Skip to main content

On why geeks dislike IE

You hear this everytime. Everyone who is uses the internet often has his own favourite browser. And geeks have all kinds of favourites, text editors, OS, desktop environment, et cetera. But more about that later.

I am narrating a story of arch-enemies that started around 1998. Microsoft bundled its crappy web browser with its relatively good OS. That meant that everyone who used the OS because it was good now used the crappy browser as well. This skewed all stats about browser usage. Suddenly, IE was the most used browser of them all.

One of the prerequisites of being a geek is that you need to be prepared to kill the person who criticizes your favourite (that you are not able to do the same is another story!). So, naturally, the enmity began.

Well, was IE all that bad? I don't think so. It was good to have a browser built into the OS. Moreover, IE innovated and is responsible for so many of the things that make up today's web, and which we take for granted. It was the first browser to implement Cascaded Style Sheets(CSS) that is such an important part of most websites today. It brought in dynamic HTML, Java applets, and AJAX. In short, all the expertise of the people who came up with the most used OS in the world was put in web browser development. In contrast, Netscape, which was the only competitor, would crash the moment it encountered CSS. But what went wrong?

I think the answer would be MS's complacency. When they bundled IE with Windows, they got close to 95% of the market share. Then they stopped innovating. For five years between IE6 and IE7, they did nothing! Then came Firefox, and people started switching left, right and centre.

The advent of Firefox meant another problem. Spurred on by their monopoly, MS had incorporated in IE, many specific features which did not conform with standards. Then suddenly, Firefox was there, following the standards exactly, and web developers were in a lot of trouble.

And many of the security and other bugs were left unattended, which meant that a simple script would crash the browser
<script> for(x in document.write){document.write(x);}</script>

IE7, which came out in 2006, it was way behind competition. Indeed, it barely had support for tabbed browsing, something which Firefox and Opera had from ages. And I have IE8, and still do not use it. Why? Because it fails in acid test 1 itself. In acid test 2, it passes, and in acid test 3, scores a mere 20/100, a massive fail. But these are geek stats. Let me put it in a more layman-ish manner. If I make a website, IE8 will not be able to display the website correctly, even if the website conforms to W3C rules. Take the example of my website. I spent days making it, tweaking the CSS till it looked perfect, cross checking with the W3C validator, to make sure that my website complied with standards, and even made the HTML5 version. Then I tried previewing it on various browsers. Firefox and Safari could not render the HTML5 version properly, but displayed the XHTML version correctly. Google Chrome could render both the HTML5 version and the XHTML version properly. Then I go into IE8. Surprise! My picture vanished, and I was left with the horrible looking "my pic" alternate text. Needless to say, my website looked woefully incomplete, and I had the feeling that I was viewing a page in lynx. Not only that, the browser was way too slow, and frankly, was pathetic. That was it! I would not touch IE with a twenty-foot pole now.

People are saying that IE9 is a good browser, and would give Chrome and Firefox a run for their money, and for the sake of a better web, I hope it is true. Microsoft claims that this browser shall change the world, I hope it does. It shall be a better web indeed, when MS too shall follow standards, and not hold the web back with their sickly nonconforming browsers.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On Harry Potter and why I dislike the series

There could not be a better time for this post. There could not have been a worse time for this post. Now that the penultimate movie of the series is out, and my facebook wall filled with people who loved the movie. But this is something I really wanted to say, and I shall say it anyway. Harry Potter is pathetic literature. Now, you must be wondering why I say that. There are many reasons. Firstly, the storyline itself is flawed. When a writer sits down to write anything, he/she must set up some essential rules about what is happening. These rules must remain constant irrespective of how many times he/she changes his/her mind. This is so that the readers are allowed to have some sensibility in what they are reading. In the fourth book, Rowling goes ahead and kills Cedric. Then, at the end of the book, the horseless carriages are there again. Nothing special. We all knew that they are horseless. But then comes the fifth book, and BAM, the horses are actually winged beasts that only thos
18 comments
Read more

On the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard

This is a post that I have been meaning to write from quite some time. Long hours spent typing code on my computer left my hands fatigued, and left me with a lot of pain in my wrists and fingers. That is when I decided to use the Dvorak. But I have got the same bad habit as Dr. Watson, to tell a story backwards. Of course, you must be wondering what the Dvorak is. The story of keyboards starts with the invention of the typewriter. Christopher Sholes, the inventor of the typewriter, tried with a two row piano style keyboard. But then, he got into many difficulties with the design. Then he finally settled for a four row design. This was similar to the QWERTY layout that most computers and typewriters today possess. The engineers at Remington, to whom Sholes had presented his design modified the layout a little further, and then the QWERTY was born. As typewriters became popular, people got used to the layout, and started practising touch typing, i.e. typing without looking at the keys
Post a Comment
Read more

The paradox of government

I'm fascinated by the concept of government, and the paradoxes it presents. On one hand, governments grant us a certain set of rights or liberties. On the other hand, they work to strip us of the very liberties they promise. Now, I don't mean that all governments strip people of liberties, but there are liberal regimes, and there are sufficiently restrictive and dictatorial ones. Both models may have results to show, it does not mean that people in a restrictive regime are unhappy (refer to Dan Dennett's TED talk , where he states that ideas or memes can be dangerous when taken from one part of the world, where they are widespread, and, using the virus analogy, where people are immune to the memes; to a part of the world where they are foreign, where people may not be immune to the memes and where people may get infected). History has shown that people were sufficiently satisfied with autocratic governments with a benevolent dictator, and that people in other parts of the
Post a Comment
Read more