Thursday, September 6th, 2007

Web Developers, Where Are We Now?

Category: Articles, Browsers

Alex Russell isn’t known for holding back his opinions. He continues his tradition of calling issues to our attention in his piece on Where are we now?.

This article takes a look back to his posting, 1.5 years ago, on the state of things at that point…. and what he would like to see. He isn’t happy with the progress made in the year and a half since.

He hits out at Microsoft’s secretive behaviour:

The “worst case scenario” that I’ve described to folks in private for a long time is that IE 7 is the end of the line. The last hurrah. The final gasp of life in Trident’s creaking limbs. IE 7 could either signal the beginning of a renewed commitment to the web by Microsoft, or it could be the minimum MSFT can get away with to prevent customer mutiny. To assuage the latter scenario, I’ve directly and firmly asked every member of the IE team I’ve talked to since then to outline in public Microsoft’s commitment to new versions of IE. We need to see timelines, feature targets, and distribution plans for those releases as well. This might seem like putting the cart before the horse but I think it’s not too much to ask. In fact, it might even be the minimum the web development community should expect.

and he compares it to the other browser vendors:

Brendan Eich has an entire blog dedicated to communicating outward about the features that we can expect from the web as delivered by Firefox (and the platform behind it). The IE Team’s blog is eerily silent on the future of what is still the most important browser on the internet. We’re reduced to getting information from third parties and conference talks. The features planned for Firefox 3 are impressive and the work is being done in the open, meaning it’s easy to have confidence that not only will Mozilla ship what they say they will, it’ll be here when they say it will. Same goes for the excellent work the Safari team has been doing. Even Opera keeps its community on fire by shipping regular updates, showing tech previews at conferences, and blogging about the progress being made on many fronts. If the IE team is holed up working on something stonkingly good, they certainly aren’t doing themselves any favors by not telling us about it. The result of their radio silence isn’t mystery, it’s distrust. Deep, divisive, troubling distrust of the kind you can only get when folks who break up stop talking altogether.

Then, the future:

I’m pretty sure the IE team isn’t sitting still. Chris Wilson is heading up the HTML 5 working group and there’s reports of some real progress there. HTML 5 is the most important web spec under consideration anywhere so this is truly good news. But it hasn’t yet been accompanied by the kinds of communication that allow us to trust MSFT as a custodian of the web’s future.

Getting IE 7 and watching it ramp up among IE’s installed base has been good, but it’s only half the answer. The web needs to know, unequivocally, when we can expect more information about IE.Next, what OSes it will target, and what standards, improvements, and major fixes are on the roadmap even if they slip. Without that much honesty, this relationship probably won’t get off the ground again.

Are you as worried about the future as Alex?

Posted by Dion Almaer at 10:16 am

1.1363636363633E+197 rating from 176 votes


Comments feed TrackBack URI

Simply, Yes, I am as worried about the future.

Comment by Eddie — September 6, 2007

Of course one of the key pieces of the browser is the JS engine. I have asked Chris Wilson, if they have any plans to upgrade IE’s JS engine to the newer versions of JS out there (1.7, 1.8, and 2.0 in the future), and it doesn’t sound like there is any upgrades in the works. I understand being hesitant about JS 2.0 since it has a ways to go before it is even fully spec’d, but the lag in keeping up with any semi-modern JS version if very saddening to me.

Comment by Kris Zyp — September 6, 2007

From Microsoft’s perspective I can understand why they wouldn’t talk about ‘IE8’ or a ‘new’ Javascript engine. You can’t talk about those things without having something for people to look at. Once they release something, whether it be beta or alpha, they can then talk openly about it. Just look at Silverlight or ASP.NET AJAX for example. Both were released as CTPs and both were shaped very much in part by community feedback. If you look at the overall picture this isn’t much different than the Safari or Firefox teams. They both have alpha and beta versions out there which gives them something to ‘talk’ about.

Personally, I don’t see what there is to worry about. When it happens, it happens. It just doesn’t seem like something to get my panties in a bunch about.

Comment by Michael — September 6, 2007

Let’s see… IE6 was released in 2001. Then IE7 was released Q4 2006. That’s a Windows-esque five year development cycle. And they only reason they rushed it out then was because Firefox was starting to nibble market share. I predict IE7 will the the MS “state of the art” for a very loooong time. At least another 4-5 years. In my eyes it’s quite clear they’ve gotten frustrated by not being able to control the client platform because of those nasty standards things. The universal coding platform has always been their holy grail and now they are going to get it with VS 2008 (Orcas) They have the CLR in every layer of the stack: MSSQL, C#/ASP.Net, and Silverlight.

I see no more commitment on their part to any browser improvements until their is another major event that forces their hand. Just look at what a sick joke Atlas turned out to be. Garbage. No, it will take Silverlight crashing and burning or the next release of Windows in 2012 before we see another browser from MS.

Comment by Chris Cole — September 6, 2007

Silverlight is the future. There is no need for earth-shattering Javascript enhancements with Silverlight 1.1. All coding can be done in any language you choose (VB, C#, J#, Python, 20 more). The code is compiled and works on Windows, OSX, and Linux (via Moonlight). The mobile features are unbelievable and will be available in 6 to 12 months. Write it once, run it anywhere, and never again worry about people hitting View Source or running Ad Blocking software.

Major League Baseball is in the process of making the switch and it won’t be long before major search engines start looking like this: .

The future is here, don’t worry.

— Ken

Comment by Ken — September 6, 2007

Chris Cole: Well said.

Ken: So are we to take all of our skills and standards and throw them out the window, buy Visual Studio (sorry non-Windows users, you’re out of luck), and start from scratch?

We must not forget that it is the content creators who drove the web in the direction it has taken. Java flopped on the client, Flash has a niche that it is slowly losing and HTML is still God.

Comment by James MacFarlane — September 6, 2007

Chris: What makes you think Atlas(ASP.NET AJAX) is garbage?

James: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the Moonlight team is using Visual Studio.

Comment by Michael — September 6, 2007

@Ken: please tell me that is a joke…. M$ and Adobe can duke it out all they want (personally I think Adobe is more prepared) but we are talking about ‘browsers’ of open standards here. If Redmond wants to hand over the reins to Firefox and drop IE development in favor of Silverlight I don’t think anyone would shed a tear. Actually, that seems like a really good idea for everyone involved, IE8 just becomes a M$ branded FF3 and future development for the browser falls over to the Moz team. M$ stops making web browsers and focuses their attention else ware (which, as everyone seems to speculate, may have already happened). Doubt they will dethrone Flash/Flex, but maybe they can get Apple out of the video player biz.

Comment by Wade Harrell — September 6, 2007

Ken: Silverlight brings very little improvement to the table in comparison to Flash. It is a Microsoft “me too” effort. I also don’t think any serious developer is worried about the user looking at his source code or ad blocking software. What kind of ads are you using that are driving your users to the point of blocking them?

Comment by Marat Denenberg — September 6, 2007

James —

It won’t be long before robust tools both programmer IDEs and designer studios are available on all platforms. Online tools are in the works that will make it possible to very quickly create Silverlight apps right in a browser. The UI is created in XAML which isn’t too difficult to learn if you know HTML and the tools will make it a breeze.

The hybrid nature of Silverlight makes it extremely flexible. For example you can quickly mashup some video viewing and uploading services with a 3D UI, then hand it off to your HTML designers who can design their straight up web page to lay on top of the Silverlight control. This makes it very simple to put things together piece by piece without having to rewrite a whole app before release.

Take upgrading this comments form as a point of reference. Let’s say we wanted to let people enter comments in RTF format. You could remove this from the HTML form and leave everything as is, in it’s place you could place a premade Silverlight RTF control with all the bells and whistles. When you submit this form you can interact very easily with the Silverlight control to submit the data in this box as well. The whole process would take roughly 5 minutes and you’d have a very cool comments entering section and you’d only have to write a line or two of Javascript. Once you have the form completed in Silverlight you can switch it to have Silverlight send the data instead of a browser post back or use AJAX.

Here is the link if you are using Linux to begin building Silverlight apps:

— Ken

Comment by Ken — September 6, 2007

The only reason we’re having this conversation is because the majority of web users are too [dumb,ignorant,lazy,oblivious,apathetic] to use a better browser. Let’s face it… most folks use what already comes on the machine.

That being the case, however, it still bugs me that we have to hound MS to get the mindless masses using a good browser, rather than hound the mindless masses to get themselves an already available good browser.

Comment by WarAxe — September 6, 2007

So, you advocate Silverlight on Linux, yet your name is a link to domain? Who the fuck are you kidding, you Microsoft shill? Get the fuck off the forum!

Comment by Batasrki — September 6, 2007

@Marat: Here, here. Have you visited Ken’s website? It’s a linkfarm that reads like a desperate plea for free money.

@Ken: You are the perfect example of why people use adblocking software. You have a sensationalist site with very little content and tons of ads.

Here’s my future:
The future is here, I agree with that, but it’s in the form of mature Web 2.0 Apps and multiple frameworks reaching 1.0+ stable releases. Silverlight is not the future, it is another closed MS solution with no background, and users won’t understand why they should install it – they certainly don’t want to be served more ads, and won’t wait for a download and restart to view content. I look to the future where transaction overhead has shrunk to the point that micropayments are feasible, because the ad-ridden Internet is going to go the way that TV has with Tivo and on-demand/podcast video. The success of long-time donation-driven open-source projects and internet radio are proof-of-concept.

> It won’t be long before…programmer IDEs and designer studios are available on all platforms.

RIAs already have tons of tools, IDEs, languages, and frameworks to choose from, that function on all platforms. A large advantage of the web is that most of the RIAs are simple to reverse-engineer, and we all learn from each other.

> Take upgrading this comments form…The whole process would take roughly 5 minutes.

Sure, once I learn yet-another-framework with an uncertain future. No thanks, I’d rather create open RIAs that already work with existing platforms, and we’ll all profit, rather than M$. The more open we are, the faster we can create RIAs, therefore the less it will cost, and the less ads we’ll have to serve.

As much as Alex is focused on MS and IE, I think that MS is becoming irrelevant on the ‘web. Once developers solved the problems of IE 5.5 and 6 with open, crossbrowser CSS and JS frameworks, we all started developing for Firefox, Safari, and Opera, and just running IE to make sure it looks good. Just look at the Firefox adoption rates in Europe that are poised to overtake IE (or already have, depending on who you believe). I frankly could care less what browser my users run, between good design, CSS and jQuery I’m confident my sites will run nearly everywhere, and the frameworks (unlike Silverlight) are transparent to the user. If you have to download to your mobile device a SL player to run SL apps, it’s already failed on that market.

Even browsers with tiny market share have found a niche and have staying power: Opera – mobile devices/Wii (and Wii is bigger than many give credit); Safari – beautiful, based on open WebKit, consistent (oh, and the iPhone), SeaMonkey – way open, extensible, renders like Firefox…
MS is scared and Silverlight is just some of the proof. Going sideways with VB and C# is the wrong direction. The only way I can see them truly regaining market share is by implementing the future-forward HTML5, CSS3 and JS specs we really want, in which case we’ll all win.

Comment by Charles — September 6, 2007

Microsoft has been messing with people’s ideas for software too long. How many regular people actually have an accurate idea of what a browser is? We talk about adding advanced features into browsers, but only a small percentage of people actually use them. Think of all the people who still go to google and type ‘’ or something like that.
Also, who are we, developers, to even think that we have much say over what Microsoft will do with IE? Their focus seems to mostly be keeping their huge market share with browsers and using that to their advantage.

Comment by Scriptor — September 6, 2007

I’m a .NET developer and even though I’ve done most of my programming on Windows I have to say I don’t think Silverlight will stick. Flash has been around for ages and it’s great but it has a place and a time to be used. I think Silverlight will fall into the same box.

Comment by Denny Ferrassoli — September 6, 2007

Do you know why the people uses AdBlock? Because there are sites flooded of stupid banners running over VMs like Flash, Java or even Silverlight. Do you hate AdBlock? Well, then create your banners with PNGs, GIFs or JPGs, and AdBlock will be unnecesary.

Comment by Andrés Testi — September 6, 2007

About Atlas (ASP.NET AJAX) being teh suck: after 1.0 basically nothing happened. They’ve upped the version to 3.5 for the next release cycle of .NET and still not much new. If you compare their Javascript library to jQuery (for instance) it’s just very limited. And it’s way too silent, for all the fuss around Silverlight, I haven’t heard anything exciting about ASP.NET AJAX since the 1.0 release, just some talk about native support in Visual Studio 2008 because of an improved javascript editor.

Comment by mike — September 6, 2007

Come on guys, don’t feed the troll.

Comment by tuan — September 6, 2007


Of course, you’re right. I am just tired of all these trolls running around.

Comment by Batasrki — September 6, 2007

These sites are open to everyone, if you don’t like my opinion don’t read my posts. Everything I post is fact and if it enrages you then you have issues you need to deal with.

Silverlight is here to stay and with it’s integration with both the browser (any browser) and the browser content (html) I believe it will quickly be the defacto standard for not only web apps but for pages as well.

Yesterday Microsoft and Novell announced a *formal* partnership to provide Silverlight for Linux. Version 1.1 will be what changes the world, 1.0 is just to get developers feet wet.

I urge you to do some real research into Silverlight and how it works. I think there will be a huge traffic increase in AJAX/Silverlight integration questions and will be a great portal for this information.

Since you brought up the site I linked to, take another look. They are a brand new site and they are presenting both sides of the issue (which you would know if you read the blogs). Once even covers the constitutional aspects. I asked why they named the site what they did and they said “…because we searched for available URLs containing the words ***** ******* and the ************.com was available, we thought that would help give us a bump in the search engines….”. Sounds logical and smart. Not to mention everyone is free to sign up and instantly create their own blog – if you have a problem with the content on there…change it.

— Ken

Comment by Ken — September 6, 2007

I hope silverlight or anyotherlight like that doesn’t get too much attention. we already have SVG and Flash with AS3 when required.
we developers shouldn’t support crap like that.

Comment by Albertiz — September 6, 2007

Am I as worried about the future as Alex? No, not really, where web development is concerned.

Sure, Microsoft’s silence about an IE7 successor is disheartening — about as disheartening as IE7s anemic list of improvements over IE6 were. But interpreting a lack of news about IE8 is not only pointless (how would that *really* change things for the non-IE-using crowd here?) but could be wildly off-target. Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence.

I’m also not sure what to make of the knee-jerk dismissal (if not downright hatred) of Silverlight here. Is Adobe Flash *truly* a better alternative? Is reliance upon ActionScript developers preferred to a wider group of C#, VB.NET, Managed C++ and IronPython developers? I’m not crazy about another plug-in solution instead of, say, a robust Canvas element…but I’d rather deal with two competing solutions rather than one with 90%+ marketshare and a roadmap that doesn’t necessarily jive with the needs of developers or end users.

When IE first came on the scene it was the object of scorn (and deservedly so) of web developers. Microsoft chose to go head-to-head with Netscape and before the latter folded we saw some serious improvement in the realm of web browsers. I anticipate the same thing here with Silverlight and Flash, and discounting Silverlight now is just short-sighted.

Because if Microsoft is abandoning the IE line, it is because they’re placing their bets on Silverlight and a portable CLR. If they can’t beat FireFox and Opera in terms of browser quality, they’ll just focus on a be-all, end-all browser plugin. Likewise, if they can’t beat Google in the web service market, they’ll simply ensure that Mountain View will have to rely on a proprietary Microsoft canvas in their applications.

The future of web development is no bleaker today than it was when Netscape was broken up, the W3C turned its back on HTML in favor of XHTML, or when Adobe chose to abandon SVG in favor of their newly-acquired Macromedia toy Flash.

The Web is still here, and it’ll be here tomorrow. The only developers who should be worried are those who are unwilling to adapt and expand their toolset.

Comment by Cal Jacobson — September 6, 2007

partly self serving comment ahead.

Chris Wilson is keynoting at Web Directions South in three weeks (disclaimer -I’m one of the organizers) –

We’ll be podcasting that session as soon after it happens as we can.

Hopefully Chris will address this issue at the conference


Comment by John Allsopp — September 6, 2007

Ken, the content is fine, the point (you missed) is that the ads drive everyone nuts. I’m not going to donate my content so that the site can make money off of ads I’m not going to click anyway. That site IS WHY adblock exists. People are trying to filter through the ads to find the content. Silverlight is not a solution to ad-blocking! Producing good content people are willing to pay for, is. Like I said, Tivo/Podcasts/Internet Radio are prime examples.

Silverlight is here to stay and with it’s integration with both the browser (any browser) and the browser content (html) I believe it will quickly be the defacto standard

Anyone can make a browser plugin (see SVG, VRML), how do you plan to convince millions of users to download, wait, and install something else (and restart their browser/OS)? I have seen no convincing arguments for widespread adoption.

Comment by Charles — September 6, 2007

@Kris Zyp — what I actually said was some variant of “we’re evaluating customer feedback and have nothing to announce at this time.” That is the equivalent of “no comment at this time,” not “no, we’re not really interested in [x].”

@Batasrki – For every Ken, there’s a scriptkiddie.

-the aforementioned Chris Wilson

Comment by Chris Wilson (Microsoft) — September 6, 2007

At the time of this writing, this article has a rating of:


out of 101 votes

That’s the kind of fuzzy math that loses elections ;)

If WordPress could just adopt the “Math 0.1” standard (circa 280 B.C.), we wouldn’t have to fight with all of this mess. Geez – they’re so secretive about adopting more Math standards and there’s nothing on their blog about their implementation plan. Moveable Type is already handling binomial multiplication – get it together WordPress!


Comment by Jon — September 6, 2007

“Are you as worried about the future as Alex?” — No, I’m not worried. I’m not particularly swayed by anti-Microsoft rhetoric either. I think each browser has its strengths and weaknesses, and I think the Web is doing very well. Lots of really cool, cross-browser compatible apps have emerged in the past 1.5 years

Comment by Will Peavy — September 6, 2007

I have always been a fan of plaintext, human-readable code. For some reason, that pesky, non-proprietary HTML/CSS/JS stuff seems to have remained popular over the years – and search engines eat it up. ;)

Comment by Scott Schiller — September 7, 2007

“Major League Baseball is in the process of making the switch and it won’t be long before major search engines start looking like this:

I hope that day will never come. That website loaded for 1 min and the result was “You’ll need to install Silverlight to experience”


Comment by José Jeria — September 7, 2007

Worried… Well, yes…

I’m Definiately worried about yet another half-done ie version, because if they DON’T fix *EVERYTHING* i wil once again have to hack all the sites i’ve built to reflect the ‘changes microsoft thought we could use’

Comment by SchizoDuckie — September 7, 2007

I think he makes a nice point. It would definitely help microsoft not be quite so hated as it is sometimes now. At least then people will be able to hate the company/executives that they rightfully should and see the developers for the (mostly normal) human beings that they are.

Comment by Jesse Kuhnert — September 7, 2007

Ken: “Silverlight is here to stay and with it’s integration with both the browser (any browser) and the browser content (html) I believe it will quickly be the defacto standard for not only web apps but for pages as well.”

Why do you believe it will become the “de facto” standard? Please provide some justification? Is it a ground-breaking technology? No. is it going to be easier to use? No.

You forget – it is the content developers (a.k.a. programmers like me) who will either adopt this technology or pass on this technology. I don’t see many programmers getting excited about this. It is simply a “me too” version of Flash. I can go out and hire 10 flash programmers tomorrow if I need they kind of functionality, so why bother with Sliverlight? There is NOTHING COMPELLING about it.

Comment by James MacFarlane — September 7, 2007

Some of us who develop web-based apps for internal use in large institutions know just how expensive a proposition it is to just “switch to a better browser”.

A lot of these applications take advantage of MS-only features that Mozilla simply cannot replicate. Not to mention all of the points of integration with MSOffice tools.

Where I work, switching to Firefox will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and result in less-functional applications.

In other words — it aint gonna happen — and it’s naive to think it should.

Comment by Marty — September 7, 2007

James —

I don’t have statistics on the number of early adopters. Yet given the .Net developer base and the ease it takes to get started developing with Silverlight I’m confident the content developer population is large and getting larger every day. There are enough resources (code & conversation) at to quickly build powerful apps.

Probably the most compelling developer reason is the learning curve. With v1.1 you don’t need to be an HTML or Javascript expert. You can code in whatever language you are comfortable with for the *client* while keeping your server coding the same. For Windows 2003 servers can keep running their .Net or PHP apps unchanged and Apache or Linux hosts can do the same. For me this was a huge reason to dive in.

Audience was another reason. I can now write a rich app without worrying about QuirksMode, never having to test for browser type or enabled features is a huge blessing. I can be confident that app will run on Windows, Linux, or OSX in an IE, Mozilla, or Safari browser. The final compelling reason for me was what the future holds, taking that same app and making it mobile.

I’m not a Flash expert but one thing I noticed about Flash is that you can tell it apart from the rest of the web page, as if it were in it’s own little sandbox. With Silverlight in windowless mode the integration into the page is fully realized. You can still identify a Silverlight implementation because it’s anti-aliased controls do look sharper than standard HTML controls but that is a small hurdle to overcome.

The final point I’ll make right now is Isolated Storage. This allows you to persist data on the client making offline apps a near future possibility. Even more important is the flexibility this offers to users. Because of the cross-browser compatibility a user could use an app in IE and then switch to Firefox and pickup exactly where they left off. It is a pretty neat feature as some users are tied to IE because of a work application but prefer Firefox for personal stuff. Instead of opening two browsers they can stick with one during the day and then use the other at night while my app is available to both at any time.

— Ken

Comment by Ken — September 7, 2007

Yeah, I’ve seen the kind of garbage desktop application developers can “instantly” produce with .NET without knowing any HTML or Javascript. Silverlight will give them new powers to make more advanced garbage.

I guess there are two kinds of web developers: those who are intimate with their code and can do things from the ground-up, and those who depend on code-generators who remain isolated from the medium and their audience.

Comment by James MacFarlane — September 7, 2007

@ Marty
Whoever coded, or administered the vendor contract for, web apps dependent on browser-specific technology should be fired, kicked in the groin, slapped across the face and punched in the mouth (in any order).

“Where I work, switching to Firefox will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and result in less-functional applications.”

Hundreds of millions of dollars to switch?! Forgive me, but I doubt any such scenario exists.

Comment by WarAxe — September 7, 2007

I think Ken…….is a……. M$ MOLE!

Comment by James MacFarlane — September 7, 2007

Hi Ken, who are you?

(You can think as you wish, even though you’re missing some context, but the repetition of telling others what to think while simultaneously providing only partial identity raises spectres from the past. Standing behind your words will boost your position.)


Comment by John Dowdell — September 7, 2007

@WarAxe: That scenario exists everywhere. Here in the Detroit area, the auto companies have tons of web-based apps that were designed for IE-only (they rely on specific activeX controls, etc). Re-tooling all of those apps to run on browsers other than IE will, in fact, cost many millions of dollars – per app. When you’re looking at 100’s of web-based apps that run IE only, hundreds of millions of dollars seems a bit low.

Comment by Jon — September 7, 2007

“the auto companies have tons of web-based apps that were designed for IE-only (they rely on specific activeX controls, etc)….
…When you’re looking at 100’s of web-based apps that run IE only, hundreds of millions of dollars seems a bit low.”

That, I think, is a very a good reason to avoid SilverLight/ActiveX type of stuff.

Comment by Albertiz — September 7, 2007

@ Jon
I can understand the scenario… and at my small piece of a big company we have some similar situations. I think I was/am most incredulous about having SO many ActiveX controls to retool that it’d take 100’s of millions of dollars to write workarounds. Even if you have retarded programmers you could write a layer somewhere to allow for Mozilla and only spend a fraction of that.

Really, with “100’s” of apps – if you doled out $100K per programmer per app they’d each have 10 years to fix the ActiveX stuff!? I have never even HEARD of a scenario with THAT many IE dependencies that it’d take that much dough to fix. Heck, you could get a bunch of German teenagers to do it in a few months for Mountain Dew, candy bars, and tickets to Rammstein.

I don’t doubt that many apps can be IE dependent… I’m just saying that 100’s of millions is not real.

Comment by WarAxe — September 7, 2007

Definately a common concern among any real web developer/designer! It is unaceptable that something that can be so important to define a companie’s corporate image and marketing stategy as it’s web site, has to be made on such non-precise methods as hacks and other kinds of strategies. It takes all of the pureness that could exist on creating a piece of design.
Sure, every craft has it’s secrets and little tricks! But not being able to rely on a web platform only due to conducts has MS has had during the development of IE that’s something that shouldn’t exist.
“Urray” once again for the Firefox team!

Comment by artikboy — September 8, 2007

Remember when MS tried to force IE7 at launch by pushing it as a high-priority update via Automatic Updates? Well most of our intranet at the company I work for failed miserably; we called MS up and very politely asked them to cease and desist. I think MS got a call from all the fortune 500’s out there that morning.

This is why IE6 still beats IE7 on a lot of the browser stats out there. A whole new generation of developer is out there today migrating internal sites from IE6 to W3C for all the big intranets. The route to getting the masses to use a better browser is via the large companies. People use at home what they use at work.

Comment by Chris — September 9, 2007

I think people their desires to know a promotion and call it a “need to know”.
You’ll need to know 8 months before IE8 releases.

Comment by Jerome Lapointe — October 3, 2007

I think people *give* their “desire to know” a promotion and call it a “need to know”.
You’ll need to know 8 months before IE8 releases.

Comment by Jerome Lapointe — October 3, 2007

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.