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's IE Team Leader Answers Slashdot Questions

Roblimo posted more than 7 years ago | from the imagine-the-talk-around-the-office dept.

530

We got lots and lots of questions for Dean Hachamovitch, whose formal title is "general manager Internet Explorer at Microsoft Corp." Picking a mere 10 of those questions was not easy, and I wish Dean could have answered twice as many -- and so does he, but his schedule has been tight this week. Anyway, here are his answers to the Chosen Ten.1) How about this...
by also-rr

Would you like to make available IE on other operating systems?

Dean Hachamovitch:

We did make versions of IE available on other operating system for a pretty long time, up through IE5 on Unix and the Mac. At the time we developed them, those offerings made sense. I don't see a good reason to make IE available on other operating systems at this time.

2) IE7 release time
by BeeBeard Why did IE7 take such a long time to release after IE6?



Dean Hachamovitch:

Basically because we were doing a lot of other things before we started work on IE7: a few releases of MSN Explorer, a lot of work on what turned out to be Windows Presentation Foundation, a lot of investment in what turned into IPv6 support in Windows Vista, and lot of security response, a pretty intense effort on Windows Server 2003 (and IE's "Enhanced Security Configuration"), and then a pretty intense effort on Windows XPSP2. You can read a more detailed answer here

3) Follow up
by LordEd

If you had more time, is there a new feature you would have liked to include in IE7?

Dean Hachamovitch:

Yes, several come to mind. None were more important than shipping. None were more important than the bug fix work we did in response to beta feedback.

The temptation to get "just one more feature in" is so strong... one more CSS fix, one more neat facility for developers, one more performance optimization, one more cool end-user feature. The thing that made it easier to resist the temptation and ship is the prototype and planning work we've started on the next release of IE.

4) Simple questions
by Billosaur

IE has a dominating command of the market, although Firefox is slowly making inroads, due to innovations such as tabbed browsing that IE has had to incorporate to maintain that command. But where are the IE innovations? Why can't the IE team get ahead of the curve on Firefox? Is there anything you consider an innovation that is unique to IE that would plausibly be something the browser market would have to incorporate to stay competitive?

Dean Hachamovitch:

I think IE7 is the first browser with integrated real-time anti-phishing functionality, with an RSS platform and support for Simple List Extensions (see below), with "QuickTabs," with support for OpenSearch, and with shrink-to-fit printing on by default. In Windows Vista with Protected Mode, IE7 is the first browser to "put itself into a sandbox" and run with low privileges.

I think that during the IE7 beta process, you've seen other browser vendors copy some of these features and/or deliver add-ons for others. (IE has also delivered some functionality - like spell-checking in forms or in-line find, as add-ons; you can read more here.

I want to call out the Phishing Filter and RSS in particular. I think there's a clear difference between the protection offered in IE7 and other places. I suggest readers look here and here and decide for themselves. I was surprised when I read this because I think IE7 delivers real-time protection that respects user privacy at the same time.

I think IE7's RSS is pretty deep. First, the support for the Simple List Extensions that we made available under a Creative Commons license is cool - check out the links below in IE7. Also, the platform enables developers to deliver on some great scenarios, like sharing subscription information between different applications and services easily (from the new version of Outlook 2007 I run at work to IE7 at home via Newsgator). You can read more about that here.

- Amazon Wish List as an RSS feed

- eBay Search Result as an RSS feed

- Yahoo Music Top 10 list as an RSS feed

In regards to tabs, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabbed_browsing, NetCaptor (an IE-based browser) was first.

5) My shot
by Njovich

What do you consider the greatest weakness of Firefox?

Dean Hachamovitch:

Hey, I've met a bunch of the Firefox folks and respect them and am not about to say mean things about them or their product, period. I have started to see some things that even some Slashdotters find a little confusing, like the whole Iceweasel thing.

6) Security
by Seto89

One of IE7's revolutionary features was supposed to be security, although it took less than 24 hours for Secunia to post an advisory about a security hole. Moreover, the bug seemed to be carried over from as early as IE5.5. What approach did you take to improve browser's security, and how come the vulnerabilities have been carried over?

Dean Hachamovitch:

The overall approach we took is called the secure development lifecycle. You can read more about it in general at http://msdn.microsoft.com/security/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnsecure/html/sdl.asp and http://www.microsoft.com/MSPress/books/8753.asp. The very short version is that we stepped back to analyze all the ways to attack a browser and then figured out the best ways to defend in depth against attacks. We reduced attack surface area, for example, turning off several feature and protocols by default and with ActiveX opt-in. We re-wrote a lot of the URL handling code in our networking layer. We ran a lot of tools against the source code to look for vulnerabilities. We listened to feedback from lots of smart people who are skilled in the art of attack.

As anyone who reads SecurityFocus or FullDisclosure will tell you, security is an industry problem and innovation in attacks is ongoing.

The MHTML issue is pretty interesting. IE calls another Windows component to handle some MTHML functionality. That component has a vulnerability. The important things here are (1) a malicious site can steal user data and (2) of course Microsoft cares about privacy and will fix this issue promptly. Some of the blogs over at zdnet - in particular George Ou's and Ed Bott's, have had some balanced opinion pieces on this issue.

While I was writing this, someone disclosed another issue irresponsibly. On the one hand, it's minor (a malicious site can make the address bar, when it's selected and in a pop-up window, deceiving... clicking in the pop-up window addresses the issue) and our anti-phishing technology helps a lot. The MSRC blog has more detail. At the same time, an attacker could draw a fake or misleading address bar in a pop-up window in a browser that doesn't automatically show the address bar in every window. Again, I think all this shows is that innovation in attacks is ongoing.

7) How about this....
by Toreo asesino

Let's pretend for a moment that Internet Explorer isn't the default web-browser built into Windows and instead, users are presented with a choice on first login (e.g. a message asking 'How would you like to browse the internet? MSIE, Firefox, Opera').

Would you expect IE to become as dominant as it is now if users had to specifically choose it over another?

Ignoring the slight impracticalities, if so (I'm guessing you do), on what basis would this be?

Dean Hachamovitch:

OK, I'll pretend. My first question is when we ask users this question... if it's in 1995, then Opera isn't on the list (Wikipedia just told me that its first public release was in 1996) and neither is Firefox. If it's today, then, candidly, we have 10+ years of people seeing the IE icon and all that that means to them.

The funny thing about your question is that in some ways, users are about two clicks from this scenario every time they run Windows XP: from the Start menu, select Set Program Access and Defaults. And it's not limited to the browsers you list, but any browser that they can download.

To answer your core question: I don't know how people would answer that question. I think we've asked users far simpler ones (like setup programs that ask "Do you want a typical or custom software installation?") that have proven frustrating to them. I do blog searches just about every day to read what people are saying about their browser choice, the browser I work on, and the other browsers you list. While it may surprise you, for many users, the differences between today's browsers aren't as clear and obvious as they may seem to many in the Slashdot crowd. I've read a lot of posts that say, "I tried IE7, I'm pleasantly surprised, and I'm switching back." (I read a lot of others for sure.) For some folks, having professional technical support to contact makes all the difference in their browser choice. During a press interview with a technical trade journal recently I asked the reporter "So what do you browse with" and he said "Mostly IE6, sometimes Firefox 1.5." That might surprise some of you.

8) Allowing Developers to Test for Compatibility
by miyako

IE7, like IE6, renders a lot of pages significantly differently than the other main HTML rendering engines available (Geko, KHTML, and Opera). At the same time, IE7 requires WGA to run - so that applications like Wine are unable to run it. This means that web developers who are using Linux and Mac OS X will have an extremely difficult time testing their sites with IE7. Was this intentional? If so what was the reason behind it (do you want to force developers to move to Windows for web development, or simply set IE aside as something different that isn't a regular browser and must be specifically developed for), and if not how do you plan to rectify the situation?

Dean Hachamovitch:

I think the core of your question is about giving away Windows licenses for free. We love developers, period. We're also not about to give away Windows client licenses. Because we want end-users to have a great experience on the web, of course we want web developers to have an easy experience working with IE and testing their sites with IE. That's why we published tools like the web developer toolbar and the Application Compatibility Toolkit and so much documentation during the course of IE7 development. I also respect that - as hard as everyone at Microsoft works to make Windows the best operating system for developers run - some developers will choose to run others. Mac developers have a fine solution - I've talked with hardcore Mac people who bought a copy of Windows that they run on their Mac with Parallels to test their work in IE. For other developers, I've seen some very clever solutions like BrowserCam that should help.

9) I asked Hakon about CSS and now I ask you:
by Chabil Ha'

This past summer Håkon Wium Lie was interviewed on /. and my question was selected concerning IE7's glaring lack of full CSS support. Why is it that MS has avoided meeting at least the ACID2 spec for CSS in order to bring some semblance of comformity for developers?

Håkon Wium Lie's response to these questions is boiled down to the fact that you do have the talent and resources to fix these issues and he says that "the fundamental reason, I believe, is that standards don't benefit monopolists" like MS.

How do you respond to his comments (the author of the CSS spec) and does MS have any near future plans to adhere to the existing CSS standard? If not, what would it take for MS to take a more proactive role in supporting it?

Dean Hachamovitch:

During IE7's development, we prioritized the work we did based on the web development community's real-world feedback. The engineering exercise here was choosing the best work for a finite number of developers to do during a finite period of time, especially given the compatibility impact of changing how IE behaves. The work that we delivered in IE7 simply has more positive impact and makes web developers' jobs easier than making an arbitrary (if terribly clever) web page render the way its author intended.

The Acid 2 test explicitly states that it isn't part of a formal compliance suite and it is not a "spec for CSS." It's a suite of tests of HTML, CSS, PNG, and data URL features that Mr. Lie thought were important. I'm glad that Mr. Lie - who is one of the authors of the CSS specifications - acknowledges that Microsoft's developers have the talent to address these issues.

The question here isn't whether we want to support those features or if we understand that web developers want them (we do), but simply prioritization. We focused on web developers' real world problems.

The real goal here is interoperability - something that Microsoft product teams believe in (remember, Microsoft has more than one product that works with HTML, CSS, and other web standards, and they have to interoperate too) and something that benefits customers (end-users, developers, IT Pros, et al.) across the board. The work in Windows Vista around IPv6 as well as the work we've done in IE7 with OpenSearch, RSS and with Certificate Authorities and other browser vendors on Extended Validation certificates are good examples of following through on that belief in interoperability.

Your question also asks about Microsoft's plans to comply with the existing CSS standard; there are actually several CSS standards, some still under construction (CSS level 3) and some made obsolete over time (e.g. CSS 2.1 fixing errors, removing ambiguities and changing required behavior from CSS 2). Just as we did in IE7, we're going to listen to the web development community and prioritize the remaining CSS work and deliver the parts we hear are most important first. We do intend to comply with the standard; no other browser I'm aware of has complete support of every feature in CSS 2.1, so it's clear that we all have to use prioritization to know where best to place our resources.

10) Why develop IE at all
by CmdrGravy

Given that you are not planning on selling IE 7 and the fact that there are already other browsers on the market which can allow Windows users to experience the web fully why is Microsoft investing so much time and effort in continuing the development of IE?

Dean Hachamovitch:

Windows customers expect the best, safest experience with their PCs out of the box, especially around the web browser. We're investing so much time and effort in IE in order to give Windows customers a great, secure, default experience. I'm glad that users can choose other browsers as they see fit - Windows is a platform. We're working this hard on IE because so many end-users rely on it and so many developers have built on the APIs that IE exposes as a part of the Windows platform.

-------

Editor's note: Next week's Slashdot interview guest will be a FireFox person. Only fair, right? :)

cancel ×

530 comments

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

Embrace and Extend (0, Flamebait)

P(0)(!P(k)+P(k+1)) (1012109) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611316)

From TFI:

[T]he support for the Simple List Extensions that we made available under a Creative Commons license is cool[.]

Microsoft just gave away a subtle clue: “cool” is newspeak for: “embrace and extend.”

[W]e were doing a lot of other things before we started work on IE7: [...] a lot of investment in what turned into IPv6 support[.]

Is IPv6 that hard to do, btw? I'm sensing some lack of modularity in the kernel's networking code.

Re:Embrace and Extend (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16611926)

Is IPv6 that hard to do, btw? I'm sensing some lack of modularity in the kernel's networking code.

Half and half. IPv6 vs IPv4 can be abstracted out easily at the transport layer, but there do exist places where the abstractions break down. Specifically, an IPv6 address in the Location bar will look very different from an IPv4 address, and there will be some validation code in there to figure out which kind of address it must be and whether it is in fact a valid address. Also, IPv4 vs IPv6 pops up in DNS record lookups.

So yes, they absolutely should have an abstraced network interface object, but they still need some code to handle all of the corner cases where IPv4 and IPv6 mix.

(Not an IE developer, but did write a DNS client and had to support IPv4+IPv6 in both the low-level transport and the DNS data layer.)

too late to ask a question? (5, Insightful)

stocke2 (600251) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611358)

I want to know if being able to use all that doublespeak and back speak is a requirement for the job, or if microsoft teaches them how to do it.
he writes these long answers to some of the questions, but just turns it all around twists it up and inside out, by the time you read the entire answer you realize he didn't say anything at all.

Re:too late to ask a question? (1, Funny)

TheGreek (2403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611402)

by the time you read the entire answer you realize he didn't say anything at all.
Kind of like you.

Re:too late to ask a question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16611412)

It would help if he was offered up better questions. The chosen questions were a bit on the fluffy side, and very easy to dodge. :(

Re:too late to ask a question? (2, Funny)

Trillan (597339) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611652)

Yes, a quick trip to google would have answered most of the ones with any substance at all. (Perhaps the people asking questions were using MSN Search?)

Re:too late to ask a question? (1)

lubricated (49106) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611538)

yeah,I've worked there. They teach it to you so well, it comes naturally.

Re:too late to ask a question? (4, Insightful)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611576)

If you think these responses came straight from him your are fooling yourself. They were most likely filtered through spin doctors and approved by a marketing exec before release to Slashdot.

But sometimes you apparently *need* IE on Windows. (4, Insightful)

Channard (693317) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611386)

'We did make versions of IE available on other operating system for a pretty long time, up through IE5 on Unix and the Mac. At the time we developed them, those offerings made sense. I don't see a good reason to make IE available on other operating systems at this time.'


Thing is, that's not good enough for some web designers. I used to a bunch of online surveys to make a bit of cash, on Windows. These apparently required IE for some reason, and would complain with any other browser. Now, I recently got a Mac Mini and tried using the bundled IE 5 to do the surveys. No joy. No, it didn't complain I was using an old version of IE. It complained that I wasn't use IE on Windows. I ditched the surveys because I was getting crappy money anyway, so it was no great loss, but this was the first time I'd seen a web site differentiate between IE on different operating systems. So in this case, having the latest version of IE on a Mac wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference.

Re:But sometimes you apparently *need* IE on Windo (5, Insightful)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611646)

Honestly, you don't see Apple making Safari for Linux and Windows (and though Safari is based on KHTML, it's a lot more too).

Operating System vendors have no incentive, no matter who they are, to make their products available on other platforms. Open Source apps have the advantage that those with a little more objectivity can take the code and release it for a competitor, but that's not exactly the same thing.

Re:But sometimes you apparently *need* IE on Windo (0, Offtopic)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611810)

I used to a bunch of online surveys to make a bit of cash

Wow, so there are people who fall for those "Make money taking surveys" scams! ;)

Now, with that out of the way, I'd like to tell you about an amazing opportunity in my home country of Sierra Leone. The Prime Minister was assassinated in a coup, leaving behind no heirs and approximately $20M in assets. If we do not get his money out of the country, it will be seized by the state. If you provide me with your bank routing information, I will send you the money, and attempt to flee the country. When I make it to the US, we'll split the money 50/50. Would you like to benefit from this once in a lifetime opportunity?

I did actually make money.. (1)

Channard (693317) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611928)

..some of which I got converted to Amazon, some paid via PayPal. So it wasn't a scam, and I did make a bit of cash. I looked around to see which sites were legit first. I actually got into it because I know someone who makes a fair bit - not a fortune, but a fair but - with some surveys she's sent. Thing is, hers are in the area of pharmacy, whereas the ones I were doing were consumer stuff. Hence, I stopped doing them, for the same reason I stopped doing MTurking in that it just wasn't worth my time.

IE5/Mac isn't really IE (1)

Fatalis (892735) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611908)

IE5/Mac [wikipedia.org] is unsupported by MS, no longer available for download [microsoft.com] , and its rendering engine is very different from and more buggy than in IE on Windows.

Oops, wrong question... (4, Insightful)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611392)

Q: If you had more time, is there a new feature you would have liked to include in IE7?
A: (summarized) Yes.

I guess what he should have asked was:

Q: If you had more time, what are some new features you would have liked to include in IE7?

Re:Oops, wrong question... (4, Insightful)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611698)

No, the problem lies with the editor picking crappy questions, or not fixing questions that could have been better.

First question:

Q. "Would you like to make available IE on other operating systems?"

A. "No." [abbrev]

But it was so hard picking just ten questions! Plus, Dean was really busy !

Err... (0)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611448)

The funny thing about your question is that in some ways, users are about two clicks from this scenario every time they run Windows XP: from the Start menu, select Set Program Access and Defaults. And it's not limited to the browsers you list, but any browser that they can download.

That's a bit of a silly thing to say. The question was if users were, on install, without downloading beforehand, given a choice, would they choose IE? This scenario requires one to actively download a new browser first.

Re:Err... (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611592)

But it also brings up an interesting point. He states that people are familiar with the IE logo for many years. Now if my computer booted and asked what browser I wanted, I would check Firefox. I have Opera installed but for somethings it's just plain broke. I understand the pitfalls of IE so I don't want to use it except if I want to watch a video or two that just will not work in FF. Now, FF is getting more and more known. My friends have asked me lately what it is and they aren't geeks like us nor are most of their friends. I'm the resident geek among my cliche. Okay so to summ up my ramblings......if word about FF isn't spread to the ignorant, then they'll just go with that they know.

Re:Err... (2, Insightful)

thinsoldier (937530) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611756)

remember that hundreds of thousands of people cannot tell the difference between any 2 windows.
If you make a firefox shortct and switch the icon you'd be surprised how many people don't even notice.

I wish there were a virus that just went around and dit that.

Re:Err... (1)

mjhacker (922395) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611798)

Two words... IE Tab. You may (possibly) never have to open IE again. I haven't had to use IE in a very long time.

Re:Err... (2, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611788)

The question was stupid anyway. He's not a mind reader, he doesn't know what people would choose when given the option. Other then the obvious answers, "what their used to," and "what the default is," I have no idea what the person asking the question expected.

Re:Err... (3, Insightful)

ciggieposeur (715798) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611990)

Plus the fact that the entire option "Set Program Access and Defaults" was a result of the anti-trust suit. Microsoft wouldn't let any other programs be the default browser except that a court forced them to. Now they imply that they cared about the end-users all along.

Re:Err... (2, Insightful)

Americano (920576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611994)

The original question was kind of dumb, anyway. It assumes he has some special insight into what a broad segment of the market would choose with no knowledge of any browser, and no browser pre-installed. What would happen is very common sense, and looks like this:

  1. The users familiar with & sold on Firefox, or Opera, would choose their preferred browser.
  2. The users unfamiliar with what a "browser" is would choose the default.
  3. It's a Microsoft Platform. While /. would howl "monopolist!" over it, does ANYBODY think that they're going to actually recommend anything other than IE as the default? And more to the point, is there anybody here who really believes it would be right to force them to NOT recommend their own products? (And if so, I'm really curious -- on what grounds would it be "okay" to do this?)

What lame replies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16611452)

...is this guy a PR drone or does he just play one on slashdot?

Wiki Arguments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16611454)

Using wiki to support arguments? FOR SHAME mr. ie team leader!

Perfectly acceptable... (1)

deesine (722173) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611696)

For online discussions/debates. Of course, a simple retort - "The veracity of that claim, by the very nature of Wiki, is severely diminished/limited." - should be enough set that particular claim aside, for the moment.

BTW, do you have any info that particular claim is bogus?

Browser choice (4, Informative)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611478)

The funny thing about your question is that in some ways, users are about two clicks from this scenario every time they run Windows XP: from the Start menu, select Set Program Access and Defaults. And it's not limited to the browsers you list, but any browser that they can download.

Ah, but how are you supposed to download another browser on a clean install? By opening Internet Explorer. And by that time, for most users, the choice has already been made.

Re:Browser choice (5, Funny)

bpfinn (557273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611906)

So we just have to rename Internet Explorer to "download utility for Firefox"?

Re:Browser choice (1, Insightful)

businessnerd (1009815) | more than 7 years ago | (#16612002)

I think he missed the point of the question, although it is still a stupid question. I think the real point of this hypothetical situation was to ask him what browser people would choose based completely off of the merits of the browser itself, ignoring previous knowledge of a browser and any branding or marketing, which would they choose. He correctly answered, I'm not a mind reader. But if he were to read minds, given that he works for Microsoft on IE, I think we all know what he's going to say.

For me, I would need some criteria to differentiate the products:
1. Security: FF and Opera will win on this front
2. Stability: I don't know all of stats on this, but would be nice to know
3. Speed: I think this depends on the version of each browser
4. Compatibility: given that at this point I have already chosen my OS, I'm talking about compatibility with various web sites. Despite the CSS issues, IE is clearly the winner here, but this could also be a "chicken or egg" argument.

Re:Browser choice (1)

LamerX (164968) | more than 7 years ago | (#16612058)

What do you expect? Them to ship FireFox with Windows?

Slight ego, perchance? (2, Insightful)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611484)

"Dean Hachamovitch:

OK, I'll pretend. My first question is when we ask users this question... if it's in 1995, then Opera isn't on the list (Wikipedia just told me that its first public release was in 1996) and neither is Firefox. If it's today, then, candidly, we have 10+ years of people seeing the IE icon and all that that means to them. "

Ok, and why is it that those people have 10+ years of seeing the IE icon? Oh yeah, I remember, because you COULDNT REMOVE IT.

Going back in time... (5, Insightful)

The_Dude (26374) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611486)

If we're going to pretend that we're back in time before IE has ever been integrated into Windows than the choice would presumably be between Internet Explorer and Netscape. At that time Netscape was all over the news with one of the biggest IPOs ever. Netscape and web browser were virtually synonymous. How many people would really have chosen IE 2.0 over Netscape 1.2 or 2.0?

Huh? (1)

painandgreed (692585) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611496)

If you had more time, is there a new feature you would have liked to include in IE7?

Dean Hachamovitch:

Yes, several come to mind. None were more important than shipping. None were more important than the bug fix work we did in response to beta feedback.

The temptation to get "just one more feature in" is so strong... one more CSS fix, one more neat facility for developers, one more performance optimization, one more cool end-user feature. The thing that made it easier to resist the temptation and ship is the prototype and planning work we've started on the next release of IE.

Is he saying that they didn't have time to ship it, or is he just avoiding the question?

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611716)

He's saying that they had a schedule to meet, and the features that made the cut were all they could get done reliably by the ship date given their (the ie team's, not Microsoft's) resources. Certainly, Microsoft could have put every developer in the company working on IE, and given herculean management attempts, maybe even shipped a perfect browser. But that's not particularly feasible.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16611836)

However, that's pretty much the answer that he gave to question 2 (why did it take so long).

Re:Huh? (1)

compupc1 (138208) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611892)

I think it's probably that once the decision was made to do a major updgrade, they had finite time to finish before it needed to be shipped. Since IE7 will be built into Vista (instead of IE6), IE7 obviously has to be done before Vista. And a whole litany of other components in Windows, Office, etc. that depend on the IE rendering engine. If I were a projct manager for something like IE7, where tons of other things depended on it being done (and done PROPERLY), I too would opt to limit the number of new features over shortchanging the testing/bugfixing phase. As would any other software engineer worth their pay. There will be future releases, and I'm sure those features will be included in them. He probably doesn't want to (and isn't allowed to) announce features for IE8 this early, until they're sure those features will be included.

Why didn't anyone ask about... (4, Funny)

hoy74 (1005419) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611506)

...the throught process that went into sending the FireFox team a cake when they released 2.0?

Re:Why didn't anyone ask about... (2, Informative)

IflyRC (956454) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611564)

The cake story was posted AFTER the questions had been compiled and sent. So, no one knew about the cake story at that time.

Re:Why didn't anyone ask about... (1)

hoy74 (1005419) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611620)

I thought /. could see into the future for events such as these. It had to take several weeks of planning for them to send that cake?

Re:Why didn't anyone ask about... (1, Informative)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611628)

Because the questions article [slashdot.org] came before the cake article [slashdot.org] .

Re:Why didn't anyone ask about... (1)

MyNameIsEarl (917015) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611854)

If only the cake story came before the questions were picked, then maybe two of the chosen questions would have asked about it.

Say what you like about Hachamovich (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16611508)

At least the guy has a sense of humor:

Windows customers expect the best, safest experience with their PCs out of the box, especially around the web browser.


Hilarious!

Difficult? (1, Troll)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611536)

"Picking a mere 10 of those questions was not easy..."

Sure was. Here is the first question:

"Would you like to make available IE on other operating systems? "

What? What? WHAT!?

A 'yes or no' question for an interview? Asking if MS wants to port their application to another operating system? I'll bet all of the questions posted looked equally good.

Oh, and Dean is real busy -- "his schedule has been tight this week" Who cares and why does this belong in the summary? Why is Roblimo carrying Dean's water?

Thanks, Dean, for finding time in your busy schedule to answer the questions like you agreed to. Sorry we couldn't think up any worthwhile questions!

Re:Difficult? (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611880)

Sorry we couldn't think up any worthwhile questions!

I realize you're being sarcastic, but there were some better questions asked. (By "better", I mean more pointed.) They simply weren't chosen by either the Slashdot staff and/or the agreement they had with Mr. Hachamovitch. It probably doesn't matter, though, because he would have dodged those as well.

For example, I imagine that the response to my own question [slashdot.org] would have been, "This is something our customers have not been demanding, so time constraints pushed it back to the next major release." An altogether true response, though completely unhelpful in getting inside the process they used to chose their features.

FWIW, I'm thankful to him that he did take the time to do the interview. Whether or not it's directly helpful, it still provides a lot of insight into Microsoft and their practices.

Even Worse (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611948)

This question was fully answered by a comment to the original call for questions.

Thus the slashdot "editors" totally wasted a slot with a stupid question.

At last (4, Interesting)

Udo Schmitz (738216) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611550)

So MS officially acknowledges that they shun standards on purpose:

During IE7's development, we prioritized the work we did based on the web development community's real-world feedback. The engineering exercise here was choosing the best work for a finite number of developers to do during a finite period of time, especially given the compatibility impact of changing how IE behaves.

They created their own www and say so. Their goal is to make sure all the websites that are made for IE will look good. Standards be damned. Not that we didn't know that, but nice to here from an official source.

Re:At last (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611772)

That's an odd comment.

By your logic, Mozilla shuns standards as well, since they haven't made shipping a 100% standards compliant browser a priority. Oh, and Opera too.

Re:At last (0, Troll)

Udo Schmitz (738216) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611852)

Well, if you code CSS to standards, it will look pretty decent in Firefox, Konquerer or Safari. But to make it work in IE6 you'll have to add another stylesheet with strange modifications.

Re:At last (1)

sane? (179855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16612000)

Its a nonsensical statement. Which web developer is going to prioritise tabs or RSS over proper CSS support? Real world developers want to wring Microsoft's neck over the stupid games they have to play to get their browser to work properly. About the only thing that makes sense is they didn't want to put the effort it would take into fixing their buggy CSS implementation, since that wouldn't put any new wizzy bits on screen.

Nice resisting, guys (5, Funny)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611566)

"The temptation to get "just one more feature in" is so strong... one more CSS fix..." Let's congratulate MS on resisting this overpowering desire so successfully for so long.

Veiled shot (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611568)

Hey, I've met a bunch of the Firefox folks and respect them and am not about to say mean things about them or their product, period. I have started to see some things that even some Slashdotters find a little confusing, like the whole Iceweasel thing.

Nice. Nothing "mean" to say about FF but who at MS could resist taking a little pop shot at Free Software?

Re:Veiled shot (1)

remembertomorrow (959064) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611804)

He is awesome at side-stepping questions.

Shouldn't he be in marketing or something rather than leading a development team?

It's a valid point (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611858)

He wasn't talking about Firefox, he was talking about the Slashdotters [that] find [it] a little confusing...

(which is valid... have you read some of the threads here? [slashdot.org]

Re:Veiled shot (1)

Bob Loblaw (545027) | more than 7 years ago | (#16612016)

I think that I am going to recompile Firefox tonight, replace all Firefox references and icons with that of Internet Explorer and release it branded as Microsoft Internet Explorer since MS doesn't feel all that strongly about trademarks ... that certainly satisfies MozCorp's branding policy. ;]

RSS, huh? (5, Interesting)

tb3 (313150) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611590)

Can someone tell me what's so special about RSS in IE7? (I don't run Windows so I can't try it for myself). I clicked on the RSS links he provided and Safari brought them up just fine. I'm presuming I could book-mark them and Safari would notify me when they're updated, too. So what's IE7 doing that is different/clever?

Re:RSS, huh? (3, Funny)

sky289hawk1 (459600) | more than 7 years ago | (#16612012)

It's being made available for Windows! This is true innovation.

weasel (1)

arun_s (877518) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611604)

The question here isn't whether we want to support those features or if we understand that web developers want them (we do), but simply prioritization. We focused on web developers' real world problems.
Real world problems my @$$. I know hardly anything about web development, but just for the heck of it, I did a one page implementation of an xhtml/css webpage* a month back. Even that didn't show up well in IE. I kinda realised then what kinda problems you poor web developers go through.

*I used a png file cos I wanted some simple transparency and my background colour wasn't white. I know a few dozen people are going to point out that its fixed now, or that there's a 5 line hack to get around it, but it didn't work in the IE version I tried (6, I think) while the validator page showed me I was 100% compliant with the specs. Talking about listening to real world problems is just plain annoying.
I'm also a little drunk (friday night, here) so forgive any other errors.

Re:weasel (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611822)

He's talking about IE7 development, and you're talking about IE6. How can you possibly think your comments even mean anything in that context?

By the way, PNG support isn't tested by any validator, so i'm not sure how claiming it passed validation makes your comments about PNG relevant.

Re:weasel (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611978)

Remember, from Microsoft's point of view, real world problems are problems that start when you're a multi million dollar corporation doing complex software integration. One of the places that a lot of people working in that environment ends up, is needing a rendering engine to...render stuff. For a lot of reasons, IE's engine is used a lot, in a LOT of places that have -jack shit- to do with the web. Good reasons too. And this "problem" is one that quickly becomes hell if you change IE too much.

Being one of the people in that situation...I still wish they had fixed CSS better: I prefer having to fix the internal rendering of a custom reporting engine, than having to fight with internet facing pages. But it seems like people with more millions than I do bitched louder :)

Firefox zealots beware... (1)

seanvaandering (604658) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611612)

Hey I use Forefox as well as the next Slashdotter, however, I am a creature of habit - smart businesses know this. At work (which I'm there at least 8 hours a day, 5 days a week) I have no option but to use the default browser, which is Internet Explorer. I use Firefox at home, but to be completely honest, if I need to actually get some work done, I switch to IE if it's a trusted site and I need to do browser work. If I go porn surfing, then I switch to Firefox with NoScript, Adblock and SiteAdvisor. It's kind of like a "just in case" scenario - sorry Firefox, but your browser on my older system just makes it GRIND to a halt (Only 128 MB RAM - Althon 1300+, 16 Meg Video Card) - IE, I can use all night, and I don't hear the pagefile being accessed when I type in a new address.

I'm sure alot of people are probably in the same boat but don't really speak up - the zealots, to be sure, make it sound like everyone in Slashdot is using Firefox, but if I remember correctly, more people STILL use IE browsing Slashdot than Firefox. I'm sure I'll upgrade to IE7 because it's just faster on *MY* system and it includes tabbed browsing which I enjoy in Firefox. I'll miss using the extensions, which is why I'll probably still use Firefox if I need armour plating to surf in the wild.

Would of been nice to have this release a little sooner however.

Re:Firefox zealots beware... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16612072)

My experience is the opposite. Firefox feels faster and seems to run better then IE on slower machines.

As I understand the trident engine renders whole HTML pages faster, but the Gecko layout engine renders partial content earlier and as a result feels faster.

Add to this the fact that you do not have to upgrade to the latest Windows OS to run Firefox, I have serious doubts about your claims. I am fairly certain Firefox on Win98 will feel faster on your (Only 128 MB RAM - Althon 1300+, 16 Meg Video Card) machine than IE7 on WindowsXP(or how about Vista :) ).

wtf? (5, Insightful)

stinky wizzleteats (552063) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611616)

(excpert from question)
IE7 requires WGA to run - so that applications like Wine are unable to run it.

(excerpt from answer)
I think the core of your question is about giving away Windows licenses for free.

What? Who is asking for Windows licenses? That has nothing at all to do with the question.

Re:wtf? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611730)

Apparently, he thinks that Wine is a pirated version of Windows.

Re:wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16611792)

I think he misinterpreted the core of the question, because I think (to him) IE7 is "part" of Windows. So basically maybe the "cost" of IE is the cost of Windows. I think of it this way IE comes with a free operating system, that you can run it in a VM.

Now, a better answer would have been "if a user wishes to make content that works with a particular word processor, they should probably buy that word processor to test it". Which makes sense for the split second before you wonder if IE is sold on the premise that it is an HTML browser which is widely interpreted as meaning it follows the popular standard definition of HTML.

Re:wtf? (2, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611828)

I have reread that question and answer five times. I still fail to see the relation between the two.

Re:wtf? (1)

bmajik (96670) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611874)

Doesn't wine attempt to run arbitrary windows apps without a windows license?

IE is a windows component. I beleive that running the windows version of IE without a valid license for windows is a violation of the IE license.

Besides, running IE7 under wine is not a valid test environment anyway. Suppose that something doesn't render right in IE7 on Wine? Is it a site problem, a Wine problem, an IE7 on wine problem, or what? You're testing that your site looks great to the 5 people out there that run IE7 on Wine.

If you were serious about testing IE7 against your site, and didn't want a bunch of windows machine sitting around just for testing (and didn't want to buy all those licenses), you'd do your testing from a virtual machine running windows + IE7 inside of it, using the MSDN subscription you have that lets you run any MS product for any non-production or testing purpose.

Re:wtf? (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611902)

While I don't necessarily agree, Microsoft's position seems to be that IE is only licensed for use on Windows, and if they were going to allow Wine to work, then Microsoft would effectively have to give you a free license for Windows to use it. By that logic, you need to own a copy of Windows to use IE, and Wine allows you to use IE without owning a copy.

I've never seen so many questions... (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611618)

...dodged in one place.

Re:I've never seen so many questions... (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611736)

What did you expect, honest answers?

Re:I've never seen so many questions... (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611864)

Honest? Hell, I would have settled for lies as long as they were relevant to the questions being asked.

I hoped the answers wouldn't be so dodgy (1)

hclyff (925743) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611634)

This was one of interviews I was really looking forward, and I am a little disapointed.

He dodges the more difficult questions like "Let's pretend for a moment that Internet Explorer isn't the default web-browser built into Windows" with irelevant and a bit arrogant answer: if it was 1995, people would choose IE. And he goes on telling that people use IE beacuse that's what they used past 10 years. Well, duh.
About CSS support, I again cannot but notice a slight stench of arrogance: "We focused on web developers' real world problems." You stupid kids don't know how to do this, we the IE developers listen to the real world developers. I'm sorry, but that's pretty sloppy excuse for not caring about standard. About as bad as "we know what's best for the user, so we choose what to implement from the standards."

Re:I hoped the answers wouldn't be so dodgy (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16612018)

I think you're reading a lot more into what he's saying than he meant.

Here's what he was saying:

1) They don't have the resources to completely rewrite the browser for full standards compliance within the time frame they had to ship the next version
2) Given 1) above, that meant they had to choose a subset of functionality to support.
3) Given 2) above, they focused on the biggest problems developers were complaining about first, prioritizing them by what developers were telling them were the most important (ignoring that many developers say full standards compliance is the most important, since that's not feasible based on 1) above).

Seriously, if you were in his shoes. If you had X number of developers, and Y timeframe until the next release, where X * Y = Z total man hours available, and Z T Total man hours required to rewrite the browser to be fully standards compliant, what would YOU do?

Tabbed browsing? (3, Informative)

Poromenos1 (830658) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611636)

Hmm, what? The Wikipedia page says that Opera had tabbed browsing AT LEAST a year before the browser he talks about, and that others also had tabbed browsing a year before Opera independently developed it. So, wtf?

Re:Tabbed browsing? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16611872)

Oh, the answers are pure flamebait. What do you expect from a Microsoft employee? Note the way he mentions that NetCaptor was "an IE based browser", a typical and desperate attempt to associate Microsoft and innovation.

I never asked any questions, so I'll put mine here:

We all know that Microsoft can't innovate its way out of a paper bag. Do you think this is because all Microsoft employees are shit-eating liars, too busy towing the corporate line to do anything original?

Lil Vague (3, Insightful)

bdigit (132070) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611648)

"We did make versions of IE available on other operating system for a pretty long time, up through IE5 on Unix and the Mac. At the time we developed them, those offerings made sense. I don't see a good reason to make IE available on other operating systems at this time. "

Why did they make sense then and not now?

Re:Lil Vague (1)

compupc1 (138208) | more than 7 years ago | (#16612032)

Because the type of people who are going to use Linux as their desktop OS aren't exactly the type of people who are going to use IE as their major browser, even if only because it's a Microsoft product. I think IE7 for Windows is a MAJOR improvement, although still not Firefox or Opera quality. But even if a future IE8 were to surpass Firefox and be a better browser, how likely do you think it is that a Linux user would use it? I thought so.

1...2...3... (1)

StarvingSE (875139) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611660)

itsatrap

Excuses, excuses (4, Insightful)

Keith Russell (4440) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611672)

Just as we did in IE7, we're going to listen to the web development community and prioritize the remaining CSS work and deliver the parts we hear are most important first. We do intend to comply with the standard; no other browser I'm aware of has complete support of every feature in CSS 2.1, so it's clear that we all have to use prioritization to know where best to place our resources.

How about this: Instead of using corner cases in Gecko and Opera as excuses, why don't you complete the implementation of major features of CSS 2? When an entire chapter (*cough*TABLE LAYOUT*cough*) of the Salmon Book has to be excluded to remain compatible your browser, your browser is broken.

Missing from the answers (4, Interesting)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611692)

Whenever he's asked "why?" he always avoids one of the primary answers: management. He basically gets defensive and explains what they did do. But he never states how management changed priorities for them. Or if management told them not to add some feature. To me his answers are incomplete. Because there is no way they come up with all these features yet wait years to work on them without management's intervention.

So just say it. Things weren't delayed because you were too busy working on other things. Features and bug fixes were delayed because you were told to work on other things.

Blame your management. We all know they're a big part of the problem.

protected mode browsers .. (4, Informative)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611710)

".. integrated real-time anti-phishing functionality .. RSS .. Simple List Extensions .. "QuickTabs,".. OpenSearch, .. shrink-to-fit printing .."

I do recall hearing of RSS previously. Of these, which have been copied by the Firefox team and what are they called. Were such feetures around in similar form before IE7 or does the Firefox team posess a time machine. I do recall hearing of RSS previously.

"In Windows Vista with Protected Mode, IE7 is the first browser to "put itself into a sandbox" and run with low privileges."

It may be the first browser in Windows land but Browsers have been running in protected mode on Linux for years.

"during the IE7 beta process, you've seen other browser vendors copy some of these features"

Like who and when specifically? In the same interview he mentions an address bar spoof, so I guess the real-time anti-phishing functionality is still a little buggy.

Re:protected mode browsers .. (2, Informative)

compupc1 (138208) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611952)

RSS is not new, but my understanding is that the way in which RSS was exposed as a part of IE7 is unique, if not original. Basically the idea was to make browsing RSS feeds transparent in IE7, in that they're rendered as a webpage instead of relying on a separate, dedicated application. Does anyone know if other browsers do this as well?

#irc.trooltalk.com (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16611714)

shitheads. *BSD

Good Joke (5, Funny)

31415926535897 (702314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611746)

Windows customers expect the best, safest experience with their PCs out of the box...

HA HA HA HA HA HA ...
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
hahahaha ... phew

Oh...that was a good one.

I guess it depends on how you use 'expect' here, but everyone I know expects Windows to crash and become infected with spyware after enough time.

What Wikipedia article did HE read? (4, Informative)

Dixie_Flatline (5077) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611754)

"In regards to tabs, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabbed_browsing [wikipedia.org] , NetCaptor (an IE-based browser) was first."

From the Wikipedia article:

"BookLink Technologies pioneered this interface design in its InternetWorks browser in 1994. Independently, the founders of Opera built an MDI-based browser in the same year (via a technical preview not available publicly; a public release was made in 1996). The tabbed interface approach was then followed by the Internet Explorer shell NetCaptor in 1997."

So the guys that did Opera did the tabbed thing first; they released the Opera browser later. The public release of the tabbed browser was still done months before the IE shell modification.

IE7 realtime phishing check is spyware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16611760)


go read the privacy policy [microsoft.com] and especially the bit about "protecting microsoft and its partners/agents property"

its not a phishing filter its a MS revenue protection tool

Allowing Developers to Test for Compatibility (1)

Rehdon (25434) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611770)

"I think the core of your question is about giving away Windows licenses for free."

In a short sentence he manages to sidestep the question and offend the person who made it: I must admit Microsoft software engineers really are smart guys!

But my favorite one is this one:

"The real goal here is interoperability - something that Microsoft product teams believe in"

I'm the Samba developers wholeheartedly agreen on this. All in all, much more typical MS market-speech than I expected.

rehdon

Poor guy. (1)

Funkcikle (630170) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611782)

Seems like he is really buying into his company's own hot air. I hope he is earning lots of nice money.

Windows customers expect the best, safest experience with their PCs out of the box, especially around the web browser. We're investing so much time and effort in IE in order to give Windows customers a great, secure, default experience.

1995 (4, Insightful)

Rob Kaper (5960) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611784)

OK, I'll pretend. My first question is when we ask users this question... if it's in 1995, then Opera isn't on the list (Wikipedia just told me that its first public release was in 1996) and neither is Firefox.


And what about Netscape?

Re:1995 (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611912)

Yeah, he talks as if IE was the world's first web browser. If he believes that he should read IE's own about box.

Spewing coffee on keyboard (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611786)

Windows customers expect the best, safest experience with their PCs out of the box, especially around the web browser.
*sputter* I'll admit up front I'm somewhat of an MS-basher at times, but come on! Is Windows' reputation for lack of safety, really subjective or disputed? Hachamovitch's statement has to be tongue-in-cheek.

We still need an answer to question 8 (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611860)

Did anyone else notice that he did not address the main point of question 8 being that IE renders web pages differently then most everything else out there and that it does not adhear to the standards?

He's got somewhat of a point... (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611876)

Let's pretend for a moment that Internet Explorer isn't the default web-browser built into Windows and instead, users are presented with a choice on first login (e.g. a message asking 'How would you like to browse the internet? MSIE, Firefox, Opera').

OK, I'll pretend. My first question is when we ask users this question... if it's in 1995, then Opera isn't on the list...and neither is Firefox.


Skipping the obligatory 'Well, if it's 95, Netscape is a choice' comment that's been mentioned, how can someone actively update a static installation? In fact, the first cds of XP, even cds with SP1 included, wouldn't have had Firefox included as an option. How can we pick Fox as an option if our system restore CD is from a 2004 Dell? We'd still have to use IE to download it.

Would MS be responsible for alerting you to updates of your other browsers? While I'm sure most of us would say no, to the general public, I would imagine the thought process would be, "Windows installed it, they should take care of it." And going back to 95, Netscape didn't have an automatic update solution as far as I can remember. They might have been stuck with 2.0 while IE was being upgraded through updates and developed a dislike to Netscape turning them off of 3rd party browers.

I can understand our want to have alternates included, but is just including them enough? Should they offer a second cd with additional packages? At this point, I don't think windows has the setup infrastructure to handle 3rd party programs.

Simply offering alternatives just isn't enough, I think. It doesn't help that presses of XP variants are few and far between, but even if they weren't how easy would it be to get a new CD of XP? If it's up to MS, I bet a new CD would mean a new sale. You can't exactly download a new ISO every couple months for reinstalling.

weakness? (1)

espergreen (849246) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611878)

I have started to see some things that even some Slashdotters find a little confusing, like the whole Iceweasel thing.

As opposed to Microsoft, which lets you use their Internet Explorer trademark?

elephant talk (1)

eratosthene (605331) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611950)

I was going to moderate on this article, but I just could resist the urge to post...
So in reading his responses to the above questions, the thought struck me that this guy is a really smooth-talking PR kinda guy. Most of his answers boiled down to either "yes" or "no" with a bunch of quasi-technical words thrown in for good measure, or he completely avoided the question and either rambled about some other random crap or answered a completely different question instead. Methinks this guy (based solely on the responses posted here, mind you) belongs in the PR department, rather than heading up a software creation department. But then again, perhaps it is a common prerequisite to working as a manager at MS to have mad doublespeak skillz.

My new favorite quote... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16611958)

Windows customers expect the best, safest experience with their PCs out of the box... priceless. Just, priceless.

acid... (1, Insightful)

thinsoldier (937530) | more than 7 years ago | (#16611960)

been lookin throught the acid test source for a while.
I'd fire someone for writing something like that.
Nobody really really writes like that. I don't think that it's all that important for any browser to pass that particular test.

I think a very large suite of test cases using sampes from many real websites that have no IE hacks would be a much more useful test.

Also I remember reading somewhere that the acid test also tests how a browser reacts to some sort of invalid code like a broken comment. If there were a version of the acid test that tests only perfectly valid code and dropped the src=data: stuff most browsers would be much closer to passing it.

atm nobody really uses data: sources and I for one VALIDATE EVERYTHING. If the browser work perfect with totally valid code, it works for me.

Weasel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16611972)

In a word a total Microsloth weasel.

Terrible Interview (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16611992)

This interview appears to be just as bad as the one with Blizzard that occured a while ago. Blame lies on both the chosen questions and some not even being answered. Slashdot should have just posted "Yeah we got the interview back. It was so bad we printed it out, crumpled it up, and threw it in the trash."

Here? (1)

8ball629 (963244) | more than 7 years ago | (#16612028)

I think there's a clear difference between the protection offered in IE7 and other places. I suggest readers look here and here and decide for themselves.
I'm looking and all I see is 'here' and 'here'.

A bit soft... (2, Insightful)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 7 years ago | (#16612044)

Just as a general comment, It seems that some of the answers, particularly to the following;

* If you had more time, is there a new feature you would have liked to include in IE7?

* ...But where are the IE innovations? Why can't the IE team get ahead of the curve on Firefox? ...

* Let's pretend for a moment that Internet Explorer isn't the default web-browser built into Windows and instead, users are presented with a choice on first login

* IE7, like IE6, renders a lot of pages significantly differently than the other main HTML rendering engines available

Seem either very vague or appear to be dodging the question (or the very obvious intent) that is being asked. Moreover I think that the questions were actually quite a good selection, and not too aggressive (nor too fluffy). I would like to know how much input or oversight Microsofts marketing / other departments had in the answers.

I've been looking at (and commenting on) some of the Microsoft related blogs that are out there, such as MSTechToday [mstechtoday.com] and I am intrigued at how defensive Microsoft advocates are (I know that Mac, GNU/Linux and BSD advocates are fairly Zealous too...), but they appear defensive even when they don't need to be. Love it or loath it, Microsoft software is now in general, stable, usable and allows you to be productive, and Microsoft are focusing on security too.
Things like the "get the facts" campaign against GNU/Linux appear to be no better than negative political ads (Oh and check how many of the companies featured pointing out why OSS isn't an option for them in production are using OSS web servers, Firewalls and other technologies).

The one thing that stands out is that whilst the GNU/Linux groups are very keen to point out how great and how secure and stable the OS is, they don't tend to have to justify the direction they are going, even to pro-Microsoft posters. The Microsoft advocates on the other hand seem to have to point out that everything is being done to address a customer need that they have identified, and that anyone claiming a feature in the OS, or one being introduced into the OS may not benefit windows users (or in the case of DRM and Driver signing) may damage interests is working against some sort of ideal.

I guess the answer to that is that people use MS software because it fills a need of some sort, or because in a given situation there is no alternative (or because they are locked in to it for a given cycle), whilst GNU/Linux, BSD and Mac users use their respective products because they think that they are the best solution out there, and because they feel that the organisation / group also have a philosophy that they can either agree with or actively support.

I guess what I am saying rather badly is that those people making the software that is and runs on Mac OS, GNU/Linux, BSD etc.. stand for something, whilst Microsoft doesn't seem to anymore (and the whole Microsoft is evil and stand for evil doesn't count as its fairly invalid and is voiced by people who detest MS not its user base - although I guess there may be a certain attraction to some people :) ).

Just a thought, In modern markets is a philosophy that you aspire to something that adds something to your product? Google seem to think so, Banks seem to be keen to promote their reputations and ideals, even auto manufacturers try.

Anyway, thanks

I should declare that I use GNU/Linux and Solaris rather than MS products these days; but was quite fond of Active Directory and 2000 server, before any of the above is seen as either entireley pro or anti Microsoft

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?