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!

Microsoft Considered Renaming Internet Explorer To Escape Its Reputation

samzenpus posted about a month and a half ago | from the a-rose-by-any-other-name dept.

Businesses 426

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft's Internet Explorer engineering team told a Reddit gathering that discussions about a name change have taken place and could happen again. From the article: "Microsoft has had "passionate" discussions about renaming Internet Explorer to distance the browser from its tarnished image, according to answers from members of the developer team given in a reddit Ask Me Anything session today. In spite of significant investment in the browser—with the result that Internet Explorer 11 is really quite good—many still regard the browser with contempt, soured on it by the lengthy period of neglect that came after the release of the once-dominant version 6. Microsoft has been working to court developers and get them to give the browser a second look, but the company still faces an uphill challenge."

cancel ×

426 comments

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

Call it Web? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688471)

They can't call it Web. That name is already take by the gnome browser.

I guess they are stuck with 'internet' something, or something 'internet'...

Re: Call it Web? (5, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688481)

They can't name it after Steve Ballmer either, Chrome is already taken by google.

Re: Call it Web? (4, Funny)

LordKronos (470910) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688925)

Microsoft Chair - makes the internet so fast, it flies.

American car companies... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688485)

...feel Microsoft's pain.

After you push a substandard product for so long, nobody will buy your stuff even when it is improved to the point of being superior to the competition. The stink just will not wash off.

Re:American car companies... (0)

Z00L00K (682162) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688639)

Especially since the browser isn't even compatible with the other services Microsoft offers like the Outlook Webmail.

Re:American car companies... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47689027)

Especially since the browser isn't even compatible with the other services Microsoft offers like the Outlook Webmail.

IE11 works perfectly with current versions of Outlook Web Access. What you probably are referring to is that with IE10 and later MS stopped supporting some old non-standard IE-quirks, which is a good thing (!) but affected old versions of OWA that targeted old IE versions - unless you put IE in compatibility mode, then also the old OWA works with IE10+.

Which any admin with a minimum of competency very easily could and should have set up automatically for the users if they insist on using an outdated version of Outlook Web Access. So, if you have this problem you have a very incompetent IT department.

Re:American car companies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47689095)

you are a moron of the highest caliber, not being able or permitted to upgrade to latest microsoft crapplication is hardly the fault of a sys admin.

Re:American car companies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47689127)

you are a moron of the highest caliber, not being able or permitted to upgrade to latest microsoft crapplication is hardly the fault of a sys admin.

You need to re-read what you replied to before calling others a moron. there is an easy fix without upgrading. The sys-admin should know that if the company is running an old OWA version but have deployed new browser versions, then he need to set his users browsers to compatibility mode and they will have no problems.

Re:American car companies... (4, Insightful)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688689)

Audi, BMW, Porche, Volkswagen, Honda, Ford, Mazda, Mitssubishi, Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota weren't sitting on their thumbs in the 15 years it took GM, Ford, and Chevrolet to get their cars up to snuff.

In that time every category of safety, performance, features, and mileage received a huge improvement with no significant increase in cost. Across the board, across manufacturer and country borders. The gap has closed but foreign makers raised the bar again. Frankly I won't be surprised (or morn) if Chevy goes out of business completely. US manufacturers still have some innovation to do. They should start with expiring patents from Japan.

Re:American car companies... (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688745)

im not sure we are looking at the same car companies. the biggest gainers over the past 6 years would be the koreans with hundei and kia, and the domestics are making cars that are just as good if not better than the imports these days.

Re:American car companies... (4, Informative)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about a month and a half ago | (#47689005)

I started a post with the aim to thoroughly rebuke you and refute your claim. The first place I looked was a Google search for standard warranties [cars.com] which gives US manufacturers' warranties as about the same lengths as foreign warranties. Next I looked for how well manufcaturers actually stand by [forbes.com] their warranties. The number of hate articles and lawsuits over various [google.com] foreign and domestic manufacturers' warranties seems about the same. Cars still on the road [usatoday.com] is another way to look at reliability. After some research I have come to the conclusion that the oldest cars longevity isn't related to quality of manufacture but rather dedication of the owners, older common cars are foreign -- but that doesn't count toward my point since the increase in US manufacturers' quality is relatively recent -- and common cars aging on the road today are about the same across country of manufacture.*

The late 1980's and early 1990's saw Honda et al. Eating Ford's lunch and US manufacturers' advertising [slashdot.org] focused on brand recognition. Later [slashdot.org] ads [slashdot.org] focused on features. Since this is a case of competing against quality with features (and because Tesla) I'm not even going to contest that US manufacturers ever fell behind on features.

Foreign cars still dominate [kbb.com] in the mileage [kbb.com] category but that alone is insufficient to state in the grand sweeping way I did that US made cars are inferior.

In short I stand corrected. US manufacturers have fully caught up with foreign makers in most categories of vehicle quality.

*excluding outliers.

Re:American car companies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688917)

Internet Explorer, even in its most recent incarnation, isn't even close to superior. It's a nice-sounding comparison, but that's about the extent of it. GM is covering up ignition design issues that caused hundreds of accidents (many of them fatal), and Microsoft still produces a slow, ugly, shitty browser. Some things really do just stay the same.

Re:American car companies... (5, Funny)

paiute (550198) | about a month and a half ago | (#47689049)

Microsoft Edsel

question: does IE support adblock and noscript? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688487)

I'm perfectly willing to believe that the core IE engine is much improved from its terrible days of the past when it was intentionally non-standards-compliant, slow, and insecure.

However, I ask this as someone who hasn't touched it in many years: does it support adblock, noscript, ghostery, and httpseverywhere? If not, then I would not call it "quite good" no matter how much the core has improved. Those features are essential for using the modern web.

Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688603)

on thing slashdotters have never learned to pick up on is PR.

This whole article is PR by Microsoft to spread the message that "IE is much improved". By encapsulating the message in a seeming criticism, people are lulled into joining the discussion.

Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? (2)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about a month and a half ago | (#47689035)

The message that indicates that MS hasn't learned anything and IE is worth ignoring is that they're trying to get DEVELOPERS to give the browser another look. That whole "design for me, lock out the competition" mentality that sensible people ignore. If IE11 is that good, people should willingly use it, not be coerced...

Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about a month and a half ago | (#47689051)

on thing slashdotters have never learned to pick up on is PR.

This whole article is PR by Microsoft to spread the message that "IE is much improved". By encapsulating the message in a seeming criticism, people are lulled into joining the discussion.

On the contrary, PR postings are usually quickly noticed as such.

But this one is so blatant that I went along with the premise so that I cold give my opinions....

Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? (2)

armanox (826486) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688729)

Oddly enough, with all the disable this and that options IE has (Java, ActiveX), JS isn't one of them. I generally do system-wide adblocking via hosts file in addition to using ABP. Noscipt is a giant pain in reality, and is a little on the paranoid side to be honest. So is always using HTTPS.

Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688757)

I think noscript is arguably THE most important extension. It's not that much of a pain. All the sites I regularly visit have their essential scripts whitelisted, and no further action was needed by me after my first visit. The first time I visit a new site, I want all scripts disabled, for security and privacy. I'll look and if it seems sensible and the site seems vaguely trustworthy, I'll whitelist its domain and its CDN if it has one. No "ad tracker" scripts though, no "analytics", nothing like that.

Noscript isn't perfect, but it's the best thing I've seen to run the needed scripts while weeding out the unwanted and harmful ones. You can't do that with a single switch - you need a whitelist. Any browser needs that functionality at least as an extension, or it's a non-starter for web browsing. I don't know that many people who browse the web "unprotected" any more. Like a friend told me, "it's like a condom for your computer".

Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? (1)

armanox (826486) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688901)

Considering how often I deal with malware on my own computer, I don't really see the need to deal with NoScript. Antivirus, IPS, and staying up to date take care of *most* threats (and not pirating software, etc). The last time I had an actual infection get through, I took the easy route of just restoring to last Sunday's backup (actually, Windows Restore takes care of a lot of things too...), which took a whole 20 minutes to pull off.

Like I said, I've blocked most tracking and analytics in my hosts file to deal with things that exist outside of Firefox (say, a program with an embedded browser, flash, etc).

Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47689101)

Restoring your OS because your browser fucks it up. Brilliant strategy.

Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688895)

Oddly enough, with all the disable this and that options IE has (Java, ActiveX), JS isn't one of them. I generally do system-wide adblocking via hosts file in addition to using ABP. Noscipt is a giant pain in reality, and is a little on the paranoid side to be honest. So is always using HTTPS.

I strongly disagree with you but if that's your opinion, then by all means set up your browser that way. The whole point of extensions is that it allows people to customize their browser in a way that they feel is useful and prudent.

Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? (1)

armanox (826486) | about a month and a half ago | (#47689059)

And that, I am going to have to agree with. You and I have different ideas on security and usability, and you are encouraged to do and use what you feel is best for your requirements. That, is freedom.

Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47689079)

Oddly enough, with all the disable this and that options IE has (Java, ActiveX), JS isn't one of them. I generally do system-wide adblocking via hosts file in addition to using ABP. Noscipt is a giant pain in reality, and is a little on the paranoid side to be honest. So is always using HTTPS.

I strongly disagree with you but if that's your opinion, then by all means set up your browser that way. The whole point of extensions is that it allows people to customize their browser in a way that they feel is useful and prudent.

Indeed, but extensions are also a giant ActiveX-like security hole. There have already been cases of popular browser extensions being bought and changed to malicious behavior silently on existing users. How many of current Ghostery users know that it was bought by an ad/tracking firm?

Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? (2)

themusicgod1 (241799) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688865)

What would it matter? So long as you can't know what's going on in IE's engine, ghostery is pointless as people who pay off Microsoft can still spy on you, your browser sessions can be unencrypted whenever Microsoft chooses, etc. You might as well not use Noscript, either, what's the point of forbidding people from running software on an already compromised-to-the-hilt machine required to run IE (ie Windows)?

Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? (1)

penix1 (722987) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688969)

No it doesn't which is one reason DHS has issued at least a dozen "do not use Internet Explorer" alerts over the years.

Oddly enough though, employees of DHS can't use any other browser so to make those alerts without following it themselves rings hollow to me. And yes, I used to be a DHS employee. Now I'm with my state. You know, you grow...

Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a month and a half ago | (#47689091)

If those features are truly "essential", I wonder why Mozilla, Apple and Google haven't picked them up, and added them to their respective browsers.

What you consider "essential" obviously isn't that essential for a large part of the web-surfing public.

Polishing Turds (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688489)

The problem isnt with the name Internet Explorer, the problem is the with the name Microsoft.
Microsoft is the one with the tarnished image.
They are trying to polish the wrong turd.

Re:Polishing Turds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688555)

Why was this down voted? Seems relevent.

SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (0)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688497)

The term "polished turd" comes to mind.

Mozilla should consider doing the same for Firefox (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688499)

This isn't a bad idea. It's one that Mozilla should consider for Firefox, too. Firefox has gotten a bad reputation for being a slow and bloated browser with a shitty UI that just imitates Chrome. Users are discarding it left and right, causing it to now have an approximately 10% share of the browser market. What Mozilla could do is rename the browser to something else, and then proceed down the proper path of innovation and good UI design. Instead of working on stupidity like Australis, which pretty much all Firefox users hate, they could fix the memory leaks and improve the performance. A restoration of the old UI, which was really efficient and easy to use, could very well make this new browser a winner again. Basically Mozilla should repeat what Firefox did to Internet Explorer a decade ago, but this time it's their new browser Firefoxing Firefox and the total stupidity that Firefox has become lately. When a browser goes from a 35% share of the market down to 10% in only a few years, the path it's on is obviously wrong, and the people making these decisions are obviously foolish. Instead of waiting for it to get to 0% market share, at which point salvaging it will not be an option, Mozilla needs to take action now to correct the situation and get back on the correct path. This means undoing some of the obviously stupid changes that have been made lately, fixing the long-standing performance and memory consumption issues, and probably discarding those contributors who have been responsible for harming Firefox so badly these past few years.

Re:Mozilla should consider doing the same for Fire (2)

loufoque (1400831) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688629)

Brendan Eich has a CEO could have fixed this.
Remember what happened to him?

Re:Mozilla should consider doing the same for Fire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47689039)

Are you saying Brendan Eich should have renamed himself?

Re: Mozilla should consider doing the same for Fir (1)

arielCo (995647) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688637)

Have it your way [mozilla.org]

All white meat (5, Funny)

anmre (2956771) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688501)

McDonald's is happy to introduce the all-white-meat chicken McNugget!

Wait ... what the fuck was in it before?

Re:All white meat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688527)

McDonald's is happy to introduce the all-white-meat chicken McNugget!

Wait ... what the fuck was in it before?

Pieces parts. [youtube.com]

What are you? Like six?

Re:All white meat (3, Funny)

dcollins117 (1267462) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688545)

Wait ... what the fuck was in it before?

Only the finest, !00% natural, meat-bearing animals.

Re:All white meat (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688589)

Your "joke" falls flat, because nothing you said implied that anything bad was in it before. Or even anything non-chicken. Or even anything not chicken meat. The change could have been as simple as switching from a white/dark mix to just using white meat.

Re:All white meat (1)

iONiUM (530420) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688595)

Dark meat?

Re:All white meat (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688631)

I.e. pigeon meat, not chicken meat.

Re:All white meat (2)

LordLucless (582312) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688707)

i.e. thigh meat, not breast meat

Re:All white meat (1)

gtall (79522) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688795)

Simulated meat. Now it is simulated all-white meat. They've cracked down on their McNugget farms. Now the McNuggets are only fed white corn.

Re:All white meat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47689065)

The round ones were white meat and the other shape was dark meat.

Change "Microsoft" too? (2, Funny)

nukenerd (172703) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688505)

While they are at it, why don't they change "Microsoft" and "Windows" too. They have got terrible reputations.

Re:Change "Microsoft" too? (2, Funny)

Brandano (1192819) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688655)

Yup, the next step is renaming the Windows brand. And to keep the current theme of something that is fragile, and allows easy access to people with bad intentions, they could just call it Microsoft Backdoors, I guess.

Re:Change "Microsoft" too? (1)

gtall (79522) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688805)

I vote they change Winders to Mundungus Fletcher, from the Harry Potter books. He's a thief and has the handy nickname of Dung.

Good luck (4, Insightful)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688507)

I remember using ie4 on a sun Solaris box a long time ago. I was thrilled, because it was light years ahead of mosaic and Netscape.

Now? I don't care how good it is. I will never use it again. Microsoft's long established contempt for its users, laws, and even international standards bodies have guaranteed that I will never put anything even resembling trust in them ever again.

They made their bed (4, Insightful)

bondsbw (888959) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688511)

And they should lie in it. Microsoft's monopoly in IE was one of the principal causes of stagnation in the industry during the mid 2000s.

Then again, that stagnation arguably led to some great innovations by others in the industry, which is why we've witnessed the mobile revolution and downfall of IE since.

Re:They made their bed (5, Interesting)

BarbaraHudson (3785311) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688609)

And they should lie in it. Microsoft's monopoly in IE was one of the principal causes of stagnation in the industry during the mid 2000s.

Then again, that stagnation arguably led to some great innovations by others in the industry, which is why we've witnessed the mobile revolution and downfall of IE since.

Microsoft was always playing the "short game" - after all, it was always about announcing the latest vapour-ware, future plans to pre-emptively ward off competitors, etc. to keep the stock price up, We saw how that played out in both the phone and tablet markets, which is where both current and future growth is.

