They may have arrived late to the party, but Microsoft are keen to make their presence known, and in an effort to show just how engaged with the web standards community they are, or perhaps more a chance to try and gain one up on the competition, have published a set of results (on the 5th may) outlining not only how great IE9’s performance in a number of test cases is, but also just how badly the competition compare.
The results, summarised above, show how the IE9 preview performed in a series of test cases for various web standards, including CSS3 and HTML5. As you may expect, as the test cases were developed and released by Microsoft, IE9 passed with flying colours scoring 100% across the range of tests.
Unfortunately a number of blogs / websites have miss-quoted these results, claiming that IE9, at least according to Microsoft, has 100% HTML5 and CSS3 compliance, and perhaps, dare I say it, this is exactly the kind of publicity the Microsoft marketing team were hoping for. Needless to say, these articles have caused a fair amount of controversy, and in some cases backlash against Microsoft, with one particular article (which has since been edited) attracting over 100 comments and even The Inquirer joining the fray, branding the results as “dodgy.”
The truth of the matter is that whilst IE9 does score 100% in each of the test cases shown by the table, these test cases only test a tiny subset of HTML5 / CSS3 features and there are countless other scenarios and test cases where the other browsers out-perform IE9. Whilst the way the results are presented may be somewhat misleading, nowhere in the publication of the results do Microsoft actually claim 100% compliance with CSS3 or HTML5, and it is not unusual practice for browser vendors to list their results in a manner that show them in a better light than their competitors. After all, you’d hardly expect Microsoft to publish a table showing a long list of failures for IE9.
So, whilst these results may not be quite as exciting as some would have you believe, it is worth noting that this is still a vast turnaround from Microsoft’s previous position on CSS3, and web standards in general. This may only be a small step, compared to those taken by other browser vendors (namely Opera, Mozilla, Webkit), but is a step in the right direction and good news for CSS3 fans that Microsoft is finally taking web standards seriously.
What’s that on the horizon? Is it truly a world of cross-browser CSS3 compatibility? Perhaps, but it’s still a long way off yet, and anything could happen before we get there.
Update:It appears that this article, or rather my overuse of the word “whilst” in the article, has also caused some controversy over on reddit.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
This is kind of old news, but people are still getting it wrong, to this day.
What people don’t seem to realize is that this is a list of test cases. They found what all the other browsers were doing wrong, fixed that in IE9, and then released the results. IE9 will always have 100% on this chart.
That page is intended for browser developers, and has little meaning for the average designer.
The results are a bit tactless, but they wrote a big bunch of text explaining what it is and what it’s for.
In general, this is all just a big media hype.
I don’t know why they want to spend more time for IE . The browsers like Mozilla firefox, Chrome , Opera etc are all updating sooner and quicker . I may have even thought if IE have died :) #lol .. Good luck microsoft if you can maintain it . Else leave it for others :) .
Microsoft’s IE 9 Tests are extremely misleading and again show the extent to which Microsoft is willing to go to fabricate their new “truth” – the “truth” that IE 9 is incredible, while Google Chrome and Firefox are weak. This, my fellow web developer, is a lot of bullshit, as I hope you know.
A word of advice: Never, ever, believe in Microsoft.
Once again, this is where you see the duality of Microsoft. When the development team said they had certain test cases where they were out-performing other browsers, the marketing team heard the above info-graphic. (That’s what I’m thinking, anyhow).
When will Microsoft learn that the truth always prevails on the Internet? Why distort it again and again?
Microsoft, expand the IE team, focus on improving your browser tremendously and then, in 1-2 years, when it’s comparable to Firefox and Google Chrome, speak about the good that you have, *then*.
Microsoft, please, stop with all your arrogance and misleading info, be *humble* and *sincere*.
Is this too much to ask?
I’m wondering if the commenters even read anything.
Actually, every browser overhypes themselves. Safari 5 is claiming to be the only browser that passes Acid 3. (What?)
Microsoft wasn’t lying. The tests aren’t misleading (if you read the text), and it’s certainly a competitive browser. Keep in mind that IE9 isn’t even in beta, yet, and it’s already almost doubled its score on When Can I Use.
It’s honestly surprising how few web professionals understand the history and the breadth of these topics. Honestly, Apple’s Safari is acting far worse, lately. (Have you seen that ‘HTML5’ demo?)
The test cases the IE team released are incredibly important. We need these cases, if we’re going to be able to render our code the exact same way in all browsers.
I’d love to see every other vendor produce similar tables.
i would encourage all tests that cast light on inadequacies for any browser. surely, microsoft isn’t the only party that should be trounced for being a bloated inefficient browser which is falling behind the times, ESPECIALLY when their new browser complies with standards in a way that unbreaks a majority of web development AND speeds up rendering through hardware acceleration which is the next step all browser vendors will need to take into consideration. Be unbiased.
It’s great that Microsoft is publishing tests and contributing tests to W3C test suites (which other browser vendors have been doing as well).
However, I agree that these results are misleading, because (1) these tests are testing very small areas of the spec, (2) it’s misleading to compare Microsoft’s platform preview to other browsers’ shipping releases, and (3) some of the tests are wrong, and Microsoft is not particularly quick to respond when errors are pointed out. For info on some of the errors, see:
IE 9 is “certainly a competitive browser”?! I don’t think so:
Google Chrome 5 has ALL these – IE 9 NONE of them:
– CSS3 2D Transformations
– CSS3 Transitions
– ECMAScript 5 Functions (only 3 missing)
– HTML5 Forms (pretty much only specific input types’ UIs missing)
– SVG Filters (NONE planned for IE 9)
– SVG Fonts
– File Drag and Drop
– Web Workers
– Web Sockets
– Web Notifications
– CSS3 Gradients
– HSL Colors
– CSS3 Flexible Box Layout
– CSS3 Multi-Column Layout
And, BTW, the whole Microsoft “same markup” talk is misleading too – IMO, part of their strategy to keep the web from evolving faster.
Vendor-specific prefixes exist for a reason: allow browser makers to innovate faster while keeping websites compatible with current browsers.
Thanks for the post. To remind folk of the context, these tests are engineering spec tests for us as we work on IE9, to ensure that we deliver on our commitment to implement various standards in a consistent and interoperable manner. The fact that we pass 100% of them shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone – of course, you’d expect us to fix errors that we uncover in our own testing process.
This is a genuine commitment on our part to invest in professional-grade tests for web standards; an attempt to thoroughly and accurately reflect the specifications in test cases that can then be used to validate that our browser (and others) are faithful representations of the standards.
I don’t think we’ve “sold” this inaccurately on the IE blog – here are two blog articles we’ve posted:
We also routinely test IE9 against other exhaustive tests. We love the CSS3 selectors test on this site, for instance, and link to it prominently from our IE9 Test Drive site at http://ietestdrive.com.
I’m really glad to see that the original article notes that we’re not claiming “100% HTML5 and CSS3 compliance” (as if that were even remotely possible). But we’re innovating quickly and IE9 is no slouch, as this TechCrunch article notes: http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/08/ie9-safari-5
Thanks for listening – we’re listening too!
Tim Sneath | Microsoft
Does anybody know if IE9 will contain the compatibility mode like IE8 did? Would this then include IE8 as a choice as well?
I feel that ACID3 contains some obscure test cases much like IE9’s example here. ACID2 contain a lot more real world test cases imo.
What we really need is a chart of commonly used test cases. A way to find some of this out might be to use Opera’s MAMA stats – http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/mama-css-syntax/
Safari 5 (WebKit 533) now does not need the prefix for border-radius, so most of those tests pass by virtue of that.
Still, I agree about the prefix issue. Vendors use prefixes for features that are experimental or when the specification is immature.
It doesn’t really matter how good Microsoft claim their latest browser offering is when they have stated that they will continue to support IE6 until at least 2014. That means that many large corp’s see no business case to upgrade their systems internally away from IE6.
So Microsft may claim all they like that their browser is better than everybody elses but until they kill off IE6 once and for all then ultimately they will be judged by it and not by IE9 or IE10 or whatever other browsers they bring out by the time thet get round to shooting a lame horse.
At the end of the day don’t believe the hype wait for it to be released and then see if it matched up. Remember Microsoft claimed that IE6 was CSS compliant and anyone who has built a website in the past 10 years knows differently.
It appears that this article, or rather my overuse of the word “whilst” in the article, has also caused some controversy over on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/ccwnu/ie9_html5_and_css3_those_100_numbers_are_real_but/c0rowhm
Microsoft is lame. (5)
Google Chrome all the way, yeah! (7)
I spilled my coffee. (5)
Pretty bad haiku here too, but seriously, I laugh at how the results are all 100%. I’m wondering, could it be true that they have a working browser that gets 100% on all those tests, are they somehow cheating, or is that their goal by the year 2025 with the release of Internet Explorer 19?
Right now, the score is not 100% anymore for CSS3 selectors or HTML 5 on the IE Test Drive website. It is 88% on CSS3 selectors and 78% on HTML 5. In addition, the score on http://html5test.com/ will increase by at 11 points by the third platform preview.
Interestingly, we’ve seen a number of TV commercials for IE. MS has long held a history of promoting its products with wads of cash and marketing “creativity”, notwithstanding said products’ actual merit.
Inspite of this, IE has been loosing market share very rapidly. It’s well know how slow, unpredictable, insecure, and inconsistent IE is compared to the other browsers. It is unlikely that the general public will be fooled again.
The thing about Microsoft is they lie out of their arse all the time (well bends the truth). Every new version of IE is supposed to be the ants pants but always fails, I’m hoping IE9 will play nice but ultimately I no longer care and don’t think IE or Microsoft is relevant in the modern web. It would be good to see some independent tests that don’t just test the stuff that Microsoft know the other browsers lack to make it look better as mentioned in the 1st few posts – the kind of test that isn’t kind on any browser, all have their probs but we all know IE has all ways fallen way to far from the bench marks.
I like how MS is comparing current releases of other browsers against a not yet released IE9. The other browsers may have solved these “fails” already, but like IE9 haven’t released them yet. MS is counting it’s chickens before they’ve hatched.
I also wonder if they are labeling IE quirks as features that other browsers “fail”. Eg. only IE passes “Different variations on the value of ‘f'”. Bummer I can’t believe other browsers haven’t allowed for this.
Andy L – “Mozilla and Google are the most honest companies regarding their browsers???” Didn’t google have to take a clause out of the terms & conditions because they forgot to mention to people that they were agreeing that Google could collect data concerning browsing activities etc….
That issue you’ve mentioned was a mistake on Google’s part, not “fabrication of truth” ala Microsoft.
Google has made a couple of privacy blunders in the past, but they’ve been very quick to fix them (sometimes in 1 day).
If you’re concerned about privacy in Google Chrome, check out this page:
Seems pretty reasonable to me, what Google Chrome does and the way I can turn stuff off.
Furthermore, the biggest attacks on your privacy on the Web actually come from websites exploiting security holes in the browser. In this area, according to unbiased security tests, Google Chrome has consistently kept its reputation as the most secure web browser.
I’m impressed that today Microsoft announced Canvas support as well!
Well, that Google Chrome 5 Features List I posted is now one item shorter. Still a long way to go though, IE Team…
Most of all, I hope the FileReader and FileWriter APIs will be included in IE9.
To be fair, from my Google Chrome 5 Features List, I should remove “SVG Fonts” as WOFF will be adopted instead. Firefox 3.6 has WOFF already, and this IE 9 preview implements it too.
Also, I need to mention that I didn’t include the FileReader and FileWriter APIs in that Features list I posted, as these APIs aren’t implemented in Google Chrome 5…
…Although FileReader and FileWriter will be supported within the next 2 months, when Google Chrome 6 ships.
ie is certainly a bad browser ………
but chrome is the worst browser in the history of computers and internet……….
and those who uses it are king of idiots………….
i can hack chrome in less than 1 minute……….
its very easy to send viruses and malware via chrome to computer
I absolutely love all the MS hate. They didn’t lie about anything. They made themselves look better, sure, but that is what businesses do. It’s how they operate — always has been, always will be.
Why would a company make a competing product look better than their own? Honesty is one thing, stupidity is another.
“Mozilla and Google are the most honest companies regarding their browsers.”
With all respect to the Microsoft IE team and the attempt to get a new “look”, I still think Google is the most trustworthy, MS the least. Actually not only with their browsers but with everything.
Street Credibility you do not buy, you earn it.
MS can for a start not wait 4-5 years between each browser update. This in my eyes shows clearly, they do not want the net to evolve.
Some people complaining too much “bashing” against MS seems to forget, that IE is not a free browser. Everytime MS sells IE, they sell an operating system, not the browser it self. This makes it more suspicious (far more), when they bash other browser vendors in “tests”.
So, FF for instance can be used in newest version on XP. IE9 can not. Just giving the facts, not MS-bashing.
I absolutely agree with “Michael Kozakewich” and I think that some people comment only because they see “Microsoft” and they the need to comment saying bad things about the company probably not knowing what the tests are for. Now, I’m not a Microsoft fan or anything but the truth is that IE9 developers actually seem to have done a good work. And if they continue like that the release of IE9 could be a big success.
@Rune Jensen If you just knew how much private data Google keeps “stealing” from you … well you wouldn’t leave that comment.
BTW IE updates are hidden into windows updates but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist at all, it just seems that way and I think thats better because you don’t have to install a software every time there’s a new release or update.
One other thing, when you buy an OS you buy an OS without the browser. IE is something more that you can choose to keep or not and it’s completely free. If it weren’t than one: everybody would be using it at least those that use Windows two: if you go to microsoft.com and download it they don’t ask for money do they? If IE checks for the system if it is genuine or not, well that’s a different story. You can’t blame them for checking if someone is stealing their primary product and/or isn’t paying for something they should (I’m talking about windows).
Again I’m not a fan of Microsoft I just don’t see the point in criticizing it all the time. When I asked a friend once Why do you hate Microsoft so much? he didn’t say anything. Later I asked him Is it because of its success? then he said yes.
“Again I’m not a fan of Microsoft I just don’t see the point in criticizing it all the time. When I asked a friend once Why do you hate Microsoft so much? he didn’t say anything. Later I asked him Is it because of its success? then he said yes.”
I do not hate anyone because of success. And I do not hate MS for that, but because of their lies. They have surely made impressive things
in the PAST.
But they have deliberitely made it harder to evolve the web after IE6, and especially harder for web designers. In ten years from now we will we struggeling with IE8, because IE9 is not available for XP. The exact same thing as with IE6. MS do not give a flying f… about standards or the users themselves. They care about Microsoft, and that’s it.
It is absolutely true, that they do not sell browsers. They sell operating systems. And that IS a reason to be extra carefull, when they say their browser is better. IE is NOT free. It costs money. Contrary to Mozilla and even Opera. And Chrome. Yes, Opera is closed source, but still FREE. Which makes a hell of a differense.
MS did it when they launched IE8, claiming it to be the most secure(???) browser, even tried to “prove” it with a “test” they paid themselves. Later? IE was banned in Germany and France by the government. Because it is UNSECURE. The “tests” they made at MS, did NOT take in to account the security of the browser itself. And it was the security of the browser itself, that it was banned in those countries.
I hate companies that lies and tries to cheat customers, not MS in particular, only because they lie like hell, because of their actions. And because they are proud about lying. This makes it even worse.
I can mention that they have done this numerous of times. Think about Vista. Why do you think it is so damn slow? Think about it or search for intel microsoft vista. Else I can tell on my system now is Linux Mint with eveything from Compiz, 3D effects, all of it, running smoothly. And on the same system I have Vista, which for example uses 13 seconds to switch between two open programs. I had to turn everything 3D OFF, which left me with a Win98-look. GREAT. I am removing that system anyways (I am in the middle of a swith), but this is the main reason. They lie about everything.
And since MS also hate open source very deeply (which they have also said very clearly numerous times), well, I guess it makes MS my enemy, because I like open source and I like when people are not lying about their product they want to SELL.
“if you go to microsoft.com and download it they don’t ask for money do they?”
They do. You have to buy a new operating system to use IE9.
Can I have IE9 for Linux? Can I have it for XP? Not that I want to, but if I wanted?
Requires at least Windows Vista SP2
And YES, it is built into the system. Don’t remember the version for Vista, but it is. You can NOT remove it in vista at least, and I doubt you can in Win7 either. It is simply not possible. So it is NOT something extra, you can have aside. You get the browser AND the operating system, or neither.
Tell me again, that IE is free, please.
I pay for my software, and I paid for Vista, which was the biggest mistake I have ever made.
I then made the final decision and switched to Linux Mint, which by the way is free and legal, and it is way way faster, much more user friendly and intuitive and more stable than Windows. Not to mention the cool effects like 3D desktops and windows animations which run very smoothly on only 2GB of RAM. It is everything that windows could have been, if MS had not been lying.
Now I am not going back. Ever.
Sorry I have 1gb RAM, not 2GB. But the minimum requirements for Linux Mint is 512mb according to Mint web site, so even worse system than mine will be able to run it.
The main thing here is, that 1GB of RAM is enough for Linux Mint with every 3D effect, but it is NOT enough to run Vista Home Basic (which was initially on this computer). Even if MS say so, this is a BIG LIE. And they still say 512mb is enough on MS’ home page, must be a joke. I truly hate them. Hope they go bankrupt.
“it is worth noting that this is still a vast turnaround from Microsoft’s previous position on CSS3, and web standards in general.”
“Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” microsoft’s 3e’s. microsoft will never embrace open standards, only make a show of doing so to garner support, then stab em in the back.
They are. Why do you think they are claiming that IE9 can only run on Win7. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with hardware. That is the exact strategy of the 3e’s. HTML5 will only be “good” on a Windows platform because of “hardware acceleration”. Wow! And it can not be copied either by other browser vendors. woow………. eh…
I wonder what would happen, if that strategy failed. What if, all of a sudden, it was someone else who won, not MS. Like, if Googles OS becomes the big one, not Windows. What would MS do?
Would Steve Ballmer go raving mad throw a chair along the room again cursing like a sailor swearing to bury someone? Or would he consider more… direct actions?
Here is, from a Google search, just one citation of him going completely mad (give the man an UZI, and he will kill everyone around and not even blink):
“Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I’m going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I’m going to fucking kill Google”
And he is the leader of the most powerfull software-company on earth……. Whom people blindly trust. I’m glad, I’m at least using Linux. And Chrome for browser. Don’t think I’ll use Windows ever again. I’m afraid to. It could kill me.
Me, Windows 7 user, FE.
I don’t know if most of you commenters are using a linux or mac os. HAVE YOU TRIED IE9?
I like MS’s UI, always. They have the best UI team.
And then, what I like most about IE9 is not something standard. Yeah, I know standard is a important thing, and I hope IE9 can make a good deal with it. The most valuable thing for IE9, I think, is the speed. A broswer using GPU, while others get 1FPS or lower, IE9 get tens.
Don’t tell me that’s MS’s test. I found another one built in 2008, and the result told me how great IE9 did.
‘HTML5 will only be “good” on a Windows platform because of “hardware acceleration”.’ Or it should be ‘”The Speed” will only be “good” on a Windows 7 platform because of “hardware acceleration”.’
I don’t care if it’s the truth or just something about businesses. I just know, IE9 may lead a new period of WebApps and WebGames for it’s speed.
They went through the trouble of making all those charts to compare an in-development browser to others which have been available. I think the only thing really tells me is that even MS knows IE8 was a big flippin’ failure. It’ll be interesting to see if IE9 can prove to be as good a browser as MS thinks it’s slated to be.
*IF* IE9 is so standard compliant, it shouldn’t be nessesary to buy Windows to test ones homepages in it?
Who believes that will be the future? Honestly?
So… maybe they’re making just tiny changes, so that IE9 is 99.9% standard compliant. Then putting in some MS-specific “standard” CSS and HTML, to be sure it will at least break some sites. It will keep webmasters from skipping Windows, they HAVE to test them in IE9 as well, and they HAVE to make IE-specific code as well.
Same procedure as with EVERY IE made.
I’m going to take a moment to give Microsoft some praise, not for IE9, but for Windows. In my opinion, Microsoft continuously and consistently makes great Operating Systems. Yes, Vista was the new ME, but 7 looks like it’s shaping up to be the new XP. I have to give Microsoft some props for maybe getting that one right.
Nearly everything else they make sucks, I have to say. Microsoft is always playing catchup in nearly every category. They were late to the fancy OS party (Apple beat them there), they only just added built in wifi to the 360, and they’re only just now even starting to make it “look” like they’re going to obey web standards.
I don’t know. If it wasn’t for the fact that nearly every idiot Windows user used IE, I probably wouldn’t even bother taking the time to test it or write CSS for it. Writing CSS that works across the standard compliant browsers can be bad enough sometimes (what with their little quirks here and there), but having to rewrite and add special rules just so that I can have my websites work in one browser? Give me a break.
Maybe, the OpenSource hacks should place a lot of the MS IE compliant blame where it really belongs at the feet of the W3C and WHATWG. Maybe I’m showing my age but I can still remember the W3C migrating to XML/XHTML standards. IE adopted and pathetic undisciplined developers who couldn’t write valid code refused to write compliant code. Today, they sit on their newly found compliant moral high horse bashing MS because when MS does adopt a standard they do it properly??!! I wish you’d take your POS OpenSource GIGO and shove it. Pathetic!
[email protected] abbot. This is wrong, and if you are a developer yourself, you should know it. Microsoft did intensionally NOT implement the XML, so what web developers do when they send XHTML is, they send it as HTML. EVERY other browser understands the correct mime, which is application/XML.
Way to go, MS. Keeps screwing up the internet, but on the other hand, they do not get punished for it, so why should they stop that. People just love it when Microsoft illegally punshes another company down the drain with illegal methods. Microsoft is a criminal company, and people like that.