The "action by Google" of maliciously adding themselves to a quirks-mode list[1] maintained solely by Microsoft, that Google had no access to or ability to add themselves to, when their website works perfectly well in IE11 if that list is disabled[2]?
[1] "What appears to be happening here is that Google’s search engine has somehow been added to IE11′s Compatibility View list."
[2] "Uncheck “Use Microsoft Compatibility lists” and Google’s search engine should work again."
That actually doesn't explain anything: "quirks" mode just emulates IE's old behavior and changes the user agent string to match. Old IE renders Google fine, so simply being in quirks mode shouldn't cause anything to break.
Disclaimer: Work at MS, I can't even see IE from my building, etc, etc.
Slow down there - that list is hardly a "quirks-mode" list and there's no reason to believe a change in behavior was malicious by either party. You're assuming that list was recently changed by Microsoft for the purpose of what - ruining customer's experiences of using Windows 8.1? Tarnish Google's reputation?
There are so many assumptions at work here that I don't think it's reasonable to conclude any malice.
> You're assuming that list was recently changed by Microsoft for the purpose of what - ruining customer's experiences of using Windows 8.1? Tarnish Google's reputation?
I'm not assuming that, and I haven't concluded malice on MS's part. I worded the comment to emphasize the ridiculousness of concluding malice on Google's part, but didn't mean to imply I thought there was malice the other way. Apologies if I misled you.
Not to mention the huge negative effect it must have on Google's short-term revenue to do such a thing intentionally. I suppose it could be argued that longer term it may make sense for Google to break IE in order to increase Chrome's market share, and thereby increase the number of users defaulted to Google search. Would be very risky, though.
Have you read the article at all ? Google is set in IE's "compatibility mode" list. That means someone at Microsoft itself has made a mistake or has no faith in their browser rendering google's site properly in their normal rendering mode. Nothing in the article indicate that Google has done anything.
You really shouldn't draw any conclusion about issues when you can't even bother to read the entire article.
Google has certainly done that before (especially with Windows Phone) but we should probably give them the benefit of the doubt here. Is it really in Google's best interest to no longer effectively serve ads to their users?
As others have suggested, this was probably an inadvertent change.
While it can be confusing, that by itself should not be an issue for anyone, they did it to avoid all the older IE specific fix as they become compliant with a more recent set of standards, and any website should use feature detection rather than browser detection.
I could have sworn that some compat modes fairly faithfully mimic the original version- to the point of dropping APIs such as addEventListener. So yes, you can use feature detection but if you get flagged by IE then you essentially need to code for IE7 or whatever.
The feature detection mantra is true for you and me, but it's a leap to say you can apply the same tactic to a huge site like Google. Google isn't stupid, if they UA sniff, you can bet they have good reasons.
bs. most fixes for ie are implemented with the conditional comment, maybe even one for each version of ie. loading a truckload of css.
and honestly, for most cases feature detection is just an empty term. i agree with if t for javascript. but the rest is mostly impossible (or so much more work that it is i practical)
I'm concluding that google put some code for older IE browsers on their page that isn't actually triggered by compliant browsers, but some automated detection program flagged it as having a legacy feature.
I seem to have a panel on the left that is obscuring about half of the text. I'm sure that can't be the intention - is it yet another case of incredibly poor design?
There appears to be no way to dismiss it, and it doesn't move. In short, I can't read the article, because someone wanted to be clever.
Added in edit: It becomes visible if I reduce my text size, rendering the text visible, but difficult to read. Interesting trade-off.
If IE weren't so horrible, people wouldn't have to program so defensively for it. It's kind of like Office... the tiniest delay causes it to throw up dialogs saying that it's not responding, and as soon as that happens the typical non-expert user nukes it, and restarts Windows. I've watched it happen. This is what they expect.
We have a whole generation of computer users used to this kind of crap: Microsoft software sucks and you expect it to constantly misbehave, and randomly change, and must be constantly on guard to prevent it from causing problems.
Even if this was Google's fault, I really don't blame them.
I don't think ConceptJunkie is implying that google was acting in bad faith, just that, perhaps, they were trying to optimize their page for IE and didn't get it right, causing the latest IE to choke.
my classmate's mother-in-law makes $67 an hour on the computer. She has been fired for 7 months but last month her pay check was $18297 just working on the computer for a few hours. this page
==========================
http://WWW.Works23.Com
NFS, really? An attempt to abstract over network semantics using the same API as regular file systems, leading to random performance, a heap of locking issues, and all kinds of mayhem?
Sun indeed produced a lot of really great software, but I wouldn't count NFS amongst that.
Heh, you have not lived until a stale NFS mount takes down your whole server. Trying "sudo umount" on it, the umount command will not return and even "sudo kill -9" can't stop it[1]. A soft reboot can't fix it either; "sudo reboot" will hang the whole machine waiting for that NFS mount to respond to some deep kernel I/O call.
Maybe I misread the parent, but I took it less as a defense of Microsoft, and more as a meta-comment about the frequency of comments which have no actual substance beyond opinion.
Well IE may not be so good I agree, but this does not mean that GOogle has no blame. I have experiences first hand Gmail responding with CSS exceptions to an IE browser and not to Chrome/Firefox. To validate my suspicion I revisited the site using IE emulation mode emulating firefox and everything was fine. So TBH when MS got slapped with the massive EU antitrust fine years back because of IE, that is being done today from a User experience perspective undermining the experience on certain browsers. This is just one example I am nor pro Microsoft or Google I am sure they both do it in one way or another but the fact is this kind of practice exists on both sides.
49 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 87.9 ms ] thread[1] "What appears to be happening here is that Google’s search engine has somehow been added to IE11′s Compatibility View list."
[2] "Uncheck “Use Microsoft Compatibility lists” and Google’s search engine should work again."
Disclaimer: Work at MS, I can't even see IE from my building, etc, etc.
There are so many assumptions at work here that I don't think it's reasonable to conclude any malice.
I'm not assuming that, and I haven't concluded malice on MS's part. I worded the comment to emphasize the ridiculousness of concluding malice on Google's part, but didn't mean to imply I thought there was malice the other way. Apologies if I misled you.
Relevant: Hanlon's razor[1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
You really shouldn't draw any conclusion about issues when you can't even bother to read the entire article.
YOSPOS: Your OS is a Piece Of Shit
As others have suggested, this was probably an inadvertent change.
and honestly, for most cases feature detection is just an empty term. i agree with if t for javascript. but the rest is mostly impossible (or so much more work that it is i practical)
im interested to see what changed now that MS "fixed" it. was the UA string mismatch updated? or did they just remove it from their compatibility list
> if Google had tested in IE11 and discovered all was great, it's very easy for them to contact us to remove them from the list
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6576981
There appears to be no way to dismiss it, and it doesn't move. In short, I can't read the article, because someone wanted to be clever.
Added in edit: It becomes visible if I reduce my text size, rendering the text visible, but difficult to read. Interesting trade-off.
[1]: http://i.imgur.com/4l9VB2l.png
We have a whole generation of computer users used to this kind of crap: Microsoft software sucks and you expect it to constantly misbehave, and randomly change, and must be constantly on guard to prevent it from causing problems.
Even if this was Google's fault, I really don't blame them.
The idea that Microsoft's wrongs justify alleged Google wrongs is wrong.
Whose software doesn't suck, in your opinion?
Sun indeed produced a lot of really great software, but I wouldn't count NFS amongst that.
You have to cut the power....
(This was HP_UX in 2003'ish)
1. http://askubuntu.com/questions/87074/how-to-kill-the-process...
Did you have C# in mind when you said that??
There's not a single fact in the whole fraking comment. Just a personal rant.
HN starts to look a lot like reddit.
Hating on Microsoft and complaining about the hate are two sides of the same unconstructive coin.