New Windows Blue Screenshots Show IE11

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
The release of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 10 is right around the corner and now the focus is turning to IE 11, which is beginning to make random leaked appearances alongside a few Windows Blue details and screenshots.

Windows Blue appears to be more of a Service Pack 1 to Windows 8 than a full-blown Windows 9. This conforms closer to previous reports that indicated Windows Blue will be a significant update to Windows 8, as opposed to a whole new operating system that would go under the name of Windows 9 or similar.
Click to expand...
 
Ugh another IE update? Some sites don't even work right on IE10!
 
Hence the existence of 11, it's supposed to fix that!

I wonder what this block of 9 squares is

2_20130223_104109_645.jpg
 
Lol the white-knights for Win8 are abound in the comments section. Great read hahaha.
 
I really liked this quote from the sites comment section


"Robert.E.Wade,
19 hours ago

Anyone who still needs a Start button is just too stupid to have a computer. Get an chisel and stone, you feebs."
 
Azhar said:
Ugh another IE update? Some sites don't even work right on IE10!
Click to expand...

Because every IE update from MS changes the way the underlying markup reacts with the browser. MS just can't make up their minds and as a result developers get sick of jumping through hoops to get their sites to work with IE.

They really need to quit dicking around and accept that they're not the trend setter they once were. As soon as MS realizes they can use open source and/or standardized approaches (read: other browsers) they'll be much better off. There should be no reason why web developers have to add numerous lines of code (and sometimes incredibly long depending on what kind of web apps you've got) whenever IE gets an update when Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Opera don't require anything close to that.

This really isn't the developers fault. This is a problem that lies squarely on MS's shoulders. It's a remnant from the old Netscape days where MS thinks they can still push developers to do more work just because it's Microsoft. Those days are over, pals.
 
qfwm said:
I really liked this quote from the sites comment section


"Robert.E.Wade,
19 hours ago

Anyone who still needs a Start button is just too stupid to have a computer. Get an chisel and stone, you feebs."
Click to expand...

Says the pimple faced 14 year old typing that on his groovy new iPad between masturbating to the latest Miley Cyrus picture and his mom making him come downstairs and take the trash out.
 
whats which the shift back to shit flat colored windows boarders?
what is this 1992?
windows 98 looked better then metro does now
i like the Glass UI in Vista and 7 why did they not keep that and option

and then the idea of paying a subscription fee every month for an OS is just out right fail
 
Elios said:
whats which the shift back to shit flat colored windows boarders?
what is this 1992?
windows 98 looked better then metro does now
i like the Glass UI in Vista and 7 why did they not keep that and option

and then the idea of paying a subscription fee every month for an OS is just out right fail
Click to expand...

Because Microsoft can't seem to hire UI designers who aren't terrible and by MS I mean the stupid chick who is responsible for Metro.
 
Obviously going to allow the ability to disable Metro UI from starting up and bringing back the start button. You know, the very first thing everyone does when they install Windows 8.
 
DeathPrincess said:
But Google just released Chrome 342, which puts IE 332 versions behind. But even Chrome is 745 versions behind FF. :eek:
Click to expand...

I'm surprised MS hasn't just dropped the number from IE. Does the average Chrome/FF user even know what version they are using?
 
pelo said:
Because every IE update from MS changes the way the underlying markup reacts with the browser. MS just can't make up their minds and as a result developers get sick of jumping through hoops to get their sites to work with IE.

They really need to quit dicking around and accept that they're not the trend setter they once were. As soon as MS realizes they can use open source and/or standardized approaches (read: other browsers) they'll be much better off. There should be no reason why web developers have to add numerous lines of code (and sometimes incredibly long depending on what kind of web apps you've got) whenever IE gets an update when Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Opera don't require anything close to that.

This really isn't the developers fault. This is a problem that lies squarely on MS's shoulders. It's a remnant from the old Netscape days where MS thinks they can still push developers to do more work just because it's Microsoft. Those days are over, pals.
Click to expand...

IE 9 and 10 have basically done what you've asked. this isn't the IE6 days anymore and they have come a long way in becoming standards compliant, especially with IE10. A large part of the compatibility issues they've had as of late comes from assumptions in the site's code that it's IE6 than actually verifying what version of IE it actually is. It's one of the main things people should give them credit for in the last 3-4 years, they've been very willing to follow established standards.
 
Elios said:
whats which the shift back to shit flat colored windows boarders?
what is this 1992?
windows 98 looked better then metro does now
i like the Glass UI in Vista and 7 why did they not keep that and option

and then the idea of paying a subscription fee every month for an OS is just out right fail
Click to expand...

It honestly looks like MS is trying to copy what most Linux GUIs looked like ten years ago. Simple colors, crappy text rendering, and very bland overall.

In another ten years, they can bring back Aero Glass and everyone will think they have made some wonderful new improvement in the looks :)
 
Ryokurin said:
IE 9 and 10 have basically done what you've asked. this isn't the IE6 days anymore and they have come a long way in becoming standards compliant, especially with IE10. A large part of the compatibility issues they've had as of late comes from assumptions in the site's code that it's IE6 than actually verifying what version of IE it actually is. It's one of the main things people should give them credit for in the last 3-4 years, they've been very willing to follow established standards.
Click to expand...

They've definitely gotten a lot better, but they're also hurting themselves quite a bit. MS needs to be making sure that *all* machines are compatible with their newer browser revisions. Even newer versions of IE have been a bit late in adopting HTML5.

Better? Yes. But they've still got a lot of work to do in order to not get left behind yet again. Chief among them is changing their approach with respect to OS compatibility. They can make the most amazing IE 12 that surpasses Chrome and FF, but it's only <1% of the market and limited to Windows version X.Y then all of the past issues still remain. They're trying to sell upgrade licenses and holding the browser advancements as a lure. That's great for MS's pocket, but not exactly what web developers want to hear.
 
I just really wish they'd revert back to the Windows 95 visual style and lock the color scheme to a nice "We just can't tell the gender of your baby, could be either, could be both" safe shade of blue. A Fisher Price Part Deux/Windows 95 Revival visual style smashup would just please me to no end. I will be boycotting Windows until they come to their senses and...oh...hello there, Windows Blue. Looks like a first day purchase for me based on dat color scheme alone.
 
Ryokurin said:
I It's one of the main things people should give them credit for in the last 3-4 years, they've been very willing to follow established standards.
Click to expand...

Not willingly. Begrudgingly. It was adapt or die, hardly noble.
 
Am I the only one who expected to see bluescreen of death screenshots for Microsoft's latest OS? :D
 
pelo said:
Better? Yes. But they've still got a lot of work to do in order to not get left behind yet again. Chief among them is changing their approach with respect to OS compatibility. They can make the most amazing IE 12 that surpasses Chrome and FF, but it's only <1% of the market and limited to Windows version X.Y then all of the past issues still remain. They're trying to sell upgrade licenses and holding the browser advancements as a lure. That's great for MS's pocket, but not exactly what web developers want to hear.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple and I think that IE has a bit different purpose for Microsoft than other browsers do for their respective companies. Windows has never had a very good touch enabled browser and that was critical in Windows 8. Touch and power consumption are deeply baked into IE 10 and deeply tied to the power and touch enhancements in Windows 8. So much so that IE 10 for Windows 8 doesn't even work in Windows 7 and an IE 10 version specifically for Windows 7 had to be built. It really doesn't make sense to spend engineering resources to get IE 10 on Vista and XP as both are in decline with XP support going away next year.

A major purpose of IE is leverage the latest capabilities of Windows, capabilities that 3rd parties aren't as concerned with leveraging. IE 10 is much better with touch currently than Chrome or Firefox, even in Metro mode, though I'm sure that will improve. It was simply much more important to focus on getting a good touch browser built than spending lots of effort on making IE 10 backwards compatible with aging OSes that are on the decline.

It will be interesting to see if IE 11 will be ported to Windows 7, I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't depending on what changes Blue has in it. IE 11 is probably meant to leverage those so back porting would again be an effort that may not be worth it to Microsoft.
 
heatlesssun said:
Because Microsoft is terrible with names. It's hard to see how someone came up with the code name Windows Blue and didn't see the problem.
Click to expand...

Hey, if they think Metro is a good idea then why not this? :D

Someone probably thought that an update named "Blue" for an operating system that has many people seeing red will change their view to purple!
 
Not everyone disables Metro and installs a start menu program first thing. I don't have a start menu installed and although on many days I go straight to the desktop many other times I don't.

For example in todays usage of Windows 8 I never even left Metro mode. I never made it to the desktop as my tasks today were more like those of an "average" user. Checking email and browsing the web for the most part. I happen to prefer IE 10 in metro mode as it uses the full screen by default and only shows me my other open tabs (or whatever they are now since there is no tab like thing visible) and the address bar when I actively tell it to do so. And the preview windows when the tabs are open make it a lot easier to find the right tab than reading text. Yes I realize there are desktop ways to get similar behavior, but here it's the default.
 
StormUP said:
For example in todays usage of Windows 8 I never even left Metro mode. I never made it to the desktop as my tasks today were more like those of an "average" user. Checking email and browsing the web for the most part. I happen to prefer IE 10 in metro mode as it uses the full screen by default and only shows me my other open tabs (or whatever they are now since there is no tab like thing visible) and the address bar when I actively tell it to do so. And the preview windows when the tabs are open make it a lot easier to find the right tab than reading text. Yes I realize there are desktop ways to get similar behavior, but here it's the default.
Click to expand...

You realize thats exactly how IE9 works on Windows 7 if you press f11, right? Apart from it doesn't need to be fullscreen, or ugly, and renders stuff better? :p

The other problem is that average users like 7 and dislike 8...and 7 is better for "power" users, making it entirely pointless (especially as it's so barren in new features).
 
DeathPrincess said:
You realize thats exactly how IE9 works on Windows 7 if you press f11, right? Apart from it doesn't need to be fullscreen, or ugly, and renders stuff better? :p

The other problem is that average users like 7 and dislike 8...and 7 is better for "power" users, making it entirely pointless (especially as it's so barren in new features).
Click to expand...

Since we are just making up facts on the spot most doctors encourage smoking, so smoke em if you got em.
 
Disposed said:
Since we are just making up facts on the spot most doctors encourage smoking, so smoke em if you got em.
Click to expand...

Apart from evidence doesn't point to your statement being remotely factual. The lower marketshare than Vista (an "unpopular OS") and the megre list of features in the hard, plus the huge amount of bitching that has gone on about this very issue is factual. But nice try. :p
 
DeathPrincess said:
Apart from evidence doesn't point to your statement being remotely factual. The lower marketshare than Vista* (an "unpopular OS") and the megre list of features in the hard**, plus the huge amount of bitching that has gone on about this very issue is factual. But nice try. :p
Click to expand...

*lower than Vista at the same time in it's release **in the software. Damnit, need food. :D
 
DeathPrincess said:
Apart from evidence doesn't point to your statement being remotely factual. The lower marketshare than Vista (an "unpopular OS") and the megre list of features in the hard, plus the huge amount of bitching that has gone on about this very issue is factual. But nice try. :p
Click to expand...

Except that there are so many other determining factors involved in your "evidence" that trying to link it all to the conclusion you have made is pretty much just as made up as my statement, but nice try. :p
 
Disposed said:
Except that there are so many other determining factors involved in your "evidence" that trying to link it all to the conclusion you have made is pretty much just as made up as my statement, but nice try. :p
Click to expand...

So what evidence, exactly, points the other way? None, so the only reasonable conclusion that can possibly be made is the one that goes with the evidence. But nice try. :p
 
the picked such a bad name for this update, reading the title i came into this thread thinking it was something about the Blue Screen of Death

heh
 
DeathPrincess said:
So what evidence, exactly, points the other way? None, so the only reasonable conclusion that can possibly be made is the one that goes with the evidence. But nice try. :p
Click to expand...

So your basic argument is since there is no evidence to prove you wrong then you are right?

You have no evidence to support your claim other than that, but whatever keep thinking however you want.
 
so 5 months after IE 10's release they're already releasing another new version?...something must be seriously wrong with IE 10
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top