What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
414 Comments
- inactive, on 03/19/2009, -92/+446Oh yay, I'll get down to downloading this right after I ram this cactus right up my arse.
- JasonCox, on 03/19/2009, -12/+326Whether you like IE or not, IE8 is another huge step in the right direction by Microsoft and I applaud them for doing it. I'm a web developer and every step Microsoft makes to making IE more standards compliant, well, I'm all for it.
- Thomaschaaf, on 03/19/2009, -4/+227Won't be an alternative to the companies that still use IE 6.. They should just do a forced update so no one can use IE 6 anymore..
- ottville, on 03/19/2009, -31/+192You gotta give IE8 a chance before you make judgment.
- DeadlyNinja, on 03/19/2009, -12/+113No thanks. I'll stick with Netscape 2.0.
- EnderMB, on 03/19/2009, -17/+108The majority of people that are going to comment on here will either have made a simple HTML page back when IE6 was doing the rounds or just plain hate Microsoft for no real reason. These people are as big a cancer on the Internet as IE6 was.
Either way, it's good to see that IE8 is on the right track to making itself more secure and usable, as well as conforming to standards by default. Despite what a lot of people think MS aren't stupid and they're fully aware that IE6 was a pile of *****, but when so many web pages are still coded for it it's hard to completely revert to standard-compliance. With luck IE8 will be a lot faster than its rivals and would provide some real competition between the browsers. Firefox is still the King, so hopefully IE8 will improve and force some better changes from Mozilla. - dave122, on 03/19/2009, -2/+79I would throw a large party if they did this. But they won't - a lot of companies have apps that will only run on ie6.
- drunkenoaf, on 03/19/2009, -14/+86I find the rumour that MS will abandon the IE engine for webkit after IE8 most amusing
- PCGUY112887, on 03/19/2009, -6/+66Writing this in IE8 64bit right now... it's actually fairly quick and not too shabby.
-From an FireFox 3 Addict - HardSide, on 03/19/2009, -10/+65Just browsing through your history - 1/3 of your comments bash on Microsoft...can't get a day job?
- norman619, on 03/19/2009, -26/+80My god man. Did Bill Gates sleep with your mom before he left MS? Did they ruen you down for a position? Why the blind hate?
FTA:
"IE8's Release Candidate 1 was 69 percent effective at catching malware before it did damage to a user's system. Mozilla Firefox 3.07 came in second with a 30 percent effectiveness rate, with Apple Safari's 3 in third place with a 24-percent rate and Google's Chrome 1.0.154 in fourth place with 16 percent effectiveness rate"
IE8 appears to be worth a look at. - KSUdesigner, on 03/19/2009, -3/+49Releasing new browsers is fine, as long as they are standards compliant.
- thelastcivilian, on 03/19/2009, -9/+55...and hopefully it's true.
- Chewie67, on 03/19/2009, -8/+52Agreed.
If you maintain a web site that is dependent on IE6, you need to be fired from your job.
If you're still running Windows 2000 and can't upgrade, same thing. - serif69, on 03/19/2009, -1/+38Amazingly, IE8 has become a very small worry for me. Test in FF and Webkit, and it's likely to work the same way in IE8. It's about frikkin' time.
- andersleet, on 03/19/2009, -6/+40@elRetardo
although I whole-heartedly share your sentiment being a web dev myself, tone it down a bit brotha :P your making us look like crazies
I hope they didnt just ramp up the security in the browser, but MAYBE (big maybe there) they decided to join in with the rest of the browsers and actually support modern web technologies well!
Even though, I will continue to use Firefox over IE. - danwallace, on 03/19/2009, -6/+38Seek help.
- Nanobe, on 03/19/2009, -2/+34Something people always seem to forget: IE 6 was *not* a piece of *****. It was actually a competitive browser when it was first released. The problem is that Microsoft just sat on it for 5 years before they finally got around to working on a new version. So the other browsers had a good 5 years to catch up and pass IE in just about every technical area.
Microsoft has been making a lot of good improvements in IE 7 and IE 8. It still isn't up to where the competition is (last I checked, IE 8 was still really slow at rendering repeating alphatransparent PNG backgrounds, had problems with pseudo-elements, and didn't support any of the next-generation web features like SVG, canvas, video/audio elements, etc.), but I think they've mostly been focusing on the right things and have taken a lot of the pain out of developing for IE compatibility. - jeriqo, on 03/19/2009, -2/+30Anyone who is older than 14 tried all of those.
- JKVM, on 03/19/2009, -5/+32I used the beta as well, and tested it (and now the final) with Acid3, http://acid3.acidtests.org/ Peacekeeper, http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/ and a few of the websites I have designed. IE8 final pulls a 20/100 on Acid3 versus Safari 4's 100/100, Firefox 3.1's 93/100. IE8 final pulls a 300 in Peacekeeper, versus 700 for Firefox and 1400 for Safari.
IE8 is an incremental advancement over IE7, but IE is still the worst browser for web developers, due to completely ignoring web standards. IE is far slower overall than Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and Safari. It may be slightly more secure in some ways, but that's not the only factor for a "good" browser. Microsoft touts it as it is the only area where IE8 excels.
Bottom line, if you've ever tried to code for the web, you would have a healthy disgust for IE. Each new release gives us hope, but those hopes are dashed as the final release fails to make any real headway in these critical areas. - haloplayer9672, on 03/19/2009, -4/+27P.S., you don't need "an" as Firefox does not begin with a vowel. "a" does just fine. ;)
[/grammar Nazi] - partysan, on 03/19/2009, -7/+28The only thing you should be developing is your English skills.
- serif69, on 03/19/2009, -0/+21Maybe I can convince clients that Microsoft is going to do this. I'm a vehement supporter of web standards, and IE 6 is the bane of my existence.
- Smudded, on 03/19/2009, -6/+26and arousing...
- JasonCox, on 03/19/2009, -4/+24There's an equivalent add-on for IE called IE7Pro that provides ad-blocking functionality.
- HardSide, on 03/19/2009, -2/+21A much better link:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/19/the-pwn2own-tri ...
"One day into the Pwn2Own hacking competition at CanSecWest and already Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla have been sent packing to their respective labs to work on security issues in their browsers."
If you gonna post that EI8 was exploited on the first day, do make sure to include the rest of the browsers, not just one. It just shows how one sided you are. - mdjohnson1, on 03/19/2009, -30/+49In related news ... Microsoft plans to make its Internet Explorer 8 browser security patch available on Thursday night.
- MeltingIce, on 03/19/2009, -1/+183 words: STANDARDS and OPEN SOURCE
- Elranzer, on 03/19/2009, -5/+22I'll never use Internet Explorer as my main browser. It remains solely for checking to make sure web pages don't appear like *****.
Disclaimer to Ignorant MS Fanbois: Yes I have used IE8. It sucks. So did IE7, and IE6. So will IE9. - zip000, on 03/19/2009, -0/+17I hope you're just trolling.
- myempyrean, on 03/19/2009, -5/+21Each browser has its own merits. At work I use IE for a lot of different sites around our network that parse my windows domain\login for access, but for the majority I've been using Google's Chrome. As a user and not a developer, a lot just comes down to user preference, and well... some people are just dicks and like being dicks
- rmxz, on 03/19/2009, -2/+18@darthsnoopy: "E8 was targeting Acid 2.1. "
Perhaps if they had targeted HTML specs rather than one test pages they would have come close to passing other test pages.
People accused them of basically doing "if (document_contents == acid2test) {render whatever_picture_acid2_wants} else {use the crappy renderer}".
I thought it was an unfair accusation at the time, but seeing how badly they fail ACID3, I'm starting to believe those accusations more. - norman619, on 03/19/2009, -1/+17No *****. I wanted to have a talk with the web developer of one of our vendors at my last job. Our engineers had to be able to access their site so when I upgraded everyone else I had to downgrade them back to 6 since the vendor didn't bother letting us know. We made our website compiant with all 3 of the top browsers and whenever a new vesionwas released our developers tested and made sure everything still worked. It's pure laziness to do otherwise.
