Shocking: Did the W3C Sell Out to Microsoft?

[drakefyre]

Wolfgang, this is a great article. Thanks for raising the quality closer to what it was before the bestofmedia purchase.

 

[nukemaster]

Why cant they just test with every browser old and new version then users can look and see both speed and improvement from old to newer releases. Hell in that case a dev copy would even be ok as the beta would still be listed.

 

[cryogenic]

Who gives a @#$%#$ about Html 5? It's not even here, and all those speed tests are so incredibly irrelevant. I use my browser (FF) mainly because I "like it", i like it's interface, ergonomics, plugins, its' incredibly user friendly (has lots of small useful well though out features).

W3C an the whole bunch can waste their time all they want, I'll still be a Firefox user. No other browser managed to catch up on the usability of Firefox so far.

 

[genghiskhanid]

IMO testing beta versus released isn't a problem as long as the basis of testing is seeing which current browser is the most effective at any given time. Let's say if the current offerings are beta for IE and Firefox but release for Opera and Safari, where is the problem? All are the latest so comparing them isn't a crime.

Might be a good thing to also include the latest official releases as well though... i.e. latest release + beta for those still in beta.

 

[Pyroflea]

IE has never really been the best performing browser, at least not in the past near decade. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they fudged the results.

 

[compton]

I understand the issue here to some degree. I think it's less about one round of browser testing to obtain bragging rights for IE and more about steering the supertanker of standards. Microsoft's legal and moral mandate is to do things in the interest of Microsoft and it's shareholders.

I think it's strange that MS has so much difficulty making a decent browser. I understand that when MS makes any software they have to drag around the legacy stuff and ensure that it actually works with Windows. But I submit as evidence that Firefox and Chrome are both excellent and MS should be able to do it better, but seems to be having a tough (and slow) ride.

 

[ljbade]

Anyone take a look at:
http://test.w3.org/

"W3C would like to thank Microsoft who donated the server that allows us to run this service."

The conspiracy deepens...

 

[super_tycoon]

When I first saw the results, I was surprised, but not so much that I thought something malevolent was at work. Instead, I viewed the results much like I do with tech review sites. I had inferred Microsoft had gotten some poor dev to hack together a build of the latest revision and email it to the W3C asap. Everyone else just shrugged and pointed to their respective dev builds. Let's not forget certain tech websites don't actually buy all the wonderful products they test. And yet, they use these results to make blanket statements about certain products all the time... I'll be frank, I think factory overclocks and binned chips are just as bad as mixing beta/stable software.

In my opinion, people shouldn't be surprised by Microsoft. It has A TON of good developer muscle. I would imagine everyone who reads Tom's regularly runs Windows. Why? Because Microsoft seriously invested time and money into DirectX and has made it the only serious computer gaming platform. I see no reason why Internet Explorer can't be the best browser in the world. The only real thing in my mind that makes IE an inferior browser is its lack of good security measures. Even then, who knows? I'm sure the devs are perfectly capable of sandboxing IE.

 

[braneman]

it's like when the hard drive standards people sold out to people who make hard drives and let them sell less data than advertised.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I don't see a problem with comparing a beta browser to a final older version. I compared IE9 Beta and FF4 beta to IE8 and FF3. Sad thing is that IE9 and FF4 are considerably more stable than IE8 and FF3.

And running a preview is not bad either. If anything it will also show what kind of results we can expect towards the final product or even the next beta.

I was running IE9 PP1-4 and when the Beta hit, it was pretty much on par with PP4s results in performance and support.

So for now, I don't see the big deal. As long as they are not fully falsifying the results and are working towards a stadardized benchmark I am fine. In fact if I remember correctly, a lot of people moaned that MS never worked with W3C and now that they are it seems people think they are selling out to MS.

IDK. I like IE9 Beta so far. Its fast, stable and if a web site crashes, the entire browser no longer goes with it as did with IE8/FF3. The tab gets recovered without taking the browser down first.

 

[falchard]

I think Microsoft understands that to be a good browser they needed to be W3C compliant which is why they have been holding back the release of IE9. Microsoft has been spending alot of development making sure IE9 was the most compliant with W3C, and this just goes on to show that effort. Its been no secret that Microsoft has been heavily working with W3C to make sure everything works right.

 

[danielgr]

Personally, I enjoyed your reading and the effort you put on disecting everything. That said:

1) I bet Microsoft handed down the PP6 version to W3C before their recent developers forum where they stated they were all about HTML5, and I see nothing wrong with it apart a smart marketing move. Same way Tom's hardware has always been offered stuff (often preproduction and not available for general use) by manufacturers eager to get their latest products reviewed; I don't think they would dismiss a call from Opera to test their latest build; maybe they simply didn't call (and let's be fair, Opera's real world use is anecdotical at best).

2) We are talking about HTML5 compliance, which is all about the engine running behind the UI, so it's perfectly legitimate to test PP6 because we know that's the latest IE9 core regardless of the UI.

3) I'd wish you put that much effort to check all the reviews that have reached the web ever since the first IE9 PP1 surfaced. Most of them have consistently downplayed Microsoft's browser performance/compliance to standards by either reporting wrong figures or using outdated versions to show how bad IE9 was. That includes several articles I read in Tom's Hardware, so it's easy for you to check. I even read an article here where Google's own java-script test was used to benchmark browsers... So yes, I think you aren't being fair.

4) Bottom line is most browsers are heading towards 100% and that's good (Microsoft still leading against all the badmouthing though...)

 

[danielgr]

Sorry by the double post; my Firefox beta bugged.

PS: All those comments about the "falsified" results make me wonder about the intellect of Tom's readers...
Falsifying a result means you lie on the facts or show up wrong numbers on purpose. Anyone here should know there is a new version of each browser (both stable and in development) almost every week, so when you read a benchmark you'd better check what versions are involved. It's even more laughable if you consider the same people criticizing now Microsoft have been using their earlier PPx releases to downplay them in the previous months (at least W3C got the figures and versions right, unlike Tom's recent "articles").
Get over your hate people... it won't do any good to you.

 

[pangedit]

Nice find and nice read.

 

[dEAne]

If that's the best browser why many people are complaining.

 

[Guest]

I really don't get it. Why is so important that one browser is using more new features from future html 5 standard? From developer point of few this is not important at all. Developer needs to know what kind of features are supported by all of the major browsers on the market (IE, Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera) because that are the features he/she can use. If only one browser is supporting some fancy new feature this is useless to developer and even dangerous to use it, because only single browser could display the result instead of all. Standard is not about how many new features one browser supports and how many others do not support, but the main point of the standard is that ALL of the browsers use features in the exactly same way.

 

[maxusa]

Kudos for a great example how a journalistic purpose can be competently addressed. It is a rare example these days. There are several unasnwered questions--as the article itself admits--but the article/inquiry objectives have been achieved in a highly professional manner. Thanks for doing us, readers, a big favor.

 

[cloudNINE]

I don't use I.E. for these reasons alone. Not that its a terrible browser but. Its almost impossible to get a easy to use ad blocker. It's not plug-in friendly. Or how about those tracker cookies that it never erases? Or better yet, the flash cookie that gathers everything you do, the dreaded LSO. Until MS gets it through their head, some of us don't like being marketing tools for adds, they will continue to produce bloat-ware.

 

[back_by_demand]

The amount of time spent arguing about whose web browser is better is approx 1 million times more than the combined amount of time savings the faster browser will give you over the rest of your life.

Just pick one and use it, no big deal.

 

[mrguitarmann]

"...since Steve Ballmer and Hachamovitch mentioned that they want to contribute more resources to the W3C"

First ISO, and now W3C? Who could possibly be next??

 

[Guest]

Hello,

I was mentioned by name in the article so I thought I would drop in on the conversation. Wolfgang and I connected yesterday by phone (I'm on the road and had been unable to meet sooner). Wolfgang, I believe, will be updating his article based on our discussion. W3C has updated the page with clearer statements about the very early status of this test suite (and why the current results are meaningless for several reasons). Philippe Le Hégaret explains a bit more about our public development of the test suite in a blog post: http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/11/html5_testing.html

Ian

 

[back_by_demand]

Well, I think the phrase "jump the gun" springs to mind here, Wolfgang...

 

[Guest]

Awesome. I miss this kind of investigative article. Kind of reminds me of when there was a 'Tom' at Tom's Hardware. Well done Sir.

 

[Guest]

This may fool the typical user but developers shouldn't fall for this. What exactly is support of HTML 5...are they doing everything that is now possible with HTML 5 or is it just not crashing when it sees HTML5. Is is only support for the new video tag that relies on the browser and platform to serve the video (which would require Windows to natively support mpeg-2 and mpeg-4). All of this is really minor.

The benchmark does not address the issue of compliance to already existing standards. Has it finally catch up with the CSS standard so we don't have to use the dreaded

 

[Guest]

They didn't sell out. A bunch of misinformed bloggers not only misinterpreted the test results but mislead thousands of readers. The only mistake the W3C made was publicizing the incomplete test results. The test suite has been heavily contributed to by Microsoft and Opera at this point, so of course IE9 is going to perform well. But that's not to say the test suite is complete -- it's far from it according to the W3C.

Those of us following these things closely know this, it's the bloggers and media that don't understand how these things really work that are the problem. Not to mention, this article isn't helping any.

As @Ian has said above, the W3C has responded in this post: http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/11/html5_testing.html