"Never interfere with your opponent when he's making a mistake." Sure, the opponents often didn't have the resources to interfere significantly, but there's one resource Microsoft couldn't control - time. The accumulation of mistakes over time hurt them badly. Thank Ballmer. Also thank Gates for making sure Ballmer was CEO way past his best-before date. Just goes to show, we all bear the seeds of our own destruction.

Add-ons (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688513)

A name may have no meaning, but Internet Explorer no matter the name will always suck until I can remove toolbars and "search engines" that third-parties install. It may render pages quickly and with a grand sense of beauty, but I will not trust it until there is a sense of control and I will be able to in the future not well relatives to use Chrome out of the desire to not have to clean up their software ever again.

Annoyances (1)

whereiswaldo (459052) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688515)

My top Internet Explorer annoyances:
* secure browsing. Trying to download a file with that enabled is frustrating.
* startup delay. IE shows the UI and lets you start typing in the location bar but shortly after loads startup pages over top of what you may have just typed.

Re:Annoyances (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688573)

>* startup delay. IE shows the UI and lets you start typing in the location bar but shortly after loads startup pages over top of what you may have just typed.

Instantly the reason I never used any IE past 6.
I cannot believe this shit is still in even IE11. How awful.

Have an unresponsive UI all you want, but undo what I did and load something else and you are uninstalled instantly.
Fuck you Mozilla and Opera.
Rushing to go out, trying to get something off router, FF never loaded my routers page because some stupid certificate bullshit at the time.
Opera, forced an update on me right in the middle of writing down stuff.
Why are developers so shit? You'd think they'd sit down and just think things out. PLAN THINGS YOU IDIOTS.
Seriously, it isn't hard to actually sit down and realize how shit something is just by doing a dry run of it.
I actually had to use IE.

It took years for me to get over those. Well I lie, I'm still not installing Opera ever again, unless it comes out leaps and bounds over other browsers, which it won't now since they ditched engine development.

Re: Annoyances (1)

arielCo (995647) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688695)

Wow, someone's ulcer is flaring up.

FF never loaded my routers page because some stupid certificate bullshit at the time.

If you're using https, it's worthless without a trusted certificate. Blame who made your router. And psst... it can be bypassed with an exception, even permanently.

Opera, forced an update on me right in the middle of writing down stuff.

I don't use the Wonder from the North, but apparently the update can be postponed, and the whole auto-update mechanism can be disabled.

Why are developers so shit? You'd think they'd sit down and just think things out. PLAN THINGS YOU IDIOTS.

I know, right? So hard to find competent help these days. So fire them!

Re:Annoyances (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688705)

My top Internet Explorer annoyances:
* secure browsing. Trying to download a file with that enabled is frustrating.
* startup delay. IE shows the UI and lets you start typing in the location bar but shortly after loads startup pages over top of what you may have just typed.

Mine is you need a windows installation for it. Sucks.

Re:Annoyances (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688891)

"startup delay. IE shows the UI and lets you start typing in the location bar but shortly after loads startup pages over top of what you may have just typed."

Thats the standard MS procedure, the desktop after login reacts just the same. It fools the sheep into thinking its quick

Re:Annoyances (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688937)

My top Internet Explorer annoyances:
* secure browsing. Trying to download a file with that enabled is frustrating.
* startup delay. IE shows the UI and lets you start typing in the location bar but shortly after loads startup pages over top of what you may have just typed.

Both of these can be avoided through settings.

Just make it fully standards compliant... (5, Informative)

GrantRobertson (973370) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688517)

...and stop trying to take over the internet by adding proprietary extensions to said standards. Stop trying to push MS server or development products by tweaking the browser to work better with said products.

The browser wars are over. MS won the battle but is loosing the war. They need to drop the insurgency and learn to play nice if they want to play at all.

Microsoft naming practices (3, Insightful)

eyepeepackets (33477) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688531)

Never could decide which one I liked better: Internet Exploder or Internet Exploiter.

Microsoft should still be considering changing the name: As one posters here suggests, sometimes the stink will just not wash off.

Re:Microsoft naming practices (1)

Cyberdyne (104305) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688737)

They need to pick a name which is similar, to be identifiable, but less tarnished by past bad experiences. I propose Infernal Excrement: still "IE", but much less off-putting than the name they have soiled so badly with IE6 and other fiascoes.

To be fair ... it does suck much less now. I suppose it's rather like working for a surviving offshoot of Enron or Lehman Bros... Who, thinking about it, have probably done less economic damage globally than IE has.

Re:Microsoft naming practices (1)

Livius (318358) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688867)

Easy - Internet Exploiter. It hasn't caused physical explosions for a very long time, but there's probably several exploits happening because of Internet Explorer just while I'm typing this.

Totally misread the title (4, Funny)

e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688543)

Microsoft Considered Renaming Internet Explorer To Netscape Its Reputation

A rose by any other name... (1)

DaveM753 (844913) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688559)

If it walks like MSIE,
talks like MSIE,
crashes head-first into a BSOD from malware-laden doom like MSIE,
...it's a duck.

Re:A rose by any other name... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688619)

If it walks like an MCSE,
talks like an MCSE,
crashes head-first into a BSOD from malware-laden doom like an MCSE, ...it's a duck.

ftfy

Re:A rose by any other name... (4, Informative)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about a month and a half ago | (#47689057)

HEY! Most of the ducks I've met have been more competent at running computers than your average MCSE.

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if that worked (4, Insightful)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688565)

I mean it worked for Windows Vista. (I'll always wonder if they didn't have to rename it would we have gotten what became Windows 7 as a service pack.)

agreed (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688773)

Those 2 years of bug fixes made a big difference to the reliability of Vista. It also helped that the price of RAM fell by more than a half.

Re:agreed (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688857)

I think one of the main issues with Vista was that it was allowed on hardware that couldn't run Aero because Intel had millions in chipsets that it would not have been able to sell. Two years after Vista most of that hardware had been sold and newer Intel chipsets could handle Aero at the basic level. This left a bad impression on top of all the bugs as it added to the notion Vista was not ready for release.

Renaming never worked to improve reputation (4, Insightful)

jkrise (535370) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688973)

Windows 7 was better received by the market because it was BETTER than Vista. Windows 8 was crap and got he reception it deserved. Merely releasing 9 without removing the crapstatic TIFKAM interface will result in poor reputation.

The reasons Internet Explorer got a bad reputation:

1. It was tied to the operating system, unnecessarily. The browser has exactly zilch to do with the operating system. ActiveX controls, tying versions of the browser with versions of the OS, varying behaviour of same browser version on different OS versions etc. If IE is renamed, it should be delinked from the OS like other browsers.

2. Intentional non-compatibility with standards, because of the arrogant assumption that with marketshare they can bully the World.

3. No sandboxing, no protection from ads, popups, malware downloads, sucking upto to the MAFIAA in proprietary standards and DRM.

Fix these issues in the browser FIRST, then call it Internet Shit-hole, but people will still buy it.

If it still supports Active X then it is still... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688569)

a turd, and IE by any other name is still Internet Exploder...

It isn't just version six (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688571)

There's plenty other crap going on in there. Plenty enough that just changing the name won't fix their poor code, their poor attitude, and the poor product, however shiny it looks.

Why compete with free? (4, Insightful)

Andy_R (114137) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688585)

Without the market share needed to embrace and extend anything, is there actually a real reason for Microsoft bother having their own a browser at all?

Wouldn't bundling another browser with WIndows and laying off the IE division make more financial sense that carrying on with a product that cost money to make, generates no revenue and is so badly respected by customers that Microsoft literally can't give it away?

Re:Why compete with free? (4, Insightful)

Brandano (1192819) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688893)

Because it's the only way they can get their Bing search engine as a default setting and try and steal some revenue from Google, is my guess.

