This is hilarious. Microsoft published this list, I guess, to shame the sites into getting fixed so as to use their latest browser. Not that being compatible with all other browsers except this one where — odd for MS — they changed the rules is all that bad, IMHO. And what do we find on that list? msn.com and other msn sites. For shame! The link has the full list.
In an effort to improve Web users’ compatibility experience, Microsoft added a new, user-selectable Compatibility List to the Release Candidate test version of IE 8 that the company released in January.
Microsoft describes the list — Version 1.0 of which includes 2,400 sites that don’t render properly in IE 8 (in other words, an “incompatibility list”) – as a tool designed to “make sure IE8 customers have a great experience with highly trafficked sites that have not yet fully accomodated IE8’s better implementation of web standards.”
So wait, Microsoft said that if they made their browser standards compliant it would break a bunch of web sites, and they were going to launch it with quirks modes, then use a tag to put it in standards compliance mode. The fosstard’o’sphere bitched to no end for years so Microsoft did what the fosstard’o’sphere asked and released it with standards mode by default and added a button to enable quirks mode.
And you guys are still bitching about it?
So really, it doesn’t matter what Microsoft does then does it? You guys are gonna bitch about it.
Being someone who makes websites for a living, it seems that I spend half my time bitching about microsofts shoddy browsers
#2,
Wow, way to grow up. It looks like the rest of the world has learned something you have not. The “web standards compliance” that you habitually bitch about, has turned out to not be a standard at all.
Man thats gotta hurt your ego some, that the web standards project basically failed until Microsoft got behind it.
No worries though;) I sure now that ie8 is out there and “web standards” compliant you will find something else to bitch about.
Standards are only good if everybody follows them. Best thing Microsoft could have done with IE7 was just to adopt to those standards and not play around. The sites that broke would soon be fixed. But instead they play around with adopting them even as IE8 is ready to come out. Its just like Digital TV, when are web sites just going to fix their sites and stop dragging their feet. Same goes to Microsoft and everyone else involved. Adapt the standard and make the web better. Then let people be able to use their favorite browser!
#2
“that the web standards project basicaly failed until Microsoft got behind it.”
failed until Microsoft got behind it?! Their browser is not compatible with their very own sites and somehow they improved the standards? Wow that must be some good Kool-Aid.
Yikes.
#5,
Um, I am looking at that list, and this is just a zdnet fosstard bitching again, because the fosstard’o’sphere likes their ABM link bait.
Right now without quirks mode, I looked at, maybe 20 of those web sites, and i quite frankly don’t see the problem. Im sure you could look through the list and find some render issues, but I am just not seeing them.
This fosstard blog post is like most fosstard blog posts, a lot of light, but not much heat.
And you guys fall for it every time… Going on a decade now.
fosstard
Definition, please.
# 7 Paul said, “fosstard Definition, please.”
Anyone who doesn’t think Vista is the best OS evah.
#1, “standards” mode by default would be great except that even IE8 has pretty crappy support for W3C standards in comparison to the competition.
#8,
I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it. Richard Stallman is a fosstard. KDawson of Slashdot and Digg fame is a fosstard.
Anyone who complained that ie7 was not “standards compliant”, but then complains that the now standards compliant ie8 breaks a bunch of websites is a fosstard.
Anyone who thinks that Microsoft adding a fix to their software so that people get a properly rendered webpage regardless of the code used on the webpage, is a fosstard.
Paddy-o is just a plain old retard, as defined by organic brain disease.
#9,
Anyone who thinks that Microsoft should support standards that are not actually part of the standard yet, and complains about that, is probably just a complainer. Although, if you were to complain that they did support those draft extensions to w3c, and now complain again that they have released a non-standards compliant browser, that probably makes you a fosstard.
@#7
Fosstard = Free Open Source Software – tard
An apparently derogatory poke at those that have put up with MS’s software and business practices for long enough and have/will seek alternatives in the free open source software world.
Personally, I don’t have much time for folks that would use such a word as they are typically complete fucking idiots because their minds are closed to alternative thinking.
#12,
If part of your alternative thinking includes the idea that charging money for software is unethical, not only are you a fosstard, but you are also a “complete fucking idiot”.
# 12 /T. said, “Fosstard = Free Open Source Software – tard”
So, my definition in #8 was pretty close…
I uninstall IE on all maintained Windows desktop and server systems, I compile web sites without IE formatting tags, I have an expressed security policy of making new clients uninstall IE before I will do business with them. And I prefer to use Windows.
#1 The point of this is that MS have finally made a standards compliant browser, fine, but even though it’s nearly ready, a lot of their own sites don’t even work with it. It’s like the left hand doen’t know what the right hand is doing, it’s comical.
@#13
/If part of your alternative thinking includes the idea that charging money for software is unethical, not only are you a fosstard, but you are also a “complete fucking idiot”./
I didn’t say (and don’t believe) charging money for software is unethical.
What I did say was that there are many that don’t agree with how MS conducts their affairs both in software development and in their business practices. Those having open minds, seek alternatives. FOSS is just one of the alternatives.
Try to be more open minded, you won’t miss as much.
or
Awesome trolling skills, Lad.
@#14 Paddy … Yup !!!
#16,
So what combination of things would have made you happy? I rather like this solution better than the meta tag idea. This way Microsoft gets both backwards compatibility and the standards compliance that at least 2500 of the worlds busiest web sites felt no obligation to support. So what exactly is the problem?
#17
“What I did say was that there are SOME that don’t agree with”
There, I fixed that for you. Even most linux users don’t care how other people go about their business. Most linux users tend to be libertarian. The vast majority of windows users Haven’t even begun to think about these issues. They have no problem. You are talking about a tiny subset of a tiny subset. I don’t think that group passes the muster for a “many” qualification.
For what it is worth, I feel the same way about a lot of modern art, people being different for different sake as a substitute for having actual artistic skills, and want an excuse to not be judged on their actual merit. Yeah, a lot of linux feels like modern art to me.
BTW, it takes a lot of fucking gall to parrot an apple advertising campaign then accuse me of drinking the fucking kool aid.
Paddy-o,
I volunteer in a group home a couple times a month. You would fit in there. You want me to see if I can get you a room?
#18 The problem is not their method of backwards compatibility, it is that MS should have got their sites’ act together long before even getting ready to release a standards compliant browser. You should not need any kind of compatibility mode to view an MS site in an MS browser, they should be the examples of the technology working properly.
#18, Greg,
I volunteer in a group home a couple times a month. …
Please, think of the other residents.
***
While I understand your position on Linux, I don’t agree. The problem is that there are way too many flavors and every programmer thinks their’s is the best. Linux needs someone like the Mozilla Foundation (Firefox and Thunderbird) or Sun and Open Office to take the lead. Until then there are just too many people just reinventing the wheel every day.
@#18
/BTW, it takes a lot of fucking gall to parrot an apple advertising campaign then accuse me of drinking the fucking kool aid./
Informing users of all alternatives is a good thing and folks should choose what’s best for them. If you find that’s part of the ad’s messages then, great.
I hadn’t read the word fosstard before today … in your post. Was it grape or orange ??
Peace, Man
Darn! My website didn’t make the list!
I would say that if I were MS and my web site wouldn’t run on my browser I’d fire somebody most likely the people that made the web site but what this means in most cases is that you hit compatibilty mode and then it runs.
The real question is does Firefox and other browsers handle more web sites better and the answer seems to be yes.
I dislike M$ more than most, but I respect their right to churn out crap as fast as they can. Fact is, I kinda enjoy it. Whatever they do, it won’t affect me in any way.
I do get a kick out of the blog comments though, some folks defend M$ as if it were their kid sister’s virginity, while others attack it with brutal ferocity. It’s way to big to be dealt with so lets hope their crap is at least good enough to keep the industry from sinking, alot of people are depending on it, and not just the folks at Redmond. Think of all the web deigner hours required to adapt all those pages that don’t comply with the IE8 ‘standard’. Truth is a lot more people are working in the industry thanks to the fact that M$ grinds out such crappy products. If they worked well, thousands of technicians would be out of work.
The only reason I keep IE7 on my Vista-Ultimate system is because a few sites I frequent don’t play nice with Firefox. I’ll upgrade to IE8 when a majority of sites work with it.
I went to some of these sites in Firefox; they seemed to work fine. I’m going to assume that they would work in Safari and Opera too. If so, Microsoft really screwed IE8 up. Almost any other browser has better “standards compliance” than IE, yet most will still handle pages written to take advantage of some IE quirks. It seems like Mozilla, Opera, and Apple reverse engineered IE bugs and made better browsers than the original. If you aren’t a big believer in web standards, we’re still left with “Microsoft is breaking backwards compatibility with IE8, but other browsers have added features without breaking websites.” And no matter what your position, IE8 having problems on msn.com is just pathetic!
It’ll be interesting how stable their standards mode is. It just adds to the giant testing matrix that e-commerce folks are stuck with.
If you’ve ever had to suffer through various versions of 6.x problems then you know what I mean. On the plus side it’s better than Netscape Communicator. 😀
#27,
Being in e-commerce, I will not worry about it either way. Is there anyone out there still developing their own web pages that way?
I am of the opinion that html and css are the assembly code and machine language of our time. In that, very few people actually write that bit of code anymore.
Thank you GregA, you’ve just given me an idea for a new product.
#20 – One of those rare cases where we agree. 😉
The Linux crowd is geared to propellerheads that will start a holy war about some underlying piece of code, completely forgetting that the OS is a supporting player, not the end-all, be-all. To the end user “standards” mean doing a given task, the same way on all machines. End-users don’t care about what software they are using, but how they are using it and what they are using it for.
It’s like a web designers in a flame war about the “proper” use of some obscure CSS element, that completely forget that markup is only there in the first place to format content. If your site has no useful content, the “standards” debate is moot.
Misplaced priorities.