# IE 8 - and the nightmare continues



## WarMocK (Feb 20, 2009)

When reading the Inquirerer I stumbled over a little article about the "extraordinary" compatibility of the IE 8 concerning the most popular sites on the www. To make things short: IE can't show the most popular websites correctly - including Microsoft's very own homepage. 

http://www.itexaminer.com/world-not-ready-for-ie8.aspx

Congratulations Microsoft - for shooting yourself in the foot. ^^


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 20, 2009)

i dont know, maybe its their plan to make the users use firefox...?


----------



## ToeClaws (Feb 20, 2009)

*chuckles* Internet Explorer has rarely enjoyed success in the world of browsers - though I believe this is the first time they can't even use it on their own site properly.  Can't say it's much of a surprise though.


----------



## WarMocK (Feb 20, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> *chuckles* Internet Explorer has rarely enjoyed success in the world of browsers - though I believe this is the first time they can't even use it on their own site properly.  Can't say it's much of a surprise though.


http://validator.w3.org/ 

It's fascinating what you see if you check some popular sites:

Microsoft: 176 errors, 36 warning(s)
Amazon: 1610 Errors, 147 warning(s)
Google: 65 errors, 8 warning(s)
Yahoo: 34 errors, 8 warning(s)
Furaffinity*scnr*: 72 errors, 19 warning(s)

On the other hand:
Inquirer: Passed
TOR-Project: Passed
Wikipedia: Passed (even though MS stated otherwise!)


----------



## ArielMT (Feb 20, 2009)

I wouldn't be surprised if this is because they finally made W3C standards compliance a priority.  IIRC, IE8 actually gets the CSS box model right for the first time ever!  The brokenness of the sites in IE8 could very well be because they're sniffing for IE, then throwing all the standards-breaking IE hacks that every previous version needed at it.


----------



## ToeClaws (Feb 20, 2009)

Heh - not surprised at the amount of non-compliance.  Most sites are generated by large software programs that plug them into a template, then have content dynamically generated.  The more programming software automates things, the more they tend to generate a lot of redundant or bloated code.

Anyway, it's just further reasons for people to not use IE.  The only reason most even do is because it comes with Windows (in North America) and they don't know any better.


----------



## net-cat (Feb 20, 2009)

Windows 7, even.

XP still comes with 6
Vista still comes with 7
(Although 8 is available for both.)

As they say: "UR DOIN IT RONG"

Seems to me that the more sensible solution would be to have a flag (like an HTTP header flag and a corresponding <META> tag) that web developers could add that marks their page as "old an broken." But considering that most web developers I've encountered don't quite grok the HTTP protocol, I can see why that might not work so well. ("Why does the user have to initiate the request? How come I can't just read the data directly off their screen?")

As to FA's non-compliance, yes. We know.


----------



## Biles (Feb 20, 2009)

Given M$ screws up a lot with their browser in the past history, I'd say that IE8 is gonna make people switch to Firefox more just like Vista made people switch to Macs more.

I think I remember reading an article a long time ago when Steve Ballmer accused open source for being a disease to the computer world. Ironically, when the version of IE came out around that time, it was totally bug-ridden, had many shortcomings, and an exodus to Firefox was at an all-time high. When M$ had to release the next version, it implemented features and stability that Firefox already had, thus debunking the claim that open source was disease, but rather a solution.


----------



## â„¢-Daley Leungsangnam475-â„¢ (Feb 20, 2009)

i wouldnt use IE ... i dont like it ... i used to use IE5 ... but that was before i heard of FireFox

god bless Firefox


----------



## Aurali (Feb 20, 2009)

Meh.. It's still in beta.. I'm pretty sure they'll work shit out
(and by work it out.. make us developers do all the work..)

"sites that have not yet fully accommodated IE8â€™s better implementation of web standards"
umm.. what? When did Microsoft start controlling web standards >.> though then again, any engine that can't render out google is complete bull.



WarMocK said:


> http://validator.w3.org/
> 
> It's fascinating what you see if you check some popular sites:
> 
> ...



Proud to say furryplay is w3 compliant :3


----------



## Kosygin (Feb 20, 2009)

HAHAHA, OH WOW. That's not surprising though. Then again, IE7 had its fair share of problems before its eventual release as well so they'll work it out. Given that no browser is perfect, this isn't a big deal.

Yes, I said Firefox is not perfect. Bam.


----------



## Eevee (Feb 20, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Internet Explorer has rarely enjoyed success in the world of browsers


this is false; IE was well over 90% market share for quite a while



ArielMT said:


> IE8 actually gets the CSS box model right for the first time ever!


this is false; even IE6 correctly implements the box model in standards mode


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 20, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Most sites are generated by large software programs that plug them into a template, then have content dynamically generated.  The more programming software automates things, the more they tend to generate a lot of redundant or bloated code.



Microsoft CMS...*shudder*.....shimmed to run on a 64bit server OS *double shudder*.  Its like launching a denial of service attack against yourself. :twisted: Still, when you run a site like this one, you don't have a lot of options.

Irreverent's collary to Metcalf's law: _"Every new release of a Microsoft content management system requires front-channel bandwidth to scale asymptopically."_

"Hello Radware....how's the new 10gE content switch program going?"


----------



## ToeClaws (Feb 20, 2009)

Eevee said:


> this is false; IE was well over 90% market share for quite a while



Yes - market share, but I meant that comment in a functional/technical success perspective.  IE has always been clunky, bug-filled and vulnerable.  It enjoyed the most technical success around the Netscape 4.0 days, when that browser was equally bad.

In terms of market share, it only reached high levels (and maintains high levels) because most users either don't know how, or don't care about installing another browser.   Heh, I bet you and many others hear have all heard at least one user going "NO NO... don't install anything else!  I need to use Internet Explorer to get my Yahoo Page - that's what my ISP said."



Irreverent said:


> Microsoft CMS...*shudder*.....shimmed to run on a 64bit server OS *double shudder*.  Its like launching a denial of service attack against yourself. :twisted: Still, when you run a site like this one, you don't have a lot of options.
> 
> Irreverent's collary to Metcalf's law: _"Every new release of a Microsoft content management system requires front-channel bandwidth to scale asymptopically."_
> 
> "Hello Radware....how's the new 10gE content switch program going?"



AGAHH.... Radware... *headdesk*  Yes... what a joyful product they have.  Loadbalancers and SSL decryptors with no _functional_ management software, bugs-a-plenty and technical support with thought processes akin to a birds-eye view of bumper cars.


----------



## Aurali (Feb 20, 2009)

Eevee said:


> this is false; IE was well over 90% market share for quite a while



Well obviously... 

Always been a Firefox fan.. and when my father got us on Qwest a while back.. he almost forced Microsofts Pay-for IE on my computer because anything else would "Break his internet"

people fear change.


----------



## ArielMT (Feb 20, 2009)

Eevee said:


> this is false; even IE6 correctly implements the box model in standards mode



I stand corrected about IE7 in standards mode, but I wasn't aware that IE6 had a standards mode at all, let alone one that correctly rendered the CSS box model.


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 20, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> AGAHH.... Radware... *headdesk*  Yes... what a joyful product they have.  Loadbalancers and SSL decryptors with no _functional_ management software, bugs-a-plenty and technical support with thought processes akin to a birds-eye view of bumper cars.



Yeah, they're crap.  Makes me think 3Com's dev team defected when the lost the CoreBuilders.  We have a tad more pull with their tech support and R&D guys cause of who we are.  But the Notel Alteons are crap too, (you'd be surprised at how many hits a 184 will take from a 12guage  ) and the in-line CSS are alright but not the greatest.  Still, there ain't a lot of hardware that can LB a set of trunked gigE or 10gE feeds. Maybe the new Nexus-class 6500-E switchs and blades.

The hidden issue with automated web content development is it has to work with the top 5 desktop and top 5 mobile browsers.  Its gonna bloat no matter what you do.  And the rapid proliferation of bandwidth I think is encouraging sloppy server side and client/browser side development.  Its a self fullfilling circle.  Crap htlm served up by a-patch-y server or .net to browsers that render according to _their_ interpretation of the spec-du-jour.  $[insert_browser_name_here] IE8 doesn't have to work, it just has to suck _less_ than the other ones.


----------

