Forgot your password?
Internet Explorer Microsoft Software

Internet Explorer 8 Delayed Until 2009 204

Posted by Soulskill
from the ready-when-it's-ready dept.
Barence writes "Microsoft has confirmed that Internet Explorer 8 will not be officially released until 2009. According to a blog posting on the Internet Explorer 8 development site, a release candidate of the browser will be released in the first quarter of next year, to be followed by a final release at an unspecified date. This news comes on the same day that Google is considering bundling its Chrome browser with new PCs. Will the IE delay and Google's tactics help to steer users in Chrome's direction?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Explorer 8 Delayed Until 2009

Comments Filter:
  • how (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ionix5891 (1228718) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @09:19AM (#25857095)

    does a company with so much cash and resources is unable to release a good browser is beyond me

    must be all the bureaucracy or some sort of internal politics

    IE does so much harm to microsoft's image, are they just blind in the Death Star to notice the bad will being generated?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by kandela (835710)
      Yeah, how long will it take before Google gets it right?
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ionix5891 (1228718)

        google are a marketing company they dont have to get it "right" technically, they just have to make it appear that they got it right

        • Re:how (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Kent Recal (714863) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @11:59AM (#25857921)

          Ehm, you confused google and microsoft there.
          Microsoft is the marketing company. Google is a product company.

          Google sets industry-standards with their products (search, gmail...) and people flock to them because they are better, not because google markets them anyhow. Seriously, have you seen an ad for google search or google mail ever?
          Microsoft puts out crappy products and forces them down the consumers throats through their OS monopoly and aggressive marketing.

          • Re:how (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Richard_at_work (517087) <> on Saturday November 22, 2008 @12:57PM (#25858327)
            I beg to differ - Google is the very epitome of a marketing company, and your post is a damn good example of why. Googles products are you, not Gmail or search, you. Googles customers are its advertisers. The fact that you think Google is a product company proves that their marketing is second to none.
            • Re:how (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Kent Recal (714863) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @02:48PM (#25859067)

              Well, nice word-games you're playing there but no, I'm not google's "product". They didn't make me.
              Google's products are Gmail and Search, they created them and I am using them.

              Google is using a fairly novel approach to monetize their products but I don't agree with you swapping the definition of "product" and "customer" for them.

              • Re:how (Score:5, Insightful)

                by David Gerard (12369) <> on Saturday November 22, 2008 @03:13PM (#25859255) Homepage

                No, he's quite correct. Google get money from their advertisers. What they sell the advertisers is your attention.

                Search and Gmail are not the "products" that Google actually sell* - they're bait to lure in the products that they sell.

                * OK, they do sell Gmail for your domain as a product. But the vast majority of their income is selling your eyeballs to advertisers.

                • Well, ofcourse you and GP are correct in a way, I just have a problem with the twisted terminology here.
                  Yes, google basically sells my attention-span to others but imho that doesn't make *me* (as a person) their product.

                  I'm still a customer because I choose to "pay" google with my attention in exchange for using their products.

                • by LingNoi (1066278)

                  Which would still make you a customer if you're selling your attention, you're still a customer.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                The basic fact of the matter is that Googles income is not being made off of the users of their tools such as Gmail or search, but is instead being made off of services being sold to third parties which will be exposed via those tools.

                Its not a word game, its the basic truth - you, the end user of Gmail or search, are not a direct contributer to Googles income, but you are infact an indirect contributor. Google is selling exposure to *you* to third parties.

                They just use nice shiny offerings to entice you t

            • The GP only said that Google's products are so good that they don't need marketing. You may disagree, but you may not corrupt the meaning of the post with poetic metaphors "Google products are you".

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by LingNoi (1066278)

              Just because a product is free doesn't mean you're not a customer.

          • Well, so far from Google I get maps, email, groups and a kind-of crappy office suite that is only usable online plus photo management(Picasa). In order to use any of their services, I need some kind of software installed, which they don't provide, or sell. Or, I can go buy a smart phone and use some of their basic services.

            If I check on Microsoft's area, they basically offer all of this (email, office suite, picture management, maps, myriad of dev tools) plus a ton of other products and services. Have you s

      • Re:how (Score:5, Funny)

        by cp.tar (871488) <> on Saturday November 22, 2008 @09:27AM (#25857143) Journal

        Yeah, how long will it take before Google gets it right?

