The IE team throws bricks in a glass house

April 12, 2011 in Web Development

The IE team released a new preview of IE10 beta today along with a video demo.

The video goes out of it’s way to point out some difference in CSS3 column rendering between IE 10 and Firefox 4:

IEBlog – Site Home – MSDN Blogs.

Microsoft’s pathetic attack on Firefox

First off, IE has had bad implementation of CSS specs since the dawn of time, so pointing out a single observed fault in Firefox is really lame.

Second, web developers are very used to testing and developing for multiple browsers and if I was doing a column layout like that one I would start by doing it in Firefox and getting it perfect and then fixing whatever is off in Internet Explorer. If I noticed a lot of differences I would assume it to be IE’s problem right off the bat.

They also show off some hardware acceleration, which is fine, but it’s very easy to produce examples and tests that the browser is specially optimized against.

I would love to see some JS benchmarks – then we can start having a conversation.

IE broke my heart years ago…

10 years ago I loved IE. But Microsoft dropped the ball and I’ll probably never switch to IE again.

And showing me a video of a supposed speed increase of their specific tests and trying to pick on the browser that probably saved the web back in the day is incredibly *lame*.

Edit:

People seem to think this is a Firefox fan boy fest, but actually my primary browser is Google Chrome. I just believe Firefox played a significant role in the evolution of the web and web technologies while the giant, IE lay dormant. And the IE team seems to attack a single small bug in the browser – a bug that will probably be fixed automatically long before IE10 gets released.

Some developers don’t seem to realize that it’s actually IE’s lack of updates and market share’s fault that the web didn’t evolve much (on a technical perspective) for a long time from around 2004-2008.

  • Mike

    Holding on to a browser that “probably saved the web back in the day” is lame. Getting your heart broken by a browser is lame.

    Just use the browser you like for whatever reason, stop being lame about it.

    I use Chrome, it’s fast and I like the UI.

    • http://arnorhs.com/ arnorhs

      Ok, great. I also use Chrome as my primary browser.

  • Jeppe

    Do check out the CSS from the Griddle IE test.
    http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/HTML5/Griddle/Default.html
    They only use -ms- prefixed stuff, and then show of how much better it renders than chrome…

    The keynote:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQUTsxL41Nk

    • http://arnorhs.com/ arnorhs

      @Jeppe My god. That is just dishonest. They really seem to be desperate these days.

  • Allan

    IE9 is a failure in my mind, the CSS3 support is not good :( and it looks like something my mom did in photoshop!

    Chome and Firefox are better, Opera and Safari is also better. And while they may have made IE9 better alot of people still use the IE6, IE7 and IE8… Push the updates out!

    • http://arnorhs.com/ arnorhs

      it looks like something my mom did in photoshop!

      lmao..

      But yes, you’re right. They would do the world a favor if they were to push the updates out.

  • Jeppe

    @Allan show all your friends http://html5forxp.com/ :)

  • AntiLinux

    IE9 is by far the most standard compliant browser in the world. And in terms of Javascript performance, it makes Firefox look like a joke. Checkout the SunSpider Javascript test. And IE9 on Windows 7 uses FULL Hardware Acceleration unlike Firefox’s crappy implementation. Plus IE9 supports Protected Mode (it has since 2006), while Firefox doesn’t. Plus IE9′s 99% success rate in blocking malware compared to Firefox’s 20% makes it the most secure browser on the planet according to various metrics.

    I have always used IE as my primary browser, and forever will. I won’t ever touch the pathetic Firefox with a ten-foot pole.

    • http://arnorhs.com/ arnorhs

      @AntiLinux Are you talking about the sunspider test presented on Microsoft’s website? I’m not sure but I would think it’s a bit biased. Browsers are continually evolving and here is a relatively new browser benchmark:

      http://lifehacker.com/#!browserspeedtests/5784396

      IE9 is not bad and definitely the best IE so far, but historically they dropped the ball at one point.

  • letssee

    @AntiLinux

    “IE9 is by far the most standard compliant browser in the world.”

    What. The. Fark.

    That is just a huge lie. You have been naively suckered into believing Microsoft’s BS marketing claims, looking at their pretty tables and graphs that are not based on actual standards compliance, but on a handful of carefully chosen tests that make IE look good.

    “IE9 on Windows 7 uses FULL Hardware Acceleration unlike Firefox’s crappy implementation”

    No, Firefox has full hardware acceleration. You are spreading yet another Microsoft lie.

    “Plus IE9′s 99% success rate in blocking malware compared to Firefox’s 20%”

    That’s based on a “report” by NSS Labs, who were caught lying after they were paid by Microsoft to produce a fake report with fake results.

  • http://arnorhs.com/ arnorhs

    @letssee THANK YOU.

    This might also sum it up: http://people.mozilla.com/~prouget/ie9/

  • AntiLinux

    @arnorhs and @letssee,

    The SunSpider test has nothing to do with Microsoft. It’s an independent test.

    IE9 is by far the most standard compliant browser in terms of “standards” specified by W3C. Sites like html5test.com do not follow W3C guidelines and are useless. Any feature that has not been apporoved by W3C cannot considered to be a standard.

    Firefox DOES NOT use FULL hardware acceleration. It uses an extra software layer which significantly limits its performance compared to IE9.

    Can you give me a link to your claim that NSS labs — a renownded security organization — was payed by Microsoft to produce fake resutls? No, you can’t. Because it was genuine, and IE9 kicked Firefox’s ass by blocking 99% social malwares compared to Firefox’s 20%.

    That link by Mozilla’s Paul Roguet is some of the biggest FUD I have seen for some time. Mozilla people are pathetic. There’s another guy called Asa Dotzler who spends all his time trolling and spreading lies.

  • letssee

    @AntiLinux

    SunSpider? I didn’t mention SunSpider at all.

    And I just explained how your claim that IE9 is the most standards compliant is bogus. It is simply a false claim. And I know what you are basing that false claim on:

    Pretty tables and graphs cherry-picked by Microsoft to make IE9 look good.

    You need to educate yourself about web standards, because you clearly don’t know much about them.

    Firefox does use full hardware acceleration. Once again you are spewing nonsensical lies straight from Microsoft’s big propaganda book.

    NSS Labs was proven to manipulate statistics and lie (for example, they claimed that Opera automatically updated itself even though it didn’t even support automatic updates at that time).

  • AntiLinux

    @letssee

    I mentioned the SunSpider test because @arnorhs previously questioned that one too.

    And no, the link you refer to does nothing to “prove” that NSS “manipulated statistics and lied”. In fact it’s just a speculative blog post written by an Opera fanboy (what a sad species that is!).

    And anyway that report was from 2 years back. The more recent report is here: http://news.softpedia.com/news/IE9-Blocks-99-of-Socially-Engineering-Malware-172650.shtml

    And I maintain that IE9 is by far more standard compliant in specifications approved by W3C. Microsoft, quite rightly, doesn’t want to support any dead end and non-standard technology, which html5test.com is based on.

    And one more time — Firefox DOES use at least one extra abstraction layer compared to IE9 for Hardware Acceleration.

  • letssee

    @AntiLinux

    Yes, the link does prove that NSS manipulated statistics. It also shows that the report is completely unverifiable, and therefore pseudoscience.

    You have failed to address any of the points raised in the article and comments (such as the fact that NSS Labs lied about Opera updating itself automatically). Instead, you resorted to an ad hominem, which is proof that you have no valid arguments whatsoever.

    All reports from NSS Labs are of equally poor quality, since they all use the same unverifiable pseudoscience.

    And no, IE9 is not the most standards compliant. This is nothing but a bogus, unsourced, claim from you. Anyone with a clue knows that it’s completely false. You are basing your claim on cherry-picked claims from Microsoft. If not, produce your source. Put up or shut up.

    And one more time: Firefox does have full hardware acceleration.

  • AntiLinux

    No, that blog post is not a proof against NSS labs which is a reputable security organization. That’s just an Opera fanboy whining and moaning. NSS labs has since produced more tests which confirms IE8/9′s great security features. Where are the proofs that ALL of them are lies?

    And, not only NSS labs but other security reports have also proved that IE is FAR MORE secure than the pathetic Firefox: http://www.neowin.net/news/internet-explorer-more-secure-than-chrome-and-firefox

    Again I say, IE9 is by far the most standard-compliant browser in tests approved by W3C. Do you even know what W3C is, and what web standards mean? Anything not approved by W3C is NOT a “standard”. If you can prove how IE9 fails in W3C approved tests.

    And Firefox’s implementation hardware acceleration remains partial, lagging and crappy — no matter how much the fanboys whine.

  • letssee

    You have still failed to provide a single valid argument countering the facts presented in the article and article comments about NSS Labs. Instead, you continue your ad hominems. How do you explain the fact that they lied about Opera updating itself, and the fact that they have failed to provide sufficient information for others to verify their claims?

    You have also failed to provide a single valid reference for your claim about IE9′s standards compliance. Of course, I know what you are referring to. You are referring to a tiny handful of HTML5 tests submitted to the W3C by Microsoft, which IE9 obviously passes.

    However, this only means that IE9 passes these few tests written by Microsoft, and those tests don’t even cover a fraction of the HTML5 specification.

    Thus, it is simply wrong to claim that these few tests say anything whatsoever about overall standards compliance.

    This is basic knowledge to anyone with even a minimium of knowledge. And indeed, the page listing the tests clearly states:

    “It is inappropriate to cite those results as other than work in progress and unstable.”

    And Firefox still has full hardware acceleration. Your lies will not change that fact.

  • AntiLinux

    The tests done by NSS labs in 2009 might have contained a few flaws, but that is not “proof” that NSS lied to make IE8 look better. However, I find it amusing that you keep referring to a two-year old test, instead of the more recent test published in late 2010 which clearly proved that IE9 kicks Firefox’s ass in blocking social malware. Where’s the counter to that test? And the other one I mentioned which was not carried out by NSS labs?

    Can you please refer me to any HTML5 standards which have been approved by W3C (not the ones Microsoft submitted), which IE9 doesn’t pass? No, you can’t. Because no such thing exists yet. So, it can’t be called a “standard”. Therefore, IE9 remains the most standard compliant browser on the planet.

    And, Firefox never have and never will offer FULL hardware acceleration on Windows 7, because they don’t use Microsoft-only Windows 7-integrated technology for building their browser. Instead they try to cater to the lowest common denominator.

  • AntiLinux
  • letssee

    The later reports by NSS Labs contain exactly the same flaws. They haven’t changed their methodology one single bit. There is also proof that NSS Labs lied, since their report clearly stated that Opera updated itself even though it didn’t even support automatic updates at that time.

    Furthermore, you have failed to address the fact that the NSS Labs report is impossible to verify by others, thereby making it pseudoscience.

    Yes, there are huge parts of HTML5 that IE9 does not support. You are clearly not very knowledgeable about these things. Here’s an actual article that explains the fallacy of your claims:

    http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/11/ie9-leads-pack-in-html5-support-not-exactly/

    HTML5 is still a working draft as well, so if we are to follow your argument, no browser supports HTML5.

    The fact is that IE9 has the crappiest HTML5 support out of all the current desktop browsers:

    http://caniuse.com/#cats=HTML5 (IE9: 52%, vs. Chrome’s 80+%)

    And yes, Firefox still does offer full hardware acceleration. That it doesn’t is just another BS lie from Microsoft’s disgusting marketing department.

  • letssee
  • letssee
  • letssee

    “an more compact overview”

    Sorry, “a more compact.” Typo there.

  • AntiLinux

    No, NSS labs do not lie. They are a reputed security firm. And not only NSS labs, but other firms like Secunia has declared Firefox to be FAR MORE vulnerable than IE8/9. No amount of denial will change facts. If you can, come up with a report that proves Firefox is more secure than IE8/9 on Windows 7/Vista. You can’t.

    Lolllll at those links provided by you. Mozilla is a pathetic organization which only spreads lies and FUDs — it cannot produce a half-decent browser.

    Any “standard” not approved by W3C is NOT a standard. Among W3C approved standards IE9 beats the hell out of any other browser. Therefore, it remains the most standard compliant browser on the planet.

    And, Firefox never have and never will offer FULL hardware acceleration on Windows 7, because they don’t use Microsoft-only Windows 7-integrated technology for building their browser. Instead they try to cater to the lowest common denominator.

  • letssee

    NSS Labs is not a reputed security firm. As demonstrated, they are engaging in misinformation and pseudoscience. You have completely failed to address even one specific point that has been raised.

    As for security in general, I notice that you only mention Firefox. Why not mention Chrome or Opera? Or Safari?

    What’s wrong with the links I gave you? What does this have to do with Mozilla? Just because you work for Microsoft doesn’t mean that everyone else is affiliated with Mozilla. In fact, the blogger explained that he’s a Chrome user. And yet you continue to whine about Mozilla.

    Why?

    I don’t know why you feel the need to say that “a standard not approved by the W3C is not a standard.” What’s your point? Caniuse.com clearly shows a list of W3C Recommendations and specifications at the other stages of the standardization process.

    I have clearly shown you that IE9 in fact has the worst standards compliance of any modern browser.

    And again, Firefox does have full hardware acceleration. You don’t need Windows to provide full hardware acceleration. You are evidently as ignorant of this as you are of web standards.

