All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company

Lazy developers want IE to stay in Windows

(1/2) > >>

davidnix71:
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/pcworld/20090525/tc_pcworld/tradegroupstrippingiefromwindowsharmsisvs

If Windozes needs IE's base, then there is something horribly wrong with it. I ran 98SE and ME with the COM objects code stripped out.
Some programs worked and some didn't. The developers who actually write code have no problem.

Even XP doesn't need IE. I used NetFrame to recompile Windows without the HTML rendering engine and it was as quiet as can be. It didn't and couldn't call home anymore.

Calum:
i read that article. does Zuck not realise what a selfish whiney idiot he comes across as? his whole point of view seems to be that they like things as they are, and that changing things for the benefit of the consumers (or customers, as i think most independent software vendors should call them) is not worthwhile. who cares if the customer gets to choose the software they use? who cares whether a competitive market is actually in place? hell no! Zuck just wants things to stay the same so he can do nothing and watch the bucks roll in for his crappy nagware (or at least, the vendors he represents can).

Of course i expect Zuck will be the first to cry out when microsoft brings out a new version of ms windows, with a new (and not properly documented) API, after all, if those worthless consumers aren't worth changing to a secure and competitive model for, then why should we change just because microsoft says so?

Lead Head:
IE seems to be completely dis-integrated in Vista/Windows 7 now. You cant actually open a browser window from an explorer window anymore. It asks you instead if you'd like to launch IE. There are unfortunately quite a few applications that want IE to render an in-program browser window for them. AIM and Valve's steam come to mind - but the Wine folks have a way around that, they seem to trick steam into using Firefox for the browser rendering. If Wine could get that to work, I don't see why for-profit companies can't...

worker201:
Here's an idea that might be unpopular.  Let Microsoft tightly integrate their browser with their OS.  It's the smart thing to do - soon the consumer OS is going to be little more than a browser anyway, might as well get a head start.  A huge portion of the desktop system is controlled by XML files already, so it makes sense to have a limited browser controlling them all.  The original argument for separating the 2 was to allow Netscape the opportunity to develop a Windows browser.  Well, it appears now that Firefox has a pretty strong foothold in the Windows world, and everyone who actually cares about what browser they use has already de facto switched.  Such persons would not even notice if IE was disconnected from Vista because the only time they used IE was to download Firefox.  Nobody else cares.  So it's in many ways mean to force Microsoft to provide an inconvenience to their customers who like IE and its OS integration.

Of course I am biased, because I do not connect my home Windows machine to the internet ever, so I couldn't care less what browser is installed.

davidnix71:
With Vista or IE7, there is no longer a web desktop "active desktop."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Desktop

The "Active Desktop" feature was MS's anti-trust excuse for intergrating IE in the first place. They thought they could sell content that way through a version of Darknet.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page