Perception is killing Internet Explorer

[mikeymikec]

I wonder how they came up with a battery life test for a browser.

On one hand, one might say "do a looping series of benchmarks, and see which identical machine lasts longest", but if one browser loads each benchmark quicker, then it might fit more benchmarks into the time it takes to empty the battery (and ends up emptying the battery quicker than others). Another browser may perform poorly with every benchmark (and/or take longer to load each one due to inefficiencies in its design which don't necessarily equal high resource usage), but because it doesn't push the machine half as much, the battery lasts longer.

Another way to run such a test would be to come up with say 10 tests to benchmark each browser, then supply an aggregate score at the end. That would reduce the loading 'system cool-down' potential advantage.

The problem with either approach I've considered is that it's similar-ish to the problem of processor benchmarking. Processor x may take longer than processor y to finish a task, but uses much less energy in the process. Reviewers end up showing separate benchmarks to illustrate these various facets of a processor's abilities.

My problem with older versions of IE was that there was a longer period of time than FF to load each page, so more time spent watching a blank screen. This was partly down to FF loading a page as each bit arrives and IE waiting for most of the page to finish downloading before showing anything. Newer versions of IE don't do this, but I think it took until IE9 for IE to quickly load about:blank and be ready to use, rather than sitting, unresponsive, saying "connecting". Nowadays I think it's more of a question of preference aesthetically, and the problem there is that THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME (because everyone is trying to copy Google Chrome).

I don't like Google Chrome's simplification of the UI, so I stay with Firefox with the classic menus at the top of the window.

 

[Texashiker]

You do realize that is only because you are trying to install a DOS based system (98) on top of an NT based system (XP)? It was not some nefarious plot by MS to prevent you from dual booting rather it was to keep you from screwing up your booting XP OS and calling MS to sort out how to fix it.

I tired to install windows 95 on a windows 98 machine, and got the "an operating system is already installed" error message.

What is your excuse for that one?

As long as the OS can talk to the formatting of the disk drive, it should not matter if the OS is dos, nt or linux based. Microsoft wants people going forward with their products, not backwards.

As for the OP, I think people look at microsoft as a closed system that only works on pcs. That is hurting IE, and it should.

Microsofts stance as a leader as fallen to the wayside. As more people adopt smartphones and tablets, I look for IE and microsoft as a whole to fall further and further behind.

Over the decade between 2000 - 2010, microsoft focused on operating systems, when they should have been looking at tablets. But in 2002, 2003, 2004,,,, who knew tablets and smartphones would take over the market.

 

[Linflas]

I tired to install windows 95 on a windows 98 machine, and got the "an operating system is already installed" error message.

What is your excuse for that one?

Most likely you were trying to install the FAT16 version of 95 would be my guess.

As long as the OS can talk to the formatting of the disk drive, it should not matter if the OS is dos, nt or linux based. Microsoft wants people going forward with their products, not backwards.

Of course that matters, MS has no reason to try and deal with linux file systems and partition types and attempting to do so would just open them up to a flood of customer support calls when people would nuke their linux/windows installs trying to set up dual boot systems. It is possible to do it if you know what you are doing but it is not something I would fault the company for not supporting. I once had a workstation set up to dual boot MS-DOS 6.22, Windows 95, Windows 98, NT 4.0, and Slackware Linux using the NTLDR. I did it strictly as a learning exercise and there is no way I would have expected MS to officially support such a thing.

 

[Rubycon]

Enabling cleartype by default with no way to turn it off it a major turn off IMHO. Cleartype should be an OPTION only turned on by those that want this useless and annoying "feature".

It's on Macs too and I find it makes everything look blurry and hell to read. It's just bad, bad, bad. Did I mention how bad it is? :biggrin:

 

[Texashiker]

MS has no reason to try and deal with linux file systems and partition types and attempting to do so would just open them up to a flood of customer support calls.......

Maybe you are missing the point. I did not say anything about MS supporting linux. As long as the OS supports the file system being used on the drive, then what should it matter?

This is the difference between open systems, and the closed system that MS wants. This is also one of the reasons why MS is falling behind in the market.

Why has IE fallen behind? Where is the IE version that works on the droid, where is the version of IE that works on the samsung tablets,,,,, and so on.

MS is fighting a losing battle. As more and more people use smartphones and tablets, microsoft will continue to be less important.

 

[ViviTheMage]

lol @ replies so far






what's really killing IE9+ are corporate applications that require IE6-IE8...

This pretty much sums it up...going from IE6 to 7/8 was the biggest headache ever, and going ot 9 will introduce many more problems I am sure.

 

[mikeymikec]

@ Texashiker

I'm not sure where this sub-thread came from, but Win9x wasn't really a dual-boot-aware OS, more of a toy OS 🙂

Do you really believe that Firefox became so popular because it is multi-platform? Do you think that any more than 10% of Firefox's market share is aware of it being multi-platform, let alone using an OS other than Windows?

Supporting multiple platforms is a nice thing to do when developing a piece of software, don't get me wrong, but Netscape 4x was massively multi-platform, and its main problem was that it was crap. IE4 was a massive improvement on IE, and MS used monopoly-abusing tactics to improve IE's market share.

The reason why IE is on a slippery slope to the graveyard is because Microsoft almost succeeded in wiping out all the browser-based competition, then sat on its laurels, continuing to only believe in "MS HTML" until the notion of Firefox being the popular and better underdog was fairly well rooted in the public's imagination. Since IE6 SP2, Microsoft's efforts have been "too little, too late".

As for tablets and other devices, Microsoft's main mistake IMO was Vista. Windows bloated when it should have been performance-tweaked with the careful addition of security enhancements and extra features. Windows 6's sales pitch should have read "loads in 10-30 seconds and has significantly better security than XP".

 

[Texashiker]

@ Texashiker

I'm not sure where this sub-thread came from, but Win9x wasn't really a dual-boot-aware OS, more of a toy OS 🙂

Its how microsoft does not want people going backwards in their products. Instead of being able to install windows 98 on an XP machine to run older software, microsoft tried to create a "compatibility mode". Just like with IE 8, you have a some kind of mode to run IE 8 like IE7.

Why cant we have IE 7 and IE 8 installed at the same time? Why cant customers pick what IE browser we want to use on the fly?

I also think it shows the closed mindset of the people at microsoft.

After microsoft won over netscape, and released xp,,,, they just sat there raking in the profits. There was nothing innovate released in a decade. Even from XP - windows 7, there is nothing that makes me go "wow, that is a big leap forward".

What would have been nice, is when I bought windows 7, if a version that ran on smart phones and tablets would have been included with the disk.

Or hey, why not let people run 2 or 3 versions of IE at the same time? But then gain, MS does not want people going backwards. Its either use the newest or use something older, there is no middle off the road.

 

[Linflas]

Its how microsoft does not want people going backwards in their products. Instead of being able to install windows 98 on an XP machine to run older software, microsoft tried to create a "compatibility mode". Just like with IE 8, you have a some kind of mode to run IE 8 like IE7.

Why cant we have IE 7 and IE 8 installed at the same time? Why cant customers pick what IE browser we want to use on the fly?

I also think it shows the closed mindset of the people at microsoft.

After microsoft won over netscape, and released xp,,,, they just sat there raking in the profits. There was nothing innovate released in a decade. Even from XP - windows 7, there is nothing that makes me go "wow, that is a big leap forward".

What would have been nice, is when I bought windows 7, if a version that ran on smart phones and tablets would have been included with the disk.

Or hey, why not let people run 2 or 3 versions of IE at the same time? But then gain, MS does not want people going backwards. Its either use the newest or use something older, there is no middle off the road.

I don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding why this is not so cut and dried as you insist on making it. Unless you purposely take steps outside of the normal install procedure when installing Windows XP it will create and install in an NTFS file system. This file system is incompatible with Windows 98 period therefore if you come along and attempt to install Windows 98 after you are dealing with 2 problems:
1. NTLDR vs the old 98 version of io.sys/msdos.sys bootloader
2. Even if MS deals with the above unless you have a totally separate partition formatted FAT32 there is no place to install Windows 98.
MS is not doing this to "force" you to run anything, they are doing it because of valid technical considerations involving the fundamental differences between the 2 operating systems. If it was as you are making it out to be then why would they have this detailed knowledge base article on how to go about setting up dual boot systems?

 

[mikeymikec]

Its how microsoft does not want people going backwards in their products. Instead of being able to install windows 98 on an XP machine to run older software, microsoft tried to create a "compatibility mode". Just like with IE 8, you have a some kind of mode to run IE 8 like IE7.

Err, just install them the other way around, 9x first into the first partition, then XP into another. 9x doesn't have a boot manager. NT4/2000/XP/Vista/7 does. It'll do all the boot management work for you.

As for IE, sure, but running various versions of Firefox (probably every other modern browser too) will land you in trouble because the user-data end has changed between releases. I think you would get away with running Firefox <1.0 and >1.0 and that's about it, because the former put user data into the program installation folder and the latter started adhering to where user profile data should be kept on Windows 🙂

I've chopped some of what you said because I'm pretty sure I've said it already 🙂

What would have been nice, is when I bought windows 7, if a version that ran on smart phones and tablets would have been included with the disk.

Well, there are technical compatibility complications with that idea but I think MS are making a mistake to charge through the nose for OS upgrades. OS X Lion goes for something like 20 UKP, and yet a slight upgrade from Win7 HP to Win7 Pro will set you back as much as buying the OEM licence.

Or hey, why not let people run 2 or 3 versions of IE at the same time? But then gain, MS does not want people going backwards. Its either use the newest or use something older, there is no middle off the road.

Nor do Apple or any other software-producing, money-making company.

 

[SearchMaster]

chrome is on version eleventy billion. soon they're going to be using avogadro's number.

LoL

 

[lxskllr]

Well, there are technical compatibility complications with that idea but I think MS are making a mistake to charge through the nose for OS upgrades. OS X Lion goes for something like 20 UKP, and yet a slight upgrade from Win7 HP to Win7 Pro will set you back as much as buying the OEM licence.

Nor do Apple or any other software-producing, money-making company.

OSX updates are the equivalent to a MS service pack which they give away free. Also, with Apple, you've paid your price up front through inflated hardware costs. There's nothing wrong with either method, but they can't be directly compared.

 

[mikeymikec]

OSX updates are the equivalent to a MS service pack which they give away free. Also, with Apple, you've paid your price up front through inflated hardware costs. There's nothing wrong with either method, but they can't be directly compared.

Just confirming, so someone with OS X Snow Leopard can upgrade to OS X Lion for free? It seems to say here (wrt Lion):

http://www.apple.com/uk/macosx/
"Available now from the Mac App Store for just &#163;20.99"

 

[Texashiker]

Or hey, why not let people run 2 or 3 versions of IE at the same time? But then gain, MS does not want people going backwards. Its either use the newest or use something older, there is no middle off the road.

Nor do Apple or any other software-producing, money-making company.

Internet explorer is free, why not let people run ie7, ie8 and ie9 all at the same time?

The problem I see, MS wants to direct the flow of technology. This is why xp does not support the newer versions of IE, and why XP does not support DX11.

Instead of letting people use the technology they want, MS wants to point people in the direct MS wants them to go.

The problem with the trend starts when people have a viable option besides MS. One rason why linux never kicked off is because walmart and best buy do not sell linux computers. But you can get a smartphone from walmart and best buy.

As people are introduced to new technology at an early age, MS will slowly fade away.

All we need now is someone like google to bring their droid OS to the desktop, get it on the shelves at walmart and best buy.

 

[MrChad]

I would love to see IE die tbh. MS has failed time and time again to comply with standards, why? because they don't care, given they controll(ed) the market. In fact they create their own such as Active X. So many apps run ONLY in IE, and that's bullshit. The whole idea behind a web app is that it should not require a specific platform.

Well if IE dies, a more open web app market will be born, and I think we're already starting to see that. Most web apps now arn't depending on Active X and other proprietary crap. MS tried to pull off another proprietary web platform (Silverlight) which from what I heard, they actually decided to stop bothering with. Good. We don't need yet another proprietary web platform. Now if only Flash could die too. HTML5 hopefully is the future.

This type of response is exactly what the article is talking about.

• ActiveX is the one of the original browser plug-in architectures. YES, many of the early implementations had major security issues, but the idea itself is not so different from Chrome or Firefox addons. It has nothing to do with proprietary standards.
• At the time it was released, IE6 was a pretty decent browser (security issues aside). The competition at the time was garbage. The problem was that Microsoft rested on its laurels for too long and let IE6 idiosyncrasies become defacto standards, which unfortunately take a while to undo.
• Silverlight, like Flash, served a useful purpose by enabling developers to create applications that could NOT be built in HTML4 (the standard at the time). HTML5 (which took forever to be finalized) addresses many of those concerns now, which is why both Adobe and Microsoft will probably start shifting away from these platforms and more towards HTML5. If you want to blame anyone, blame the W3C for dragging their feet on a new standard.

I hate working with IE6, 7 and even 8 to some extent as much as anybody, but I respect the fact that the IE development team appears to be moving in the right direction, with a greater focus on sandboxing/security, browsing speed and standards compliance. They give lots of guidance to the development community on ways to write HTML, CSS and JavaScript that works well with all browsers and helps future-proof code for new versions down the road. Give credit where credit is due.

 

[MrChad]

Internet explorer is free, why not let people run ie7, ie8 and ie9 all at the same time?

The problem I see, MS wants to direct the flow of technology. This is why xp does not support the newer versions of IE, and why XP does not support DX11.

Running multiple browser versions simultaneously is a VERY limited use case that really only applies to developers. It's also something easily done with virtualization. Windows 7 Professional and up can let you setup multiple Windows XP Mode VMs, each with its own IE version for testing. It's not a perfect solution but it works.

XP is 10 years old. Old software eventually becomes unsupported; I'm not sure why people expect XP to be an exception to this.

 

[peonyu]

I hate IE. And when im forced to use it it seems like every app on earth finds a way to covertly install a toolbar that I dont want on it, even if I click the "I do not want this shit" button. Microsoft doesn't seem to care much about IE anymore either, they used to up until 07 or around there. So why bother, just use FF or Chrome. Opera is another awesome browser of course...It just has some compatibility issues still.

 

[Texashiker]

Running multiple browser versions simultaneously is a VERY limited use case that really only applies to developers. It's also something easily done with virtualization.

Do you "really" think anyone but IT professionals cares about virtualization?

Why does the company I work for need to hire developers to redo our data entry website for new versions of IE, when microsoft could allow us to use different versions of IE at the same time?

Why do we need to spend thousands of dollars on a system that works, just because MS decides to change their browser?

And its not "just" developers that would benefit from running more then 1 version of IE.

IE 7 - our inhouse data entry website

IE 8 or 9 - for everything else

 

[MrChad]

Why does the company I work for need to hire developers to redo our data entry website for new versions of IE, when microsoft could allow us to use different versions of IE at the same time?

Because the original developers didn't do a good job and made some poor assumptions?

Microsoft even added the ability for IE 8/9 to fall back into compatibility mode so that it behaves like IE7. This solves most backward compatibility problems.

 

[Exterous]

Depending on the specific problem, IE8 has a "compatibility view" specifically intended to help with such problems.

Heh - the last company I worked for had some terrible developers who wrote custom software to work with IE6. I heard from an ex-co-worker that 2 months ago they finally finished the big re-write to work with IE 7 (yay for staying up to date!) but broke IE8 compatability. Better yet some functions still didn't work with IE7 so people are having to use IE6 and IE7

For whatever reason compatability mode couldn't fix their ineptitude

You assholes are making me defend IE. I feel a little sick.

Ha!

 

[Texashiker]

Because the original developers didn't do a good job and made some poor assumptions?

So we are going to blame the developers, when MS made poor decisions 6, 7 or even 8 years ago?

I do not think its fair to blame developers for not being able to see what the future holds.

 

[Ns1]

OSX updates are the equivalent to a MS service pack which they give away free. Also, with Apple, you've paid your price up front through inflated hardware costs. There's nothing wrong with either method, but they can't be directly compared.

really?

leopard -> snow leopard -> lion are like sp1 -> sp2 -> sp3?

really?

 

[mikeymikec]

Internet explorer is free, why not let people run ie7, ie8 and ie9 all at the same time?

The problem I see, MS wants to direct the flow of technology. This is why xp does not support the newer versions of IE, and why XP does not support DX11.

Re: IE and multiple versions, I answered that already in the post you replied to: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32549054&postcount=85

Admittedly the glass ceiling with regard to say IE x won't work on (insert old version of Windows here, say v7 on Win2k), that gets on my nerves as well. However, if one assumes that Microsoft has a finite amount of resources, and that they don't have a department of developers all twiddling their thumbs except to fix XP security issues, then surely it has to make sense that MS is going to direct their efforts towards the current and future versions of their software?

Instead of letting people use the technology they want, MS wants to point people in the direct MS wants them to go.

I remember having this sort of opinion ten years ago. Every software-making, money-making company does this.

The problem with the trend starts when people have a viable option besides MS. One rason why linux never kicked off is because walmart and best buy do not sell linux computers. But you can get a smartphone from walmart and best buy.

The USA is not the only country on the planet. Assuming for a second that a given Linux distro has as refined (ie. responsiveness, features, stability) a UI as Windows or OS X, then trying to sell Linux PCs is difficult. How will you sell them? "It can do what Windows does"? That's not a great sales pitch. What then happened was because a little money could be saved by going with Linux, the computer builders then tried to cheap out a bit more and produce an even crappier computer that also died quicker. What the end user got to see of Linux was on a severely underpowered machine and it died quickly. That'll convince them to go for a Linux machine again, won't it? It's like the few Dell machines I've seen with AMD processors in, far worse than their normal Intel machines.

As things actually are, most GUIs for Linux have a lot of work to do even to meet the same standard that Windows does, let alone actually providing features that people want and being ahead of the competition. A customer's PC has been set up by the customer's son (an adult) to dual-boot XP and Ubuntu 9x. In terms of UI responsiveness, Windows absolutely takes it to the cleaners. Silly things like text not appearing as it is being typed sometimes, or half of OpenOffice's or Firefox's UI is properly rendered several seconds after the window has appeared. The machine is old and wasn't particularly high-spec at the time (half a gig of memory, integrated graphics), but if Windows can handle it and Ubuntu can't, and that was exactly the sort of low-spec machine that lots of people buy. That PC may not be a fair representation of Ubuntu on a desktop PC, but it's not a good start.

One problem with completely free software is that once it reaches a certain level of complexity and there are unexciting yet important bugs to fix, I don't think volunteers have quite so much interest in fixing them. Example - Mozilla Mail/Seamonkey Mail - I can safely say that it has been around for a decade, more if you count Netscape 4 as its code-sharing ancestor. They still haven't got round to providing icons in the message list that show whether the mail has been replied or forwarded. Outlook Express 4 managed this (possibly even "Internet Mail and News" which came with IE3, I can't remember). Thunderbird has managed this despite being a few years younger than Moz. What the hell. Admittedly that's a feature, not a bug, but it's exactly the sort of thing that gets left by the wayside because the right people aren't screaming about it. Instead, whatever whim the developers of Firefox/Thunderbird/Seamonkey/any other OSS project is worked on, like putting an aero glass interface on Thunderbird. Again, what the hell. How about fixing the plain text wrapping bugs in Thunderbird, because that's something the users would actually thank the devs for. There are also text rendering issues in Open/LibreOffice that have been reported and the bug reports have been open for several years without change.

I'm not saying that Windows, OS X or other paid-for OSs are perfect, but the UIs for Linux have definitely fallen behind.

As people are introduced to new technology at an early age, MS will slowly fade away.

I don't think Steve Ballmer is any good for Microsoft in the long term, but enormous companies don't tend to die easily. Microsoft still has an enormous market share in the desktop OS arena and I can't see Apple catching them because they don't pitch at the low-budget end. There are also people who have used Windows for years and have no desire to change unless a meteor lands on MS's headquarters, as well as tonnes of businesses that use Windows and won't change without an extremely good reason.

 

[theeedude]

IE9 doesn't even run on XP. Which means I can't use it at work, which means that if I am going to standardize on one browser, it won't be IE.

 

[Texashiker]

I don't think Steve Ballmer is any good for Microsoft in the long term, but enormous companies don't tend to die easily. Microsoft still has an enormous market share in the desktop OS arena and I can't see Apple catching them because they don't pitch at the low-budget end.

At one time ford controlled the car market, and then along came dodge, chevy, toyota,,,,,,. Even today, new car companies are hitting the market.

At one time microsoft controlled the OS market, but not anymore. MS might control the desktop market, but hopefully that will not last too much longer.

Who knows what could happen in the next couple of years? Maybe google will introduce their own desktop running a droid OS?

The longest journey starts with a single step. Maybe IE falling out of its top spot is the first step in removing MS out of its top spot in the desktop?