No More IE for Mac

[dguisinger]

Re: Re: Re: Missing the point

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
I agreed with everything else you said, but this part made me raise an eyebrow. Now, I'm a server side developer who's been working on J2EE and Unix C/C++ for several years, so maybe I'm out of touch with desktop software, but are you sure about that number?

When you say .NET (of which I'll admit, I have 0 experience with) do you mean Windows app's written using .NET studio? In which case I'd say that .NET is just the next gen of Microsoft's Windows API's like when they migrated to MFC back in the 90's.

I'd be interested in reading any supporting data you have on this 40-50% claim.

When I say 40-50% of apps, am referring to desktop apps written for Windows. You have to realize, that it is extreamly hard to do anything in the two latest visual studio incarnations without wanting a feature from .NET. You can program .NET in C++, C#, J++, VB....plus other 3rd party languages. You also have to realize that .NET is a replacement of the Windows API, not a follow on like MFC. The .NET APIs are designed to fully replace, and in many cases have more capabilities than the Windows APIs. Infact, other than syntax, System.Windows.Forms is very much like Cocoa's window manager in the way everything interacts with the users code....of course, no NIBS. But very much the same structure to the classes.

There are some things you still can't do in .NET....which is why you can involke non .NET code libraries. But most of it is there, infact DirectX 9 interfaces with .NET. Now you can program games in .NET, and with code caching, .NET saves the compiled code after it is ran the first time, to speed applications up. Much better than Java recompiling everytime you run an app.

BTW, when I say 40-50% what does it include?
Windows Explorer in Windows Longhorn
Upcoming Microsoft Office release
Visual Studio is entirely written in .NET

Why are application developers switching?
Simple, integrated XML data archiving from all objects, very well tuned data table/row interface called ADO.NET, which interfaces with MS SQL, ODBC, Oracle, and MySQL (with 3rd party MySQL adapter). Infact, you can take data from the database, give it a schema, and spit it out as XML, or bind it to controls, and your application can automatically navigate through data. Very nice, very code efficient.

So when I say 40%-50%, I can guarentee that for Windows applications the movement is there. In addition, checkout your local bookstore. Barns & Noble has 10x the .NET books than it does Java or C / legacy VB. Developers who work with it love it, preach it, and know it makes their lives easier.

I must add however, MS will not make cross platform their goal. While it is like Java in that its able to go cross platform, its been left to the open source community to make it work on other platforms. So again, anyone with PPC assembly experience is urged to look at Mono. That project is in need of a PPC compiler, as it only works under an interpreter for PPC at this time.

 

[PowerBook User]

Re: law suit?

Originally posted by Longey Nowze
isn't this monopolistic?

oh and I never ever could log into hotmail or any other site that you has secure connection not even .mac!! i dont know what could be wrong it... it worked on my brother's powermac!

thank you
MaT

I think this is abusing their monopoly position. Since the US DOJ didn't do anything, now they discontinue IE for Mac and completely integrate it into Windows. And they'll probably get away with that, too. I don't use IE often, but it's nice to have it for occasional use.

 

[PowerBook User]

Re: remember netscape!!!

Originally posted by tom.96
I use OS9.1, and I seem to be the only one in the world that still uses Netscape! I actually think Netscape 7 is the best browser I've ever used, and that includes IE. (Yes I have tried most other browsers including safari on newer macs than my own) However, some financial websites don't work at all with Netscape, and so I have to still use IE, so if IE is not going to be here anymore, a lack of compatibility with financial sites is going to be a problem.

And just a note to everyone... Netscape 7 is good! If you had bad experiences with Netscape 6, don't worry, its all been fixed in 7! I wouldn''t be without it, and prefer it to anything else!

I also still use Netscape in OS 9. I like Netscape 7. I just wish they would decrease how bloated/slow it is. Otherwise it's a great browser.

 

[Blackcat]

Re: not good for corporate users.

Originally posted by pcp_ip
The problem here is that any extranet that is running on a MS IIS webserver- and using NT authentication- won't be able to be accessed by macs.

I know someone here will say, "who cares."

Maybe you don't- but there's enough individual mac users working in huge all PC corporate enviroments that will care.

PC and Mac IEs are the only ones that can authenticate with a MS IIS. No other bowser can do it.

It's a setback for macs in the corporate world.

People saying "who cares" are being nieve and don't use their Macs for business.

My company uses both IIS and MS Sharepoint both of which you need IE to use fully.

No IT manager will allow Macs in the office if this continues.

Not good.

 

[MacSlut]

All bad...no good

No IE for Mac is in no way a good thing. If *you* didn't like IE, then you never had to use it. For the rest of us there were many things about IE that we're still not seeing in Safari, and there would be now one less choice...one less, this site doesn't work, let's try another browser.

IE hadn't been upgraded in way too long of a time, but I was hoping IE 6 would be a large improvement of its core, while adding things like tabs and so forth.

Safari has some great features, but it's missing a lot as well. Simple things like opening an image in a new window and having it display the file specs...this is huge for a Web developer. Inability to acknowledge case in domain names...again simple, but a huge pain when it comes to copying and pasting URLs where you care about the domain as a brand.

How about being able to customize Safari's interface? It's pretty limited because if its overall design, but even then you can't add any functionality. Look at the attached image, you'll see I completely retooled IE. Not only does the toolbar look different, but it has enhanced functionality. This was easy with a little knowledge of photoshop, AppleScript, XML and Javascript. Note the Passwords icon...this asks for a main password which then pops up a database of usernames/passwords/URLs. I use this constantly...no can do with Safari.

I also have a Downloads button which automatically opens my downloads folder showing.

And what about the page holder? Take a look at the search pane I created for IE. This is just a couple of searches, I have tons that show up in that pane. Likewise the page holder pane has a page with a list of commonly viewed sites. There are all kinds of things like this in IE that maybe few took advantage of, but they're clearly missing from Safari.

I can see how Safari is a way better browser is you don't use a lot of features or if you prefer features of Safari that aren't in IE, but it seems to me like Safari isn't a better browser (yet) just a different browser and it has farther to go than IE to actually be a better browser.

 

[Arcady]

To all you people saying that you can't use a Mac if you don't have IE: Do you think that Bill Gates is going to come to your house and delete IE from your installation of OS X? You still have the program, and it still works. Hopefully it will still work in 10.3 and later (or Apple can just tweak the OS to make it work.)

My question is: Will Apple still bundle IE with the OS?

 

[j33pd0g]

what if Microsoft trys to set a new web standard, example: MShtml instead of html... then nothing will work in safari... because M$ will have exclusive rights to that technology.

 

[Mudbug]

honestly until safari, I liked Netscape 4.76 the best - never crashed, had mail included, quick...

but then Netscape 7 came out, and knocked themselves back a few steps. Then I upgraded to X, and used IE 'cause I didn't know any better, and Netscape ran like fecal matter in classic. When Safari came out i switched while the keynote was still on tv. I only used IE after then for times (like now) where I have weird things happening in Safari that don't happen in IE.

I would delete it now, but I kinda need it. but i don't need to upgrade it, so poo on them. good riddance.

 

[solvs]

Originally posted by Arcady
To all you people saying that you can't use a Mac if you don't have IE: Do you think that Bill Gates is going to come to your house and delete IE from your installation of OS X? You still have the program, and it still works. Hopefully it will still work in 10.3 and later (or Apple can just tweak the OS to make it work.)

My question is: Will Apple still bundle IE with the OS?

Thank you. I was just about to say that. Relax folks, for now M$ is stopping DEVELOPMENT of a new IE. Doesn't mean IE won't exist anymore. It just mean it probably won't get past it's current version. I'm sure Apple will continue to include it for awhile, and even after Safari is "finished", you can still download it from M$'s website.

This isn't great news, but the world won't end. You just won't see any new versions.

And anyone who builds a website that ONLY works with the latest and greatest is committing business suicide.

Originally posted by j33pd0g
what if Microsoft trys to set a new web standard, example: MShtml instead of html... then nothing will work in safari... because M$ will have exclusive rights to that technology.

And any site that is MSHTML ONLY will fail because there are too many people out there who will still use the older technology. OS 9, Win9x, IE 5...

 

[MovieGuy]

Originally posted by iJon
no one will switch to apple for safari so i think apple should go ahead and release safari for windows, really steal some thunder. the only problem that could arouse from that is if microsoft stopped office, which would stop apple in its place, lose lots of business sales and potentially many consumer sales.

iJon

Safari has not been marketed as a switcher application. Apple has focused Safari attention at mac users already out there who can browse faster using safari. I think that in the end this will have no affect on the Mac. People will know there are browsers for Mac. And MS is not abandoning IE, it will simply be bundled with Windows from now on and you wont be able to download it as a single application. The browser is so intergrated with windows that is something is wrong with the os, then something will be worng with the browser...so why fix two apps when you can just fix part of the os. Granted, MS still has A LOT of fixing to do. I think Apple knows of the MacBU plans...does anyone else see the intro of Keynote as maybe a preparation for a replacement for office? If MS stops developing for Mac, I think Apple will be prepaired. They aren't stupid. We will just have to wait and see.....

 

[visor]

Re: this is not entirely good

Originally posted by psxndc
While I too loathe IE and scold my fiancee when she uses it (for everything), from someone that works at a web development company, this is an issue. "IE for the Mac" has some weight behind it when we try to design pages....

-P

Well, as the WinIE behaves still a bit different than the mac IE - I like to see just another redundant browser that doen't behave well - go.

 

[MovieGuy]

Originally posted by j33pd0g
what if Microsoft trys to set a new web standard, example: MShtml instead of html... then nothing will work in safari... because M$ will have exclusive rights to that technology.

They wouldn't even consider. Do you know the monopolistic implications that would have if MS controlled the internet? The will continue to try and make Windows a better place to surf while leaving most internet standards as is. MS still sucks though.

 

[jbrown]

IE???

what be this IE thingy that everybody is chattering about~~~~let me see --- I remember something of that moniker --- but it was sssoooo long ago, me old bones can't recall~~~some youngster is sure to help me out here......

 

[Le Big Mac]

Originally posted by Arcady
To all you people saying that you can't use a Mac if you don't have IE: Do you think that Bill Gates is going to come to your house and delete IE from your installation of OS X? You still have the program, and it still works. Hopefully it will still work in 10.3 and later (or Apple can just tweak the OS to make it work.)
?

Yeah. I still have iTunes 4.0 running just fine.

This basically doesn't matter in the short run. You can still use IE 5.2 (or whatever) as long as you want. The only concern is that eventually html will be written that only newer browsers understand. But how far off is that? Probably at least a couple of years, and longer for the major websites, which want to remain available to the installed based of IE5 users on PCs and macs.

It's too bad that MS is taking away this option, though. But MS hardly is threatening to Macs, since we have plenty of other choices. It's the PC users who are forced to use IE, not us.

 

[Doctor Q]

Although in theory the more browser competition the better, having Internet Explorer fade from the Mac scene might actually put more pressure on Safari and the others as they compete for the potential new market share. My only worry is that I'll lose the ability to use I.E. for those occasions when a web site has been designed so that it works correctly only with I.E. Such sites might clean up their act , migrate to work with whatever Mac browsers dominate , or no longer work with Macs .

Here's an entertaining view of the demise of I.E. for Windows:
http://www.divstivs.plus.com/iconwar/

 

[pickles]

Re: So where does that leave us?

Originally posted by jacg
I still have to use IE for certain sites. Will IE fall behind even further as the Mac OS evolves? Can we assume that Safari will eventually work everywhere and do everything that IE can (except quicker)?

I, too need to use IE for work. One of my fabricators has an online ordering system that is coded for IE 5.5 and above (I know, the Mac version only goes to 5.2.2) and they will NOT dumb it down so that Mac users can use it. They say that this is a M$ issue and not their fault. I, of course , told them that they should have done better reseach before developing their system since it is supposed to be "cross platform".

 

[MetallicPenguin]

Yes free at last! Now, this is when everyone will eventually...eh..yeah, I'm tired...

 

[markomarko]

Re: this is not entirely good

Originally posted by psxndc
While I too loathe IE and scold my fiancee when she uses it (for everything), from someone that works at a web development company, this is an issue. "IE for the Mac" has some weight behind it when we try to design pages. We don't code to it, we just make sure the sites we develop work in it. 90% of the people here aren't macheads so if I turn around tomorrow and say "you need to test on Safari and Camino now", people will just look at me like I have three heads. I wonder where this will lead in terms of site testing/browser consideration...

-P

Well, get educating these people, because unless you explain that it is NECESSARY to test for these browsers, you're doing a disservice to every mac user out there.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Re: Re: this is not entirely good

Originally posted by markomarko
Well, get educating these people, because unless you explain that it is NECESSARY to test for these browsers, you're doing a disservice to every mac user out there.

Not just mac users, but web users in general.

The state of web design is ridiculous. There are web standards that browsers don't interpret correctly, which leads to kludges/hacks and workarounds, which leads to proprietary code, which leads to a belief that only certain browsers are capable of displaying certain pages.

Follow web standards, people, and compliant browsers (like Safari) will have no problem with your pages. Use junk markup and IE-specific code and you're walking down the path of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[visor]

Re: Web Standards

Originally posted by chubakka
Aren't there supposed to be web standards
that everyone is supposed to follow?

I would think whomever implements it the best
would be the most successful. But how many people code
websites to deal with IE's idiosycracies.

I use IE now and it's crap. I look forward to when my agency
switches over to OS X and I can use safari.

What you say is partly true. If one implements W3C standarts, you're pretty safe on all browsers and platforms.
However, there are some reasons to include IE Windows stuff to make the Webpage easier and faster to navigate. However, these can be implemented in such a way that they are optional benifits for the user, but not mandatory for use of the site.
This is what we implement and it's quite successful.
'm really greatful to Apple that they are sticking to standards very much. It makes development for the Mac so much easier

 

[gopher]

Anyone who won't develop crossplatform webpages won't have my business. There is even a great organization that is trying to get more websites to develop platform and browser independence. It is called http://www.anybrowser.org/

 

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by gopher
Anyone who won't develop crossplatform webpages won't have my business. There is even a great organization that is trying to get more websites to develop platform and browser independence. It is called http://www.anybrowser.org/

An even better one is the Web Standards Project.

Also, for all you developers out there, validate your HTML and CSS pages:
HTML - http://validator.w3.org/
CSS - http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator-uri.html

 

[cotteez]

I think we need to remember that Apple is only new to developing browsers. MS has been doing it for years. Be patient, Apple WILL get it all right

 

[Marc the Mac]

Has anyone mentioned about 'Accessibility' legislation yet?

while IE was available for Mac - web developers knew that it was likely that most Mac users would be able to view a web site in IE. For a truly accessible web site it not only has to be accessible by those with various disabilities but also by different access devices. The main device being a Desktop PC (that includes an Apple Desktop computer, laptops etc).

So with Safari as the bundled Mac browser developers will now have to seriously consider making web sites compatible with Safari to provide a truly accessible web site. At present there are issues with Safari. If Apple can make Safari work just like IE in the way it handles the W3C standards - that would be great.

I can see safari doing really well if it is developed at top notch pace and commitment. Please do a good job on this one Apple..

 

[ryan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point

Originally posted by dguisinger

So when I say 40%-50%, I can guarentee that for Windows applications the movement is there. In addition, checkout your local bookstore. Barns & Noble has 10x the .NET books than it does Java or C / legacy VB. Developers who work with it love it, preach it, and know it makes their lives easier.

Even if this were true (which is my experience its not, course I try to avoid B&Ns) it would seem to reason that there would be more .NET books than Java or C++ or VB books since there has to be duplicate books for all the different .NET languages to do the same thing. i.e. Windows Forms Programming with C#, Windows Forms Programming with VB.NET, etc.

I must add however, MS will not make cross platform their goal. While it is like Java in that its able to go cross platform, its been left to the open source community to make it work on other platforms. So again, anyone with PPC assembly experience is urged to look at Mono. That project is in need of a PPC compiler, as it only works under an interpreter for PPC at this time.

To be spending any time developing code for .NET on a platform other than Windows is just plain stupid. To trust MS not to pull a patent out (like say, this one) and kill of all non-MS licensed .NET technology is just foolish.

.NET has some great technologies and some impressive tools, its just too bad the vast majority of it is closed source and is controlled by a convicted monopolist who can't be trusted.