Following along part of the discussion about Opera and the EUs complaint against MS and Internet Explorer, MS announced, after the complaint was filed, that they rendered the Acid2 test, which some consider a significant event.  Firefox 2.0 and some other browsers do not pass this test (FF3 does) so it's a good marketing event for MS/IE. 

But Microsoft it "rendered" Acid2 on an internal build and in "IE8 standards mode".  "Uh, oh.  What is this?", I asked, and how does it apply to web standards.  Is "rendering" the same as "passing"?

Turns out, IE8 standards mode is set by a proprietary "flag" which must be inserted into your web page markup to trigger it which, of course, may make that part of your page invalid.  This flag is not set by the Acid2 test so...guess what my friends...IE8 does not pass Acid2!
From Wikipedia:
However, the version of IE8 that will be released will not pass Acid2 as it will require pages to specifically request to be rendered in IE8 standards mode, and Acid2 does not request this.

Countless posts are being made about how great IE8 will be because they "passed" the test.  It's interesting that Microsoft nowhere tries to correct this error.
Posted on 2008-01-12 10:56:50 by drhowarddrfine
That's a big disappointment to me, because although I use firefox, I was looking at getting IE8 when it came out anyways, oh well, thanks for the info. :D
Posted on 2008-01-12 19:09:29 by HKothari
It will be a cold day in hell before I use another microsoft product, the faith has been broken again and again, I do not trust microsoft or their products, and I don't see how anything they say, in any context, can be taken seriously, let alone literally.
Posted on 2008-01-12 21:30:18 by Homer

It will be a cold day in hell before I use another microsoft product, the faith has been broken again and again, I do not trust microsoft or their products, and I don't see how anything they say, in any context, can be taken seriously, let alone literally.



Aren't you using Direct X by the way? :lol: For me, I can't imagine my life without Microsoft products :shock:
Posted on 2008-01-12 22:10:34 by XCHG

Turns out, IE8 standards mode is set by a proprietary "flag" which must be inserted into your web page markup to trigger it which, of course, may make that part of your page invalid. 


You realize that the ACID2 test is infact a test of how a browser handles INVALID markup, correct?

It is no suprise that Microsoft wants IE to default to being compatible with its parents.


Countless posts are being made about how great IE8 will be because they "passed" the test.  It's interesting that Microsoft nowhere tries to correct this error.


Evidence, or strawman?
Posted on 2008-01-13 06:05:40 by Rockoon
Aren't you using Direct X by the way? Laughing For me, I can't imagine my life without Microsoft products Shocked


I'll use their libraries, but I won't use their applications - I don't really consider libraries of code to be products, however I suppose you are right - and in that regard, DX9 will be the last one I use, since I absolutely refuse to move to Vista for DX10 (or for any other reason).
Posted on 2008-01-13 08:56:40 by Homer

Aren't you using Direct X by the way? Laughing For me, I can't imagine my life without Microsoft products Shocked


I'll use their libraries, but I won't use their applications - I don't really consider libraries of code to be products, however I suppose you are right - and in that regard, DX9 will be the last one I use, since I absolutely refuse to move to Vista for DX10 (or for any other reason).



Kind of off topic here but is there a considerable amount of difference between DX9 and 10? I have never done any DX/OpenGL programming and I'm just curious what changes they make in each version.
Posted on 2008-01-13 09:30:10 by XCHG
Kind of off topic here but is there a considerable amount of difference between DX9 and 10? I have never done any DX/OpenGL programming and I'm just curious what changes they make in each version.

DX10 is nicer ^^ Easier to handle, less programming - more effects, more WYSIWYG, more using - less writing your own. And above all: more possibilities (esp. when we talk about lighting). It's a step forward, really. Unfortunately, it requires Vista. And that fact sucks :/
Posted on 2008-01-13 10:12:37 by ti_mo_n

Kind of off topic here but is there a considerable amount of difference between DX9 and 10? I have never done any DX/OpenGL programming and I'm just curious what changes they make in each version.


http://www.gamesforwindows.com/en-US/AboutGFW/Pages/directx10-a.aspx

Look at the pic at the bottom.
Posted on 2008-01-13 10:50:21 by HKothari
I think it's not fair comparing one game to another. Here are some screenshots in DX9 and DX10. Pay special attention to the litghting and material reflections (two main highlights of DX10). And the nicest thing is DX10 actually requires LESS coding to achieve what you see on DX10 screens, than what DX9 requires to achieve what you see on DX9 screens (but of course DX10 requires better graphics artists to fully utilize it).

Main reasons why it's easier to program with:
- unified shader model 4.0
- quick hardware frustum culling

Also, texture arrays help a lot (esp. when trying to optimize the game for speed). Instancing is nice too if you use many instances (hence the name) of same meshes.

So, yeah - go and install DX10SDK and learn it, if you don't mind switching to Vista. If tou want to see your code with nice graphics, you'll require either a talented artist or Microsoft's DarkGDK which comes with many ready-to-use models, textures, etc, for free.
Posted on 2008-01-13 10:58:45 by ti_mo_n
Which video cards support the new VS and PS versions?
Oh - so they default back to previous shader versions?
Then what is the point you are making?
We should all run out and buy new hardware to support Vista?

Posted on 2008-01-14 23:49:56 by Homer
1. GeForce series 8 and above.
2. Yes, DX10, like all DXs, has also DX9, DX8, DX7, ..., in its installer.
3. I was just answering xchg's question about the differences. DX10 is better, IMHO. By "better" I mean less coding and more effects.
4. Only if you'd like to play a bit with DX10. I'm not an advertiser, or something xd Actually, I think DX10 should be available on NT5.1/NT5.2. I don't like the idea of switching to Vista, myself.
Posted on 2008-01-15 02:05:04 by ti_mo_n


Turns out, IE8 standards mode is set by a proprietary "flag" which must be inserted into your web page markup to trigger it which, of course, may make that part of your page invalid.


You realize that the ACID2 test is infact a test of how a browser handles INVALID markup, correct?

It is no suprise that Microsoft wants IE to default to being compatible with its parents.
Yes, you are quoting me, but you cannot modify the test.  The test must be modified for IE8 to pass.


Countless posts are being made about how great IE8 will be because they "passed" the test.  It's interesting that Microsoft nowhere tries to correct this error.


Evidence, or strawman?

Is everything to you a strawman?  Is this your word of the week?
IEBlog
Posted on 2008-01-15 06:38:46 by drhowarddrfine

Is everything to you a strawman?  Is this your word of the week?
IEBlog


So no evidence to back up your claims (you know, the ones I quoted and asked if you had evidence of?)

When it comes to bashing Microsoft, you have a documented tendency to make wild unsupported claims. The link you just gave is evidence that part 2 of your claim is just you making things up, since the link directly and unequivicably contradicts it in total.

Are you mad that IE8 CAN render ACID2 correctly, but Microsoft is choosing NOT to default to that behavior?
Posted on 2008-01-15 07:03:16 by Rockoon
"It" is really hitting the fan now.
Anne Van Kesteren
Adactio
In case you don't know, Anne wrote HTML5 and Jeremy is a member of the Web Standards Project.  These are just two of the many well known bloggers raising a furor today over IE8 and Microsoft.
Posted on 2008-01-22 19:58:11 by drhowarddrfine