Ok, we here , at MSFN are a pretty knowledgeable opinionated bunch when it comes to computers and computer programs - it's our nature , or we wouldn't be here.

So as I'm surfing some other non- computer topical sites ... I run into articles written about computers and programs written by 'regular folk'.
In this case the topic I ran across in the LGF forum (a great forum in it's own right) a topic about IE8 and the regular folks reactions.
I thought I would post the Blog Topic and the link to over 600 comments... to further your knowledge and for your viewing enjoyment.
Some of the reactions are pretty amusing ..yet could provide valuable informative feedback that Microsoft could use.

Enjoy.. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?en...A_Mess&only

" E8: A Mess

Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 9:14:08 pm PST

Well, I installed the beta version of Microsoft’s new Internet Explorer 8, touted as the most compatible version of IE yet, and LGF—which works almost identically in all other major browsers—is almost completely broken in this new “ultra-compatible” version of Microsoft’s hellish web-developer torture device: Internet Explorer 8 Readiness Toolkit.
I can now look forward to spending more hours of my life, fixing more IE-only problems.

And that’s not all; before installing, be aware that it wipes out whichever previous version of IE you have installed without warning you, and changes all your settings including your homepage."

now for the 600 + responses...

example... Peter Verkooijen 3/06/08 9:26:32 pm reply quote report 0

Yes, got the same experience with my site. It has a nice lean three column CSS layout that has always worked fine in all browsers. In IE8 the footer suddenly ends up at the top and the header disappears.


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?en...A_Mess#comments

Me thinks the crowd no likey IE8

600 comments in 10 hours is a lot for a blog posting.

Hopefully devs having real issues with their site and IE8 will post bugs and perhaps review their code. IE8 isn't 100% standards compliant (most browsers are not), and a lot of the hacks previously used to get a site to render properly in IE6 specifically will horribly break a site in IE8. If you can get your site to render in quirks mode in IE7, it should render properly in IE8 too (although strict would be much better, quirks will do).

It's important to remember, especially with the case of Microsoft, that they can't win for trying in the court of public opinion.

In this case:
1) People were complaining that IE wouldn't render "standard" (whatever that means at the moment). Especially remember that IE5/6 wasn't particularly standards-oriented, and in fact marched a tune to MS-HTML, so most sites were developed for MS-HTML, and these people started complaining.
2) IE changed to be "standard-compliant" and therefore broke said sites in #1. People complain incessantly again.

Of course, the thing to remember about standards, is that they're great if they're set in stone for a long time, but the web standards are so fluid and changing that they're almost nonsensical to try to push too hard on. You can even see the reactions of the fanbois of the other browsers..."IE 8 renders to Acid2, great, but what about Acid3?"

There's always going to be a problem. People will always complain about something. Either it doesn't meet standards, it breaks pages, or something else. Especially Microsoft, because of what it is (mind you Firefox and Opera have much worse problems, but they get free passes).

You make some very good points!
Yes, in the court of public opinion, Microsoft seems to have a problem.
That's one reason I posted the blog with 600+ comments.
Yes, a lot of 'fanboi' but some comments and observations were spot on.
As for FF and Opera having "have much worse problems, but they get free passes)." that may have been true a while back, but both of those browsers have fixed acknowledged problems very quickly, and most all serious issues have been addressed. FF3 is looking bulletproof.
FF has/is emerging as THE browser of choice with the 'folks'.
Microsoft knows this, and that's why IE8 is now offering many of the main features that FF has brought to the market , (configurable UI.. add ons.. etc) because thats what the public wants and has become used to in a browser.
Microsoft would do well to make IE8... 'FF add-ons compatible'..., while offering some proprietary enhancements as incentive for people to prefer it over the competition.
If they try to compete head on with FF (and try to offer their own propitiatory add-ons), they are too late.
It would be (in my view) a big mistake, not to offer 'FF compatibility' and ride FF's coat tails, back into a competitive position in the browser market.
I thought it interesting that Microsoft even decided to 'get back' in the browser game, as its a pretty mature market - with more and more 'after market' competition coming on all the time.
I think their interests and profitability, lie elsewhere, but maybe they see something that I don't.

And Microsoft hadn't updated it's browser suite before IE7 for about 6 years, and all of the main IE devs (and most everyone else on the project) went off to do other things. IE7 was a (somewhat hasty) response to FF/Opera/Safari/other competition, but IE8 will be the first real "salvo" that isn't rushed. It'll be good, if not for standards compliance, it's also going to be the first real low-rights browser from Microsoft with good user brokering.


Not sure I believe that, but I guess Linux is also THE operating system of choice with most of those same folks (not a bad thing, but probably mostly true), so they wouldn't buy Microsoft anyway. Microsoft is not targeting them (yet).


You haven't been around for the last 20 years? Any market Microsoft really, really wants to win they'll do it (and sometimes laws be damned). We don't even have to look back to Netscape or IBM or anything else in the late 80s and early 90s, we can stick right here in the current decade to see that at work. You need only look at what has happened to Sony when Microsoft entered the market with the Xbox/360 up against the entrenched PS2 and PS3 - Sony is expected to lose a total of 4.6 billion on just the PS3 alone (not including the fab costs of the Cell) by the end of fiscal year 2008. The PS3 won't even make a profit per unit until late fy 2009, which means unless Sony doesn't want to recoup the costs of the unit (and I would strongly suspect they do, as they are in it for the profit) it'll have to live until 2011 or 2012, maybe later. They're entertainment division is living entirely off of TV and small device sales (like camcorders), which has been the only "good" thing out of entertainment. Heck, the Sony Games division is expected to post a loss of approximately 1.5 billion this year too, on top of that. The real kicker is that the successor to the 360 will likely be out in fy 2010, and Microsoft will probably do the same with it as well as it did on the 360 - lose money for approximately 1.5 years, and then turn a profit on the hardware. It will potentially be making money (or close to it) on the successor to the 360 before Sony can really see any profits to cover it's losses on the PS3 (without completely gouging it's reserves and eating the losses), or even think about releasing a PS4 (and taking losses on that for 1-2 years, maybe more). Tangling with Microsoft head-on is almost always risky business - if you don't disappear completely, you definitely relegate to a niche. Open source will be a different hurdle here, so we'll see how that goes - however, the more Mozilla attempts to bring down Microsoft's IE head-on, the more interesting it will be to see how Microsoft responds. They're pretty ruthless.


Probably the fact that software+services will become big, and the 'net is never going away - so any portal to it that can be provided by Microsoft is not a bad thing, and a good browser is a good selling point for an OS (Safari's pretty darned good, and Firefox/Iceweasel on Linux is pretty commonplace now). Plus, Microsoft does position it's browser as an app platform of sorts, and that appeals to corporate customers who use it as such. Regardless of price, there's "money" to be made in the browser space, and Microsoft will want it's share of the pie (and others, too, but that's a different tangent altogether).

IE8 targets web developers and designers of all skill levels making available tools tailored to help write more efficient code by integrating in the browser the necessary development environment. Development Tools included in this version make it easy for web developers to check the compatibility with IE starting version 5. Readiness Toolkit is already loose and developers are explained in detail how to make use of the new features implemented in IE8 and optimize websites for Microsoft's latest release. I guess i need to try it soon to see it for myself how it really works.


------------------------------------------------------
Value Codes I Brain Power I Value Codes (UK)

I know lots of Firefox users that have MS systems. Some have OSX and fewer have Linux.

Firefox is becoming THE choice of browsers as its share of the market increases every year.

Netscape I'll concede to. IBM on the other hand...Yes MS did screw them on the OS/2 project by making a fork of the OS/2 source and calling it NT, but IBM's downfall was the fault of IBM. They were complacent and arrogant and thought no matter what they made would sell because of the IBM brand. The IBM PC project was there for the sole purpose because of a bet between some IBM guys that they could actually complete a project on time and under budget. They chose to make a PC.

I do agree that MS plays hardball way too much and way too often. It's one thing to compete. It's another to totally "Embrace, crush and destroy", as was their motto for so long. It still is, but they're trying to paint themselves a kinder and gentler MS. There's isn't any amount of paint that can cover them and make them pretty.

Sony on the other hand, are digging their own graves. They don't need help in doing that.


OT:
IE8 in its current form, sucks. It's slow and laggy and breaks tons of stuff at the moment. Luckilly I don't do web developement.

I'm a regular folk.

Moved to Firefox a few years ago and I don't have any reasons to return into to the domain of IE.

---

firefox brought a feeling of democracy in a sort of twisted way as we are no longer tied to the wishes of a corporation nor I will have to spend any money to buy licenses or be afraid to pass copies of it to my friends.

--

Have built several sites and either FF or IE (6 & 7) work good enough.

Other browsers are also good, diversity is welcome to bring more competition.

And beta 1 is a dev beta - the rendering engine is what is being tested in beta 1. A lot of other things should be addressed later in the betas, but beta 1 is definitely not for use as an everyday browser .

I'll have to disagree with this... The trend of increasing market share is starting to slow down, as people realize that Firefox is not always what it was cropped up to be. Look at the number of security vulnerabilities that have cropped up in FF1.5 and FF2 in the past two years. Severe memory leak issues, that everyone knows about and nobody at Mozilla wants to talk about, don't help the matter either.

THE choice of browsers is whatever browser suits you most. I personally prefer Opera, but my parents don't like it. My girlfriend uses Firefox, so do many of her roommates. My thesis advisor uses Firefox for one reason alone - Zotero, but if it weren't for that, he'd prefer to use Safari. The fact of the matter is that there IS choice about what you want to use.

Edit - as an addition to my previous statement... the more market share you hold, the more apparent your flaws become. Look at this bug in OSX that my friend found. Apple couldn't even properly handle errors during copy/paste until just a few months ago. They quickly released an update that fixed this bug, but seriously... it's not like we're talking about very complex code here. The same concept applies to Firefox's growing market share (as well as Opera and Safari for that matter).

Some good points , but some I must disagree with as well.
FF became the 'peoples choice' as a browser by giving people what they want, a better product with options and configurability.
Yes , all browsers have issues and FF is no exception. When issues were identified, FF dealt with them quickly.
And many users have discovered new tricks and tips to 'soup up' their FF browser experience, because they are able to.
Add-ons for FF abound in the marketplace. A cottage industry of sorts.
Recently there was a security fix for IE6 issued. And IE6 has been out how many years?
Yes, if Microsoft wants to buy a market , they will do so. thats a given, but it's that sort of arrogance that has turned off the consumer and caused many people to hate Microsoft, whether or not Microsoft's products are better for their application.
I'm glad there is competition in the browser market and a 'high tide floats all boats'
The consumer benefits from competition and as a result is having a better browser experience today because of this. Consumers don't like being locked in or being told what to buy.
Thats why new competitors enter the market.
There will always be fanbois of every program, and everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I posted the article as an object lesson in consumer behavior and perceptions.
And I find the comments, for the most part, are true.
Once the bar has been raised, the consumer is more fickle and has higher expectations.
Yes, if MS wants IE8 to be the best browser out there, they can dictate that to the market.
But they now have to make a better product, not just rely on superior marketing and distribution to attain and keep market share.

Its been fixed in FF3. It took a little while but the issues are being patched at light speed, relative to M$.

It also helps that its Open Source. Much less critical flaws.

OSS does not automatically mean there are fewer bugs or less critical flaws. Bugs in programs are also dependant on what compiler is used and what options are used to optimize the source. I've written quite a lot of software over the years and there have been many many times that an unoptimized build will work differently than a build with general or specific optimizations enabled. It's not enough to be able to examine the source. You also have to know about the quirks and bugs of the compiler you use.