Painting (1)

Stumbles (602007) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688591)

a pile of shit results in a painted pile of shit.

New name... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688597)

"Wow, that lady is hot. Smokin! Just look at her luscious red lips. I'm gonna go steal a kiss."
*SMOOCH*

"Oh my God! It's a pig wearing lipstick!"

This never happens. People notice the pig first.

Never never never. (1)

cshark (673578) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688605)

I don't care if they did have a change of heart on the name, and released a version for Linux.
I'm still not installing the fucking thing.

Re:Never never never. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688641)

I installed it on Solaris. It was good for the humor factor.

A better name thread (put your suggestion here) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688621)

Firefox Downloader Enhanced

Re: A better name thread (put your suggestion here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688661)

Good Browser (Downloader)

Shitxploder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688627)

Internet Shitxploder. That wont work, every developer will still know its the same stupid browser which doesn't want to comply with the standards

New names? (0)

matbury (3458347) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688673)

New names? Let's get started. How about:

  !-- if IE... -- ? (Can't put in the enclosing tags)

M$ Page Breaker?

M$ Still doesn't interpret SVG correctly?

M$ Web Designer F*^ker?

Any more?

Then must rename MS and Windows too ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688721)

As if I.E. was the only MS product full of bugs and security wholes !
MS is the epitome of savage tech companies releasing buggy software, software that should barely qualify as BETA was commonly released as 1.0.

Re:Then must rename MS and Windows too ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47689107)

As if I.E. was the only MS product full of bugs and security wholes !

You misspelled "whores".

It's still terrible (4, Informative)

tomxor (2379126) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688761)

After spending a week of cross browser fixing almost entirely focused on IE11 deficiencies i can tell you first hand that it still sucks in more ways to list here and changing it's name will only create a new image to hate.

There is only one thing MS could do to make me happy with it's browser: and that is to discontinue it, because they have proven time and time again that they cannot improve it sufficiently.

Really quite good (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688769)

...In spite of significant investment in the browser—with the result that Internet Explorer 11 is really quite good...

While the quality of Internet Explorer has improved a lot in the past couple of versions, Internet Explorer still has a ways to go before it can be considered to be "quite good."

Mosaic (4, Informative)

BrendaEM (871664) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688779)

From Wikipedia: "Microsoft licensed Spyglass Mosaic in 1995 for US$2 million, modified it, and renamed it Internet Explorer."

Ca Ca (1)

alfredo (18243) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688819)

Ca Ca still smells like shit.

Will it be backward compatible? (1)

tomhath (637240) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688823)

We're stuck writing apps that support IE8 because companies have so much legacy investment in other applications that require it they can't afford to move up to IE11.

Now if Microsoft came up with a browser that was secure, and supported all the IE8 wierdness, and was industry stand otherwise , and...oh never mind. Just keep calling it Internet Explorer and deal with the reputation.

No features aimed at me (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688825)

It seems that every feature that Microsoft seems to add is aimed at selling their other products. There don't ever seem to be features that are just cool. I am not talking about their keeping up with the Jones' features; but anything new they add only seems to relate to their ecosystem. I can't seem to think of any WebGL type feature that they have innovated that was cool just standing on its own.

So maybe if they let engineers and developers steer the boat for a while instead of a bunch of MBA laden salesmen they might catch my interest.

"not my job" - It is *Microsoft's* job (5, Insightful)

acroyear (5882) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688873)

As much as Enterprise customers like to push the "it has to work on IE" crap (because they're usually working with lazy IT departments or legacy applications written by people with less interest in standards compliance than me), in reality that shouldn't be my job for writing a web application. I code to the standards or I use libraries and frameworks that code to the standards. These work in Firefox, Safari, and Chrome with minimal modification (assuming I'm not using a cutting-edge new feature like web audio, notifications, or O.o()) and impressive consistency.

They never work in IE without modification.

That's not my fault. That will never be my fault.

If you want to court developers, you go out there with IE, pick apps that have not gotten IE-fixing mods, and YOU (Micro$oft) fix the browser to the standards-compliant web applications already out there.

I'm sick of and done with working around your messes for the last 15 years.

Reboot when updated... (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688883)

I don't like to use applications that require me to reboot the computer when the application is updated.

.
Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, and tied it closely into the heart of Windows in order to get around the anti-trust legalities that Microsoft was facing.

Now Microsoft is paying for the error of those trust-avoiding legal tactics because internet Explorer is tied so deeply inside Windows that I have to reboot my computer when the Internet Explorer application is updated.

So 1990's...

explorer is VERY useful (1)

v1 (525388) | about a month and a half ago | (#47688887)

for downloading firefox on a new windows install

Change the 'Microsoft' and 'Windows' part? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688939)

'Microsoft Windows Internet Explorer"'
'Microsoft' = incompetent and expensive
'Windows' = poorly designed and useless by itself
'Internet Explorer' = buggy and utter shit of the Internet
Change everything.

No IE 11 is not quite good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688965)

Despite what MS fan boys keep spouting IE 11 is not really all that great, and the proof is in the compatibility numbers [html5test.com] Somehow despite > IE 9 being "native html5" or whatever marketing bullshit Microsoft spouted, their browsers support less HTML5 features than say mobile freaking safari.

IE11 is definitely better than IE8, and IE11 is definitely better than IE9, but it's still not as good as Opera/Safari/Chrome/FF, and some of the mobile variants.

Rebranding of IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688993)

Microsoft Thought of Renaming internet Explorer
http://geekthem.com/renaming-internet-explorer-shred-poor-reputation-reddit/

No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47688997)

Please don't! I love using Internet Explorer to install Firefox.

Go back to the original name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47689019)

Before Microsoft purchased it, it was called FTP Software's Explore OnNet. No doubt reverting to the original name will confound and confuse their critics.

Why not just deprecate IE and save some serious $? (3, Interesting)

BUL2294 (1081735) | about a month and a half ago | (#47689037)

Seriously, Microsoft... Internet Explorer has cost the company & its shareholders BILLIONS (wages, lawsuit settlements, DOJ/EU investigations, royalties, partnerships (e.g. AOL), etc.), yet made it $0 in income. If it wasn't for Bill Gates' inflated ego back in the mid-90s against Netscape, and if Microsoft would have partnered with a company like Netscape (back then) or Mozilla/Google/Opera (now), they would be in even better financial shape than they are in...

Sure, one can argue that MSN made a lot of money because it was the default homepage on IE, but MSN would have made the same amount of money if Microsoft bundled Netscape with Windows & set MSN as the default page--and would have pushed off all the R&D and risks onto a 3rd party. But no--almost 20 years later, we're still dealing with the hangover of those decisions. Business students should be doing case studies on the MS-IE debacle...

So, Microsoft, please deprecate IE!!! Do the world, and especially your shareholders, a favor. Stop at IE11. You've proven that you can deprecate things and support them on newer OSes (e.g. Jet/ACE). And since you'll need an HTML engine in future OSes (e.g. HTML Help, etc.), throw some money at Firefox (or Google, Opera, etc.) and force all "newer" internally developed programs (e.g. Visual Studio) to call this engine--while "older" apps stick with the deprecated engine (which still receives security updates) and/or are moved to the newer one over time... IE and its engine becomes a legacy feature and be done with it.

But, alas, the inflated IE ego syndrome still permeates within Microsoft...

Special Hip Internet Tab? (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a month and a half ago | (#47689043)

May still be worded better, but SHIT clearly describes IE and any possible successor best.

Their reddit comments remind me of (1)

Netdoctor (95217) | about a month and a half ago | (#47689119)

..this.
http://xkcd.com/799/ [xkcd.com]

Browser or Web? (1)

houghi (78078) | about a month and a half ago | (#47689123)

As they use generic names like "Word" and a while ago "Mail", I can see them going with 'Browser' or 'Web".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?