Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses Internet Explorer The Internet

Google Releases Customized IE 7 198

Posted by Zonk from the they-were-bored dept.
narramissic writes "Google has released a customized version of Internet Explorer 7 that uses Google as the default search engine and provides users with the Google Toolbar and a Google homepage they can personalize. Perhaps not exactly what Microsoft intended when they released the Internet Explorer Administration Kit, which allows developers to customize IE."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Releases Customized IE 7 More

Google Releases Customized IE 7

Comments Filter:

    • Re:They're not the first, are they? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Chrismith ( 911614 ) on Friday December 15, 2006 @11:46PM (#17265626)
      Not only did Yahoo do this first, but when Google first released their version, they blatantly ripped off Yahoo's page [zawodny.com].

      If you look closely at the pictures, you can even see where they blurred out the "Y!" logo in the IE7 screenshot.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Google supporter, but someone dropped the ball on this. (It's since been fixed.)

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Varun Soundararajan ( 744929 )
        I m expecting our google fan boys to come out commenting, saying the Google IE7 is far better than the Yahoo one!!... Obligatory Disclosure:(I m also a google fanboy.. :-))

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Frosty Piss ( 770223 )
        Doesn't look the same anymore... http://www.google.com/toolbar/ie7/ [google.com]

        • Re:They're not the first, are they? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Simon Donkers ( 950228 ) <.moc.sreknodnomis. .ta. .ofni.> on Saturday December 16, 2006 @05:26AM (#17267218) Homepage
          Google noticed the fuss everywhere and has since then changed the page. A very interesting post about this is made by Matt Cutts (Google employee) on his private blog explaining how annoying it is if somebody steals your layout. Very interesting read.
          http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/ie7-promo-page/ [mattcutts.com]

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by t0tAl_mElTd0wN ( 905880 )
        Friend of mine made this image - http://www.notsorandom.com/y-g.png [notsorandom.com]. It shows the color difference between the two pages when overlayed. Note - Black pixels signify the exact same color.

        I'm sorry Google... I love you and all... but this is just low. Not only ripping off the layout, they copied the entire page itself...

      • Blogging Googlers have responded [mattcutts.com], and I am reaching for my bwig bwag of popcorn. More of this action please!

  • HAHA (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    MS pwned by their own system. Nice! FP :D

  • not exactly what Microsoft intended? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    >Perhaps not exactly what Microsoft intended when they released the Internet Explorer Administration Kit, which allows developers to customize IE.

    Bullshit. Perhaps EXACTLY what Microsoft intended to help keep those pesky anti-trust lawsuits away.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by empaler ( 130732 )
      Hell, forget about the lawsuits. They're just happy to see their browser being leveraged by other sites than their own.
      Bill: OMG, Steve! Google is redistributing our browser with a slight smear on the top with their logo! Whatever shall we do!?
      Steve: Send in the flying monkeys?
      • Steve would start screaming obscenities and really just make a lot of racket (perhaps throw a handy heavy object around).

        Bill: Uh, Steve?

        Steve: Oh, uh.... YYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAA!!!! DAMN STRAIGHT! YAAAAAAARRRRRRR!

        Bill: STEVE!

        Steve: Right, whew. Just got a bit excited there... *twitch* YYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAA *toss*

        Bill: So, I'll expect your next TPS report to have a new cover sheet, and go ahead and make sure you get a copy of that memo. Mmmmkay?

  • But... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Friday December 15, 2006 @11:30PM (#17265502) Journal
    What about http://www.google.com/firefox [google.com]

    Did Google ever pick a side in the browser wars?

    • Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Friday December 15, 2006 @11:33PM (#17265530)
      Did Google ever pick a side in the browser wars?

      Smart businesspeople would never call it a "war" or choose to pick sides. Just support the big ones, whatever they are. The customers are important. Google could care less what browser their customers use. Only geeks care about "the browser war".

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by alshithead ( 981606 ) *
        Google only cares that your browser supports their site. As long as the browser functionality supports all Google options, they are happy.

      • Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tetravus ( 79831 ) on Friday December 15, 2006 @11:57PM (#17265702) Homepage
        Only geeks care about "the browser war".

        Well, geeks and people who have to design two or three different implementations of a web page so it will show up correctly for all visitors. Oh, and the people who have to pay those developers who are now putting in overtime... and the content authors whose work is framed by the pages that the developers make (and want to appear equally professional to all visitors)... and maybe the investors in the company that hired the developers who want to get to IPO and get their money out as soon as possible.

        But yeah, mostly just geeks care about that stuff ;-)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Tim C ( 15259 )
          Well, geeks and people who have to design two or three different implementations of a web page so it will show up correctly for all visitors.

          Those people are geeks. They may not care about software, hardware, technology, etc, but they're geeks all the same.

          Oh, and the people who have to pay those developers who are now putting in overtime

          You clearly don't work in the web business. Paid overtime for cross-browser compatibility fixes that should've been included in the original estimates? You wish.

          the content

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Killer Koala ( 836456 )
        Then why is Google running Firefox's Phishing Filter for Firefox 2.0 and greater? Google has already picked a side...they chose Firefox.

      • Mozilla and Firefox first so one can leverage XUL.

        Otherwise pure W3C.

        If the vendor doesn't follow standards, too bad. I've better things to do than tweak stylesheets and generate inefficient image formats to get around browsers that don't display a transparent PNG background.

        Guess what? Proper W3C HTML usually renders the same in any browser I've used. Some just lag in supporting standards and end up a bit ugly, but still function fine.


      • Google could care less what browser their customers use.

        Right technically, but wrong in spirit. The goal is for Google to have customers in the first place. While Google may not care what their customers use, they do want to keep those customers--and Google can keep customers easier on a non-IE browser than on IE. Simply because Microsoft, a Google competitor, controls IE, and has used it's monopoly to exclude competition in the past. So it follows that Microsoft may well exclude or make it more diffi

    • Why should they take a side. Just because I don't use it does not mean no one does. It's the biggest guy out there (by far). Google would be dumb to ignore or poo poo on IE.
    • Rule of Acquisition 34: War is good for business.

  • Hmm... (Score:3)

    by locokamil ( 850008 ) on Friday December 15, 2006 @11:30PM (#17265508) Homepage
    The term "pwned" comes to mind.

    That's my first reaction. Second reaction is... shouldn't Google be pushing anything but Internet Explorer to its customers? A certain browser named after a certain bushy animal comes to mind.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Jarjarthejedi ( 996957 )
      Google seems to be trying to put it's name on anything and everything, FireFox, IE, Dell (far as I've seen all new Dell's come with Google Toolbar and IE Google Toolbar pre-installed...and it freezes the computer if you remove one...).

      I'm just waiting for the Google burger at McDonalds, or the Google Sub, or the Google car...

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dheera ( 1003686 )
        You ought to be at a university. Students at my school use Google speakers. I have 13 Google T-Shirts myself. There are Google whistles, Google flashlights, Google notebooks. I have a friend with a Google lava lamp, too. All of the above given for free by Google. You'd be surprised what kinds of things they give away in the academic domain to try to recruit people and advertise. Personally I think it's a great company, but Google software certainly isn't the limit :)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by oostevo ( 736441 )
          Don't forget about Google Pizza! (http://www.google.com/support/jobs/bin/static.py? page=students.html&sid=ambassador)

          It's great to be working on a cs lab, with free pizza on cute little Google plates with Google napkins.

    • I stand corrected. The person above me pointed out www.google.com/firefox [google.com]

      What's their game? Do they even have a game (apart from expanded audience, that is).
    • "A certain browser named after a certain bushy animal comes to mind"

      I don't think gopher was technically a browser...

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by CCFreak2K ( 930973 )
      A certain browser named after a certain bushy animal comes to mind.

      Oh, you mean this thing? [wikipedia.org]
    • That's my first reaction. Second reaction is... shouldn't Google be pushing anything but Internet Explorer to its customers? A certain browser named after a certain bushy animal comes to mind.

      Why should Google be pushing Firefox? Like any business, Google goes where the customers are. On the web, that means IE.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Gilmoure ( 18428 )
      a certain bushy animal comes to mind.

      Hedgehog?

  • What they intended (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Um, actually that's *exactly* what they intended... Why must everyone suppose everything that comes out of Microsoft is evil? Only SOME things that come out of them are evil. Important distinction.

    • Crap? Evil? Does it really make a difference? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Why must everyone suppose everything that comes out of Microsoft is evil? Only SOME things that come out of them are evil

      Yes, but the emanations that aren't evil are merely crap that doesn't work properly.

  • ...But it's still a potentially broadened user base. Besides, haven't there been administrator tweaking kits for earlier versions of IE, too?
  • If Google pulls this off (as in, MS doesn't take them to court to take it off) do you know how many copy cats there are going to be? *giggles at the thought of Myspace IE7*
    • I'm don't think MS could, or probably wants to, take them to court. It seems to be a free product made using a tool released by MS themselves. Where's the lawsuit? So long as Google doesn't charge money for it or force it on people some how it may as well be Myspace IE7 to the courts, and probably to MS themselves, a free change to their browser.
      • What Google is doing is attempting to take away what Microsoft has tried to take away with the release of IE7, and that is to default to MSN Search. By releasing their *own* version of IE7 with the search capabilities of google already in it, it just slims the chance of someone actually using MSN as their default search.
        • Microsoft already released IE7 with Google search capabilities built in. It's called Internet Explorer 7 and when you first install it, it gives you a chance to decide what search provider you want to use. And surprise-surprise Google is one of your choices.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drsmithy ( 35869 )

        I'm don't think MS could, or probably wants to, take them to court. It seems to be a free product made using a tool released by MS themselves. Where's the lawsuit?

        Does IE's license allow public redistribution by third parties without a contract ?

        (I haven't checked - although I'd assume Google's lawyers did).

    • Re:just think... (Score:4, Informative)

      by mingot ( 665080 ) on Friday December 15, 2006 @11:38PM (#17265568)
      Doesn't seem like they really want to take them to court.

      From TFA:

      ieblog [msdn.com]
      • I think it's all very simple, so simple I don't really understand why it got over the head of the story submitter..

        Microsoft has support for this in IE 7 to help other companies distribute their branded version of IE 7.

        To MS it doesn't really matter what happens; as long as their browser is distributed, they're happy.

        If MS didn't allow this, you'd be able to download IE 7 from either Google and Yahoo, and that would have been Microsoft's loss as well.
    • That would actually be a pretty smart thing to do for MS. If heavily customizing IE catches on, to the point where significant functionality was added as natively compiled plugins or loadable modules for IE, it would tie users right back into windows as a platform away from the web as a platform.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shados ( 741919 )
        Indeed. And then no one can say people using these customised IE7 are doing so because of some monopoly forcing them: since Google also pushes Firefox... so IE7 installed that way would be so because the user actualy wants to.

  • this version? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by arazor ( 55656 )
    Does it still check for a ummm "proper" Windows XP?
    • Does it still check for a ummm "proper" Windows XP?

      Yes it does check to see if you are running pirated Windows.

  • Activation? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ilyag ( 572316 )
    I wonder - does this version still require dealing with the WGA droid?

    The lack of desire to keep proving that my Windows is genuine is one of the main reasons so far I'm not upgrading IE. The other is the fear that it's another huge slow monster - I don't want to imagine how much disk space it takes...
    • I was wondering that myself, so I started installing it. And yes, it does.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Firehed ( 942385 )
        You failed too?

        ...I mean, umm, it's the VM's fault. Yeah, that's it, it's because of running in a VM!

    • Re:Activation? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Arctic Dragon ( 647151 ) on Saturday December 16, 2006 @01:01AM (#17266074)
      My IE7 Program File directory is 2.57MB, but since installing it required two reboots, I imagine that additional files are scattered all over the place.

      A couple of months ago, I did some quick testing to see which browser uses the most RAM. I checked the RAM usage right after starting the browser with a blank page, and again after opening a total of 3 tabs (of course, YMMV):

      Mozilla Firefox 2.0 (default theme, no extensions)
      blank page: 20MB
      3 open tabs: 31MB

      Mozilla Firefox trunk build (default theme, no extensions)
      blank page: 20MB
      3 open tabs: 30MB

      Mozilla SeaMonkey 1.1A
      blank page: 17MB
      3 open tabs: 28MB

      K-Meleon 1.02
      blank page: 15MB
      3 open tabs: 24MB

      Internet Explorer 6.0SP2
      blank page: 11MB

      Internet Explorer 7.0
      blank page: 17MB
      3 open tabs: 35MB

      Opera 9.02
      blank page: 14MB
      3 open tabs: 24MB

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by csplinter ( 734017 )
        Thats intresting but, it's an apples to oranges comparison with IE compared to other browsers. IE is so fused together with Windows that you can't tell were Windows starts and IE stops. Maybe 10% of IE is tangled up in other Windows processes, maybe 50%, theres no telling how much is being offloaded.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cnettel ( 836611 )
          Well, not really. It's almost the other way round for many things, all loaded DLLs will count as part of the work set, so in many types of measurements you'll get a much higher number than the total commit size if you sum over all active processes.
        • IE7 is much less fused together with Windows than versions 4-6 were. For example, since installing IE7, if I put a web address in "My Computer", it opens the site in Firefox.

      • Re:Activation? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SnprBoB86 ( 576143 ) on Saturday December 16, 2006 @04:21AM (#17267026) Homepage
        This is an extremely unscientific measurement.

        1) The order in which you perform this test could influence which DLLs are loaded in which processes
        2) Some applications may allocate memory in chunks or do other funky memory management
        3) Which pages were used? Was it the same for each browser?
        4) Do these pages include Flash, Java, or similar content which may indicate fault of plug-in rather than browser
        5) prob a million more, it's late, I'm tired
  • The #1 thing that has kept me liking Google is their lack of using force as a way to get consumers to adopt their products. Microsoft and AOL are very aggressive in promoting their products and try to shape their users' habits to their profit rather than catering to consumer needs to gain profit. Google, on the other hand, just comes out with wild stuff that is just so good that people flock to it. Gmail blew away Hotmail and Yahoo for a little while with the 1-gigabyte of storage space. Google maps with th

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by SuperStretchy ( 1018064 )
      Exactly! Throw in GMail drive extension (watch the ToS for GMail!), google calendar, google earth (blew my 75 year old grandfather's mind), etc...

      I don't have google toolbar though.. Nor any toolbar for that matter.

      People love it for its free-ness, clean ui, and lack of intrusiveness (with the exception of google desktop- which basically just destroys the point I was trying to make...)

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by diskofish ( 1037768 )
      Correction: Google maps is NOT Flash based. Yahoo! Maps is Flash based and Google maps uses Ajax.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by spells ( 203251 )

      The #1 thing that has kept me liking Google is their lack of using force as a way to get consumers to adopt their products.

      Wow - we have very different experiences with Google these days. I "maintain" computers for different family members in 4 different homes and I have removed Google toolbar multiple times from each one. When asked, nobody remembers wanting to install it. The toolbar is now included with a few of the standard downloads/upgrades (for example, Shockware). Of course, it's not "force"

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 )
        I have removed Google toolbar multiple times from each one. When asked, nobody remembers wanting to install it.

        I distinctly remember seeing the Google toolbar included in places like Shockware, and every time, there was an option to install it or not. Just because the user reflexively clicks next-next-next without ever reading or looking at "custom" options doesn't mean they weren't given a choice.

  • This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MeanMF ( 631837 ) on Saturday December 16, 2006 @12:10AM (#17265772) Homepage
    Yeah I'm sure the Microsoft folks will be devastated if a lot of people download and use their software....

  • Isnt this exactly what Microsoft intended.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slashnar ( 810238 ) on Saturday December 16, 2006 @12:13AM (#17265792)
    Is everyone here this dumb?? This is exactly what was intended when the Administration kit was made. Microsoft would want everyone out there(Amazon, eBay, Apple for gods sakes) to be pushing out a customized version of IE7. Dont u get it??

    • Most are also conveniently ignoring the fact that IE7 simply imports your IE6 settings. If you already had the Google search hooks set (either by the Google toolbar or doing it manually), IE7 adopts those settings. My IE7 installation has defaulted to Google searching since day 1 and has never even tried to override it with Live settings.

      If you've never tried to setup IE to use Google search before, there's no reason a new IE install from Microsoft.com should point you that direction. If you've already

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Val314 ( 219766 )
      Its obvious that MS wants this to happen. (since it promotes IE7)

      they even linked to the customized versions in their IE blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/12/13/google -and-web-de-release-customized-ie7.aspx [msdn.com]

  • Not really news... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by compupc1 ( 138208 ) on Saturday December 16, 2006 @12:21AM (#17265856)
    How is this news? The IE has been around for years and years. I remember using it to customize IE 5.5. It may have been around even earlier than that. And as to Microsoft somehow being upset, please look past the knee-jerk reaction and notice that the IE Blog [msdn.com], from Microsoft, actually praises the Google release, and links to their download page. This is what people are SUPPOSED to do with the IEAK. The article is really trying to make a big deal about something that's not...
  • Google's new customized IE apparently prevents users [windowsitpro.com] from changing the default search provider to anything other than Google.

    Then there's the debacle of last week's release of a Google-branded version of Internet Explorer (IE) 7, which conspicuously copied--in a blatant, wholehearted fashion--a similar project from Yahoo. But my favorite little bit of fun out of Mordor, er ah, Google has got to be what happens if you try to change the default search provider on a version of IE 7 in which you've installed th

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pembo13 ( 770295 )
      So what?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Acid-Duck ( 228035 )
      Although I don't usually agree with trying to pressure a monopoly on people, Google is the tweaker behind this customized IE which was created especially for the purpose of using Google services on an IE platform. Nothing wrong with what they did, if someone doesn't want to be forced using Google as a search engine then just use the standard IE that comes with every copy of Windows instead of downloading Google's customized version.
      • Except that the primary reason that Google created this customized version is so they can then bundle this not just with all their software, but with OEM's standard software.

        In other words, Google's eventual goal is to get Dell, Gateway, HP, etc., to include the Googleized version of IE with all their new PCs.
    • Malware replaces the default search all the time.

      On a typical Windows PC, there will be many different pieces of malware fighting over this. The malware also fights over your home page and numerous other things.

      • Very true, but if malware is on your machine it will do what it damn well pleases. Google preventing the user from changing the default search provider does only that - prevents the USER from changing it. Malware will change it just fine.

  • Been doing this for years (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DeadboltX ( 751907 ) on Saturday December 16, 2006 @12:26AM (#17265882)
    Does no one remember all the branded versions of IE 5.5?
    Comcast had one, SBC DSL had one, I'm sure there were hundreds.

    I don't see why Microsoft would get upset at this; this is why they released the kit in the first place.
    A company is more likely to distribute a browser if they can brand it and what does Microsoft want? You got it, more people using IE7.
    Only a select few morons are going to mistake a Google branded IE7 as "Google's internet browser". Everyone else will continue to know that it is Microsoft's Internet Explorer but Google is happy to get its name in all the places it can.

  • you missed it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kahrytan ( 913147 ) on Saturday December 16, 2006 @12:49AM (#17266006)

      You people missed the point of Google doing this. I am sure Google still fully supports Firefox movement.

    Google released a customized IE7 for the sake of brand recognition. And it really doesn't help Microsoft either. It just gives MS bragging rights and no profit. This customized version of IE7 will get people using Google homepage and search engine. Which in return will boost revenue for Google. And with that boost, it will support Google's efforts in the Google Foundation and open source applications with the higher revenue.

    In the end, It is a win-win for the open source community. And a loosing situation for Microsoft. No one uses their precious Windows Live or MSN search. A small loss in revenue for Microsoft.
  • MS has made this possible for many years. Heck, I did it for the last company I worked for. In fact, I'm sort of suprised google wasted their time doing it. Whats the point? If MS really wanted to lock down the browser, they could do it. They could DRM It seven ways to sunday. But, everynow and then someone there remebers that the company really grew due their embrace of an "open" platform Wintel ( MS OS, Intel Hardware, anyone's name on the box, anyone's software inside).

  • Yahoo = Evil, Google = Good? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TooManyNames ( 711346 ) on Saturday December 16, 2006 @01:53AM (#17266382)
    Why is it that when this same story came out for Yahoo, everyone declared that Yahoo was "pushing IE7 on Firefox users [slashdot.org]?" People were even claiming that Yahoo was trying to leverage monopolistic practices. Now that Google has done exactly the same thing, people are claiming that this somehow diminishes Microsoft's original intentions (though I don't understand how having a popular search engine endorse your web browser would be a bad thing). How is Google's decision to use this strategy any different from Yahoo's? I'm just curious to know what sort of BS /. will provide in order to prove how Google's plan is so different and ethically superior to Yahoo's.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dirtside ( 91468 )
      Uh, are you sure it's the same people who bitched about Yahoo's IE7 that are supporting Google's IE7? Because there's more than one person on Slashdot, and not everyone here has the same opinions.
    • Because Google also sponsors Firefox through the Google search box.

  • Actually, it's EXACTLY what was intended. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PixieDust ( 971386 ) on Saturday December 16, 2006 @02:58AM (#17266660)
    Must be a really slow news day.

    From Microsoft's Page regarding Advantages for Content Providers [microsoft.com].

    To customize Internet Explorer, you can add your organization's name or other wording to the title bar. For example, the phrase "Windows Internet Explorer Provided by Proseware, Inc." could appear on your title bar.
    You can preset the following Web pages and links:
    Customer support page
    Users' home page
    Users' search providers

    So no, it's EXACTLY what Microsoft intended. And the very fact that it's being offered by Google is actually a boon to Microsoft. They may be competitors in some areas, but this has obvious benefits for both.

  • Missing option (Score:3, Funny)

    by quakehead3 ( 988738 ) on Saturday December 16, 2006 @03:11AM (#17266718) Journal
    "Optimized for Slashdot"

  • It's *exactly* what Microsoft intended (Score:3, Insightful)

    by joeykiller ( 119489 ) on Saturday December 16, 2006 @04:31AM (#17267060) Journal
    Perhaps not exactly what Microsoft intended when they released the Internet Explorer Administration Kit
    I'd say it is the other way around. This is exactly what Microsoft intended: Let companies and users make and distribute customized versions of Explorer, and by doing this help Microsoft regain market share. The fact that two out of the top ten internet sites now does this, must be great for the IE team (if not for the Windows Live Search team).

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close