IE 8 is the new IE 6
infrequently.org
infrequently.org
Edit: because I hate comments that are purely negative, my suggestion for getting users to the latest technologies is to use libraries (like YUI and jQuery) which do the hard work of implementing newer features in backwards compatible ways, but use the modern feature if it's available. That way the difference between IE8 and a more recent browser becomes one of performance rather than the binary absence of functionality. Users can that way see what they're missing and have a reason to upgrade that's more compelling than the designer petulantly insisting their browser sucks.
If you also plan a bit up front and have a competent designer to help out with the css definitions and strategizing (like avoiding gradients for now, fun/cool as they be), it's really not that big a deal.
I'm working on a new site and I've literally done nothing other than have a designer help out with the CSS and the only difference between Firefox, Safari, Chrome and IE8 are css drop-shadows, and rounded corners. Purely cosmetic, unlike IE6 which if you didn't account for it could stop your app in it's tracks.
To me IE8, as much as I would never personally use it, is a huge improvement from IE6. Even over IE7 it's hugely better, easier to deal with.
IE8 seems not so bad today, but without any support for html5, css3, canvas, video or websockets, what will you think 10 years from now ? That it sucks: it will force you to have Flash/Silverlight fallbacks to do something as trivial as plotting a graph or displaying a video. Yet many XP users will still be using it, so you will have to support it...
MS with IE8 (an IE9) are actually trying to make their browser standards compliant and while we might not like the pace of the behemoth, it's moving in the right direction and this is a good thing.
2010 is a much different landscape than 2005 as far as the browser market goes as well; MS/IE are no longer the dominant juggernaut that can attempt to dictate standards.
More than anything IE releases are tied to MS's OS releases - IE8 has become the largest slice of the IE pie because of Win7, not because of features or any push by MS. As MS increases their release cycle of both browsers and more importantly, OS's, the likelihood of a IE6 repeat with IE8 is extremely thin. MS can't sit around on any version of a major product like they did with both XP and IE6.
His most recent post is worth reading, as it expands on his position: http://infrequently.org/2010/10/story-time/
Weird, I'm developing for my employer, and by extension for our clients.
After some time we can compare the notes.
(I wonder how he imagines that I would even try to access his site with anything else but with Opera Mobile from my phone).
A better solution:
embedded SVG rendering within <img> and <htmlelements> cross browser. Then you can assemble ANY trendy graphical element without having to wait for people to continually agree on, release, and implement css4, css5, css6, etc.
Other benefits:
- it's an XML format like HTML
- Machines can now scrape understand and generate pictures too
- Vector graphics will scale great with different zoom\resolution settings
- Designers can use tools like Adobe Illustrator, a more logical approach than css-versionX hacking that fits the problem domain better
I think the problem is that microsoft is tying the browser version to the OS version. Will you be able to install IE9 on XP?
(Demand\Rate of requests for specification changes) >> (rate of widespread implementation)
...ensuring there will always be a very narrow audience for the latest features.
While it's good to increase the rate at which new specifications are implemented, it's largely impossible to do without authoritarian measures to A) control the programmers working on every web browser B) control specification committees to agree faster. edit: or C) make everyone use the same web browser
Another approach is to DECREASE the rate of [edit: demand for] specification change. I think a large part of the problem is our expectations from the CSS specification. We are trying to expand its problem domain to include the construction of graphics and graphical effects, something which it was clearly not built for on a syntactical level! It might be better to convince browser teams with limited resources to better support long existing open standards to handle the dynamic creation of graphics with more logical syntax. Because the rate at which specification revisions are required will be drastically reduced. Whereas the process for creating new graphical features to your website via CSS is to submit it to a committee and wait 5years, it is done within the syntax of SVG. Making it a better allocation of resources.
No.
not necessarily. IE6 wasn't the new IE4, and IE7 wasn't the new IE8.
IE9 probably won't be the new IE8 eventually for a number of reasons:
* Unless MS stops the IE project again (doubtful at this point), IE10 should arrive pretty close on the heels of IE9, say two years (similar to the delay between IE7 and IE8, or IE8 and IE9)
* IE10 will very likely be compatible with Windows 7 (and Vista, but that's not as big an issue as it's been far less popular than 7)
* Considering the two-steps improvements done in IE8 (CSS) and IE9 (more CSS, JS) the differences between IE9 and IE10 will very likely be much smaller than between IE8 and IE9, or IE7 and IE8.
The problem here is stagnancy. IE8 is the last browser of its line compatible with Windows XP, and Windows XP has a huge install base and huge former popularity. This means the (MSIE, Windows XP) platform is now completely stagnant and it will not disappears until Windows XP does.
> IE7 wasn't the new IE8
Firefox is too slow to be usable on most Windows 2000 boxes, IE newer than 6 isn't supported, and Chrome isn't supported, which makes IE6 the best option.
I can't think of any alternatives to this problem. I am pretty sure I will still be considering IE6 while developing websites in 2015, let alone IE8.
Oh, and don't forget that a lot of proprietary corporate apps are written to work ONLY in IE6. I wonder if a "legacy" mode for new versions of IE would alleviate part of this problem. (And yeah, I know that there's a big fat bag of poisonous acid-spitting kitten-eating snakes that this would open up.)
The new auto-upgrade model Mozilla has adopted for FF 4.0 (and that Chrome has had for ages) makes upgrade cycles, for all practical purposes, negligible.
Chrome 6.0 was released on September 2. Since then, Chrome 5.0's market share has dropped to nearly 0%, with Chrome 6.0 picking up all of 5.0's share while also absorbing a good amount of IE's share.
If Microsoft instituted an auto-upgrade path for IE and released updates with more regularity, this would slowly become a thing of the past.
- You could do it as Chrome does and have a per-user install. I don't think Mozilla wants to do this.
- You could install a service or a scheduled task to do the work for you.
- MSI updates can be installed without admin rights if they're Authenticode signed, and Mozilla does have a valid Authenticode digital certificate.
As an aside, most companies for whom IE6 is an elephant-scale problem are using both AD and MS SCCM for user configuration management & group policy controls. CM makes it trivial to deploy stuff across the board, including complex software like OS service packs [and browser upgrades]. I posted before that my own org is in the process of upgrading everyone to IE8 right now, but we switched to Firefox as our standard browser about a year ago and are currently testing the new Chrome MSI (woohoo for GPO support), since even though Google's interpretation of the HTML5 standard includes a few things that aren't actually in the draft yet, it works much better with Google Apps.
You won't have to worry about IE6 in 2015.
I honestly believe that the way to move the web forward is by letting browsers innovate at the expense of standards, and for developers to adopt non-aesthetic API's that will cause functional differences from the stagnating dominant incumbent if there is one at the time (at the moment IE).
In other words, when developers get pissed, they find solutions. When end users get pissed, the switch browsers, or decide your app is not worth it. Our goal is to get that proposition in front of end users as often as possible, and create enough value that they choose the former.
I do exactly the same. Unless generously compensated, I refuse to develop for outdated broswers while an easy plug-in solution exists.
I don't know of a single reason why you shouldn't switch from xp to seven aside from evil corporate policies.
IEn is the new IE(n-1)