Microsoft to kill off Internet Explorer

The reason Microsoft are allowing IE to be an optional component on Windows 7 is simply because there is no reason not to. The rendering engine and various plumbing will still be there because so many third party applications as well as Windows Explorer depend on it - but the literal "iexplore.exe" will not be there, along with the whole browsing environment that provides all the modern niceties like tabs, phishing filtering and stuff. That is the distinction Microsoft are drawing nowadays. That there is a big difference between the "web browser" and the "web rendering engine".

There MAY come a point in the future where Microsoft rips up their rendering engine and replaces it with something from the open source world. I find this quite unlikely but it is totally possible. And it is not something Microsoft should be ridiculed for for doing.

Microsoft will never stop offering a web browser. The only thing that may change is the rendering engine.

I suspect that is what this article is about. Some Microsoft developer in the bowls of the IE team perhaps mentioned there is a possibility in the future they may convert to WebKit or something.

Then of course TheInquirer spins it into "omgzor our sources say the Vole (a.k.a. creators of ME II) will stop making IE!!!!11z0r" That's basically the level of IQ that the Inquirer and their regular readers possess.
 
csmager said:
Not only that, people like RealMedia hailed the decision as levelling the playing field and allowing them to expand their market share.

Can't actually see how they thought it would make a difference? Their software's still crap, for a start.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately if you look at all of the various companies attempting to take Microsoft to court over "unfair distribution" you'll see a very scary pattern that the courts fail to see.

You see the court automatically assumes that the reason a product is doing so poorly against a Microsoft product is because Microsoft are a big nasty monopoly (there are various reasons why they aren't - but that is for another thread).
What the court doesn't consider is the fact that maybe the product going up against the Microsoft product is crap.

Lets take the infamour IE Vs Netscape issue.
Netscape was the better browser, there is absolutly no doubt about this.
So why did IE succeed and Netscape didn't?
The courts and Netscape will have you believe it is entirely down to the fact that IE was bundled with the OS and so people didn't have a choice...boo, hoo, cry me a river.
However what history does show is that Netscape was released first and was the better browser.
IE 1 & IE 2 came nowhere close - Netscape was still the best.
IE3 came out and it got closer, but still Netscpae was by far the better browser.
Did Netscpae carry on developing, making their product even better?
No - they sat back...."Microsoft can't make a browser better than us".
IE4 was released and it was more or less game, set & match - IE was better in every way.
By the time we got to IE5, Netscape was a distant memory.
Not because IE was included with the OS but for the simple matter that IE was the better product.

Look at Real Player compared to Media Player.
Now I'm sure there are a few people out there that feel Real is the better product - I'm just yet to meet one of them.
Real once more say the reason their product suffers is because Media Player is included in the OS.
Whereas I'm not denying this fact, users will always seek & download the best tools for the job.
Real's market share compared to Media Player is not based entirely on the fact that Media Player is included with the OS.
It is also based on the fact Media Player is 100x better than Real.

Alas the courts do not see this - they automatically assume any product losing to Microsoft must be because of their "illegal practices".
It couldn't possibly be because the rival product is rubbish...
 
i use IE8 and media player, not because they are already in the OS
its because i like them
i have tried FF and i just didnt get on with it and other media players but again media player does everything i need(ie plays my mp3`s when i want to listen to them)
 
Something like IE I have no problems with it being on the system at all. Even being unable to remove it. I find a default browser to be an integral part of a basic OS install.

With other things like WMP and such it would be good to have the option to not even install them along with the OS. But Microsoft won't be taking that approach :(
 
The death of ie, whoot cant wait :)) ms got owned from free software ie firefox lol, ms up your's :) and look forward to ur windows 7 lol.
 
Last edited:
I find that hard to believe...
IE is quite good imo with the proper plugins... But can say the same for firefox, but I haven't found any reason to actually switch to firefox from ie...




GothicCorpse said:
The death of ie, whoot cant wait :)) ms got owned from free software ie firefox lol, ms up your's :) and look forward to ur windows 7 lol.
windows 7 probably the only thing i will buy from ms... or maybe not :)

and if ur thinking is wondows 7 i up to it then yes i think it is unless ur using crt monitors hah (100hz bug atm )
Click to expand...
:confused:
Caged said:
What?
Click to expand...
:)
 
ie will allways get the flack (hacks and stuff), anyway im glad to see the back of ie, who is that flogging that dead horse?? go ms. haha

What?
 
Last edited:
NathanE said:
Right... so Microsoft is going to send the world back to the mid 90's. Where people used boot up their shiny new PC and then install their favourite web browser from a magazine CD? I doubt that.
Click to expand...

I think it's more to do with EOL'ing the Trident rendering engine than with killing the bundled browser part of things.
 
Something must be wrong with your system, I use IE7/IE8 across all systems in work, my laptops and desktops and it's a pleasure to use even on slower systems.

I am a fan of less is more with a web browser, I do have FireFox installed but I never use it, I prefer using IE. I do use Opera on my X1 was I prefer it on Windows Mobile.
 
eXor said:
The antivirus companies would be up in arms. :D
Click to expand...

Because of all the additional attack vectors and unpatched critical vunerabilities that firefox brings? Or because the lack of protected mode makes it much easier to exploit firefox on vista/win 7 than IE?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom