explorer 7 will surprise people. Microsoft knows the importance of keeping developers on their side (Windows wouldn't dominate if it weren't for the Win32 APIs.) If you think about how long IE7 has been under development and how much has been reportedly finished, it seems like they are either not doing their jobs or they are doing a lot of work behind the scenes. I believe they are working, feel free to call me crazy.

Anyway, I believe the current work done on Internet Explorer is mainly the plumbing (refactoring the rendering engine code to make extending it easier, fixing security problems, etc.) I recall the development team (or a member of the team) saying that the code base was messy and was hard to effectively upgrade/fix - now, around a year later, I see them working with the Web Standards Project and some Microsoft employees saying that they're aiming to have the most stanards-compliant browser available. That does correlate with the idea that they have been refactoring the engine design to make it easier to develop.

Considering that they appear to be making the engine easier to extend, are working with WaSP, etc. I think we will all be pleasantly surprised when a later version (Beta 2 or after) is released. With Linux and Mac gaining popularity, Firefox and Opera gaining popularity, etc. it is logical to assume that Microsoft intends on steam-rolling the competition with Windows Vista and Internet Explorer 7 - and I think the stakes are too high for them to not annihilate the competition.

I honestly don't see Internet Explorer 7 being put in a coffin that is nailed shut. In fact, I believe it may be Firefox and Opera that get shoved into a coffin (and it pains me to think that) when Internet Explorer 7 is released.

**ethanp** · Jul 28, 2005, 09:18

If they wanted standards why not just base their browser on Firefox? It would certainly make everyone happier.

**Beaker** · Jul 28, 2005, 09:19

Originally Posted by charmedlover

If they wanted standards why not just base their browser on Firefox? It would certainly make everyone happier.

HERESEY

that would mean releasing the modified code wouldn't it?

**Thing** · Jul 28, 2005, 09:22

I'm still waiting for our monthly MSDN package to get here with our beta copy of IE 7. I'm anxious to run it through the grinder!

**ethanp** · Jul 28, 2005, 09:27

They wouldn't have to make many changes to the code in the first place if they modified them. What is there to really change about Firefox?

**megamanXplosion** · Jul 28, 2005, 10:23

If they wanted standards why not just base their browser on Firefox? It would certainly make everyone happier.

The Gecko rendering engine isn't as standards compliant as everyone seems to believe. The Gecko development team seems to focus more on CSS3 (an unfinished specification that may change at any time) than they do with CSS 2.1. For example, Gecko current supports border-radius and opacity (CSS3) but does NOT support positioning/floating generated content or CSS list counters (CSS2 - and this is one of the things that would need to be changed, CharmedLover.) The Gecko rendering engine isn't some kind of magic pill that will fix standards compliance in Internet Explorer, it has its own catching-up to do.

I've also heard that some of the recent development tools coming from Microsoft use XHTML 1.1 as the default and that they will be focusing their efforts on CSS 2.1 (not CSS 3.) Those are great things to hear and should give a good insight into what we can expect from Internet Explorer 7. With XHTML 1.1 and CSS 2.1 compliancy under Internet Explorer's belt, I think designers will be left nothing to complain about until XHTML 2.0 or CSS 3 are finalized (which could be a while.)

Internet Explorer is on the right track, just give it some time

**Jeremy W.** · Jul 28, 2005, 11:09

This beta is NOT FOR USERS. It's for application developers. All of the IE7 development time has gone into making it more secure, decoupling it from the OS, finally implementing true LUA, working on anti-phishing/malware and getting the RSS platform in place.

Wait for beta 2 to actually see the "real IE".

**Hartmann** · Jul 28, 2005, 11:15

Originally Posted by megamanXplosion

The Gecko rendering engine isn't as standards compliant as everyone seems to believe. The Gecko development team seems to focus more on CSS3 (an unfinished specification that may change at any time) than they do with CSS 2.1. For example, Gecko current supports border-radius and opacity (CSS3) but does NOT support positioning/floating generated content or CSS list counters (CSS2 - and this is one of the things that would need to be changed, CharmedLover.) The Gecko rendering engine isn't some kind of magic pill that will fix standards compliance in Internet Explorer, it has its own catching-up to do.

I've also heard that some of the recent development tools coming from Microsoft use XHTML 1.1 as the default and that they will be focusing their efforts on CSS 2.1 (not CSS 3.) Those are great things to hear and should give a good insight into what we can expect from Internet Explorer 7. With XHTML 1.1 and CSS 2.1 compliancy under Internet Explorer's belt, I think designers will be left nothing to complain about until XHTML 2.0 or CSS 3 are finalized (which could be a while.)

Internet Explorer is on the right track, just give it some time

Weren't you in another thread talking about how standards weren't all that important anyway and the W3C is not all it's cracked up to be?

The Gecko engine is definitely the best rendering engine out, in the public's hands right now and if IE catches up, that's great.

**ethanp** · Jul 28, 2005, 11:48

I disagree that the Gecko engine is the best. I would have to say that the Presto engine of Opera renders things best. KHTML is pretty good too. Sadly only Opera can use the Presto engine as it is, well, theirs.

As long as IE7 allows me to use :hover on all elements, support PNG's right, and let's me properly serve XHTML as application/xhtml+xml I'll be pretty happy.

**Hartmann** · Jul 28, 2005, 11:50

Originally Posted by charmedlover

I disagree that the Gecko engine is the best. I would have to say that the Presto engine of Opera renders things best. KHTML is pretty good too. Sadly only Opera can use the Presto engine as it is, well, theirs.

As long as IE7 allows me to use :hover on all elements, support PNG's right, and let's me properly serve XHTML as application/xhtml+xml I'll be pretty happy.

I should have said "one of the best", sorry... KHTML is a great engine in my opinion.

**megamanXplosion** · Jul 28, 2005, 12:44

Weren't you in another thread talking about how standards weren't all that important anyway and the W3C is not all it's cracked up to be?

Did you read any of my posts in that thread, or any of my 1,000+ posts? It seems that you haven't, because I'm a thorough-bred standards junky (in fact, I was promoting standards before I became a member here.)

The Gecko engine is definitely the best rendering engine out, in the public's hands right now and if IE catches up, that's great.

Presto is better, IMO. Gecko surpasses Presto when it comes to CSS selectors but beyond that it is very annoying to work with in comparison to Presto. Like I mentioned earlier, floating/positioning generated content is not possible in Gecko - and that is easily the most powerful feature of CSS 2.1 (what good is it to support 30+ ways to select the same element when you can't do anything with the element you have selected?)

Either way, Microsoft is able to use Gecko or Presto if they really wanted to (Gecko is freely embeddable and Presto can be licensed), but they won't use either one. Like mentioned earlier, Internet Explorer plans on exceeding them both; and I hope that it does exceed them.

**Jeremy W.** · Jul 28, 2005, 12:54

Originally Posted by megamanXplosion

Like mentioned earlier, Internet Explorer plans on exceeding them both; and I hope that it does exceed them.

Ditto on the plan, ditto on the hope.

I'm taking a bit of a wait and see attitude though. You just never know with Microsoft.

**ethanp** · Jul 28, 2005, 13:02

If Microsoft can bring some light into standard's support for internet explorer I'll look at it as a much better company. Currently I look down on it solely because of IE.

It's fine whatever they do OS wise as I've purchased some new networking equipment that will work with Mandrake (and other Linux distros), so I can start working in a better programming environment. Plus I don't have the money for Vista.

I don't think that the IE6 problem will be gone until 2010, and all the companies stop using Windows 2000, which won't be offered IE7.

**dc dalton** · Jul 28, 2005, 13:41

Some of you folks may have forgotten MS doesnt even agree with 1/2 the standards .... unless they change that attitude (means accepting the W3C's version) youre never going to see what YOU WANT in a standards compliant browser..

You know MS, our way of the highway!

I too will be full time Linux WAY before either Vista or the full version of IE 7 ever comes out .... Im done, sick and tired, just had enough of their freaking games and attempts at "world domination" only to fall flat on their face more times than anyone can count!

**Jeremy W.** · Jul 28, 2005, 13:43

Originally Posted by dc dalton

Some of you folks may have forgotten MS doesnt even agree with 1/2 the standards ....

Name 1 standard MS doesn't "agree" with.

**Jeremy W.** · Jul 28, 2005, 13:46

Originally Posted by dc dalton

just had enough of their freaking games and attempts at "world domination" only to fall flat on their face more times than anyone can count!

Glad you're unbiased.

Cause, I mean, Visual Studio was obviously a case of falling flat on their faces, as was Software Update Services > Windows Update Services > Windows Update, as was Active Directory, DirectX, XBox, SQL Server, Commerce Server, CMS...

I really could go on and on and name HUNDREDS of products that didn't fall flat on their faces at all.

IE did. v5-6 were pretty crap.

But that doesn't mean they fall on their faces "more times than anyone can count".

**MG315** · Jul 28, 2005, 14:10

from what i've read they're really trying to improve IE and i hope it comes out great. not that i'll use it, but it will make developing sites so much easier (well, not really since we still need to support pre-IE7 browsers).

but i kinda agree with dc dalton (not about the falling on their face, but the world domination). they are into way too many products. they see someone else do something well and say "wow, we missed the boat on that one. lets throw a ton of money at it and try to catch up." they're making an adwords/adsense-like service, getting into iTunes territory, trying to penetrate the search market, and i'm sure there's a ton of other companies theyre copying that i don't know about (i dont' follow microsoft).

bill gates always talks about innovation and developing the technology of tomorrow, yet all he does is copy what others are doing and try to use microsoft's huge marketshare to beat them. i wish they'd cut down on what's already been done and focus on being the first at something.

Full Disclosure: i'm about to buy some microsoft because I feel its undervalued for what they have in the pipeline, namely vista, office and xbox 360. while i disagree with some aspects of the business, from an investment standpoint i see them about to make a ton of money and they're trading way too low.

The SitePoint Forums have moved.

User Tag List

Thread: The death of IE?

Thread Tools

Display

The death of IE?

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions