So are the new ads nonsense or do people in the know about these things actually think that IE9 is competitive in ways its predecessors haven't been for ages?
I've stopped testing my stuff for IE compatibility a while ago. If it works in FF, Chrome and Safari and people complain about some IE weirdness I just shrug and tell them to not use IE. It's much easier to get away with that answer these days, mostly thanks to Chrome setting fire under everyone's ass. So to answer you question - don't know/care.
This site says the IE9 is better, but its no IE10. I'm running IE9 now and it seems just fine for when I want to wwebsite as on the internet.
IE9 is like IE8 and IE7 were: Much better than the version before it, but still not as good as Firefox or Chrome on release, and positively antiquated well before it's put to pasture. The fundamental problem isn't IE as such, it's the IE release model; the browser tends to be vaguely competitive when it first comes out, but instead of Microsoft iterating quickly to close the remaining gaps, they just let it sit there static for literally years. IE7 came out in 2006, and IE8 didn't replace it until 2009. And then IE9 didn't come out until 2011, and while IE10 should be somewhat faster, it's still going to be 18+ months (it's a year old this week). So when IE9 was released, Firefox 3.6 was the most current version, and IE9 wasn't that far behind it. But the huge Firefox 4 release, and then the minor-but-accumulating versions 5-11, have put current Firefox way ahead of IE. Similarly, Chrome 9 was the version in place when IE9 came out, and it's currently on version 17. Essentially, if Microsoft gets an advantage, Google and Mozilla close the gap within a few months. But when Google and Mozilla get an advantage, it takes Microsoft years to match it, if they ever do.
But the gap between IE9 and the competition is really quite small these days for practical purposes. Most websites don't need fast JavaScript or the latest HTML 5 features. IE9 serves quite well as a default web browser, the average user doesn't need to switch to another browser.
What kind of syncing does IE do between your computers? None? So you have to laboriously rebuild your history and saved passwords on every single machine you own? That sounds like a pretty big gap. And Chrome/Firefox both are significantly faster with Javascript/HTML5 apps. And have cleaner UIs (although IE9 is better than IE8 was and just ahead of FF 3.6, it's well behind modern Firefox or any Chrome ever). Dev tools are terrible, which doesn't matter to a lot of people, but does matter to web devs, which means that most sites are built in FF/Chrome and only reluctantly tested in IE. And anyway, a bunch of people have already moved off IE to something else. This campaign isn't trying to just stanch the bleeding of people leaving IE, it's trying to actively lure people back from Chrome/FF to IE, and IE9 is just not good enough for that.
Yes. Chrome remains notably more secure than any other browser. It did get a hack recently, but it was fixed almost instantly.
...for people who actually own multiple computers they want synchronized in that way. Doesn't actually sound like a big gap to me in any case. My iPad doesn't synchronize with my Windows computer, so what? I've yet to see a website where this is actually relevant. I'm not using Chrome but regarding Firefox that's nonsense. Both IE9 and FF11 have an unwieldy Frankenstein interface.
@ cnahr He compared IE9 to FF 3.6. I think. I dunno, that was a sort of unwieldy frankenstein sentence. Anyway, this is what FF3.6 looked like: Anyway, chrome's syncing is really handy for me. Work/Netbook/HomePC, three different OS and all have the same browser with the same stuff saved. Amazing. Plus I have a fourth computer I barely use with yet another OS. If I load it up, it'll be running chrome and thus up to date for my internets. That's hot. I wish I could put my iphone into that data stream, but no because Apple are assholes.
If you use Safari for windows and install the iCloud control panel, yes, the iPad can synch with your windows computer.
In one extremely important way, it's more secure. Specifically: scam/phishing/malware site screening. Whatever filter Microsoft is using is miles ahead of the competition. This is why I have my grandma using it instead of Chrome or Firefox. As far as exploits go, the two biggest security holes in IE9 are the same as in other browsers: Adobe Flash and Adobe Reader. Seriously. As far as IE9 goes, it's pretty excellent, though obviously updates have been made to the other browsers such that they're substantially more excellent now. IE10, however... Let's just say this: if they can get a couple minor bugs out of the way before release, and they probably will, I will seriously consider switching to it and not looking back. And yes, it feels extremely weird to say that.
FF11 and IE9 both have substantially the same underlying interface as older versions -- big hierarchical menus, lots of pop-up dialogs -- and then just slapped consecutive layers of shortcuts onto it. For example, both hide the menu bar by default now, but whenever I try to do something nontrivial I have to re-enable it so that I can find what I'm looking for.
How does IE9 compare with regards to addons vs. Chrome or Firefox? I use a fair number of addons with Firefox and would be loathe to give them up for a simply 'better' browser. Chris, thanks for that -- do you have any specific examples that come to mind where IE9 and Firefox fall down in terms of interface where Chrome (or another browser) work better?
Not really, as I'm not using Chrome. Mobile Safari is much cleaner but also much simpler in terms of functionality, so it's not a fair comparison.
Depends on the addon, but you may well be screwed on the point. On the positive side, IE9 actually has smooth scrolling. That's the main thing keeping me from switching from Chrome to Firefox right now; Chrome has an extension that makes smooth scrolling that works, whereas Firefox has a plugin that eats CPU and doesn't really make things very smooth.
Isn't that the entire security thing with Chrome? It can natively render PDFs and keeps its own version of Flash auto-updated?
