PDA

View Full Version : IE 8 - install or no?


Turbinator
09-12-2009, 7:01 AM
Who's using IE8 now, did you jump from IE7 to IE8, and do you like IE8?

Turby

TonyM
09-12-2009, 7:14 AM
I've got IE8 on some of my systems since it's default in Windows 7. I use it sometimes, but still prefer Firefox due to the number of plugins available that offer many shortcuts/helper apps you don't get in IE.

IE8 is different from IE7, so if you're an IE person, you may not like it.

jmlivingston
09-12-2009, 7:33 AM
I have it installed on one of my personal PC's, but don't use it since my preferred browser is Firefox. We've not been been able to deploy it at work, because it won't work with our Oracle applications.

TonyM
09-12-2009, 7:37 AM
I have it installed on one of my personal PC's, but don't use it since my preferred browser is Firefox. We've not been been able to deploy it at work, because it won't work with our Oracle applications.

We're in the same boat with some of our management apps at work. The IT group keeps sending spam email every week or two telling people to not install it after it breaks someone's intranet tools.

I always try to convert people to Firefox anyway, it's faster and more flexible. I don't want to start preaching tho, so I'll stop now. ;)

bigmike82
09-13-2009, 12:24 AM
I've seen no difference between 8 and 7 after installing it, so you should be safe.

sigfan91
09-14-2009, 12:05 PM
I just upgraded from IE6 to IE8 on my home system over the weekend. I don't like Vista so stuck with XP for as long as I could.

IE8 is a huge improvement over IE6, and from my experience with IE7 (on XP) in the office, an improvement.

So far I haven't noticed any additional strain on my home system (Athlon X2 3800+ w/ 1GB of RAM). It runs quick and pretty good at rendering most websites.

Blackhawk556
09-14-2009, 12:17 PM
I switch between IE8 and firefox, all tests show that firefox is faster than loading pages when compared to IE8. firefox has thousands of add-ons and lets you customize it the way YOU want to. IE8 is not horrible, if you look up online yes you find people trashing it but remember IE is the leading web browser so the smaller guys are obviously going to bash it. Remember also that you are more likely to find bad things online about a product than good things, people tend to write more about their bad experiences than about their good ones.
If you are still using IE6 yes make the jump NOW but if your moving from IE7 the jump won't be that huge.

if you want to try out the fastest web browser out there download chrome from google. if you don't like IE8 or chrome you can uninstall them and go back to what ever you are using

maxicon
09-14-2009, 12:58 PM
I recently upgraded from IE7 to IE8 on a couple of PCs, and it's been mixed to terrible. I'm a pretty durn good troubleshooter and googler, but the suggestions for fixes have mostly been ineffective.

My main PC had some quirky browser issues before, and I hoped this would clean them up, but they've gotten far worse. Many compressed pages (like most Wikipedia pages) won't open at all from Google - it asks what program you want to open them with. Tabs go dead with links that work fine in other tabs, hover popups (like at netflix) are broken, no end of troubles so far.

I also put it on a secondary PC, and it's working OK there, but is still not really up to snuff - mostly tabs going dead if I open too many. When I'm saving pics from web pages, it sometimes defaults to my last save location (like it used to), and sometimes goes back to My Documents, making me drill down to the correct location over and over again.

I keep hoping MS will put out SP1 for it soon. In the meantime, I'm using Firefox more and more, and am about to uninstall IE8 on my main PC.

jammer2k
09-14-2009, 1:27 PM
Personally I have it installed at home but use FireFox for my browsing, keep IE8 for those few pages that are so MS specific that they won't render correct on FireFox (admittedly they are very few and far between).

At work I only allow IE7 since many of our web resources make an excessive amount of useage of ActiveX controls so FireFox won't do for them. IE8 breaks a couple of our apps so that is out.

Basically, I recommend having IE 7 or 8 (depends on which works best for you) as a backup and use another browser for you general browsing.

jwest
09-15-2009, 1:46 AM
Google Chrome and Firefox for me. I have installed IE8 - but I don't like using Internet Exploder.

rynando
09-15-2009, 10:28 PM
IE 8 is vastly superior to IE 7. It is a huge upgrade in areas where the previous IE browsers were lacking. As a few have noted it will break legacy web applications that rely on a IE5/6 model. Those apps probably won’t run on other modern browsers either. You can run it in a compatibility mode of sorts with may allow some of those aged applications to run under it.

To those of you having issues . . .well . . . I’m sure some people have problems with Minesweeper BSODing on them. Believe me, you’re in the minority.

R

locosway
09-15-2009, 11:49 PM
IE has always been so backwards and broken. When a web developer writes a website he has to write two versions. One that's standards compliant, and one that uses broken code for IE.

The internet is built on open standards which allow everything to work seamlessly and without much work. Why use a piece of software that's closed and proprietary that violates everything the internet was founded on?

Same goes for OS's and other software. There's a ton of Open Source Software written by great people that do everything your paid for proprietary software does. Why not support them instead of some money rich company that's only interested in their bottom line?

ldivinag
09-16-2009, 1:58 PM
IE8 had to include an IE7 and older compatibility mode to due to web pages written with technologies that are microsoft specific.

IE8 is trying to be more W3C complaint.

so that's why websites appear broken...

so the circle is nearly completely...

locosway
09-16-2009, 2:03 PM
Just use FF or Chrome if you have to and you'll be fine.

rynando
09-17-2009, 1:53 AM
IE has always been so backwards and broken. When a web developer writes a website he has to write two versions. One that's standards compliant, and one that uses broken code for IE.

In the past (and even today) other browsers haven't handled rendering in a very "standard" way either . . . Firefox, Safari and Opera all have had some very annoying "broken" CSS issues that I can remember having to deal with.

As far as CSS rendering goes IE 8 is a major improvement.

http://www.webstandards.org/2007/12/19/ie8-passes-acid2-test-2/

R

elrcastor
09-17-2009, 7:34 AM
IE8 seems to be working just fine for me on the computers i have it on

Sinixstar
09-18-2009, 1:21 AM
We're in the same boat with some of our management apps at work. The IT group keeps sending spam email every week or two telling people to not install it after it breaks someone's intranet tools.

I always try to convert people to Firefox anyway, it's faster and more flexible. I don't want to start preaching tho, so I'll stop now. ;)

Compatibility mode is your friend...

Sinixstar
09-18-2009, 1:29 AM
IE has always been so backwards and broken. When a web developer writes a website he has to write two versions. One that's standards compliant, and one that uses broken code for IE.

The internet is built on open standards which allow everything to work seamlessly and without much work. Why use a piece of software that's closed and proprietary that violates everything the internet was founded on?

Same goes for OS's and other software. There's a ton of Open Source Software written by great people that do everything your paid for proprietary software does. Why not support them instead of some money rich company that's only interested in their bottom line?

Problem is most of the standards are themselves a bit backwards and broken. Not to mention - most of the 'standards' are set by groups who really don't much care for microsoft in the first place.

A perfect example of this is AJAX.
Well - when it was first introduced, it was thanks to the Microsoft.XMLHttp object that shipped with IE3. Except, we didn't call it AJAX, we called it XML Data Islands (Islands of dynamic xml data on an otherwise static page). All those 'standards' people completely lost it on microsoft, and went on and on about how horrible an idea this was, it's a security risk, it's not standards compliant, etc etc etc. Jump forward 7 years, and those exact same people on patting themselves on the shoulder for coming up with this revolutionary new idea of putting dynamic xml data on an otherwise static page (using the Microsoft.XMLHttp object).

Bottom line is - standards represent the status quo. If everybody sticks to the 'standards' there is no innovation. It's 'design by committee' group think at it's absolute worst. Nevermind the fact that I can't think of a single browser - FF, Opera, Safari, Chrome (Safari), or anything else out there - that actually adheres 100% to the supposed standards.

In otherwords - screw the standards. You can do 10000% more in IE then any other browser on the planet if you know how to develop apps for it.

locosway
09-18-2009, 1:34 AM
When I speak of standards I talk in terms of protocols. Microsoft invents their own outside of the general community and let us not forget that when dealing with MS there's no viewing the source, so it's API calls only with little understanding of what's going on.

As you can see, I'm a OSS proponent. I don't hate MS, I simply disagree with their business and their standards. I disagree with the ideas that goes along with Windows, and the general mentality of Windows users.

Sinixstar
09-18-2009, 1:47 AM
I can understand that - I just disagree.
When you look at the sheer size and scope of microsoft products, what they're designed to do, and who their target audience is (a good 75% of the computer market) - Open Source is simply not a viable option. Once you get to a certain point, you have to have some sort of control over what's going on. Otherwise it just turns into a clustf***.

Nevermind the basic concept of - if you create something, why shouldn't you have the ability to keep the inner workings a secret? If I put my time, effort, and money into building something - i'm sure as hell not turning around and giving everybody under the sun open license to do whatever they want with it (as long as they in turn give everyone open license to do whatever they want with it.)

The open source concept certainly has it's place in the world - but it's not the end-all be all. If everything were open source, i don't think we'd be nearly as far along in the computing world as we are today. There would be very little incentive for somebody to create a better widget.

locosway
09-18-2009, 1:53 AM
Size and scope? Linux is just as large, and in the server market it dominates. It's currently making in roads on the desktop market, and is unrivalled in the embedded market.

Linux has no company behind it, it's not marketed, you can't even go into a store and buy it for the most part. It's not in the news, it's not talked about in schools.

As for the better widget, why is it that Windows is only now copying features that have been in Linux for years? Why is Windows only recently switched their inner workings to copy Linux? Why did Windows use the BSD TCP/IP stack? (granted BSD isn't OSS)

Many companies profit from OSS, just not in the traditional sense. Entire countries successfully use Linux, and there's no problems.

I'm really not sure you understand the scope and importance that OSS has on commercial software.

Sinixstar
09-18-2009, 4:57 AM
Saying linux 'dominates' the server market I think is a little bit of an over-statement.

Inroads in the desktop market. If by inroads you mean it's climbed from 0.5% up to like 3% - I suppose then that's true, but honestly - it's still rather insignificant. Linux experts around the world openly admit as much (see links below)

Embedded support i'll give you that. I work with a lot of handhelds and whatnot, and the windows embed is an absolute piece of garbage. I suspect a lot of this has to do with the fact that linux handles quarky hardware better - and a lot of handhelds and mobile devices are certainly quarky on the hardware front. My favorite to work with is actually the iPod/iPhone platform, I just wish Apple didn't have such a strangle hold. (Btw - if you're going to criticize MS - you can't leave apple out of this discussion. MS is downright altruistic in comparison to apple's authoritative stance)

If you really think linux is such a dominating force though - you're going to find this rather disappointing.
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/67031.html?wlc=1253273118

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Linux-Losing-Market-Share-to-Windows-Server/

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8060720094.html

I've been a developer for going on 15 years now. I know OSS has a place in the market, and that there's a lot of innovative ideas coming out of the open source community. Companies like apple and microsoft have a lot they can learn from these contributions.

At the end of the day however, the very nature of the open source model precludes the organizational hierarchy necessary to truly compete on the enterprise level, or to appeal to a mass consumer audience.
The one exception to this might be redhat - but can redhat really be considered "open source" in the traditional sense? You also have to look at WHY red hat has gotten where they are. Because they are not a traditional open source operation. They are an actual company, with an actual structural hierarchy - something that is severely lacking in most open source projects/operations.
Let's not even get into the fact that JBoss is their main application platform. Java, seriously? I'll retire (and by retire I mean stab my own eyes out with an ice pick) before I move to Java - and I know i'm far from alone on that one.

Bottom line is - I, and many MANY people like me - have CHOSEN over the years to work with the Microsoft platform. From a development point of view - there is very little that compares. Unfortunately - there's a lot of garbage applications out there, and a lot of really crappy developers. I can hardly fault Microsoft for that though. There certainly are solutions that are more powerful, perhaps more stable, and definately more suitable for certain situations. The reason why so many of us choose to stick with it, is the reason why Microsoft still dominates the computer market. While it may not be the best tool for every job, it's a perfectly suitable platform for the widest variety of jobs. If I know I can do 99% of what I'll ever need to do within a single space, why on earth would I want to jump on a bandwagon that's going to work great - but only for 60% of my solutions?

locosway
09-18-2009, 1:28 PM
I've working the hosting industry as a Linux Admin and I've worked in non-hosting type jobs as a Linux Admin too.

Linux is by far one of the most robust and most used server OS's out there. A lot of mom 'n pop shops and smaller companies use Windows because either they already understand Windows concepts or they know someone who recommended it and will maintain it.

If people were given a choice at the time of computer purchase I think they would be more inclined to run Linux. You make it seem that everyone is informed and that Microsoft isn't shoved down every consumers throats. This goes for the server numbers. Just because a computer is sold with Windows shouldn't mean that it's going to retain Windows. I have many Windows licenses I was forced to pay for and I don't even use Windows. The same goes for some servers. Dell is good about selling servers without an OS, but not everyone does this.

As for OSS not being able to compete, it does compete, and it does so without a mutliBILLION dollar company behind it. Asterix works, Linux works, Open Office works, Blender works, Maya works. There's tons of software that works.

Redhat is an OSS company. They work with Linux and release their source code. Because of this you can use RHEL if you like, or CentOS which is the same thing but without the support. Need a desktop version of RHEL, use Fedora.

rynando
09-18-2009, 10:36 PM
I've working the hosting industry as a Linux Admin and I've worked in non-hosting type jobs as a Linux Admin too.

Linux is by far one of the most robust and most used server OS's out there. A lot of mom 'n pop shops and smaller companies use Windows because either they already understand Windows concepts or they know someone who recommended it and will maintain it.

If people were given a choice at the time of computer purchase I think they would be more inclined to run Linux. You make it seem that everyone is informed and that Microsoft isn't shoved down every consumers throats. This goes for the server numbers. Just because a computer is sold with Windows shouldn't mean that it's going to retain Windows. I have many Windows licenses I was forced to pay for and I don't even use Windows. The same goes for some servers. Dell is good about selling servers without an OS, but not everyone does this.

As for OSS not being able to compete, it does compete, and it does so without a mutliBILLION dollar company behind it. Asterix works, Linux works, Open Office works, Blender works, Maya works. There's tons of software that works.

Redhat is an OSS company. They work with Linux and release their source code. Because of this you can use RHEL if you like, or CentOS which is the same thing but without the support. Need a desktop version of RHEL, use Fedora.

You're a Linux tech so I understand where a bit of this is coming from. That’s your area of specialty and you’re sticking with it. You’ve invested time, energy and possibly $$$ learning your trade. You’re directly comparable to a mechanic in the automotive industry. A lot of what you’ve written sounds like what I hear from a guy I know who’s a BMW mechanic. All I hear is “Toyota sucks, Mercedes sucks, Ford sucks, etc.” He’s a BMW fan-boy and that’s fine. He has economic reasons for being so. Just try to keep in mind that when you make baseless statements like “Linux dominates the server market” you may be a tiny bit biased by your narrow view of the server market.

R

locosway
09-18-2009, 10:41 PM
I hate being an admin, so I'm not doing it anymore. I'm also self taught so there wasn't much money invested.

Also, I don't have baseless statements. I've seen Linux as servers for some time. Every web hosting company I've worked didn't have ANY windows servers. Hundreds of Linux boxes at some, and thousands at others.

rynando
09-18-2009, 10:42 PM
Let's not even get into the fact that JBoss is their main application platform. Java, seriously? I'll retire (and by retire I mean stab my own eyes out with an ice pick) before I move to Java - and I know i'm far from alone on that one.

You're not. I'll open a road-side fruit stand before I go back to Java.

R

rynando
09-18-2009, 11:24 PM
Also, I don't have baseless statements. I've seen Linux as servers for some time. Every web hosting company I've worked didn't have ANY windows servers. Hundreds of Linux boxes at some, and thousands at others.

That's the narrow view I'm talking about. The hosting industry is a very thin margin one. Linux is popular there because it plays well with the bottom line . . . period. Most people still host mostly static sites or turn-key dynamic packages (Wordpress etc) and could care less what platform they're hosted on as long as it's cheap. MS hosting is more expensive, requires different techs and in most cases is unneeded by the hosting company’s target market so it’s going to be ignored (or done really poorly).

The enterprise market or companies with custom web applications will mostly favor Windows because they're looking at the "cost" of their application differently than a webhosting company. It really is a whole different mindset. I’ll put it to you this way, I’ve converted all my web applications from a LAMP stack to a pure .NET one. Other people I know who are in a similar space as me have done the same or are planning to do so. Why are we spending the $$$ to go this route? It’s not for ideological reasons I can assure you.

Also, your calculation of “dominance” is based on your hosting experience. Yes, the commodity (shared) hosting market is owned by Linux. But if you look outside of that space you’ll see a different picture. There have to be tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of servers just in the US running Exchange and SQL Server. How about Microsoft SharePoint? Again, thousands and thousands. Add intranet IIS servers to the mix . . . again thousands more. Now add a la carte web application systems at The Planet and other dedicated server places . . . again we’re taking thousands upon thousands of computers. I asked a sales guy at Rackspace recently what their most popular setup was these days and it wasn’t a Linux-based one (for the record it was two IIS boxes with a SQL Server system).

Anyway, I agree that the shared hosting market is “dominated” by Linux. Outside that industry Linux is starting to look a bit endangered.

R

JDay
09-22-2009, 1:17 AM
IE8 is fully standards compliant, runs pages sandboxed and has ditched activex. It is much more secure and faster than IE7 so unless you have webapps that need IE7 to run I would upgrade.

xrMike
09-22-2009, 10:50 AM
I had IE6 until a week ago, when I upgraded to IE8. Started getting some weird .NET errors and other crap. Not sure it was even related to IE8, but this morning, I uninstalled it and installed IE7 instead.

IE7 seems to run a little faster on my laptop. That's all I can say about it so far.

xrMike
09-24-2009, 11:22 AM
I have seen mega-issues with IE8. It immediately caused some problems and failures after installation, so I removed it and went back to IE7.

I use the 'puter extensively, both on the Internet and off; so I have the appropriate anti-virus software, router, firewall, and so on - and a lot of different applications. For whatever reason, IE8 has knocked me off the Internet and caused several applications to lock up, which requires a reboot. IE7 does not.

For any system that has more than just the most basic array of applications, IE8 is NOT currently the way to go - not yet. Google "IE8 reviews" and you will see the same opinion by most of the folks involved within the industry.

EDIT: I neglected to mention that these issues have appeared on both of my personal computers:
1) My desktop (custom ordered) Gateway 530S FX computer;
Intel Dual Core 6600 CPU running at 2.4 GHZ;
2 GB RAM;
XP Service Pack 2 Operating System
- a system with substantial resources for an XP; and

2) A Hewlett-Packard (HP) Pavilion Notebook Computer;
a moderately standard factory loading as it comes from the factory;
Vista O/S.

I agree with the statement (below) that one tends to publish the faults of a product more often than the virtues; but when an Internet browser continuously crashes your system, then it is clearly defective; no matter what the software developer's excuses are.Wow, I have to agree with much of the above.

After being without IE8 for a couple more days, I have to say that my system is now much more stable. Forgot to mention, I was also getting blue-screened several times a day, related to file mxrsmb.sys, with stop code 0x7e, and weird memory issues ("insufficient system resources to perform that action, blah, blah..." ). Those problems have gone away.

If you pound on your system pretty hard, with lots of apps running simultaneously, over a VPN with wireless, connecting remotely to other systems, large file transfers, etc., DO NOT USE IE8!

If you just use it for email, web-browsing, word processsing/etc., you might be OK with it.

scrat
09-24-2009, 2:46 PM
i have had ie8 for about 2 years now. i had issues with it at first but no big deal. i have it on all my computers now.

bet the first question everyone will ask how did you get it 2years ago.

i was a test user for microsoft. i think it has its advantages. 1 being that i get all the latest stuff plus a lot more attention when things go wrong. but back to ie8 used it have it no problems with it.