Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Internet Explorer The Internet Microsoft Software

Microsoft Is Planning To Renew IE Development 525

jm.one writes "In his weblog the Mozilla developer Gervase Markham (aka Gerv) points out that Microsoft is re-constituting the Windows IE team. You can save Mozillazine's bandwidth(they've been /.ed every day this week) by directly checking out this post at Dave Massy's WebLog at MSDN. They even have set up an IE Feedback section in their channel9 wiki."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Is Planning To Renew IE Development

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:01PM (#9478675)
    Microsoft uses the Mozilla source code to create an IE7. No more worries about anti-trust concerns since they're working on an open, free project. Users get a stable, secure browser that's standards compliant. Users get a browser with a rendering engine that's supported across platforms. Heck, it might even be easy enough to release IE for Mac and Unix again!
    • And how exactly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:04PM (#9478695)
      ...would that be a good thing for Microsoft? You seem to be forgetting MSIE's purpose: As a lock-in tool to other Microsoft products. A browser which is a drop-in replacement for Mozilla-based browsers-- and thus conversely has Mozilla-based browsers as a drop-in replacement for it-- doesn't serve this purpose at all.
  • Further proof (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:02PM (#9478678)
    Microsoft doesn't improve their products-- ever-- except in the presence of a viable competitor
    • Re:Further proof (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mphase ( 644838 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:05PM (#9478705) Homepage
      Umm no. It proves that Microsoft improves their products in the presence of a viable competitor. It doesn't show they don't otherwise. I'm not saying I don't agree I'm just pointing out that these facts have nothing to do with the main point of the arguement made, only with the exception.
      • Not really. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:10PM (#9478735)
        Look at the broader picture. The proof would be in that when Netscape died and birthed Mozilla, MSIE development came to a total screeching halt, and didn't start again until the Mozilla project, after years of dicking around, finally managed to create a product (FireFox) that anyone in their right minds would want to use.

        This is still just a single example, so maybe I should have used the word "evidence" instead of "proof". But when you look at the repeated examples over the years, it becomes proof.

        I can't wait for OpenOffice to become a viable product so that we'll finally see the end to the total lack of improvement that has marked MS-Office development since WordPerfect died.
    • Re:Further proof (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jwcorder ( 776512 )
      Why would they? Without competition there is no drive to make a better product. No reason. Well shy of the fact that you should want a better product. But no one is gonna shell out loads of dough if there isn't a price driving the force.
  • by afriguru ( 784434 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:02PM (#9478686) Homepage
    If Mozilla Firefox hasn't achieved anything else (besides being the first web browser to be rated above IE by just about everybody), the fact that it would spur Microsoft to resume work on Internet Explorer is an interesting achievement. It, at least, will make the world a better place for WIndows users who are forced to use IE due to ignorance or because everybody uses it (that includes me).
    • Plenty of other browers have been "rated" above IE, in the past, it is just that Netscape was the last one, pre 1999, and IE version 4 or 5.

      FireFox is just the latest one, and it is still up to the test of time, and many more beta testers, before FireFox makes it to the forefront of the browser world or at least a share bigger than 1/5.
    • Afriguru:

      I am a happy Windows XP user (heresy!!!) I used to use Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, and even though I occassionally boot my Fedora Core 2 install, there are many things that I don't know or don't care to fix (in addition to many others I've fixed already) to be a Linux user.

      However... My IE takes around 6 seconds (proxy resolution) to render the home page. If I open the browser and want to type an URL to go somewhere else than the home page, I'd better do it before the 6 seconds elapse, or... Pfft!!! It erases all I've written and displays the home page URL!

      This simple thing motivated me to install FireFox on my computer. I've been long using OpenOffice.org, The GIMP and many other tools under Windows but didn't want to relinquish IE. This was two months ago, tell you what? I forgot when I last fired Internet Explorer.

      I downloaded Thunderbird 0.7 last week...

      Bottom line, don't use something because everyone else uses it, and conversely, don't use FOSS just because. Just give the software a try and see for yourself, I guarantee you'll be pleased and nothing wrong will happen :)
      • Exactly! Sadly, most Windoze users think they "have" to use IE, or the other security hole, Lookout Express. Many believe that nothing else will work with their ISP, or will put them at risk of viruses (the exact reverse of the truth!), or have a huge number of unquantifiable or unexpressible reasons why not....

        They should give the alternatives a try, like you I think they will be pleased with what they find. But, people can have strange prejudices......

  • Fuck tabs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mwongozi ( 176765 ) <slashthree@NosPAM.davidglover.org> on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:02PM (#9478687) Homepage
    Give me full XHTML and CSS2 compliance please. Oh, and transparent PNGs.

    Too much to ask?
    • Re:Fuck tabs (Score:5, Interesting)

      by irokitt ( 663593 ) <archimandrites-i ... NBSDom minus bsd> on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:13PM (#9478752)
      And themes. And software plug-ins that block images. And a plug-in that keeps Flash/Shockwave animations from playing unless I *want* them too. And making it possible to use the address bar to search from Google, *not* MSN. Making it so that if I click on the back button while posting to Slashdot my post is still there. Making ActiveX a way to make browsing more enjoyable, not a way to make my computer install spyware.

      These are all features that Firefox has and that I like, and until most of them have been implemented I see no reason to switch back.
      • Re:Fuck tabs (Score:5, Informative)

        by Chester K ( 145560 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:38PM (#9478875) Homepage
        And themes.

        On the simple end, you can set a bitmap as the background of IE's toolbars. On the complex end, you can completely rewrite the UI (see MyIE2, Avant Browser, etc.).

        And software plug-ins that block images.

        There's no technical reason such a plugin doesn't exist today. IE exposes an interface that you can use to capture and modify/deny a request for everything it loads, including images. If you prefer going all out, IE itself can disable all images.

        And making it possible to use the address bar to search from Google, *not* MSN.

        Easily done. How else do you think all that spyware out there hijacks your browser's default search preferences?

        Making it so that if I click on the back button while posting to Slashdot my post is still there.

        Tools > Internet Options > Temporary Internet Files > Settings... > Change the value from "Automatically" to "Every time I start Internet Explorer".

        You've got a couple valid points with your other items -- the ActiveX one in particular is already addressed in XP SP2, in fact.
    • Re:Fuck tabs (Score:3, Interesting)

      by zcat_NZ ( 267672 )
      Way too much to ask. MSIE does NOT even handle CSS1 properly yet. Every time I design a page (validated xhtml1.0 and minimal CSS1 for layout) I have to do a special layout page just for MSIE, wrapped in conditional comments, to make it render the page properly. I don't think that I'm getting my CSS wrong; I work directly from the w3c documentation, and EVERY other browser manages a fairly close approximation of what I had in mind.

      'fixed background' is a particularly glaring example, but I've also had MSIE
    • Re:Fuck tabs (Score:5, Interesting)

      by arvindn ( 542080 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:52PM (#9478930) Homepage Journal
      Give me full XHTML and CSS2 compliance please. Oh, and transparent PNGs. Too much to ask?

      Yes. It is crucial to Microsoft's strategy that they not do that. See here [livejournal.com] for example.

      • Re:Fuck tabs (Score:3, Interesting)

        by julesh ( 229690 )
        Yeah, I read Joel's article too. However, I don't think XHTML, CSS2, or transparent PNGs are a threat in this regard.

        If he's right, what would be a threat is fixing all the bugs in the jscript implementation, providing mechanisms that allow better user interfaces to be developed (e.g. adding anything similar to XUL), or anything along those lines. Microsoft aren't against browser-based applications. But they want you to use ActiveX (or any other technology nobody else has) to achieve it.
  • by alexandre ( 53 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:03PM (#9478690) Homepage Journal
    ... is promoting mozilla so they get /.ed everyday!
    We now know their evil plan ;-)
  • by RyuuzakiTetsuya ( 195424 ) <(ten.xoc) (ta) (ikiat)> on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:05PM (#9478703)
    Dear Microsoft.

    patch the holes that make malware so easy to infect a machine so my job's a whole lot fucking easier.

    - every goddamn ISP tech support staff.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:06PM (#9478706)
    I consider the recent addition of pop-up blocking in MSIE (XP SP2) bad news. Advertisers will just find more obnoxious ways to place their adds, making the pop-up blocker in Mozilla less effective.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:14PM (#9478756)
      But the Mozilla Team (or someone else) will come up with a solution whereas microsoft will not (at least not until two years).

      that's the little difference!
    • Until mozilla.org updates the browser to block the news ads and once again mozilla users are ahead of the curve and windows users have to wait until the next OS from Microsoft.

