IE
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
who else is posting from IE?
Master race IE reporting in.
Is MS this desperate?
>>51474357
Only /v/ermin think everyone but them is a shill.
>>>/v/
>>51474335
I have too when I'm at work.
>>51474403
>not using IE11
I use edge on my desktop.
>>51474430
IE > Edge
>muh standards
Doesn't have Tracking Protection, making it automatically inferior.
saw the MS shills comments incoming. Linux is 1000% nsa proof goys. Use prostetic mask and gloves for everything... don't work or never travel abroad... use mullvad $ in mail VPN.
http://www.sitepoint.com/browser-trends-january-2015-ie8-usage-triples/
Usage share of all browsers for June–August 2015 (US government websites)
Source
Chrome +
Android
Internet
Explorer
Firefox
Safari
Opera
Others
IE going up!
analytics.usa.gov
41.4% 24.9% 10.4% 20.4% ††† 3.0%
>>51474512
That's because a lot of people went back to Windows 7 from the Windows 10 Insider Preview.
>>51474558
>Chrome is no. 1
This is great for the web. Terrible for privacy, but great for the web.
palemoon or other smaller known ones never get any press coverage etc
>>51474560
This better be the reason. IE 8 is the new IE 6 for web developers. The one holding everything back.
IE9 isn't much better, but at least nobody has a reason to use 9 over 10 or 11.
>>51474615
Yes, having a browser with shitty proprietary standards that makes IE6 blush with embarassment sure is a good thing for the Web.
>>51474639
>IE9 isn't much better
It was a giant leap. It's the complete opposite of IE6. IE10 and 11 are better, of course.
>>51474651
Those shitty proprietary standards are mainly for the chrome platform. Apps for ChromeOS, Chrome plugins etc.
Chrome is the best browser when it comes to standard HTML5 support as well.
>>51474615
>This is great for the web. Terrible for privacy, but great for the web.
It actually isn't. Webkit has shitload of bugs, and it is insanely segmented. Every single webkit/chrome version supports different things and has different bugs.
So even if Chrome was 100%, you would still have an impossible amount of bugs to work around.
It's worse than when IE6 had 90% market.
>>51474639
No one is actually developing sites for IE8 now - Microsoft released shitload of tools so enterprises can update IE but keep their old sites working in enterprise mode.
I think I use IE10 as the minimum since it supports history api, svg, css gradients, and css transitions. IE9 falls back gracefully with those (just doesn't display what it can't support, so you get no animations and solid color bg instead of gradient).
>>51474684
>Chrome is the best browser when it comes to experimental features in HTML5 as well.
FTFY
>>51474651
>chrome
>proprietary standerds
nigga wat?
>ie
>not proprietary
all ur arguments have been send to trash
>>51474671
Hm. Flexbox still isn't there. Neither are animations and transitions. And dozens of other important features that still need to be polyfilled.
It's better, yeah. At least transforms are finally there. But I still can't think of something major, a game changer that comes before IE 10. But IE 10 is so quirky that it's almost worthless.
>>51474395
nice shilling
>>>/trash/
>>51474691
>No one is actually developing sites for IE8 now
If only my boss realized this. Fucking hell, not even lowest common denominators like bootstrap work properly in that piece of shit browser except when you use 2 polyfills.
>>51474727
Flexbox is not a Web standard, Anon.
And IE9 bumped IE8's Acid3 score from 20 to fucking 97.
>>51474727
You do realize that a lot of this shit isn't actually new, right? They're just open reimplementations of things Microsoft created for IE long ago.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150505081443/http://www.nczonline.net/blog/2012/08/22/the-innovations-of-internet-explorer/
Too bad extensions support for Edge won't arrive before 2016
>>51474753
What is it then? Some nonstandard thing that all browser vendors decided to implement for some reason? Even if that was true - that's a great thing. I can't believe anyone thought that float, clear and position:absolute were acceptable for achieving layouts.
>>51474651
>>51474684
Every -webkit- prefixed standard is a proprietary one that they submit to the W3C. Then the W3C sits on it for 5 years, changes it a bit and finalizes it.
The problem with that is then you have Chrome supporting both prefixed and unprefixed versions, sometimes both with different syntaxes, because they don't want millions of sites using their standards to break.
So you end up in this weird situation where Chrome sometimes supports only its own -webkit- prefix crap, sometimes only the modern one, sometimes it supports BOTH, and that shit is a pain to get around even if you manually look up every feature as supported or not.
And then you have other issues like viewpoint units being broken for THREE FUCKING YEARS in Webkit, making them completely useless, even though both IE and FF supported them fine for as long. They fixed it now, but you get the idea.
>>51474711
Wrong.
Chrome uses the old browser wars mentality from the 90s, where they keep showing in more features, without actually making sure that those features are properly implemented.
>>51474403
You can install Chrome or Chromiuml without local-Admin privileges.
>>51474558
murrika is fucking done m8.
>>51474753
>And IE9 bumped IE8's Acid3 score from 20 to fucking 97.
It bumped to 100.
The remaining 3 points were deprecated standards - something useless inside SVG fonts as I recall, that no one used, except for Webkit which only implemented the parts needed specifically for Acid3 to get through.
Once they removed that crap from Acid3, IE9 passed it 100%, and so did Firefox.
IE9 is missing the box-shadow on it though. IE10 does it better.
>>51474790
Oh wow, so it was Microsoft who is responsible for all the terrible stuff that nobody wants to touch even with a 20 lightyears long rod because they are so flawed.
They are the ones who made the DOM, which will hold the web back forever. They are the ones that made CSS, a primitive language that fails at everything that isn't simply "make this red. make this text green" unless you use tons of hacks, violate the shit out of "DRY", and make 15 levels deep div structures because you can't achieve the layout you desire without changing your markup.
And they made the terrible XmlHttpRequest, too! What a surprise! Nobody else would have come up with such a terrible API.
At least Chrome's contributions are actually good.
>>51474790
>You do realize that a lot of this shit isn't actually new, right? They're just open reimplementations of things Microsoft created for IE long ago.
Funny story about that.
Remember the box model bug in IE5? It used to compute CSS Width as the total width of an object, including border+padding. The W3C standard instead said that padding and border goes on top of width, so width:100 + padding: 2 + border: 2 would give you 108px complete width from border to border (but on IE it gave you 100px, with only 92px on the inside for the content).
This is something that everyone considered a huge bug, which is kind of true, even though they fixed it in IE5.5 as long as you weren't using quirks mode.
Some years later we got a CSS property called box-sizing, which allows you to use either the W3C standard, or the IE standard, or an intermediate version where width equals width+padding.
Now fast forward to 2015 and if you look at all the CSS frameworks like Bootstrap, and you'll see that EVERYONE is using box-sizing:border-box, which is how IE did things back in 1999, which was considered a bug.
Funny how things come around.
>>51474941
>Microsoft created CSS
1/10, I dismissed your whole post.
>>51474335
the horrible font rendering is too much
>>51474985
>using shitty screens
>>51474983
Whatever. At least they were the first to implement it. They should have just said "This shit doesn't work. You need to revise this. Then we might reconsider implementing it".
You shouldn't back up something like this.
>At least Chrome's contributions are actually good.
>let's create another plugin API that no one needs because muh sandbox
>let's replace everything with our own inferior shit, the browser
>good
>>51474335
Edgelord here
will alexjones and david icke guest post on how to be NSA proof by using Linux? Grow your own food? live in a tent? beware of fluoride water.
>>51475043
You are only shitposting. I'd rather deal with IE legacy than Netscape legacy, which would be 100 times worse.
Mozilla being shit these days is nothing new, it's just like when they were Netscape 20 years ago.
>>51474941
>Oh wow, so it was Microsoft who is responsible for all the terrible stuff that nobody wants to touch even with a 20 lightyears long rod because they are so flawed.
Yeah, ones that every modern website uses - like embedded fonts, ajax, transforms...
the only good webkit contribution I can name from the top of my head (that they did FIRST) are css masks.
I wanted to see what people think. im sure there will be plenty of windows 10 botnet threads today to circlejerk over
>>51475108
If they hadn't implemented those fucked up standards, we would have something better nowadays.
We wouldn't need all those abstraction layers like jquery if they had implemented stuff properly, instead of just implementing new features as fast as possible.
>>51475108
Don't forget minor things like favicons. The first browser to have them was IE5 in 1999.
>>51475087
But didn't Microsoft do the same thing that Chrome is doing today? Implementing tons of proprietary standards and then pointing at other browsers, saying "OH WOW, LOOK AT HOW FAR BEHIND THEY ARE!".
IE 11 my main browser USA USA USA USA USA
>>51475179
Except Microsoft did it when web standards didn't matter. Netscape had as many proprietary standards as IE. Heck, Netscape literally grabbed Java and turned it into a Web scripting language (JavaScript). Microsoft responded with VBScript.
>>51474403
>too
Why in the fuck would I wanna do that? And how dare you even ASK me that? Why aren't you more ashamed of yourself?
>>51474941
>At least Chrome's contributions are actually good.
Name one. Hehe.
chromefag here
but I´m willing to give edge a try as soon as it gets adblock
>>51474335
Must have just now loaded up 4 chan for the first time huh?
>>51479475
>>>/9gag/
Reminder to steer clear of IE: http://www.cvedetails.com/product/9900/Microsoft-Internet-Explorer.html?vendor_id=26
>>51474335
me
runs much better than chrome on windows machines with 4gb or less
>>51474403
>they use windows at the company he works for
h a h a h a h a h a h a h a
>>51480056
Yes because that is meaningful in any way.
>>51480096
It's plain English and statistics. You should be able to deduct IE has a bad track record of having a lot of vulnerabilities.
>>51480164
I'm not concerned.
>>51480233
That's on you.
>>51474817
I'm willing to believe for chromium, but chrome? Google basically has the key to your computer when you install chrome and it doesn't require admin privileges?
>>51480096
They think it's the 90's.
>mfw everybody is using iceweasel at work
I thought I was on hidden camera or something.
>>51480164
>Lumping up all versions of IE since 2007 to conclude it's insecure, including the non-sandboxed versions
What? Are you stupid?
Here's Firefox and Chrome for comparison in that case
http://www.cvedetails.com/product/15031/Google-Chrome.html?vendor_id=1224
http://www.cvedetails.com/product/3264/Mozilla-Firefox.html?vendor_id=452
IE has almost half the CVE's as either of those browsers.
>>51480096
>>51480585
Sorry, meant to quote >>51480095
>>51480095
What are you even on about? It'd be far more laughable if they used literally any other OS. Never, in my 10 years of industrial engineering, have I gone to a multi billion dollar plant, and seen anything but Windows.
Source: I've been contracted by P&G, Berkshire Hathaway, Kia, CAT, Purina, Meprolight/ Kimber, Colt, and Walmart distribution.
>>51480620
>bloated and vulnerable gaming machines in a work setting
That it is a common thing is even more laughable.
I prefer to open up a terminal. Enter some commands. Feel like Im hahacking wall street just to use a "better" browser.
Ps. My mom cuts the crust off my samiches.
>>51480715
Uh, no?
You do realize that they make decent prebuilts just for that sort of thing, and that Win Enterprise exists, correct?
Not that they're all smart... I saw a Duracell plant replace a $6,000 HP (at least, I belive it was made by HP) for a bad_pool_caller bsod.
>>51474335
All hail IE.
>>51480777
I was just kidding ;)
But seriously, if you don't need a special piece of software that works only on Windows, it seems to me like a smarter alternative to just make an image of the basic Linux distro with only the things you need and not waste more money. Besides, a lot of things nowadays has great software as service alternatives (Google docs etc).
What keeps Windows as an attractive choice in business setting?
>>51480896
Seamless integration, and near universal compatibility and familiarity.
>>51480896
Linux is garbage for enterprise machines. We can get into arguments over if it's good for desktops but for institutions and networks it's out of the question. Nothing like GPO, WSUS, domains, etc. Still absolutely god awful at mounting network drives without fucking around in a million config files. And the Linux linux ecosystem at way too fast of a pace when institutions' #1 want is something that will be stable and work for years without needing system upgrades and overhauls.
>>51481061
Good to see a fellow IE brethren with superior taste.
>>51481061
>thinking about cummies.jpg
>>51481123
>a fellow IE brethren
He just made an argument for Windows in business setting.
He didn't say he was retarded.
>>51481061
>he thinks he's the next level of shitposting
OK Kid
Firefox master species
>>51481169
Nah, I use IE as well.
I've become too lazy/stubborn to get used to any other browser.
>>51481249
Why would you anyway? IE11 does everything one might need. And it's not like the Web hasn't gotten this far because of IE or anything.
>>51479464
wykurwiaj xD
No browser will ever be as comfy as IE, it just works. Fuck Edge.
>mfw people tell me something has to support IE 8 when I was a web dev
So glad I don't have to deal with that shit anymore.
>>51474444
Edge is terrible for a lot more than that.
>3 seconds for a storage event to fire after putting a value in localStorage
>THREE
>SECONDS
>>51480095
>they use something that isn't windows at the company he works for
found the unemployed guy
>>51479464
podludź z podprzeglądarką
>wykurwiaj XDDDDDDDDDDDD
>>51480587
>What? Are you stupid?
You're not taking severity into account, stupid.
http://www.cvedetails.com/cvss-score-charts.php?product_id=15031&fromform=1
http://www.cvedetails.com/cvss-score-charts.php?product_id=9900&fromform=1
http://www.cvedetails.com/cvss-score-charts.php?product_id=3264&fromform=1
>>51486107
So?
>>51480896
You're completely retarded.
Like 95% of the business world uses Windows because it just works.
>>51486526
So, it's time to get yourself a new browser.
>>51474335
If I had a business/company I would choose not to develop for IE at all, even though I would lose like 15% of possible clients.
Why make my devs waste most of their time trying to work with outdated crap, when they could focus on using well-implemented web standards?
Because the most typical IE userbase is corporate whores, who won't buy anything by using the browser anyway, and some computer illiterates or peasants who just use IE because it came preinstalled with the system.
So by not supporting IE you're doing the web a favour and forcing all those retards, including companies, to install a different browser. Simple as that. Yeah, I don't care about your costs, just as you don't care about my costs of developing for IE. So, change your browser with something modern.
>>51486554
Or I can just strengthen IE's security like enabling the better sandbox from the settings.
IE is perfectly fine.
>>51486687
You don't have to develop for IE. Web devs are what caused IE6 hell and IE6 is long gone.
>>51486687
>2016
>still fearmongering IE
Jesus fucking Christ. Yeah, let's develop for Chrome which is worse than IE6 instead. That can't go wrong.
>>51486831
>Or I can just strengthen IE's security like enabling the better sandbox from the settings.
So, you're defending an insecure default setting?
>IE is perfectly fine.
It's proprietary, therefore obstructs independent research and code audits, it has insecure defaults, a lack of privacy and security enhancements like other browsers have. The layout engine doesn't adhere to the standards, the InPrivate mode still leaves artefacts regarding visited domains http://malwerewolf.com/2014/06/inprivate-browsing-private-anymore/ which Edge now does as well. Inexcusable, M$ code monkeys are lazy.
Its not perfectly fine, anon.
>>51486966
>So, you're defending an insecure default setting?
Microsoft was forced to set it that way because enough people complained of incompatibilities with legacy junk.
>>51486966
>The layout engine doesn't adhere to the standards
FUD
>>51487089
That's why you chose M$, to mindlessly hang onto legacy, even in light of all the security risks it brings. Legacy is bad and it's holding us back.
>>51486841
>Chrome which is worse than IE6
Stopped reading there.
>>51486831
>IE6
Still IE8, 9 and 10 are still a problem.
Not to mention the IE dev tools are crapawful compared to Chrome. So if you have to make adjustments in the dev tools to find a fix, you have to put up with that awkward interface.
IE is not alone in that though. Safari is equally shitty in terms of dev tools.
>>51487211
IE11 is the only relevant version, MS will not be supporting older versions from January onwards. IE not being standards-compliant is the biggest myth in history, especially when Chrome is basicay the new IE6.
>>51487537
*basically
>>51487103
I don't care for legacy.
>>51479464
You've never heard of anti-aliasing, have you?
>>51486687
>I would choose not to develop for IE at all, even though I would lose like 15% of possible clients.
Yeah, and that's why you don't run a company.
>>51489678
That's on you.
>>51487103
Yeah, legacy is bad, nobody is denying that. But its required. If you were constantly upgrading your systems to "The best next thingTM" all of your company time would be spent trying to fix shit that broke because X new version, bugs breaks and crashes that naturally come from upgrading. It's a massive waste of time and money that only serves to cause more downtime. That's why no company uses Linux, Chrome or Firefox.
>>51490431
Using the latest and greatest may sometimes be problematic, but the same is true for legacy. On the plus side, the more people would use the latest (stable) software, the faster it can be developed and mature. So it's never a waste of time, all you need is (extensive) testing, which may be costly, but is actually an *investment*.
>That's why no company uses Linux, Chrome or Firefox.
These could be poor examples as a very large portion of business servers run Linux. Chrome and Firefox are also very widely used, but I understand what you mean. Maybe DNSSEC and IPv6 are better examples, and that's very sad that they both take such a long time.
>>51486831
>You don't have to develop for IE. Web devs are what caused IE6 hell and IE6 is long gone.
The funny thing is that if you develop for IE 11/Edge chances are pretty much everything is going to just work in everything else
>>51490716
Exactly.
you don't like $$$ because of what g/ says!! lol kek m8s. you wouldn't install windows 10 on a pc for $1k because of muh botnet and /g.
