Microsoft Keeps Beating a Dead Browser

[Lordbob75]

When you really take a good look at it you'll notice right off it sadly lacks the options you would normally expect to find in other browsers. IE, Opera, FF, So far eeek:shock: all see maintainence options, builtin support, view settings, and other things lacking in Chrome.

It looks more the mirror reflection of IE with the menu, command, status bars not included.

Again, we are not comparing browsers. This is about whether IE is dead or not, if it should be re-done, or left alone.

Also, Chrome was written by Google, and is still Beta. Give them time. They may add to it. If you don't like it, mod the source code if you want.

~Lordbob

 

[petrossa]

To my mind it's not if they should stop beating, they should slaughter it and turn it into glue.

If we see the havoc IE has created on the net visa-vis totally warped code which crashes any well behaved browser the sooner the better.

It should have post-natal abortion.

What really pisses me off is that i can log in to my bank account using any browser, but as soon as i want to perform a transaction the dreaded message:

For this operation you need Internet Explorer 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 to continue....


MSDN viewed in a standardscompliant browser shows codye examples in a single letter column 15 pages long, fire up 'good old trusty :sarc:' IE and hey presto all is well.

And sure it's the other browsers which are at fault

 

[Night Hawk]

Again, we are not comparing browsers. This is about whether IE is dead or not, if it should be re-done, or left alone.

Also, Chrome was written by Google, and is still Beta. Give them time. They may add to it. If you don't like it, mod the source code if you want.

~Lordbob

I'm not reailly interested in making comparisons. I'm aware Chrome is still in beta form there but would need some improvements before being considered a good alternate for IE.

Actually in regards to the issue of IE being dead or alive IE 6.0 is a dead horse here being nothing but a major security problem for anyone still using it! I couldn't wait to get into IE 7 before Vista's release to put a large damper on trojans and other things that easily got through there!

IE 8 took a little adjustment with the initial change from a links bar to a favorites bar renaming and the now hidden add to favorites button seen there. But overall I would had to have MS is finally getting it together on seeing new filters put inplace. The "suggested sites" option also helps veer the novice user away from garbage sites!

 

[LFB]

personally i like IE 8... not the early versions...

Is a good start for an improvement and i think the Internet Explorer future is promising...

 

[Lordbob75]

Opinions here seem to be about half and half. Some hate it, some love it.

~Lordbob

 

[Night Hawk]

A good deal of that comes from those promoting FF over IE in the past since they would be running one or more distros dual booted with Windows. At the time everyone was still running IE 6 which was a nightmare for security.

Due to the long delay for Vista there are simply too many ways to slip something past onto your system when running 6.0! MS had to get going on that problem starting with IE 7 and improving on that for IE 8. I think a lot people will be uttering complaints if MS doesn't take the improvements seen in 8 and take that further where you won't need any 3rd party security bar addon to filter out sites when a threat alert pops up.

 

[Muad Dib]

IE is not dead. IE will never die. MS will continue to provide a web browser with Windows as long as they can because it is an integral part of a turnkey desktop computer.

The average consumer wants to open the box that has their new computer, follow the foldout quick start guide and be surfing in less than an hour. They do not want to have to select from a choice of browsers, download it and install it. Hell, most of them don't even run Windows update.

MS marketing and the hardware vendors (Dell. HP, etc) know this. Furthermore, none of them want to have to support 4-6 flavors of browsers with a 1-4 year warranty support contract.

Even if MS decides to retire the current IEx technology and either build from scratch or ..... buy some other browser and adapt/adopt it to the Windows OS..... it will be called Internet Explorer. IE has name recognition and MS does not want to piss off their 66% market share. They may do something cute by calling it IE Revolution or IE Galaxy but that would be it.

A browser is a fundamental component of a consumer desktop and nobody is going to buy a new car without wheels and tires. MS knows this. The manufacturers know this. Any thinking person knows this.

So you see Internet Explorer will never die, it will always exist. It may be reincarnated or reborn but it will always BE.

And just to stir the pot. MS could buy FF rights under contract, modify it to their specifications, copyright their design changes, re-brand it Internet Explorer and distribute it with every copy of Windows. And you know what...

There would still be a segment of users that would hate it because it is MS's Internet Explorer!

There, that is my muckraking for the day.​

:devil2:​

Sleep well all! Hope you had a good holiday!​

 

[Lordbob75]

IE is not dead. IE will never die. MS will continue to provide a web browser with Windows as long as they can because it is an integral part of a turnkey desktop computer.

The average consumer wants to open the box that has their new computer, follow the foldout quick start guide and be surfing in less than an hour. They do not want to have to select from a choice of browsers, download it and install it. Hell, most of them don't even run Windows update.

MS marketing and the hardware vendors (Dell. HP, etc) know this. Furthermore, none of them want to have to support 4-6 flavors of browsers with a 1-4 year warranty support contract.

Even if MS decides to retire the current IEx technology and either build from scratch or ..... buy some other browser and adapt/adopt it to the Windows OS..... it will be called Internet Explorer. IE has name recognition and MS does not want to piss off their 66% market share. They may do something cute by calling it IE Revolution or IE Galaxy but that would be it.

A browser is a fundamental component if a consumer desktop and nobody is going to buy a new car without wheels and tires. MS knows this. The manufacturers know this. Any thinking person knows this.

So you see Internet Explorer will never die, it will always exist. It may be reincarnated or reborn but it will always BE.

And just to stir the pot. MS could buy FF rights under contract, modify it to their specifications, copyright their design changes, re-brand it Internet Explorer and distribute it with every copy of Windows. And you know what...

There would segment of users that would hate it because it is MS's Internet Explorer!

There, that's is my muckraking for the day.​

:devil2:​

Sleep well all! Hope you had a good holiday!​

LOL you are so right. +1. Enjoy.

~Lordbob

 

[Night Hawk]

The things MS are looking into now are their own alternates where you start off with the basic core elements and build on that. These are more or less MS research projects with resource kits available for programmers for co-operative surprizes at some point.

The IE name is an intregrated part of Windows while not being included in 7 as far as the EU is concerned simply because you have Windows Explorer to consider as well also carrying the MS trade name for that.

 

[petrossa]

The IE name is an intregrated part of Windows while not being included in 7 as far as the EU is concerned simply because you have Windows Explorer to consider as well also carrying the MS trade name for that.

Ahem. That's exactly the beef of the EU, the 'integrated' part. And for the not including IE in the EU MS can of course but the EU will not accept it as a valid solution so they still risk sanctions.

 

[BCXtreme]

There would still be a segment of users that would hate it because it is MS's Internet Explorer!

Yeah, I hate it when people do that with MS. I'm one of the few people that would be MORE likely to buy a product because of MS branding! I hate Apple's business practices, I hate Macs, and I hate Mac OS; but the Apple branding didn't stop me from buying an iPhone 3GS, cause I care about whether a product is good MORE than who made it.

Seriously though, we can enjoy Firefox (or Opera, Safari, or whatever you use) and claim that IE is dead (dead things literally move faster than IE), but the fact of matter is that IE still has the majority of the market share. Even if MS were to remove IE from Windows globally, most people would still pick that as their browser, because that is all most people know. Sadly, the majority of computer users are not "Power Users" and most of them are not even aware of the "browser wars".

Ahem. That's exactly the beef of the EU, the 'integrated' part. And for the not including IE in the EU MS can of course but the EU will not accept it as a valid solution so they still risk sanctions.

The EU's "beef" has nothing to do with IE and Windows 7. If it did, they would have accepted MS's compromise. The European Commission just wants to get more money out of MS. They really want MS to offer competitor's services alongside their own? Come on...

 

[fseal]

Ugh.

Not that this post will change anything or anyones mind, especially not the EUs. But please, for the last time...

IE is NOT "integrated" into Windows!

The HTML rendering engine "MSHTML" or "Trident" is the HTML renderer that is used by several other components of Windows and by third party programs. IE is merely one more program that uses the MSHTML component EXACTLY the way FF uses the "Gecko" component to display HTML on screen.

It's like saying that if even one other program or system component distributed with any Linux distro uses Gecko to display say, HTML help, that FF is "Integrated" into Linux, and no one would say that!

IE is not "Integrated" it is "included". "Trident" is integrated and it SHOULD BE. Or do people actually expect every single program that ever wanted to use HTML as a rich text display mechanism to have to write their own rendering engine???

 

[petrossa]

The EU's "beef" has nothing to do with IE and Windows 7. If it did, they would have accepted MS's compromise. The European Commission just wants to get more money out of MS. They really want MS to offer competitor's services alongside their own? Come on...

again, the fines levied by the EU get redistributed over the member countries per ratio of their contribution.

The EU however has to pay the whole court circus, so in the end the EU loses on their budget for each case they start.

And in any case it really would need all of MS's cashreserves to make even a minute difference in the EU budget of 113 000 000 000 euro

The European Union Budget at a glance

 

[petrossa]

Ugh.

Not that this post will change anything or anyones mind, especially not the EUs. But please, for the last time...

IE is NOT "integrated" into Windows!

The HTML rendering engine "MSHTML" or "Trident" is the HTML renderer that is used by several other components of Windows and by third party programs. IE is merely one more program that uses the MSHTML component EXACTLY the way FF uses the "Gecko" component to display HTML on screen.

It's like saying that if even one other program or system component distributed with any Linux distro uses Gecko to display say, HTML help, that FF is "Integrated" into Linux, and no one would say that!

IE is not "Integrated" it is "included". "Trident" is integrated and it SHOULD BE. Or do people actually expect every single program that ever wanted to use HTML as a rich text display mechanism to have to write their own rendering engine???

Taking the code out of IE and integrating it in the OS and then saying that IE is not integrated to circumvent US antitrust agreements is so blatantly taking the mickey that it amazes you can say it with a straight face.

 

[Lordbob75]

IE is NOT "integrated" into Windows!

And by integrated, we all know that it means included. Except you apparently.

~Lordbob

 

[fseal]

Taking the code out of IE and integrating it in the OS and then saying that IE is not integrated to circumvent US antitrust agreements is so blatantly taking the mickey that it amazes you can say it with a straight face.

WRONG!

Unless you are prepared to say that FF has also "Integtrated" itself into Linux and Windows as well.

The reason that MS and the Moz team did that is because it is standard programming practice and GOOD programming practice to create resuable componetized systems. It had NOTHING whatsoever to do with "circumventing" anything. That is nothing but a hysterical conspiracy theory.

Everyone's utterly non-tecnical view of the situation IS the problem.

 

[petrossa]

Sure, whatever dude

 

[fseal]

And by integrated, we all know that it means included. Except you apparently.

~Lordbob

"Integrated" and "Included" do not mean the same thing at all.

"Included" means it can be removed without affecting anythig butitself.

"Integrated" means that it cannot be removed without drastic reduction of functionality by multiple components.

IE is "included".

Trident is "Integrated".

Non technical people's lack of understanding of these fundimental issues is the biggest problem with the entire situation.

 

[Lordbob75]

"Integrated" and "Included" do not mean the same thing at all.

"Included" means it can be removed without affecting anythig butitself.

"Integrated" means that it cannot be removed without drastic reduction of functionality by multiple components.

IE is "included".

Trident is "Integrated".

Non technical people's lack of understanding of these fundimental issues is the biggest problem with the entire situation.

I did not say they were the same. I said in this case, that is what we meant.
Integrated is NOT the same as included. I agree.
In this case, when the EU says "integrated", they mean included.
I think at a certain point IE really WAS integrated, and unremovable. It is not now, but the point stands.

~Lordbob

 

[petrossa]

Non technical people's lack of understanding of these fundimental issues is the biggest problem with the entire situation.

How would you know who's 'technical' or not? I retired at 45 because i sold my software company after 4 years for a good price.

Taking such an attitude is really a parlor trick which predates the neanderthalers. 'You just don't understand' works maybe with young co-eds but doesn't impress me much.

Having been around when MS put encrypted code in Windows 3 so it would arbitrary crash on dr-dos makes me a very wary person when MS starts to move blocks of code around AFTER the antitrust agreement.