Lazy developers want IE to stay in Windows

[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.

[worker201]

Personally, I think it is terribly clever that you could type a url into any window in XP and be taken away to the internet.  My primary complaints about IE have to do with its shitty security, its haphazard support for web standards, and its shitty-ass Microsoft UI.  The OS-integration functionality is great.  Imagine how awesome it would be if Firefox was your window manager.  Tabbed browsing, folder bookmarks, tagging, dynamic preview content, etc.

The saddest thing about IE/Windows integration is that they didn't do anything cool with it.  For them, it was all about the systematic destruction of Netscape, not enhancing the user experience.

[Calum]

okay, but the complaints you make against IE are huge, by comparison to the minor perceived benefits you mention. Plus, yes, it'd be great if firefox was functionally integrated with the OS, but IE was not just functionally integrated, it was integrated in a similar way to two siamese twins sharing the same liver, not healthy for either.

Functional is one thing, crippled and compromising each other's integrity is another.

Plus, i think you'll find that enhancing the user experience is low on microsoft's priority list, same as those independent developers mentioned earlier. they're like western governments in this regard, instead of giving the punters what they want, just repeatedly bully them over and over into thinking they want whatever crap's being forced down their throats and then if they complain, just ignore them. The public/consumers'll soon get the idea that they have to take what they're given whether they like it or not.

[bob_v5]

"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."

If that is the case, wouldn't you be better with no browser at all? All this "XML/ internet stuff" in windows seems like they just cant be bothered to program things properly to me.

"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 -"

Perhaps you should avoid steam? (Of course I am biased on that! I couldn't play half life 2 at the time it was released because I had no internet, and they have not received a penny from me since.) And I'm almost certain you could find an alternative to AIM.