Bad Microsoft, baaad...
Wait, I lied... The title is misleading. I apologize.
People are getting upset because Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 is going to be ACID2 compatible, but only if you add a special <meta> tag to the sites that want IE to be running in that mode. Why? I fail to see why this is such a big deal, from the perspective of a web site designer.
Face it. IE6 was screwed up. But it was still the most popular browser until Firefox showed up on the scene. There are going to be countless sites that are built to cater to IE6's shortcomings and funky non-standards. That's just a fact. Standards compliant sites are a minority. Face it... Not many people but uber-geek techies (with nothing to lose if people don't visit their sites) are going to design outside IE's problems and force their readers to download another browser besides that which came by default with the most popular operating system in the world.
But people are still complaining about IE8. Why? I think it's because it should render sites properly without the addition of a tag, correct? I can understand that... A tiny, tiny bit. But you would rather Microsoft, who has a huge market share, whether you want to believe it or not, decide to fix their browser and then subsequently BREAK all the websites that were designed for IE6? How is that going to be a good thing?
"Hello, this is Microsoft. We finally fixed IE in version 8, but you're going to pay for our mistakes now, because your sites are going to be broken, and you're going to have to rush to make sure it all works again because we screwed up."
Yeah... That's going to be a good approach. (The Apple approach, haha: "We changed this, now deal with it, because we know best.") This is Microsoft we're talking about. Do you honestly think that's the best course of action for them? They have a huge responsibility to their existing users, and they have always bent over backwards to provide backwards compatibility for things. Just look at Windows... It's getting fatter and fatter because people still want to run the thing on ancient hardware. Of course, people complain about Windows being bloated... But then people also complain about Windows Vista having such steep system requirements when Microsoft decides to drop some old hardware in favor of the latest stuff. (And yet, Apple doesn't seem to garner this sort of reaction.)
Approach A: Microsoft builds Internet Explorer 8 to be 100% standards compliant all the time, without use of meta tags. Sites built to cater to the funkiness of the browser instantly stop working. Public outcry ensues because Microsoft doesn't give anyone time to fix the problem.
Approach B: Microsoft builds Internet Explorer 8 to be 100% standards compliant only with a special tag for sites that have been built to be standards compliant. Sites continue to work as they are at the moment, giving time for people to upgrade to the new standards mode. Public outcry ensues because Microsoft makes you add a tag to your site to run in the standards mode.
I am going to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt and say that this is a transitional phase between IE8 and IE9 and 10. Give people enough time to warm up to the new mode and give them enough time to fix their sites. Every browser has quirks. IE8 is a massive upgrade, from the sounds of things. There will, of course, be some quirks. Every application has them. When IE9 or 10 comes out, strip the compatibility feature and use that as the time limit for people to get their sites finished. There will naturally be a group of people who don't bother to upgrade until they have to, but that's what the time limit is for. Once you have a sample of how IE is going to work in standards mode, you can experiment without it being mission-critical that you have the site working flawlessly when IE8 rolls out.
But maybe that's just me and my being a fan of Microsoft shining through.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:43 am
So how does IE7 fit into this? It's certainly not standards compliant, but it's enough better than IE6 that I find myself using it whenever I'm booted into Vista. I have to admit, I don't even bother with IE6. I know, I know, I'm a horrible, horrible web developer, but I just don't care. People using IE6 shouldn't... ugh. Be allowed on the internet.
As for the other topic...
"Apple doesn't seem to garner this sort of reaction" because Apple doesn't do this sort of thing to users... as much.
(of course, developers are a different story, poor guys) You're totally right, Windows is held back by a lot of ancient equipment, and removing some of that backwards compatibility might go a long way in improving Windows as an OS. Apple IS controlling and arrogant, and after changing from OS 9 to OS X, then from PPC to Intel, they've proven to be quite the bully when it comes to developers. However, OS X still supports PPC G4, PPC G5, and the latest Intel machinery - it runs on hardware dating back to the dark ages of OS 9.2! When was the last time a major Windows upgrade ran on two distinctly different chip architectures, and on computers 6 years or older?
And yeah, one can always make the the point that Apple designs only for their own equipment, whereas Microsoft has the decidedly worse task of trying to design for EVERYTHING else. But... honestly? If you're running Windows... bloat has to be expected. And not because Microsoft sucks; they work hard to make good code. The thing is, the user makes a decision by choosing the Windows platform: you have a computer system with variants as wild as can be imagined (from hundreds of manufacturers to DIY), you have access to much more software, MANY more games, compatibility with the majority of the business world, networks, and even ISPs. The list goes on for awhile, but yeah, there's going to be a price to pay. It's a decision.
Apple, the dictatorial monster that it is, runs a very, very different operation. Mac users make their decision as well: they choose a system that, while severely limited when it comes to gaming and DIY customization, is run by a company that is controlling and obsessive about it's systems and the quality of operation and user experience. Being mildly OCD myself, I appreciate this quite a bit. It often allows the architecture to better fit together, for hardware and software to work more seamlessly. Even 7-8 years ago, Macs had no serial ports or floppy drives. USB and Firewire was standard, as was full screen video editing, gigabit ethernet, and dual processor designs (probably why you don't see people clammering for Leopard upgrades - their computers were good to begin with). The Apple platform also locks the user into a specific line of products, among other positives and negatives. Again, it's a decision.
Just because you're a mac user, doesn't mean everyone else wants a white sports car too. Just because you're a windows user, doesn't mean everyone else wants an endlessly customizable truck with a spacious cab and your own paint job. Both approaches have advantages, both have downsides. If bloat is a concern, move to something Unix based. If games are of importance, get the heck off a mac.
You can rest assured both companies will probably continue doing what they do: Microsoft will still try to support those old gaming ports and BIOS settings, Apple will dump last decades technology for next weeks expensive breakthrough. As you can see... there's simply a decision to be made. Pick your poison.
Hmm. Somehow this got way off of the Apple-makes-a-decent-OS-that-still-runs-on-old-computers rant, and got onto something completely different. Sorry.
I'm going to bed now. I don't think this post even addressed what I was trying to reply too. Well, I claim little to no responsibility for what has been said. It's past my bedtime.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:46 am
I guess I should really say something about IE8... it's great when a company can fix something like that. Granted, I may still be bitter over IE6 and its continuing impact on the internet, but yay! IE8 is coming! Can't wait!
It'll look so pretty in all that shiny Vista glory...