        Dunno. How long before Gmail gets out of beta?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by kandela (835710)

        Ok, modded as a troll it is. However, not so long ago we were calling microsoft evil for the way in which they proliferated their O/S and browser by having it bundled with new PCs. Now that Google is doing this it is suddenly ok? For me their priority should have been perfecting their browser (and it isn't as good as its competition yet) before engaging in the "evil" aggressive marketing tactics of its competitor. That is what I call 'getting it right'.

        And I also agree with someone else who pointed out 200

        • by sveard (1076275) *

          Microsoft 'have it right' in this instance: make sure the successor is air tight before replacing a solid product.

          Internet Explorer 7 is NOT a solid product, and I'm sure Internet Explorer 8 will NOT be "air tight".

          Also, Google bundling Chrome is surely different from what Microsoft has done with Windows and Internet Explorer, no?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            Actually, IE7 on Vista IS a solid product by any reasonable definition. (I don't have to cite any sources since you didn't). The halcyon days of drive by download malware are OVER with IE7 and Vista. You haven't noticed that? These days they have to get lusers to click on malware - they can't just auto-load it when you click a questionable link anymore.

            Try running the new stuff before bashing it.

            That said, I still do prefer Firefox (this post is written in FF 3.04) to IE7 and IE8 - mostly due to Adblock P
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by poetmatt (793785)

          There's a difference here. Putting chrome on a PC that automatically has IE (thanks, microsoft) means you have a choice. If we included firefox and safari, even moreso. It is at this point people can then say that they want IE completely removed from a PC. It may not be the same as selling PCs that don't have windows bundled but it is a step in the right direction.

          Microsoft have nothing right or wrong in this instance, all they are doing is pushing back development as they are doing a crappy job as always.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by lysergic.acid (845423)

            also, the problem with Microsoft's bundling was that they were abusing their monopoly. they used the monopoly Windows held in the desktop OS market to gain an unfair monopoly in the browser market. this included integrating IE into Windows (making it impossible to uninstall) and forbidding OEMs from bundling competing browsers with their systems. this was a clear case of anticompetitive behavior.

            there's nothing inherently wrong or illegal with bundling software with hardware. Nero does it, Apple does it, AO

            • by poetmatt (793785)

              What are you talking about? You can uninstall chrome, and you know what I mean by that comment.

              • by causality (777677)

                What are you talking about? You can uninstall chrome, and you know what I mean by that comment.

                In my experience, knowing (or having the ability to know) what you meant does little to nothing to stop people from setting up a straw man that sounds similar to what you were saying and then talking about how wrong you were when they proceed to tear down that straw man. My favorites are when I anticipate this and go out of my way to explicitly clarify what I am saying and what I am not saying and someone proceeds to argue against a claim I was careful not to make. That people can do this and sincerely b

              • um, i was agreeing with you. i was saying that the GGP doesn't understand why the antitrust case was filed against MS.

        • by LingNoi (1066278)

          Google sell an OS? What the fuck are you blubbering on about?

    • Re:how (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jellomizer (103300) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @09:29AM (#25857155)

      They give it away from free and still have a huge majority of the market share.
      1. They don't have any financial motives to make it excellent just to keep it from being left behind.
      2. As long as they keep the majority in market share developers will still develop and test with it.

      All the changes and features are basically keep up features with some easy to program "innovative" stuff just to keep it on the radar. If you have done any software development you need to realize it is difficult to have a clean timeline of code especially with scope that Microsoft needs to have (Works for all Systems, Business and Personal Use, Good Security, Huge Flexibility...) In general Microsoft hates saying no to its customer so they often end up creating applications that meet all the customer request but fail to do what the customers want.

      This is part of the Apple popularly surge. Apple likes to say no to a lot of good features. As they realize if it is implemented the majority may suffer to make the minority a little bit happier.

    • Re:how (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lukas84 (912874) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @09:34AM (#25857167) Homepage

      You're not looking at the whole picture.

      IE does a lot of things right, which no other browser does.

      Centrally managing IE in a Windows Environment is a breeze - everything can be configured using Group Policies, a powerful tool that automates application customization.

      Deploying and upgrading IE is also easy, as it utilizes the same Windows Update infrastructure that is already in place - using the free WSUS product in small businesses, or WSUS/SCCM in larger businesses.

      IE also allows powerful intranet applications and custom security zones that can also be configured centrally - yes, this feature has been the source of many a security problem, but businesses don't buy computers because they're secure, but because they solve business problems.

      Firefox, Opera and Chrome seem to have little to no interest in being used in corporate IT environments, where automated deployment and central management is key.

      • Re:how (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 22, 2008 @11:09AM (#25857625)

        You're right. It's excellent in every way; except for rendering HTML.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by davidbrit2 (775091)

          To borrow the old emacs line:

          IE is a great OS - what it needs is a decent web browser.

        • It also sucks at user security. But do you really want to be the intern who goes through every computer in your institution changing settings and making sure no one changes them?

          Thought not.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Kent Recal (714863)

        Ehm, what exactly needs to be "centrally managed" about a friggin' Web-Browser?
        Drank a bit much of the MS kool-aid lately, did you?

        Firefox can auto-detect the proxy server to use and updates itself over the intertubes.

        What more do you need in your "corporate environment"?

        • Re:how (Score:4, Informative)

          by lukas84 (912874) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @12:21PM (#25858093) Homepage

          Ehm, what exactly needs to be "centrally managed" about a friggin' Web-Browser?

          For example, which extensions may or may not be installed. Or what the homepage is set to. Or, disabling the Phishing Filter or enabling the Lookup-Portion of the Phishing Filter. Enable certain privacy settings by default, or disable them.

          Firefox can auto-detect the proxy server to use and updates itself over the intertubes.

          A feature which requires local administrative privileges, which is not the case in a corporate IT environment.

          What more do you need in your "corporate environment"?

          Lot's. You've obviously never worked in one, which is perfectly fine. But don't attack me just because you don't understand a large part of the global IT economy.

          • Ehm, what exactly needs to be "centrally managed" about a friggin' Web-Browser?

            For example, which extensions may or may not be installed. Or what the homepage is set to. Or, disabling the Phishing Filter or enabling the Lookup-Portion of the Phishing Filter. Enable certain privacy settings by default, or disable them.

            NoScript whitelist?

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by lukas84 (912874)

              Firefox can do it. That wasn't the point. The point was central management.

              • by LingNoi (1066278)

                Just point the firefox conf to a location on the network. It's not that difficult.

                Even Windows group settings allows you to parse settings over the network when a user logs in. You're just talking out of your ass. I bet you've never even looked at trying to set it up so you're just assuming you can't do it.

              • I was talking about central management... of NoScript. If certain js-laden sites (Gmail, for example) are deemed ok by the sysadmin, they could be whitelisted; everything else blacklisted. IIRC IE group policy doesn't have this fine grain control of javascript.

        • Re:how (Score:5, Informative)

          by Richard_at_work (517087) <> on Saturday November 22, 2008 @01:08PM (#25858407)

          What more do you need in your "corporate environment"?

          Considerably more than auto detecting the proxy server and updating - you really seem to be missing the point.

          Some very good examples are default Favourites, very helpful in a lot of corporations (have you ever got the shit job of having to add a new favourite to a thousand PCs?), default Homepage, again very helpful, default popup blocker and security settings for known good websites that you have no control over but need to use, and local browser security settings for when you don't want your employees from setting their own proxy server or otherwise mess with the browser setup.

          In short, everything you need to be applied to every one (or a majority) of your desktops - you can either have your PC setup bods do it manually, or you can just ghost a new machine and let the central management server do it. I know which I would rather do.

          From the sound of it, you haven't had to deal with an corporate environment with more than a dozen or so desktops. Believe me, central management becomes extremely handy when you are dealing with a thousand desktops in multiple locations (or even 100 in one).

          On the other hand, Firefox does have an Active Directory GPO template available for doing many of the things corporate admins require.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Kent Recal (714863)

            Well, ofcourse you have a point. The Firefox integration could be better and MSIE has better integration (obviously - it's coming from the OS vendor).

            What I was trying to say is that pretty much everything you need can be done with a bit of elbow grease and it's a one-time investment.
            The larger your deployment the more likely do you have the ressources to make that investment. And the more likely will you benefit from using Firefox over IE because of better security and indeed better customization options (

            • What I was trying to say is that pretty much everything you need can be done with a bit of elbow grease and it's a one-time investment.

              Again, I'm going to have to disagree with you (and not just for the sake of being argumentative!) - its not a one-time investment, its an ongoing investment in the upkeep of the corporate desktop you are managing, as things *will* change throughout the life of the desktop. As I said above, central management of settings is a godsend when you need to roll out a small change to a significant number of desktops - thats not a one-time investment, thats something that may have to be done weekly or more often de

        • by gad_zuki! (70830)

          I hate it when people ignorant of managing large lans act like everything is super easy and their home software solves everything. Its like the guy at work who thinks we should dump all custom software and just go with "quickbooks, because it works for my personal stuff at home." Or "switch to macs because theyre kewl!"

