Anyone else hate IE 8.0?

[ash925]

I used IE6 for many years quite successfully
You sir, are an exception to a rule, and keeping in with the theme of the thread http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/ie-is-like-malaria-says-mozilla-vp-609930 :) .

[smok3]

should i install it, or can i hate it even without trying?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

should i install it, or can i hate it even without trying?

The fact that IE8 is the first version of IE that has the capability to interpret HTML code in a correct way (still optional though) is enough reason to install IE8.

Remember: Many Windows applications embed IE frames. So even if you won't use IE8 explicitly, it's still worth updating...

IE6 is a big pain for web developers as it interprets things differently...

Very true :rolleyes:

[Mark_A_W]

I use Orca browser.

It's a shell that sits on top of Mozilla...and makes it usable.

- online storage of settings and favourites

- usable tab browsing

- mouse and key shortcuts

- fast

- Autofills

- clear records

- BRILLIANT


I used to use Avant browser, which is similar except it sits over IE (same writer). Orca is better.

[4Dude]

you should not use IE6... it's a pile of bugs.Any browser can be bad news and any browser CAN BE SECURE!! (It depends on the end user)

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Any browser can be bad news and any browser CAN BE SECURE!! (It depends on the end user)

No it can't ;)

If the browser contains security vulnerabilities, then an attacker might exploit these vulnerabilities to infect the system with malware without any user interaction required.

Using outdated/vulnerable web-browsers or outdated/vulnerable browser plug-ins is the most common reason for malware infection nowadays!

The one and only thing that a user can do to make an outdated/vulnerable browser more "secure" is not using it at all. That or updating to an less outdated/vulnerable version :p

[yetanotherid]

You only have to think about the history of IE to never want to use it.

Why did Microsoft embed it into Win85/98 and cause it to crash my PC every 10 minutes? Not for my benefit, but because they wanted to own the internet.
Why did Microsoft introduce one of the biggest sources of infection into IE, ActiveX? Not for my benefit, but because they wanted to own the internet.
Once Microsoft killed off the competition by embedding their junk browser in the OS, what did they do to improve my browsing experience? Nothing, zero, zip. They sat on their hands for five years leaving users with a tabless, featureless, browser with no intention of updating it until a new version of Windows was released, and no intention of releasing a standalone version for older operating systems. Had browsers like Firefox not come along we'd probably be still right clicking and selecting "open in new window" or using taskbar grouping while trying to pretend it's a good substitute for tabs.

Aside from the fact that I've no idea how anyone could continue to use IE6 while there were alternatives available with tabs, I think anyone using IE, and especially anyone willing to continue to defend it, must have a very, very, short memory.

[yetanotherid]

I used to use Avant browser, which is similar except it sits over IE (same writer). Orca is better.

Wasn't Avant a MyIE clone? I remember trying a few different IE shells years ago and wondering if they weren't all based on the same code.
MyIE2 was by far the best. At least for a while until it started becoming buggy. Then it morphed into Maxthon which was also buggy, but fortunately by that stage Firefox had come along with some great tab extensions to make it usable.

These days if I have to use a PC with IE7 or IE8 as the browser it's not long before I want to bang my head against the desk to release the frustration, but I guess I'm used to having extensions installed which allow the browser to work just the way I want it to. I have 54 Firefox extensions installed, but TabMixPlus is a really good place to start.

[Sharktooth]

I was wondering if anyone here tried Internet Explorer 9 beta or RC

[LoRd_MuldeR]

I was wondering if anyone here tried Internet Explorer 9 beta or RC

I did. And what should I say? It works :p

Experienced one severe problem with one of the Beta's though, not sure if that got fixed:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1443640#post1443640

(BTW: I don't like the tabs being located on the same line as the URL bar, but fortunately there's an option to have them on separate lines)

[Sharktooth]

well, visually it's not a beauty. it's all "square" except the ugly back and forth button... but im really surprised by how much it's fast and "compatible". the download manager addition is very welcome. html5 hardware acceleration is excellent. etc. i would have never expected that from microsoft...
ill wait for FF4 and Opera 10.10 to be final before drawing any conclusions.
however that proves once again microsoft has the resources and possibilities to create and provide best class and competitive softwares but when it eradicates the competitors it lays down doing nothing for years... until someone rises from the abyss...

[Midzuki]

ill wait for FF4 and Opera 10.10 to be final before drawing any conclusions.

The latest Opera is 11.01.

[AnonCrow]

In the context of Firefox 4 , the latest Opera is actually 11.10

On the topic, can't really give a subjective answer on my feelings toward IE 8.0 as I've never directly used it,
but the many alternate Trident-shells have become a lot better (or depending on ones perspective, slightly less bad) after IE8, compared to IE7.
Still nowhere near the speed and usability of using webkit or gecko on those browsers instead.

[Sharktooth]

Midzuki: i know as the latest firefox is 3.6.13. im talking of upcoming versions. btw, im actually on opera 11.10 alpha ;)

@AnonCrow: Try IE9. It's really freaking FAST.

[IgorC]

IE9 is pretty fast but it takes too long to get a new version. IE8 was released on march 2009 (2 years ago).
In a few months IE9 will be nowhere with newer version of other browsers.

Some results.
http://s2.ipicture.ru/uploads/20110226/gYVrLBSO.png

[Sharktooth]

image doesnt show up

[IgorC]

God damn this imageupload.org

[Midzuki]

Thanks for the image, IgorC.
So, Opera is fast, and doesn't suck,
whereas Chrome is very fast, but keeps sucking. :p
Now I have a Vista notebook,
but I don't intend to infect it with a still-in-beta browser. :)

[yetanotherid]

I've never really understood the "need for speed" thing when it comes to browsers. Especially when you're talking differences of milliseconds between rendering times.
For me how "usable" a browser might be is far more important. For instance what does it matter if a browser takes longer to open a single tab if it's not able to save a group of tabs as a session and forces me to open them one at a time. Or of I've got to click through a save menu to save an image instead of using a mouse gesture.

IE has always seriously lacked features which make it "usable" for me. Same with Chrome and Opera. Mind you Firefox is exceedingly dull "out of the box" too, but fortunately if there's a function you'd like to add to the browser there's probably an extension which will let you do it. Other browsers may be catching up.... I don't really know.

So far in this thread I don't think anyone has said which features IE9 has which makes it a usable browser, aside from the speed thing. Wouldn't it be relevant as to whether someone would like it or recommend it?

[IgorC]

I've never really understood the "need for speed" thing when it comes to browsers. Especially when you're talking differences of milliseconds between rendering times.
Nowdays websites contain a lot of heavy javascripts. And it make sense to have fast browser. Other advantage of extra fast browsers is smooth run on netbooks and phones.

For instance what does it matter if a browser takes longer to open a single tab if it's not able to save a group of tabs as a session and forces me to open them one at a time.
IE has always seriously lacked features which make it "usable" for me. Same with Chrome and Opera. Mind you Firefox is exceedingly dull "out of the box" too, but fortunately if there's a function you'd like to add to the browser there's probably an extension which will let you do it. Other browsers may be catching up.... I don't really know.

Chrome opens tabs very fast and it has all kind of the extensions/plugins as well. It works well.

As for Firefox, the future isn't shine for it. Mike Beltzner has gone "not without help". During last year Firefox was loosing users.

[yetanotherid]

Nowdays websites contain a lot of heavy javascripts. And it make sense to have fast browser. Other advantage of extra fast browsers is smooth run on netbooks and phones.

Yeah but how much faster is fast? 10 milliseconds less to render a page? A tenth of a second? Plus I've got a quad core PC and I wouldn't be running the same browser on my phone.

Chrome opens tabs very fast and it has all kind of the extensions/plugins as well. It works well.

I should try it myself again one day. Not long after it first came out I gave it a spin and it completely underwhelmed me, but it seems all the popular Firefox extensions now have Chrome clones or equivalents so maybe it'll be usable now.

As for Firefox, the future isn't shine for it. Mike Beltzner has gone "not without help". During last year Firefox was loosing users.

Maybe by about 1%, but definitely not enough to forecast it's demise.

[AnonCrow]

Yeah but how much faster is fast? 10 milliseconds less to render a page? A tenth of a second? Plus I've got a quad core PC

It's not just about how fast the page renders , as long as simple pages display in under 2 seconds [1], but how fast the page is to actually to use. Sure, if you're on a fast quad-core machine, you wouldn't notice minor slowdowns even if your browser was made in Basic , Python, or non-JIT Java. People with more mainstream computers, netbooks or slower tablets not wanting to limit how they browse - not having to turn off javascript, flash and images in background tabs (although some browsers suspend them) when they have dozens [2] of tabs open would notice if their browser forced them to more than 100ms for it to respond to some action.

I wouldn't be running the same browser on my phone.
On a normal phone, true, but on a smartphone the browser would use the same engine as the desktop browser.


[1] Simple page: from google search frontpage to slashdot. With more complex pages (eg Google Reader with 1000+ subscriptions), or pages that are fancy-schmancy or badly or simply not optimized at all , the initial rendering can be an order of magnitude faster , depending on browser, even if all the data is in local cache.

[2] or often hundreds in my case, it was early last decade since I last recall having a four digit number of tabs open a single browser - in which case everything was turned off and
images were only enabled for the active tab.

Disclaimer: about half of the browsers used last decade:
http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/5544/clipboard02do8.gif (~8 KB)
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_xeh8BbzS0EU/Rtg95rBcz_I/AAAAAAAAAKY/7zCcOKxd0Nk/clipboard013py.jpg (~380 KB)
, now in daily use from usb flash disk: Firefox (stable+nightly) + several profiles /w or w/o the vital 12-20 extensions, QtWeb, Chrome (+nightly Chromium),
Maxthon 1/2/3 (Trident+Gecko / Trident / Webkit+Trident), a couple versions of Opera.


Seriously getting or already is off-topic. Fork this , or just stop browser wars and let everyone use all the browsers they want - just ridicule everyone who still thinks they can use only one browser.

[yetanotherid]

It's not just about how fast the page renders , as long as simple pages display in under 2 seconds [1], but how fast the page is to actually to use.

I don't understand the distinction.

Sure, if you're on a fast quad-core machine, you wouldn't notice minor slowdowns even if your browser was made in Basic , Python, or non-JIT Java. People with more mainstream computers, netbooks or slower tablets not wanting to limit how they browse....

I'd like to use a tablet or netbook and still convert video at a lightning speed, but it pays to be realistic.
That aside though, I'm still not sure what the definition of "faster" actually is. So far it's a generalisation which consists of a pretty graph displaying a performance score which doesn't mean anything to me.

Simple page: from google search frontpage to slashdot. With more complex pages (eg Google Reader with 1000+ subscriptions), or pages that are fancy-schmancy or badly or simply not optimized at all , the initial rendering can be an order of magnitude faster , depending on browser, even if all the data is in local cache.

"Magnitude" sounds like another generalisation, but I still stand by my original comment. I don't care so much if I do notice a massive 1/10th of a second delay with multiple tabs open if the browser has the features I want it to have. Relatively speaking, that 1/10th of a second is completely irrelevant to me. For instance I'll get it back 100 times every time I save an image or execute a search via a mouse gesture instead of via lots of clicking and/or typing.

Seriously getting or already is off-topic. Fork this , or just stop browser wars and let everyone use all the browsers they want - just ridicule everyone who still thinks they can use only one browser.

I'm not trying to start a browser war, just make a point. In fact I said in a previous post I was due to give Chrome another spin. If I prefer it to Firefox, I'll switch.
My point was regarding rendering speed v usability because usability equals speed and they're not necessarily mutually inclusive. In my case I happen to use Firefox and I happen to have about 50 extensions installed, many of which improve it's usability greatly. Would I give them up in return for Firefox being able to render a page at twice the speed? No, because I could write an essay on the ways they save me even more time and frustration than increased rendering speed would.

[Midzuki]

...
Fork this
...

IMO this thread should be split, since Sharktooth started to talk about IE 9.
I pm-ed Blue_MiSfit, but it seems he didn't like my idea.

[Sharktooth]

IE9 is still on topic. i mean, it's a suggestion more than an OT. it's the direct successor of IE8. if ppl hate it, the newer version may be better.

[StainlessS]

For anyone that likes Chrome, might I suggest taking a look at
Comodo Dragon, it is Chrome with some of the more insecure
parts taken out by Comodo, (makers of Comodo Internet
Security, and one of the largest Certifcate issuers in the
world), a main concern with Comodo is security.

Does anyone happen to know if IE8/9 are now compatible
with IE7 bookmarks, they used in IE8 (early ver$) a different
characters set (or something like that) and so IE8 bookmarks
could not be imported to an IE6/7 machine. Are IE8/9 bookmarks
now importable into an IE7 system? (if they are, I might then
retry IE8/9).
EDIT: I dont know if the character set change was a change in
policy, or a mistake which may have since been corrected.

[RNiK]

I'm not trying to start a browser war, just make a point. In fact I said in a previous post I was due to give Chrome another spin. If I prefer it to Firefox, I'll switch.
My point was regarding rendering speed v usability because usability equals speed and they're not necessarily mutually inclusive. In my case I happen to use Firefox and I happen to have about 50 extensions installed, many of which improve it's usability greatly. Would I give them up in return for Firefox being able to render a page at twice the speed? No, because I could write an essay on the ways they save me even more time and frustration than increased rendering speed would.
I'm with you. :goodpost:

[Sharktooth]

sometimes it's not about the speed. or better... not just some milliseconds.
new gen web apps and games needs performance. look at this page (http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/) and try to run those demos in a browser that's not IE9... then install IE9 RC and try again. you can see the HUGE difference by yourself.
in IE9 everything runs smooth, in other browsers most of the demos are not "useable" or ridiculously slow (for example this one: http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Performance/SpeedReading/Default.html).that's thanks to hardware acceleration. Some other browsers are catching up but for now there is no contest.

[Wantangobi]

-It greys out URLs so you can only see part of the root domain. WHO ASKED FOR THIS?This wonderful feature has been added to Opera 11 as well.
Considering no one other than people who know what they're doing mess with the address bar, I have no idea what the thinking here.

Overall I would consider IE8 to be better than 7. 7 Is dead slow even on my computer that's nearly 4 years newer than the browser.

[yetanotherid]

sometimes it's not about the speed. or better... not just some milliseconds.
new gen web apps and games needs performance. look at this page (http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/) and try to run those demos in a browser that's not IE9... then install IE9 RC and try again. you can see the HUGE difference by yourself.

Maybe, but as I generally don't use my browser for running demos of new gen web applications, it's nothing which effects me at the moment.

in IE9 everything runs smooth, in other browsers most of the demos are not "useable" or ridiculously slow (for example this one: http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Performance/SpeedReading/Default.html).that's thanks to hardware acceleration. Some other browsers are catching up but for now there is no contest.

Chances are then, by the time I have a need to run a new gen web application as part of my browsing experience other browsers will have caught up. I'm more interested in how usable my browser is when it comes to the way I surf today.
Would I give much of my current browser's "usability" for it being able to render a new gen web application I'm not going to currently use at twice the speed? The answer's still no.

Does IE even let you close the last open tab yet? Can you individually choose how a tab opens depending how you click on links and where you're opening them from (link, bookmark, history etc)? When you open a new tab from a link can you safely close the parent tab knowing the child tab retained the parent tab's history? Can you copy link text without having to highlight it first? Does you browser have a good ad-blocker? Can you open searches at different sites by highlighting a word and dragging it using mouse gestures? Does IE have decent extensions which allow you to add almost any functionality yet, no matter how great or how minor, or can you just run demos of new gen web applications really fast? Sometimes, the simple things are more important.

So far, the only positive thing I've read in this thread regarding IE9 is about it's speed. I don't recall anyone saying "this function is great" or "check out this new feature". Not unless they're complaining about it.

[Sharktooth]

So far, the only positive thing I've read in this thread regarding IE9 is about it's speed. I don't recall anyone saying "this function is great" or "check out this new feature". Not unless they're complaining about it.
Infact it isnt... that's why im waiting for the wave of next gen browsers to be final before judging and i hope HW acceleration finds its way in most of them.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

IE9 has finally been released today:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/internet-explorer/downloads/ie-9/worldwide-languages

[smok3]

ok, ill hate ie9 as well (without installing), can I? Do we have some world-wide stats on what browsers are people using today, is IE still the queen?