Not that I'm pro microsoft, but if you're going to call a spade a spade, at least show the most up to date test results. IE9 is on Preview 6 now which undoubtedly scores better than the much earlier preview 4 release. They're clearly making strides with their hardware acceleration which is positively impacting all browser vendors who are now attempting to replicate that level of success speedwise on their own browsing platforms. When IE gets better, everyone wins. There's no reason to hate on them for advancing their archaic design especially when they have no intention of abandoning it and to do anything less than what they're doing now is to hold back the web from evolving.
.... IE9 is on Preview 6 now which undoubtedly scores better than the much earlier preview 4 release. ....
This is the only conclusion that you can draw. Any inferences about how the shipping version of IE 9 will perform are equal parts wishful thinking and nonsense.
I don't really understand Microsoft, if they want to support HTML5 why don't they do it properly?
Are they just confused as to where things are going and just clinging on to everything, but not really doing a great job at anything ether?
Sounds to me like Silverlight has had it's day and it's time to move on - well it didn't even have it's day did it?????? \
Divide and conquer.
If there are strong competitors/opposition fighting you is no good, you lose (or it costs way too much). Split the enemy and there are smaller competitors, easier to attack.
My favorite part of this article has to be where the acid test is called impartial and written by a Google employee!
The fact is the Microsoft tests are valid html5 tests which IE9 passes better than the others. At the same time the valid test written by a Google employee gets a higher pass by Chrome than IE. Doesn't take a genius to work out a companies developers will pass there own tests before others!
So none of the browsers are perfect, so what? HTML5 is not being finalised until 2020 so there's 10 more years before any browser can say its fully compliant.
If there are strong competitors/opposition fighting you is no good, you lose (or it costs way too much). Split the enemy and there are smaller competitors, easier to attack.
Back in the day, it was Embrace and Extend. However, it is an artifact of a bygone era. Microsoft no longer has the power to dictate which technology its customers will use and content providers absolutely must ensure that their content is accessible to non-Microsoft customers. How many content providers would be so stupid as to embrace Microsoft at the expense of the iPhone, iPad, Android, and MacOS X?
Microsoft can continue to play its little games. It will learn very quickly what is the sound of one hand clapping.
IE is pretty much struggling. Even many Windows users are switching to Firefox or Chrome.
That's in large part because of pages posting warnings about features not being available on their IE browser and giving them links to download compatible browsers. This has been big way that Google is getting Chrome out there ahead of Firefox, that & TV ads.
I'm going to predict now that Firefox will probably fade from the spotlight & Chrome will likely take the lead. WebKit will continue to be used as a foundation for many other browsers but I don't see Safari ever gaining on Chrome. I'm personally a Safari fan, but never opposed to trying something new & better. So far Chrome is not there yet, at least not on OS X.
My favorite part of this article has to be where the acid test is called impartial and written by a Google employee!
The fact is the Microsoft tests are valid html5 tests which IE9 passes better than the others. At the same time the valid test written by a Google employee gets a higher pass by Chrome than IE. Doesn't take a genius to work out a companies developers will pass there own tests before others!
So none of the browsers are perfect, so what? HTML5 is not being finalised until 2020 so there's 10 more years before any browser can say its fully compliant.
I think one of the objectives of the Acid tests is to see how well the browser handles poorly written non-compliant code. IE, although never really focused on compliance with HTML standards in the past was particularly strict about some css and html syntax which made it problematic. An example would be omission of a closing tag, although basically the coders fault, would cause IE to not render the page at all. Other browsers, especially Safari, are much more forgiving. Safari even displays CMYK jpgs which are clearly not standard for a web page. IE of course does not.
I think one of the objectives of the Acid tests is to see how well the browser handles poorly written non-compliant code. IE, although never really focused on compliance with HTML standards in the past was particularly strict about some css and html syntax which made it problematic. An example would be omission of a closing tag, although basically the coders fault, would cause IE to not render the page at all. Other browsers, especially Safari, are much more forgiving. Safari even displays CMYK jpgs which are clearly not standard for a web page. IE of course does not.
You have things backward in a number of ways. W3C-compliance is about encouraging Web-developers to write standard code and to encourage browser developers to develop browsers that properly handle standards-compliant HTML. It is not about encouraging browsers to render improperly crafted HTML. On the Internet Explorer front, again you have it backwards. IE was desinged to render improperly crafted HTML in certain predictable ways. One example of improperly crafted HTML was the omission of the closing tag. Web developers began to deliberately omit closing tags and other standard HTML requirements. The result was that these improperly-coded Web sites would display as intended in Internet Explorer, but not in other browsers.
Thank god for the W3C. Anyone can now run a W3C compliance test of any Web site. The three Acid tests--Acid1, Acid2, and Acid3--provide a quick and easy way for any user to measure the standards-compliance of any browser. This now makes is very difficult to defend non-standard HTML and browsers that don't meet W3C standards. Microsoft defenders continue to try, but it is a lost cause.
The company is now including support, albeit in a limited fashion.
Limited fashion? They have hardware acceleration for canvas and it's silky smooth. I'd say, it's the fastest canvas on the planet. Every canvas implementation does not support something here or there. However, IE9 is still in beta, so by the time it is officially released, it will surely support the remaining bits of canvas functionality. Though, by that time other browsers may include full hardware acceleration as well.
I've been an active hater of IE through all these years, but I have to say this: This is an incredible turnaround, achieved at a record-breaking pace, and IE9 rules. Never thought I'd say that.
Additionally, the test also completely ignores HTML5 features critical to real world web applications, such support for drag and drop, Web Workers, the File API, local storage, and CSS3 transforms and other animations.
Bullshit.
CSS3 transforms, transitions and animations are not critical to real world web applications. It would be nice to have them, but they're not critical. IE9 has perhaps the fastest implementation of canvas and inline SVG, and it really works, and that is what matters.
Lately I've implemented a rotating cube in canvas. IE9 was the fastest browser, hands down. Did not skip a frame. Jaw-dropping performance. Safari was okay, but I decided to re-write it with CSS3 TT&A to match and even exceed the smoothness of IE9. All the rest stayed on canvas implementation, since Chrome does not support CSS3 TT&A properly as of now. Wonder who was the bad boy? Firefox for Mac. Totally atrocious performance (while Firefox for Windows was okay).
Comments
Dance for us, Monkey Boy!
I'm enjoying watching *you* dance...
.... IE9 is on Preview 6 now which undoubtedly scores better than the much earlier preview 4 release. ....
This is the only conclusion that you can draw. Any inferences about how the shipping version of IE 9 will perform are equal parts wishful thinking and nonsense.
I don't really understand Microsoft, if they want to support HTML5 why don't they do it properly?
Are they just confused as to where things are going and just clinging on to everything, but not really doing a great job at anything ether?
Sounds to me like Silverlight has had it's day and it's time to move on - well it didn't even have it's day did it??????
Divide and conquer.
If there are strong competitors/opposition fighting you is no good, you lose (or it costs way too much). Split the enemy and there are smaller competitors, easier to attack.
The fact is the Microsoft tests are valid html5 tests which IE9 passes better than the others. At the same time the valid test written by a Google employee gets a higher pass by Chrome than IE. Doesn't take a genius to work out a companies developers will pass there own tests before others!
So none of the browsers are perfect, so what? HTML5 is not being finalised until 2020 so there's 10 more years before any browser can say its fully compliant.
Divide and conquer.
If there are strong competitors/opposition fighting you is no good, you lose (or it costs way too much). Split the enemy and there are smaller competitors, easier to attack.
Back in the day, it was Embrace and Extend. However, it is an artifact of a bygone era. Microsoft no longer has the power to dictate which technology its customers will use and content providers absolutely must ensure that their content is accessible to non-Microsoft customers. How many content providers would be so stupid as to embrace Microsoft at the expense of the iPhone, iPad, Android, and MacOS X?
Microsoft can continue to play its little games. It will learn very quickly what is the sound of one hand clapping.
IE is pretty much struggling. Even many Windows users are switching to Firefox or Chrome.
That's in large part because of pages posting warnings about features not being available on their IE browser and giving them links to download compatible browsers. This has been big way that Google is getting Chrome out there ahead of Firefox, that & TV ads.
I'm going to predict now that Firefox will probably fade from the spotlight & Chrome will likely take the lead. WebKit will continue to be used as a foundation for many other browsers but I don't see Safari ever gaining on Chrome. I'm personally a Safari fan, but never opposed to trying something new & better. So far Chrome is not there yet, at least not on OS X.
My favorite part of this article has to be where the acid test is called impartial and written by a Google employee!
The fact is the Microsoft tests are valid html5 tests which IE9 passes better than the others. At the same time the valid test written by a Google employee gets a higher pass by Chrome than IE. Doesn't take a genius to work out a companies developers will pass there own tests before others!
So none of the browsers are perfect, so what? HTML5 is not being finalised until 2020 so there's 10 more years before any browser can say its fully compliant.
I think one of the objectives of the Acid tests is to see how well the browser handles poorly written non-compliant code. IE, although never really focused on compliance with HTML standards in the past was particularly strict about some css and html syntax which made it problematic. An example would be omission of a closing tag, although basically the coders fault, would cause IE to not render the page at all. Other browsers, especially Safari, are much more forgiving. Safari even displays CMYK jpgs which are clearly not standard for a web page. IE of course does not.
I think one of the objectives of the Acid tests is to see how well the browser handles poorly written non-compliant code. IE, although never really focused on compliance with HTML standards in the past was particularly strict about some css and html syntax which made it problematic. An example would be omission of a closing tag, although basically the coders fault, would cause IE to not render the page at all. Other browsers, especially Safari, are much more forgiving. Safari even displays CMYK jpgs which are clearly not standard for a web page. IE of course does not.
You have things backward in a number of ways. W3C-compliance is about encouraging Web-developers to write standard code and to encourage browser developers to develop browsers that properly handle standards-compliant HTML. It is not about encouraging browsers to render improperly crafted HTML. On the Internet Explorer front, again you have it backwards. IE was desinged to render improperly crafted HTML in certain predictable ways. One example of improperly crafted HTML was the omission of the closing tag. Web developers began to deliberately omit closing tags and other standard HTML requirements. The result was that these improperly-coded Web sites would display as intended in Internet Explorer, but not in other browsers.
Thank god for the W3C. Anyone can now run a W3C compliance test of any Web site. The three Acid tests--Acid1, Acid2, and Acid3--provide a quick and easy way for any user to measure the standards-compliance of any browser. This now makes is very difficult to defend non-standard HTML and browsers that don't meet W3C standards. Microsoft defenders continue to try, but it is a lost cause.
The company is now including support, albeit in a limited fashion.
Limited fashion? They have hardware acceleration for canvas and it's silky smooth. I'd say, it's the fastest canvas on the planet. Every canvas implementation does not support something here or there. However, IE9 is still in beta, so by the time it is officially released, it will surely support the remaining bits of canvas functionality. Though, by that time other browsers may include full hardware acceleration as well.
I've been an active hater of IE through all these years, but I have to say this: This is an incredible turnaround, achieved at a record-breaking pace, and IE9 rules. Never thought I'd say that.
Additionally, the test also completely ignores HTML5 features critical to real world web applications, such support for drag and drop, Web Workers, the File API, local storage, and CSS3 transforms and other animations.
Bullshit.
CSS3 transforms, transitions and animations are not critical to real world web applications. It would be nice to have them, but they're not critical. IE9 has perhaps the fastest implementation of canvas and inline SVG, and it really works, and that is what matters.
Lately I've implemented a rotating cube in canvas. IE9 was the fastest browser, hands down. Did not skip a frame. Jaw-dropping performance. Safari was okay, but I decided to re-write it with CSS3 TT&A to match and even exceed the smoothness of IE9. All the rest stayed on canvas implementation, since Chrome does not support CSS3 TT&A properly as of now. Wonder who was the bad boy? Firefox for Mac. Totally atrocious performance (while Firefox for Windows was okay).