Welcome to *new* Edge web browser. Chromium based Edge being rolled out to all.

[GoodBytes]

24 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

IE11 was shit. Just because IE10 and older was more shit doesn't mean IE11 was good.

IE11 was crap because of these reasons:

1) It was slow. It might have gotten decent scores in some Microsoft-picked/created benchmarks but in other benchmarks it was behind the competition.

2) It was slow at getting updates. It didn't have a rolling release schedule like competing browsers and the updates were tied to system updates.

3) It had more security issues than competing browsers.

4) It was closed source which to some people is a major negative aspect.

5) It was (and still isn't) cross-platform compatible.

6) It lacked extension support (or at least proper extension support).

7) It was far behind in terms of web standards.

Well.... to be fair, it was the only web browser with high DPI support and touch screen support.

If you had a device with  high resolution touch screen, IE11 made it enjoyable to use, Chrome and Firefox were broken at best at either these things.

Heck even today, Firefox still doesn't know what a touch screen is. If you zoom in on a page, it goes crazy and act like you are asking the end of the world with this unbearably slow choppy zooming experience. On top of that, IE11 was the only web browser with smooth scrolling, and, at the time, would not get confused with hyper scrolling (see: Logitech free spin scroll wheel) on a big site.

 

So at the time, I could see, how someone could see it as a nice web browser, when the rest is a blurry choppy mess on such device.

[GoodBytes]

1 minute ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

6. That isn't completely true. There were some extensions that could be added, such as Adobe Flash (which I eventually was able to drop). Otherwise, IE11 met all my browser needs without having to fool around with added extensions.

Not plugins. Flash and Java are plugins. Yes, IE11 fully supported those. Extensions were limited due to both low popularity of the web browser and limited APIs, but you could get some that people considered "core ones", like ad blockers.

 

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

1. Forget MS's (or anyone elses) benchmarks; I found no significant real life differences between IE11's speed and other browsers I had tried.

I did. It wasn't a major difference for most sites but it was still slower. Hell, just look at things like this. IE11 was slow as crap. It was basically only good at JS.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

2. So what? I never found that to be a problem. I didn't depend only on a bowser for security.

Not sure why you're bringing up security, but the problem with the slow release schedule was that it was constantly lagging behind in terms of web standards and features. By the time IE11 was updated, Chrome and Firefox had released 10 other updates which improved things. Using IE11 was like being half a year behind.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

3. That just isn't true. Period.

More privilege elevation exploits were found in IE11 during the first 2 years on the market, than have been found in Chrome during the last 12 years. And keep in mind that Chrome has way bigger market share on top of that. In 2014 alone, 14 privilege escalation exploits were discovered, which is more than twice as many as has ever been discovered in Chrome (6).

 

 

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

4. Again, so what? Just because something is open source doesn't automatically mean it's great, same as not being open souce means it isn't great.

If you were to compare two identical pieces of software but one was open source and the other one wasn't, the open source one would be better for end users. Several users also refuse to use anything that isn't open source for ideological reasons.

It's kind of like saying "chocolate can taste good even if it isn't fair trade". Yeah it's true, but if something costs the same and taste the same but one is fair trade and one isn't, I'll pick the fair trade one.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

5. That I agree on but, again, so what? Back then, I was using only Windows and didn't need cross platform compatibility.

Good for you. Doesn't really help all the people who weren't like you. Also, when your competitors all have one feature and you don't, you're behind.

Again, if all browsers were identical except one wasn't cross platform compatible there would be 0 reason to pick the one that wasn't. Not having that feature is bad when your competitors has it.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

6. That isn't completely true. There were some extensions that could be added, such as Adobe Flash (which I eventually was able to drop). Otherwise, IE11 met all my browser needs without having to fool around with added extensions.

Those are what other browsers calls "plugins", not "extensions".

 

 

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

7. Yet again, so what? It still met my needs. I have a 12 year old pickup truck I still drive because it has been, and still is, reliable and it still meets my needs. It looks almost cherry, can haul a load when I need to, has plenty of room for passengers without being cramped, won't drown out in a 6" deep puddle of water, is comfortable, etc.

Good for you that you didn't want/need to listen to audio or watch videos on Wikipedia for example. It's great that you didn't need features and functions on some sites. I do not however want to cripple myself by using a bad browser.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

One reason IE11 was unpopular was MS made it harder for web designers to program their websites to be compatible with IE. Frequently making changes to IE didn't make it any easier. However, I found that the occasional website I found that wasn't compatible with IE was badly designed in the first place and couldn't be trusted. They were sites that I could do without anyway.

No, the reason why IE11 was unpopular was because of the reasons I stated. The reasons that you just brush to the side and go "yeah it didn't bother me". Well it might not have bothered you, but it did bother a lot of other people, which is why it wasn't popular.

I mean just look at the list above.

It was slower, had issues with sites (things not working because it didn't support the open web standards), has security issues, was less flexible, and so on. Why would anyone use it? So far you've only mentioned 1 positive thing about it and all the negative things I've brought up have just been "well it didn't bother me".

[Lady Fitzgerald]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I did. It wasn't a major difference for most sites but it was still slower. Hell, just look at things like this. IE11 was slow as crap. It was basically only good at JS.

 

 

 

Not sure why you're bringing up security, but the problem with the slow release schedule was that it was constantly lagging behind in terms of web standards and features. By the time IE11 was updated, Chrome and Firefox had released 10 other updates which improved things. Using IE11 was like being half a year behind.

 

 

More privilege elevation exploits were found in IE11 during the first 2 years on the market, than have been found in Chrome during the last 12 years. And keep in mind that Chrome has way bigger market share on top of that. In 2014 alone, 14 privilege escalation exploits were discovered, which is more than twice as many as has ever been discovered in Chrome (6).

 

 

If you were to compare two identical pieces of software but one was open source and the other one wasn't, the open source one would be better for end users. Several users also refuse to use anything that isn't open source for ideological reasons.

It's kind of like saying "chocolate can taste good even if it isn't fair trade". Yeah it's true, but if something costs the same and taste the same but one is fair trade and one isn't, I'll pick the fair trade one.

 

 

Good for you. Doesn't really help all the people who weren't like you. Also, when your competitors all have one feature and you don't, you're behind.

Again, if all browsers were identical except one wasn't cross platform compatible there would be 0 reason to pick the one that wasn't. Not having that feature is bad when your competitors has it.

 

 

Those are what other browsers calls "plugins", not "extensions".

 

 

Good for you that you didn't want/need to listen to audio or watch videos on Wikipedia for example. It's great that you didn't need features and functions on some sites. I do not however want to cripple myself by using a bad browser.

 

 

No, the reason why IE11 was unpopular was because of the reasons I stated. The reasons that you just brush to the side and go "yeah it didn't bother me". Well it might not have bothered you, but it did bother a lot of other people, which is why it wasn't popular.

I mean just look at the list above.

It was slower, had issues with sites (things not working because it didn't support the open web standards), has security issues, was less flexible, and so on. Why would anyone use it? So far you've only mentioned 1 positive thing about it and all the negative things I've brought up have just been "well it didn't bother me".

This getting old. If Chrome and Firefox needed more updates, it's probably because they weren't as well designed as well as IE 11 so there were more security "hoels" to plug.

 

What you just said about comparing open source software to closed source software is pure nonsense. Granted, open source software often is better than closed source but that isn't always true. PDF editing and creation software is an example. The open source software doen't even begin to compare to professional closed source PDF software, such as Adobe Acrobat or Quoppa's PDF Studio. As bad as Adobe has become, especially since they went to a cloud based, subscription model (which was a deal breaker for me, btw, I use PDF Studio Pro now), even Acrobat Standard ran circles around anything open sourced. Even Adobe's graphics programs can't be beat by open source programs. Gimp, the closest opensource replacement for Photoshop , is far more difficult to use to accomplish the same tasks that Photoshop could do more easily. Open source programs that are used professionally to create sheet music are another example. Open source Music creation programs (they can't even be called music engraving programs) don't even hold a candle to the closed source Industry standards, Finale and Sibelius. The list goes on but if you haven't gotten the point by now, you never will.

 

I was able to watch videos on Youtube, etc. just fine with IE11. I never felt crippled when using IE11. It simply didn't need many plugins or extensions (btw, you are correct that I used the wrong term). Many of the plugins and extensions available for other browsers were for functions that most people didn't need, could be accomplished in other programs, or were actually insecure. As far as what people need, keep in mind that most people aren't high level computers like most people on LTT are.

 

I don't get where you get the idea that IE11 was slower than other browsers. As I said before, when I compared other browsers to IE11, I couldn't tell any difference in speed. Also, IE11 had one significant feature that all other browsers dropped quite a while back: total cookie control. That feature alone more than offsets your alleged IE11 faults.

 

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

21 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

This getting old. If Chrome and Firefox needed more updates, it's probably because they weren't as well designed as well as IE 11 so there were more security "hoels" to plug.

You clearly do not know much about browsers. You don't need constant updates because "they have more security holes". Chrome, Firefox and IE needed constant updates because the web standards are always changing, and so does the needs of the browsers.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

What you just said about comparing open source software to closed source software is pure nonsense.[...]

I can't tell if you didn't read what I wrote or if you just don't understand what I wrote. I recommend you reread my post, especially the part where I compare it to fair trade or when two programs are identical except one is open and the other is closed.

 

25 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

The list goes on but if you haven't gotten the point by now, you never will.

I understand what you are saying. Sometimes closed source programs are better than open source ones. That was not my point though. Again, if you reread my post a bit more carefully you will probably feel pretty stupid making those arguments. You are arguing against a completely different point. One that I never made.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I was able to watch videos on Youtube, etc. just fine with IE11. I never felt crippled when using IE11.

Well just because you didn't feel crippled doesn't mean you weren't crippled.

Someone who has only used an open source "music creation program" might not feel any more or less crippled than someone using Sibelius. Why? Maybe because they don't know any better, or maybe it's because they are used to the open source program and it does everything adequately. I think it's the same situation here.

 

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

As far as what people need, keep in mind that most people aren't high level computers like most people on LTT are.

I thought we were talking about people like you and I. People who browse enthusiast forums and in general likes to tinker with computers.

But I think Chrome was and still is a better browser than IE11 even for people who aren't tech savvy. There really isn't any reason to use IE11 at all. It's just not a good browser. Like I said, why use something slower, less secure and less flexible, with fewer features, if you don't have to?

 

 

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I don't get where you get the idea that IE11 was slower than other browsers. As I said before, when I compared other browsers to IE11, I couldn't tell any difference in speed.

Where did I get the idea from? Perhaps from benchmarks? I mean this shouldn't be a hard concept to understand. It's like asking "where did you get the idea that a 2080 Ti is faster than a 1660 from? I can't tell a difference in games". It doesn't really matter if YOU can't tell a difference when there is objectively a large difference which can be scientifically and reliably measured.

If you couldn't tell a difference then good for you a guess. I guess it's like with people who claim they can't notice a difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. Good for you I guess, but just because you somehow can't tell the difference doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Also, IE11 had one significant feature that all other browsers dropped quite a while back: total cookie control. That feature alone more than offsets your alleged IE11 faults.

Yes you have mentioned this several times. It is the 1 thing you have managed to mention where IE11 might have any kind of benefit. I really don't get why you'd want to have to allow each individual cookie though. Just allow first party cookies and block third party cookies and you're set.

If being able to get prompted for each individual cookie is worth sacrificing speed, flexibility, security and compatibility for then go ahead. Don't come here and say IE11 is a good browser though because it is demonstrably bad.

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You clearly do not know much about browsers. You don't need constant updates because "they have more security holes". Chrome, Firefox and IE needed constant updates because the web standards are always changing, and so does the needs of the browsers.

 

 

I can't tell if you didn't read what I wrote or if you just don't understand what I wrote. I recommend you reread my post, especially the part where I compare it to fair trade or when two programs are identical except one is open and the other is closed.

 

I understand what you are saying. Sometimes closed source programs are better than open source ones. That was not my point though. Again, if you reread my post a bit more carefully you will probably feel pretty stupid making those arguments. You are arguing against a completely different point. One that I never made.

 

 

Well just because you didn't feel crippled doesn't mean you weren't crippled.

Someone who has only used an open source "music creation program" might not feel any more or less crippled than someone using Sibelius. Why? Maybe because they don't know any better, or maybe it's because they are used to the open source program and it does everything adequately. I think it's the same situation here.

 

I thought we were talking about people like you and I. People who browse enthusiast forums and in general likes to tinker with computers.

But I think Chrome was and still is a better browser than IE11 even for people who aren't tech savvy. There really isn't any reason to use IE11 at all. It's just not a good browser. Like I said, why use something slower, less secure and less flexible, with fewer features, if you don't have to?

 

 

Where did I get the idea from? Perhaps from benchmarks? I mean this shouldn't be a hard concept to understand. It's like asking "where did you get the idea that a 2080 Ti is faster than a 1660 from? I can't tell a difference in games". It doesn't really matter if YOU can't tell a difference when there is objectively a large difference which can be scientifically and reliably measured.

If you couldn't tell a difference then good for you a guess. I guess it's like with people who claim they can't notice a difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. Good for you I guess, but just because you somehow can't tell the difference doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

 

Yes you have mentioned this several times. It is the 1 thing you have managed to mention where IE11 might have any kind of benefit. I really don't get why you'd want to have to allow each individual cookie though. Just allow first party cookies and block third party cookies and you're set.

If being able to get prompted for each individual cookie is worth sacrificing speed, flexibility, security and compatibility for then go ahead. Don't come here and say IE11 is a good browser though because it is demonstrably bad.

The classic communication argument.  Is it the burden of the speaker to make themselves understood? Or the burden of the listener to understand what was being said?

[LAwLz]

5 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

The classic communication argument.  Is it the burden of the speaker to make themselves understood? Or the burden of the listener to understand what was being said?

Well when the speaker makes several analogies and try to explain their point as well as possible, and the listener counters with something completely different then I'd say it's up to the listener to try again.

Especially when the speaker have said the exact opposite of what the listener argues against.

 

If a vegan says "eating meat is bad" and the listener says "so you think eating meat is good!?" then I think it's the listener that's at fault.

 

 

Here is what I said:

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

If you were to compare two identical pieces of software but one was open source and the other one wasn't, the open source one would be better for end users.

to which he replied with "Photoshop is better than GIMP", which is irrelevant because they are clearly not identical. GIMP and Photoshop are two very different programs. If we had Photoshop and Photostop-Open, which were identical in terms of features, performance, looks, support, and so on, then Photoshop-Open would be the better alternative for users. Why? Because it would provide them with more freedom such as making modifications, and they could look at how the program works to ensure no foul play (like secret spying)

 

I also said:

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Several users also refuse to use anything that isn't open source for ideological reasons.

Which he completely ignored and once again just went "I like some closed source PDF programs over open source ones, therefore closed source is better".

[Lady Fitzgerald]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

...

 You are just making me tired all over. Also, if your reading skills are so great, why have you not noticed I'm a woman, not a man? For crying out loud, my user name is LADY Fitzgerald and my signature is JEANNIE; how obvious does it have to be? You also have misquoted me several times. I give up; I have better things to do than to argue with someone who can't pay attention. Bye.

[Theminecraftaddict555]

Is it just me or does the new edge look like firefox but without the animalistic features? 

[Dabombinable]

5 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

 You are just making me tired all over. Also, if your reading skills are so great, why have you not noticed I'm a woman, not a man? For crying out loud, my user name is LADY Fitzgerald and my signature is JEANNIE; how obvious does it have to be? You also have misquoted me several times. I give up; I have better things to do than to argue with someone who can't pay attention. Bye.

IE11 has objectively worse HTML5 support than any other web browser. Period. I even provided evidence for that earlier on.

 

IE11 is demonstrably the worst browser, with even old Edge being far superior. Look at my post on the first page.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

47 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

IE11 has objectively worse HTML5 support than any other web browser. Period. I even provided evidence for that earlier on...

Curious. I never had any trouble watching a video with the exception of the rare Adobe Flash video holdouts after I removed Flash.

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Curious. I never had any trouble watching a video with the exception of the rare Adobe Flash video holdouts after I removed Flash.

Look at my post on the first page. It has mediocre support for the full HTML5 standard. HTML5 isn't just the video side of things (BTW, IE 11 doesn't do VP9, aka you're stuck with 1080p 60fps H264).

Via the HTML5 test criteria:

Spoiler

Elements:

IE 11 - 15/30
Old Edge - 23/30

Edge 79 - 27/30

 

Forms:

IE 11 - 34/75

Old Edge - 64/65

Edge 79 - 64/65

 

Audio:

IE 11 - 20/30

Old Edge - 27/30

Edge 79- 29/30

 

Web Components:
IE 11 - 0/10

Old Edge - 2/10

Edge 79- 10/10

 

Responsive Images:

IE 11 - 0/15

Old Edge - 15/15

Edge 79 - 15/15

 

2D Graphics:

IE 11 - 14/25

Old Edge - 24/25

Edge 79 - 24/25

 

Web Applications:

IE 11 - 3/17

Old Edge - 15/17

Edge 79 - 3/17

 

Security:

IE11 - 13/32

Old Edge - 25/32

Edge 79 - 21/32

 

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Curious. I never had any trouble watching a video with the exception of the rare Adobe Flash video holdouts after I removed Flash.

22 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Look at my post on the first page. It has mediocre support for the full HTML5 standard. HTML5 isn't just the video side of things.

One explanation could be that Fitzgerald never noticed any issues because most websites have fallbacks for when a browser doesn't fully support it. For example when Youtube detects a browser that doesn't support VP9 or Opus (like IE11 doesn't), it falls back to H.264. The only difference is that the videos will load slower, use more data, and doesn't offer as high quality (or frame rate) as the VP9 videos.

 

Some other sites use pollyfills. For example if you go to this Wikipedia article in IE11 and Chrome you will see that the video called "An example of a WebM video" works.

How does that work when IE11 supports neither WebM nor VP8? It's because Wikipedia detects if you use IE11 and instead of just handing the video to your browser to handle in a fast and efficient manner, it sends along a VP8 decoder written in JavaScript which IE runs. It's slow, inefficient and requires more work for the web developer, but at least the site functions.

(Open the same page in Edge and IE11 and you will see that the IE11 video takes longer to load, is not as smooth and uses more processing power).

[avg123]

https://www.netflix.com/watch/80018710?trackId=200257859

 

Can anyone run this test pattern and check if they are getting 1080p please?

I have tried everything but am simply not getting 1080p. I am only getting 720p.

But I do get 1080p in the Netflix App, so its not my internet connection.

[JoshB2084]

35 minutes ago, avg123 said:

https://www.netflix.com/watch/80018710?trackId=200257859

 

Can anyone run this test pattern and check if they are getting 1080p please?

I have tried everything but am simply not getting 1080p. I am only getting 720p.

But I do get 1080p in the Netflix App, so its not my internet connection.

 

Yes, I can watch Netflix in 1080p on new Edge.

[avg123]

1 minute ago, JoshB2084 said:

 

Yes, I can watch Netflix in 1080p on new Edge.

what version of edge are you running?

[JoshB2084]

2 minutes ago, avg123 said:

what version of edge are you running?

Version 79.0.309.71 (Official build) (64-bit)

[avg123]

3 minutes ago, JoshB2084 said:

Version 79.0.309.71 (Official build) (64-bit)

I also have Version 79.0.309.71

This is the result I am getting. could you please post a screenshot of your result

 

[GoodBytes]

2 hours ago, avg123 said:

I also have Version 79.0.309.71

This is the result I am getting. could you please post a screenshot of your result

Are you making your video full screen? And are you waiting a few minutes?

 

[avg123]

4 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Are you making your video full screen? And are you waiting a few minutes?

 

yes. i am just not getting 1080p on edge.

[xAcid9]

8 hours ago, avg123 said:

I also have Version 79.0.309.71

This is the result I am getting. could you please post a screenshot of your result

What software you use to take screenshot? I only get black in my screenshot.

I can get 1080p though.