I used IE8, and as I've said it has promise, but let them finish it, if they're to make "eveyone's browser" it needs input from everyone, constructive input.
MicroSofts biggest obsticle is larger than it's browser, It's***ting a home run with their browser, and turning around all this negativity with their PR.

How about a fair way to UNCOUPLE IE from your Windows OS entirely? I know I for one would LOVE to remove IE never to be seen again. When I purchase an OS I am NOT purchasing an Internet browser. Indeed I have machines that are NEVER EVER connected to any network. So why would I even need an internet browser at all? Point in fact.. you do not. I have made my own install discs with nlite to manually remove IE at teh install point and it works like a dream. The EU has proved that as well time and time again, yet MS will continue to refuse to make NON IE enabled Windows versions available to the public without a lawsuit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...al_of_Internet_Explorer
and http://en.wikipedia.org/...ted_States_v._Microsoft

As to IE8, well Honestly I just don't care. I use firefox on the machine that need internet access, with great joy for one reason and one reason only. Its NOT Microsoft, and as such its completly user customizable. NO IE Product can claim that to date. The downside to the entire endeavor IE even though its NEVER used, is the biggest security hole in the entire OS. Needing patch after patch when I never use the dam thing at all...

Does it not make more since to just remove the thing entirely? Of course it does, and of course MS will NEVER concede that fact.

Oh and just for kicks...
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20040704

I believe if you look into it, youl find that Internet Explorer, and Explorer are linked together.

I dont think Internet Explorer can be completely removed without breaking certain functionality of Explorer. Basically meaning MS would have to redevelop Explorer's interface just to make a build without IE - I might be wrong, but thats the impression I get.

aside from that, people seem to forget, this is Microsofts own OS, they can bundle what they like and consumers can use what they like, if you hate Microsoft's OS's so much for whatever reason, why not use Linux - You can choose exactly what software you want to install and run, you can still run windows applications with Wine and the security is supposedly higher than vista. in short, if you dont like jam, dont buy a jam doughnut and winge about the filling...

How about a fair way to UNCOUPLE IE from your Windows OS entirely? I know I for one would LOVE to remove IE never to be seen again. When I purchase an OS I am NOT purchasing an Internet browser. Indeed I have machines that are NEVER EVER connected to any network. So why would I even need an internet browser at all?

i love your comments, if only for your hard-headed resolve to completely ignore the fact that *you*are not *everyone else*.

You may want the OS shipped without a browser. The rest of the computer using populace *does*.

Note that by "rest" I do, in fact mean the vast majority of computer users out there who's PCs are, in fact, connected to the internet.

MSFT is *not* going to cater to *your* unrealistic desires in the face of overwhelming consumer demand.

Get over it.

The Browser is now part of the OS, and will be on all but niche version of Linux until the End of Days.

If this continues to disappoint you, you have a very disappointing future ahead of you.

"with great joy for one reason and one reason only. Its NOT Microsoft"

If only I could see the look on your face when you realize that Windows is a Microsoft product, too. :)

Internet Explorer is actually quite customizable... just not nearly as easily or extensively as other browsers such as Firefox.

Right.... so the average customer buys windows without IE in your world they would have no internet browser and therefore no easy way of downloading Firefox, remember the adverage member of the public only just about knows how to operate a web broswer and wouldnt know FTP, BitTorrent, from a Toaster!

Nobody complains that OSX ships with Safari and a Media Player, plus tons of other apps. But when microsoft do it they are evil.

Also most linux distributions ship with FireFox...hmmm...ill let the EU know they might be short of funds again and need someone to fine.

At the end of the day Microsoft has to please more users than anyone else, they can only do that by providing as much functionality as possible for everyone.... not just trying to keep twats like you happy.

When IE 8 comes out im uninstalling Firefox :D

Hmmm... building up to this for how long? forever? what makes me think that you really got it right this time? etc. etc. blah blah blah *snore*

Typical microsoft realy, ME was a flop "it was just an interim to XP" but then XP didnt realy work ( Stability wise ) until SP1, SP2 - soooo what do we make of all that. Everything is an interim to something bigger and better - this is true for all development projects.

Microsoft just made one too many mistakes and finally, there in line for some heavy competition, Macs and Linux are becoming more popular, microsoft will be feeling the pressure and will have to start giving into consumer demand. if that means a standards compliant browser, thats what we'll get. Its all about money, look at the vista sales drop - MS is struggling and if they dont do something soon, they might just find themselves the underdogs.

really...

Interesting article outlining more or less where and why microsoft is struggling to keep it's dominance in any of their strongest products.

http://gigaom.com/2008/0...g-a-war-on-three-fronts/

In the past they realy had dominance from "win modems" even if you wanted to switch to linux the fact that your machine came pre-shipped with windows and a "win modem" meant that you were in tough time getting connected to the internet with linux, dell did fill that spot with pre-built linux machines, but that wasnt realy enough to tip the scales.

thanks to broadband routers, and the fact that nix is getting more and more support every day, it's now so easy to make that switch to linux theres realy no exscuse to whine over being lumped with a restrictive "Operating System".

topped with Mac's new found storm of popularity with the general public, and microsofts issues with the Xbox 360 returns ( Due entirely down to severely bad design and engineering on the hardware side - the PS3 actually heats up more and faster but doesnt statistically die within the first year ).

I'd say they have one or two issues to resolve - let's face it, it might once have been a enormously dominant and successful company, but with all the money theyre losing on Court fines, and the overall losses with the 360 ( Which actually sold at a loss right from the start, Microsoft actually hoped to recoop the losses from selling the games at a higher price, if it wasnt for sony putting back the release date so far, I'd say the PS3 would be winning the battle on several fronts )

Microsoft are currently keeping in the stream by buying out smaller successful companies and jumping on every band wagon they can find that keeps the money rolling in.

Watch this space people. were in for a bumpy ride over the next few years.

it's now so easy to make that switch to linux theres realy no exscuse to whine over being lumped with a restrictive "Operating System".

Restricting? How so?

opped with Mac's new found storm of popularity

*laughing*

Watch this space people. were in for a bumpy ride over the next few years.

Thank you, Great Swami, for that marvelous prediction.

The point Im making is that Microsoft is more restrictive than Linux, Linux being the second most popular consumer product. In business I would go with ( Windws, Novell, Linux, Mac ) depending on the organisation type.

Macs are becoming more popular, still less so than in 2000, but every company has slumps. MS have just lost a lot of users for various reasons as Ive already states, lets face it, if people went into their local PC shop to buy a new machine, and had a choice there and then whether the PC they wanted had Xp, Vista, Leopard OSX, Linux, Unix, Novell, Sun. yea a majority would just go with Windows, but I think youd find a lot of people would go with "I think Ill try something new" or "thatl save some time switching OS's later"...

The final comment, thats the opinion of several business leaders in the IT industry. I might not be the be and end all, I might be wrong, But I've been following trends and stat's for enough years to see when a change is required, Microsoft just like every other company has to bow to consumer demand sooner or later.

The point Im making is that Microsoft is more restrictive than Linux

...and I am asking *how* it is restrictive. Until it is explained, it is not a point, but a statement with no explanation or reference.

Linux being the second most popular consumer product

Ahh...I see what you did there. Your definition of "popular" is different than mine. Popular, in my book, would indicate more than 10% of the market.

The final comment, thats the opinion of several business leaders in the IT industry. I might not be the be and end all, I might be wrong, But I've been following trends and stat's for enough years to see when a change is required, Microsoft just like every other company has to bow to consumer demand sooner or later.

Just as they've said after *every* major release, just as they've predicted after every lawsuit and new product...

One must begin to wonder if these people simple don't have enough to do. Perhaps they need a hobby?

Linux has has more than 10% of the market, you forget that most companies also use Linux ( Including Microsoft themselves ) Linux has a market in business just like every other OS, It's just that now more then ever, Linux is becoming a more suitable consumer OS due in large to the pnp hardware support and the GUI becoming more user freindly.

Microsoft ships with a hell of a lot of services and software that most standard users wouldnt use, wouldnt know how to use, and wouldnt want to use even if they knew it was there, linux on the other hand gives back control of whats on the system, if you want / need it, then install it. if not dont, theres very little thats pre-installed in terms of services of software that either allows you to choose not to install at install time, or allows you to remove completely afterwards.