- Rantipole, on 03/19/2009, -11/+27As a web developer, I'm still extremely disappointed. Every time Microsoft releases a new version of Internet Explorer, it further complicates things: now I have to deal with not only IE6 and IE7, but IE8 as well. Now, if Microsoft had made IE8 standards compliant on par with Firefox, Opera, Safari and Chrome, THEN I would be applauding. Until they do that, I will be booing and hissing.
- Step1Mark, on 03/19/2009, -2/+17I have used IE8 on Windows 7 to download FF3 and I have to say it wasn't really too bad. I messed around with some settings while I had it open so I knew what to expect from the browser. The few features that have been adding is nice.
I say good luck to Microsoft with the new IE but I will be sticking with FF. It does what I like and if it is missing a feature can just get a plug in. - orlandogeek, on 03/19/2009, -1/+16I'd say the hate is not entirely misplaced when dealing with the initial release of a new Internet Explorer version. If history is any indication, it will be a ***** of epic proportions for the first month or so. Browser crashes, lockups, pages not rendering right. I even saw many many instances of Windows damaged so badly that a reinstall was needed.
In fairness is this Microsoft's fault? Probably not. Picture trying to upgrade part of Windows over top of 14 spyware toolbars and who knows what other dreck the average person has crapping up their current version of Internet Explorer. - Sarxx, on 03/19/2009, -3/+18Care Meter.
Don't Care {:::::[]:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::} Care - fotoman607, on 03/19/2009, -0/+15that's what she said
- Chewie67, on 03/19/2009, -4/+19You can call me a dick all you wish, but if your business relies on a web browser that Microsoft itself says is not secure -- going so far as to recommend that customer not use it -- you are grossly negligent in your job.
It doesn't matter if Windows 2000 "still runs fine". If that means you are relegated to using IE6, then it's not fine. It's like saying "Why should we stop flying this jet when the doors, seats and windows are all still in great shape? Sure, the engines have a tendency to explode, but everything else is okay!"
If you can't afford to upgrade the hardware, fine. It's a fare business point. That doesn't mean you need to run IE6, however. Install Firefox on every PC (it's FREE), make it the default, and delete the IE icons. It may not be ideal, but at least you're protecting yourself more than you are today.
If your third-party vendor has a site that requires IE6, FIRE THEM and work with their competitor that doesn't expose your business to risk. When they see their customers leaving, they'll wise up and invest in a better web site. Remember, it's not they who will suffer when your business PC gets CRUSHED by a trojan, it's you.
Flame me all you want, but it's really you who are being short-sighted by coming up with excuses for IE6. There is NO EXCUSE for running it in 2009. The pennies you save by continuing to run it will be buried under the dollars you spend when a trojan floods your office network. - Doomsan, on 03/19/2009, -48/+61I would never go back to IE, never!!!
- toxicityj, on 03/19/2009, -1/+13to which I say "***** you fix yuor apps"
- falafelkiosken, on 03/19/2009, -3/+15+Safari, Chrome, Konqueror, Epiphany and virtually any browser
- norman619, on 03/19/2009, -4/+15Ignorance must truly be bliss...
- FredFredrickson, on 03/19/2009, -1/+12If you think that open source software cannot suffer from the same lack of competition that kept IE stagnant for years, you're completely wrong.
- FredFredrickson, on 03/19/2009, -8/+19I think it would be a shame. Not that I think the IE engine will ever be as fast or accurate, but why should all browsers use webkit? That's the same anti-competition ***** that everyone always bemoans MS for, isn't it?
- johnomaz, on 03/19/2009, -13/+24Why not. If its a good browser, then use it. Quit being a fanboy and use what is good.
- thelastcivilian, on 03/19/2009, -2/+13Along with every other browser in the competition except for Chrome.
- inactive, on 03/19/2009, -4/+15-It renders HTML and CSS fine. You forget that Microsoft has to be careful with backwards compatibility for people out there still designing web pages with older browsers in mind (IE6 for example).
-It supports free plugins.
-You can tell it to not use ActiveX.
Anything else? - robdazomba, on 03/19/2009, -1/+11You have to give this hot stove a chance not to burn you before you judge it like the other dozen hot stoves you've been burnt by.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 422 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is