IE10 platform preview available - with native HTML 5
blogs.msdn.com
blogs.msdn.com
Just an example: they claim that Chrome "dropped support on Windows XP for functionality that [IE Team] think is fundamental to performance." Linking to this blog post: http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2011/02/dev-channel...
The reality is that Chrome disabled it temporarily on the dev channel due to crashing, and in fact brought it back for v11: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=72975
Microsoft doesn't even acknowledge the fact that they don't even have a version of IE10, or even 9, for Windows XP!
Is this really what the browser wars are going to come to? Lies and marketing? I thought we were over that.
Whaa?? I'd cut them slack on not supporting XP.
That's what you call doublespeak.
But I do blame them for all the under-handed, customer-spiteful tactics they've used. DirectX 10 on Vista only, though it's almost 100% compatible with DX9 (having 9 report version 10 allows many DX10 games to run). IE9+ on Vista/7 only. It's complete bullshit, through and through, and I see no reason to defend their methods.
The only games with which this will work is games that support DX9 explicitly and, for some reason, disable it. The D3D9 and 10 APIs are completely different. Having worked on an implementation of DX10 for XP, I can say for sure that this is 100% incorrect.
Aaah, I see where I got that from. Early speculation on Crysis. Apologies!
Know how well the Alky project managed to get DX10 on XP working? I just found it now.
I'm not entirely convinced mimicking anything Microsoft puts out is a good idea, even under the best circumstances. I've lately been getting pretty far into .NET, and the more I see, the more it terrifies me.
I'm leery of the word "native" in this context. It strikes me as a marketing phrase with little or no actual meaning. They're trying to sell me on the idea that my HTML5 experience will somehow be better because it uses code provided by Windows itself rather than by some intermediary library. But what is that windows code, if not a library of code?
Did IE9 not have "native" HTML5, or is it just that marketing only came up with the idea now?
> IE9 delivers native support for HTML5 on Windows.
Another direct quote:
> Native HTML5 support in Windows with IE9 makes a huge difference in what sites can do.
And another:
> The only native experience of the Web and HTML5 today is on Windows 7 with IE9.
In my opinion, claims about nativeness are on a par with those about magicalness - but marketing flacks don't get paid based upon sound ontology.
IE10 = native = fast
Chrome = not native = slow
Simple message, and it works IMHO.
I'm watching MIX'11 live and so far the demos are great (like the fishbowl benchmark, completely blowing Chrome's fish out of the water ;D) but they are still just demos.
I guess if that's native, yes IE9 wins. I think in user's minds: if its built for MY operating system specifically its better than the other. However thats not true as even the tech unsavvy are flocking away from IE.
HOWEVER. I am glad to hear this news. It only means one thing. PROGRESS.
A similar thing thing with the IE blog's new favorite phrase "same markup" which seems to be "standards compliant" in a new blue dress. Search the web for 'standards compliant browser' and you'll generally find folks heaping scorn on IE and praise on all the others. Search for 'same markup browser' and the opposite is true.
Look at Firefox 4, you can't say it wasn't influenced by Chrome. And the fact that Microsoft is now trying to move faster with IE10 already being announced is probably also largely influenced by Chrome's fast paced development.
We now have a better faster web. We just need it to be standardized a little more (Come on Microsoft, please add WebGL support)
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to use a dog of a browser, either, but in modern times with dual-core this and 8GB that, one would probably have to actually work at it in order to have a genuinely slow browser.
Not to talk about all the wrong decisions that will be made based on this.
Marketeers, if we could only get rid of them.
and BTW, Microsoft didn't start this. Remember Native Client?
Others have dropped support on Windows XP for functionality that we think is fundamental to performance.
This is completely disingenuous. What they are actually referring to (and link to) is Google disabling GPU acceleration and WebGL on XP starting in Chrome 10.0.648.114 due to stability issues. Importantly, Google intends Chrome 11 to re-enable these features on XP for known-good drivers. Here is the relevant ticket:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=72975
The thing is, I actually agree with Microsoft's decision to not support XP. XP, like IE6, is a fundamentally flawed platform and the sooner people move off of it, the better. I just wish they'd make the argument honestly.
They have this nice campaign running about how people should upgrade from IE6 to the lastest version:
What does this mean ? IE8, because there is no IE6 on Vista or 7, so they are talking about Windows XP. And their is no IE9 for Windows XP.
Windows XP extended support is till 2014. Last year (2010) Windows XP was still being sold.
The market share of Windows XP has over 50% worldwide, Microsoft should not ignore those users and just release a IE9 for Windows XP already.
But who am I kidding, IE9 was a rush job, it doesn't even have a proper JIT javascript engine when you run IE9 64-bit.
On Windows 2000 IE6 is actually the lastest version, but I won't comment on that further. ;-)
2. I am impressed by the work on implementing new standards - kudos to Microsoft. But I did not see anything about WebGL, which is a very important standard that is already implemented in Firefox, Chrome, Safari and (soon, or already) Opera.
Also, I didn't see a Javascript benchmark in there.
"Cool, you're using a Chrome 12 nightly build! Don't forget to enable your partial hardware acceleration in the about:flags thingy..."
Seems like they're actually worried about Chrome, since Firefox and Safari don't have any similar messages.
By hardware acceleration I'm talking about things like -webkit-transform and the support for various 3D transforms. I'm unsure of how it's implemented under the hood but I know Safari kills on 3D transforms and the best part is it works on mobile.
I've met some members of the IE tech team (who don't control the marketing). The people I know really want to win without cheating and support as much as possible, but are very wary of releasing anything too early. They're very careful to wait until the standards are pretty precise and stable before releasing an implementation, lest they be accused of trying to "sabotage" something with an unintentionally different (but still within the vague spec) implementation.
One year is an eternity.
Oh, hell yes! CSS gradients and animations/transforms? Christmas came early this year. This version can't come soon enough.
I won't count any of them as supporting stuff until it works without vendor extensions, and I can finally stop saying things in quadruplicate.
Probably something you should look into, I don't expect there to come a point where vendors stop adding new proprietary properties, at least not this decade.
Browser prefixes are actually a great idea that save us from the madness of the old days (like browser hacks) and there is nothing bad about them.
Oh well, I just hope the History API makes it soon so we can stop abusing #anchors in a few years ..
https://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/developers/desig...
Can even try it out in the current stable channel if you enable it: about:flags
IE10 and WebGL is the big question for me, which will be interesting to see pan out given their obviously conflicting position with OpenGL.
As there is no build of Chrome for Windows ARM as far as I know. And the things isn't available from Mozilla either, which I assume would be the Firefox-button in the tray at the bottom.
I'll take a look.
So now here comes IE 10, and what's the pitch? It's gonna be damn fast. Who gives shit? Chrome and Safari are blazing fast AND you don't have to through all kinds of hacks, and html5.js at them as they work perfectly as is, with nearly ALL of the HTML 5 specifications.
I have to agree to this to read an article? No thanks.
The damage has been done. The legacy of IE won't be fixed with a new version number.
The only native experience of the Web and HTML5 today is on Windows 7 with IE9.
"Hey kid. Releasing a new version every few weeks ain't professional."
As for "how browser development should happen," I think the people who can make the argument on that are the ones who've been leading the pack for the last 5+ years, not the ones who are still trying to catch up despite starting out with a giant lead.