 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/19/AR2009031904339.html
"Blarrrrrgh, MS sucks! IE sucks and all improvements are just playing
catch-up to other browsers!"
"Uh, IE8 loads pages faster than Firefox."
"It doesn't matter, it's not *that* much faster, and besides, everyone has
broadband now so nobody cares! Rewrrrrr."
MS just can't win, can it...
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/19/AR2009031904339.html
> "Blarrrrrgh, MS sucks! IE sucks and all improvements are just playing
> catch-up to other browsers!"
> "Uh, IE8 loads pages faster than Firefox."
> "It doesn't matter, it's not *that* much faster, and besides, everyone has
> broadband now so nobody cares! Rewrrrrr."
> MS just can't win, can it...
Hmm, where did you read that kind of text? Not in the article you
linked to, at least.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:49c33a3c$1@news.povray.org...
> besides, everyone has
> broadband now so nobody cares! Rewrrrrr."
not entirely true .... haven't been able to con them into runnig a line to
my place yet. I've been trying for the past 4 years .... they just laugh at
me! currently connected at 45.2kbps :-(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Hmm, where did you read that kind of text? Not in the article you
> linked to, at least.
Well, the first sentence wasn't in the article, but a general summing up of
popular anti-MS attitudes (and another article I say about how IE8 is just
playing catch-up with everyone else).
The whole article is going on about 'well, ok, IE8 is a teeny bit faster
loading pages than Firefox', then the last paragraph says "In practical,
everyday use, you likely won't notice much of a difference between IE 8 and
Firefox 3. Due to the fact that broadband connections are so commonplace
today, and the fact that browsers in general can load pages faster than they
could even a couple years ago, the page load time differences between the
two are relatively moot."
Basically, it grudgingly admits that IE8 is a little bit better in a
particular aspect, then dismissing it as irrelevant, where with any other
browser, any speed increase would be trumpeted as the greatest thing since
sliced breat (especially if it were for a Mac).
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> other browser, any speed increase would be trumpeted as the greatest
> thing since sliced breat (especially if it were for a Mac).
Usually the articles about something are pretty well-balanced[1], and it's
the comment threads that do the flaming and bashing. :-)
[1] Unless it's an MSDN blog or "Linux Today" magazine or some such. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here at work everybody is fed up with Vista by its own "merits". I
didn't even need to advocate Linux. :)
6 years in the making for a horrid tragedy as far as TI infrastructure
go. Yesterday a guy was installing printer drivers in the machines. It
got installed in 3 and then stopped going on, he simply wasn't able to
continue the installation. I don't know the details, still just one of
lots of inexplicable issues with a hurried migration where someone
probably received some good amount...
Many problems seem to be related to nationality settings. Even though
it's set to pt-br here, many apps seem to prefer the english language or
something with mixed results. For instance, IE7 doesn't seem to find
some documents when opening them: I go through the file dialog, select
the document and it gives a message that d:\users\foo\img.png doesn't
exist. In pt-br that path is written differently as
d:\Usuarios\foo\img.png. I think that lies the problem. Yes, they
actually gone insane on the translations and I guess it frakked up the
system. Oh, they do also translate the Excel functions, sum -> soma etc...
Sadly, they are on the hope that Windows 7 will fix everything. On a
side note, open-source advocating has never been stronger here and
several tools are being seriously considered to replace the eternal
cycle of forced upgrades. There are people analyzing substitutes for
Visual Studio (the Express version don't cut it, but it seems
SharpDevelop will get a green light) and Java presence is getting
stronger (sadly).
IE8 is a lot better than IE ever was, even standards compliant (which is
really more important than being zippy). It's too late, too little,
though...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> The whole article is going on about 'well, ok, IE8 is a teeny bit faster
> loading pages than Firefox', then the last paragraph says "In practical,
> everyday use, you likely won't notice much of a difference between IE 8 and
> Firefox 3. Due to the fact that broadband connections are so commonplace
> today, and the fact that browsers in general can load pages faster than they
> could even a couple years ago, the page load time differences between the
> two are relatively moot."
> Basically, it grudgingly admits that IE8 is a little bit better in a
> particular aspect, then dismissing it as irrelevant, where with any other
> browser, any speed increase would be trumpeted as the greatest thing since
> sliced breat (especially if it were for a Mac).
Seriously though, IMO speed is certainly not the main issue with web
browsers. Security, stability and implementation of standards is. Whether
the browser can display a huge page in 2 or 3 seconds is not all that
relevant compared.
IE has a very sad history in this regard. While maybe not the absolute
first, it nevertheless basically defined the whole concept of insecure
web browsing (in other words, simply going to a web page could get your
computer infected with a trojan, virus, adware or other malware, without
you even having to do anything special).
Some argue that IE is not the only browser which has suffered from such
security holes. However, the main issue that IE hasn't had one or two such
issues. It has had a myriad of them during its 10+ year history. No year
has gone by without at least a half dozen serious security flaws having
been found (often after it has been too late). While other browser have
not been completely free from security holes, their overall history has
usually been much cleaner, with far, far fewer flaws, compared.
The reason for this can arguably be said to be that other (modern)
browsers were designed to be secure from the start, while IE was not.
IE was never even designed to be secure, and security measures were only
kludged afterwards on top of the old code. It has not been until very
recently that MS redesigned IE from scratch to correct this. (And even
then the end result has been somewhat dubious, with all the backwards
compatibility with ActiveX and such crap, which is only begging for
security holes, no matter how much you try to avoid them.)
The other sad history of IE is that MS has never cared about established
web standards and invented their own, as usual. Also some design principles
in IE have in the past made very hard to make complex web pages which are
fully compatible with IE and other more standard-compliant browsers at the
same time. (It's not like Netscape is completely innocent of this either,
but at least Netscape is practically dead, while IE isn't.)
Also IE became really infamous for dragging behind in implementing the
latest standards for years and years, leaving their "customers" with little
to no support for them. This seriously hurt the advances in web technologies
for many years.
Again, it hasn't been but very recently that MS has swallowed its pride
and actually started to try to implement all the standards that other
browsers have implemented for over half decade. And this was only because
other browsers started to get scaringly popular.
It's no wonder that many people feel that this is "too little, too late".
IE has already get a bad reputation of being insecure and lacking in
standard-compliance. A new-and-better version is not going to clean this
reputation overnight. IE loading a page in 2 seconds while Firefox loads
it in 3 is certainly not enough to clean its history and reputation.
Thus "the page load time differences between the two are relatively moot"
is spot-on. It's really not an issue of speed. It's an issue of trust.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> The whole article is going on about 'well, ok, IE8 is a teeny bit faster
>> loading pages than Firefox', then the last paragraph says "In practical,
>> everyday use, you likely won't notice much of a difference between IE 8 and
>> Firefox 3. Due to the fact that broadband connections are so commonplace
>> today, and the fact that browsers in general can load pages faster than they
>> could even a couple years ago, the page load time differences between the
>> two are relatively moot."
>
>> Basically, it grudgingly admits that IE8 is a little bit better in a
>> particular aspect, then dismissing it as irrelevant, where with any other
>> browser, any speed increase would be trumpeted as the greatest thing since
>> sliced breat (especially if it were for a Mac).
>
> Seriously though, IMO speed is certainly not the main issue with web
> browsers. Security, stability and implementation of standards is. Whether
> the browser can display a huge page in 2 or 3 seconds is not all that
> relevant compared.
>
> IE has a very sad history in this regard. While maybe not the absolute
> first, it nevertheless basically defined the whole concept of insecure
> web browsing (in other words, simply going to a web page could get your
> computer infected with a trojan, virus, adware or other malware, without
> you even having to do anything special).
>
> Some argue that IE is not the only browser which has suffered from such
> security holes. However, the main issue that IE hasn't had one or two such
> issues. It has had a myriad of them during its 10+ year history. No year
> has gone by without at least a half dozen serious security flaws having
> been found (often after it has been too late). While other browser have
> not been completely free from security holes, their overall history has
> usually been much cleaner, with far, far fewer flaws, compared.
>
> The reason for this can arguably be said to be that other (modern)
> browsers were designed to be secure from the start, while IE was not.
> IE was never even designed to be secure, and security measures were only
> kludged afterwards on top of the old code. It has not been until very
> recently that MS redesigned IE from scratch to correct this. (And even
> then the end result has been somewhat dubious, with all the backwards
> compatibility with ActiveX and such crap, which is only begging for
> security holes, no matter how much you try to avoid them.)
>
> The other sad history of IE is that MS has never cared about established
> web standards and invented their own, as usual. Also some design principles
> in IE have in the past made very hard to make complex web pages which are
> fully compatible with IE and other more standard-compliant browsers at the
> same time. (It's not like Netscape is completely innocent of this either,
> but at least Netscape is practically dead, while IE isn't.)
>
> Also IE became really infamous for dragging behind in implementing the
> latest standards for years and years, leaving their "customers" with little
> to no support for them. This seriously hurt the advances in web technologies
> for many years.
>
> Again, it hasn't been but very recently that MS has swallowed its pride
> and actually started to try to implement all the standards that other
> browsers have implemented for over half decade. And this was only because
> other browsers started to get scaringly popular.
>
> It's no wonder that many people feel that this is "too little, too late".
> IE has already get a bad reputation of being insecure and lacking in
> standard-compliance. A new-and-better version is not going to clean this
> reputation overnight. IE loading a page in 2 seconds while Firefox loads
> it in 3 is certainly not enough to clean its history and reputation.
>
> Thus "the page load time differences between the two are relatively moot"
> is spot-on. It's really not an issue of speed. It's an issue of trust.
>
And, of course, one key issue here is that, since IE, even 8, is tied
into the OS on some level, and even basic stuff like their folder
browsing uses it, there hasn't been a version of it *ever*, even now in
XP, Vista, or 7, where something crashing IE doesn't at least "risk"
rendering the OS itself unstable. Yes, its gotten better. And, here is
the joke. Something like the Eee PC uses Firefox, or something, as its
"desktop" as the default. Crash Firefox and... it doesn't take down the
OS. The only serious problem I had with it was with the 4GB setup,
installing patches, then having no room to write back the "settings".
I.e., it mangled them during shut down, so wouldn't boot again, without
fixing it. Not a problem with the browser, just not enough space for the
configuration to be saved.
Yeah, winning in this situation is going to require that they prove they
are willing to strive to produce the best, not just the *most used*, and
give a frack about the standards. Their entire reaction so far has been,
"Lets catch up, so we are most used again.", but its hardly clear they
have otherwise even attempted to reform.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So people should accept IE based on its merits? That is definitely a new
concept for MS but I plan to stick with Firefox.
"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:49c33a3c$1@news.povray.org...
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/19/AR2009031904339.html
>
> "Blarrrrrgh, MS sucks! IE sucks and all improvements are just playing
> catch-up to other browsers!"
> "Uh, IE8 loads pages faster than Firefox."
> "It doesn't matter, it's not *that* much faster, and besides, everyone has
> broadband now so nobody cares! Rewrrrrr."
>
> MS just can't win, can it...
>
> --
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/20/2009 11:28 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
> Basically, it grudgingly admits that IE8 is a little bit better in a
> particular aspect, then dismissing it as irrelevant, where with any
> other browser, any speed increase would be trumpeted as the greatest
> thing since sliced breat (especially if it were for a Mac).
It IS irrelevant.
7 years ago, I switched to Opera because it was "the fastest browser on
the web." Back then, that really meant something.
Today, though, I don't give a flying lip lock on a horse's dong whether
one browser is a fraction of a second faster than another. Computers in
general have gotten so fast that it's a (mostly) solved problem.
IE8 trying to claim superiority because it's faster than the competition
is like those graphics cards that have 10 bits per channel instead of 8.
While there's no denying that it's better, most would be hard pressed
to justify the cost. Now, 32bit floats for every channel are so
dramatically better, that it makes a difference. In the same sense, if
IE8 rendered pages in a fraction of a second, rather than merely a
fraction of a second faster, it would be something to crow about.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> IE8 trying to claim superiority because it's faster than the competition
IE8 is a browser. It doesn't claim anything. It's the washington post making
claims.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Basically, it grudgingly admits that IE8 is a little bit better in a
> particular aspect, then dismissing it as irrelevant, where with any
> other browser, any speed increase would be trumpeted as the greatest
> thing since sliced breat (especially if it were for a Mac).
Now you know how Amiga users feel. When and where the Amiga did things
better or faster, it somehow wasn't important... until the Wintel
platform caught up.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> Now you know how Amiga users feel. When and where the Amiga did things
> better or faster, it somehow wasn't important... until the Wintel
> platform caught up.
I was always amused when people would go "Oh, Amiga, that's just a game
machine." I'd answer "Why yes, it's designed for high-rez real-time
audiovisual simulations of physics and intelligence."
Like Excel is somehow harder than Crysis. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
> > Basically, it grudgingly admits that IE8 is a little bit better in a
> > particular aspect, then dismissing it as irrelevant, where with any
> > other browser, any speed increase would be trumpeted as the greatest
> > thing since sliced breat (especially if it were for a Mac).
> Now you know how Amiga users feel. When and where the Amiga did things
> better or faster, it somehow wasn't important... until the Wintel
> platform caught up.
I *honestly* think the speed issue *is* mostly irrelevant in this case.
As I already commented, safety, stability and implementation of standards
vastly overwhelm it in importance. IE has a sad history in this area, and
it's not going to redeem itself overnight. Especially not with something
as irrelevant as being some fractions faster.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Especially not with something
> as irrelevant as being some fractions faster.
I think IE8 has many improvements over earlier IEs. The washington post was
just evaluating the speed. Otherwise, yah, it doesn't seem to be important
once you get faster than you can easily measure.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> IE8 trying to claim superiority because it's faster than the competition
>
> IE8 is a browser. It doesn't claim anything. It's the washington post
> making claims.
>
Another article on this said, "Rather than optimizing script execution,
which is now used a lot of sites, like Chrome and Firefox, Microsoft
picked out the top 20 sites on the web, then 'optimized' their browser
to show those pages faster." This of course means they might be
optimizing it to show IE friendly pages, that use really crappy code,
better (instead of IE hating pages with really good coding, but since I
have no idea which pages where used, I couldn't say one way or the
other), but... since when have they cared what was on the pages, as long
as their browser worked better with the "major" ones, even if it was an
accident of those pages being written for the browser in the first place. :p
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Tim Cook wrote:
>>> Basically, it grudgingly admits that IE8 is a little bit better in a
>>> particular aspect, then dismissing it as irrelevant, where with any
>>> other browser, any speed increase would be trumpeted as the greatest
>>> thing since sliced breat (especially if it were for a Mac).
>
>> Now you know how Amiga users feel. When and where the Amiga did things
>> better or faster, it somehow wasn't important... until the Wintel
>> platform caught up.
>
> I *honestly* think the speed issue *is* mostly irrelevant in this case.
>
> As I already commented, safety, stability and implementation of standards
> vastly overwhelm it in importance. IE has a sad history in this area, and
> it's not going to redeem itself overnight. Especially not with something
> as irrelevant as being some fractions faster.
And they're certainly not going to make any friends with the FireFox
plug-in mentioned in the thread "Warning: Microsoft silently installing
firefox extension" above...
I wonder how difficult it would be to whip together some HTML that only
displays on non-compliant browsers, saying that something awful is going
to happen unless the user installs some non-IE product...
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/21/2009 6:54 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> I wonder how difficult it would be to whip together some HTML that only
> displays on non-compliant browsers, saying that something awful is going
> to happen unless the user installs some non-IE product...
Ridiculously easy. Check the agent string, and you'll catch 99% of the
users.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> MS just can't win, can it...
Maybe MS can't win me back to IE.
They lost me when IE 7 crashed on a majority of
pages, and uninstalling and reinstalling didn't fix it.
Sure, IE 8 is a new version, it probably works great
99.9% of the time. What happens when it fails?
When Firefox fails it pops up a dialog asking if you
want to restore your last session... I can live with that
easier than a total FUBAR.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood <tim### [at] anti-spamcomcastnet> wrote:
> When Firefox fails it pops up a dialog asking if you
> want to restore your last session... I can live with that
> easier than a total FUBAR.
Another advantage of Firefox is that there are tons of plugins for it
to do handy things. For example after having used Tab Mix Plus, it feels
irritating using any other browser where it's not available (including
a firefox in another machine, without the plugin).
And of course NoScript is simply a must. (It sometimes causes hassle,
but most of the time it's useful to strengthen safety and avoid annoyances.)
Other plugins I find useful are PrefBar, Menu Editor and RefControl.
One plugin which I would want is something to make it easier to edit
cookie settings. Maybe I should search for one.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "Blarrrrrgh, MS sucks! IE sucks and all improvements are just playing
> catch-up to other browsers!"
> "Uh, IE8 loads pages faster than Firefox."
> "It doesn't matter, it's not *that* much faster, and besides, everyone has
> broadband now so nobody cares! Rewrrrrr."
I don't understand why or how a web browser could significantly add any time
to how long it takes to show a web page. Surely, 99% of the time is spend
waiting for the content, and 1% spent arranging the page and rendering it?
If pages loaded with FF repeatedly take 0.5 seconds longer to load than IE8,
then it seems like there are some serious bottlenecks in the FF engine...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> I don't understand why or how a web browser could significantly add any
> time to how long it takes to show a web page. Surely, 99% of the time
> is spend waiting for the content, and 1% spent arranging the page and
> rendering it?
Unless it's heavy in Javascript or CSS or something that's going to make it
take a long time. Or unless the browser tries to refresh the
partially-loaded page too often.
Look at the sort of things gmail or facebook does in the browser and you'll
get an idea.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49c7b866$1@news.povray.org...
> scott wrote:
>> I don't understand why or how a web browser could significantly add any
>> time to how long it takes to show a web page. Surely, 99% of the time is
>> spend waiting for the content, and 1% spent arranging the page and
>> rendering it?
>
> Unless it's heavy in Javascript or CSS or something that's going to make
> it take a long time. Or unless the browser tries to refresh the
> partially-loaded page too often.
I must say that if a page takes a long time to load due to heavy Javascript
I often end up closing the browser because it makes me nervous. Especially
if it looks like a simple page but I can hear my computer grinding away at
it, makes me wonder what exactly is going on in the background.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
