Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Internet Explorer Microsoft Software Upgrades

Next IE Version Will Feature Web Audio, Media Capture, ES6 Promises, and HTTP/2 173

Posted by timothy from the loyal-opposition dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft [Wednesday] announced it is developing at least four new features for the next release of Internet Explorer (IE): Web Audio API, Media Capture and Streams, ES6 Promises, and HTTP/2. The company says this is not an exhaustive list of what to expect in the next version, but merely what it is currently confident that it will be able to deliver. For those who don't know, HTTP/2 is a faster protocol for transporting Web content. It is based on Google's SPDY open networking protocol and is currently being standardized by the IETF. Web Audio is a JavaScript API for processing and synthesizing audio in Web applications while Media Capture provides access to the user's local audio and video input/output devices. Promises is meant to help developers write cleaner asynchronous code."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Next IE Version Will Feature Web Audio, Media Capture, ES6 Promises, and HTTP/2 More

Next IE Version Will Feature Web Audio, Media Capture, ES6 Promises, and HTTP/2

Comments Filter:

  • all i really want from IE (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 29, 2014 @09:58AM (#47119431)

    is to be standards compliant so i don't have to write my html/css/js to work on everything else, then modify it to also work with IE. years after the nightmares of IE6 and 7, i still have to troubleshoot IE more than any other browser.

    • Microsoft stops porting new versions of IE to a Windows version for which "mainstream support" has ended, which happens roughly two years after the following major version of Windows comes out. After that, all users get is "extended support", which means five years of security updates for the existing versions of IE. So if any of your users use Internet Explorer on Windows Vista, you're stuck on IE 9. And if IE 12 doesn't come out before January of next year [microsoft.com], Windows 7 users will be stuck on IE 11.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jbolden ( 176878 )

        Windows 8 only wouldn't be a bad thing. That would allow IE 12 to have lots of touch based features or dual touch / mouse features that Windows 7 doesn't support. That would allow Windows to lead the move towards dual mode (keyboard + touch, mouse + touch + keyboard)... type sites the same way Apple led for retina.

      • enterprise use of Windows 7 is to high for it to be cut off next year.

        Windows 9 better be out next year as windows 8 is bombing hard.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rob Y. ( 110975 )

        That's a really good argument against tying a browser to an Operating System. For a time, there were similar problems getting the latest Firefox version on various Linux distros. FF was tied enough to specific versions of GTK that you couldn't upgrade it until your OS upgraded all of GNOME to pick up the right GTK version. I think that problem's gone a way (mostly?) these days. Maybe FF stuck with the GNOME 2 toolkit and only has to target a frozen version of that.

    • I've been building dynamic content heavy web applications that scale to any resolution for over 10 years and while I can admit that IE 6 and 7 were GARBAGE I see only minor issues with later versions and have yet to encounter issues with version 10 and 11. In my experience those who have lots of cross browser issues write poor html and css. In my first 2-3 years of making web applications I made many mistakes and learned how to properly use markup and css.

      If you have to support old browsers of any making I

  • I can't wait.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @10:03AM (#47119513)
    to not use it.

    • I can wait.
      I don't think I've tried IE since 2009; I've heard it works now, don't care, done with the abuse.

    • IE won the browser war, but failed to meet the objectives.

      During the 1990's that big browser war between IE and Firefox, Millions of dollars pushed to a free (as in beer) web browser, so they can obtain dominance, and use this dominance to push their standards, to keep people locked in.

      Microsoft won the war... However they never got a food hold on pushing the standards, the Web Standards seemed to move around them, not threw them.
      Things like Active X which was suppose to be the killer feature in IE, had bec

      • IE won the browser war...

        Did they? All the sources I looked at say Chrome is the leader (followed by IE, then Firefox).

        • They did. Browser War I anyway. Unfortunately Netscape rose under new leaders and started Browser War II, but was eventually defeated by the entry of Chrome onto the stage.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jbolden ( 176878 )

        Agree with your point. But you mean Netscape. There was no Firefox then. The Mozilla project came in reaction to Netscape's collapsing marketshare.

      • IE won the browser war, but failed to meet the objectives.

        During the 1990's that big browser war between IE and Firefox, Millions of dollars pushed to a free (as in beer) web browser, so they can obtain dominance, and use this dominance to push their standards, to keep people locked in.

        Microsoft won the war... However they never got a food hold on pushing the standards, the Web Standards seemed to move around them, not threw them. Things like Active X which was suppose to be the killer feature in IE, had became a major security problem, thus only used by poorly designed intranet apps. Then when AJAX+CSS 2 became popular and implemented for all other browsers it came to a point where you are better off not using IE, for your experience.

        During the 1990s the big browser war was between Netscape and IE, and by version 3 and 4 IE became the better browser of the two (yes, hard as that is to believe today), and Netscape was even worse in pushing their own standards.

        ActiveX was a killer feature for developers of the day, that is why it was adopted so much, which later bit everyone in the ass -- and there is a learning here for today's developers that can't wait to implement non-standardized vendor specific prefix functions in production sites

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sootman ( 158191 )

      Oh ye of little faith. I bet it will be awesome for downloading Firefox. :-)

      Seriously, they should just set the homepage to firefox.com.

  • while Media Capture provides access to the user's local audio and video input/output devices

    Unless this is 100% controlled by the user, it's a terrible idea.

    And, even if it's 100% controlled by the user, it's a terrible idea -- because, let's face it, the security record of IE pretty much guarantees this will get hacked.

  • ...Bill_the_engineer to troll this crap into /dev/null

  • SPDY HTTP/2 is perhaps not something to brag about (Score:4, Interesting)

    by QilessQi ( 2044624 ) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @10:06AM (#47119555)

    Not right now, at least, considering the very recent public discussions [theregister.co.uk].

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @10:13AM (#47119615)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Failing that, PowerShell has Invoke-WebRequest which can be aliased to look like wget. Now all we need is a permanent web address that is easy and quick to type that downloads both .. say http://save.me/ [save.me]

  • You must be kidding (Score:3)

    by Austrian Anarchy ( 3010653 ) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @10:13AM (#47119621) Homepage Journal
    How about they get the version that came with Win. 8 working right before moving on to bigger, better things? IE has been my last choice in a browser for well over a decade because almost anything else works better.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tepples ( 727027 )

      How about they get the version that came with Win. 8 working right before moving on

      I fully expect Microsoft to backport IE 12 to Windows 8.1 because Windows 8.1 will still be in mainstream support until two years after Windows 9 is out.

      IE has been my last choice in a browser for well over a decade because almost anything else works better.

      Not everybody is as technically minded as you and I and most of the rest of Slashdot. Some people use the pack-in browser because they either A. don't know better, B. use computers owned (and locked down) by an employer, school, or public library, or C. have no choice of browser (other than IE and possibly IE wrappers) because they browse on a Windows Phone

    • IE has been my last choice in a browser for well over a decade because almost anything else works better.

      Have you tried IE in the last few years?

      • IE has been my last choice in a browser for well over a decade because almost anything else works better.

        Have you tried IE in the last few years?

        I have it right now, on my Win. 8.1 machine I mentioned in my OP. The only thing I use it for is logging in at Starbucks so Starbucks does not mess up my Chrome tabs from the last session. Sometimes I use it to report problems to MS. End of list.

  • IE's release model is failing (Score:5, Informative)

    by dingen ( 958134 ) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @10:18AM (#47119683)

    With the stupidly slow release cycles of IE, Microsoft will always play catch up with the "real" browsers.

    Google Chrome had Web Audio API implemented in version 10. That was release in 2011. Google in the meantime has shipped *25 versions* of Chrome. Same goes for Firefox, which had Web Audio implemented for even longer than Chrome, but used a different API. They've been on the same API since Firefox 25, which was released in October of last year. Since then, Mozilla has shipped another 4 versions of Firefox.

    Microsoft in the meantime was only able to announce they were going to have Web Audio in their next major release. That's because since October last year (when IE11 came out), they have released a staggering *zero* versions of IE. While the rest of the world was moving forward, they were just shipping security updates. They just can't keep up like this. Every time they release a major version they're sorta on the same page again as the competition, but it's a matter of a few months and they're so way behind again it's impossible to ever compete in a serious way.

    Microsoft still hasn't learned their lesson from IE6 as IE is still holding the web back. Get your act together, Microsoft. Stop slowing everyone down.

    • Re:IE's release model is failing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @10:30AM (#47119837)

      Google in the meantime has shipped *25 versions* of Chrome.

      And IE has been patched at least that often as well but doesn't bother incrementing the major version number every time.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dingen ( 958134 )

        And how many new features have they introduced in those patches? None. That's the point, they're just plugging the holes in their buggy software instead of enabling developers to fully make use of new features on the web.

        • Why are "new features" so important to you? It is a web browser. It's not suppose to change drastically or it causes standards problems.

          You know, standards problems like Chrome has caused over the last decade. Tossing out new features, only present in one browser and not officially determined to be a standard, is not helping the Internet.

          If Microsoft is seen as dragging it's feet, it's because they only enact what is officially a standard. To put things in perspective, HTML5 is still not ratified with W

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dingen ( 958134 )

            Why are "new features" so important to you? It is a web browser. It's not suppose to change drastically or it causes standards problems.

            Because I want the web to be a real application platform so I can develop things that run on any device. Google and Mozilla are committed to making that a reality, but Microsoft isn't because they provide a large application platform themselves in the form of Windows.

            You know, standards problems like Chrome has caused over the last decade. Tossing out new features, only present in one browser and not officially determined to be a standard, is not helping the Internet.

            Then why are Chrome and Firefox more compatible with each other than Internet Explorer is with any of them?

            If Microsoft is seen as dragging it's feet, it's because they only enact what is officially a standard. To put things in perspective, HTML5 is still not ratified with W3C yet. Internet Explorer did not roll-out HTML5 until it reached Draft Recommended status, which in my opinion is the prudent thing to do

            That ship has long left the harbour. HTML5 is a reality and it has been for quite some time now. Whatever the W3C decides to do isn't rea

            • Because I want the web to be a real application platform so I can develop things that run on any device. Google and Mozilla are committed to making that a reality, but Microsoft isn't because they provide a large application platform themselves in the form of Windows.

              Not everything should or needs to be done in a single application. The idea of creating a monolithic platform is a wonderful idea, but ONLY if it confirms strictly to a set of standards AND is secure. The more "features" you add, the harder it is to keep secure and the farther you deviate from the standards, so it is counter-productive.

              Then why are Chrome and Firefox more compatible with each other than Internet Explorer is with any of them?

              Because Firefox makes most of it's money from Google and since Google ignores the need for a standard, they are essentially bullying everyone into accepting their "features

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by alexo ( 9335 )

          And how many new features have they introduced in those patches?

          A more interesting question is:
          <firefox>How many useful features have they removed in those patches</firefox>

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by vux984 ( 928602 )

          And how many new features have they introduced in those patches? None. That's the point, they're just plugging the holes in their buggy software instead of enabling developers to fully make use of new features on the web

          I'd agree with you to the point that IE isn't moving as fast as I'd like. On the other hand, for most developers, especially enterprise developers, the web needs to be a stable target.

          IE is also uniquely challenged because unlike FF and Chrome etc, IE has a lot of pressure to provide backwar

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dingen ( 958134 )

            I don't really give a shit about new bleeding edge features though, I just want to see the standards met.

            That's well and nice if you just want to make a document available through the web. But I want to web to more than just delivering documents, I want it to be a platform for applications. I want games in my browser, write code in my browser, image editing in my browser, audio processing my browser, everything I do in my browser. Why? Because *every single device out there* has a browser. I want a future where any applications runs on any device, running any operating system, any browser. That's when we can r

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by vux984 ( 928602 )

              That's well and nice if you just want to make a document available through the web. But I want to web to more than just delivering documents, I want it to be a platform for applications.

              Your desire that you want the browser to be a 'platform for applications' is fine, but is not related to the release schedule at all. How come your long term desire can't be accomplished in slower bigger steps?

              Windows, iOS, Debian Stable, and OS X Mavericks are all "platforms for applications" and none of them need 25 featu

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by dingen ( 958134 )

                Your desire that you want the browser to be a 'platform for applications' is fine, but is not related to the release schedule at all. How come your long term desire can't be accomplished in slower bigger steps?

                Because that makes it harder to correct mistakes. The current model of releasing small, frequent updates is a really powerful mechanism for developers to explore what works and what doesn't. The things that make it are adopted and become the standard, the rest is discarded. Google and Mozilla are really pushing the web forward doing this, but Microsoft isn't playing ball.

                Windows, iOS, Debian Stable, and OS X Mavericks are all "platforms for applications" and none of them need 25 feature updates a year, but fixes yes... but not whole new releases with new features every couple weeks.

                Not anymore they don't. But that's because those platforms are actually quite feature complete and have been for a long time, if not from

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by vux984 ( 928602 )

                  I highly doubt that. I think the moment a vendor starts shipping a lesser web experience in a world where the web is increasingly more important, they will see a drop in adoption and sales.

                  That's why the iphone flopped when Apple decided it wouldn't support flash in an era where flash was pretty important.

                  But the larger view is its a catch-22; most developers won't use features that aren't widely available cross-platform -- so any major closed platform that sees those features as a threat simply can refuse

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by dingen ( 958134 )

                    That's why the iphone flopped when Apple decided it wouldn't support flash in an era where flash was pretty important.

                    But you see, it really wasn't that important at all. Flash was mainly used for 3 things: ads, video and games. Video and games the iPhone could do fine and ads nobody wants anyway.

                    It would be very different for real web stuff, as people can just install another browser on their devices. I think there would be quite a backlash amongst both developers and the general public if a vendor suddenly decides to artificially limit the capabilities of their web browser. In a way, that is what Microsoft is doing by ad

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by vux984 ( 928602 )

                      It would be very different for real web stuff,

                      No it wouldn't because the 'real web stuff' you want doesn't even exist yet. So its even less important to consumers than flash, which actually was being widely used.

                      as people can just install another browser on their devices

                      Unless they can't, because the locked down platform decides to drop alternative browsers from the app store.

                      In a way, that is what Microsoft is doing by adopting new features so slowly and their market share is but a fraction of what it us

  • Why is asm.js not listed!? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by goruka ( 1721094 ) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @10:35AM (#47119901)
    I know it's not a "standard" (yet?) but asm.js is one of the best things that happened to web browsers. It already works well in Firefox, Chrome and Safari, yet performance in IE is much worse than in the other platforms. Given all platforms support WebGL at this point, we are pretty much only waiting for IE to adopt proper support for asm.js.

    • As a WebGL developer I 100% concur.

      GPU's have been standard for what 10 years? And only now Microsoft is supporting "Compositing and Blending in Canvas 2D", "Mix Blend Mode" now ??

      They can't even alphabetize properly. The "Sort by name" is broken ! Typical Microsoft; never gets anything right until the 3rd version.

  • Feels like (Score:3)

    by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @11:59AM (#47120821) Homepage Journal

    2011 all over again! If we're lucky we'll get this new version of IE before 2016.
    MS: Where did you want to go a couple years ago?

  • You can't do standards, you can't do real science, all Microsoft can do is pollute the code stream.

    No fucking thanks. I'll stick with ASM and non-Visual C++.

  • All this 'stuff' we keep adding is already duplicated by local operating systems. It's not necessary. Fuck SaaS.

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close