MS To Slip IE8 Into Vista and XP Through OEMs 289
crazyeyes writes "Microsoft says it's 'optional,' but they are already planning to slip Internet Explorer 8 into all Windows Vista/XP PCs by March. MS claims that IE8 will offer better performance and security. But what about unwanted stuff like 'Monetization opportunities (for OEMs)' and 'These services will be used (by OEMs) to deliver brand exposure... to the users'?"
Rule of thumb. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rule of thumb. (Score:5, Insightful)
MS claims that IE8 will offer better performance. (Score:2, Insightful)
"MS claims that IE8 will offer better performance and security."
I have heard this joke before somewhere!
Anonymous Coward
Re:Wow, you make IE sound like a roofie (Score:3, Insightful)
New computers need *SOME* sort of browser (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if a manufacturer is shipping a box with Windows, why not supply the latest version of Internet Explorer??
Re:Rule of thumb. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, because it's a euphemism for "let's find a way to take this previously free thing and charge people for it." It is a deceptive phrase, spoken by pointy haired bosses and marketroids with black little hearts and the morals of rabid weasels.
It's not that profit is evil, and money itself is not the root of all evil. The desire for money is the root of all evil, and this phrase is used by people who get a stiffy thinking of all the ways they can screw you out of yours. They fall asleep dreaming of ways they could monetize breathing. "Hmmm, zzzzz, poison the atmosphere... znurk, hmph, sell oxygen.... yeah... zzzzzzz"
Re:Rule of thumb. (Score:3, Insightful)
So if I say "doing X would provide incentive to do Y" I am just fine, but if I say "X would incentivize Y" I am grotesque?
I don't think so. Your insistence on using tedious phrases when equally meaningful, but much more convenient terms exist is sort of pathetic, though.
And Microsoft deserves it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Just accept that Slashdot needs at least one masturbatory Microsoft bashing article every day
One Microsoft bashing article a day isn't what Microsoft deserves.
One for every 10 hours their product flaws and aggressive monopolistic practices have stolen from developer productivity (or general productivity) is probably about right.
The problem is that if you use that metric, even considering IE6 alone, you've probably got enough for 5 stories every day since Slashdot's inception.
Sometimes people act like the Microsoft bashing is simple knee-jerk or personal dislike. I'm jealous of the strain of ignorance that allows this belief to continue.
Re:IE has had these for ages (Score:5, Insightful)
Just accept that Slashdot needs at least one masturbatory Microsoft bashing article every day and let the geeks get on with the wanking.
What, kdawson's previous "some guy tried to pirate Photoshop and then failed to understand how reparse points work so therefore Windows 7 is full of evil DRM" [slashdot.org] pseudo-article wasn't enough for today?
Negative tone (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oddly enough (Score:3, Insightful)
How about getting your systems to render properly on somewhat more standards compliant browsers - Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome
... IE8.
Re:IE has had these for ages (Score:5, Insightful)
As an addition, even those who have serious issues with Microsoft would do best to ignore these 'stories' and even perhaps make a stand against them themselves.
Posting half-truths, exaggerations and downright untruths discredits Slashdot probably more than it does Microsoft. If Slashdot focused on legitimate problems and grievances, and actually verified the accuracy of what they post, it would give those legitimate grievances far more weight than Slashdot carries right now.
Why branding ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I never really understood the value of OEM branding. I've already bought the damned PC, what more do they want ? Having a stupid Dell logo spin in IE while their site fails to load, is not going to make me want to buy more Dell gear.
People take branding way too seriously, especially when we're talking about major brands that everyone knows.
Re:IE has had these for ages (Score:3, Insightful)
Recently the standard of Slashdot articles about Microsoft has taken a huge nosedive
You're completely correct. The second link (the "story" from yesterday) was obviously the rant of a Windows luser who didn't have a clue what they were doing. The fact that it actually got accepted and posted to Slashdot was somehow both unbelievable and sadly also not that surprising.
Oh, that's right! Both of your examples were posted by the worthless "editor" kdawson. Since we can't do anything else, I suggest everyone who is sick of this crap exclude articles posted by kdawson in their preferences [slashdot.org]. Maybe if enough people do it Taco will get the message (assuming, of course, that kdawson isn't just a puppet Taco uses to post the asinine anti-Microsoft stuff which always gets plenty of adviews).
Re:Why branding ? (Score:1, Insightful)
No, but it might make anyone who looks over your shoulder think about getting some Dell gear. Same reason retail stores put their logo on your shopping bags.
Re:And Microsoft deserves it. (Score:4, Insightful)
So, please, for the love of computing, tell me why this is classed as opinion?
As long as there are masochists, there is always room for that point of view.
Re:Why branding ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Or, to put it another way: everyone knows these major brands because their companies take branding seriously.
"But what about unwanted stuff like " (Score:1, Insightful)
But what about unwanted stuff like ... etc.
Well, what about it? That's par for the course if you get a Windows PC it is not really yours. The OEM plasters it with advertisements, shovelware, and various junk to keep the user experience under their control. Microsoft shovels on DRM to keep it under the MPAA and RIAAs control. With a Windows system (especially OEM) you are not in control of your own system. Solution? Do not get a Windows PC. My next machine will likely have Ubuntu (or Ubuntu Remix) on it. It will definitely not have Windows, I simply refuse to pay for it.
Re:Emulate IE7 (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, cross-browser javascript problems go away* with JS frameworks such as jQuery, and unless you're doing something insane (read: probably wrong) with CSS, coding logically and to standards** will get it correct in Firefox/Safari/Opera/IE8, pretty damn close in IE7, and still quite reasonable in IE6. I'm certainly not defending IE6/7 nor the practices of the developers who cater to those browsers - if you can even call them developers - but a lot of problems are as much the fault of bad CSS/HTML as they are the fault of IE6's FUBAR CSS rendering.
Thankfully, Microsoft seems to have listened to the outcry of developers when it comes to IE8 - I've had no issues with it so far, other than it still having very poor JS performance. It seems to be pretty smart about when to render in standards mode and when to render in IE6/IE7 fallback mode. It certainly won't become my every-day browser by any stretch of the imagination, but it'll take a good chunk out of the "time spent cursing Microsoft" wedge of the web development time usage pie chart.
*well, 99% of the time, at least. Of the rare problems I've seen, it's more a DOM issue than one specific to any one browser. Like innerHTML always returning HTML instead of XHTML, even with an XHTML doctype. Honestly, that's about it, from what I've noticed.
**CSS2 is pretty safe, at least. As you rightly mention, some properties such as opacity fall apart in older versions of Firefox, not to mention the -webkit/-moz properties and pseudo-selectors.