View Full Version : Chrome out of IE
earnest
09-24-2009, 09:23 AM
I wonder what Microsoft's reaction is going to be to Google's releasing Chrome Frame to turn IE into a modern browser.
Apparently, it's not usable unless a web page contains a specific meta tag. It seems like a slap in the face painful not so much physically but morally.
(Full disclosure: I haven't actually tried Google Frame yet, just been reading the documentation)
My first impression is that this is just weird...
My second impression is that this is an interesting idea. It almost feels to me as though Google has something in the works that may not work well with IE, or that works significantly better with Chrome. The fact that the extension is activated by an on-page tag, rather than allowing a user to select which rendering engine to use, further suggests this to me.
I do notice that the test code acts almost like a flash or silverlight test - the expectation is that pages will be built in such a way that they require the plugin. If you don't have it, you are sent to an installation page, rather than features being disabled. This indicates to me that Google expects the plugin to be used more to replace functionality than to improve performance (in which case, the page wouldn't really care if the plugin is being used or not).
Interesting take, wige, and quite possibly correct.
I wonder, though...if that's what they end up doing, do you think they may be opening themselves up to an antitrust suit? Not as blatant as MS' debacle a few years back, but essentially the same intent.
Interesting thought. My guess would be that it wouldn't be a problem, and there are precedences for many of the elements involved.
1 - The browser plugin that causes pages to be rendered with a different HTML/Scripting engine is not new. For example, there are several plugins that do this for Firefox, allowing pages to be viewed with the IE rendering engine.
2 - The idea of blocking access to a page or an entire site is not new. Some sites block users with certain browsers, others block visitors that don't have certain plugins. Flash-heavy sites, for example, often redirect users to the Adobe Flash download site.
However, using a plugin to change the internal rendering engine at the request of the site, rather than at the request of the user, is... interesting to say the least.
Clint1
09-25-2009, 01:53 AM
This sounds like something I would actually be interesting in using. I don't like FF too much (way too slow and compatibility problems at too many sites), and sites like YouTube for example are forcing people to use IE8 or the latest FF version just to see their site. Something like this Chrome Frame could be used for sites such as that (IF they would add the meta tag). The big question is, will it always require a meta tag. A server-side tag would be the best method, but that doesn't currently exist from what I've seen.
As for the M$ reaction:
"With Internet Explorer 8, we made significant advancements and updates to make the browser safer for our customers. Given the security issues with plug-ins in general and Google Chrome in particular, Google Chrome Frame running as a plug-in has doubled the attack area for malware and malicious scripts. This is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take."
Rather sounds like a potential war brewing to me.
On a side note, I rather take exception to some comments on this page (http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/180181.asp):
"Google has a solution for those stubborn users who still haven't upgraded from the 8-year-old Internet Explorer 6: let them run Chrome, Google's Web browser, inside IE."
I don't know if I would say "stubborn", maybe 'sensible', or perhaps just hates tabs and bugs! This statement seems to support that:
"The idea is to lure people away from Internet Explorer – especially the now-despised IE6. That's a feat even Microsoft, which has since released IE7 and IE8, has struggled to accomplish."
Perhaps if M$ had made IE8/7 with options to: Have it look like IE6 with the same layout if that is the user's choice; Have countless IE6 plug-in tools work with IE8; Made IE8 to be backward compatible with so many sites, and work at them without any functionality issues; And properly tested it prior to releasing it; M$ would not be "struggling to accomplish" anything.
Even they lose site of the simple fact that if you want people to change, give them what they want--OPTIONS, CHOICES--and choices and options without sacrifice. Then they will come. (And to ward off any potential comments about "why don't you change", "why the hell are you [and so many others] still using IE6", etc., etc., I actually keep text saved from when I answered that a while back..... :))
Awww C'mon! It's a user preference. We're all free to use whatever browsers we choose.
I started on IE over 12 years ago I guess, and I became very proficient with it. It "worked", so I continued to use it. When FF came out I gave it a try. The plugins are great, but, I don't like the idea of every new version breaking most of the plugins. For me, FF is also much slower than IE, on every reformat. It takes about 20 secs for it to load, and it's very slow at websites taking much much longer for pages to load. IE is the fastest browser I've used, and I've tried Safari and Opera (but that was a few years ago).
I frequently have problems at websites with FF with certain website features not working. I've never had that problem in IE. (I guess few use transparent png's).
Since my business is "on the internet", I am online 12-14 hrs each day. That much use daily over more than 12 years, I got to the point long ago that I could use IE "with my eyes closed". I don't even have to look at the toolbar in order to move my mouse cursor to anywhere I want to click. That equates to incredible efficiency. Since IE3, 4, 5, 6, all can have the same layout, I have lost nothing but only gained productivity through the various IE incarnations. I'm quite good with neuromuscular facilitation and memorize the layout of something very quickly. (Same with my remotes; after using a new one about a week, I never have to look at them again to operate them). In keeping with that analogy, I recently had to get a new remote that had commercial skip because my new HDTV doesn't have it (none do anymore). Let me tell you, I'm going through hell trying to get used to that "replacement" remote, because, the remote I had been using I used for over 15 years! That's a very long and indelible muscle memory imprint to have to retrain!
The same thing happens when changing browsers. Any change would be a big step backward in efficiency and productivity for me, and many many others.
If you're even close to being in my situation, you wouldn't be too keen on changing browsers either.
Since my PC has to be totally stable, I always reformat before changing IE versions. The last time I reformatted, IE7 was new, and as you know, one should NEVER use anything from M$ that is new! I belong to a few webmaster and internet forums, and the issues with IE7 were quite big. That has changed little to this day. IE7 is still tagging totally legit websites as Phishing websites! That crap by M$ has slandered countless millions of site owners and probably put a lot out of business! IE8, is even worse with its issues. I've also yet to be told by anyone that IE7 can be made to have the same look and layout of IE6 (if it can, I would possibly change, if the bugs are worked out).
So until M$ (or anyone else) comes out with a browser version that is as stable and as fast as IE6, and can be made to have the same layout as IE6, I need to stay with IE6.
I don't play favorites company-wise. Like most people, I don't like M$. I think it sucks the way they totally integrate IE into the OS's. (Which is probably why IE is so fast, but it's bad for other browsers, and they KNOW that). I don't like their monopolizing control and posturing to make the net into their own image (like G is trying to do). But because of the reasons mentioned above, I am rather "stuck with" their browser. (And in case you're wondering about their OS's), it's the same with their OS. "Why don't you use Linux??" Like IE, I can use Windows with my eyes closed. I use a PC so fast, that I have to force myself to work at a (to me) a literal snail's pace when I'm trying to show my customers something, they say their eyes can't keep up with my hand movements! Even if it can be made to have the same layout as Windows, until Linux comes out with drivers for ALL of my hardware, and support for ALL of my software, I am also rather "stuck with" Windows.
That's a big parenthetical inflection. :lol:
... properly tested it prior to releasing it; M$ would not be "struggling to accomplish" anything.
That's what we love about ya, Clint.....
you're a dreamer! :lol:
For my part, I just can't get excited about Google trying to muscle through a problem, that really needs to be solved, rather than worked around. From past performance, I have more confidence in their new releases, than I do in M$' releases. But that's not saying much.
Unlike you, I like FF. I've gotten used to it, like you have IE6 (which is also the most recent version I have on my machines). Like you, I get frustrated with most of my add-ons being made obsolete with every new release, but I accept that as the nature of the beast, with an open source product.
Maybe I'm stuck in the mud here, but I'd prefer to see Google stay in the SE industry, and not diversify so much. They've still got plenty of room for improvement, right where they are.
Clint1
09-25-2009, 02:31 AM
That's what we love about ya, Clint.....
you're a dreamer! :lol:
HA!!! :lol: :lol:
Unlike you, I like FF. I've gotten used to it, like you have IE6 (which is also the most recent version I have on my machines). Like you, I get frustrated with most of my add-ons being made obsolete with every new release, but I accept that as the nature of the beast, with an open source product.
Have you had any luck with the FF extensions hack?
Maybe I'm stuck in the mud here, but I'd prefer to see Google stay in the SE industry, and not diversify so much. They've still got plenty of room for improvement, right where they are.
Indeed.
deepsand
09-25-2009, 02:50 AM
I've a foot in both the IE6 and FF camps.
The former, for its clean, uncluttered user interface, its predictability, its smaller memory footprint & faster rendering speed, and its native ability to save .MHT archive files; the later, for it's tabbing, the wide variety of available extensions, and its automatic session backup/restore feature. Which I use depends on the task at hand; with multiple instances of each generally being open.
The IE7 & 8 interfaces are without doubt some of the very worst examples of placing form before function that I've ever seen in my 51 years of working with computer systems. They look like something out of Wired magazine.
Safari & Chrome are wannabes; I'll not even attempt to enumerate their shortcomings.
As I'm just now beginning to try Opera, the jury's out on it.
earnest
09-25-2009, 03:05 AM
(Full disclosure: I haven't actually tried Google Frame yet, just been reading the documentation)
My first impression is that this is just weird...
My second impression is that this is an interesting idea. It almost feels to me as though Google has something in the works that may not work well with IE, or that works significantly better with Chrome. The fact that the extension is activated by an on-page tag, rather than allowing a user to select which rendering engine to use, further suggests this to me.
I do notice that the test code acts almost like a flash or silverlight test - the expectation is that pages will be built in such a way that they require the plugin. If you don't have it, you are sent to an installation page, rather than features being disabled. This indicates to me that Google expects the plugin to be used more to replace functionality than to improve performance (in which case, the page wouldn't really care if the plugin is being used or not).
My best guess is that you've hit the nail on the head, Wige - Google have been having serious issues with Google Wave and IE, and as I see it they have come up with this face-slapping workaround rather than deal with it. I'm not sure how possible it was, but this is how it looks. I agree that requiring a website to be appropriately tagged rather than having the user make the choice is a key thing here. Yet another thing here is the availability of IE 7 emulation in IE 8.
According to a Google blog post,
In the past, the Google Wave team has spent countless hours solely on improving the experience of running Google Wave in Internet Explorer. We could continue in this fashion, but using Google Chrome Frame instead lets us invest all that engineering time in more features for all our users, without leaving Internet Explorer users behind.
I can see MS folks conceiving a strike back...
Clint1
09-25-2009, 03:14 AM
The IE7 & 8 interfaces are without doubt some of the very worst examples of placing form before function that I've ever seen in my 51 years of working with computer systems. They look like something out of Wired magazine.
ROTFLMAO. :lol:
What computer systems were out 51 years ago?? Abacus? :lol: ;) ~30 ton ENIAC?
deepsand
09-25-2009, 04:29 AM
1947 - Transistor developed
1940s - '50s - IBM Unit Record Equipment/Tabulators
Unit record equipment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_record_equipment)
1951 - UNIVAC 1
UNIVAC (http://www.thocp.net/hardware/univac.htm)
univac - Google Images (http://images.google.com/images?q=univac&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=AX-8SqqnJM_PlAeI2OGYBA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4)
1953 - IBM 701
IBM Archives: IBM 701 (http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/701/701_intro.html)
ibm 701 - Google Images (http://images.google.com/images?q=ibm+701&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=v328Sqv6HsqRlAf-n8SYBA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1)
1956 - PENNSTAC, Penn State EE Dept.; the machine I cut my teeth on
pennstac (http://www.ee.psu.edu/history/pennstac.html)
weekly photo (http://www.sesquicentennial.psu.edu/pix/archive/pennstac.html)
Penn State Historical Markers (http://www.psu.edu/ur/about/markers/pennstac.html)
1954 - FORTRAN
1958 - Integrated circuit developed
Clint1
09-25-2009, 05:20 AM
Wow, nicely done. Now where are those applause icons of yours.......Ah:
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa12/sharewhat2/Emoticons/bravo.gifhttp://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa12/sharewhat2/Emoticons/zizaru_9.gif
deepsand
09-25-2009, 08:07 PM
http://www.ashokforums.com/forums/images/smilies/77.gif
i only used google chrome then as a substitue for IE.. over time i liked chrome's design simplicity, it's a user friendly browser, thus i made it now no. 1 browser whenever i surf online..
Clint1
09-26-2009, 02:16 AM
http://www.ashokforums.com/forums/images/smilies/77.gif
Another nice handy one to save.
Does anyone know where you can actually download Chrome?? :confused: All I can find is that ridiculous downloader installer program, or, bogus download links.
Right here, Clint.
Google Chrome - Download a new browser (http://www.google.com/chrome)
Clint1
09-26-2009, 02:54 AM
Thanks Doc, but that's just the installer downloader (http://www.webproworld.com/browsers/91444-chrome-out-ie.html#post467437).
Then try CNET:
Google Chrome - Free software downloads and software reviews - CNET Download.com (http://download.cnet.com/Google-Chrome/3000-2356_4-10881381.html)
Clint1
09-26-2009, 03:36 AM
Hey, thanks Doc. ;)
Hey, thanks Doc. ;)
De nada, seņor. Did that do it for you?
Clint1
09-26-2009, 11:05 AM
Don't know yet, I haven't tried to install it. But I downloaded it and it's 10.5mb in size, which is of course too large for just an installer. But the name of it is "chrome_installer", odd. :confused:
deepsand
09-26-2009, 01:56 PM
Might be offline installer/payload combination.
MrGamm
09-27-2009, 03:52 PM
"The idea is to lure people away from Internet Explorer – especially the now-despised IE6. That's a feat even Microsoft, which has since released IE7 and IE8, has struggled to accomplish."If they can't get people to download the browser after advertising it directly off their front page... What makes then think asking them to hack their current broswer is going to work.
I think over all... this not only says something about how Google is too "Modern" to be able to build web applications which the rest of us make... and it says alot about how much advertising directly on their front page is worth...
I say wait for the rest of the world to catch upto the HMTL 5 spec... in the meantime... why don't they concentrate on their image and video search? I mean Bing is currently blowing them out of the water...
Why are they re-inventing the wheel? To innovate? Or dominate? A browser hack is hardly an innovation... it's a big kludge... what does that really say about them?
Most of those IE six users are banks, government organizations, schools, or corporations who invested a significant amount into workstation data entry terminals and such... What do they need Google Chrome for? The rest are crawlers spoofing the User Agent...
I ditched the idea of using Chrome after I fell in love with the huge amount of plug-ins and options Firefox has... I tried it... didn't like it... and it had issues displaying some websites properly at the time I tried it... not sure what it's like now... Google Chrome will never be better than Firefox... at least not anytime soon... and I am not installing special software so I can use products and services which are not supported by the rest of the internet community... I don't care if they want to innovate and lead the pack...
I don't see them currently using web standards for most of their applications... whose to say they wouldn't turn the web inside out? I mean at least Internet explorer innovated with things like built in content editor areas, innerHTML and such... what exactly is Google going to do which they can't wait for the rest of the world to do with HTML 5?
Even Explorer has mentioned it's a security issue... They can work with what they have... I think they are just looking for an excuse to not succeed and blaming everyone else for the limitations we all live with...
Clint1
09-28-2009, 03:16 AM
If they can't get people to download the browser after advertising it directly off their front page... What makes then think asking them to hack their current broswer is going to work.
I think over all... this not only says something about how Google is too "Modern" to be able to build web applications which the rest of us make... and it says alot about how much advertising directly on their front page is worth...
I agree with everything you said. I think the problem there is (like myself), most people don't want to change the browser they are using. At about ~2.5% share, they have a long long way to go. But I think they will get more of a share because of this plugin; because with it, you don't have to change from IE6 (or older FF) to another browser in order to view webpages (like YouTube) that have banned pre-IE8 users (and pre-FF 3.5.2 users) from viewing their content.
Why are they re-inventing the wheel? To innovate? Or dominate? A browser hack is hardly an innovation... it's a big kludge... what does that really say about them?
Yeah that's what scares me. They've already put site owners "on a leash" controlling everything one does with how people want to use their own websites. They want to "own" and totally control the internet, continuing to make site owners jump through hoops. If they can get most everyone to use Chrome, they're one step closer to their goal.
I don't see them currently using web standards for most of their applications... whose to say they wouldn't turn the web inside out?
Hell they've already done that! ^
earnest
09-28-2009, 05:55 AM
What's interesting is that there was a similar effort on the part of the Mozilla team https://wiki.mozilla.org/Tamarin:ScreamingMonkey, which somehow left off approximately where it started.
... because with it, you don't have to change from IE6 (or older FF) to another browser in order to view webpages (like YouTube) that have banned pre-IE8 users (and pre-FF 3.5.2 users) from viewing their content.
I'm sure there are sites out there that do that, but I run FF 3.0.6 and IE 6.0, and I haven't had any problem viewing content at YouTube. In fact, I have yet to find a site that wouldn't display its content for me.
Clint1
09-28-2009, 10:49 AM
I'm sure there are sites out there that do that, but I run FF 3.0.6 and IE 6.0, and I haven't had any problem viewing content at YouTube. In fact, I have yet to find a site that wouldn't display its content for me.
Yeah they still let you in as of now, (I guess I should have said "are about to ban...").
"We will be phasing out support for your browser soon.
Please upgrade to one of these more modern browsers."
Then to the right of that they have FF 3.5, IE8, and Chrome. :twisted:
So whenever that change takes place, they are going to be losing a lot of visitors and revenue. I won't patronize a site that "extorts" users into upgrades they otherwise would not want to do. I'm sure there's going to be other sites besides YT that are doing this.
Yeah they still let you in as of now, (I guess I should have said "are about to ban...").
"We will be phasing out support for your browser soon.
Please upgrade to one of these more modern browsers."
Then to the right of that they have FF 3.5, IE8, and Chrome. :twisted:
I hadn't noticed that, Clint.
I won't patronize a site that "extorts" users into upgrades they otherwise would not want to do.
Agreed!
Clint1
09-28-2009, 01:03 PM
I hadn't noticed that, Clint.
Agreed!
Yeah, shocking. :shock: That's gonna come back and bite them in the a$$. It's as though they are doing it out of spite, because pre IE8 and pre FF 3.5 of course supports HTML, XHTML, CSS, etc., everything they have at their website. It would seem to me it would be more work for them to purposely, with intent, go out of their way, to do something to all of their pages that would not work on any other browser other than Chrome, IE8 & FF 3.5! :confused:
Yeah, shocking. :shock: That's gonna come back and bite them in the a$$. It's as though they are doing it out of spite, because pre IE8 and pre FF 3.5 of course supports HTML, XHTML, CSS, etc., everything they have at their website. It would seem to me it would be more work for them to purposely, with intent, go out of their way, to do something to all of their pages that would not work on any other browser other than Chrome, IE8 & FF 3.5! :confused:
I would think they would be able to do it relatively simply, with a site-wide directive.
Which of course, doesn't make it any smarter. ;)
I suspect that we're going to see more of this fiercely competitive stuff in the future, now that Google, for instance, is getting more into the arena that MS has traditionally considered to be its own turf. As a search engine, G wasn't a direct threat, but as a browser, I think both sides are trying to draw a line in the sand, and it's probably gonna get uglier, before it gets better.
And as usual, WE'LL be caught in the middle! :rolleyes:
deepsand
09-28-2009, 08:39 PM
Well, given that there is an extra effort required to break that which now works, I see no incentive for such sufficient to make that happen on a grand scale.
On the other hand, given that so many sites were designed to take advantage of IE-centric features, I can foresee such happening in the future vis-a-vis other browsers.
Overall, I do not expect to see any generalized Balkinization with respect to browsers, given that a competitive marketplace does not and will not foster such; businesses and other institutions which wish to maximize their user bases will be forced to either accommodate the users, or concede a portion of their market sector to those who do.
Johnny27
12-11-2009, 10:34 AM
IE sux anyway... microsoft should be happy that there's someone who wants to improve it.
deepsand
12-11-2009, 03:18 PM
IE sux anyway... microsoft should be happy that there's someone who wants to improve it.
http://www.webproworld.com/browsers/88539-ie8-decides-doesnt-want-work.html#post482938
You're repeating yourself. Trying to boost your post count? :rolleyes:
Well, then, I will repeat.
In your opinion only.
Furthermore, not everyone's needs are the same. For many, particularly institutional users, IE provides the functionality needed without the extra baggage that comes with some other browsers.
Perhaps you'd like to hear from those who have experienced problems with your favorite browser?
Perhaps you'll be able to come up with a substantive response this time? :???: