# IE8 Final is Now Available



## deltafowler (Aug 28, 2007)

For those who just can't get past the desire to have an inferior browser, IE8 Final (for now) is available to the masses.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/default.aspx

(This message was posted using Firefox 3.1b3)


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Well said, Mr. Fowler

(posted using Firefox)


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

DO NOT DOWNLOAD THIS if you are running Windows 7 Beta


----------



## DarkSkies (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm surprised that the opening post, clearly flame bait if ever I read any, is supported by a moderator. 

Posted via FireFox, the one and only browser, the one true browser, accept no substitutes, use no alternatives.)


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

IMHO, the Webkit-based browsers currently rule. I've been switching between Chrome 2.0 and Safari 4.0 all week, and page load speed is awesome on both. (See here.)

Can't decide which I like better, though I have to say that Apple's use of "cover flow" for browsing bookmarks is pretty amazing. Same with their 3-d "top sites" view. /steve


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

The trick is to ignore the flame bait... you aren't going to change anyone's mind anyway.

I am posting using the IE8 beta in Windows 7 Beta. It works ok except that it is actually the first beta release of IE8 which makes it 3 versions behind. Windows 7 RC will get a new version of 8 this April and the final version will be released with the final version of Windows 7.

When the Windows 7 final release happens, I will at that time download whatever version of Firefox and Chrome are released for the final Windows 7. If there is a compelling reason to use either of those browsers, I will switch using the new ability to completely remove Internet Explorer 8.



DarkSkies said:


> I'm surprised that the opening post, clearly flame bait if ever I read any, is supported by a moderator.
> 
> Posted via FireFox, the one and only browser, the one true browser, accept no substitutes, use no alternatives.)


----------



## deltafowler (Aug 28, 2007)

Leave it to MS to have compatibility issues between their newest browser and their newest OS. :lol:

Steve,
Those are great lightweight and fast browsers, but I like my add-ons like adblock plus, script block, etc. in Firefox.

As for the 3D multi-site page, have you seen FoxTab?

It does the same thing, but with more sites and more layout options.
GIS FoxTab


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

I like my browsers "lean and mean".  /steve


----------



## jerry downing (Mar 7, 2004)

It seems much faster. Too early to comment on anything else.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Steve said:


> I like my browsers "lean and mean".  /steve


I would go with Chrome over Safari then...considering Safari is slower than IE and Firefox on my machines...

(not necessarily page loads, but the browser program itself)


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Grentz said:


> I would go with Chrome over Safari then...considering Safari is slower than IE and Firefox on my machines...
> 
> (not necessarily page loads, but the browser program itself)


Shipping Safari or beta? Based my own testing, the new Safari 4 is still about as fast as Chrome 2 and quicker than the latest Firefox 3.6 on my XP desktop. Whenever I have some time to test, I download the latest overnight builds of Chrome, Safari and Firefox.

Also, FWIW, this benchmark came out this morning. /steve


----------



## deltafowler (Aug 28, 2007)

I'll second the motion that Safari 4 is blazingly fast.
Faster than anything else I've tried, including IE8.


----------



## deltafowler (Aug 28, 2007)

Per Steve's link above, Security is the preferred issue with browsers, with speed running a close second.
That pretty much makes IE the worst choice.
Firefox with proper add-ons is by far the best balance of speed and security.

Besides, by not loading all those ads, I suspect I'm making up the speed difference anyway.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

I think I'll wait until after the first major patch before downloading it. 

Posted using Firefox 3.0.7.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Steve said:


> Shipping Safari or beta? Based my own testing, the new Safari 4 is still about as fast as Chrome 2 and quicker than the latest Firefox 3.6 on my XP desktop. Whenever I have some time to test, I download the latest overnight builds of Chrome, Safari and Firefox.
> 
> Also, FWIW, this benchmark came out this morning. /steve


Shipping Safari, on windows that is. Like I said, the browser side is fast, but the program itself is slower for me (opening/closing, looking through menus, bookmarks, etc.). It is pretty close though, close enough to just use what you like 



deltafowler said:


> Per Steve's link above, Security is the preferred issue with browsers, with speed running a close second.
> That pretty much makes IE the worst choice.
> Firefox with proper add-ons is by far the best balance of speed and security.
> 
> Besides, by not loading all those ads, I suspect I'm making up the speed difference anyway.


Definitely, security and usability. IE will always be the worst simply because it is the most targeted (it does not necessarily have the most amount of holes/issues as has been shown by studies in the past with IE7/Firefox/Opera..Firefox had a few serious unpatched holes that were around for a long time).

In any event, just download them all and use what you like. Personally I use Firefox and IE, but I know many others use their own combination or single browser. I test them all frequently as well to see what has changed and what I like best today


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Other then faster page rendering and a slightly different color up top, I don't see much change in IE8 over IE7. One thing I do hate is the new drop down address bar where it shows History and Favorites. I can't seem to find a way to disable that. I could careless about my History and I don't use favorites/bookmarks and would like them not to appear in the address bar.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Mr. Mehs, try Firefox, and read up about how to use about:config to disable rich results in the URL bar.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I don't care for Firefox.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Then I am afraid you are in the unenviable position of accepting what IE does.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

To get rid of the favorites it's pretty simple, you just have to remove all favorites, I deleted the stock ones that came with IE 8 like Live Gallery and Microsoft.com, now to just get rid of history, which I'm sure can be done in some way, in some advanced setting in the MMC. I've downloaded IE 8 for Vista 64 and Vista 32, so far no issues. Over the weekend I'll download it on my XP machine. 

One thing I've noticed with IE7 on XP, and this has happened on every machine I've used, when using the Classic Start Menu, when you click start with IE 7 installed, there is an occasional slight hesitation where the Start Menu doesn't pop up right away. I can run IE 6 on XP everything is good, but as soon as 7 is installed that happens. But that's a minor price to pay for not having to use the XP (and Vista for that matter) default Start Menu. I'm curious to see if this happens in IE8 as well.


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

While I recognize that others disagree, I like IE8. Firefox is fine but I like IE8 better. I think it's a personal preferance issue.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

This page has some links for other OS versions (specifically Vista x64 for myself):
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/03/19/exclusive-download-internet-explorer-8-final


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

(bonking head against monitor)

Internet Exploder will continue to rule the world because of IT policy. Look at how many companies are still with Internet Exploder 6 even though IE7 has been out for quite a while. Corporate IT policy states that they do NOT touch any other browsers because of perceived security risks, even though the other browsers patch their security holes faster than IE. And because only recently, IE started to adopt standards long embraced by the other browsers. One learns quickly that there are two ways of coding websites: The right way, and the Microsoft way. As a result, I have portions of layout code with kludges for Internet Exploder.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Sadly, the idea of everything being the same in corporate IT can backfire now and then


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Steve said:


> IMHO, the Webkit-based browsers currently rule. I've been switching between Chrome 2.0 and Safari 4.0 all week, and page load speed is awesome on both. (See here.)
> 
> Can't decide which I like better, though I have to say that Apple's use of "cover flow" for browsing bookmarks is pretty amazing. Same with their 3-d "top sites" view. /steve


Might want to look closer at Safari - it's security lasted a whole 2 seconds in the Pwn2own contest that is being run right now at the CanSecWest conference.

Took security researcher Charlie Miller a couple of seconds to crack and exploit a security flaw in the browser, Firefox 3 and IE 8where cracked and exploited latter in the contest. Charlie walked away with the Macbook and a check for 5,000 US from ZDnet who sponsers the contest.

The pnw2own is a contest that is held yearly whcih challenges "hackers" to pwn a laptop, focused on browsersand mobile platforms, the platforms are macs w/ OSX for safari and firefox, Windows 7 with IE8 and Firefox and chrome

The only machine that is secure is one that is not attached to a network and has no method of inputing data except for a keyboard and mouse and a security guard watching what is being put in


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> Might want to look closer at Safari - it's security lasted a whole 2 seconds in the Pwn2own contest that is being run right now at the CanSecWest conference.
> 
> Took security researcher Charlie Miller a couple of seconds to crack and exploit a security flaw in the browser, Firefox 3 and IE 8where cracked and exploited latter in the contest. Charlie walked away with the Macbook and a check for 5,000 US from ZDnet who sponsers the contest.
> 
> ...


Ya I saw that. *Chrome* was the only browser that couldn't be hacked, at least in the time allotted.

Not sure which browser versions were tested. I'm currently running Windows *Safari 4*, and it's rocking. Using it for this post, as a matter of fact.

Lunatic that I am, I'm testing the latest versions of all four under XP.  So far, *Chrome* and *Safari* are the fastest, *Firefox* the smallest footprint.

Opening NYT.com uses about 55 MB under *FF 3.6A1pre* (1 process), 75 MB under *Safari 4 528.16 (3/19 Webkit build)* (1 process), 85 MB under *Chrome 2.0.171.0* (total of 3 processes) and *IE 8.0.6001.18702* (total of 2 processes). /steve


----------



## itguy05 (Oct 24, 2007)

Mark Holtz said:


> Internet Exploder will continue to rule the world because of IT policy. Look at how many companies are still with Internet Exploder 6 even though IE7 has been out for quite a while. Corporate IT policy states that they do NOT touch any other browsers because of perceived security risks, even though the other browsers patch their security holes faster than IE. And because only recently, IE started to adopt standards long embraced by the other browsers. One learns quickly that there are two ways of coding websites: The right way, and the Microsoft way. As a result, I have portions of layout code with kludges for Internet Exploder.


Then I suggest firing the IT guys that cannot embrace change. It has been shown that IE, especially 6 and below are security pits. IE is slowly loosing marketshare and many companies are allowing or suggesting Firefox or other browsers.

The main issue is lazy IT guys - IE is easily configured via GPO, something that Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Safari are not yet. That's something IT people drool over and probably *the* reason keeping IE afloat in corporate America.

As for me, I'm in IT, hate IE and always use Firefox when on a PC. Even at home on my Macs I still use FF but like Safari as well.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

I have to disagree... I am an IT guy, have been for 30 years, I have used every browser except Safari that has existed in popular use. I am not lazy and I prefer to use Internet Explorer.

While I appreciate that Firefox in particular is enjoying popular acceptance, I have yet to see a compelling reason to switch, though when the final version of Windows 7 is released I will test Firefox, Chrome and IE8 to see if that situation will change.

I constantly research the latest testing of current browsers and while data is lacking on Chrome, I read that Firefox has gone through as much keeping their browser secure as Microsoft has with IE.

I find great amusement at recent reports that seem to indicate that ALL the browser creators have been designing their browsers to perform well on the popular standards tests... or in other words they are concentrating on areas being tested and not so much on full compliance.

The reason a lot of designers, particularly of web based applications, use IE as their browser of choice is rather simple.. it is still the most commonly used... if you were to completely remove IE from the equation the designer's job would become instantly more difficult as would the IT departments... and that will remain a fact of life until every browser complies with the exact same set of standards. When a web based application looks and performs exactly the same way in every browser... then the browser used becomes irrelelvant.

The browser you use is a matter of personal choice and preference and should be. I like the fact that with Windows 7 you will be able to completely remove Internet Explorer if you so desire. I will continue to look at the major browsers with each major change to see if the situation changes and someone comes up with a "must have" reason for using one browser or another.



itguy05 said:


> Then I suggest firing the IT guys that cannot embrace change. It has been shown that IE, especially 6 and below are security pits. IE is slowly loosing marketshare and many companies are allowing or suggesting Firefox or other browsers.
> 
> The main issue is lazy IT guys - IE is easily configured via GPO, something that Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Safari are not yet. That's something IT people drool over and probably *the* reason keeping IE afloat in corporate America.
> 
> As for me, I'm in IT, hate IE and always use Firefox when on a PC. Even at home on my Macs I still use FF but like Safari as well.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

LarryFlowers said:


> [...]I find great amusement at recent reports that seem to indicate that ALL the browser creators have been designing their browsers to perform well on the popular standards tests... or in other words they are concentrating on areas being tested and not so much on *full compliance*.[...]


I'm not exactly sure how important the "Acid3 Test" is to *full compliance*, but FWIW, IE 8 scores just 20/100 on that test under XP, as opposed to 94/100, 100/100 and 100/100 by FF, Safari and Chrome respectively.

Here's how webstandards.org explains the test. /steve


----------



## FHSPSU67 (Jan 12, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> I have to disagree... I am an IT guy, have been for 30 years, I have used every browser except Safari that has existed in popular use. I am not lazy and I prefer to use Internet Explorer.
> 
> While I appreciate that Firefox in particular is enjoying popular acceptance, I have yet to see a compelling reason to switch, though when the final version of Windows 7 is released I will test Firefox, Chrome and IE8 to see if that situation will change.
> 
> ...


I agree completely. IE forever, or until I see a compelling reason to switch.
On topic, I just finished installing IE8 on two XP and one Vista-64 bit machines, with no problems. Not sure I like a lot of the extras with this version, but they've been easy to disable.


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> The only machine that is secure is one that is not attached to a network and has no method of inputing data except for a keyboard and mouse and a security guard watching what is being put in


Only if you trust that security guard 100%.

BTW, I use Firefox 3.0.7


----------



## dmspen (Dec 1, 2006)

So IE8 gets 20/100 on web standards. It seems to me that if 85% of ALL people use IE, it, by sheer number usage, should be the browser that web standards should be changed to! I'm an ie/firefox user so don't flame me too bad...

Clearly that's the cart dragging the horse, but 85% is a huge market share.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Well I have been using the final for awhile and am really impressed on one hand, and upset on the other.

Why is it that my site and a few others I have tried render wrong in parts? They had no trouble on the old IE that was supposedly so horrid, and they had no trouble on Firefox/Opera/Chrome. Seems like it is a step back in some ways...

Here is my site that does not render right: www.techislands.com

I really dont even know where to start in fixing it as it works fine in EVERY other browser but IE8 (except in compatibility mode).

and I am on the quest to find a new main browser...firefox is ticking me off and using over 300mb a session and being glitchy when I type into text boxes even after making new profiles and reinstalling with no addons....chrome is nice I just cant completely feel it and I want my google bookmarks, safari is out (dont like it), and now IE8 has little ticks with the compatibility issues. Hrm, what to do!

I might try opera again for awhile, although it got annoying with little compatibility ticks as well.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Grentz said:


> Well I have been using the final for awhile and am really impressed on one hand, and upset on the other.
> 
> Why is it that my site and a few others I have tried render wrong in parts? They had no trouble on the old IE that was supposedly so horrid, and they had no trouble on Firefox/Opera/Chrome. Seems like it is a step back in some ways...
> 
> ...


FWIW, Techislands renders OK on the new Safari 4.0 beta too. Same as Firefox and Chrome, based on my spot-checking. I agree, it's a mess in IE8. Not sure why. /steve


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Looks pretty good to me....



Grentz said:


> Well I have been using the final for awhile and am really impressed on one hand, and upset on the other.
> 
> Why is it that my site and a few others I have tried render wrong in parts? They had no trouble on the old IE that was supposedly so horrid, and they had no trouble on Firefox/Opera/Chrome. Seems like it is a step back in some ways...
> 
> ...


----------



## deltafowler (Aug 28, 2007)

Looks the same in IE8 as it does in Firefox to me. Only difference I see are ads in IE8 that I don't see in Firefox.
Ditto for Safari 4, Google Chrome, Opera, and SeaMonkey.
All on Windows XP SP3.


----------



## FHSPSU67 (Jan 12, 2007)

In IE8 I have to use "compatibility mode" for the TechIslands to render properly, but then it's OK, I think


----------



## jerry downing (Mar 7, 2004)

Is there anyone using IE8 along with Norton 360? They don't seem to get along. Norton 360 has errors that tell me that Phishing Protection is off whenever I launch IE8.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

A lot of web sites are going to need compatibility mode as the IE8 browser comes out... Microsoft has a database of web sites that require compatibility mode and will trigger it automatically, others will not and by going to Tools>Compatibility View Settings you can add any web site that you wish to this mode.

I rather suspect, over time, web sites will work out the little glitches.



FHSPSU67 said:


> In IE8 I have to use "compatibility mode" for the TechIslands to render properly, but then it's OK, I think


----------



## jerry downing (Mar 7, 2004)

jerry downing said:


> Is there anyone using IE8 along with Norton 360? They don't seem to get along. Norton 360 has errors that tell me that Phishing Protection is off whenever I launch IE8.


The Norton website has provided me with free Norton 360 version 3.0. Complain and you shall receive. This version seems to work.


----------



## deltafowler (Aug 28, 2007)

jerry downing said:


> Is there anyone using IE8 along with Norton 360?


Wouldn't that be like shooting yourself while jumping off a skyscraper?


----------



## jerry downing (Mar 7, 2004)

Yeah, but it's so much fun. :lol:


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

LarryFlowers said:


> Looks pretty good to me....


Here's what I get under XP SP3. Like I said... a mess!  /steve


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> I rather suspect, over time, web sites will work out the little glitches.


Shouldn't that be the other way around?? :sure:


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

AirRocker said:


> Shouldn't that be the other way around?? :sure:


Exactly. /steve


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

You'd think so wouldn't you? So did I... however most web sites are not being designed to the latest standards so every time a new browser version comes along, IE, Firefox or anybody else, there are always little glitches...

It is scary how many websites still use Front Page:lol:



Steve said:


> Exactly. /steve


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

AirRocker said:


> Shouldn't that be the other way around?? :sure:


Not exactly, a lot of sites (this is what I think is happening on mine) use "hacks" in the coding specific to each browser. None of the browsers render everything perfectly and the same, so you always will have to compromise for one or a few of them.

Whether it be you design for IE and then do the workarounds for Firefox, or design for firefox, then do the work around for IE. This is for all browsers, just using IE and firefox as examples.

I think what is happening on my site is that their are some clearfix codes that only apply to IE, but in IE8 it does not need them. Problem is how to differentiate IE8 from the other IE versions and make everything work right. Like I said, this is not just IE though, I have had similar headaches working with firefox, opera, safari, etc.



Steve said:


> Here's what I get under XP SP3. Like I said... a mess!  /steve


Ya, it is a mess, the only way it renders properly is in compatibility mode.


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

I, for one, like being standardized when it comes to my software (except for CEs that is, which is really firmware anyway), and, love it or hate it, IE, in whatever variety you choose, is the current standard.

And while it may be slower and far less feature-filled than the current iterations of the other browsers, IE8 flies when compared to IE7, and it actually has some fairly useful new features.

Anyway, the key to really enjoying the IE8 experience is to have first moved from IE6 to IE7 (tabbed browsing---woohoo) and then to IE8 in order.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

If 85% of the cars run on gasoline, doesn't that make it the standard?
never quite understood the arguement of IE not being compatible.. to me it means the minority is not compatible..


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

houskamp said:


> If 85% of the cars run on gasoline, doesn't that make it the standard?
> never quite understood the arguement of IE not being compatible.. to me it means the minority is not compatible..


Its because it does not follow all the coding rules perfectly, but no browser does. They all put their own twist on it. IE just has had a bit more of a twist in the past.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Grentz said:


> Its because it does not follow all the coding rules perfectly, but no browser does. They all put their own twist on it. IE just has had a bit more of a twist in the past.


 still doesn't make sense to me.. 85% should be the standard..


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

Does it pass Acid 3? Safari 4 does and FF gets to 93
http://acid3.acidtests.org/


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

houskamp said:


> still doesn't make sense to me.. 85% should be the standard..


Where does this 85% number come from anyway?

I think the problem is, most people don't realize the other alternatives that are out there... or just haven't tried them. I used IE all the way up to a year or so ago... Until I tried FF... Never looked back... I've also shown quite a few friends, family, and coworkers Firefox, and all of them still use it...


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Steve said:


> I like my browsers "lean and mean".  /steve


 try IE7 x64.. no flash, plugins or anything :hurah:
great ad blocking :lol:


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

Grentz said:


> Here is my site that does not render right: www.techislands.com


Usual advice is to start by validating your code http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=w...(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0 . It looks like most of the errors are compounded off the first one. Fix it by changing "&" to "&" inside the URL, use of 
instead of 
in XHTML, also "<A " instead of "<a " (I think XHTML requires lower-case), then re-validate to see what's actually left. Some of these appear to be causing the tag mismatches flagged at the bottom of the validation report. Since IE has not previously been compatible with XHTML (IIRC IE8 is supposed to add this, but why use it when "85%" use a browser that doesn't), maybe IE8 doesn't have the same forgiveness for not quite perfect code as the HTML parser. These fixes may or may not affect IE8's rendering, but will either eliminate the code or the browser as the problem.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

BobaBird said:


> Usual advice is to start by validating your code http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=w...(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0 . It looks like most of the errors are compounded off the first one. Fix it by changing "&" to "&" inside the URL, use of
> instead of
> in XHTML, also "<A " instead of "<a " (I think XHTML requires lower-case), then re-validate to see what's actually left. Some of these appear to be causing the tag mismatches flagged at the bottom of the validation report. Since IE has not previously been compatible with XHTML (IIRC IE8 is supposed to add this, but why use it when "85%" use a browser that doesn't), maybe IE8 doesn't have the same forgiveness for not quite perfect code as the HTML parser. These fixes may or may not affect IE8's rendering, but will either eliminate the code or the browser as the problem.


Ya, I have tried going that route and it is a bit tougher than just that as it is a dynamic template built on top of a dynamic CMS (Joomla). I actually did not make the template from scratch, so a lot of the core was not done by me and would take a ton of work to go through by hand...that is what really annoys me as it works fine in EVERYTHING but IE8 right now...

Those little errors (uppercase/lower case, etc.) should all still work fine. If you look, those are all errors in the content area, which is rendering just fine. The issue is in the template itself and header area, both of which pass the validation tests fine.

The validation tests are really weak when it comes to dynamic content. For example, take a look at the DBSTalk homepage (which works fine in all browsers including IE8)...108 errors found:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=w...Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator/1.606

EDIT: Here is the page with code that validates perfectly...same issue :
http://www.techislands.com/test.htm

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.techislands.com/test.htm


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

All that I can speak is about my web design work. The requirements state that my visitor may be coming from a Mac or a Linux box as well as the Windows envrioment. There is no Internet Exploder for Mac or Linux. Do you think that Microsoft will bring out a browser for a competing operating system? I don't think so. And this was in January, 2007, so prior to regular web browsing on a mobile device such as a iPhone.

One of the things that I learned is that your life is much easier when you code for Firefox/Opera/Safari, then code in the exceptions. However, many of these workarounds are probably now breaking IE8 because these hacks only check for the presence of IE, not specific versions. One joke is the so-called "Holly Hack" for IE6 compatibility.

Want to know my headaches? Take a good read of the Browser Compatibiltiy Guide from Quirksmode. Take a look at some of the commands used to render pages, and how some say "Yes" to everything but IE, which is either "no" or "buggy".

Another important issue is JavaScript speed and compatibility. Javascript is becoming more important, as the browser becomes a portal to various applications. The page is now down, but there was a JavaScript-based photo editor that was great for most modern browsers.... and crawled on IE7.

And, what is Microsoft's definition of a compatibility test? "It works on most major sites." That's nice. Most major sites have full-blown web staffs which can test until they are blue in their face. I am a unpaid volunteer doing this as a learning experience, and I cannot design a customer website for each different browser and version. I rely on those standards.

Remember, too, that once Microsoft released Internet Exploder 6 years ago, it effectively was the majority browser for the world. So, they stopped development of it beyond bug fixes. It took Firefox to kick Microsoft on the side, and force it to start development again.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Mark Holtz said:


> All that I can speak is about my web design work. The requirements state that my visitor may be coming from a Mac or a Linux box as well as the Windows envrioment. There is no Internet Exploder for Mac or Linux. Do you think that Microsoft will bring out a browser for a competing operating system? I don't think so. And this was in January, 2007, so prior to regular web browsing on a mobile device such as a iPhone.
> 
> One of the things that I learned is that your life is much easier when you code for Firefox/Opera/Safari, then code in the exceptions. However, many of these workarounds are probably now breaking IE8 because these hacks only check for the presence of IE, not specific versions. One joke is the so-called "Holly Hack" for IE6 compatibility.
> 
> ...


I agree, those hacks get annoying. The sad thing is that it goes the other ways too, if you design for IE you have to put in hacks for firefox which does some weird crap as well (the one that always gets me is the ghost line around many CSS menus). Opera in the past has also had its own bag of quirks, but it is not that widely used so it is usually less of a concern.

Also like you said, and what I am having trouble with right now, is that many of the hacks are just based on browser type, not version. So the IE hacks that were needed in the past are now applying to IE8 as well where they are not needed and just causing issues...they are still needed for the other versions of IE though.


----------



## bills (Nov 7, 2002)

need some help, i downloaded IE8 and all of a sudden the web page is larger than before, how do i get back to the original size of text? ido not like it. if i want to go back to IE7 how would i do that? regards..


----------



## deltafowler (Aug 28, 2007)

Press the Ctrl key and roll the mouse wheel.


----------



## bills (Nov 7, 2002)

thank you.regards


----------

