Microsoft has a wonderfully amusing talent for undoing its own good work. Last month, Redmond unveiled Internet Explorer 9, a Microsoft browser that finally embraced web standards in a very big way. But any goodwill it may have won from the web community has already been undermined by the company's latest efforts to remarket the …
But he succeeds only in treating his readers like idiots
IE9 users ARE idiots.... So nothing really lost, nothing really gained.
On both my work box and my own laptop Opera is slower then IE8 (yeah that's right, slower) so along with it been more clunky than the other browsers I tend to avoid it for anything other than testing (in fact now I think of it, that's in the same boat as IE8).... not upgraded to IE9 yet.
Off topic but STFU
We don't want Opera, we don't like Opera and the world has spoken. If Opera was so great it would be massive worldwide by now given the length of time it has been available and it hasn't happened. You can't blame MS for lack of market share, Firefox and then Chrome seemed to manage OK at taking market share away from IE and Opera has been around a lot longer than either of those. Even being given a prominant position on the browser choice screen that MS have to give you now it has still failed to make an impact. People have tried it, ditched it and gone to Firefox or Chrome or even stuck with IE. Why can't you Opera fans get it? You like it, it works for you - we don't care. You are in the minority - accept it.
So who are we exept you
Downloaded Opera 11.10, faster than Firefox 3.6.16 on Linux.
Still using Firefox as my default, but I will give Opera a new "chance".
Personally I think Opera made a huge error in forcing adverts, in your face, years ago, Just when it started to be interesting. Skipped it then.
But there are a number of sites so exclusively Microsoft (bad programming) that Firefox will not work, and then I have used Opera without problems.
Of course, if you use IE, you must be a Windows user, and that of course is up to you (or something forced upon you, poor soul),
As for market share, FIAT Uno probably has a larger market share than a Ferrari.
And as for the "we" you are "you" and not "we",
No offence, perhaps you should give Opera an other go. Perhaps you have never used it, anyway.
In the very first post!
Looks like the Opera Rapid Response Squad were on the ball today.
Is "Opera is better" the Reg equivalent of yelling "FIRST!" on a Cheezburger blog?
Be quite you little troll!
Tried it, very nice, slick and works very well....
However 2 out of the 10 main sites I visit regularly, it refused to even load the content, just timed out. FF, IE and even Chrome loaded the pages flawlessly. One site I need for my job, so Opera is out the door I'm afraid.
Sorry, but Opera has been around long enough to make a difference and it hasn't, even all that bleating from their PR crew has still failed to make any serious impact. You like it, you use it. I like heavy metal, you may not. I like Marmite and Tomato soup powder sandwiches, you may not
Each to their own!
Not the best analogy
"As for market share, FIAT Uno probably has a larger market share than a Ferrari."
How about if both were free, as browsers generally are?
Re: How about if both were free
Small cars are far easier to park in the city - so if both were free, the Ferrari could still struggle for market share.
" I like Marmite and Tomato soup powder sandwiches"
Dammit, I just had my lunch so I don't have an excuse to try this. Sounds intriguing. Tell me more...
Two seat mid-engined sportsters...
...do not generally class as "large".
How do the people in Chelsea Tractors manage?
Free and the car analogy...
The car (browser) is freely available, the house (Operating System) it calls home *might* be free, but the real-estate (hardware) the houses sit on is not free (although it might be heavily subsidized by the home-builders). That would make MS a home-builder. Red Hat is also a home-builder, so is Apple, and so are many others. MS builds more homes than anyone else because they subsidize the real-estate, making their real money on after-sales extras (Office, Exchange, Share-point, MSSQL, .net) that will only seem to work properly (or perhaps at all) when used in their houses (even though all houses use the same kind of electricity). Apple makes their own real-estate AND the houses that go on it, they are unique and those houses are more expensive. Cononical, Mandriva, Red Hat, and other home-builders use any real-estate that is available to them, they cost nothing.
MS homes come with a shiny new Trabant (yes I know, the Trabby is no longer being produced), all of the others come with Ferraris, Rollers (Rolls Royce), or other more modern/higher-end vehicles.
There, I *think* that analogy is a little more complete, they (analogies) are never perfect, but if you're going to use them then go all the way.
following MS bull
If you follow the MS marketspeak, you must also conclude that Chrome OS will be better than even IE on the Microsoft OS.
Simply. The Chrome OS is designed to support the Chrome browser and ONLY the Chrome browser. And not all those other applications that Microsoft has to support.
So if the market speak makes any sense it all it supports the Chrome OS much more so than anything that Microsoft sells.
:)) @Anonymous Coward form your statement I can understand that you are most likely unemployed for not using IE or FF(corporate ready browsers). So don't go calling ppl idiots for some guy's crapy statement about IE which is actually a very good product.
sorta... but different...
Is "Opera is better" the Reg equivalent of yelling "FIRST!" on a Cheezburger blog?
ummm, I think it's more like yelling "fanboi, fanboi,blahblah,fanboi" in regards to an Apple i-Anything post. LOL
A question to the Opera woshipers...
Just tried the latest yesterday, as I always used to use it, but;
Why does it (and previous 10 version) not display pages on the register correctly?
In FF i get well layed out screens with the main page index, stories and comments section; in Opera it displays like a school project and is basically unusable.
Most other sites including banking and such are displayed almost identicaly to FF, is this some Reg conspiricy?
LOL? I hate you and everything you stand for. Downvote.
I would still get the Fiat Uno.
Because when the time for a service come you will feel the difference.
Open Source Fanboys and Corporate Shills Clash Once More
Shocking. M$ is once again self-advertising and yet once again open source blow hards are taking offense. I am shocked! I have NEVER seen this play out before.
Give me a break. Opera this and FF that and Safari is the best thing since spermicidal condoms.
Whatever. I am truly surprised that The Reg and any of you are surprised by this kind of shameless self-promotion. This is what pay-for software...no...this is what ALL corporations do. Repeatedly.
Of course the nay-sayers think their product is better...its THEIR product! Opera blows IMHO. FF has left my angry lately. Safari is a turd and Chrome is decent. IE9 is better than the 8 previous releases and for that I give M$ a http://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/graphics/icons/comment/thumb_up_32.png but to all you haters for hating on a company for acting like any and every other company you all get a http://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/graphics/icons/comment/thumb_down_32.png.
Over all this article gets a http://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/graphics/icons/comment/fail_32.png
Are you meaning to say what I think you're saying?
Are you actually trying to say is that, if one expects to have a complete web experience, one must use Windows 7 and Internet Explorer 9?
While, yes, I agree that IE 9 is better than previous versions, that isn't actually the point. The point is that a MS shill is trying to convince the world that the Internet should only run on Windows. That means that websites should either support Windows and not support everything else (Macs, iPhones, Linux, Android, etc.), or write a different website for each one.
Then again, I might be inclined to believe that, as you also seem to believe that putting links to images actually puts those images into your post. Hey, look, a fail icon!
Open Source Fanboys?
Open source? You are aware that Opera is closed source, right?
Epic, epic fail.
Actually if you read what he wrote then nowhere at all does he say that "if one expects to have a complete web experience, one must use Windows 7 and Internet Explorer 9"
I've read his post forwads, backwards, sideways and even upside down a couple of times and NOWHERE does he say anything at all like the phrase you tried to ascribe to him.
If you disagree with someone then have the intelligence to disagree with what they actually said because to be honest I think your statement that fucking dogs makes you manly and more attractive to women is quite simply wrong and I think you should be ashamed of yourself for advocating the castration of every third male born to households with the surname "Lovell".
Note - Don't bother coming back and accusing me of being a Microtard or whatever the kids call each other these days, my post tells you precisely nothing about the platforms I use.
P.S. I think rather a lot of people who post on this site should look up the meaning of "straw man" and then hang their heads in shame.
If all the browsers are crap, feel free to stop using all of them. Including IE.
You'd benefit, and we'd benefit...mainly from not having to read drivel like that.
Oh look I managed to get the icon right...
their comments this shit:
You can't put pictures in your comments, asshole.
What crashIO wrote was an attack on the article, and thus a defense of Dean Hachamovitch's statements. In my reply, I pointed out that the consequences of defending Hachamovitch's statements was, in fact, defending the statement that the Internet should only work correctly in Windows.
"Native HTML" implies that the HTML is written in a native language, that is, specifically for a single platform. Hachamovitch said, "The only native experience of the Web and HTML5 today is on Windows 7 with IE9," which pretty much backs that up. This is obviously false; FireFox, Opera, Chrome, and Safari all have HTML 5 support. No one from those camps are saying that their browser is the only one that runs HTML 5 "natively."
Oddly enough, I never said that using IE 9 was a bad idea, nor have ever called anyone a "Microtard." In fact, I even refrained from assuming that the person I was replying to had no grasp of logical debate. Then again, some people seem to miss subtleties; can't win 'em all, right?
Perhaps Hachamovitch just fails to grasp the meaning of "native" and thinks it means "without a plugin"? Could happen, the guy must be really busy.
I don't really see the contradiction
My reading of their statement is that IE was not designed as a cross-platform browser, and thus by implication is more optimized for Windows in terms of speed (even if that's not true based on benchmarks). This says nothing about the *content* being displayed as being not cross-platform. That HTML 5 is platform and browser agnostic doesn't mean that the browser needs to be platform agnostic.
This "native" malarky is basically MS banging the drum about the graphics acceleration - AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN which, given that HTML5 is looking to replace at least some of the kinds of thing people used to do with flash (and could have done, but didn't, with silverlight) may actually, at some point in the future, be worth mentioning.