They may keep saying it after every release, but just look at the way Microsoft is swaying and clawing their way back to popularity, Vista was a real knock as most people flat refused to use it until at least service pack 1, some even saying they would not use it all or switch to a different OS all together, their sales may be high ( Due in large to computer manufacturers buying out OEM liscenses and forcing Vista on the unsuspecting public, and the "I want the latest version" types, who by and large expect ( As they should ) everything to work right out of the box.

Im sure microsoft will survive, they just wont have such an easy time of it while ever there releasing buggy systems and software while everyone around them is working their asses off to compete. Nix is getting better, Mac is still the most stable out there.

Everything in life is a hobby, people climb the ladder by a** kissing and saying yes in the right places, Careers are hard to come by, thats why theres so many people out there doing jobs they couldnt even begin to comprehend but manage to muddle through on a wing and a prayer.

Whinge over for now...

Linux has has more than 10% of the market, you forget that most companies also use Linux ( Including Microsoft themselves ) Linux has a market in business just like every other OS, It's just that now more then ever, Linux is becoming a more suitable consumer OS due in large to the pnp hardware support and the GUI becoming more user freindly.

Next time I will specify "Desktop" market share. :)

Microsoft ships with a hell of a lot of services and software that most standard users wouldnt use,

yes, yes...the installed vs. not installed debate. It's been done to death. Next?

The rest I won't even bother with... I mean, really, I'm sure you have better things to do, and I *know* I do.... (even if it involves my head and a nail-gun). The "Vista is crap" boat has sailed. Find something else.

well avoiding the debate based on nothing more than I've heard it all before, doesnt exactly put across any points against what I'm saying, you asked for definition of my comments, and you got them, if you have heard it all before, then you would not have needed a definition in the first place. :)

Restricting because:

1. You have to pay $$$ for it, and
2. You can't modify it and disribute your own version.

...and your definition of "restrictive" = more installed options.

See the problem here?

Having a logical discussion would be great. I have the sense, from your definition of "restrictive" to your comments regarding Vista (with all the lacking support that doesn't go with them) that such a discussion, with you, would be impossible.

So..you're right. Sorry I even asked. :)

No my deinition is the exact opposite, the lack of option to remove uneeded services makes it restrictive, the price of some of the software for windows is attrocious ( Based on consumers not business ), Linux has free software readily available that has more or less the same functionality as windows software ( Sometimes it goes as far as the same developer offering software for a price to windows users and free to linux users )

so you see, windows is restrictive compared to other OS's.

this is just a small example.

the lack of option to remove uneeded services makes it restrictive

There is not a single service in Windows XP that cannot be removed.

Of course, you will lose functionality, but hey...can you blame them for including *functional* services?

the price of some of the software for windows is attrocious

This is not a restriction, and is *not* a MSFT issue. Photoshop costs $800 because people will pay for it. It's called Economics and marketing.

Linux has free software readily available that has more or less the same functionality as windows software

Rarely does this software have any corporate backing, come with support contracts, or come with fall-back support. Support trumps bare functionality in any corporate environment, and the consumer space follows corporate adoption.

Sometimes it goes as far as the same developer offering software for a price to windows users and free to linux users

Show me one example of a popular Commercial Windows Software product being given away for free on the *nix platform.

...

So no, I don't see how Windows is restrictive.

Want to talk restrictive? Take a look at a Mac. Restrictive hardware lock-in? Must be purchased with MacOS? Sounds pretty restrictive to me...

Yes, you have to pay for it, and yes the license restricts you from modifying it.

You are correct, and if that is the basis by which you judge a product, you have a very simple life, and I congratulate you on being able to cope with such a life.

Personally, I don't think I could survive 10 minutes without stuff I have to pay for every day. I certainly don't grow my own food, didn't build my own house in some un-owned backwoods commune, walk everywhere I go...

Oh...wait...

I bet you only apply that reasoning to Software/IP, and only when it's someone *else* doing all the hard work that goes into them...

Am I right?

I take it you havent heard of running mac OSX on an Intel machine then ?

The point is, there is no easy way to remove "Uneeded services" that are a security risk in the first place.

