Why is Internet Explorer "a joke".

[Olas]

Okay, so in case it isn't obvious this thread topic came to me from reading Tuesday's [a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/10804-The-Adventures-of-Hodgkin-Chan"]Critical Miss[/a] in which the IE was compared to malignant cancer.[footnote]Before anyone says anything I'm fully aware that the creators use similar hyperbole with almost everything they mock, that doesn't change the obvious subtext.[/footnote]

Now I'm not here to argue that Internet Explorer is the best browser, I'd say that's a matter of preference at this point, but as someone who uses it and Chrome almost interchangeably, I don't really understand why it gets constantly ridiculed. I've never had it fail to load a page correctly, and it seems to be about as fast Chrome, if not faster. In addition, of the 3 main browsers I'd say it's design looks the least dated and is probably the easiest to use.

From what I can tell the main advantage of Chrome and Firefox is apps, which I'll admit can be very cool, but they can also tax on browser performance if you have more than a couple. And not many of them (that I've encountered) provide a function that really improves user experience much.

I guess I'm just wondering if the reason people trash IE is just because they haven't used it since 2010 and assume it's still as clunky as it was back then. Or if there's something else about it they still dislike. Either way I'll probably keep using it as my default until there's a compelling reason not to. And yes, I am using it right now to post this topic.

Edit: I also feel like giving a shout-out to Opera, Maxthon, Avant, and the many other ignored browsers, most of which also don't suck.

 

[JoJo]

Same here, I prefer Chrome because I like the uncluttered layout and apps but I used IE up until a couple of years back and it really wasn't that bad, I didn't find the performance noticeably worse than Chrome or Firefox, certainly not as bad as certain technical-minded friends of mine would rant about.

 

[Olas]

From a web dev standpoint, needing to add extra code so the site works for IE (yes, even the latest version) is a constant, needless waste of time. Things look fine on the viewer's end because web devs are taking the hits for you.

 

[Foolery]

I just did a fresh install of Windows on my old netbook. Let me put it this way: It's the browser you use to download another browser, and then never touch again.

 

[Esotera]

Spoiler

XP machines are still restrained to IE8, and I had to spend a fair amount of time using IE6/7 at work last year simply because our VMs were really old. And by God, it is slow and not remotely fun to view the web with.

IE9+ seems to be ok, but I still refuse to use it because of its awful legacy. And also it has a load of really weird things that need to be done to make web pages work properly, because Microsoft tried to subvert web standards way back when it was the dominant power in computing.

 

[Conza]

Okay, so in case it isn't obvious this thread topic came to me from reading today's [a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/10804-The-Adventures-of-Hodgkin-Chan"]Critical Miss[/a] in which the IE was compared to malignant cancer.

Now I'm not here to argue that Internet Explorer is the best browser, I'd say that's a matter of preference at this point, but as someone who uses it and Chrome almost interchangeably, I don't really understand why it gets constantly ridiculed. I've never had it fail to load a page correctly, and it seems to be about as fast Chrome, if not faster. In addition, of the 3 main browsers I'd say it's design looks the least dated and is probably the easiest to use.

From what I can tell the main advantage of Chrome and Firefox is apps, which I'll admit can be very cool, but they can also tax on browser performance if you have more than a couple. And not many of them (that I've encountered) provide a function that really improves user experience much.

I guess I'm just wondering if the reason people trash IE is just because they haven't used it since 2010 and assume it's still as clunky as it was back then. Or if there's something else about it they still dislike. Either way I'll probably keep using it as my default until there's a compelling reason not to. And yes, I am using it right now to post this topic.

You know, I loved IE for AGES, long after most people had gone to FireFox, and/or Chrome later too.

But IE started retracting some of its features, the turning point for me was the custom search engines adding feature, and once I found that FireFox could do the same and better, I moved over.

But I liked how IE was integrated into Windows, its high level of security, and yes, performance like you say.

But it just hasn't been kept to keep up with Chrome or FireFox, and this is coming from a genuine Windows fan (if not a Microsoft fan), so it sort of became a 'bit' of a joke.

People take it to way too far extremes, and I don't find the jokes funny because they're just so exaggerated it becomes stupid, not very clever, but yeah that's my thoughts on it.

 

[XMark]

IE6 = Cancer upon the internet. A shambling corpse that barely even resembles a real web browser. Very nearly dead everywhere except China but still cannot be completely ignored.
IE7 = It's like IE6 with a few errors haphazardly fixed with duct tape, but still waaaaaay behind on web standards, and has its own weird set of deviations from the standard. Frustratingly only about half as dead as IE6.
IE8 = Marginally acceptable browser for most pre-HTML5/CSS3 purposes. However, its place as the most popular current browser is seriously holding back the evolution of the web, and IE8 is going to take freaking forever to die. In about two years, IE8 will be the sworn arch-enemy of web developers world-wide. We will be cursing its presence until the last XP computer crashes to its final bluescreen.
IE9 = Microsoft finally joining the HTML5 club, but with a really half-assed effort that was a year or two behind the other browsers. Lots of HTML5 and CSS3 features are missing. Most annoyingly the text field placeholder attribute.

IE10 and 11 are actually pretty decent though, they've almost caught up with the rest of 'em. Almost.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

I actually used IE 9 when it first came out to catch a rootkit on my dad's laptop, the creator had obviously exploited weaknesses in Firefox and Chrome, so they were just dead ends trying to identify the thing, but as soon as I loaded up IE9 it caught it instantly (this was back when it was fairly new, so it may have been that the virus just wasn't optimised for the new build)
That's the only time Internet Explorer has been actually useful to me.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

The reason internet explorer is considered a joke is because it was completely awful when firefox and chrome were gaining popularity (and they in fact gained popularity BECAUSE ie was awful and they were better in pretty much every way), and the people who use firefox and chrome now have never felt a reason to go back to internet explorer, so they still think of it the same way they did in 2006.

Current versions of internet explorer are actually pretty alright, though not nearly as customizable as either firefox or chrome, but people who use firefox and chrome have absolutely no reason to use internet explorer, so it's still a joke to them. Regardless of the fact that it's better than it used to be it's still not better than firefox or chrome at anything.

 

[Olas]

I just did a fresh install of Windows on my old netbook. Let me put it this way: It's the browser you use to download another browser, and then never touch again.

Ah yes, I was wondering how many posts it would take before this old joke popped up, turns out the answer was 3.

The question I'm asking is why? is it important to get another browser and never touch IE again? You haven't proven or explained your point and it's statements like this that made me want to create this thread in the first place.

Spoiler

XP machines are still restrained to IE8, and I had to spend a fair amount of time using IE6/7 at work last year simply because our VMs were really old. And by God, it is slow and not remotely fun to view the web with.

I can understand this. If I was restricted to IE8 or earlier I'd switch to Chrome too. IE8 was pretty crappy.

IE9+ seems to be ok, but I still refuse to use it because of its awful legacy. And also it has a load of really weird things that need to be done to make web pages work properly, because Microsoft tried to subvert web standards way back when it was the dominant power in computing.

I've stuck my head into HTML before, and while there were discrepancies between how things were rendered in IE, there were also discrepancies between Firefox and Chrome as well. I don't know the details of why this happens, but as far as I can tell, if you want to make sure your page is compatible, you have to test it out on all the browsers anyway.

 

[Foolery]

I just did a fresh install of Windows on my old netbook. Let me put it this way: It's the browser you use to download another browser, and then never touch again.

Ah yes, I was wondering how many posts it would take before this old joke popped up, turns out the answer was 3.

The question I'm asking is why? is it important to get another browser and never touch IE again? You haven't proven or explained your point and it's statements like this that made me want to create this thread in the first place.

Because there's no benefit to using it. Anything Internet Explorer can do, other browsers can do better, along with some extra nifty features. I also find it slow, and prone to crash.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

From a web dev standpoint, needing to add extra code so the site works for IE (yes, even the latest version) is a constant, needless waste of time. Things look fine on the viewer's end because web devs are taking the hits for you.

Wait, even 2013 IE requires extra coding? That's unforgivable...

OT: I'm a Firefox user here and have been for years. IE has offered me no incentive to ever go back to the way things were in 2002 when I first used the web to look up game info. The simple years...

 

[MysticSlayer]

Even when I retried IE in...er...2011 or 2012 I think, it was still far slower than Firefox or Safari, and it wasn't even easier to use as a consolation. I haven't tried the latest version, but the last time I used it, it was still relatively clunky and slow compared to the competition, and I really don't feel like wasting any more time on it except for when I absolutely have to.

As a positive, side, though, I have found that it often is the last browser to fail to deal with a problem with a website. Granted, the probability that I'll actually go through all the other options before needing it is incredibly low, and I think it has only happened once when I had actually forgotten to change the settings on Safari.

 

[DrOswald]

Okay, so in case it isn't obvious this thread topic came to me from reading today's [a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/10804-The-Adventures-of-Hodgkin-Chan"]Critical Miss[/a] in which the IE was compared to malignant cancer.[footnote]Before anyone says anything I'm fully aware that the creators use similar hyperbole with almost everything they mock, that doesn't change the obvious subtext.[/footnote]

Now I'm not here to argue that Internet Explorer is the best browser, I'd say that's a matter of preference at this point, but as someone who uses it and Chrome almost interchangeably, I don't really understand why it gets constantly ridiculed. I've never had it fail to load a page correctly, and it seems to be about as fast Chrome, if not faster. In addition, of the 3 main browsers I'd say it's design looks the least dated and is probably the easiest to use.

From what I can tell the main advantage of Chrome and Firefox is apps, which I'll admit can be very cool, but they can also tax on browser performance if you have more than a couple. And not many of them (that I've encountered) provide a function that really improves user experience much.

I guess I'm just wondering if the reason people trash IE is just because they haven't used it since 2010 and assume it's still as clunky as it was back then. Or if there's something else about it they still dislike. Either way I'll probably keep using it as my default until there's a compelling reason not to. And yes, I am using it right now to post this topic.

Well, first of all, and most importantly, IE is objectively worse from a security perspective. This may have changed recently, but IE is more susceptible to certain types of attacks than the other major browsers.

The second thing is that there is literally nothing IE can do that either Firefox or Chrome can't do better. This includes speed.

The third thing is the history of the thing. Every previous version of IE was total crap. Even if it is ok now the fact is that it was so bad for so long that many people are not going to trust any IE browser for a long time.

 

[Something Amyss]

Aren't jokes generally funny? No, IE is not a hoke.

Let me put it this way: It's the browser you use to download another browser, and then never touch again.

If only it was for more people.

 

[Flunk]

I'm a web developer too and I haven't needed to write extra code for IE since version 9.0 but it does still have the slowest layout engine and is much much slower at running JavaScript than Firefox, which is still a bit slower than Chrome.

Older versions cant burn in hell though, I've managed to convince my bosses that we don't need to support I.E 8.0 or older. "But Windows XP only supports I.E. 8.0" you say? I say it's not supported, please install Chrome or Firefox. Safari isn't bad either but there is no reason to install it on PC, if you have a Mac go for it.

 

[Mrkillhappy]

Chrome user here the reason it isn't as well respected as other browsers is for a number of reasons such as it crashes, has numerous exploits/vulnerabilities so it isn't very secure, it's slower then other browsers, lacks features that some other browsers have ect. Although I do think that some of the opinions people hold about IE is simply a way of "fitting in".

 

[skywolfblue]

IE has come a long way from IE6, but it's still all around less secure.
Firefox and Chrome are sandboxed better (damage is contained), while IE still allows for viruses that target it to seriously fuck up your system.

While we are talking about security, the NoScript add-on for Firefox is something I would not go without. I think everyone in the world should have that add-on. When used right, it's the most effective virus prevention tool ever. It's something that both Chrome and IE sorely lack.

The second thing is that there is literally nothing IE can do that either Firefox or Chrome can't do better. This includes speed.

And that ^

 

[Gennadios]

Personally my #1 is Chrome and backup browser is IE. Firefox used to be good, but back with what I remember was version 3 it just became so bloated and slow that I found the latest version of IE to be leaps and bounds faster at the time. Made Chrome my primary, had IE as my backup, and never looked back at Firefox.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

**snippits**

Well to answer your question in simple terms to keep this post lite, security is weak, its a resource hog, its not as user-friendly or as fast (done tests to prove this) as Firefox or Chrome and the other side is people generally tend to dislike the fact that its proprietary and users are unable to completely remove it from the computer. So yeah, it generally is joked about because of how shit it is.