Maybe we're talking at cross-purposes, but you seem to be saying that
(a) it doesn't matter that there was no support for a feature planned for IE, because it is planned for Edge
and
(b) IE and Edge are essentially the same browser, and one is just the upgrade for the other.
I contend that this is what Microsoft's marketing department would like everyone to think, but the reality in larger organisations (and for those developing web sites and apps aimed at those organisations) is that they are two completely different browsers. In many cases, the only way you can "upgrade" from one to the other would be literally upgrading the entire organisation's standard desktop environment, including the OS.
If you're going to contend that a missing feature in one product is only an upgrade issue because you can change the entire OS and then install a completely different product to do the same job and then get that feature then I don't know what wouldn't be "just" an upgrade issue.
Same reasons that IE versions only support certain versions of Windows:
- they want to be able to switch to newer APIs when the underlying OS adds them (though in Edge's case it's more likely it was written from the ground up using newer APIs)
- they quite possibly want to use "you can get the new browser only if you upgrade" as a carrot for OS upgrades (they explicitly did with IE, I haven't seen anything explicit for Edge but it wouldn't surprise me if they're still taking that approach)
For all practical purposes, Edge is the next version of Internet Explorer. New features aren't being added to Internet Explorer 11, only to Edge. Yes, Edge has higher system requirements than Internet Explorer 11, but that's not relevant to my point. The same was true of Internet Explorer 9, which didn't run on Windows XP, but that didn't mean Internet Explorer 9 wasn't the next version along from Internet Explorer 8 or that it was "a completely different browser" or "a completely different product". It just means it's got higher system requirements, that's all.
The only thing the higher system requirements mean in practice is that the timetable for upgrading is delayed for some organisations. Those that aren't on Windows 10 will upgrade later than those that are. This means that it's not a blocker for using service workers, just a pretty typical delay while we wait for organisations to upgrade. As I keep saying, it's just an upgrade issue.
Saying that Microsoft aren't adding support for service workers to Internet Explorer while leaving out the massive fact that this is because Internet Explorer is the legacy version and they are adding it to the next version along, Edge, gives a radically different impression to what is actually happening. It implies that we'll never be able to use service workers because a major browser vendor isn't supporting it, when the reality is the opposite – that Microsoft are adding it to the next version of their browser and that all web developers have to do is wait for people to upgrade.
This is then compounded by the claim that Apple are doing the same thing – which is also untrue. Apple are adding service worker support to Safari right now, you can even go and look at the code yourself.
Yes, I understand that in terms of IT operations, the upgrade from Internet Explorer 11 to Edge is not without its complications. But it doesn't matter to the point I'm making. This is an upgrade issue, not a "multiple browser vendors have killed service workers" issue.
> If you're going to contend that a missing feature in one product is only an upgrade issue because you can change the entire OS and then install a completely different product to do the same job and then get that feature then I don't know what wouldn't be "just" an upgrade issue.
Changing from a previous version of Windows to Windows 10 is an upgrade. Changing from a previous version of Internet Explorer to Edge is an upgrade. It's quite clear why I'm calling this an upgrade issue, and I don't see how you can think that logic applies to things other than upgrades.
An example of what wouldn't be an upgrade issue is what I am explicitly contrasting against here. Two major browser vendors refusing to implement service workers wouldn't be an upgrade issue. If Microsoft and Apple won't add support for service workers to their browsers, then developers can't just wait for people to upgrade because newer versions won't include support either.
That's why it's so relevant to say "hang on, that's not right, both Microsoft and Apple are adding support to the latest versions of their browsers". It's the difference between service workers eventually being usable with a great deal of cross-browser support, and service workers being dead outside of small niches.
Edge cannot have feature parity. For example, it will not support plugins. I don't think they can drop IE from Windows due to enterprise use and LOB applications.
Google intentionally ignores issues Edge/IE users have with their products because they want them to switch to Chrome. This isn’t an issue of Microsoft making “browser upgrades”, it’s an issue of Google developing to and supporting Chrome and ignoring the rest of the web.
It's just different priorities. When they launched Windows 10, they didn't have Edge. Now, a lot of users are familiar with IE 11. They're most concerned with their corporate customers. Earlier this year, they have announced that they will only support IE 11 until next year, giving time to their corporate customers an year to make the transition.
My point is that they almost certainly have both IE and Edge installed. It's entirely possible to continue using IE for their legacy app and use Edge for everything else. In fact if their IT department cares at all about security, it should be pushing them to do so.
Edge is MS's current browser... IE11 was an incremental release over IE10 and several years old at this point. Most browsers update very frequently. IE never did.
Maybe you need to look at whoever locked said computers down to ONLY support IE? Chrome and Firefox are both better options at this point. It really isn't MS's fault that an organization can't be bothered to update their software for what, 4 years now?
As someone actually working in operations, and keeping our current suite of software/apps/etc compatable with these upgrades, I say - Microsoft, your documentation is very poor and lacking, and I have to invent fixes to your lack of effort... probably by design.
It is annoying when we can quickly proof up software, and specialized utilities when consulting with business. It is wayyyy to much work to port from IE to Edge though.. yeesh, waste of my productive time.
Unfortunately this one is impossible even if every developer and browser vendor were all unanimously in favor. Edge-née-IE is evergreen now, but users have to upgrade Windows first, and that's not something that can be forced.
Yeah it seems like Microsoft is playing both sides. On the one hand they want New Edge to just be a new version of Edge if they already use Old Edge, and on the other they want New Edge to be treated as a new browser if you aren't using Old Edge.
And, as far as I know, Microsoft has developed Edge from scratch after all. The years of incremental updates to IE are now maintained for legacy support.
Yes but they could have had that with the old Edge.. I just don't understand how the browser engine was a barrier to adoption. It didn't perform badly at all every time I tested, it worked just fine.
I think it was just the marketing effort that got Edge Chromium more adopted, not the move to chromium itself. Every time we had a call with a MS consultant (about any unrelated topic) they had to bring it up again, it was crazy.
I don’t use Edge, but it’s unfair to characterize Edge as a “downgrade” for all people. The average user cares much more about being able to annotate webpages (for example) than having access to the latest web standard. So the “upgrade” you’re talking about is only from the point of view of the web developer, which is usually the wrong way to think about this kind of stuff. If you go far enough along the path of prioritizing the developer over the user, you end up with stuff like Electron, which penalizes users for not “upgrading” to Chrome and deciding they wanted a native app instead.
I think it would make more sense to people who work on a CDN everyday.
This may sound like FUD but I'd strongly encourage people to stop spending too much time on edge or internet explorer. Just do the bare minimum and focus on Chrome/Firefox. It is better for everyone. I am very disappointed that Microsoft decided to bundle edge with Windows showing yet again they don't get it. Microsoft should be able to update edge separately of Windows. Without this, corporate users (pretty much the only reason to support ie/edge) will still be behind the curve for a long time.
(a) it doesn't matter that there was no support for a feature planned for IE, because it is planned for Edge
and
(b) IE and Edge are essentially the same browser, and one is just the upgrade for the other.
I contend that this is what Microsoft's marketing department would like everyone to think, but the reality in larger organisations (and for those developing web sites and apps aimed at those organisations) is that they are two completely different browsers. In many cases, the only way you can "upgrade" from one to the other would be literally upgrading the entire organisation's standard desktop environment, including the OS.
If you're going to contend that a missing feature in one product is only an upgrade issue because you can change the entire OS and then install a completely different product to do the same job and then get that feature then I don't know what wouldn't be "just" an upgrade issue.
reply