  • AntiLinux

    NSS labs IS a reputable security firm, as is Secunia. Both of them have published reports that prove IE8/9 on Windows 7/Vista is way more secure than Firefox. Safari and Opera’s security problems have been demonstrated by others. Only Chrome can be considered a real competitor to IE8/9 in terms of security — in fact, Chrome is probably the most secure browser just ahead of IE8/9.

    None of the so-called “standards” that have been mentioned in your links have been finalized. They cannot be considered to be W3C approved standards. If and when they are finalized IE will support them, just like they support ALL currently finalized W3C standards.

    IE9 uses Microsoft-only proprietory technologies which are tied very tightly with Windows 7 for hardware acceleration. On the other hand, Firefox uses extra abstraction layers in order to be cross-platform. Therefore Firefox will NEVER EVER achieve FULL Hardware Acceleration like IE9/10.

  • letssee

    It seems that you are just going to continue repeating the same demonstrably false claims over and over and over again. I have provided you with not only specific examples, but also sources to look up.

    You have provided us with nothing more than Microsoft shilling/astroturfing.

    I have demonstrated how NSS Labs engages in pseudoscience and makes claims that are demonstrably false. No valid rebuttal from you, only denial and ad hominems.

    I have demonstrated how IE9 is the least standards compliant browser, and you can even choose for yourself which standards to display on that page. No valid rebuttal from you, only denial and ad hominems.

    I have demonstrated how other browsers have a far better security track record than IE. No valid rebuttal from you, only denial and ad hominems.

    I have demonstrated how full hardware acceleration is not only possible in other browsers, but is already available in Firefox. No valid rebuttal from you, only denial and ad hominems.

  • letssee

    Let’s investigate one of AntiLinux’s claims more closely:

    Claim: “None of the so-called “standards” that have been mentioned in your links have been finalized. They cannot be considered to be W3C approved standards.”

    Facts:

    Let’s filter out everything except W3C Recommendations (finished W3C standards):

    http://caniuse.com/#agents=desktop&eras=now&statuses=rec&nodetails=1

    Results:

    * IE9: 33%
    * Firefox and Chrome: 83%
    * Safari: 67%
    * Opera: 96%

    In other words, according to your very own claim that “standards compliance is only measured by support for finalized W3C Recommendations”, IE9 looks even more pathetic than it does if we include standards that are work in progress.

    In fact, according to your definition, Opera has nearly perfect standards support with 96%, while IE9 has a pathetic 33%.

    You really know how to shoot yourself in the foot, don’t you? Did you learn that at Microsoft Astroturfing School?

  • AntiLinux

    “I have demonstrated how NSS Labs engages in pseudoscience and makes claims that are demonstrably false. No valid rebuttal from you, only denial and ad hominems.”

    No, you haven’t. Any blog post by a pathetic fanboy of a pathetic browser called Opera does not qualify as a “scientific” proof that NSS labs always lies about its tests.

    “I have demonstrated how other browsers have a far better security track record than IE.”

    Again you haven’t. On the contrary, I have provided further links other than the NSS labs reports that Firefox is the most insecure browser on the planet — way more than IE8/9.
    http://blogs.computerworld.com/report_firefox_is_the_worlds_most_vulnerable_browser
    and http://www.neowin.net/news/internet-explorer-more-secure-than-chrome-and-firefox

    cainiuse.com is not an official W3C website. The official site clearly shows that IE9 is the most standard compliant browser in the world.
    http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/reporting/report.htm

    “I have demonstrated how full hardware acceleration is not only possible in other browsers, but is already available in Firefox.”

    Again you have demonstrated that Firefox uses FULL hardware acceleration on Windows 7. So my comment stands:
    IE9 uses Microsoft-only proprietory technologies which are tied very tightly with Windows 7 for hardware acceleration. On the other hand, Firefox uses extra abstraction layers in order to be cross-platform. Therefore Firefox will NEVER EVER achieve FULL Hardware Acceleration like IE9/10.

  • letssee

    It is not the blog post exposing NSS Labs which needs to be scientific. All it needs to do is to expose weaknesses and contradictions in the report from NSS Labs, which it did. It is NSS Labs which engages in pseudoscience.

    And if we are going to count security holes, how many security holes have there been in IE? Yes, more than the other browsers combined, and then some.

    How cute of you to link to a W3C page which specifically states that the testsuite is not finished yet, and that:

    “In no way are these conformance tests to be construed as providing certification or branding of HTML5 implementations.”

    I wonder why you ignored that part. Once again, you have been caught red handed, spreading misinformation.

    Furthermore, you have failed to show how caniuse.com is wrong.

    And Firefox does use full hardware acceleration, regardless of your nonsensical claims.