Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MS To Slip IE8 Into Vista and XP Through OEMs

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the for-our-own-good dept.

Internet Explorer 289

crazyeyes writes "Microsoft says it's 'optional,' but they are already planning to slip Internet Explorer 8 into all Windows Vista/XP PCs by March. MS claims that IE8 will offer better performance and security. But what about unwanted stuff like 'Monetization opportunities (for OEMs)' and 'These services will be used (by OEMs) to deliver brand exposure... to the users'?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

IE has had these for ages (4, Informative)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892787)

Ever notice the "Internet Explorer provided by Dell" title bar?

Re:IE has had these for ages (-1, Troll)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892913)

Why bother even fighting the foregone conclusions of the summary? Just accept that Slashdot needs at least one masturbatory Microsoft bashing article every day and let the geeks get on with the wanking.

Re:IE has had these for ages (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893329)

Fap fap fap

Re:IE has had these for ages (5, Funny)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893371)

We could just start naming the articles "Microsoft still exists" and the content could be "Microsoft is still out there doing something and it's that time of day to bash them for it".

I'm quite happy with this idea, myself, for I find bashing Microsoft regularly to be a healthy practice. Everyone should do it and most people probably do in their own privacy.

I understand some people may need some 'stimulation support' with unclothed Firefox logos and centerfolds of penguins and free software ganging up mercilessly on bound bits of Windows and Photoshop. I, personally, have no need of these devices and will happily sneak a Microsoft bash in when no one's looking. Sometimes I do it out in the open, but only in places I'm sure nobody knows me.

Re:IE has had these for ages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26894009)

We could just start naming the articles "Microsoft still exists" and the content could be "Microsoft is still out there doing something and it's that time of day to bash them for it".

I'm quite happy with this idea, myself, for I find bashing Microsoft regularly to be a healthy practice. Everyone should do it and most people probably do in their own privacy.

I understand some people may need some 'stimulation support' with unclothed Firefox logos and centerfolds of penguins and free software ganging up mercilessly on bound bits of Windows and Photoshop. I, personally, have no need of these devices and will happily sneak a Microsoft bash in when no one's looking. Sometimes I do it out in the open, but only in places I'm sure nobody knows me.

.... or you could just masturbate like the rest of us geeks.

F*ck Microsoft (1, Flamebait)

Quest4RelativeTruth (1473873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26894119)

Windows had to be reinstalled 3 times in the last month; I haven't done the third reinstall yet, and I don't think I'm going to because it'll wipe out GRUB. I just got the one program I needed windows for running in Wine, and I'm in the mood for some Microsoft bashing.

And Microsoft deserves it. (2, Insightful)

weston (16146) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893425)

Just accept that Slashdot needs at least one masturbatory Microsoft bashing article every day

One Microsoft bashing article a day isn't what Microsoft deserves.

One for every 10 hours their product flaws and aggressive monopolistic practices have stolen from developer productivity (or general productivity) is probably about right.

The problem is that if you use that metric, even considering IE6 alone, you've probably got enough for 5 stories every day since Slashdot's inception.

Sometimes people act like the Microsoft bashing is simple knee-jerk or personal dislike. I'm jealous of the strain of ignorance that allows this belief to continue.

Re:And Microsoft deserves it. (0, Troll)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893611)

Sometimes people act like the Microsoft bashing is simple knee-jerk or personal dislike. I'm jealous of the strain of ignorance that allows this belief to continue.

It's not ignorance - it's disagreement with your personal opinion. Sorry that we don't all think the way you do. It's a big world, that's gonna happen.

Just as I'm happy to let you continue on with your masturbation, you'll have to be happy with me pointing at it and laughing.

Re:And Microsoft deserves it. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893755)

But how can one disagree with the truth?
Microsoft sucks, it is a widely known fact.
I know i will be moderated troll, but you are just abusing it, i am being 100% serious here.

Microsoft pushed out crappy tools that held people back, terribly optimized, full of bugs and bad practices. (Oh hey Visual Basic, case-sensitivity would like a word!)

Not only that, they have abused their position by allowing their software to stagnate.
IE versions being the major one here, they are terribly bad compared to others through the things entire life.
And to stick an even bigger finger to everyone else, they created that crap ActiveX, which when combined with their large marketshare has led to countless millions still being held up in Microsoft stuff because they went with some shitty company to design their software.
And to take it even further, they shat all over those people when they decided not to support them.

This is just some major examples that sticks out.
So, please, for the love of computing, tell me why this is classed as opinion?

Re:IE has had these for ages (4, Insightful)

Rary (566291) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893655)

Just accept that Slashdot needs at least one masturbatory Microsoft bashing article every day and let the geeks get on with the wanking.

What, kdawson's previous "some guy tried to pirate Photoshop and then failed to understand how reparse points work so therefore Windows 7 is full of evil DRM" [slashdot.org] pseudo-article wasn't enough for today?

Re:IE has had these for ages (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893907)

>>>at least one masturbatory Microsoft bashing article

Although I'm sure a "Girls of Microsoft" article in some future Playboy would be quite entertaining, I fear there's not enough under-30 females to fill the pages. Microsoft simply doesn't attract enough of the fairer sex. Nice idea though.

(goes back to reading "Girls of D.C.")

Re:IE has had these for ages (3, Funny)

plankrwf (929870) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892925)

Hmmm... No, mine says: 'Slashdot | MS To Slip IE8 Into Vista and XP Trough OEMs - Mozilla Firefox'.

Oh... Wait...

Re:IE has had these for ages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892937)

Ever notice the "Internet Explorer provided by Dell" title bar?

Nope. Always wipe the PC and reinstall the OS you want with the options you want.

Re:IE has had these for ages (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893289)

How do you know what options I want? Do you also know my taste in porn?

Re:IE has had these for ages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893351)

Bestiality is just wrong anyway.

Re:IE has had these for ages (1)

jetsci (1470207) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893051)

Very annoying and not so easily removed for the average user. Quick trip into Regedit fixes that though...or firefox.com

Re:IE has had these for ages (2, Informative)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893183)

It's a single registry key, easy to change. I've seen it used by everything from OEMs to non-malicious viruses.

Re:IE has had these for ages (4, Funny)

LMacG (118321) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893775)

Exactly. On the very rare occasions I need to use IE, it amuses me to see "Internet Explorer provider by Robot Aliens".

Re:IE has had these for ages (4, Interesting)

RonnyJ (651856) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893459)

Recently the standard of Slashdot articles about Microsoft has taken a huge nosedive, any opportunity to bash them seems to be taken. It used to be mainly misleading summaries, but nowadays anything with an anti-Microsoft slant, even something basically made up or down to the incompetence of the submitter, seems to get posted.

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/06/1544207 [slashdot.org] - bashing Microsoft for letting you download Microsoft software on another PC besides the one you intend to use it on.
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/16/2259257 [slashdot.org] - the worst example I've seen - unfounded, unproven allegations with no substance whatsoever.

Re:IE has had these for ages (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893801)

Ever notice the "Internet Explorer provided by Dell" title bar?

I have a Dell laptop, but there's no such thing on it. Of course the first thing I did with it was fdisk.

Rule of thumb. (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892805)

Anybody who uses the word "monetize" or any variant thereof, is not to be trusted.

Re:Rule of thumb. (1)

ChopsMIDI (613634) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892877)

Because profit = evil?

Seriously?

Re:Rule of thumb. (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892943)

Profit isn't evil; but when people start spouting grotesque pseudowords referring to it, I get nervous. "Incentivize" is another troublesome one.

Re:Rule of thumb. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893043)

Profit isn't evil; but when people start spouting grotesque pseudowords referring to it, I get nervous. "Incentivize" is another troublesome one.

Tell me about it. This guy on the street offered to galvanize me for free. I thought, hey, that sounds cool. The next thing I know I've got a face full of hot zinc and I'm getting tazered.

Re:Rule of thumb. (2, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893457)

I thought only steel could be galvanized... say, you haven't been though any cosmic radiation storms or bitten by any robotic insects lately, have you?

Oh wait... people can be galvanized, just not the way that you said. "galvanize: to startle into sudden activity; stimulate." Yeah, I think I was pretty galvanized last time I went to the strip club.

Re:Rule of thumb. (1)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893089)

grotesque pseudowords

Darn, I just ran out of mod points. You deserve +1 for that.

Re:Rule of thumb. (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893779)

Would you say they deserve to be moderitized?

Re:Rule of thumb. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893245)

Profit isn't evil; but when people start spouting grotesque pseudowords referring to it, I get nervous. "Incentivize" is another troublesome one.

According to the OED, monetize has been in use since 1867. Incentivize since 1968. Something tells me they were both in use well before you were even born.

Re:Rule of thumb. (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893515)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incentivized [reference.com]

The English language will always have various components and modules. There are regional and cultural words. There are fad and fashionable words. Some changes stick while others die. If you hate many of these new introductions, you're not alone. Personally, I find many of them to be extremely irritating and "incentivize" is rather high on that list. (along with words made to end with -izzle) But if you really hate all this change in the language, I suggest you go back and practice inserting "thee" and "thou" into your daily vocabulary.

In truth, there are few things as truly democratic as the English language. And just as in a democratic government, there will be laws and other aspects that you will absolutely hate and feel compelled to protest just as you do with words like "incentivize." But in the end, it is the collective will of the people that carries through because no one can really tell you how to speak. (I know, it's a subjective statement... just accept it as a generalization.) But one thing is for certain -- the [ab]use of the English language is one very unrecognized force that actually helps to ensure the spirit of democracy remains alive.

Re:Rule of thumb. (1)

toiletbowl (1344587) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893363)

This is starting to sound like Buzzword Bingo.

Re:Rule of thumb. (2, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893415)

So if I say "doing X would provide incentive to do Y" I am just fine, but if I say "X would incentivize Y" I am grotesque?

I don't think so. Your insistence on using tedious phrases when equally meaningful, but much more convenient terms exist is sort of pathetic, though.

Re:Rule of thumb. (1)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893599)

I wouldn't call you grotesque.. I might call you dub-ya - oh wait... nevermind...

Re:Rule of thumb. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893629)

You are grotesque, but not for your wording.

"Incite" (4, Informative)

XanC (644172) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893855)

The word is "incite", not "incentivize". There's no need to make up a new word when the word you're looking for already exists.

Re:Rule of thumb. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893971)

So if I say "doing X would provide incentive to do Y" I am just fine, but if I say "X would incentivize Y" I am grotesque?

I don't think so. Your insistence on using tedious phrases when equally meaningful, but much more convenient terms exist is sort of pathetic, though.

Except, that's not an equally meaningful phrase. In fact, your second version of the sentence doesn't actually mean the same thing as your first version.

"Incentivize" generally means "motivate" or "provide incentive to". If we play the replacement game, then here are your two sentences:

"Doing X would provide incentive to do Y".

"X would provide incentive to Y" (or, alternately, "X would motivate Y").

They're actually not the same. Why the confusion? Because, instead of using simple, common phraseology that actually makes sense in standard English, you played with buzzwords that you don't really understand. The result: you've confused your audience.

So, no, you're not grotesque. But you're not really communicating, either.

Re:Rule of thumb. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893041)

Because profit = evil?

No (and what made you think that?). Because it takes a frighteningly twisted mind to pervert language into such forms as "we could monetize this" instead of "we could make money out of this". I don't know the technical name for the condition those people have, but I'd avoid them at all costs. It might be catching.

Re:Rule of thumb. (4, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893251)

They're just verbing their nouns, thereby incentivizing efficiency.

Re:Rule of thumb. (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893559)

At least they're not nouning their adjectives. That'd really be a frightening.

Re:Rule of thumb. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893967)

At least they're not nouning their adjectives. That'd really be a frightening.

Indeed. An experiential frightening.

Re:Rule of thumb. (1)

JohnBailey (1092697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893925)

They're just verbing their nouns, thereby incentivizing efficiency.

Not to mention innovating the linguistic scope to leverage the creation of value from the verbal interface.

Or some such bullshit.

Re:Rule of thumb. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893327)

Slashdot's large contingent of dumb-as-shit kneejerk glibertarians is one of the major reasons it sucks so much these days.

Business = good, government = bad. Troll as appropriate.

Re:Rule of thumb. (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893283)

No, because it's a euphemism for "let's find a way to take this previously free thing and charge people for it." It is a deceptive phrase, spoken by pointy haired bosses and marketroids with black little hearts and the morals of rabid weasels.

It's not that profit is evil, and money itself is not the root of all evil. The desire for money is the root of all evil, and this phrase is used by people who get a stiffy thinking of all the ways they can screw you out of yours. They fall asleep dreaming of ways they could monetize breathing. "Hmmm, zzzzz, poison the atmosphere... znurk, hmph, sell oxygen.... yeah... zzzzzzz"

Re:Rule of thumb. (1)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892981)

I DON'T TRUST YOU!

I Monetized Your Mom Last Night (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893061)

But don't get mad. Obviously I can't be trusted.

Re:I Monetized Your Mom Last Night (1)

hierophanta (1345511) | more than 5 years ago | (#26894029)

which brings a whole new meaning to 'rule of thumb'

Re:Rule of thumb. (1)

djdbass (1037730) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893073)

I'm not sure I should believe you...

Re:Rule of thumb. (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893711)

Tell that to your boss. I'm sure you'd prefer it if he 'monetized' your paycheck. So a company is naturally evil if it wants to make money, huh?

I guess that's why so many of them are laying off employees these days; to many gen x'ers convincing everyone of the idea that 'everything should be free, man'...MS is a publicly traded corporation who is not in the business to make nice; they're in the business to make money for themselves and their stockholders. Doing so means taking advantage of opportunities and pleasing partners/oems.

Re:Rule of thumb. (1)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893849)

Since the word "monetize" will most likely be used by a marketing or sales guy, then yes, they are not to be trusted. But in reality they are just bearing the brunt of your anger for the guys performing the actions of actually monetizing something, e.g., programmers, or other techies.

standards (4, Funny)

incripshin (580256) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892815)

I'll be happy when the Internet becomes more standards compliant. If it needs to be funded by Dell, so be it.

Re:standards (4, Interesting)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893671)

Well, if you want Dell to help make that happen, maybe encourage them to shovel money in a direction other than Microsoft, as it'll happen MUCH MUCH FASTER.

While IE 8 is more standards compliant, it is still significantly behind it's competition (Safari/Webkit, Opera, FireFox to name three). It's pretty sad, given that MS has thrown the most number of developer hours at it (except perhaps for FireFox), that IE 8 is still behind, but it's not the developers fault. Management has basically ordered them to make sure that IE helps them sell IIS and developer tools, because the corporate intranet sites will 'work best' with IE, and only with extra effort work OK with non-IE browsers.

Wow, you make IE sound like a roofie (0)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892861)

How badly are we going to get fucked after we pass out?

Re:Wow, you make IE sound like a roofie (3, Insightful)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893263)

Bad enough to want to switch to a text based browser...

Wow (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892871)

Both a Microsoft ad, AND a dupe? Heavens no - on slashdot of all places!

blasting on my eyes? (1)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892881)

If they should you a computer, why do they need to blast their Logo on your screen too? It's not like you wouldn't be seeing their logo each and every day you use your computer.

I'd see it as annoying, then again, it's a very good branding technique.

Re:blasting on my eyes? (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893519)

I'd see it as annoying, then again, it's a very good branding technique.

I assume you're talking about Dell here, but Microsoft does an excellent job without any help. Take a typical system, open a single IE window and then count the number of "blue E" logos that appear on your monitor. The count should be 5 (title bar, address bar, status bar, desktop, quicklaunch). Open another window, and you get 4 more.

Small wonder people associate the logo with The Internet.

Re:blasting on my eyes? (1)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893809)

Indeed, it's VERY powerfull when you see it constantly under your eyes. Where we used it, was very very effective aswell.

yeah right.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26892895)

pffffft..
  'Monetization opportunities (for OEMs)' and 'These services will be used (by OEMs) to deliver brand exposure... to the users?'" ...like that'l ever happen...

It got me building my own PC's (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 5 years ago | (#26892933)

Originally what got me building my own PC's was all the crapware that came with an OEM installation. Unreal. So now it looks like they're pushing the crapware model on to the web browser.

But it's more secure crapware this time. Wooo-hooo.

Oddly enough (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893003)

At my place of employment, we still use IE6 because many of our systems don't render properly on IE7/8. I hope this update will be received by our IT, so that we can finally get those bloody systems updated.
I'm not holding too much hope though.

Re:Oddly enough (5, Funny)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893149)

You're lucky!

At my place of employment, we're still using un-networked Apple II computers so we can utilize a rocket thrust calculator written in BASIC by our founder. He's been promising us 64K Macs for the past 20 years but I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Oddly enough (4, Funny)

Nerdposeur (910128) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893795)

Luxury.

At my place of employment, we have to use an abacus with razor-sharp beads, and when we get done, we have to verify our numbers by writing longhand division with the lump of coal we all share.

Re:Oddly enough (1)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893163)

How about getting your systems to render properly on somewhat more standards compliant browsers - Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome? Of course, that is out of question if you use ActiveX... then again, if you do, why do you use ActiveX?

Re:Oddly enough (1)

Nerdposeur (910128) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893217)

At my place of employment, we still use IE6 because many of our systems don't render properly on IE7/8. I hope this update will be received by our IT, so that we can finally get those bloody systems updated.

At my place of employment, I grudgingly load IE7 a couple times a day to access partner sites that specifically forbid non-IE browsers. They also do wacky things like use mis-sized framesets and forbid right-clicking!

Considering what a nightmare the sites are to use anyway - hey, let's make you log in twice, verify a security token and open three tabs to see one piece of information! - I picture their creators working in a dark basement, far from news of things like updated browsers.

Re:Oddly enough (1)

zonky (1153039) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893729)

If you can get out on the Interwebs with IE6, Leave your job. Your IT people don't care about security, which probably threatens your own Job Security. http://secunia.com/advisories/product/11/ [secunia.com] IE6 should never be used on the interwebs. Ever.

Ah yes - (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893085)

...time for the obligatory MS topic brought to you by the agreement to keep their flag flying high on /. That only leaves 6 or 7 more to complete the daily cycle.

your quotes are optional (1)

s4m7 (519684) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893109)

Yes, of course it's optional. IE7 is still optional even though they moved it to high-priority so most people who haven't lost update capacity to a worm or had updates turned off or something have already had it automatically installed. Why bunny-ear something that is actually true?

MS claims that IE8 will offer better performance. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893129)

"MS claims that IE8 will offer better performance and security."

I have heard this joke before somewhere!

Anonymous Coward

Will the OEMs give the customer a choice? (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893189)

If when selecting options for your new system you were given the options of different web browsers (or maybe different version of those wen browsers IE7, IE8, Firefox 2, Firefox 3...) would that be a bad thing for consumers? Letting the consumer decide (even if they selected *gasp* all of those free browsers). It actually might force microsoft to use a different metric for their web browser use then units shipped/sold. And choice is a good thing with computers.

On a side not the ad for this article (for me) is google chrome. I do think that the /. ad system is trying to be funny at times.

Re:Will the OEMs give the customer a choice? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26894109)

Yes, that would be a Bad Thing.

It would cause "What? That looks like Greek. I just want to use the Internet, not Firefox." reactions in a lot of people buying a computer. At some point, too much customization at once is a bad thing.

Of course, I'd have no problem if, say, Dell decided to ship Firefox with their boxes. Or whatever. But what next? Give the option of Silverlight or Flash pre-installed? iTunes pre-installed? Quicktime vs. some other variant? VLC as well as Media Player?

The answer to the browser war, if anything, is going to be "education" not forcing companies to give consumers every possible option.

Besides, the people that use IE probably don't know any better or if they do, have a good reason to use it; the people that don't use IE and would thus benefit from the choice already know how to download an alternative. All it'd really do is make purchasing a computer a little more confusing for those that *don't* know.

IE must be architecturally borked (5, Interesting)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893213)

IE has so many serios deficiencies that have been longstsanding and obvious, I can only conclude that these shortcomgs are architectural. Things that force web developers to implement two separate versions of their JS libs _ one for IE and one for everybody else who somehow, despite greatly reduced resource availability, are able to implement these features.

Whether you are talking about connection handling, spacing and padding attributes, or listen handlers, it's just a public embarrassment for the company that once cried 'DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS!'.

At my company (a vertical niche information system vendor) we've become so jaded that we now tell our users that we actually support firefox and only test for IE. Not surprisingly, our users are about 90% FF.

MS, you're dropping the ball, here, and those developers you once coddled have been SCREAMING about it for years. You're getting exactly what you deserve with your plummeting browser market share!

Re:IE must be architecturally borked (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893279)

PS: I wrote this post using a moz-based browser on my mobile phone because the built-in IE browser is so bad that it can't even render slashdot in a usable (or even recognizable) fashion.

This is News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893215)

Um, what exactly is the complaint here? Microsoft is going to allow OEMs to elect to slipstream IE8 into their XP and Vista installations. Is this really a problem? They were able to do this with IE7, and IE6 before that.

As for the "unwanted features", unwanted by whom? The OEMs seem to want to be able to customize the IE installation and MS gives them the opportunity. If the user doesn't want the OEM performing that customization, well, request that the OEM not do it, or buy from someone else.

What is the current Slashdot opinion of MSIE8? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893247)

I am not sure how I feel about putting MSIE 8 onto new machines but I recall that MSIE 8 was supposed to be more standards compliant or at least host a mode of operation that is more standards compliant. At one point I heard that the default operating mode was in standards compliance mode and later I heard the default operating mode was to be some sort of "compatibility" mode (which is much nicer to hear than non-compliance mode). There has been plenty of time for Microsoft to reverse positions and all that so frankly, I don't know where things are.

And what does MSIE 8 bring to the table not present in MSIE 7 or 6? With few exceptions, vulnerabilities found in one version of MSIE is found in all versions of MSIE, so I can't imagine better security is a feature of 8.

Ultimately, why is OEM inclusion of MSIE 8 a bad idea? For that matter, why is it a good idea?

Re:What is the current Slashdot opinion of MSIE8? (1)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893323)

why is it a good idea?

So I don't have to install it. There are still too many websites or sections of those websites out there that will not work with anything but IE - Neflix's "Watch Instantly" for example. Microsoft's website isn't completely functional without IE - yeah, big surprise there.

Re:What is the current Slashdot opinion of MSIE8? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893435)

Well compared to IE 7 or IE 6, IE 8 is more standards compliant; however compared to other browsers, it is pretty pathetic at least according to ACID3. The latest ACID3 test [wikipedia.org] shows IE 7: 7/100, IE 8: 21/100. For perspective, all current releases of competing browsers score no lower than 71/100. Future releases of competing broswers show no lower than 83/100. Truly pathetic.

New computers need *SOME* sort of browser (4, Insightful)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893273)

A new out-of-the-box computer with no browser at all would not be fun - especially for the non-computer-literate user who doesn't have another system to download with.

So, if a manufacturer is shipping a box with Windows, why not supply the latest version of Internet Explorer??

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser (3, Informative)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893567)

Start->Run

ftp ftp.mozilla.org
cd /pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.0.6/win32/en-US/
get "Firefox Setup 3.0.6.exe"

IE is one of the most bloated firefox download tools there is.

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893649)

I'm sure the lftp community would take offense to Microsoft distributing a rival ftp client.

Point being, I'm really tired of these articles. I hate IE as much as the next geek, but I see no problem with Microsoft distributing it with Windows.

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser (2, Funny)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893697)

Yes, because command-line ftp is feasible for the general populace.

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser (1)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 5 years ago | (#26894021)

As far as I can remember, you can also enter it into the address bar of the Windows Explorer. At least you used to be able to do it, no clue how that looks on Vista interface where everything is located at a brand new +5 clicks fashion. Didn't see a Windows Explorer in ages anyway, thanks god!

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893705)

So what you're doing is telling Slashdotters how to download Firefox without using IE. What about the guy that hasn't heard of Slashdot? Slashdotters hardly qualify as normal users (I'm leaving computer literacy out of this one).

First time and early computer users don't know what FTP is, let alone the address to download Firefox.

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893799)

All the competiting FTP clients are next on the bandwagon of "anti-trust" cases.

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893913)

Haha, I bet you even took your time to verify those commands and paths are correct. Greasy lunix nerds sure are pathetic.

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893571)

In a word, laziness.

Any OEM is going to create some generic disk image that they can then push to *every* machine of the same (or similar) model. True, they may do some post-boot tweak for setting an individual serial number/activation code/product ID. It simply doesn't make sense for any large corporation shipping out hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of machines to install each machine by hand.

So, OEM's are lazy because something like Firefox or Opera are readily available and they could easily include it in their install image.

The only reason IE is dominant is because those same non-computer-literate users just don't know any better. If Opera or Mozilla were to push to have their browsers installed on new Dell or HP machines, then the market share would change. Those same users may not be able to visit those websites that are designed to fit whatever MS non-standard, but the developers of those sites should have had web standards in mind anyway.

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893699)

Amen.

What does the average person answer to: why do you want to buy a computer? Email and web surfing.

EVERY OS needs a web browser. Why the latest version would not be included is beyond me!

I'm not claiming to know the details of the actual claim that is going on in europe, but they need to let this go once and for all.

That's like shipping a brand new car without oil because oil brands think its unfair new cars don't come with their own product. How will you drive to the store to buy oil after car purchase?

How come Apple doesnt get crap like this? They bundle a browser, no?

There is probably much I don't know about the whole case, but removing IE from windows sounds like a stupid idea. (And I hate IE)

Monetization (1)

sxmjmae (809464) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893277)

Right from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetize [wikipedia.org]

Monetization is the process of converting or establishing something into legal tender. It usually refers to the printing of banknotes by central banks, but things such as gold, diamonds and emeralds, and art can also be monetized by Standby Letter of Credit brokers. Even intrinsically worthless items can be made into money, as long as they are difficult to make or acquire. Monetization may also refer to exchanging securities for currency, selling a possession, charging for something that used to be free or making money on goods or services that were previously unprofitable.

Are you scared now went Microsoft starts to use the word Monetization?

222 (0, Offtopic)

Dgawld (1251898) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893311)

OEM

Sounds like the IEAK to me. (1)

Champion3 (599877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893403)

Doesn't this just sound like the IEAK that was used for adding branding to IE by ISPs and OEMs?

Fuck Microsoft : +1, Informative (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893465)

Fuck the Captains of U.S. Industry [foxnews.com] .

Seditously As Always,
Kilgore Trout

Emulate IE7 (1)

toiletbowl (1344587) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893469)

Can we keep the Emulate IE7 button?

Re:Emulate IE7 (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893643)

As long as they don't have an 'emulate IE6' button. Then we'll see websites that say "Go do this to make our site look right!"

Good thing too (1)

Vahokif (1292866) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893507)

As someone who designs websites now and then, I don't see the problem with Windows finally shipping with a (more or less) standards-compliant browser. Is the day of having to design specifically for IE6 finally over?

kdawson article (0)

ADT7 (1458965) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893511)

Nothing to see here.

Will there be a choice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893553)

Could someone sell a computer with FireFox, or something else, instead of IE8 installed on it?

**applause** (2, Informative)

ivoras (455934) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893767)

Is there anyone here that wants users to CONTINUE USING IE6??? Because IE6 is what's included in stock XP. As for Vista, well, IE7 isn't so great, maybe IE8 will be more standards-conformant.

Catch-22 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26893785)

Microsoft to Ship Anchient Browser on New Machines w/ XP and Vista

vs

MS To Slip IE8 Into Vista and XP Through OEMs

Anything but IE6 (2, Informative)

spinkham (56603) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893845)

IE 8 isn't my favorite browser,but it's worlds better then IE 6.. It's quality related to IE 7 is harder to discern at this point, but anything that encourages businesses and other IE 6 holdouts to move forward is a good thing in my view. I'd rather they move to Gecko(Firefox), Webkit(Chrome, safari), or Opera, but please, I'm pleading, let IE 6 die...

IT MAY BE A GOOD THING! (1)

HeavyDevelopment (1117531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26893869)

Who uses IE anymore? Seriously I haven't used IE, much less Windows, for personal browsing in two years. I mean I could care less if they force an update on XP. It actually may do some good in that the people that don't know any better and still use IE by default, usually don't know anything about secure browsing. It might make some people switch to FF, Chrome, or Opera....which is better for everyone.

Of course it's optional. (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#26894057)

Microsoft Windows is optional. You can easily opt out of it: there are many Web sites devoted to helping you do so. It need not even cost you any money.

Negative tone (3, Insightful)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 5 years ago | (#26894081)

Why the negative tone? I'm glad to hear that even XP will come with IE8. Do you know what the alternative is? IE6. IE6 is old and useless, the less people use it the better. For web developers it's better not to have to support IE6 anymore. It doesn't even support transparent PNGs, you know? So yay for IE8 instead of IE6 in Windows. Even if I don't use nor like it, the fact that it gets shoved on everyone's PC instead of IE6 is good.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?