RIght now, the only real-world difference I notice is that IE is better at displaying 30,000 by 30,000 pixel images than opera.
I'm no M$ fan but...
I'm no M$ fan but that's not how I interpreted Hachamovith's comment.
I thought that he was talking about under-the-covers optimisations for Windows in IE to improve the performance of it's HTML5 implementation. As long as they are not thinking about subverting the standard itself, then I see no issue with that at all.
I know M$ are bad boys and they do have significant form in this area, but I think in this case the critics protest too much. Time will tell.
Look, it's completely wrong to place "native" anywhere near "HTML5."
HTML5 is not native, no matter how you spin it. And spin it, the Microsoft guy did.
No, the critics are not protesting too much, because Microblows is once again trying to hijack things.
Yes, I tend to read the whole thing as nothing more than marketspeak for "IE9 uses more of the newest Windows APIs from the HTML5 renderer." Which is a bit expected, to say the least. But if they have no other way to differentiate their product, they have to go on and on about what they have in the most conveluted pseudo-tech babble possible.
A title is required
"I thought that he was talking about under-the-covers optimisations for Windows in IE to improve the performance of it's HTML5 implementation."
My take on that is similar but just a bit different; I'm wondering if he's laying the groundwork for a Shock! Surprise! announcement at some point in the future that IE10 will require Windows 8 or something, because of all the "native" APIs Microsoft will have packed in to support HTML5.
Or, err, something.
In any event, I don't think that word means what he thinks it means...
Well I think we should cut the guy some slack
He's obviously not a techie and self-evidently talks bollocks.
Don't ascribe a malign intent where stupidity is just as likely a good explanation. :D
stupidity is just as likely a good explanation
for Microsoft marketing.
He's a marketroid, isn't he? Why expect him to understand anything that comes out of his own mouth?
I _think_ what he was trying to say was that a program (web browser) optimised for the underlying OS will run better than one that isn't... and by extension such a web browser that's built to strongly support the emerging standard will, in theory, render HTML5 pages faster/more efficiently than a web browser running on the same OS that isn't optimised for that OS or one that doesn't as strongly support the emerging standards.*
That at least might make some kind of sense.
As long as they tightly integrate IE10 with Windows and not the other way around they should manage to avoid another billion dollar fine - I wonder if they'll bungle that as well as the speech-writers bungled that speech?
* although, if the OS-optimised web browser is coded by chimps it'll still run like a three legged dog so the initial premise may well be flawed anyway.
"IE9 users ARE idiots.... So nothing really lost, nothing really gained.
Opera.. hmmm.. great market share.
Lets face it, seems as though Google have got something right with Chrome. Long may it continue.
Chrome has Google's advertising monopoly.
IE has Microsoft's OS monopoly.
Firefox used to have Google's ad monopoly promoting it until Chrome arrived.
Opera's market share is actually quite high in several parts of the world. But becase the browser stats most people are looking at are almost exclusively looking at the US and Western Europe, the numbers end up being all wrong.
If they had counted the markets Opera is strong in correctly, it would have been a different picture.
The truth is wrong!
They didn't skew the numbers enough in our favour, therefore the numbers are wrong.
God, you people are boring. Go away.
Eh, no, the numbers ARE skewed, and demonstrably wrong.
E, E, E...
It sounds to me as though after completing phase 1 of their HTML5 strategy with the delivery of IE9, MS is now preparing for phase 2 - "Extend".
Wait 'til you see what unfolds when MSIE 11 or 12 come along to advance the strategy to phase 3...!
The Three Es (lest we forget)
Nope, not profit. "Extinguish".
Now with Holy Spirit injection and Virgin Mary experience.
This is MS...
is MS plugging the security leaks caused by all the rushed programming in Phase 1 and 2. Then Phase 4 will be to restore the performance stripped away in Phase 3.
re. Phase 3
I think it's very clever, the way that programmers keep themselves in work.
Please look up the word native
It might not mean what you think it means. There are many languages with JIT compilers that compile write-once-run-anywhere code to native code, so it can run faster.
It does not have to mean they will extend html 5 with the an <asm> tag and put a bunch of x86 specific assembly code in there.
native output != native input
Microsoft specifically mentioned "native HTML5", not "our native HTML5 renderer".
Right. The term "native html5" just doesn't make sense. Microsoft is spewing BS as always.
It could be somewhat more native than the moment. Has anybody tried to convert an IE DOM tree to text? Does it even in some way represent standard HTML? No.
If this is the sort of "nativeness" that they're talking about then I'm all for it.
Incidentally, I wouldn't use this steaming heap of a browser if I wasn't forced to.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- Analysis Spam and the Byzantine Empire: How Bitcoin tech REALLY works
- VIDEO Herschel Space Observatory spots galaxies merging