Microsoft to kill off Internet Explorer

Last time I checked you don't actually need a web browser to access the Internet. Certainly don't need a browser to download a browser. Of course I am being pendantic here. I totally understand what people are saying, but I would just like to clarify that the Internet != Web Browser. The internet is not the little blue e.

Age has mellowed me a little bit, but I still find that MS supporters remind me of scientoligists. Despite the facts the still refuse to accept the truth.

Look, if it were not for FF and the open source community we would not be having Internet Explorer 8. Also MS did it's best to corrupt something that promoted interoperability with Internet Explorer (namely the W3C standards).

Unluckily for MS control of the Internet was not to come through the browser, but through Search. Gates and Ballmer must still lose sleep over that lack of foresight. Talk about barking up the wrong tree.

Ask yourself what the Internet is about, and then ask if MS was following the spirit of the Internet when they released IE. It is about different machines with different operating systems being able to talk to each other regardless of the platform. Likewise with HTML and CSS. Thankfully the number of IE only websites is now a minority.

Finally I would like to respond to the poster who claimed IE still has more market share as though that was a retort against the market share of FF! Well duh! It comes installed as default, so of course it has a greater market share.
 
Last time I checked you don't actually need a web browser to access the Internet. Certainly don't need a browser to download a browser. Of course I am being pendantic here. I totally understand what people are saying, but I would just like to clarify that the Internet != Web Browser. The internet is not the little blue e.

Yeah so computer illiterate people are really going to know to do ftp ftp.mozilla.org or whatever from the command prompt, and then all the CD and GET commands...

Then of course Microsoft would be sued for anti-competitive practices in the FTP client market... :D
 
Age has mellowed me a little bit, but I still find that MS supporters remind me of scientoligists. Despite the facts the still refuse to accept the truth.

What truth is that?

It's not IE users that are the scientologists... it's the alternative browser people. I accept this may be a coincidence but every single person I know that uses Opera/Firefox/whatever seems to be a complete zealot that wants to force their religion upon everyone else.

Whereas the IE users are cool and really couldn't give a toss about owning the latest eye phone or whatever the latest hip web browser is this year.

IE is like a Robin Reliant. (provided you don't have Flash 10 installed)
 
Whereas the IE users are cool and really couldn't give a toss about owning the latest eye phone or whatever the latest hip web browser is this year.

What's your point? Yes, people who are less interested in technology are more likely to stick with the default browser, whether it's inferior or not. That principle goes for most areas of interest. People with knowledge of something better are bound to try and promote it to others. It's not zealotry, it's just trying to help out. I'm not a Firefox zealot. I don't care if people use Firefox, Chrome, Safari or Opera. They're all great.

I admit that some go over the top. I admit that I'm sometimes among those people. But anyone who's done any non-trivial web development knows why IE fills people with rage. IE holds the web back. It's only like a Robin Reliant in that it's slow, dated and perhaps laughable.
 
Last edited:
What truth is that?

It's not IE users that are the scientologists... it's the alternative browser people. I accept this may be a coincidence but every single person I know that uses Opera/Firefox/whatever seems to be a complete zealot that wants to force their religion upon everyone else.

Whereas the IE users are cool and really couldn't give a toss about owning the latest eye phone or whatever the latest hip web browser is this year.

IE is like a Robin Reliant. (provided you don't have Flash 10 installed)

your so right
any post with a problem with internet/pages etc, you get all the posts saying use firefox instead etc
if i wanted to use firefox i would already be using it, it really isnt the be all to end all and even now there are pages that dont work or look right in FF and how long has FF been out
 
even now there are pages that dont work or look right in FF and how long has FF been out

Not really Firefox's fault if pages are coded for IE, is it? Firefox and all the other alternative browsers have a good level of standards compliance. If pages don't look right in them, it's most likely because the pages were designed with IE in mind, which doesn't always follow these standards.
 
Not really Firefox's fault if pages are coded for IE, is it? Firefox and all the other alternative browsers have a good level of standards compliance. If pages don't look right in them, it's most likely because the pages were designed with IE in mind, which doesn't always follow these standards.

And that's why IE is the Robin Reliant. Because it just works.

Only web developers care about standards compliance. Web surfers do not give a toss.

Firefox/Chrome/Safari may be faster... but only in the same way that a BMW M3 is faster than a Honda Jazz. On the public highway and driving from A to B it's a bit like conducting a weeing contest.
 
Fair enough. But I just don't understand why people would drive a Honda Jazz when they know all about the BMW M3 and could have one for the same cost. It's understandable if you don't know/care enough about cars to see how a Honda is different from a BMW. But if you were on a car forum posting in a thread about Hondas and BMWs, it could be inferred that you're aware of the distinctions and should act upon that information. Surely even people with no need for a fast car would take one over a slow car if the effort in obtaining one was nil.

That's where the analogy falls down. A BMW is more expensive to buy and run than a Honda. An alternative browser has no real drawbacks compared to IE, only benefits.
 
What truth is that?

It's not IE users that are the scientologists... it's the alternative browser people. I accept this may be a coincidence but every single person I know that uses Opera/Firefox/whatever seems to be a complete zealot that wants to force their religion upon everyone else.

Whereas the IE users are cool and really couldn't give a toss about owning the latest eye phone or whatever the latest hip web browser is this year.

IE is like a Robin Reliant. (provided you don't have Flash 10 installed)

Not all of us are, I tend to use Opera most of the time :D

I do know exactly what you mean though, there seems to be this almost religious desire to promote alternative browsers, firefox especially, and all manner of arguments are put forward that are at best misleading, or at worse lies or blatant misinformation or completely stupid (such as the suggestion that all PC users should find their choice of browser by FTP, rather than having a web browser as one of the core features)
 
Fair enough. But I just don't understand why people would drive a Honda Jazz when they know all about the BMW M3 and could have one for the same cost. It's understandable if you don't know/care enough about cars to see how a Honda is different from a BMW. But if you were on a car forum posting in a thread about Hondas and BMWs, it could be inferred that you're aware of the distinctions and should act upon that information. Surely even people with no need for a fast car would take one over a slow car if the effort in obtaining one was nil.

That's where the analogy falls down. A BMW is more expensive to buy and run than a Honda. An alternative browser has no real drawbacks compared to IE, only benefits.

Depends whether you think the additional time to install, maintain and learn to use an alternative browser (especially to get firefox into the state most proponants suggest) is worth the effort. (I'll ignore the additional security risks for now) A great many people don't see the point, and as such they don't do anything to change things unnecessarily.

Remember, the average PC user is not the kind of person that posts here.
 
People with knowledge of something better are bound to try and promote it to others. It's not zealotry, it's just trying to help out.

The problem though is that quite a lot of people seem to promote Mozilla Firefox purely based on security and say how it is a lot securer then Internet Explorer when in actual fact they are both relatively secure web browsers with IE being securer in Windows Vista.
 
Depends whether you think the additional time to install, maintain and learn to use an alternative browser (especially to get firefox into the state most proponants suggest) is worth the effort.

I don't really understand that argument either. The hardest thing about switching to an alternative browser is installing it. How is the browsing process any different with Firefox? You type in a URL or a search query. You browse the web. All the controls (refresh, back/forward, new tab) are in the same place, as are commands like print and find.

The problem though is that quite a lot of people seem to promote Mozilla Firefox purely based on security and say how it is a lot securer then Internet Explorer when in actual fact they are both relatively secure web browsers with IE being securer in Windows Vista.

Yep, I agree that the security argument is just misinformation, spread by the same people who hate Vista for no good reason.
 
Last edited:
lol i have had a post deleted in another thread where someone is having a problem with firefox and i said try IE8 lol
strange that no posts get deleted when someone has a problem with IE and people say use firefox.
had to laugh
 
Back
Top Bottom