I could remove them, but general consumers wouldnt know where to start or even that the risks exist.

"IE8 is what we've been building up to"

I will stay with that phrase: Unstable, slow, bloated and still the less standard compatible browser of the bunch. That is what Microsoft had been building since immemorial times.
The amazing thing is that they *still* dominate the market with that...

Well bloated is true enough if you're referring to the memoory usage, IE8 uses roughly 40k whereas FF3 uses roughly 16k. But slow, well that depends on your connection and the size of the site and the whole host of other specs on your machine, Personally, I find FF3 and IE8 about the same speed. and so far, stability is 100% on both IE8 and FF3.

As far as standards go, neither FF3 or IE8 pass Acid 3. FF3 does fail better than IE8, but since there both in beta and FF has a history of supporting standards, I would'nt expect anything more at such an early stage.

I think IE8 might just finish up passing Acid 3, Im fairly sure FF will eventually too, maybe neither of them will with the current builds. security is still and should remain a primary concern.

Maybe IE8 could end passing the acid3 test or not. But today Microsoft marketing campaign claims that the focus on the new version is standard compliance, and it happens to be the less standard compliant product of the round. Compare it against FF3 betas, Opera 9.50 snapshots o even nigthly safari (webkits) and they ALL are more standard compliant than IE8.
A normal company needs a better product to compete and dominate the market, but Microsoft does not, late and worse, but it stay on top, that is what really amaze me...

I dont care about who wins "the browser wars" as a web developer, All I want to see is all the browsers supporting set standards.

If IE8 is slightly slower than FF fine, as long as they both render pages the same way Im all for it - at the moment, FF3 will not render google maps ( it is re-directed to a more basic version ) IE8 on the other hand destroys the render, IMO that just means google has redirected the site for FF3 but not bothered for IE8 ( Maybe because its not flagging due to the browser ID ).

all in all, I's say FF3 and IE8 are neck and neck in terms of usability, if the rendering mode becomes hot switchable then IE8 will be onto a winner in terms of backward compability.

Lets face it, Developers have been building sites with cross browser hacks for years just to make sure their single website worked in all the major browsers, most of these "hacks" were aimed at IE in some way shape or form due to FF being standards compliant from the get go. so we are gonna' see a lot of broken sites out there when IE8 hits the RTM stage, that wont be IE8's fault, but it will be microsofts concern to convince people ( Especially web developers ) of the fact.

I'd say since IE still holds the highest usage award ( Mainly due to the fact that it comes pre-installed on windows and most people wouldnt know how to switch browsers ) IE8 is going to survive, will it thrive - well thats one were going to have to wait and see.

on the flip side, thanks to the success of the Ipod, macs are becoming more popular, maybe our heads will be turned to Safari ( Which is now available for windows too ) and then were realy gonna' feel the developers headache. IMO they should all stop competing over NON PROFIT software and just make the bloody browsers with the same rendering engine which can be overlooked by the W3C and made to be truly standard compliant ( They can still have competition over the interface if they realy want to, but at least the end users wont suffer at the wrath of the cross browser hack any longer ).

Peace out, and eyes open.

$afari for M$? More competition! YAY!!!

http://www.apple.com/safari/

Yea, early test builds, I think maybe pre-beta or maybe Beta1 was very very slow and buggy. I havent tested it lately so I couldnt comment on standards compliance or stability.

"IMO they should all stop competing over NON PROFIT software and just make the bloody browsers with the same rendering engine which can be overlooked by the W3C"...

Do you mean software for nonprofits or nonprofitable software? Did you mean "overlooked by the W3C" or "looked over by the W3C"?

non profitable software, IE doesnt make them any money at all, they wouldnt lose market share if they used FF as their default browser rather then IE.

looked over, as in make sure they are actually standards compliant, and at least stop them using proprietry crap like "<flashy-text>"...

Been running IE8 for a few day now, XP Pro SP2, still slow compared to Opera, no crashes as others have reported, sluggish performance on certain websites, no fault of the browser, certainly steps in the right direction but lagging behind Firefox Beta 3 as well as Opera 9.5 Beta, but in fairness, it's early days!
Propoganda does not equal performance!

Unless I am missing something, it appears IE8 will still trail behind what Gecko, Webkit, and Presto offer (e.g. speed, standards compliance, features).

Yeah, just keep spouting empty promises and more empty promises. Anyone with a brain knows that its just marketing hot air and completely worthless hype.

When IE8 comes out for REAL, we'll see.

Just like IE7 was supposed to "deliver everything that Microsoft has wanted to do from the beginning, and in turn finally get Internet Explorer back to the same level as its competitors in terms of features, performance and standards support."

Dont make me laugh.

Just like the overly hyped promises of Vista. Complete failure.

"Yeah, just keep spouting empty promises and more empty promises. Anyone with a brain knows that its just marketing hot air and completely worthless hype."

Anyone without a brain couldn't read that statement, so why post it? Do you care more about provoking negative responses than you do having constructive dialogue? ...Wait, wait--don't answer that :D

When IE8 comes out for REAL, we'll see.

We shall see what happens when it comes out, true. That's something anyone with a brain kno-- I mean, oops...

Just like IE7 was supposed to "deliver everything that Microsoft has wanted to do from the beginning, and in turn finally get Internet Explorer back to the same level as its competitors in terms of features, performance and standards support."

Strange, I don't remember reading or hearing that promise from Microsoft regarding IE7. It was mostly about added security features and tabbed browsing as I recall.

Just like the overly hyped promises of Vista. Complete failure.

Yeah, over 100 million copies sold as of January 2008...complete failure.

bourgeoisdude,

100 Million copies of Vista was probably 50% Dell and HP. They forecd the new operating system down the throats of consumers under the pressure of Microsoft. Vista as it stands now is no where near as good as XP Pro. IMO. Considering there are billions of computers, touting the whole 100 million sold thing is kinda a null point, as I'd go as far to say without the forcing OS on consumers wanting a new computer there is no way it would of sold that many copies.

as for IE. IE7 and IE8 have a long way to go before they catch up with Firefox, if they even can. I'm a big fan of Firefox cause of preformance and reliblity. Althoug, as an IT professional my bread and butter is Microsoft.. Keep them buggy products coming!! :)

You have an interesting, but seriously flawed, approach to logic. Many people may purchase large quantities of shoddy merchandise, but does that equate with either value or quality? I don't think it does.

Microsoft knowingly foisted a extremely bad product on its users and this will come back to bite them in the ass. I wonder if Microsoft would accept the same excuses from its employees that it publishes almost daily on the internet? Somehow, I doubt it.

You have an interesting, but seriously flawed, approach to logic. Many people may purchase large quantities of shoddy merchandise, but does that equate with either value or quality? I don't think it does.

Did I ever say it did?

Where was my "approach to logic" faulty?

"Althoug, as an IT professional my bread and butter is Microsoft.. Keep them buggy products coming!! :)"

LOL

You use a raw number, in this case 100 million, without any statistical evaluation of what that number may, or may not mean. What types of Vista does the number convey?

Many of the people that the number represents may have reverted to the use of XP or another OS. Some may be using the computer with Vista preinstalled as a rather expensive boat anchor. How satisfied are the users with Vista on their systems? Unless and until you provide some statistical breakdown of the number, it's meaningless. You might as well pull a number from your pocket.

I have a Dell XPS 1730 running Vista Ultimate, spec'd to the max including dual 64gb SSD's. Have used Vista since early days (indeed about 18 months now), can tolerate Business on one of my notebooks, but this particular machine, I'm going to nlite an XP disk, run the notepad editor so the install disk will see the drives, and install it.
Have had enough of Vista it is junk, so much so I purchased an Apple Airbook (hey, the Taxman subsidises it), reason for the purchase was twofold, frustrations with Vista and figured it's about time I learnt to use Mac OS.
Would also point out I am an MSFT VIP subscriber (AUD740p/a, and no the Taxman does not subsidise this).
As an aside the machine I'm typing this on is an HP business notebook, that came with the XP downgrade disk, it's configured for Vista Business, clunky! Yet install the XP and it cooks

...they are sales, just as I specified.

They are copies of Windows Vista sold as of January of this year. I pulled it from the wall street journal, but there are many reliable sources that state this. If I sell 100 million steaks, does it matter what cut they are? How they were cooked?

So what if they revert back to XP? If they throw away their PC and use nothing but Mac for the rest of their life, if their whole business moves to Linux, they still purchased Vista. You are reading so much more from my comment than was actually there.

The logic is: Regardless of any other circumstances, Microsoft still sold 100 million copies of Vista. 100 million sales of any product in the first year is amazing, period.

100 million copies preinstalled on systems. Not exactly where people choose it of their own free will.

And...?

Why is it so hard to understand this concept? They sold 100 million copies. How many products do you know of that sell 100 million in the first year?

they had better do better then the beta that was released this week if they are to get people to use this browser it will not let you type on a post it messes up the type so you don't know where you are and other problems with audio and video are a problem with this browser , back to the drawing board for this one . I can't use it to post with so I use the old standard fire fox to do that with .

That's why it's called a beta. But then you probably already knew that.

Just curious, did you search the IE8 beta forum or bug site to see if there was a resolution or but submitted? Or submit it to the forum. Or are you like most of the people who downloaded it just to say they had it and could then bash Microsoft about how bad it is and that they are copying everyone from FireFox to opera to os2.

Not trying to flame, just curious.

For what it's worth, I'm having trouble with it also. But then again, I've been having trouble with IE7 for a few months now, I just haven't had time to trouble shoot it extensively. I think it has something to do with the flash plug-in, but I'm not sure. It's time for my annual re-install, so hopefully a fresh install will fix a lot of my heartaches. :-)

On this site it's the form at the top of the page which is affecting the comment textarea - some kind of a bug in IE8 related to the amount of text on the submit button which makes the cursor appear a button width to the left of where it should be.

Ah yes, this is what competition is all about. Thank you firefox! This sort of reminds me of what Amd did for Intel, the poor loser nobody (Mozilla) makes a mockery of the giant. The giant finally gets irritated and gets off their rear end.

Now if we can just get Linux with a 15-30 percent market share. I have a slight feeling we would see some real improvement with Windows as well. This proves it.

This really does prove that Microsoft is truly capable, they just need incentive, like competition. Win a war and with no one else to fight, think there will be investment in weapons? Nope, innovation doesn't exist anymore. Microsoft lives by that word, let's actually hope they can do it again in all the markets they dominate and strangle.

While this is all sweet of them their track record for the 12 years remains. Plus this remains a Windows platform browser. Firefox is the long term choice.

"customers who have built solutions that work specifically with IE7"

Wow, I wouldn't want to hire a web developer who works exclusively with IE7...

xxx negative comments....etc etc

if you don't like an article, why waste time reading it and then saying something as mundane as "snore"? lol

There is no reason to fear MS and IE if you truly think or believe it is inferior. But many know it's actually not, even the people that hate MS/IE/WinX.

"There is no reason to fear MS and IE if you truly blah blah blah."

Snore lol

"There is no reason to fear MS and IE if you truly think or believe it is inferior. But many know it's actually not..."

I've used IE practically since the beginning, and have used Firefox extensively over the last six months. The truth is, on my machine, IE7 is the faster browser - doubly so in the x64 environment, where IE loads virtually instantaneously. I love the add-ons for Firefox, but IE7 Pro gives me practically everything I miss. IE8 sounds promising...can't wait.

snore.

This seems to be an awfully long story - but anyway I digress. There would have been no IE7 leading on IE8 without Firefox eating away at the market share of IE6. But you will never get an acknowledgement of that from MS.

Its called progress. There would be no windows without Xerox, there would be no mouse without a keyboard.

Unless you get it perfect first time round there will allways be updates, and without competition those updates become less sought after. You only need to look at Intel to realise what a good dollop of competition can do.

"There would have been no IE7 leading on IE8 without Firefox eating away at the market share of IE6...."

And yet I see Firefox was quick to release Minefield 4 on the heels of IE8 today, while FireFox 3 isn't even gold yet.

Installed perfectly and running faster than IE7 on my:
Latitude D620
1.66 CoreDuo, 667FSB, 80gb H/D 7,200RPM and 1.5gb DDR2-5300 using Vista Ultimate

I'm impressed.