What's wrong with Internet Explorer? (serious thread)

[Ziggy]

Most, if not all, computer enthusaists seem to hate IE, for various reasons: insecure, slow, "bloated", made by Micro$haft etc. But I've just gone back to it after a number of years and I'm wondering where these ideas come from because from what I can see there's nothing really wrong with it, and it many ways it is more professionally put together than its alternatives.

Thoughts?

 

[alex24]

It boasts good compatibility, but also is probably the least secure as it is targeted by malware the most.

There is no support for extensions, which most other browsers have, and I personally couldn't live without.

It's certainly not as fast as the competition. Chrome flies on my machines.

 

[iNPUt]

I think the biggest issue is not being compliant with industry standards which gets most computer enthusiasts pretty annoy.
Regular users won't see this side of the problem, but IE bug fixing is a right pain in the backside, especially when people are still using 6.

Also on the security front internet explorer uses security through obscurity, like most microsoft products.
This means Mr bad who wants to hack many machines has more opportunity to find a bug, and with Microsoft's pretty pure patch regime and application by users these holes can run rampant.
Having open source code allows many researchers to find and close these bugs before the bad guys can get hold of them, and If they do the same researchers can find a way to close these bugs quickly.

Little add-on support, stuff like ad block, NoScripts, etc, etc.

It just should not be used, the biggest part is complying with standards, it kind of a makes it a joke of a browser.

 

[memyselfandi]

I would say the "problems" with IE are the following (in my opinion)

1). Early versions had compatibility and security issues and as such IE got a bad reputation as a poor browser, which has stuck no matter what improvements have been made since.

2). Because of it's large user base it is a popular target for nefarious individuals trying to do nasty things to your computer.

3). Lack of extensions. Once of the things which makes people prefer browsers like Firefox is the number of extensions and and other add-ins which you can install to improve the browsing experience, (e.g. ad and script blockers etc).

 

[Daegan]

Poor web standards support. As a user it might look fine, because a developer's taken the time to make a site work with IE. But as a developer it's a total pain in the arse, seeing functionality working fine in other browsers rendered useless by IE. Looks like that's going to change with IE 9, but it's taken Microsoft years to get the message.

 

[swinnie]

The main issue for me, personally is web standard support. I'm a website developer and have had many, many issues with Internet Explorer not reading CSS correctly - why should we be forced to create "IE Specific Stylesheets" just to get our standards compliant websites to work correctly in Internet Explorer?

However, IE 8 is far more standards compliant than it's ever been and I'm rather impressed with it. The only issues I've found with it are slight discrepancies in the padding values of certain elements - namely field inputs.

The other major issue is speed. I find Internet Explorer to be incredibly slow. Not just in page load time, but also in application load time. My favoured browser, Firefox feels fast and smooth at all times.

In addition, I rely on certain plugins and add-on features that browsers simply do not have. Firefox provides support for these, for example - XMarks, AdBlock Plus, Firebug and the Web Developer Tool Bar. Invaluable to my day-to-day browsing experience.

Lastly, is the security of the browser. On XP (for instance) I found Internet Explorer to be incredibly insecure. My mum uses her computer the least, and was the only user using IE, yet she had a good number of viruses/trojans littered on her machine within a few weeks. Since she's been using Firefox she isn't bothered by anything like that. Yes, she does have antivirus software - Avast.

I am aware the the IE Security has been ramped up since the release of Windows Vista, and more recently Windows 7. But this isn't the main problem for me - my main problems are speed and add-on support.

But, it's all down to personal preference at the end of the day.

 

[Macro]

lso on the security front internet explorer uses security through obscurity, like most microsoft products.
This means Mr bad who wants to hack many machines has more opportunity to find a bug, and with Microsoft's pretty pure patch regime and application by users these holes can run rampant.
Having open source code allows many researchers to find and close these bugs before the bad guys can get hold of them, and If they do the same researchers can find a way to close these bugs quickly.

What complete and utter twaddle....

This is the kind of stuff that gets trotted out by the anti MS/IE brigade as fact when very rarely is it anything other than ill informed opinion.

IE8 in protected mode on Windows 7 is incredibly secure. A quick, albeit not particularly scientific look at Secunia currently lists 1 open advisory for IE8 at the moment as opposed to 5 for Firefox 3.6 and 3 for Chrome 4.x.

It's main drawback is the lack of user created extensions although for things like Ads the use of something like Admuncher covers all browsers on a machine including IE and programs like Live messenger.

Having said that IE8 does have a relatively slow script engine and page rendering, although outside forums like this few people are really bothered if a page takes .5 or .9 of a second to render. The variations in sites and connectivity tend to have far more effect outside of a lab test. Still, Chrome in particular does feel somewhat nippy by comparison without doubt.

IE8 is a good all round browser and does the job well for the vast majority of "normal" users. Chrome, Opera, Fifefox and Safari are good alternatives,if you are after specific features especially, if you want something like the extensive add on support Firefox offers. Having said that, a quick look at my machine shows Firefox with a bunch of add ons loaded and Opera 10.5 in default configuration taking up way more memory than IE8 so the term "bloated" should be taken with a pinch of salt...

Whilst adhering to "web standards" can been seen as a problem, it tends to be only seen as such by web developers and Open Source advocates. In practice the reality is the vast majority of web sites are optimised for IE and you tend to have more problems with rendering in "standards compliant" browsers than IE generally. IE is the current "de facto" standard for the vast majority of web sites and although IE8 and soon IE9 will move closer and closer to fully complying with W3C standards and artificial tests like Acid 3, in day to day use it's of little concern to a normal end user.

I'm sure someone like NathanE or FireWizard can explain details a lot better than I can if they spot this thread.

 

[Muel]

As a designer it annoys me slightly, but I don't actually care, certainly the older versions had trouble rendering CSS correctly, but I have only had one issue with IE8 so far and it's very easy to work around.

It's part of your role in life as a designer to work with IE, your job is to build a website that can be accessed by as many people as possible, regardless of browser.

 

[NathanE]

IE has excellent support for extensions. It's extensions support pre-dates Firefox and Chrome entirely. The problem is that nobody seems to create any decent freely available extensions for IE. I have no idea why this is the case considering it is the most popular browser.

IE's JavaScript engine is slow, very slow. But IE9 is fixing that. Firefox's is quick, Chrome's is like lightning.

Standards support in IE6 was bad. But so was pretty much every browser back in 2001. Firebird (later known as Firefox) came along and then perceptions around standards support began to change. Firefox and Chrome were like two soldiers that turned up late to the war then started bragging how good in battle they were. Fact is, they weren't even in it.

Security in IE8 on Vista or W7 is the best of any browser. Even IE7's was pretty good. Not even going to mention IE6 as that is almost 10 years old now.. so, why mention it? Do you hear people still talking about Firefox 1.0? No. And that isn't even as old as IE6!

Standards support in IE8 is by and large pretty good. Web designers certainly aren't "unhappy". Sure, they always want more - but that is the name of the game.

Acid3 is currently a useless integration test because it tests things which haven't yet been standardised. IE8 passes Acid2. Acid2 is the most up to date integration test for current standards.

There seems to be a bit of a fight on at the moment with regard to HTML5 and CSS3. If Firefox and Chrome aren't careful they will find that they hurt these standards. Microsoft is being an incredibly mature player now in the browser market. They aren't getting drawn into the "Acid n+1" weeing contest that seems to be going on at the moment. IE9 will only implement parts of HTML5 and CSS3 that the W3C has signed off as finished.

 

[iviv]

Not even going to mention IE6 as that is almost 10 years old now.. so, why mention it? Do you hear people still talking about Firefox 1.0? No. And that isn't even as old as IE6!

IE6 is always going to be brought up because of its market share. 62% of computers use IE, of which 20% of those are IE6.

That works out at 12% of all PCs browsing the internet.
(source)

Yes, there are being lots of pushes to make companies upgrade their systems to IE7/8 but its not happening yet. F1.0 has pretty much no users, so of course we don't talk about it. But when a browser has over 10% market share, you can't just ignore it.

 

[theheyes]

Most, if not all, computer enthusaists seem to hate IE, for various reasons: insecure, slow, "bloated", made by Micro$haft etc.

Unfortunately a lot of "enthusiasts" don't actually know what they're talking about and will quite happily peddle myths, half-truths and outright lies.

IE is actually quite good at the moment and as long as it keeps improving its standards compliance and performance then I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[tntcoder]

Unfortunately a lot of "enthusiasts" don't actually know what they're talking about and will quite happily peddle myths, half-truths and outright lies.

IE is actually quite good at the moment and as long as it keeps improving its standards compliance and performance then I see nothing wrong with it.

I have to agree, there seems to be almost a blind cult following of IE hatred amongst IT people. Several years ago there was very good reasoning for this, but these days it's a much more even playing field.

 

[NathanE]

IE6 is always going to be brought up because of its market share. 62% of computers use IE, of which 20% of those are IE6.

That works out at 12% of all PCs browsing the internet.
(source)

Yes, there are being lots of pushes to make companies upgrade their systems to IE7/8 but its not happening yet. F1.0 has pretty much no users, so of course we don't talk about it. But when a browser has over 10% market share, you can't just ignore it.

Err you quoted me out of context. I was talking about IE6's security.

The fact that IE6's security is crap is not of any concern to web designers.

 

[iNPUt]

What complete and utter twaddle....

This is the kind of stuff that gets trotted out by the anti MS/IE brigade as fact when very rarely is it anything other than ill informed opinion.

IE8 in protected mode on Windows 7 is incredibly secure. A quick, albeit not particularly scientific look at Secunia currently lists 1 open advisory for IE8 at the moment as opposed to 5 for Firefox 3.6 and 3 for Chrome 4.x.

That kind of proves my point doesn't it? IE8 has one advisory whilst the others open source browsers have problems flagged up all the time and fixed promptly.

I have to agree, there seems to be almost a blind cult following of IE hatred amongst IT people. Several years ago there was very good reasoning for this, but these days it's a much more even playing field.

Hate the look of it, slow as hell. Problems from the past give it a bad reputation which in IT where applications have to be backwards compatible will cause an array of problem in re-building there reputation.

Also seriously would you want to use everything MS on you computer, its not like there aren't better choices out there.

 

[Amp34]

That kind of proves my point doesn't it? IE8 has one advisory whilst the others open source browsers have problems flagged up all the time and fixed promptly.

Eh? Is he not saying IE has one Advisory (so known weakness) at the moment, whilst the others have 3 and 5 weaknesses, that would suggest the others aren't being patched fast enough...

Hate the look of it, slow as hell. Problems from the past give it a bad reputation which in IT where applications have to be backwards compatible will cause an array of problem in re-building there reputation.

See, that's how I feel about FF. It is far slower to load up and looks rubbish (Yeah I know you can change it but sometimes I can't be bothered and just want something that "just works"...

Also seriously would you want to use everything MS on you computer, its not like there aren't better choices out there.

So change for changes sake not because it is better?

Personally, when I was writing my web pages about about 4 years ago I found writing for IE far easier than FF and Opera. IE was logical, you would stick two boxes next to each other and they would fit nicely. I'd then open the page in FF and they would randomly be overlapping both width and height wise and I'd have to add a load of padding all over the place to get them to work properly...

 

[Macro]

That kind of proves my point doesn't it? IE8 has one advisory whilst the others open source browsers have problems flagged up all the time and fixed promptly.

Errr... No, not at all.

How about I just fix that for you like this.

That kind of proves my point is incorrect doesn't it? IE8 has only one advisory whilst the others open source browsers have multiple problems flagged up all the time and yet still aren't fixed.

Love the kind of logic you managed to use there to suggest having more unpatched security weaknesses is somehow "better security" though.

 

[iNPUt]

Spose that's the problem with browsers which do not follow the same standards.

"known" is known to the public.

Think we have to put this down to personal preference and experience, I do find firefox a bit clunky as well, every release it seems to get bigger and use more memory.

I use firefox, tried chrome use internet explorer at other places, and at the moment I use firefox and if other people like other browsers its up to them.

I do agree IE is getting better but they all seem to play catch up but I spose if they were setting the standards the would be many more debates.

Mmm I am getting rolled here cheers guys. My logic is win to be honest and if you can't see it I feel sorry for you

 

[CooK1E]

My main bugbear is that a lot of the 'Add-ons' that get installed by people on home PC tend to become corrupted then stop IE from working at all. I'm currently trying to work out which (out of about 20 IE addons) has broken a friends PC.

I also dislike how long it takes to open, I find that opera / firefox is much quicker. Oh and I dislike the way that it handles tabs.

 

[Mattus]

IE has excellent support for extensions. It's extensions support pre-dates Firefox and Chrome entirely. The problem is that nobody seems to create any decent freely available extensions for IE. I have no idea why this is the case considering it is the most popular browser.

Probably because very few would use them? Only a third of Firefox users have a single extension installed, and the average Firefox user is more tech-savvy than the average IE user.

Acid3 is currently a useless integration test because it tests things which haven't yet been standardised. IE8 passes Acid2. Acid2 is the most up to date integration test for current standards.

Whilst I don't disagree, the duty does fall to browser manufacturers to support emerging standards. It takes such a ridiculously long time for standards to be approved that browser support has to reflect what's actually being used, and in this respect IE8's lack of support for SVG and the more popular CSS3 features is holding things back. Judging by the IE9 preview, MS is well aware of this.

From the point of view of a fairly undemanding user who just wants to browse the web, there isn't an awful lot wrong with IE8. Its standards support is still not up to scratch and its JS engine is slow, but those are issues which worry developers and power users rather than the majority of web users.

The more time you spend using the web, though, the more limited IE becomes. The interface is quite nasty - I find the menus illogical, and they waste horrendous amounts of space on XP. Managing favourites and history is difficult - the interface doesn't seem to expose many options. The address bar functionality is poor compared to Firefox or Chrome. It doesn't support SVG or <canvas>, and those are technologies which are finding real-world applications. It doesn't have a sensible means of tracking downloads. And the lack of useful extensions is really quite a drawback.

 

[jas72]

Most, if not all, computer enthusaists seem to hate IE, for various reasons: insecure, slow, "bloated", made by Micro$haft etc. But I've just gone back to it after a number of years and I'm wondering where these ideas come from because from what I can see there's nothing really wrong with it, and it many ways it is more professionally put together than its alternatives.

Thoughts?

does it have no script download them all, and scriptmonkey and are they as easy to use as mozilla addons?