The Things Internet Explorer Got Right

The Things Internet Explorer Got Right

It’s the browser that everyone loves to hate—sometimes justifiably so. What was once the most innovative browser became the thorn in every front-end developer’s side. Amidst the turmoil and complaints today’s developers throw at Internet Explorer, what’s often not heard is how Microsoft changed the face of not only front-end development, but web development as a whole.

IE’s fall is not an uncommon story; in fact, it’s somewhat the same story as Netscape. The company behind the leading browser grows complacent, the browser stagnates, and a new champion arises. It’s a repetitive cycle, one that Mozilla faces again to some extent (but that’s another story for another time).


IE4’s Influence on the DOM

Prior to the version 4 browsers, JavaScript was primarily used for simple data processing (form validation). As such, web pages were primarily static. While a page could be dynamically generated by server-side applications, the page could not interact with the user. This limitation existed because of the browser’s inadequate Document Object Model (DOM), which is the application programming interface (API) JavaScript developers use to access and manipulate individual elements in the page. The DOM that existed prior to the version 4 browsers is frequently referred to as DOM Level 0. DOM Level 0 implementations allow developers access to <form/>, <a/>, and <img/> elements, but that’s about it.

“Microsoft is getting Internet Explorer back on track.”

Netscape Navigator 4

It wasn’t until Netscape released Navigator 4 (NS4) in mid-1997 that a browser’s DOM allowed web developers to alter a page with JavaScript. The technique of manipulating elements with JavaScript and the DOM was dubbed Dynamic HTML (DHTML). NS4’s DHTML was certainly a step forward, but its proprietary and ill-designed layer-based DOM and limited Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) support restricted developers in what they could actually accomplish.

Accessing Elements

Netscape did not implement a full object model. Aside from DOM Level 0 functionality, the only elements a developer could access were absolutely positioned elements, <layer/> elements, and <ilayer/> elements (the latter two elements were de facto positioned). Each of these types of elements were represented by a Layer object in NS4’s DOM. Netscape designed Layer objects to be very similar to frame (and thus window) objects. Each Layer object had a document property, which basically was another HTML document. Like frames, a Layer object could be nested in another Layer object, making code to access those layers extremely verbose like the following:

var myLayer1 = document.layers["myLayerId"].document.layers["mySecondLayerId"];
// or
var myLayer2 = document.myLayerId.document.mySecondLayerId;

These two lines of code do the same thing: they access the Layer object with an id of mySecondLayerId that is nested within a layer with an id of myLayerId. Yes, developers had to walk down the layer "tree" in order to access nested layers.

Dynamic Content

NS4’s DOM did not allow for the creation, insertion, relocation, and removal of DOM objects, but because each layer exposed a document object, a developer could dynamically change a layer’s content by using the write(), load(), and close() methods. While this gives some extra power to the layer model, it restricted developers in how they could dynamically update a page. New content would have to be written or loaded into a layer, effectively removing the layer’s existing content. Needless to say, most developers avoided content manipulation and instead focused on changing a layer’s style.

Changing Style

Web development using NS4’s DOM was painful and frustrating.

But style in NS4’s DOM was a funny thing. While the browser supported CSS to some degree, Layer objects did not provide an API for developers to directly access a layer’s style attribute like today’s style object. Instead, Layer objects exposed a very limited set of properties that altered a layer’s position, visibility, clipping, and background color/image—nothing else, and the value these properties accepted were also quite limited. For example, the positioning and clipping properties only accepted numeric values; a developer could not specify a unit (such as px, em, pt, etc). An example of such code follows:

var myLayer = document.myLayerId.document.mySubLayerId;
myLayer.top = 10;

Needless to say, web development using NS4’s DOM was painful and frustrating. NS4’s extremely limited DHTML capabilities stem from the limitations of NS4’s rendering engine (it could not reflow the page). But why spend so much time on Netscape’s DOM, especially in an article that’s supposed to be about IE? Had Netscape won the browser war, today’s DOM would be an evolutionary step from the DOM presented by Netscape in NS4. While today’s DOM is a standard put forth by the W3C (and some Netscape ideas are implemented in today’s standard), today’s DOM is heavily influenced by IE4’s DOM.

IE4’s DOM

Just a few months after Netscape released Navigator 4, Microsoft released the fourth version of IE. It, too, included support for DHTML, but Microsoft’s implementation was far different and superior to NS4. IE4 boasted much better CSS support and a more complete object model to access and manipulate elements and content in the page. The effect of IE4’s DOM was far reaching; in fact, a developer can find many similarities between IE4’s DOM and the standard DOM.

Accessing Elements

“Microsoft changed the face of not only front-end development, but web development as a whole…”

IE4’s designers wanted to turn the browser into a platform for Web applications. So they approached IE4’s API like an operating system’s—providing a near complete object model that represented each element (and an element’s attributes) as an object that could be accessed with a scripting language (IE4 supported both JavaScript and VBScript).

In IE4’s DOM, the primary means of accessing a particular element in the page was the proprietary all[] collection, which contained every element in the document. Developers could access elements with a numerical index or by specifying an element’s id or name, like this:

var myElement1 = document.all["myElementId"];
// or
var myElement2 = document.all.myElementId;

Using this code, developers could access the element object with an id of myElementId regardless of where it existed within the page. This is in stark contrast to Netscape’s layer model in which developers could only access layers through the layer’s hierarchy. The functionality of document.all["elementId"] evolved into the standard document.getElementById() method. But this wasn’t the only way a developer could access elements; one could walk the DOM tree and touch each element with the children[] collection and parentElement property—forerunners to the standard childNodes[] and parentNode properties.

In addition to loading elements as objects, IE4’s DOM represented an element’s attributes as properties of the element object. For example, the id, name, and style properties mapped directly to an element’s id, name, and style attributes, respectively. This design became standard.

Dynamic Content

Microsoft invented the innerHTML property.

Like Netscape, Microsoft did not provide a full-fledged API to dynamically add, move, and remove nodes with JavaScript. They did, however, invent the innerHTML property to get or set an element’s content. Unlike Netscape’s Layer object’s write() and load() methods, the innerHTML property was not an all-or-nothing solution to modifying an element’s content; a developer could use innerHTML to completely wipe out, replace, or add to an element’s content. For example, the following code gets an element’s content and modifies it:

var el = document.all.myElementId,
    html = el.innerHTML;

el.innerHTML = html + "Hello, innerHTML";

To this day, the innerHTML property is a cornerstone of DHTML. It is an efficient means to adding large amounts of content to an element. Even though it has never formally been included in any DOM standard, every major browser implements an innerHTML property.

Modifying Style

Microsoft invented several tools and designs that evolved into pieces of the standard DOM, but the work they did with IE4’s style API became standard with very little modification. The key to changing an element’s style in IE4 was the style property, the same property (and syntax) used by developers today.

DHTML changed web development forever. It was, however, IE4’s DOM that pushed the technology (and web development) forward by being the primary influence on the W3C’s DOM Level 1 and 2 specification. IE4 revolutionized web development in 1997, and IE would do so again a few years later.


IE Revolutionizes Ajax

Ajax blew the doors open for web development.

Before Ajax was Ajax, it was called remote scripting, and developers leveraging the power of remote scripting used hidden frames and iframes for client-server communication. A hidden (i)frame usually contained a form that was dynamically filled out and submitted through JavaScript. The server’s response would be another HTML document containing JavaScript that notified the main page that data was received and ready to use. It was crude, but it worked.

There was an alternative, however: a little known gem buried in Microsoft’s MSXML 2.0 library. IE5, released in March 1999, included MSXML 2.0, and developers found a component called XMLHttp (the actual interface name was IXMLHTTPRequest). Its name is misleading, as the XMLHttp object functions more like a simple HTTP client than anything else. Not only could developers send requests with the object, but they could monitor the requests’s status and retrieve the server’s response.

Naturally, XMLHttp began to replace the hidden (i)frame technique for client-server communication. A couple of years later, Mozilla created their own object, modeled after Microsoft’s XMLHttp, and called it XMLHttpRequest. Apple followed suit with their XMLHttpRequest object in 2004, and Opera implemented the object in 2005.

Despite its growing interest, the popularity of XMLHttp/XMLHttpRequest (collectively known as XHR here on out) didn’t explode until 2005 when Jesse James Garrett published his article, “Ajax: a New Approach to Web Applications.”

Ajax blew the doors open for web development, and at the forefront was JavaScript, XHR, and DHTML—two of which were Microsoft’s inventions. So what happened? What caused a browser that literally changed how web developers write web applications to become the bane of the modern Web?


Internet Explorer’s Fall

By 2003, Internet Explorer’s total market share was around 95%; Microsoft officially won the browser war. With no real competition in the Web space, Microsoft shifted their focus from the browser to .NET. This is confirmed by quotes from many Microsoft employees, but the most telling is from a CNET article entitled “Will Ajax help Google clean up?” In it, Charles Fitzgerald, Microsoft’s general manager for platform technologies, was quoted as saying:

“It’s a little depressing that developers are just now wrapping their heads around these things we shipped in the late 20th century [ed: DHTML and Ajax], but XAML is in a whole other class. This other stuff is very kludgy, very hard to debug. We’ve seen some pretty impressive hacks, but if you look at what XAML starts to solve, it’s a major, major step up.”

So in May 2003, Microsoft announced that IE would no longer be released separately from Windows (the excellent IE5 for Mac was also canned). The browser would still be developed as part of the evolving Windows operating system, but Microsoft would not release any stand-alone versions of IE. They were betting primarily on ClickOnce, a technology that allows developers to write conventional applications (using .NET of course) and distribute them via the Web.

But the Web continued to evolve in the path Microsoft originally set with IE4 and IE5, and Microsoft started to lose market share to Netscape’s heir: Firefox. Developers were writing web applications that lived in the browser, not in conventional applications via ClickOnce. That forced Microsoft to pick up IE, dust it off, and begin releasing stand-alone versions again.


Microsoft Continues to Innovate

IE9, includes much better standards support across the board.

The next two versions, 7 and 8, were largely evolutionary. IE7 contained a variety of bug fixes, the XMLHttpRequest identifier (although it still created an XMLHttp object from the MSXML library), and improvements to the UI and security.

IE8 was largely more of the same, except it sandboxed each tab—a feature that Google also implemented in Chrome (Microsoft announced it first). It isolates each tab in its own process, increasing security and stability. Sandboxing is becoming standard in today’s browsers (Firefox still lacks the capability), and it’s also moving into the realm of add-ons and plug-ins.

Microsoft is getting Internet Explorer back on track.

The latest version, IE9, includes much better standards support across the board, but it also innovates with its new JIT-compiling JavaScript engine (which uses a separate CPU core if available and can access the GPU) and its hardware-accelerated rendering engine. While JIT-compiling JavaScript engines are not new, IE9’s ability to offload compilation onto a separate core in parallel to the page rendering is an accomplishment that will spur on much needed performance for web applications. Its hardware-acceleration abilities proved useful when debuted, and now Firefox and Chrome offer hardware-acceleration to some extent.

There is no denying that Internet Explorer has caused headaches for web developers. The five year lull between IE6 and IE7 caused Microsoft to fall way behind the competition, making front-end development less than ideal. But Microsoft is getting Internet Explorer back on track. They shaped web development to what it is today; here’s hoping they do so again.

The next version of Internet Explorer, version 9, is scheduled to be officially released March 14th, 2011.

Jeremy McPeak is jwmcpeak on Codecanyon
Tags: microsoft
Note: Want to add some source code? Type <pre><code> before it and </code></pre> after it. Find out more
  • http://dinhkhanh.info Tran Dinh Khanh

    Today, Mar 14th, it’s still RC.
    I never use IE again :D

  • Brian

    I think it’s good that Microsoft is getting the idea that they can’t neglect IE any longer. It was bad enough with 7, and 8 started along the right track, and I have high hopes for 9. My problem is, because many users still cling to old versions for one reason or another, I still have to deal with the headaches of debugging a website or application in seven different browsers now. That isn’t to say Microsoft isn’t at fault for people sticking to old browsers, I’m just saying that a problem was created and it is extremely difficult to clean up so we all have to work around it.

    And just for the sake of listing them, the browsers are Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari, IE 9, 8, and 7. I exclude IE 6 simply because it is on a decline and the last adopters seem to not be in my target audience.

    • http://www.jeffrey-way.com Jeffrey Way

      But to what extent should Microsoft be held responsible for companies clinging to IE6? The browser was state-of-the-art when it was released a decade ago.

      It’s like me faulting Atari because it doesn’t allow for HD graphics. :)

      • Brian

        Which is why I stated clearly, “That isn’t to say Microsoft isn’t at fault for people sticking to old browsers, I’m just saying that a problem was created and it is extremely difficult to clean up so we all have to work around it.”

        I’m not saying they aren’t trying or doing a good job with IE 9, I’m just saying a beast was created and it’s still being dealt with. I am going to upgrade my wife’s computer to IE 9 as soon as I see it’s available as a non-RC, and I will still tell everyone who prefers IE to at least be at the latest version. But my trust in Microsoft has not been restored enough to use it as my personal OS of choice. My wife uses it because it’s what she’s used to and not interested in changing. It will take a lot for me to look at anything Microsoft puts out as a candidate for primary use. They are doing good, and I can openly and easily admit they are making some major leaps and bounds in the right direction. My problem is these steps are long overdue. Maybe I’m pessimistic and nothing they do will be good enough, maybe not.

      • http://www.ssiddharth.com Siddharth

        Why would you fault Atari, you heathen?

      • Josh

        My company still uses IE6, but that’s because there is lots of software out there that just doesn’t work with newer versions without a huge upgrade (which costs lots of extra money) such as Hyperion BI, Cognos, Deltek Costpoint, etc.

      • http://www.wesbos.com Wes Bos

        You can’t blame them for IE6, it was 10 years ago and they would love for companies to move off of it. However, I do think that they should be responsible for making it super easy to upgrade. Have you ever upgraded chrome? I just found out that chrome upgrades in the background and installs when you reboot the browser. Browser versions are old thinking, iterative point releases should be pushed out weekly.

      • Danilo

        With Microsoft installing this website http://www.ie6countdown.com/, I finally have a real argument towards clients to drop IE6 support and urge them to think about updating.

      • Ram

        It is also because of the prevalence of Windows XP, which has IE6 as default browser, especially in developing nations.

      • noname

        lol, that is a good one)))

      • http://tomhermans.com Tom Hermans

        How come FF, chrome, et. all ask their users on a periodic basis to upgrade their software ?

        They at least could’ve done that.. Or PUSH the updates more..
        MS is indeed not *alone* responsible for ppl and companies clinging on, but they didn’t do much either to set it straight.. Also, IE7 and 8 were no great tools either..

      • John

        The statement about microsoft not being responsible for companies keeping IE6 for years is WRONG, WRONG AND WRONG !

        -> Microsoft keeps supporting this shit and that’s why companies stay on IE6. Microsoft doesn’t have the balls to say : hey guys with fucked up, support for IE6 will end up at the end of the year, let’s move on and forget this version. They should have done it !

      • http://www.wdonline.com/ Jeremy McPeak
        Author

        @John,

        It’s not wrong. Companies stay on IE6 because the software they use (which they’re heavily invested in) depends upon IE6. In the world of business, you don’t just switch to a different software package. The cost of doing so is huge, and it’s only done if there is no other solution.

    • badOedipus

      There are several new browsers in development now that look to really take flight due to their tight integrations with social networking. For instance one of the front runners I’ve been following is rockmelt. You should check them out. It appears very similar in construction to chrome; sandboxed tabs, iterative pushes of updates, supports chromium apps, etc. It does appear to support a lot of the sites that you have to jump back to FF for when browsing in Chrome though. :D

      • http://toddish.co.uk Todd

        What sites do you have to jump back to FF for when browsing in Chrome?

  • http://www.johnejohnson.org John Johnson

    Wow! What an informative post. Thanks for the break-down Jeremy.

  • Eastern Block

    Great post. Microsoft gets a lot of crap, a lot of it is warranted, but a fair amount of people do it because it’s the cool thing to do.

    • http://www.jeffrey-way.com Jeffrey Way

      I agree 100%.

      • http://zdesignstudios.com JP

        I second that!!!

      • Devin

        I also agree 100%. Microsoft has started some great ideas in the past. Truth be told, many css3 features were capable in very early versions of IE. Yes we had to write the css in a very cumbersome syntax but the point is that Microsoft did start the ball rolling.

        That said..
        IE can also be a major pain in the ass. I, like everybody else, will be SO HAPPY when ie9 roles out and becomes well adopted. I think that it is fair to remain sceptically optimistic in regards to ie9.

        Great post!

    • w1sh

      And maybe just a lot of it is warranted? How can you be that large of a monopoly and not have a decent browser in 2011? IE9 is missing soooo many basic features. Outlook 2007 took steps BACK.

      You guys are all getting behind Gates for being an awesome philanthropist, but you’re failing to realize IE still sucks.

      And I agree that a decade ago IE4,5,6 were good, and that we shouldn’t hold it against Microsoft because stupid old companies use them, but IE9 sucks so much I don’t see how anyone could think defending it was a good idea for a post.

      Controversy for hits. Y’all is scandalous.

      • Eastern Block

        I think the point isn’t about creating controversy and it was more of a retrospective look on the history of IE and how it innovated web browsing…

        document.getElementById(“box”) and XMLHttpRequest

        … are more innovative than,

        -moz-box-shadow: 10px 5px 5px black; and -webkit-transition: all .2s ease-in-out;

        … which will one day be a huge pain in the butt when they’ll be like 8-tracks rumbling around the floor of our cars.

        Also, Outlook 2010 is awesome.

      • http://www.wdonline.com/ Jeremy McPeak
        Author

        I’m curious as to what basic features IE9 is missing. And the article is only controversial to those with blind hatred for Microsoft and/or Internet Explorer.

      • http://shaneparkerphoto.com Shane Parker

        [quote]And the article is only controversial to those with blind hatred for Microsoft and/or Internet Explorer. – Jeremy McPeak[/quote]

        Gee, what a fair and balanced author. Because some of us haven’t forgotten the cold shoulder that we have received from Microsoft for a decade and the FORCED advancement of IE because of other browsers who kept the industry moving forward, we’re blind loyalists. The author clearly isn’t. (groan)

        As far as browser innovations, you gotta be kidding me that other browser have not innovated:

        - Tabbed Browsing (Opera and Firefox)
        - Sessions (Opera)
        - Popup Blocking (Opera)
        - Full page zooming (Opera)
        - Mouse Gestures (Opera)
        - Creating the largest addon community in the world (Firefox)
        - Spell Checking (Firefox)
        - Privacy and Security with form/password management and private browsing (Firefox and Opera)
        - The list goes on…

        Just because we do not agree with some of your assertions does not make us blind loyalists. I’m as happy as the next developer that IE has FINALLY been forced into dev standards which will make thousands of developers jobs far easier in the years to come. That does NOT mean that we now have to bow down to IE. I’ll repeat it again and again, we do not have that short of memory. IE9 is a “me too” browser that should have been released years ago. With FF4 on the way and the success of Chrome, IE9 will be another forgettable attempt to be nearly competitive with the competition.

      • http://www.jeffrey-way.com Jeffrey Way

        I don’t think anyone is denying the fact that Microsoft really dropped the ball. But this article is merely noting that, though this is true, they’re also the reason behind some of the greatest advancements in the industry.

      • http://shaneparkerphoto.com Shane Parker

        Jeffrey, my emotions are primarily stemming from the idea that I’m somehow a fanboy or that I don’t have a valid point because I didn’t agree with some of the authors points. The article is fine, it’s more these comments that are driving my conversation.

        I still do not agree with the notion that “They shaped web development to what it is today.” Sure, they shaped web development up to IE6, but then dropped the ball, IMO. The whole look and feel of modern web design is standards driven. That concept was piloted by every other browser that came after IE6–IE7 and 8 certainly didn’t innovate on the standards front. Heck, the whole atmosphere of web development over the last, at least, 5 years has been standards driven. Here we are in 2011 and IE’s _first_ standards compliant web browser is still RC. I’m sorry, I just can’t applaud where they’ve come from, where they are, and the juries still out on where they’re headed.

        Standards should keep the vendors in line. Innovation should be submitted to that standard, not moved around it. Luckily, IE’s market share is no longer in a place where they can move around the standard without contributing to it. That’s what drives me nuts about MS/IE; if they would not have lost market share, they would have been completely fine continuing to turn out insecure, non-standards compliant browsers, one after the other and we’d still be stuck developing for every_single_one separately, today.

        Don’t get me wrong, I am giddy at the idea of having standards-based browsers across the board. I’m just not giddy about MS or IE after a decade of feeling like my voice was completely ignored by MS.

      • Eastern Block

        Are we comparing spell checking to Ajax in terms of innovation? I mean… I have a dictionary.

      • http://shaneparkerphoto.com Shane Parker

        Great job, you picked one small thing out of a long list of innovations (which in and of itself isn’t anywhere near a comprehensive list of browser innovations that IE had no part of).

        Didn’t I already tell you that I’m no longer responding to your childish comments? Thanks for your valuable contribution though.

      • Eastern Block

        Never saying never I see.

      • http://www.devzor.com/ Gjore Sazdovski

        Excuse me but, what the…?

        1. STANDARDS? How can all of you call a “Working Draft” a STANDARD!?
        2. Microsoft maybe will always have the less-shiny browser on the market, but they did, and I sure they will again, have MOST-INFLUENCED the face of the web. Do NOT compare browser-innovations with web-innovations. (@ Shane Parker).

        I can’t understand how many of you can compare CSS3 “standards” and “innovations” with DOM and XMLHttpRequest !?

        What? border-radius changed the face of the modern web? Now what is that company that created that browser, and invented rounded borders and box shadows? You could do those rounded borders, shiny fonts, and jaw-dropping looks decades ago! You just had to learn that oh so complicated photoshop slicing huh?

        DOM and XMLHttpRequest, THAT is the face of the modern web, period.

        CSS3 and –most– of HTML5 is just making it easier to do something, which you could’ve done years ago, you just had to learn a few new tricks, or implement flash here and there.

        Thumbs up for that!

        But you have no right to blame a company that gave your websites NEW features, for not making it EASIER for you to implement features that have been there for a decade.

        Now here is my point of view on the web overall:

        CUSTOMERS: It’s their OWN, personal decision which browser they are going to use. Whether they are going to take the tabbed browser with addons and stuff, or just a plain old “address-bar and nothing else” browser, it’s up to THEM. They are responsible for their own decision! If they use a 10 years old browser that’s slow and insecure, and many websites don’t work on it, compared to the yesterday-released browsers, they will suffer the consequences.

        PUBLISHERS: Here’s where the game starts. If you want your website to be running on everything, warm up that chair and start working, believe me you can do it in most of the cases. It’s your benefit to give your customers the freedom to make their choice between browsers. If you don’t want to support something, just let your customers know. If they want your content really bad they’re going to upgrade/change.

        We have come to a point where browsers are like an operating system to the web-application you are creating. Yes, they use the same language, but they can NOT and never will have 1:1 same methods of achieving something. There will always be one browser giving you an easier version of something that another browser makes it harder for you to do.

        WE are the web-developers, WE should be focused on our APPLICATIONS, building better, more powerful applications! WE have more benefit from NEW features we can add to our applications, than the simplifying of the features already there. CHEER when work becomes easier to support a wide range of browsers! Make your own decisions on whether your creation will work on this or that browser, and let your users know about it. Educate them and tell them to upgrade if you wish.

        Please, stop wasting your valuable time on blaming a widely-used browser that you decided to support, your own decision, for not making it easier for you to do so. It’s like blaming the PlayStation2 users for not being able to buy your PlayStation3 game because you’d have to do more work to make it available on ps2 than it actually took you to create the whole game.

        My personal decision for the devZor network, my current project, was to not support IE6. Not because of the work included, but because the market I’m targeting has almost no IE6 included in the graphs.

        And I’m not a ms fan-boy, or whatever you call them. I’m using OS X, and FireFox, which best suit my needs, but I still have RESPECT to great innovations to the WEB, and separated from that entirely, great innovations to the BROWSERS :)

      • Eastern Block

        Gjore Sazdovski,

        That was beautiful.

  • http://3birdnest.com/ Dan Leatherman

    Sure they’ve done great things in the past, and IE9 is maybe a step in the right direction but the success of IE should be measured in iteration time moving forward.

  • http://www.siamcomm.com Eric

    I’m not sure you can single out the failures of one company and say they had more of an impact than any of the other players did.

    I certainly think it was a good, and a fair call to include the Netscape aspect in this story. That really set’s the whole story in the correct light. Many, including MS have tried, and made mistakes. But these steps are all part of the journey to getting us (developers and casual users alike) where we should have been ages ago.

    I applaud the likes of companies that are still working towards standard(s) in such a volatile environment. It is not an easy task and you never know what side of the fence you will end up on.

    All this said, a very good article and well worth all of the consideration put into it.

    Cheers.

  • http://www.ferdychristant.com Ferdy

    Good article, and I definitely agree that Microsoft has made great contributions to the web community. Having said that, most people care not much about such historic lessons. For most of us, the facts that remains is that IE 7,8 and 9 each are a step forward, yet also one or more steps behind the competition. So the situation remains, IE continues to play catch up and the fallback is on IE, always the lesser browser in recent times, even with IE9.

    I really do hope that Microsoft continues to make these steps forward but also hope that they at least match the progress of the competition. For that to happen it requires coninuous focus. It also requires auto-updating browsers. Nobody ever considers Firefox 2, because allmost all FF users are on the latest version. IE needs to become standalone and continously improved. If not, IE will continue to be the lesser browser hated by the web development community. You cannot ship a browser that is already behind upon launch every 2 or 3 years.

  • http://www.lastrose.com LastRose

    Their biggest mistake was the lack of updates to IE6. The long time between IE6 and IE7 essentially killed them. As for them being responsible for killing IE6, they should absolutely do it. People using IE6 are most likely also using some version of windows, and thus it should be part of the critical system updates.

    The reality of it is that the leftover IE6 users fall in three major categories
    someone who got a machine with a pirated version of windows XP that they can’t update and therefor can not get IE7.
    Someone who browses using a corporate pc (in some cases the IT directors are paranoid of changing anything, and in some cases these machines are running applications that are designed for IE6 and won’t run with other browsers.)
    and finally people who just don’t use the internet that often (one or twice a month to check email).

    All that being said, I have to applaud microsoft for finally getting back into the game and coming out with IE9 which from what I’ve seen in the RC can begin to compete with some of the other browsers, and in some areas surpass them. I still would not use IE9 simply because I’ve gotten used to chrome, however it’s nice to know that at least now, more people will have access to a more modern browser.

  • Etienne

    Was that a sales pitch by Microsoft team?

    Start using Chrome and you will never want to go back, trust me.

    • Eastern Block

      Do you have a job? Most of the world runs on IE. Government agencies run on IE. Chrome is great, but it’s not the bread and butter of the business.

    • http://projectbee.org/ Jumper

      Aren’t you adorable?

    • Bob

      Many corporations or government agencies won’t even consider the use of Chrome because it requires running a background process which phones-home and maintains contact with the mothership Google. One of the requirements for software where I work is that no software can have phone-home abilities. If it does, a sniffer trace is done to determine the IPs and ports, and blocks are implemented at the firewalls. Auto-updates are typically a no-no in most corporate environments. Machine images are usually locked-down and updated only after testing has been done with applications.

  • David Runion

    Great post, thank you for the history lesson. I really enjoyed reading about the brief and recent history of web development.

  • http://itspice.net JV

    IE6 did most of the damage. MS failed to realize that in IE7 and IE8.

  • http://grantpalin.com Grant Palin

    It’s also worth pointing out that IE had @font-face support since v4 (5?), well before web fonts became popular. It only supported EOT at the time, as it it does now, but the support was there all the same.

    • http://www.wdonline.com/ Jeremy McPeak
      Author

      Ooooh good one. I completely forgot about that. I want to say it was IE4.

  • Sam Parmenter

    I do agree that at one point IE6 was cutting edge, I don’t know many developers that would argue against that. The issue is what they then did with that massive market share they gained when it was released.

    If we removed IE from the equation, I am almost certain that we would be 1-2 years ahead of where we are now.

    Their huge resources, influence and talent base at microsoft cannot be excused for the limitations they have imposed on the web community. Every time they have released a new browser since then, we have all hoped that it would be at least competitive with the other browsers and yet time and again they disappoint.

    Microsoft have only recently started to admit that IE6 is horrendous and shouldn’t be used any more.

    You say that holding microsoft responsible for the people clinging onto IE6 is unfair but the very way that microsoft operate leads to a large legacy base on every OS and piece of software they distribute. If you have a company that supplies most of the worlds operating systems then I feel you have a certain obligation to push technology and encourage your users to do the same.

    To me, your argument is akin to the Hitler argument (bear with me!). There are those that say that Hitler was evil incarnate and never did any good, those that accept that some aspects of his rule were beneficial. You have to take a snapshot of the whole to appreciate its overall effect but to say that we can’t lay blame at microsofts door is wrong in my opinion.

    When you release a piece of software, you have a responsibility to understand the potential future direction and effect of the software. If you tell everyone that IE6 is still brilliant when its appalling, you are responsible for the layman user that doesnt understand enough to make an informed decision on their own.

  • http://www.encoder2002.com Daniel Sitnik

    What an informative post!!
    Great article Jeremy, thanks for sharing the knowledge.

  • http://www.airwolfe.com Alex

    Nice Article. IE definitely did do some good things. I think the frustration from developers comes the fact that Microsoft has been so slow to respond to the cries to fix/update/advance their browser.

    When you look at open source projects like Firefox (which is on version 4) or corporate funded projects like Chrome (which is on v10), its hard to accept that Microsoft couldn’t move faster.

    Ultimately many developers feel resented because they ignored the community until they lost a significant share of the browser market. Now developers don’t know if they are upgrading because they are starting to listen or because they are starting to lose.

    From a PR/Business Standpoint it would have been to their benefit to make a concerted effort to listen and collaborate with the community much sooner.

  • Quimera

    For sure they did some real innovations in the past, but is not like we are enjoying the today web because of them :P, the true revolution came from the hand of mozilla and other players… if were by microsoft we would be using ie6. Anyway its good to have a new player pushing forward the web ecosystem (even if is only usable in a single OS :P )

  • Gilbert N Sullivan

    They shaped web development to what it is today; here’s hoping they do so again.

    Dear God NO!!!

    I don’t want any organisation other than the W3C “shaping web development”. All I want is adherence to the spec. No more, no less.

    I couldn’t care less about JIT compilation or GPU rendering at this point. Just implement the standards already.

    • http://www.danharper.me Dan Harper

      WHATWG did more to shape HTML5 than the W3C who were focusing on XHTML2.

    • http://www.wdonline.com/ Jeremy McPeak
      Author

      Innovation is what drives progress. Standards bodies don’t (and shouldn’t) innovate. Props to any browser maker who brings something new and useful to the table.

      • Tim Roenicke

        I disagree in some regard. As a major browser I feel you have a responsibility to adhere to web standards by these bodies and innovate outside of those specs.

        If you could somehow get back the countless hours that have been spent making websites cross-compatible, mainly due to IE quirks, and used those hours towards innovation…I’d love to think of the progress and innovation.

        I can’t use the “innovations” of a web browser if its not adopted and download.

      • http://www.wdonline.com/ Jeremy McPeak
        Author

        If the innovation is good enough, all browser makers will adopt it. Hence: XMLHttpRequest and innerHTML. Neither of these were standard, yet they were adopted because they were good ideas and developers wanted them.

  • http://www.shaneparkerphoto.com Shane Parker

    MS thumbed its nose to both developers and the standards community alike for far too many years. I’m sorry, but I will never support IE on principle alone.

    “They shaped web development to what it is today; here’s hoping they do so again.”

    No they didn’t. They caused years of patch-work headaches that developers had to painstakingly work around each time an IE revision was released. Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera shaped web development to what it is today. MS sat on its ass, losing market-share while these other browsers innovated, pushing standards forward while adding HUGE add-on/plugin developer communities which [finally] forced MS to do something about their horrible browser.

    IE9 is a browser playing catchup due to fears of losing even more market-share. They were forced to change, they didn’t innovate change.

    And yes, I agree to a certain extent that businesses (small and large) did not educate themselves enough and that is why IE6 stuck around for so long. However, MS made IE6 part of the OS, they nearly forced the browser upon the workplace in every computer distributed. MS tied companies into a very expensive platform (activeX anyone?) that was not easy (or cost effective) to divorce from. The applications built on IE6 were not very scalable or upgradable[sic] — so IE6 overstayed its welcome.

    Maybe it’s an issue of short memories or people who have only been in web development for a few years, but my memory is not that short. IE can suck it ;~)

    • EasternBlock

      Yeah you’re right… Firefox wasn’t ever known to be extremely buggy and a massive source of memory leaks. IE is the only browser to ever have problems. IE can suck it, the DOM really isn’t THAT big of a deal.

      • http://www.shaneparkerphoto.com Shane Parker

        Let me rephrase that for you:

        “Yeah, you’re right… Firefox, a NEW WEB BROWSER, wasn’t ever known to be semi-buggy that had some memory leaks SO THEY CONSTANTLY UPDATED IT TO FIX THE PROBLEMS INSTEAD OF JUST SITTING THERE FOR YEARS NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT all the while innovating and sticking to standards as not to alienate their entire developer base.

        You’ve missed the entire point. MS sat around from one version to the next COMPLETELY IGNORING the outcries of the development and standards community and continually pumped out mediocre update after mediocre update. MS always put their foot down and said they were doing it there way because they owned the market, they didn’t care that developers wanted standards. It wasn’t until all these other browsers (Firefox especially) came around that MS even started to care about standards, security and innovation. IE6 was a stalemate for MS. If you don’t believe or know that, then you must be young.

      • EasternBlock

        I agree that IE6 wasn’t the finest moment in Microsoft’s history, but to act like IE is the only browser to screw up is laughable on your end. Firefox “worked real hard” to “fix” these problems. That’s why it sooooo fast on start up nowadays. Firefox is spiraling just like IE did 5-6 years ago, which is sad because Mozilla’s biggest project is Firefox.

        However, saying you’ll never use IE again because you had a problem with a certain version of the browser for a couple years is so ironic it makes me laugh. You’ll be come complacent just like IE6 by burying your head deep in the sand.

      • http://www.shaneparkerphoto.com Shane Parker

        You are clearly not reading a single word I’ve written, there is no use to continue responding to you.

      • Eastern Block

        Elitist.

      • http://www.wdonline.com/ Jeremy McPeak
        Author

        Firefox… new? The Firefox brand is seven years old, and the browser is even older if you include Phoenix and Firebird. There’s nothing new about Firefox. EasternBlock’s comments are completely valid. Firefox is stagnate. It has been for years, and they’re losing market share to Chrome and IE because of it.

      • http://shaneparkerphoto.com Shane Parker

        Oy, both of you like putting words in my mouth. My comment about Firefox being a new browser was in direct response to:

        “Firefox wasn’t ever known to be extremely buggy…”

        My point was that when it WAS buggy, it was a young browser. It hasn’t been anymore buggy than any other browser for years. And when they have problems, they have an open community fixing those issues on a daily basis and listening to developer feedback.

        With that said, I haven’t made any claims that Firefox is the best. In fact, it has become quite bloated. As far as losing market share, it is losing… to Chrome (I haven’t seen anything showing it losing ground to IE). Firefox’s developer/addon network is what keeps it going strong and there is a lot to be said about that. Chrome is growing because it appeals to those who want a minimalist browser, it will continue to do well if it continues down that path. Likewise, FF4 looks very promising.

        My point is that at least these two browsers are listening to developers and standards, and always have. IE, on the other hand, makes moves out of arrogance, non-communication with their customer base and necessity to stay alive. I have yet to meet a developer who is thankful for what MS has done with their browsers. In fact, it’s the opposite, most developers are angry that MS refused to listen to them for a friggin’ decade. I don’t even know how you guys can refute that.

    • http://Www.imaginativedesign.com Ricardo

      Amen to that.

    • http://www.wdonline.com/ Jeremy McPeak
      Author

      What did Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera do for web development. They’ve done nothing but tow the standards line, and a good portion of today’s standards are a direct result of Microsoft’s involvement in the industry.

      • Alex

        They gobbled up a huge % of the market place because they support and recognize web standards, forcing IE to follow in step.

        Honestly I’m quite ashamed of some of the comments I’ve seen on both sides of the fence. We’re a web development community, its a good idea not to forget where we were with all the headaches from not standard browsers particularly IE. I’m excited as anyone else that Microsoft is stepping up its game but it needs to step it up in an Open & Collaborative way. This has not been the case historically and it has seriously hurt the web development community. To forget this is to ask for the same problem again and again.

      • Alex

        I think on both sides of the fence I’d like to see more of a “Us with Them” instead of an “Us vs. Them” mentality.

    • Guy McDude

      OK, so everything they did before IE6 became stagnant doesn’t count?

      Perhaps you havn’t been in web development as long as you’d like to pretend (“I’m teh old-skool, I started developing web pages WAAAY back in 2003!”), or your memory is shorter than you think.

      Things happened before you finally got to touch Mommy’s computer without her watching over your shoulder while playing Reader Rabbit, and they’re just as important as what’s happened since you climbed on board.

      Now go load FF or Chrome or whatever you love so much and firme la bouche.

      • http://shaneparkerphoto.com Shane Parker

        Gotta love scared e-thugs who can’t even post their real names and websites, who post as different users to make it look like multiple people are posting.

        Great arguments man!

    • Travis Watson

      Is it so hard to fathom that a company could do both good and bad things? Humans are inherently imperfect, so there’s no reason to assume companies should be.

      I honestly feel you guys both (Jeremy and Shane) are being shortsighted. The strange thing is, you’re both valid, but don’t realize your arguments can coexist without conflict.

      Jeremy, you’re very valid in that Microsoft innovated — A LOT. They brought us leaps and bounds with their ideas.

      Shane, you’re also very valid that they hindered progress. While IE gave us the mechanisms to prosper, they didn’t provide a proper playing field.

      DID YOU CATCH THAT? Early IE from MS gave us the toys, and FF+Chrome+Opera(+IE9?) are giving us the playground! They both are key players in the current field, no matter what each of you (Shane+Jeremy) try to say.

      So Jeremy, no matter how much you want to argue that the other browsers’ innovation pales in comparison to IE, you have to acknowledge that MS did not provide a proper venue for pursuing the development of these innovations, while the other browsers did.

      And Shane, you need to open your eyes. Yes, MS screwed up hard with their stagnation, release cycle, and software packaging, but where would the web be without the GOOD that they’ve done? Maybe we would have a more standards compliant web, but it would totally suck without AJAX (and all that other stuff Jeremy mentioned ^_^).

      While I’ve got you here, Shane, I have been pretty neutral on this between you guys, but I have to say that if you choose to hold a grudge to IE, or any entity for that matter, and refuse to use their products/services/whatever based on that ground, you are the single worst hindrance to innovation. Pick the best tool for the job, support your users, and embrace new technology… or leave the field; your decision.

      Lastly, my personal opinion of IE9 is that it’s just as doomed as Firefox unless they modify their release cycle — it is VERY obvious Google is onto something there. There’s no reason software whose sole purpose is to connect to the internet should be allowed to fall out of date or have any major bug lasting more than a couple days. At least IE9 is standards compliant for now, I guess, but the web evolves too fast for a browser release every 1~2 years… that sh*t has gotta stop, hear me MS? (Also, FF, wth? You’re no better than IE right now, maybe even worse!)

  • Andy

    Although I think it’s nice MS has finally realized they need to step it up in the browser department, all the release of IE9 means to me is yet another MS product I need to write extra conditional statements and hacks for.

    They keep banging out newer versions, but each still have their own unique set of issues that we, as web developers need to spend time dealing with.

  • Wouter

    IE is not a bad browser. CSS3 transitions, text-shadow, opacity are now ‘new’, but IE have all this declarations for a long time: IE filters. And IE have pages slides including in their metatags.

  • http://brandonskeen.com Brandon

    Microsoft did do some amazing things and hopefully will continue, but one quick point. IE’s sandbox and Chrome’s sandbox are two separate things. With IE, the entire browser is in a sandbox so that it has limited interaction with the underlying OS. While this is a great security feature, Chrome’s sandbox is a little bit better. With Chrome, each tab is a separate sandbox on it’s own. Not a huge distinction but it is a bit different.

    Other than that, great article. I am glad that someone is actually sticking up for the good things IE did. At this point in time I absolutely hate IE, but I can still respect what it did and how amazing it was back in the day. I remember developing web pages (crappy ones) back in 1997-2001 time frame and the advancements that Microsoft brought were absolutely awesome. I didn’t start developing again until about 5-6 years ago, and suddenly I started to loathe IE.

    Ah well, good to see they are doing cool things with IE9, and hopefully Google and Mozilla will keep them honest and constantly improving. Chrome 10 and Firefox 4 are amazing browsers.

  • http://www.mintek.com chris kluis

    What about the properties IE supports without browser extensions? Wouldn’t be awesome of moz and webkit extensions would die for classes that should be universal. Something like Chris Coyier’s example of Box Shadow – http://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/css-box-shadow/ – supported correctly in IE9.

    • http://www.normansblog.de/ Norman

      Every modern browser (Firefox 4, Chrome 10, Safari 5, Opera 10 and Internet Explorer 9) is now supporting the standard correctly. vendor prefixes are needed when the standard is not yet finalized – and they are a good thing.

  • http://www.airwolfe.com Alex

    Its a shame when Google is faster at fixing IE then Microsoft is:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRI0Pp5U89w

    Google Chrome frames fixes IE6,7,8 and increases the speed dramatically.

    • Daniel

      Well actually Chrome Frame just switches the page rendering engine in IE from Trident to use Chrome’s copy of Webkit and their V8 JavaScript engine behind the scenes. Nothing that is old or broken in IE is fixed by Chrome Frame, it just supplants the guts of IE with an entirely different browser.

      • Alex

        Right, but Google is spending their time and development and money to repair the problems that IE currently has. Its a pretty good way to move the web forward considering IE not their browser.

  • http://newarts.at Drazen Mokic

    Sure you can`t blame Microsoft that IE6 compared to modern Browsers is crap BUT what pisses me off is that everything they do (most at least) they seem to lagging behind not only some competitors but in general the current standard of things.

    It is true in Mobile and it is true in Browsers. IE8 does not even support CSS3 box-shadow and IE9 is far away from what they clame “100% CSS3 and 99% HTML5 Support”. When i read something like that i want to kick someones face. IE9 does not support text-shadow, css3 gradients, transition and some more.

    To be honest for me the only good thing Microsoft baked in the past was Windows 7 (lets not think about Vista …)

    However, i appreciate every step they may made to improve web technologies like @font-face, even if that`s some years ago.

    • Guy McDude

      “IE bad, Vista Bad, Windows 7 good”. Got an original thought to share?

  • Akhmed

    cool story, bro

  • adin

    I have developed enterprise web applications since 2000 and back in that era IE was an amazing browser. I think microsoft really pushed the envelope with their products back then and created a browser that was revolutionary to the web application development industry.

    I’d suggest there is another thing that IE got right and W3C was short sighted on, and that was the box model! IE defined the width of a block element as encompassing its content, padding and border width while newer browsers width only encompassed its content. This allowed a developer to give an element a fixed width padding and border and still set the width to 100% of its container without having it overflow its parent.

    Thats not to say newer browsers got it wrong. More to the point W3C got it wrong, and this created a whole new dialemma for developers wanting to create fluid layouts. Now in CSS3 developers can specify which box model to use.

    This being said I believe that part of IE’s downfall was not reacting quickly enough to the trend towards standards compliance. I think they had their reasons though. A lot of early adopter enterprise level corporations had been building web based applications that depended on IE specific functionality.

  • lynx_browser_rules

    all I want to know about IE9 is — will it render rounded corners?

    :oD

    • http://newarts.at Drazen Mokic

      IE9 does support border-radius

      • http://dagrevis.lv/ daGrevis

        On twitter.com corners are still without any radius. =(

  • Rohith

    Curious about the headaches that IE9 have to offer.

  • Joe Blow

    I honestly have no interest on IE 9. It will suck like any previous versions.

  • Joe Blow

    Well said Shane, IE WAS forced to change. In a way they kind of did shape the web today but only because devs got sick and tired of their bullshit. Did they contribute? Hell no! They probably stalled web development by good 2-3 years when IE6 was on every pc. I feel no remorse for IE.

  • Hate IE

    Hope Microsoft make announcement for END of continue producing IE and make it dead !
    The biggest dam in improvements Interface and Frontend in WEB ! That kill much work-time of web designers every day in the world

    • http://www.normansblog.de/ Norman

      No, it wouldn’t. Even when its dead, old versions would still hang around everywhere.. just like IE6 does now.. considering that it “died” when IE7 came out

  • http://johan.notitia.nl/ Johan de Jong

    Although I don’t like IE (like most other developers/designers) I think they also need credit for CSS3.

    IE5 for example already supported @font-face, and several things like gradients (without images), text-transform, opacity and (drop-)shadows. Even though it was IE-only with the so-called filters, but still it worked.

    • http://nordahl.me Kenneth Nordahl

      @font-face was part of CSS2 but then later on removed in CSS2.1. That is why IE has had support for @font-face since IE5.

      Everything up until the slow development between IE6-7-8-9 was great but they have been failing since. Including the IE7 engine in (the state of the art!) Windows Phone 7 phone is major fail.

      • Eastern Block

        Bite your tongue. WP7 is an epic win. It is a moral victory though, financially you have a valid point for the time being.

      • http://www.wdonline.com/ Jeremy McPeak
        Author

        Font-embedding was supported in IE4. Unfortunately, I don’t remember what CSS syntax was used for it.

        @Eastern Block: WP7 is nice, but I think his statement was more pointed towards the browser than the phone, of which I agree with him. I’m very much looking forward to IE9 on WP7.

      • Eastern Block

        That is very true, the current browser for WP7 is awful.

  • BTX

    ie sucks.

  • http://verpletterend.nl Jorgen Kesseler

    I disagree with “Microsoft Continues to Innovate” tough IE7 and 8 where giant leaps forward compared to IE6 it was still too little too late compared with other browsers in regard of webstandards and features they offered. Not too mention the bugs they introduced and failed to fix.

    I’m sceptical about IE9. Again promises of better standards support and better features.I guess time will tell If Microsoft hit the nail this time or will fail to deliver once again.

  • download firefox today

    ‘Convenient’ timing of your article :)

    The problem I have with IE isn’t so much their (up to now) lagging behind with conformant box shadows or gradients but their continued efforts to hold back the browser landscape by very specifically not supporting some features. As far as I’ve heard, IE9 will not have webgl, support ogg theora or SMIL animation.

    Coincidentally, Silverlight 5 will have support for full 3D, M$ also has a stake in h.264 and SMIL could be seen as also being in competition with Silverlight (shape tweening, something I’m pretty sure jquery can’t do).

  • hitautodestruct

    This post is great at pointing out the good things that IE4 and 5 did for the web and I agree with that.

    But IE winning the browser wars was not because of it’s incredible contribution to the web. Far from it, MS coupled IE to the only “simple” operating system around at the time and shipped it.

    That operating system grew in popularity and so did the browser that came with it.

    Nobody knew what a browser was, so if you already have one installed why go get something different.

    The fact is that MS has finally caught on to the fact that they can’t overrule the market any more so they’re trying to win it back with a cheap trick called IE9.

    IE9 is a great browser when you compare it to IE6/7/8. But so is opera mini (and that’s running on symbian).

    The problem with MS’s cheap new browser is that it only works on Vista and Win 7. But what about the millions of users still running Win XP?

    How will they cope with the new web?

    Simple, download Firefox, Chrome or Opera.

  • http://darrenhuskie.com Darren Huskie

    I found this article to be a fascinating read.

    I myself am young (relatively!) and have spent my whole development career grunting and groaning at the failings of IE6, 7 and 8! Reading this article and it’s comments has helped me to understand a little more as to what went on in the 90′s and early 2000′s upto IE6.

  • Bulat

    Cool! Thanks!

  • http://www.magpielab.com/uk/ London Web Development

    Finally microsoft realised that they should go for the right solution, but one lacking in IE9, it isnt supports the Windows XP, here in UK still a large amount of users are using the Windows XP ::)

  • http://bibikova.com ben

    Microsoft needs to develop a better updating/upgrading scheme for IE. Like FF, IE should be checked for upgrades and then offered to user to upgrade at launch time. That is, in a sense, a big reason why so many IE6′s are in the wild.

    • Adrian

      I agree, but a lot of the people who have the older versions are afraid to update, as most follow the model “don’t fix what isn’t broken” at least they see it as not broken, even though we all know IE has its flaws.

      The end user just doesn’t like change, they stay with what is comfortable. Its human nature.

      I agree adding an auto-update would help a lot.

  • Cam

    That was a good read. Thanks. It’s alway interesting to see how the technologies we use everyday came into being.

  • http://www.radiouri-online.info/ speedy

    Even if IE is getting back on the track, i will never use it again. I’m a developer, and i know how much i had to improvise to make it work. On my own websites, i don’t have support for it.

  • K.Kong

    If HTML5 is indeed a common standard, what’s in it for a company like Microsoft to spend so much money to build a browser?

    A common standard benefits users. A common standard does not benefit the browser maker.

    If I were Microsoft, I would abandon IE totally and tell Firefox and Google, “Be my guest”. And I would concentrate all my effort in creating fantastic developer tools to code for HTML5.

  • tim

    IE9 so far is a giant hunk of crap. I really cant believe MS continues to invest money in something so putrid. Yet another let down. And I am an MS fan in general. I cant imagine what the haters are thinking.

    • noname

      Damn right, they are doing cool things all the time, the IE is an exception, though. But exceptions only confirm the rules)

  • Dayv

    I started working on a project just around the time that IE5 came out. This was not a web site but an application that required a rendering engine for xml data and needed that data to do some quite dymanic stuff. The choice was buy very expensive licences for proprietary rendering engines as similar projects had done before or leverage the web technologies of the time. After assessing Netscape 4 and IE5, the inescapable conclusion was that only IE5 was capable of the job with its HTML DOM.

    IE5 also had the only available XSL transformation engine available at the time. This was non-standard with later W3C reccomendations but the W3C had not ratified anything at that time. We didn’t have the luxury of waiting. I completely agree that IE got some important things right.

    When Netscape was out of the running MS became complacent with IE. I deeply dislike Microsoft’s dirty tricks they played against Netscape, but there’s nothing wrong with their other tactic of producing a superior product. If Netscape had the market sewn up things would be much worse.

    None of what I’ve just said is a justification for Microsoft’s later complacency. The fact that IE6 doesn’t autoupdate probably stems from Microsoft thinking that they had created the final web standard and it was IE6. Times have moved on and there are better products available now, but I think the points made in this atricle still stand.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfell81 Jim Fell

    Down with Windows! Down with Internet Explorer! Who has the tar? Who has the feathers?

  • Jorge

    I agree, MS did a great job in the past, but the gap between IE6 and IE7 was the cause of the problem. I hope with IE9 Microsoft could use Windows Update in order to have IE9 updated :D that would be a nice idea :)

    I like Firefox and Chrome, but I prefer Firefox, I don’t like mothership Google to follow my steps :D

    Best regards from Peru

  • Vic

    Nine revisions of IE and it still doesnt support basics like text-shadow… Come on this is another stinker in the family the only difference is the 6 is upside down.

  • noname

    There is one more thing which even IE7 got right – it is sorting object properties the way they were defined. For example, Chrome 10 does not, despite it was reported as a bug in v8 already. Hate Chrome now)

  • restoresanity

    What about the massive innovation that was VBScript? Anyone?

    No mention of ActiveX and it’s ability to shut down your computer from a website?

    No?

    Don’t remember all those attempts to undermine the web at large?

    Yeah, don’t forget that any dose of improvement from a microsoft product carries a double dose of attempts to undermine open standards and interoperability.

    “Developers just beginning to wrap their heads around what we released”. That is just utter bullcrap. If anything, web developers had to carefully adopt Microsoft Browser features to 1) make sure they weren’t screwing over the rest of the web and web browsers and 2) make sure it was secure, because Microsoft didn’t give two craps about a secure browser.