IE9 Reaches Release Candidate Milestone

15

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

DJSPIN80

IE9 is what IE7 should have been: full W3 compliance, improved CSS/javascript performance and all.

IE9 already failed because it's too little too late.  Chrome, FF and Opera (heck, even Safari!) have HTML5 support.  Do you know whose browser still lacks HTML5 support?  That's right, MS and IE9.

avatar

rseding91

Did you read the post? - IE9 has HTML5 support.

avatar

lien_meat

IE9 supports a small subset of the proposed html5 features. Too be truthful, no browser supports even close to all the proposed features completely correctly. However, IE9 seems to support a smaller subset than do chrome/safari(same rendering engine basically), ff4(beta), or opera.  IE9 supports about the same subset of html5 that ff3.5 had when it was released a year ago, so yeah, it's way to little to late.  W3C tested ie9 and had good things to say about it, but if you actually take a look at the features of html5 and what it properly supports, it's not as good as some of the others across the entire board, but it does win out on many of W3C's tests features.  Also, chrome has gained 2 whole versions since these tests, and ff4 is now about to be released, so the test figures are no longer even valid.  I'd LOVE to see it tested again.

As far as I can tell, IE9 doesn't support websockets (some say it will, some say it won't, tell me if I'm wrong), half the css3 stuff isn't even close to up to par with the other browsers, and IE will probably ALWAYS have odd differences in their javascript engine that makes it hell to program for, which is half the reason I dislike it, honestly.  I'd love IE to work the same as the other browsers (I'm a web programmer some front end, but mostly server side, it would be my wet dream come true), but I just don't believe it will ever happen.

Also, I'd like to point out that many differences you see (visually) in rendering between browsers is not html compliance, but css and ecmascript(javascript) compliance...something that IE has always been terrible about compared to others, and last I knew IE9 still didn't pass the standard acid3 test either, and claimed it "wasn't their top priority".  I'd just like to say it ought to be, because differences in how javascript and css are interpreted are why devs hate IE so much traditionally.

To sum it up, no browser gets it right completely, but IE has a terrible reputation, and it's gonna take more than just one browser version that works better to make me happy.  They are going to have to keep the trend going. 

avatar

cola65

Anyone seen any current acid test scores? I'm kinda locked into using IE since our testing tools and product are IE specific.

avatar

rseding91

95/100

avatar

Vano

I'm very impressed with IE9, it's like XP vs 98, however in my book no extensions support = fail. So IE9 again is a failure

avatar

dracx619

surprisingly its good...real good. i havn't consistently liked or even used an ie browser since v 6 was fresh and nothing else really existed out there. i used it exclusively yesterday and was really impressed. chrome and ie 9 would start equally fast but ie9 would render the pages faster. i honestly can't say anything bad about it. i like how it integrates both stylistically and functionally with win 7. i think we have a winner here. now we shally see what chrome 10 and ff 4 can bring

avatar

ShyLinuxGuy

I would love nothing more than if Microsoft was to stop development of Internet Explorer. I hope this is the last release. Developers of certain Web technologies and Web-centric apps used especially in the enterprise need to realize there are better browsers out there--and that is the only ticket for it's survival (other than the fact that newbies use it). IE really needs to go.

avatar

Cleaver

Well if Microsoft makes IE9 better than all of the other versions, as well as better than all of the other browsers, I wouldnt be afraid to migrate back to it. 

 

.....Fat chance though. I'll take a look at it when its an official Windows update, but for now I'll stick with Chrome. 

avatar

rseding91

What's so bad about IE9? Specifics please, don't just say "it sucks."

avatar

lien_meat

IE9's probably pretty decent, but IE in general has a bad track record since ie6 especially, and more accurately, has had a trend for falling way behind in between versions.  IE9 may be awesome (it seems it will be compared to IE8), but by the time IE10 comes around, it will be playing catch up with other browsers again, if history repeats itself again.

ActiveX, as one person pointed out in being an issue, has historically (less frequently nowdays) been the source of many windows exploits, but there still are some occuring because of ActiveX.  One of the most humorous recently is probably this one:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/products_security_advisory09186a0080b25d01.shtml
which is for cisco's secure desktop software...but still, shows how much power activex has...which is just silly to have accesible via the internet in a browser nearly unregulated (on many computers it's on and nobody knows it...)

No really though, activex is nearly useless nowdays, and is traditionally one of IE's biggest security holes, although adobe's reader and flash plugins seem to be stealing the headlines on vulnerabilities these days...

avatar

codepath

@resding91: Your restriction to not simply say "it sucks" most likely eliminates their only possible response. They seem to be Microsoft haters and from the wording of their posts, I would say that they have never actually used the IE9 Beta so they probably have no direct experience with it. It's kind of a knee-jerk, hate-first mentality.

avatar

ShyLinuxGuy

IE9...ActiveX. *SECURITY*, or lack thereof. It's security model uses hand-holding and annoying dialogs.

+ lack of customizability.

I'm not a Microsoft hater, per se, but IE has had its chances to impress. And before you make assumptions, I have used the beta (with an open mind) to see if I can recommend IE. I am not impressed, and I promptly removed the beta and reverted back to IE8 (and disabled it).

IE is really only for certain web-based apps and for newbies who just want to check email. It's not as flexible as other browsers (addons, settings, etc...) and security takes a backseat.

avatar

rseding91

What's so bad about ActiveX? - detailed descriptions please. None of this "it sucks" stuff.

What are these security problems you talk of? Do you have examples?

What addons are you wanting to use that IE doesn't let you?

What settings are you wanting to change on a browser?

avatar

ShyLinuxGuy

ActiveX is really unnecessary--it has a track record of being a major disservice to Windows security when it is ran. Yeah, it can be disabled, but too many newbies don't even know what it is or how to disable it or why. It was good (useful) 10 years ago...most people can live WITHOUT it.

Because IE is stitched so closely to the OS itself vs. other browsers, there's other opportunities for security faults. IE would be a lot better off if it wasn't so "close" to the OS. It is so integrated into Windows, that it can't be "removed" or altered in any way, as if it were a critical .DLL, service, or other high-priority system file. It can only be disabled. It's 2011, not 1995.

IE has pretty much the SAME customization dialog offering LITTLE customization. I am a power user, I like control. I have changed Firefox around a lot because the freedom of customizability.

Security problems...well, I am going to be fair. Any browser can enable a user to let in malware into his/her system, but it's much easier with IE and its ActiveX (and the way that it is an integral Windows component). Also look at Windows Update and see how many vulnerability patches are strictly for IE. And that's the vulnerabilities that have been found AND acted on. MS has a track record of leaving IE with vulnerabilities over a long timespan.

IE has very little addons/extensions. Even Chrome, which is relatively new, has a whole bunch of them. Again, it's not customizable. It's built for newbies who are just beginning or just want to get to Point A to Point B on the Internet. I like control, not hand holding, which is what IE does.

Settings...I have TOO many settings I want to change to list, VERY LITTLE (if any) of which IE offers. I have changed probably ~40% of the settings that FF offers in about:config. Plus, the addons that do it for me.

OT: The download of IE is a lot smaller and installs faster, but it's still larger than a FF or Chrome download.

Also: there might come a time when the US follows in Europe's footsteps regarding IE (browser ballot). This is IE's only ticket for survival because most people don't give a damn what they use, as long as it gets them on the Internet. Enforce a browser ballot here, and IE's on life support.

Firefox FTW, and no, I am not a Microsoft or Windows hater, just because of my rant on IE or because of my name. I just don't like IE.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.