      I've been using a firefox extension that stops all flash animations from starting and replace it with a box to click on to start the animation so I don't get any anoying flash ads.
    • by aliens ( 90441 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:57PM (#9478958) Homepage Journal
      I gotta say, as much as people bitch about popups. The one popup we have to have on our site (damn sales) is by far the most successful ad we have.

      Until people somehow become more intelligent, SPAM and Popups are not going to go away.

      Advertisers wouldn't find ways around popup blockers if the popups didn't prove profitable.

      I'm just saying, I hate them too, but hey if they work, they work.

      • popups are successful, however probably only to the people out there that dont care about them. people who go out of their way to block them (and yes blocking is off by default in SP2) are just going to be annoyed at the whole deal. i say you can keep popups but dont try to find fancy ways around them. one recent thing ive seen is when you click on a link, it also has has a popup in the mouseup attribute which brings up a window. damn annoying and i refuse to ever buy anything advertised in one of those win

      • by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @05:45PM (#9479475)
        >I'm just saying, I hate them too, but hey if they work, they work.

        So would forcing me to watch 10 minutes of commercials before what I want appears. Think of the trailers at the movies.

        It may "work" but it sure as hell doesn't make me want to visit or do business with those people. For example, I knew full well that the Punisher movie was coming out and all the PR and the crappy trailer sealed the deal: i'm not even going to rent it.

        The more aggressive your marketing the more hits you'll get, but remember a lot of those will be from people accidentally clicking on your ad, being forced to pass through it, or from people with very low tech skills thinking its part of the site they are visiting. Heck, all the pop-ups I've seen lately misuse words like 'upgrade' and 'patch' to fool more people into visiting these sites.

        There's a real cost with doing aggressive marketing and the blowback is already here with pop-up blockers and angry web users, not to mention the hate of spyware. I hope your business isn't put on some blacklist in the near future for 'malicious advertising.'
  • Good, I think (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dotslashconfig ( 784719 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:06PM (#9478708)
    Isn't this exactly what we wanted to happen? Microsoft realized that a competing product (mozilla, opera, etc.) is advancing at a rate that might cause MS to lose market share on the browser front.

    The positive of this is that the world gets an improved Internet Exploder^H^H^Hrer and Microsoft is adding new jobs. I think that's a win for everyone.

    However, my question is why is Microsoft going to great lengths to improve Internet Explorer? Though they could lose browser market share, they haven't yet. The vast majority of desktops running Windows use Internet Explorer, flaws and all. Also, Microsoft doesn't really have much to gain by revamping IE. There's not much money to be made in the browser business anymore. It's not about the browser that is used online, so much as it is the content people are viewing. As long as Microsoft's patented .NET framework becomes mainstream, why care so much about IE? Maybe this is a PR move?
    • Re:Good, I think (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fwitness ( 195565 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:22PM (#9478789)

      I believe there is a piece of the puzzle we are missing here. I'm sure that many companies out there would like to do more with their websites, but can't because of the many problems with IE. There must be some companies out there who are MS-friendly that have been telling MS "Can we please get transparent pngs? Oh, and we've been trying to make our new site (with obligatory MS portal) look nice with CSS but IE is not capable of it, and is blocking our development."

      Although I believe MS is a bit concerned about losing market share, I doubt that is a motivator. The competing browsers are light years ahead of IE and they have yet to make a significant impact on the number of IE users. It would take a browser going ludicrous speed to make MS revamp IE based on market share alone.

      It's even possible there are some MS friendly companies that have secretly been wishing they could make their websites useful for both Windows and (gasp!) those techy Linux gurus.

    • Re:Good, I think (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jonbryce ( 703250 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:53PM (#9478937) Homepage
      The reason is because Bill Gates is not stupid. He isn't going to wait until MS has lost their market share before doing something about, he will make sure it never happens.

      BTW IE is losing market share to Mozilla, though at the moment, the numbers are pretty small.
  • Hmmm (Score:4, Funny)

    by chrisgeleven ( 514645 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:06PM (#9478711) Homepage
    So you ask us /.'ers to not /. MozillaZine, yet you provide THREE links to MozillaZine.

    Kinda ironic eh?
  • Window sizing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by red floyd ( 220712 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:07PM (#9478718)
    Remember if the friggin' window is maximized or not!!!!

    Provide user options to kill popups

    Don't allow friggin' Drive By Downloads!

    Support all W3C standards. Deprecate all your proprietary extensions.
  • Oh Dear (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:07PM (#9478720)

    I can say though that somewhat vague requests for "better standards support" are not as useful as a specific example of what you'd like to see changed and specifically why it would improve things. - Dave Massey

    What part of "better standards support" does he think is too vague? Does this guy need it spelling out to him or what (rhetorical question by the way)!

    • Re:Oh Dear (Score:3, Insightful)

      by thetoastman ( 747937 )
      Warning - possible troll-bait alert

      Personally I have no interest in Microsoft products being improved upon, and I will not be contributing to the "How can we make IE better?" parade.

      People at Microsoft must understand the following:

      1. Complete and accurate support of publicly available, published standards
      2. The web is for information, not execution. It is especially not for execution of programs on my hard disk.
      3. Remote information should be treated as non-trusted.

      If the people at Microsoft don

  • by Lispy ( 136512 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:08PM (#9478723) Homepage
    I should have kept quiet yesterday [slashdot.org]. ;-)

    Right now, I am hacking away on an article about browser competition on the desktop and how Firefox is gaining ground. Now this! Well, looks like we have reached the point where Microsoft copies OpenSource innovation. It used to be the other way round. That's the good part. Another upside is that there is still time left. Longhorn is far away, and if SP2 is any indication than there won't be another major update to WinXP in reasonable time. But still, the giant woke up. And Microsoft is though competition to say the least... ;-/
  • Standards support? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Braudo ( 265448 ) <peregrin@@@gmail...com> on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:08PM (#9478727) Homepage
    From the blog [msdn.com]:

    I can say though that somewhat vague requests for "better standards support" are not as useful as a specific example of what you'd like to see changed and specifically why it would improve things.
  • New Longhorn IE (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wigle ( 676212 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:11PM (#9478737)

    From using Internet Explorer on a recent Longhorn build, my prediction is that Microsoft plans to add more features rather than support web standards. Thus far they've added Firefox/Opera-esque features like a download manager, pop-up blocking, and a "Clear Browsing Records" menu option. Perhaps tabbed browsing is next? It looks like they will keep adding options until IE is comparable to its competitors, but with regards to web standards I doubt Microsoft will have interest.

    • Re:New Longhorn IE (Score:3, Interesting)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 )
      " It looks like they will keep adding options until IE is comparable to its competitors, but with regards to web standards I doubt Microsoft will have interest."

      Probably not. IE's ways of interpreting HTML is a de-facto standard. As long as it works, MS is going to put its energy into other aspects. If it's really that bad (from my own web development experience, it's not.) then the others have two options: 1.) Mimic IE. 2.) Create new interesting web features and lead the parade instead of followin
  • by freeduke ( 786783 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:13PM (#9478751) Journal
    Dear windows users, you can already upgrade your Internet browser: here [mozilla.org] and here [opera.com].

    Enjoy

  • ho-hum (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Johnathon_Dough ( 719310 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:18PM (#9478775)
    So, somewhere in 2007, this will be released with the often delayed Longhorn. At the least, this will hopefully bring them up to the current level of web standards.

    Unfortunately, I would believe there is a better chance that they will instead incorporate a bunch of elements above and beyond standards compliance, that ties a user into IE and Longhorn combo, trying yet again to lock out other web browsers.

    Microsoft has seemingly lowered it's self another step.
    They used to be a company that copied exisiting technology and made it "good enough", if slightly annoying. Now, they are turning into a reactionary company, trying to play catch up to existing software with some future release.

  • by AnomalyConcept ( 656699 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:20PM (#9478783)
    I recall reading here on Slashdot that Internet Explorer was getting updated for Longhorn. I don't remember exactly where it was, but it quoted one of the members of the IE development team. I think Microsoft will be taking a (small) step in the right direction by supporting standards. Well, if they do. It'd be nice if Mozilla and IE actually rendered things the same way; then you'd only have to develop for one target platform. What about Internet Explorer using the Gecko engine? Maybe Internet Explorer will become one of the 'better' Microsoft products. But seriously, what would happen to products like Firefox/Mozilla if IE became totally standards compliant. I know I would still use it, but what would happen to the argument that Firefox is better than IE? Hopefully Microsoft will actually fix the bugs and have a solid product. Even though it may become a 'competitor' for Firefox, at least the average user who doesn't know more than Internet Explorer will have a usable, secure, browser.
  • Re-constituting??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:22PM (#9478791)
    So one person write in his weblog that he's changing roles from Longhorn to IE, and that means the team is being reconstituted? People at Microsoft change teams all the time. Some people will jump from project to project every year or two, others will stick with it for 4 or 5 years.

    This is not any news of anything special. Each version, there's something new planned. Whether or not that sees the light of day is another thing.

    The IE team has lived for a long time and will continue to live. The IE team is probably always changing as people move to it and other people move off it.

    If someone said "I'm changing roles from Office to Longhorn" does that mean that Office is now dead and Longhorn just now got re-constituted? No. What if it's a big guy on the totem pole? No.
  • Standards support (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thinkninja ( 606538 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:23PM (#9478794) Homepage Journal
    I can say though that somewhat vague requests for "better standards support" are not as useful as a specific example of what you'd like to see changed and specifically why it would improve things.
    Okay, specifically then, go to w3.org. Read specs. Implement.

    It's pretty obvious why a web standards [webstandards.org] compliant IE would improve things (google: web standards). Oh, but it wouldn't allow Microsoft to extend the web anymore with stupid proprietry shit. I guess they're right out the window then.

    I seriously doubt IE7 will be compliant. It would be nice, for sure, but given Microsoft's history it's extremely unlikely.
    • I seriously doubt IE7 will be compliant. It would be nice, for sure, but given Microsoft's history it's extremely unlikely.

      Then again Visual C++ 6 had horrible C++ standards compliance, but Visual Studio.NET has improved considerably in that area. IE7 standards compliance might be unlikely, but I wouldn't consider it extremely unlikely.

  • by Moblaster ( 521614 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:23PM (#9478799)
    Considering how IE is "integrated with the operating system," a new version of IE that suppresses pop-up ads could mean that Longhorn is genetically determined to be born with a passive-aggressive personality complex.
  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:37PM (#9478873)
    I am two people removed from the team working on this (a friend of a friend); so it's possible I might be a victim of disinformation or misinterpretation. But as I understand it, this "new and improved IE" isn't necessarilly for general consumption. It is supposed to be part of a new, all-encompassing version of MSN that's maybe 3 years down the road. Basically you get the new version of Windows at that time, and MSN comes along for the ride. This new IE will only be available as part of the new MSN, which will only be available if you get the new Windows.

    On a completely different subject - I can tell you that these folks (working on this new MSN) are not very happy with gmail. :-D

  • by orkysoft ( 93727 ) <orkysoft@ m y r e a l box.com> on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:42PM (#9478888) Journal
    I was reading this thread on their forum [msdn.com], until I came across this post:

    (start quote (note the nested quote))

    AndyJ wrote:
    Yeah, so here's one guy that's too ignorant/dumb/lazy to get this site (and what a site ) working in IE and the industry is now flocking away from IE.... I'm sure MS is shaking in their collective boots.... Bill G must be apologizing to his kids for loosing his fortune even now.... -Andy
    It is that thinking that allowed Linux to become what it is today and allowed Hilter to take over most of Europe. Actions must be made now and not later as little things will grow. Just as weeds grow in your yard if you don't kill them at first sight.

    (end quote)

    Godwin's Law, anyone?

  • by barcodez ( 580516 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @03:55PM (#9478949)
    I would like the ability to completely uninstall IE from windows machines. That would require that IE is loosely coupled with the OS and that in itself would be a huge improvement.
  • by andy55 ( 743992 ) * on Sunday June 20, 2004 @04:11PM (#9479026) Homepage

    I'm returning to work on the Internet Explorer team. A team that I used to work on a few years ago andI'm very excited to be returning to the team where we clearly have much work to do.

    Yes, you do have a lot of work to do, Dave. Maybe you guys should have done the job right years ago rather than be in catch-up as well as damage-control mode.
  • opera (Score:3, Funny)

    by ogewo ( 652234 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @04:34PM (#9479125)
    MS should just buy up Opera before they become too big.
  • by cyberjessy ( 444290 ) <jeswinpk@agilehead.com> on Sunday June 20, 2004 @04:42PM (#9479155) Homepage
    As most of the comments pointed out, there would be little interest in making IE more standards compliant.

    What I see is a focus on bringing a MUCH more richer, Windows-only user experience on the internet. We will see applications being delivered on the internet. Not web pages. They would run on a .Net sandbox with as much security as a webpage or the once-upon-a-time java applets.

    In fact, it is possible to run .Net 1.1 binaries off the internet, and they do not have permissions to access your local harddrive. If they do try, a security exception is triggered.

    With Whidbey's click-once application deployment model, this will become more mainstream. With Longhorn's Avalon and XAML, the shift to a Windows only, multimedia and 3D rich user experience will be complete. Perhaps, since all of this would be integrated into the OS itself, it would seem much less a part of Internet Explorer.

    Yes, that might be what they have in mind. As for the users, most of them would like the ultra-kewl interface compared to HTML documents.

    Yeah, XUL can compete with this. But as Miguel Icaza pointed out, it will be hard competing against the tremendous distribution and deployment power of Microsoft.

  • by karnat10 ( 607738 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @05:00PM (#9479250)

    It's really making me sad how many people are excitedly awaiting the features IE "will have in SP2 or Longhorn". All alternative browsers have those features today, you can download and use them right away.

    If you don't know what a browser is or that you're using one, ask your local superuser to "repair" your computer. But then you're not reading this thread (site) anyway.

    But if you know how to replace IE: Why let MS decide when you're going to get tabbed browsing and popups blocked? MS is a saturated monopolist making software for the wrong reasons. The are 1st in marketing strategy, but when it comes to product quality and innovation, it's a bunch of lazy schmucks.

    If you've used a "real" browser just once, the next time MS announces that from the 22nd century on their browser will implement (insert your favorite IE web standards bug) correctly, you'll just shrug and probably feel a bit sorry for the poor bastards who get their ashes fscked (voluntarily or not) by an arrogant monopolist.
  • by PotatoHead ( 12771 ) * <dougNO@SPAMopengeek.org> on Sunday June 20, 2004 @05:14PM (#9479342) Homepage Journal
    mozilla is getting too good. With the advent of xul and fast, safe, standards complient browsing, IE is beginning to look pretty sad.

    Now, once another browser gets a foothold again, people will have the option of building web applications that feature nice interfaces (xul!) that don't need a win32 client to run properly.

    They don't actually give a shit, they just want to preserve their bloated monopoly.

  • by cpuenvy ( 544708 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @05:50PM (#9479511) Homepage
    1. Copy Mozilla code into IE.
    2. Get caught.
    3. Deny everything.
    4. Buy out Mozilla Foundation.
    5. Distribute "new" IE.
    6. Have press conference, insisting Microsoft "invented" tabbed browsing.
    7. Deny everything.
  • by Fortun L'Escrot ( 750434 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @06:00PM (#9479584)
    IMO the reason mozilla and firefox are successful right now is because they have a tendency towards speed, usability and easy of use. they cater towards standards compliance which relieves content developers to work on their content. if everyone in the web browser business did this, we would see an even greater content explosion than we did during the first few years of the web.

    MS and IE are trying for this ideal, but they have their propietary needs to take care of. while IE is sorta fast and usable it simply doesnt reach the level of opera or firefox. those browsers are simply too good at what they do. and they usually link to other common services such as google who only cares about providing the best searching experience.

    the point i am trying to make is that firefox works at being the best web browser. google works at being the best search engine. google could not exist without a good web platform, but bundle the two together and you have a really good "web experience". two very specialized projects combined in the right way is much better than the alternative which is IE with MSN.

    there is still a lot of work to do in respect of creating the ideal web platform for example the integration of messenger and hotmail and outlook. its a really nice combination and simplifies a lot of work for the user. here to, desktop developers can cater to standards for contacts, bookmarks, etc. the idea is to standardize common protocols and file formats. we already have this with the protocols, but we dont have as much of this in terms of file formats. even if there is no standard, the ability to convert one format into another becomes just as important. the projects that specialize in these fields especially if they are open source will be able to combine with services provided by firefox and google, to create an even better "computing experience".

    somehow tho, i dont believe any of this will happen. less work is done to get towards this ideal, and more work is done dicking around. honestly how long would it take to achieve this kind of integration, or format conversion or file format standards? the open source movement need only pick the best formats for a particular job and work on those. create converters for other formats but work with just those.

    the converters could be part of the desktop environment making them invisible. an important by-product here is that a user could migrate their preferences and settings to any desktop environment and be able to work immediately. no more need for worrying about compatibility issues between apps. a web page in firefox should open the same way in IE. email should open either in evolution or outlook or what ever other alternative exists out there. the main differences are in personalization, and other things such as speed, usability, and ease of use. i mean, it makes more sense to use the fastest tool.

    more people will use firefox because of this until IE can move towards this ideal. and from a business point of view, you get to focus on the real money maker and that is content whether in the form of online music, or online movies, or online games, or online books or whatever. i mean do corporations like MS really believe that a standards compliant DRM that was maintained by a neutral third party would not become accepted? when users worry less about the desktop environment and their web platforms, they will only care about their access to their content. somepeople will always be loyal to Apple, others to MS and other still to Linux. in an ideal world, if MS was a content publisher they wouldnt have to worry as much where or how the user is accessing the content, and worry more about making sure that the user has the proper access rights for the content.

    there has never been much money in the desktop or the web platform unless you cornered the entire market. the only way to make money in the long term would be to lock the computer, the desktop, and the web. MS doesnt have a lock on the computer, a partial lock on the desktop, and a p
  • by gwoodrow ( 753388 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @06:55PM (#9479826)
    "Um, honey? You know that browser update you just downloaded? Some pop-up box is asking if we want to install the Gator update... should we? Oh nevermind, it just started automatically on its own... oh cool! There's a brand new version of that adsearch bar on the bottom too!"
  • by Voline ( 207517 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @08:00PM (#9480081)

    Glad to hear that IE will be improved before Longhorn is released. Some of us may not live that long.

    I agree with the posts that council against throwing every new feature and the kitchen sink into IE. I think the priorities should be:

    1) Security - Every Windows user who also uses IE that I know has a hard drive littered with spyware. Fix it.

    2) Standards - for CSS2.1, full support for PNG, XHTML.

    I just finished building a site this week. I wrote it to the standards for XHTML and CSS, checked it in Safari, Mozilla, Opera, and did *not* check it in IE for Windows. If it looks good in those browsers but not in IE - too bad. I will spend no more of my time cleaning up after you.

    On the site's "About" page I included the following text along with badges for XHTML and CSS validity and a link to the Mozilla Firefox page:

    "This site was built with XHTML and Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) that fully comply with the specifications of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Without such open and widely recognized standards the Web would degenerate into a Tower of Babel as corporations sought to carve it into mutually unintelligible, captive markets.

    "If any part of this site does not display properly it is because you are using a Web browser that does not fully support the XHTML and CSS specifications - probably Internet Explorer. I urge you to try a browser that closely supports W3C standards, like the open source Mozilla Firefox. Less idealistically, Firefox can block pop-up windows."

    The above will be included in all web sites that I design in the future until such time as IE's standards support is satisfactory.

  • my 10 wishes for IE (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @08:34PM (#9480200)
    1.a 100% standards-complient implementation of PNG
    2.a 100% standards-complient implementation of W3C CSS
    3.a 100% standards-complient implementation of W3C XHTML 1.0/HTML 4.01
    4.sending of HTML email off by default in Outlook with the way to turn it on difficult to find
    5.changes to scripting and ActiveX so that by default, only controls signed by someone trustworthy will download, install and be used (and even then have a clear "are you sure you want to let this control have complete access to your system" warning in language and UI that even the most cluless of users can understand) and so that scripting and ActiveX controls are turned off completly in Outlook with no way (not even a registry hack) to turn it back on.
    6.changes to Outlook Express so that it wont run executable attachments dierctly (and so that you have to save them to the disk before you can run them)
    7.changes to how Internet Explorer handles MIME types to ignore the extention and content of the file and to treat what the server or email message says the MIME type is as gosepel. If there is none, fallback on file extentions and stuff. Also, enhance windows handling so that mime types can be associated with different handlers. (this eliminates any need to use the file extention to determine what handler to use for it)
    8.Clear warnings that even the most cluless user can understand when something has changed the search settings, home page or other IE-related settings out from underneath them (e.g. spyware)
    9.completly dropping the broken Microsoft Java VM so that when stuff installs (like a new version of IE or a new windows SP), the MS VM is completly removed for good and the SUN VM is installed instead.
    and 10.make these chages as widely available as possible.

    Yes I use Mozilla (1.7 in fact) but for those who are forced to used Intercrap Explorer, this would make the world a better place. It would also make the world a better place for those not using IE as a side effect of he changes to Outlook.
  • by Aranwe Haldaloke ( 789555 ) on Sunday June 20, 2004 @09:14PM (#9480495)
    What's this... "Internet Explorer" you speak of?

    Oh, you mean the frontend I use for Windows Update?

After Goliath's defeat, giants ceased to command respect. - Freeman Dyson

Working...