Hardee's/Carl's Jr did it before Domino's! That was a great, weird ad campaign, with them just flat out apologizing for serving shitty food and begging people to give them a try. Admittedly, I'd rather eat a pre-owned Hardee's Frisco Burger before any given Domino's pizza, so I guess Domino's had more of a reason. Oh, also I use IE at work. We're on a Citrix client thing, so I pretty much can't use anything else cos my IT people would flip. It's not a pleasant browsing experience, but it works. Microsoft, if you want that to be your new motto I am A-ok with that. I just want one of each of any merchandise you make based on it! Edit: Looks like the article addresses my situation. MS targeted my business and now our IT people don't realize anything else exists. I'd much rather use Chrome. Or Firefox. Or Mosaic. Or a Domino's pizza.
This is where Chrome is more secure: It sandboxes Flash so that a Flash exploit is contained, and the malware can't run arbitrary code on your system. And it uses its own PDF renderer, which is a lot more pleasant to use than the Reader plugin.
Here's a few: 1. Handling keyword searches where, say "wp monkey" will give you the Wikipedia page for monkeys. In Chrome, these are added automatically as you use them, and to change the abbreviation, you just right click on the URL bar and select "Edit Search Engines." In Firefox, you have to go into your Bookmarks, open up a cumbersome Bookmark Manager that opens in a separate window, and know the magic syntax to put in a keyword search, since there's no indication in the UI that it's even possible. In IE, you can't do it at all. 2. Seeing your downloaded files. In Chrome, you click on the wrench, and click "Downloads," and you are taken to a page that shows all your downloads. In Firefox, you click on the Firefox menu, click "Downloads" and get a popup that lists all your downloads. In IE... okay, seriously, can you not do this in IE? 3. Let's say you want to make your default font size bigger. In Chrome, you click the wrench menu, choose options, type "font size" into the search box, and select "Large" instead of "Medium" from the drop-down menu that comes up. (You could also click on "Under the Hood" and select it there, but the searchable options stuff is super-awesome.) In Firefox, you click on the Firefox menu, choose "Options", go to the "Content" tab, and choose a new font size in the dropdown there. In IE, you have to hit the Alt key to make visible the regular drop-down menus, go to the Tools menu, choose Internet options, on the General tab click the Fonts button, and... WHAT THE FUCK, IE. You can't do this at all? Am I just missing something? Okay, so I was making these up on the fly, as examples of random typical things you might do that would involve interacting with the options/menus. I knew the first one wouldn't work in IE, but the other two, I actually did expect to. Anyway, the upshot is that Chrome's capabilities/options are all contained in a very unified, searchable UI; Firefox's are accessibile from a central menu, but often end up bringing up dialog boxes with their own crufty UI, because the simplicity isn't baked all the way through; and in IE to do literally anything at all you have to bring up drop-down menus that open up the same dialog boxes that have been there since IE4, and it turns out probably you can't do it anyway. Contra Nahr, Firefox's UI is a lot cleaner than IE, and you almost never need to bring up the old-school popup menus; but Chrome is better than both of them, because its simplicity/elegance is bone-deep and you never find yourself stumbling into some UI relic from 2002.
Actually, that was an undocumented feature in IE as far back as IE6, though you had to use TweakUI or edit the registry to use it. I've been meaning to look into that for IE9/10. I'll report back with my findings.
To change the font size in IE, just hold down CTRL and scroll the mouse wheel. It changes it on the fly. It's the same with most MS apps, like Visual Studio is the same.
Update on IE search prefixes: they still work! Make a key in HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\SearchUrl\ named to the prefix you want to use, and set the (Default) value to the search URL with %s replacing the search term. So, if you want to be able to search Wikipedia with "wp whatever", you'd make HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\SearchUrl\wp and then, on the right, set (Default) to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%s&go=Go" (sans quotes). It's kludgy, but it works. I'll see if there's more you can do with SearchUrl and maybe build a small program to manage it, if people care.
That's a different thing, though, as it affects everything. The default font size only affects content whose size isn't specified by CSS. It's effectively setting what your default CSS rule is for when a page doesn't override it, just as selecting your default font affects the font that appears when a site doesn't override it.
What purpose could changing the size of some of the text have? Besides checking your own webpages to see if you forgot to specify a size in CSS...
Some pages out there set their sizes relative to the user-defined default, with percentages (and I think ems drive off the default too?). But to be clear, I don't actually think this is critical functionality, and I doubt I'd even notice if they took it out. I was just using it as an example of a common option setting that you can change, and illustrating how you get to that setting. If you wanted to change the default font typeface instead, that is supported and the path I used to get there will work in all the browsers.
Yeah, it's kinda bullshit that this functionality isn't accessible in some straightforward way. That being said, my grandma wouldn't ever need this and, if she did, almost certainly would never get the hang of search prefixes anyway.
But if people are using CSS correctly, changing that default does nothing. Right? Better to use the Ctrl options mentioned up thread to magnify everything, then it'll have large text with everything in proportion as designed.
This has been a bit of a myth that's gone on for too long. Internet Explorer 7 on Vista was the most secure browser around, it wasn't until Chrome that anything topped it. Internet Explorer has been more secure than Firefox since 2006 with both sandboxing and better phishing filtering. Anyone who switched to Firefox for security reasons was thoroughly conned. Since IE9 I'd say your browser choice really comes down to which set of interface quirks you like more than anything. IE has the best phishing protection, Chrome has the best security model, Firefox has the widest range of add-ons, Safari... because you're using OSX. I use Chrome because I value the sandbox, silent updating (would still rather have a service though) and I like the interface. Of the three, I'd say it's Firefox and not IE which is proving to be plodding. They've been working on tab isolation since forever, while IE got this in version 8 and Chrome took this even further. Are they even using integrity levels yet or full ASLR support? There's a reason that plug-ins are your real vulnerability, not the browser. Unless you run Firefox.