          Ehm, what exactly needs to be "centrally managed" about a friggin' Web-Browser?

          Almost everything under internet options can be configure with group policy or at install time via IEAk7.

          What mo

      • by raddan (519638)
        Actually-- Firefox is quite easy to manage centrally. We use the same Microsoft tools that we use to manage our Windows domain; all you need to do to set policy in Firefox is modify the user.js file. Firefox even supports SSO with Kerberos and NTLM, and has the same "trusted domains" concept that IE has. Sure, there's no MMC snap-in to do this, but that does not make it hard to do in corporate environments.
    • Developing a browser seems very expensive. The Mozilla foundation spent $20m last year alone. I'm not sure how much Apple, Nokia, Google, Adobe, and all of the other WebKit contributors have spent jointly, but I'd imagine it's a lot.
    • Re:how (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mfh (56) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @09:47AM (#25857243) Journal

      must be all the bureaucracy or some sort of internal politics

      It's definitely part of the recipe for these kinds of projects. The main thing we see in big projects that are beyond a first or third iteration (like IE) is that most of the original team is gone and most of the original vision has changed, either for political reasons or for necessary course corrections, and both of which must be true for IE. Nobody on the IE team shares the exact same vision for IE. Many fragments of the IE userbase have likely caused conflicts between team members from design to production. Conflicts cause issues in every aspect of development, but also they cause turnover.

      We know people were promoted out of the IE team, and promoted out of the company. In a case like Microsoft, it's been years since the first iteration, and IE has gone through so many revisions that there is a high likelihood for spaghetti code and feature creep to crush project fluidity. They have rewritten the whole thing, how many times now?

      While team members wielding political weapons must be crushed on sight by worthy adversaries, it doesn't happen enough because people are afraid of repercussions. Unless you are Steve Ballmer, then you throw a chair and hit the wrong person.

      • by springbox (853816)

        We know people were promoted out of the IE team, and promoted out of the company.

        So, they were fired?
        Help! Help! I'm being promoted!

    • Re:how (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @09:58AM (#25857297) Homepage Journal

      Having a lot of money isn't necessarily going to speed up development. Developing complex software (which MS Internet Explorer is) takes time. You can use money to hire more developers, and that can speed things up, but, after a certain point, having more programmers will actually slow down development. You can use money to hire better programmers, but that has its limits, too. The same goes for buying faster hardware and better development tools. At some point, you just can't make things go faster, no matter how much money you have.

      • In the past, Microsoft was able to catch up and kill Netscape -or any other competitor-, no matter how "complex" it was to build the software needed. Why they can't do it anymore is a mistery for me.

        • by RAMMS+EIN (578166)

          Browsers were quite a bit less complex during the first Browser Wars than they are now. Also, it wasn't just that Microsoft put out a good browser (really, it was, at the time), but also that they bundled it with their (then even more ubiquitous than now) operating systems, and that Netscape put out a number of, shall we say, ungood releases.

          Now Microsoft faces competition in the browser market not just from other companies, but also from the open source community, which produces a number of good browsers.

      • by pizzach (1011925)

        At some point, you just can't make things go faster, no matter how much money you have.

        Pft. That is just a sign that they aren't being inventive enough. The obvious solution here is to create a new programming language that will facilitate and speed up of IE developement. In fact, they should call the magical languge CIE (with available CIE++ and CIE-sharp bindings). [/bad joke end]

    • by Blakey Rat (99501)

      They have a good browser; Expression Web and Visual Studio use it when designing/developing web pages. I'm sure it's not even close to optimized, AFAIK it has no script engine attached to it, but as far as render quality goes, it's top-notch.

      The problem is that IE has to be backwards-compatible with thousands of intranet applications. Firefox was able to dodge that bullet, since: 1) it was released after most of those intranet applications were already made, and 2) hardly anybody developed intranet applicat

    • by cliffski (65094)

      Nope, it's called backwards compatibility. As a coder, it's a real bitch. Lifes so much easier when you can start from scratch.
      I'm glad they are delaying it, it seems that browser updates happen way too often as it is. As most people are only using the basic features of their browser, they probably wonder why the hell they need a new version so often

  • Ummm.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jellomizer (103300) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @09:20AM (#25857101)

    This is not massive news as it is Late November in 2008. Meaning if IE 8 was release it would have to be released within 6 weeks. Heck it would need at least that much time in the RC levels just to make sure things are kinda going smooth.

  • Nothing new (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Monoman (8745)

    This is how MS marketing operates.

    1. Hype what you are working on like it is coming out any day now in hopes to avoid customers switching to a competitor.
    2. Delay
    3. Back to #1 until product is ready for testing
    4. Release :-)

    Chevy is doing the first two steps with the Volt because they can't compete with hybrids ... or is it out now. Oh wait, gas prices are down now so people don't care about fuel efficiency right now.

  • by sleeponthemic (1253494) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @09:26AM (#25857137) Homepage
    Chances are, if you're an internet explorer user you're not on the edge of your seat about the next version coming out - because you have no knowledge about it. Furthermore, you've never heard of chrome. Some people in the office go on about Firefox but your browser works just fine - infact, you consider the browser you used in 2002 to be no different than the one you use now.
    • I may dump Firefox. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I went up to Mozilla the other day for a plugin and what do I find? A login/registration screen! WTF! I am going to have to register with them too just to get a plugin? I create phony logins, but it's the principal. I'm sick of having of this registration BS. What benefit does a website gain from it? Is it an incentive for advertisers? What? It just makes the site a bigger pain in the ass.

      Registration is a pain.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Some plugins are still in beta/alpha/eat your babies revision. They make you register to download those, so you can't bitch at them when it gobbles up all your bookmarks or something.
    • you consider the browser you used in 2002 to be no different than the one you use now.

      It's better - it now pops up helpful little adverts to guide me through the internets.

      I can't say the same for my internet provider though. It's just so much slower than it used to be ...

  • IE8 in 09? (Score:5, Funny)

    by OffTheLip (636691) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @09:27AM (#25857145)
    This seems to be keeping with previous Microsoft release schedules. It's an off by one problem, sort of like buffer overflows.
  • by BountyX (1227176) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @09:44AM (#25857231)
    I suspect that google is not serious about chrome. Specifically, google does not see chrome as a long term product. They are simply chomping at microsoft's market share by introducing another browser into the market. The more browsers that are in the market, the more important standards become (ie's biggest weakness) and the less market share ie will have. If google really wanted to see their browser as a top dog, they would cut their 85 million dollar annual firefox donation. They are not playing to win, they are playing to have MS lose. Futhermore, if IE starts to decline, live services and ms advertising will also decline proportionally. In the end, google can care less about it's chrome, its just a UI slapped onto webkit anyways. The true agenda is to get people to question their browser and try different ones. With lower IE market share, they will see bigger ad revenues. That's more money to invent random stuff with hehe. If microsoft can keep up, then they win again, by creating a better standards complaint expirience. Standards are the opposite of vendor lock-ins ;). Oh google, you must be bored.
    • by Lennie (16154)

      That's not a Firefox donation, it's a mozilla-browser-searching-via-google. If I understand it correctly, even MS gives Mozilla money for the use of the mozilla-browser-search-box.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Monoman (8745)

      And MS shouldn't be either. I can see them including a basic browser to get you going. Notepad and Wordpad are free but if you want something more then you get a real word processing program.

      IMHO MS stays in the browser war because they are paranoid they will miss the next big thing. Ever since MS was late to get on the Internet bandwagon they have made sure they get involved with thing across the board just enough. Just enough to have something so they don't miss out on the next big thing .... whatever

  • by Redbaran (918344) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @09:51AM (#25857261)
    I know we all like to laugh at MS for not shipping a product on time, but as a web-developer, I am not happy (nor surprised). Anything that delays the average web-surfer from having a more standards compliant browser is not a good thing. While I'm sure IE8 won't be as compliant as it should be, it's still a step in the right direction.

    I'll never get back the hours and days I've wasted on browser differences and bugs, but the mirage that one day I won't have to waste that time is enough to keep me wandering through the desert with a little bit of hope.
    • Problem is, it's only going to help if IE6's share is reduced. I had high hopes for IE7, but was disappointed it was _just_ a bug fixed version of IE6 rather than a new browser... AND I found I had to support both since both have significant share.

      I guess eventually they will have to end-of-life the IE6 product and that should force most of the laggards to upgrade! And I guess IE8 will fully replace IE7 so there should be need to support IE7... right?! One can only hope! ;)
  • I bet it still be (Score:5, Interesting)

    by A12m0v (1315511) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @09:57AM (#25857291) Journal
    horrible at JavaScript, HTML and standard compliance With Firefox, Opera and Chrome why would a sane person even want to use IE? IE still trails almost every other browser in JavaScript performance, try it for yourself. []
    • by jacquesm (154384)

      that's a neat little hack you've got there !

    • by allcar (1111567)

      try it for yourself

      I can't. It wont run on my platform.

      • How come? It's a JavaScript program. Any fairly modern browser will be able to interpret it.. wait, you mean your handheld/mobile platform with too limited CPU power?

        BTW the second test "full render" is really CPU-demanding...

    • Non-Techie (Score:3, Insightful)

      horrible at JavaScript, HTML and standard compliance With Firefox, Opera and Chrome why would a sane person even want to use IE? IE still trails almost every other browser in JavaScript performance,

      While IE may be crap, the average person is probably not tech-savie and is not aware of the alternatives or simply doesn't really care if the tool does the job. Don't be surprised how conservative people can be. In many way this is no different than your KDE user using Konquerer or your Mac user using Safari, whi

    • by iknowcss (937215)
      That's bizzare. I did this in firefox 3.0.4 and it actually took longer than Internet Explorer 7. Not just a bit longer either. It was significantly longer. More comparable to Google Chrome than Firefox. Maybe it has nothing to do with the JavaScript bit but more with rendering the <div> elements?
    • I had the same timing as another poster. Incredibly longer in firefox than IE7.
  • Given that IE8 is missing SVG support, are there any open source SVG libraries that they could potentially use to do the work, instead of coding the support from scratch?

  • Well, this was to be expected. After all, they have been hanging on to IE6 so long, as a sabotage strategy against the upcoming world of web apps (bad HTML, CSS and no stuff like canvas).

    The past year they have been talking the talk, and now they will not be walking the walk.

    What next? When IE8 will arrive, it will still not implement stuff like canvas or be on the same level with CSS compliance. It will probably not be an auto-update, and perhaps only available on the latest incarnation of Vista whatev
  • The trend lines for the web browsers are as flat as the Kansas prairies: Top Browser Share Trend [], Top Browser Share Trend []
    "Chrome" is right up there with "The Gimp" as a masterpiece in marketing.
    It suggests nothing so much as an ugly, over-weight, tail finned Edsel. Microsoft has "Internet Explorer" and Apple has "Safari," both brand names which capture something of the excitement, the fun and play to be found on the web.

    Of the 17 netbooks being offered at this holiday season, at least 12 run X

  • by buddyglass (925859) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @12:36PM (#25858207)

    People are so down on Internet Explorer, and rightly so, that if they come out with something that is "competitive" with the other offerings, even if it isn't superior, it will be perceived as a huge win for Microsoft and likely win back much of the market share they've lost.

    I'm basing this on the fact that many people will choose the "standard" (IE) unless there is a compelling reason to switch to something else. Especially corporate environments, excluding companies that are expressly anti-Microsoft (Apple, Sun, IBM, Google). So Microsoft doesn't have to provide a compelling reason to use Internet Explorer; they just have to ensure there are no compelling reasons to use something else.

  • IE8, as outlined by MS in various MSDN locations, is a browser that will compete on features very well with Firefox v1.5. FF3, and especially the upcoming 3.1, completely obliterates it in standards support, features, and speed. IE8 - as it is currently planned - is completely pointless. MS should delay 8 until they've had time to add the important CSS3 that is missing, and add a turbo-charged js engine. If IE8 is released as intended, it will merely be yet another roadblock for web developers to easily imp

  • I think what's eating a lot of Microsoft's resources on IE is their not-well-thought-out product support roadmap and their refusal to support newer versions of IE on older OS's (in order to help drive demand for the new OS). By the time IE8 comes out, Microsoft will support the following versions of IE...
    • IE 5.01 SP4 on W2K
    • IE 6.0 SP1 on W2K
    • IE 6.0 SP2 (32-bit) on XP/2003 (32-bit & 64-bit)
    • IE 6.0 SP2 (64-bit) on XP/2003 (64-bit)
    • IE 7 (32-bit) on XP/2003/Vista/2008 (32-bit & 64-bit)
    • IE 7 (64-bit) on XP/2

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken