<< I fail to see how anyone is in a position to be dictating what a company does with its own line of products. >>
so that company doesn't screw consumers (read: YOU) over. have you ever taken a government class in your life?
<< I fail to see how anyone is in a position to be dictating what a company does with its own line of products. >>
so that company doesn't screw consumers (read: YOU) over. have you ever taken a government class in your life?
so that company doesn't screw consumers (read: YOU) over. have you ever taken a government class in your life?
Several. Where is this going?
I've yet to see anyone establish a credible argument which says that consumers are being 'screwed' over by having Internet Explorer integrated with the Windows Operating System.
If Internet Explorer is a gift from the devil then I would like to know what the next best alternative is. Consumers have overwhelmingly made it clear that they prefer to have a preconfigured operating system ready to hit the internet out of the box. If this is the case then is Netscape the solution? If it is then I'm going to start taking issue with this movement...
Several. Where is this going?
I've yet to see anyone establish a credible argument which says that consumers are being 'screwed' over by having Internet Explorer integrated with the Windows Operating System.
If Internet Explorer is a gift from the devil then I would like to know what the next best alternative is. Consumers have overwhelmingly made it clear that they prefer to have a preconfigured operating system ready to hit the internet out of the box. If this is the case then is Netscape the solution? If it is then I'm going to start taking issue with this movement...
My 0.02 cents....I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been around computers since the dawn of MS-DOS!!
Man I still used those old IBM-PCS with integrated basic in their roms...
What I think is that IE is now the best browser because the former Netscape stopped developing the product they had....
First because they couldn't get any one to use it, second because the ones that got around to use it in windows got
all sorts of problems due to microsoft tactics...
I still can't understand why the hell does any OS needs a full featured web-browser? Just look at the other apps that come
with windows, everyone of them just gives basic functions: wordpad just let's you edit small docs, sound recorder let's you
record up to a 1min of sound, etc... so why did they put a full IE in there???? Simple keeping others from from gainning that
market! Just wait and see what's going to happen with the new burner and media settings that they put into XP... that ones
are going to keep other programs from being bought and used....
I'm also a programmer, and my OS of choice is still NT! taking out the plug-play issues and some strange other things it's the
best around, no bloat...I've used it every low-life machine without any problems...and what browser does it have after install
Microsoft's copy of Mosaic... and it's pretty usable...from there you can go anywhere you whish...
Back to the question....
Windows and IE can be separated! Windos NT Embedded and Windows XP Embedded are there to prove it 98Lite also...
as well as IEradicator...
The other question singh asked:
Netscape lost to Microsoft because of monopoly tactics and because microsoft allowed wannabe web developers to code the
most unstandard code and get away with it! And yes the standard should be fallowed to the letter...or else how the hell does
your ANSI-UNIX machine talk to my ANSI-MICROSOFT machine??? Or how do you know what side of the road to drive??
And btw I use Windows, Linux, Unix and Novell systems (sorry no BSD yet!) and I must say that everyone has its functions, so
I'm not a windows basher!! What I do not like is people abusing their position and getting way with it...
Man I still used those old IBM-PCS with integrated basic in their roms...
What I think is that IE is now the best browser because the former Netscape stopped developing the product they had....
First because they couldn't get any one to use it, second because the ones that got around to use it in windows got
all sorts of problems due to microsoft tactics...
I still can't understand why the hell does any OS needs a full featured web-browser? Just look at the other apps that come
with windows, everyone of them just gives basic functions: wordpad just let's you edit small docs, sound recorder let's you
record up to a 1min of sound, etc... so why did they put a full IE in there???? Simple keeping others from from gainning that
market! Just wait and see what's going to happen with the new burner and media settings that they put into XP... that ones
are going to keep other programs from being bought and used....
I'm also a programmer, and my OS of choice is still NT! taking out the plug-play issues and some strange other things it's the
best around, no bloat...I've used it every low-life machine without any problems...and what browser does it have after install
Microsoft's copy of Mosaic... and it's pretty usable...from there you can go anywhere you whish...
Back to the question....
Windows and IE can be separated! Windos NT Embedded and Windows XP Embedded are there to prove it 98Lite also...
as well as IEradicator...
The other question singh asked:
Netscape lost to Microsoft because of monopoly tactics and because microsoft allowed wannabe web developers to code the
most unstandard code and get away with it! And yes the standard should be fallowed to the letter...or else how the hell does
your ANSI-UNIX machine talk to my ANSI-MICROSOFT machine??? Or how do you know what side of the road to drive??
And btw I use Windows, Linux, Unix and Novell systems (sorry no BSD yet!) and I must say that everyone has its functions, so
I'm not a windows basher!! What I do not like is people abusing their position and getting way with it...
Why should it not be integrated?
* Like I said, smaller programs doing what they need to do is what I prefer.
* Adding unnecessary functions to system executables can cause problems. How many SYSTEM exploits has IE allowed in? Too many. You can ruduce this risk by seperating the system explorer and internet explorer functions. It wont be perfect, but it will be a good solution.
* I dont want to use IE. How do I get around the filesystem if I dont have ie? Windows Explorer? Heh, not likely. That program is another POS.
Do I want IE to be removed from Windows installations?
No. Lusers still need their IE. Why? Because they wont know how to install anything else. Keep it on there, install it by default with the rest of the bloat. Just allow me to uninstall it. And I dont mean this deleting just the executable BS. I want an uninstall option or whatever like I have for most of my other software.
Is this really too much to ask? Microsoft gets a little help in the security dept (and everyone knows they need it at this point), these lawsuits mean almost nothing, and plenty of people are happy.
N11, I do not "limit my websurfing experience" by using Mozilla. The companies and sites that only work with IE do not deserve to be visited. They should be shunned like Asian mail servers with a new sendmail exploit out.
* Like I said, smaller programs doing what they need to do is what I prefer.
* Adding unnecessary functions to system executables can cause problems. How many SYSTEM exploits has IE allowed in? Too many. You can ruduce this risk by seperating the system explorer and internet explorer functions. It wont be perfect, but it will be a good solution.
* I dont want to use IE. How do I get around the filesystem if I dont have ie? Windows Explorer? Heh, not likely. That program is another POS.
Do I want IE to be removed from Windows installations?
No. Lusers still need their IE. Why? Because they wont know how to install anything else. Keep it on there, install it by default with the rest of the bloat. Just allow me to uninstall it. And I dont mean this deleting just the executable BS. I want an uninstall option or whatever like I have for most of my other software.
Is this really too much to ask? Microsoft gets a little help in the security dept (and everyone knows they need it at this point), these lawsuits mean almost nothing, and plenty of people are happy.
N11, I do not "limit my websurfing experience" by using Mozilla. The companies and sites that only work with IE do not deserve to be visited. They should be shunned like Asian mail servers with a new sendmail exploit out.
<< N11, I do not "limit my websurfing experience" by using Mozilla. The companies and sites that only work with IE do not deserve to be visited. They should be shunned like Asian mail servers with a new sendmail exploit out. >>
no kidding, mozilla is the most standards-compliant browser out there, any site that only works in IE is junk. IE breaks tons of standards and sort of makes its own alot of the time. the internet is not the inter.NET, and MS needs to stop trying to make it so.
<< Yes, indeed it is very possible. But my question was why? I can see no justifiable advantage in doing that, but I can see lots of disadvantages (some mentioned above). >>
You can download IE6 for Win98; IE5 for Mac. Besides the obvious (other) reasons, does that make W98 less of an operating system than WXP? Of course it doesn't.
The essential reason at hand is choice. n0cmonkey outlined some valid reasons why not to use IE; and why he wouldn't even want it on his systems if he had a choice.
Microsoft execs have under oath testified that IE is inseparable from the OS (and threatened to remove Windows from the marketplace if compelled by the courts to do so). Even you've admitted that's untrue.
<<
<< Finally, many IE/MS supporters miss the point completely. The bundling of IE isn't necessarily a problem or bad for consumers; it was MS' chokehold on OEMs preventing them from bundling any other browser (namely Netscape) that was (among a lost list of) anti-competitive abuse of their OS monopoly. >>
That may be, but what does this have to do with removing IE from the OS? Do you seriously think Netscape lost the "browser wars" only because MS was preventing OEM's from installing it? What prevented the users from downloading and installing it? >>
PC OEMs and Netscape have everything to do with the problem at hand.
On the one hand, you're arguing that IE adds significant value to the OS. On the other hand, you dismiss the fact that Netscape was prevented from being value-added to the OS. I guarantee you that pre-installation of a browser has almost everything to do with market share (notice how nobody uses a 3rd party TCP/IP stack since W95). If AOL had not embedded IE, and if IE were available only by download, I seriously doubt IE would have even half the total market share, let alone 90+ %. I really hope you aren't suggesting most people are computer enthusiasts who download all their software and install software personally.
It's a silly argument to say IE *should* belong w/ the OS, but if any other products want to compete fairly, they can't. Btw, not I've never said IE should be completely removed from the OS.
<<
<< Here's my problem with singh's argument. He almost says because IE has become so popular, its myriad DLLs are widely popular as MFC (a Windows library is). Hence, these libraries have achieved significance on par with the core OS. But for one, they are not (in my technical opinion) part of the core OS. Secondly, the popularity largely stemmed from illegal actions of the company. >>
Same point as mentioned above: really depends on your definition of an Operating System. I consider the GUI services a part of the OS. If that requires IE, so be it. >>
While there's a lot of variance on what is an operating system, that question is also very well understood by computer scientists.
By your reasoning, if Active Desktop (which requires IE) were mandatory for the Windows GUI, that would imply IE is part of the OS. To me and others, it's transparent that the dependency on IE is not essential and could be removed.
Finally what is this issue about? Why does it matter?
In short, Microsoft enjoys a monopoly in the desktop OS (and Office apps as well). By law, companies with monopoly status cannot abuse that status to conquer other markets. IANAL, but logically, if a company has been proven to have broken the law (which they have), you'd assume the remedy assigned by the courts would at least discourage such abuse from occurring going forward. Logically, it should address the past abuses and gains therefrom as well.
The IE bundling issue is but a small corner of the anti-trust suit. It was more relevant with Win 9x and when NS was still a competitor. MS has effectively spun this issue as the courts deciding what a software company can design and develop, but in reality what's of concern are illegal business practices, not the exact definition of an OS and how popular IE is. Finally, this lawsuit really was the last option for the government. MS has engaged in anti-competitive business practices in the past, and even signed an agreement with the government in 1995 to discontinue some of those practices. Unfortunately, they've repeatedly operated outside the law but we've yet to see if the courts will impose any meaningful remedies.
This is not about whether or not MS could remove IE... they could.
This is about maintaining the MS monopoly.
If Windows was pared down to strictly the OS components, their lead with regard to features over competitors would be removed. There would be little reason to pick MS over any other OS and software manufacturers would begin coding for other OS's. Without the GUI components that singh spoke of, it would become more difficult for other companies to code for the windows environment. MS maintains its monopoly through these added features and by making it as easy as possible for software manufacturers. This adds up to convenience and lots of compatible software for the consumer.
In addition, without IE components, lots of other features would have to go like active desktop etc. You could still have those features but you would buy software from a third party to do it. That would be $$ lost to MS, whether it be dollars given to another company or growth of future competition to MS.
Removing IE goes to the heart of the success of the OS division and they will fight to the end on this subject.
This is about maintaining the MS monopoly.
If Windows was pared down to strictly the OS components, their lead with regard to features over competitors would be removed. There would be little reason to pick MS over any other OS and software manufacturers would begin coding for other OS's. Without the GUI components that singh spoke of, it would become more difficult for other companies to code for the windows environment. MS maintains its monopoly through these added features and by making it as easy as possible for software manufacturers. This adds up to convenience and lots of compatible software for the consumer.
In addition, without IE components, lots of other features would have to go like active desktop etc. You could still have those features but you would buy software from a third party to do it. That would be $$ lost to MS, whether it be dollars given to another company or growth of future competition to MS.
Removing IE goes to the heart of the success of the OS division and they will fight to the end on this subject.
> How many SYSTEM exploits has IE allowed in? Too many.
Are you sure you didn't mean IIS and not IE here?
Bill
Are you sure you didn't mean IIS and not IE here?
Bill
Why should it not be integrated?
* Like I said, smaller programs doing what they need to do is what I prefer.
* Adding unnecessary functions to system executables can cause problems. How many SYSTEM exploits has IE allowed in? Too many. You can ruduce this risk by seperating the system explorer and internet explorer functions. It wont be perfect, but it will be a good solution.
* I dont want to use IE. How do I get around the filesystem if I dont have ie? Windows Explorer? Heh, not likely. That program is another POS.
Do I want IE to be removed from Windows installations?
I'm not arguing against the release of a stripped down windows. If it can be removed there really isn't a purpose to have IE installed with Windows 2000 server.
No. Lusers still need their IE. Why? Because they wont know how to install anything else. Keep it on there, install it by default with the rest of the bloat. Just allow me to uninstall it. And I dont mean this deleting just the executable BS. I want an uninstall option or whatever like I have for most of my other software.
I don't know how firmly integrated explorer is with IE. I'm sure that they are substantially intertwined to a point where it would be an overwhelming pain in their ass to implement some segregation.
N11, I do not "limit my websurfing experience" by using Mozilla. The companies and sites that only work with IE do not deserve to be visited. They should be shunned like Asian mail servers with a new sendmail exploit out.
Your typical web designer has multiple systems with 12 or 30 different versions of different web browsers. I met a coldfusion developer the other day who spends a majority of his time dealing with issues seen in older versions of netscape.
People really like standards. Most web logs I see show 85-99% of the traffic being generated by an Internet Explorer browser. From a developers perspective standards are really nice. From an open source perspective, I can see where you are coming from.
What this ultimately boils down to is whether or not Microsoft should pull Internet Explorer out of Windows. And my answer would be, if this is what the average consumer wants -- they should do it.
* Like I said, smaller programs doing what they need to do is what I prefer.
* Adding unnecessary functions to system executables can cause problems. How many SYSTEM exploits has IE allowed in? Too many. You can ruduce this risk by seperating the system explorer and internet explorer functions. It wont be perfect, but it will be a good solution.
* I dont want to use IE. How do I get around the filesystem if I dont have ie? Windows Explorer? Heh, not likely. That program is another POS.
Do I want IE to be removed from Windows installations?
I'm not arguing against the release of a stripped down windows. If it can be removed there really isn't a purpose to have IE installed with Windows 2000 server.
No. Lusers still need their IE. Why? Because they wont know how to install anything else. Keep it on there, install it by default with the rest of the bloat. Just allow me to uninstall it. And I dont mean this deleting just the executable BS. I want an uninstall option or whatever like I have for most of my other software.
I don't know how firmly integrated explorer is with IE. I'm sure that they are substantially intertwined to a point where it would be an overwhelming pain in their ass to implement some segregation.
N11, I do not "limit my websurfing experience" by using Mozilla. The companies and sites that only work with IE do not deserve to be visited. They should be shunned like Asian mail servers with a new sendmail exploit out.
Your typical web designer has multiple systems with 12 or 30 different versions of different web browsers. I met a coldfusion developer the other day who spends a majority of his time dealing with issues seen in older versions of netscape.
People really like standards. Most web logs I see show 85-99% of the traffic being generated by an Internet Explorer browser. From a developers perspective standards are really nice. From an open source perspective, I can see where you are coming from.
What this ultimately boils down to is whether or not Microsoft should pull Internet Explorer out of Windows. And my answer would be, if this is what the average consumer wants -- they should do it.
netscape = baaaaadddd
opera = $30 ????wtf....for a small browser????????
mozilla? it's alright...
IE6= good.....stable....fast
so wtf is the problem? oh yeah....you hate ms...
but for us consumer...i want my IE intact.....What's the benefit of having a strip down version of window and having to go download a browser...because you want alternatives...yeah right....just try all the other browser and you'll still end up with IE
opera = $30 ????wtf....for a small browser????????
mozilla? it's alright...
IE6= good.....stable....fast
so wtf is the problem? oh yeah....you hate ms...
but for us consumer...i want my IE intact.....What's the benefit of having a strip down version of window and having to go download a browser...because you want alternatives...yeah right....just try all the other browser and you'll still end up with IE
<< No. Lusers still need their IE. Why? Because they wont know how to install anything else. Keep it on there, install it by default with the rest of the bloat. Just allow me to uninstall it. And I dont mean this deleting just the executable BS. I want an uninstall option or whatever like I have for most of my other software. >>
man your one nasty monkey LOL, just because some people cant install software does not make them losers!
ps: I am a business man also so I am always out for blood! I would like a monopoly myself! LOL
windows has to remain easy to use. we may consider ourselves power users, but the VAST majority of windows users are not. i personally think that microsoft has done suprisingly well in making an OS that is so easy that the dummies can use it but flexible enough that its still a usable OS for the power users.
it would be nice if they start making different versions of the os, for dummies and experts, but I dont think it will happen. luckily, windows is not the only OS we have available.
it would be nice if they start making different versions of the os, for dummies and experts, but I dont think it will happen. luckily, windows is not the only OS we have available.
mrat, hmmm what? n0cmonkey posted about the number of system level exploits that IE has had. I asked if he meant IIS. Care to point out which of those fixes you linked to are SYSTEM level exploits? Those are all user level exploits (not saying IE isn't buggy, just clarifing his post as the facts don't seem to support the statement)
Now, IIS, more SYSTEM level exploits than you can use
Bill
Now, IIS, more SYSTEM level exploits than you can use
Bill
<< > How many SYSTEM exploits has IE allowed in? Too many.
Are you sure you didn't mean IIS and not IE here?
Bill >>
Yes. I am sure. But IIS has had its problems too.
<< Why should it not be integrated?
* Like I said, smaller programs doing what they need to do is what I prefer.
* Adding unnecessary functions to system executables can cause problems. How many SYSTEM exploits has IE allowed in? Too many. You can ruduce this risk by seperating the system explorer and internet explorer functions. It wont be perfect, but it will be a good solution.
* I dont want to use IE. How do I get around the filesystem if I dont have ie? Windows Explorer? Heh, not likely. That program is another POS.
Do I want IE to be removed from Windows installations?
I'm not arguing against the release of a stripped down windows. If it can be removed there really isn't a purpose to have IE installed with Windows 2000 server. >>
There is almost no need to have a real browser (yes, IE is a real browser) on a serer.
<<
No. Lusers still need their IE. Why? Because they wont know how to install anything else. Keep it on there, install it by default with the rest of the bloat. Just allow me to uninstall it. And I dont mean this deleting just the executable BS. I want an uninstall option or whatever like I have for most of my other software.
I don't know how firmly integrated explorer is with IE. I'm sure that they are substantially intertwined to a point where it would be an overwhelming pain in their ass to implement some segregation. >>
It may be a pain in the ass, but I think it would be worth it. For them.
<< N11, I do not "limit my websurfing experience" by using Mozilla. The companies and sites that only work with IE do not deserve to be visited. They should be shunned like Asian mail servers with a new sendmail exploit out.
Your typical web designer has multiple systems with 12 or 30 different versions of different web browsers. I met a coldfusion developer the other day who spends a majority of his time dealing with issues seen in older versions of netscape. >>
Then there should be no problem. But unfortunately, there is.
<< People really like standards. >>
Good. So do I. Mozilla supports most of the open standards out there pretty well.
<< Most web logs I see show 85-99% of the traffic being generated by an Internet Explorer browser. From a developers perspective standards are really nice. From an open source perspective, I can see where you are coming from. >>
If the developers followed the open standards there should be no problem.
<< What this ultimately boils down to is whether or not Microsoft should pull Internet Explorer out of Windows. And my answer would be, if this is what the average consumer wants -- they should do it. >>
I never said they should remove IE at all. I said it should not be integrated. I keep saying, install it by default. Just limit what it does.
<< netscape = baaaaadddd
opera = $30 ????wtf....for a small browser????????
mozilla? it's alright...
IE6= good.....stable....fast
so wtf is the problem? oh yeah....you hate ms...
but for us consumer...i want my IE intact.....What's the benefit of having a strip down version of window and having to go download a browser...because you want alternatives...yeah right....just try all the other browser and you'll still end up with IE >>
I dont think most of the people want ot see IE disappear, or even be removed from a default install. Read the thread.
EDIT: Also IE has a *VERY* limited portability.
<<
<< No. Lusers still need their IE. Why? Because they wont know how to install anything else. Keep it on there, install it by default with the rest of the bloat. Just allow me to uninstall it. And I dont mean this deleting just the executable BS. I want an uninstall option or whatever like I have for most of my other software. >>
man your one nasty monkey LOL, just because some people cant install software does not make them losers!
ps: I am a business man also so I am always out for blood! I would like a monopoly myself! LOL >>
-L has frequently been the flag in UNIX commands for USER variables (I think). Its not really an insult, just more of a quick way to say Computer Illiterate
> Yes. I am sure. But IIS has had its problems too
Can you reference a number of these exploits?
(edit) Just saw your PM, I replied...
Bill
Can you reference a number of these exploits?
(edit) Just saw your PM, I replied...
Bill
<< > Yes. I am sure. But IIS has had its problems too
Can you reference a number of these exploits?
(edit) Just saw your PM, I replied...
Bill >>
Its not as bad as IIS, but it could use some work. Running it without privledges would help a lot (no matter who was using it). But that wouldnt be an ideal solution.
It may be a pain in the ass, but I think it would be worth it. For them.
I don't think it is worth it for a company to negatively impact a majority of consumers simply because a select few don't want to see the browser integrated. I'd like to know if any of the people here arguing this actually have paid for the versions of windows 2000 or XP Professional they are running or have 'tested.'
Then there should be no problem. But unfortunately, there is.
Yes there is a problem because some of the older versions of netscape still in use are absolute trash and don't belong anywhere near the internet. But a successful developer cannot take into account the fact that 85-99% of internet users use some form of Internet Explorer. A successful site accomodates the majority of browsers in use today.
<< People really like standards. >>
Good. So do I. Mozilla supports most of the open standards out there pretty well.
Well it certainly is lacking in some regards. It isn't as visually appealing as Internet Explorer. Whether or not this is because a lot of developers only develop on IE platforms, I don't really know. What I do know is that my personal preference is Internet Explorer. Knowing that virtually any site I will visit on the internet is supported by my web browser is an accomodating feeling.
<< Most web logs I see show 85-99% of the traffic being generated by an Internet Explorer browser. From a developers perspective standards are really nice. From an open source perspective, I can see where you are coming from. >>
If the developers followed the open standards there should be no problem.
I never said they should remove IE at all. I said it should not be integrated. I keep saying, install it by default. Just limit what it does
You never really said why this would benefit the average consumer. I know why you think it would benefit users such as yourself. But are you the typical Microsoft customer? Are you a Microsoft customer?
Why would a company want to negate the performance of one if its most popular pieces of software because a select few do not like the corporation behind it?
I don't think it is worth it for a company to negatively impact a majority of consumers simply because a select few don't want to see the browser integrated. I'd like to know if any of the people here arguing this actually have paid for the versions of windows 2000 or XP Professional they are running or have 'tested.'
Then there should be no problem. But unfortunately, there is.
Yes there is a problem because some of the older versions of netscape still in use are absolute trash and don't belong anywhere near the internet. But a successful developer cannot take into account the fact that 85-99% of internet users use some form of Internet Explorer. A successful site accomodates the majority of browsers in use today.
<< People really like standards. >>
Good. So do I. Mozilla supports most of the open standards out there pretty well.
Well it certainly is lacking in some regards. It isn't as visually appealing as Internet Explorer. Whether or not this is because a lot of developers only develop on IE platforms, I don't really know. What I do know is that my personal preference is Internet Explorer. Knowing that virtually any site I will visit on the internet is supported by my web browser is an accomodating feeling.
<< Most web logs I see show 85-99% of the traffic being generated by an Internet Explorer browser. From a developers perspective standards are really nice. From an open source perspective, I can see where you are coming from. >>
If the developers followed the open standards there should be no problem.
I never said they should remove IE at all. I said it should not be integrated. I keep saying, install it by default. Just limit what it does
You never really said why this would benefit the average consumer. I know why you think it would benefit users such as yourself. But are you the typical Microsoft customer? Are you a Microsoft customer?
Why would a company want to negate the performance of one if its most popular pieces of software because a select few do not like the corporation behind it?
I think it comes down to a few issues. First, did microsoft use illegal tactics to continue their dominence (its not a monopoly) over the industry? Yes. Can IE be removed from Windows? Yes. Does IE and Windows together hurt consumers? A big NO, for all the reasons stated above. The key thing is to punish microsoft in such a way that consumers are not harmed, not add furthur confusion.
<< It may be a pain in the ass, but I think it would be worth it. For them.
I don't think it is worth it for a company to negatively impact a majority of consumers simply because a select few don't want to see the browser integrated. >>
How does my solution "negatively impact" any customer?
<< I'd like to know if any of the people here arguing this actually have paid for the versions of windows 2000 or XP Professional they are running or have 'tested.' >>
Would you like the phone number of the IT staff at my job? You can talk to them instead of insulting me with this BS.
<< Then there should be no problem. But unfortunately, there is.
Yes there is a problem because some of the older versions of netscape still in use are absolute trash and don't belong anywhere near the internet. But a successful developer cannot take into account the fact that 85-99% of internet users use some form of Internet Explorer. A successful site accomodates the majority of browsers in use today. >>
Drop the old netscape crap. Anyone that is not running a fairly recent version of a browser is nuts.
<< << People really like standards. >>
Good. So do I. Mozilla supports most of the open standards out there pretty well.
Well it certainly is lacking in some regards. >>
As is all software. Especially BETA software.
<< It isn't as visually appealing as Internet Explorer. Whether or not this is because a lot of developers only develop on IE platforms, I don't really know. What I do know is that my personal preference is Internet Explorer. Knowing that virtually any site I will visit on the internet is supported by my web browser is an accomodating feeling. >>
Lazy web designers.
<< << Most web logs I see show 85-99% of the traffic being generated by an Internet Explorer browser. From a developers perspective standards are really nice. From an open source perspective, I can see where you are coming from. >>
If the developers followed the open standards there should be no problem.
I never said they should remove IE at all. I said it should not be integrated. I keep saying, install it by default. Just limit what it does
You never really said why this would benefit the average consumer. I know why you think it would benefit users such as yourself. But are you the typical Microsoft customer? Are you a Microsoft customer? >>
Less security BS to worry about. I did mention that. And no, I am not a customer, I am a user.
<< Why would a company want to negate the performance of one if its most popular pieces of software because a select few do not like the corporation behind it? >>
Why would they be "negating the performance"? That doesnt make sense to me. An application is an application. A browser is a userland program that gets basically the same resources as the other userland processes.
How does my solution "negatively impact" any customer?
By several admissions seen up above, the process of separating the two is a very large task. Programmers do not work for free. If the path is taken then the costs are just going to be passed down to the consumer. For the sake of pleasing a select minority who for the most part takes issue with the company as a whole and don't really care about the average consumer -- referencing them as "lusers."
I fail to see how this would benefit the consumer. And you've not proven otherwise.
Drop the old netscape crap. Anyone that is not running a fairly recent version of a browser is nuts.
I'm not going to drop anything. People use these browsers and as a result must be accomodated for.
Why would they be "negating the performance"? That doesnt make sense to me. An application is an application. A browser is a userland program that gets basically the same resources as the other userland processes.
It doesn't make sense to you because you are not a typical user. You have visions of mozilla offering standard we can all run with and you do not require the bloated features that most people like, and want.
Which is going to be more efficient with resources? Linux or Windows? Now, which offers the most efficient environment for the typical everyday joe?
Performance is relative. You've got blinders on if you think that segregating Windows and IE is what the customer wants.
By several admissions seen up above, the process of separating the two is a very large task. Programmers do not work for free. If the path is taken then the costs are just going to be passed down to the consumer. For the sake of pleasing a select minority who for the most part takes issue with the company as a whole and don't really care about the average consumer -- referencing them as "lusers."
I fail to see how this would benefit the consumer. And you've not proven otherwise.
Drop the old netscape crap. Anyone that is not running a fairly recent version of a browser is nuts.
I'm not going to drop anything. People use these browsers and as a result must be accomodated for.
Why would they be "negating the performance"? That doesnt make sense to me. An application is an application. A browser is a userland program that gets basically the same resources as the other userland processes.
It doesn't make sense to you because you are not a typical user. You have visions of mozilla offering standard we can all run with and you do not require the bloated features that most people like, and want.
Which is going to be more efficient with resources? Linux or Windows? Now, which offers the most efficient environment for the typical everyday joe?
Performance is relative. You've got blinders on if you think that segregating Windows and IE is what the customer wants.
<< Drop the old netscape crap. Anyone that is not running a fairly recent version of a browser is nuts.
I'm not going to drop anything. People use these browsers and as a result must be accomodated for. >>
i dont accomodate for netscape 4. its so jacked up, i feel sorry for anyone using it. they deserve to see ugly pages. there are PLENTY of other browsers out there, and some very competent ones at that (much more capable than the notepad-esque IE)
<< You have visions of mozilla offering standard we can all run with and you do not require the bloated features that most people like, and want. >>
if you're saying that mozilla is not bloated, and mozilla has no features, then i compel you to go install mozilla. it is a beast. however it is the best browser for windows (IE has no freaking TABS, and a million other things....), and it's gecko rendering component is used in galeon, the best browser on any platform (IMO of course
)<< Which is going to be more efficient with resources? Linux or Windows? Now, which offers the most efficient environment for the typical everyday joe? >>
what does that have to do with anything? we're talking about windows and IE here....
<< Performance is relative. You've got blinders on if you think that segregating Windows and IE is what the customer wants. >>
it never was about what the customer wants. the typical windows user has NO idea what is going on inside that computer. this is about illegal actions taken by microsoft, and possible remedies for them. alot of people want alot of things, but we don't bend the law to accomodate that. (at least not in most cases
)TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter