Slashdot Mirror


Dvorak Says MS Should Buy Opera

patro writes "Should MS beef up cranky old Internet Explorer for today's standards? Dvorak thinks buying Opera would be a smarter move. It works on all the major platforms including the Mac which IE won't support anymore and $400 million for it is pocket money for Microsoft."

521 comments

  1. May I be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

    (filler text to get around message filters)

    1. Re:May I be the first to say... by EEBaum · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly why I like Opera. Incompatibility with such gems as ActiveX is, to me, a Feature.

      --
      -- I prefer the term "karma escort."
    2. Re:May I be the first to say... by Mateito · · Score: 2, Insightful

      :May I be the first to say...

      Dvorak is a dickhead.

      No, I didn't RTFA. I've just read enough of the other stuff he's written.

    3. Re:May I be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No, I didn't RTFA.

      You'll fit in just fine here, thanks.

    4. Re:May I be the first to say... by muszek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a full-time Opera user, I barely ever have problems with websites (but sure, I don't often compare the way they're rendered to IE/firefox). As a designer, I have far few problems getting what I want in Opera/FF than in IE [obligatory 10 lines of frustration-driven foul language cut off by ./ filters]. So yes, for designers such deal would be a Good Thing (I can't see that happening, though).

      On the other side, I'm really used to O and I'd have a bit of a hard time having to switch to FF/Epiphany/whatever else (already tried and there are dozens of little things that annoy me, like being unable to find a way to use google straight from address bar, it's g string in O)... and certainly couldn't look in the mirror if I decided to stay with my favorite browser in case it would have "where do you want to go today?" thingy as a splash screen.

    5. Re:May I be the first to say... by ggy · · Score: 1
      [...]like being unable to find a way to use google straight from address bar, it's g string in O).

      How about writing 'google string' instead in FF?

      (But thanks for telling me how to do it in opera. I've been wondering. :))
    6. Re:May I be the first to say... by Millenniumman · · Score: 0

      This was insightful? Wow. If I could moderate moderations I would give this one 5, Funny .

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    7. Re:May I be the first to say... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      "Only 3/10 of the internet works properly on Opera!"
      Only if you are a Firefox fanboy eager to lie about Opera.
      "What is CSS? Durr!!"
      It's the web standard which Opera currently leads the way in supporting. It has the best CSS support of any browser, hands down.
      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    8. Re:May I be the first to say... by Gonzotek · · Score: 1
      [...]like being unable to find a way to use google straight from address bar, it's g string in O).

      In FF, browse to the Google homepage, right-click on the search field, select "Add a Keyword for this Search...". A dialog box will appear with fields for name(e.g. Google Search), keyword(e.g. "g"), and a bookmark location picker. This works for very nearly all search engines (so you could use w for wikipedia, d for dictionary, etc.).
    9. Re:May I be the first to say... by Danga · · Score: 2, Interesting

      NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

      My EXACT same thoughts. I have been using Opera for the last few years and I loooove everything about it. I would be very afraid if MS were to purchase Opera for fear that it will get neglected and/or bloated with useless features like a lot of MS products. I would prefer that it stay with a company dedicated to innovating their product and with a vision qouting directly from the Opera website:

      "Opera's vision is to deliver the best Internet experience on any device."

      I use both MS and non-MS OS's/software so I am not a MS hater. I actually think Windows XP Pro is a pretty good, stable OS. I also really like using Visual Studio for C/C++ development, it has its quirks but so does any software. I just would hate to see my beloved browser fall to pieces.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    10. Re:May I be the first to say... by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      It's the web standard which Opera currently leads the way in supporting. It has the best CSS support of any browser, hands down.

      I wouldn't say "hands down," considering that Safari passes the Acid2 test, and Opera doesn't. Or at least it didn't last time I checked. Has that changed?

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    11. Re:May I be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it has changed. The 9 Technology Release (build 8031) is 95% of the way there (one eye was red). I'm certain they'll be fully compatible when it's released.

    12. Re:May I be the first to say... by The+NPS · · Score: 1
      On my windows machine, I used to switch between IE and Firefox. I liked FF a lot better, but some pages just wouldn't display in it properly. However! Then I found Opera! So far for me, everything renders just fine in Opera. In fact, with just a sturdy hosts file, Opera blocks a lot of ads, and runs great. If I could figure out how to make its tabs behave like FF I would have switched over to Opera completely.

      That said, it would make A LOT of sense for MS to buy Opera, but I'd hate to see them do it. It'd be perfect, really. Seperate IE totally, and bundle opera. I'd just hate to see them implement active x, or god knows what else.

    13. Re:May I be the first to say... by wondafucka · · Score: 1
      The article doesn't render correctly in Opera!

      I hope MS doesn't acquire it, because I'm awfully fond of the browser.

      I also (gasp) am fond of MS, but I like a little thing called competition. That and I can never imagine Bill Gates swimming the Atlantic Ocean.

      Dvorak's right, though. If MS were to buy Opera and slap on a IE skin on it, they would be rolling in the praise.

    14. Re:May I be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, then it hasn't changed yet then has it?
      Safari passes the Acid2 test and Opera does not.
      Do or do not. There is no try.

    15. Re:May I be the first to say... by rrgg · · Score: 1

      How 'bout considering the merits of the argument itself instead?

    16. Re:May I be the first to say... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      "I wouldn't say "hands down," considering that Safari passes the Acid2 test, and Opera doesn't."
      Just because the Safari devs rushed to fix those specific bugs just to pass Acid2 doesn't mean that they actually have better CSS support than Opera. I can write a program that passes Acid2, but supports nothing else apart from what's needed to pass it. That doesn't mean that my program has better CSS support than other browsers.
      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    17. Re:May I be the first to say... by onio · · Score: 1

      i have used opera for five years now not only because it is a great browser but because of my dislike for microsoft. besides f12 turns off the pop ups. if microsoft owns them in the future then they (opera) have sold out and that dudes swim across the atlantic is for nothing.

    18. Re:May I be the first to say... by Eideewt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, ordinarily that's worth trying, but consider the source of the argument.

    19. Re:May I be the first to say... by richlv · · Score: 1

      i guess, i would choose informative for moderation.

      if some dork at ms decides to make such an offer, i really hope opera goes to google and offers to sell out to them (as was mentioned some time before).

      i have no idea what that would to to the product, but i am sure that would be a lot better than ms.

      --
      Rich
    20. Re:May I be the first to say... by oztiks · · Score: 1
    21. Re:May I be the first to say... by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > [Opera] has the best CSS support of any browser, hands down.

      Opera has, by the standards of today's browsers, quite *good* CSS support, and possibly the best, but I'm not sure it's "hands down". Opera and Gecko support different large subsets of CSS2 and different small subsets of CSS3. (Non-standard extensions to CSS (e.g., -moz-appearance) are another matter, but those are clearly placed in a namespace that will not interfere with future versions of CSS, and they are not intended for use on the web, but for use in constructing the application itself, or extensions thereof.) Opera may have the better and larger subset (I would estimate that it does), but it's not as far ahead as you make out. One area where Opera clearly does lead is in things that are not very useful for screen display but for other media, e.g., pagination-related things for print. As far as I am aware Opera is the only major browser that has made a serious attempt to implement that particular portion of CSS.

      OTOH, the grandparent was an ignoramus or a troll, or both, since clearly Opera has *overwhelmingly* better CSS support than IE will have for some time. Improved CSS support has been promised for the next version of MSIE, but currently that is still only a promise. Opera has CSS2 support worth having *already* (and have had for a couple of years).

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    22. Re:May I be the first to say... by rrgg · · Score: 1

      The source only matters when you are considering evidence, not an argument itself.

    23. Re:May I be the first to say... by Eideewt · · Score: 1

      Theoretically... pragmatically, Dvorak is kind of a special case.

    24. Re:May I be the first to say... by walstib · · Score: 1
      Dvorak is a dickhead.


      Agreed:
      Dvorak = PC Magazine = Ziff Davis = A subsidiary of Microsoft...
      --
      The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps. - Benjamin Disraeli
  2. Yeah, well... by killmenow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...Dvorak is a hack...so, there you have it.

    1. Re:Yeah, well... by Golias · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...Dvorak is a hack...so, there you have it.

      You got modded as a troll, but your comment is 100% correct. Dvorak has made a career out of spouting sensational bullshit (which even he must know is nonsense) in order to generate more hits for his site. He's one of the most successful trolls on all of the Internet.

      If the editors are going to pay any attention whatsoever to submissions about his articles (and they ought not), then Slashdot needs a "Dvorak" category, so we can filter it out.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:Yeah, well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dvorak has made a career out of spouting sensational bullshit (which even he must know is nonsense) in order to generate more hits for his site. He's one of the most successful trolls on all of the Internet.

      It's easy to criticise, but when was the last time that YOU had the same last name as someone who came up with a keyboard layout? Hmmmm? Didn't think so.

    3. Re:Yeah, well... by Beowabbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Never mind a famous composer!

    4. Re:Yeah, well... by sanosuke76 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, well, Dvorak's named after that UNPOPULAR keyboard. I'm more mainstream, my name's Bob Qwerty!

      [* disclaimer: not my real name]

      --
      My 229 is all the Sig I need http://thegunwiki.com/
    5. Re:Yeah, well... by LinuxPoultergist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I second this motion. The last thing I want to read on Slashdot is anything related to Dvorak.

    6. Re:Yeah, well... by killmenow · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the acknowledgement. I really wasn't trying to be a troll...just pointing out the obvious. I now see the mods have brought my comment back from the dead and that's gratifying. I initially wanted to make some disparaging remarks about mods, especially seeing as how many other comments posted after me said basically the same thing and were getting Insightfuls and Interestings out the wazoo. That's what I get for being too blunt, I guess.

    7. Re:Yeah, well... by drsquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, Microsoft should spend $400 million on a browser because it runs on a platform they don't want to support anymore? Only a genius like Dvorak could have come up with that.

    8. Re:Yeah, well... by DynamiteNeon · · Score: 1

      I absolutely agree, though I would expand it to a more general "Commentary" category and add stuff like Joel on Software to it. I'm sick of those too.

    9. Re:Yeah, well... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      Yeah, well, Dvorak's named after that UNPOPULAR keyboard. I'm more mainstream, my name's Bob Qwerty!
      Is that related to Etaoin Shrdlu???
    10. Re:Yeah, well... by JPriest · · Score: 1

      Not to mention it is an entirely different code base. They would either be throwing away the money or replacing IE with it. Stating "MS should buy Opera" is just another way of saying "Opera is dying".

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    11. Re:Yeah, well... by juiceCake · · Score: 1
      I second this motion. The last thing I want to read on Slashdot is anything related to Dvorak.

      Then don't.

      It'd be wonderful if Microsoft just licensed Gecko...
    12. Re:Yeah, well... by menkhaura · · Score: 1

      *shudders*

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    13. Re:Yeah, well... by SpecBear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm generally a strong proponent of RTFA. But if I do that in this case, then Dvorak's column brings in more ad revenue, and I really don't want to contribute to what's seems to be a severely mentally debilitating drug habit.

      On the other hand, if we give him enough slashdottings then maybe he'll go on a bender and OD. No more Dvorak drivel.

    14. Re:Yeah, well... by cution · · Score: 1

      You know, he may be a hack, but it's still a logical fallacy to disregard his opinion pieces completely because of that.

    15. Re:Yeah, well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets all put in and buy him a bridge for christmas.

    16. Re:Yeah, well... by sillyman71 · · Score: 1

      YIKES!  one can just imagine the incompatabilities after M$ "embraces and extends" gecko.

      <fingers orientation="crossed">
      Luckily I imagine hell would freeze over before M$ would licence gecko.
      </fingers>

    17. Re:Yeah, well... by Peeptophe · · Score: 1

      Dvorak is to the Internet what Lesko is to infomercials.

      --
      * Si hoc legere scis numium eruditionis habes *
    18. Re:Yeah, well... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft should spend $400 million on a browser because it runs on a platform they don't want to support anymore?

      Well, yeah; and they don't want Opera to work well on Macs, either. That's why they'd buy it, and then order changes that destroy its usefulness.

      This is especially likely as their motive in the handheld market. Opera is a major player there, and has a reputation as by far the best tiny browser. MS wants that market. $400 million would be a small price for them to eliminate their main competitor.

      What I wonder is: If Opera does sell out (to MS or anyone else), will they first free their source code, so the refugees can continue to develop it despite the new owner? It worked with mozilla ...

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    19. Re:Yeah, well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah ?

      Step outside and say that.

      Mr & Mrs QWERTY.

    20. Re:Yeah, well... by kimvette · · Score: 1

      I agree. If I read something and discover it has Dvorak's name associate it, I automatically discard whatever opinions are expressed in the op-ed "article"

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    21. Re:Yeah, well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dvorak confirms....awww screwit!

    22. Re:Yeah, well... by AoT · · Score: 1

      illud legere possum! tandem!

    23. Re:Yeah, well... by necio_online · · Score: 1

      I wrote a Linux Kernel patch to check if I would do better with Kvorak.
      And I would. Someday I'll switch.

      http://arhuaco.blogspot.com/2005/10/cat-prockeystr okes-keyboard-fun.html

      This is the distribution with 14500 keystrokes:

      n@gaira:~$ cat /proc/keystrokes
      14500
      q 160
      w 760
      e 1260
      r 560
      t 710
      y 140
      u 440
      i 880
      o 890
      p 360
      a 990
      s 870
      d 840
      f 180
      g 210
      h 230
      j 50
      k 170
      l 580
      ñ 0
      z 120
      x 1600
      c 640
      v 260
      b 230
      n 720
      m 520

      I posted some stats here(I can not put them here becouse they trigger the "Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!" message :) Maybe This post is way too lame).

      Anyway, if you check the stats you'll notice that My left hand is wasted! I have the 'ñ' at the home row! Insane.

      (I posted those statistics by hand, someday I might use the blogger API to have the PC post by itself).

      --
      http://arhuaco.org/
    24. Re:Yeah, well... by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Why so many x's?

    25. Re:Yeah, well... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've known that for about 20 years. What I've never been able to figure out is why every brainless pronouncement he makes is news.

    26. Re:Yeah, well... by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1

      Ah, "Bob". Melissa Gates' legacy to civilisation, and marginally less popular than Dvorak keyboards :-P

      --
      When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    27. Re:Yeah, well... by mrbooze · · Score: 1

      It's true. Dvorak is the Criswell of Cyberspace.

    28. Re:Yeah, well... by instarx · · Score: 1

      More like MS would buy Opera and shut it down, simply to reduce the competition for MS rather than as a replacement for IE. That was their main business plan for acquisitions throughout the 90's and I don;t really see them as having done an ethical about-face.

    29. Re:Yeah, well... by Eideewt · · Score: 1

      You're thinking he's a mere mortal hack. Dvorak has a spooky ability to consistently be as wrong as possible. I wouldn't say anyone disregards his opinion pieces, exactly, anyway. We read them carefully and assume that the exact opposite of whatever he says is true.

    30. Re:Yeah, well... by necio_online · · Score: 1

      Hi :)

      Because I use vim and sometimes I edit files and delete a lot of things.... specially when I copy and paste code. Maybe this was one of those days.

      --
      http://arhuaco.org/
    31. Re:Yeah, well... by Peeptophe · · Score: 1

      Eenie, Meenie, Minie, Moe!

      --
      * Si hoc legere scis numium eruditionis habes *
    32. Re:Yeah, well... by Louisville_Clark · · Score: 0
      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    33. Re:Yeah, well... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Hey, my name is Tom Qwerty, you insensitive clod!

    34. Re:Yeah, well... by slysithesuperspy · · Score: 1

      Twas only a matter of weeks ago I discovered it wasn't his invention!!

    35. Re:Yeah, well... by Nerd4News · · Score: 1

      And an 8th grade English teacher. (Mine) Biggest stick-up-his-ass person I ever knew. Actually had the balls to call In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida trash.

  3. Imagine that... by Mente · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Last week everyone thought Opera was being bought by Google. So now its obvious that MS should buy it first to keep it out of the hands of Google.

    1. Re:Imagine that... by TheMeuge · · Score: 1

      I think you've got it backwards. Google would do well to prevent Microsoft from buying it.

    2. Re:Imagine that... by Mente · · Score: 1

      I wasn't saying Google shouldn't buy it. I was just stating the obvious. That if last week everyone said that Google should buy Opera. Then it just makes sense for the MS mouthpieces, to say MS should buy it this week.

    3. Re:Imagine that... by Geno+Z+Heinlein · · Score: 4, Funny
      Last week everyone thought Opera was being bought by Google. So now its obvious that MS should buy it first to keep it out of the hands of Google.

      Wait, I think I've figured out the pattern!
      Google == China
      buying Opera == sending astronauts to the Moon
      Micro$oft == George "Dubya" Bush
      Now if we can just get Google to promise not to be evil... oh, wait, my analogy is breaking down.

    4. Re:Imagine that... by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, one of Microsoft's classic tricks is tricking their compeititors into investing in white elephants. As seen recently when they bid up the price of AOL before feeding it to Google.

      However, Opera might have some value to MS on PocketPC. It has no real value to Google.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    5. Re:Imagine that... by ottothecow · · Score: 4, Insightful
      And this week Dvorak pretends anti-trust laws dont exist.

      Generally, buying up your competetors (especially one of the very few competitors that could actually be bought) doesnt look so good when you've already been a convicted monopoly.

      --
      Bottles.
    6. Re:Imagine that... by Ravatar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not a matter of shutting other browsers out, it's a matter of having a browser capable of competing with the other current browsers.

    7. Re:Imagine that... by itomato · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First time I've heard of that..

      Usually it seems that Microsoft buys out a company that is most enticing to it's competitors, then turning that heralded technology into a White Elephant on their own.

      If they can't buy it, they re-implement it - badly.

      IE, Xbox, J++, .Net, WebTV, C#, Citrix, SoftPC, Hotmail, the list goes on.. It's the Story of Microsoft - all the way back to DOS.

      What they can't come up with on their own, they imitate or buy.
      more.

      Google could do good with Opera. The only reason Microsoft would buy it is to suffocate it in a dark closet.

    8. Re:Imagine that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yeah, Netscape released their source code just before they got swallowed by AOL. Now may be as good a time as any for Opera to do exactly the same...

    9. Re:Imagine that... by m85476585 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That only leaves one option for Google... Buy Microsoft.

    10. Re:Imagine that... by wolff000 · · Score: 1

      I so wish that would happen, not that it will ever happen not in our life times anyway. If it did maybe things would work the first time out instead of 18 million patches later.

      --
      WTF?
    11. Re:Imagine that... by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google gave Opera (and Mozilla foundation) a chunk of cash in exchange for Opera being totally free (as in no ads) and google being the preferred search engine. There could be other terms to their agreement as well...

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    12. Re:Imagine that... by Haydn+Fenton · · Score: 1

      Google bought a 5% share in AOL so that Google Talk can comminucate with AIM users (much like the Yahoo\MSN merge), as mentioned in a recent press release on Google's website. Google Video will also be merged with AOL Video content. Google will continue providing AOL with search features. Google will make sure that their web crawlers can access AOL content easier, so yet more search results.
      I think I read somewhere that each company will share some kind of revenue with the other, but I can't remember where I read this, nor the details so maybe not.

      Overall, I think Google are getting a pretty good deal. Forget that AOL isn't exactly a /.ers perfect company or provide perfect software. In terms of users, it's huge. It also blocks MS from 'burying' Google quite so easily. When push comes to shove, Google have a fair bit more strength now.

    13. Re:Imagine that... by ottothecow · · Score: 1

      The funny part is that you got modded insightful for that

      --
      Bottles.
    14. Re:Imagine that... by Amouth · · Score: 1

      But Opera isn't an american company.. so it doesn't matter to the existing anti-trust.. I am still waiting for MS to try a hostial take over of google.. they have the money to pull it off and i am sure the stock holders would be willing to sell..

      going public is one of the worst things google could have ever done

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    15. Re:Imagine that... by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      Google's products look and behave better than Microsoft's for a number of reasons, but the most important:
      1. They're generally a lot simpler. An email service and a search engine and a number of media hosting services are much simpler than an operating system and can be implemented easily in high-level languages, without paying much attention to hardware issues.

      2. They don't have issues with client configuration and client hardware. Or third-party applications. Especially ones that run as system.

      3. Someone else handles much of the work--rendering and such. Google just has to make sure it does so properly for each project.

      If Google tried making an operating system, though, they'd have to restructure the company to accept larger, more hierarchical teams. And they'd have more bugs than Microsoft in the first few releases--they have little experience with client operating systems.

    16. Re:Imagine that... by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that IM interoperability could have been purchased for a much smaller price. No, the number one reason listed was google buying their way into AOL's advertising channels. Anyway, it seems like a lot of money for a declining market.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    17. Re:Imagine that... by ottothecow · · Score: 1

      I vaguely remember something about google not issuing controlling stock or something along those lines (I dont know if that is actually possible...I just remember something like that when they were making the IPO)

      --
      Bottles.
    18. Re:Imagine that... by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      It certainly matters for competition laws in Norway. They can and will stop foreign companies dominating the market.

    19. Re:Imagine that... by JPriest · · Score: 1

      Most successful technologies are evolutionary and not revolutionary.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    20. Re:Imagine that... by icypyr0 · · Score: 1

      I disagree, .NET and C# have actually been fairly successful. Same with the Xbox. And by the way IIRC those technologies were developed in house (I think they poached the project leader of .NET from Borland though).

    21. Re:Imagine that... by ShawnDoc · · Score: 2, Insightful
      1. They're generally a lot simpler. An email service and a search engine and a number of media hosting services are much simpler than an operating system and can be implemented easily in high-level languages, without paying much attention to hardware issues.

      This is also because most of Google's products are early in the development cycle. Wanna bet in 5 years when we look at Google applications we will have found they are riddled with feature bloat just like Microsoft products? Sure they will. Google is not immune to the market demand for new features to keep customers interested and help it compete with other vendors. Especially now that they are a public company they will have more and more pressure to keep growing revenue and find ways to lock in users, just like Microsoft.

      2. They don't have issues with client configuration and client hardware. Or third-party applications. Especially ones that run as system.

      That may be true of their search engine, it is certainly not true of other products like Google Desktop or Picassa. Heck, even GMail has to deal will all sorts of not only client OS limitations, but different browser limitations on top of OS limitations.

      3. Someone else handles much of the work--rendering and such. Google just has to make sure it does so properly for each project.

      Spoken like someone who has never tried to write a complex Ajax implementation. I'm sure Google would love to have one platform to write to (theirs) instead of trying to make applications that work identically across a variety of OS/Browser platforms.

    22. Re:Imagine that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...those technologies were developed in house (I think they poached the project leader of .NET from Borland though).

      Yes, Anders Hejlsberg, widely acclaimed for his prior work on Delphi.


      T

    23. Re:Imagine that... by rm69990 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has 40.06B in cash right now. (Source : http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient-ff& ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2005-09,GGGL:en&q=stocks%3A MSFT )

      Google is currently worth 127.69B (Source : http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient-ff& ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2005-09,GGGL:en&q=stocks%3A GOOG )

      Please explain how Microsoft has the money for a hostile takover of Google? If Microsoft devoted their entire cash on hand, they still wouldn't own a controlling interest in Google.

      Google also doesn't issue controlling shares.

    24. Re:Imagine that... by rm69990 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, you're wrong. Opera previously made their money selling their browser or including ads in it. Now Google pays them for every Google search done using Opera's search functionalities. This gives Opera enough cash to give their browser away, and will probably make them more in the end as their browser is more widely accepted now that it is free. Mozilla does the exact same thing. Google has paid the Mozilla Foundation millions of dollars for Google searches done with Mozilla browsers.

    25. Re:Imagine that... by adorai · · Score: 1

      You don't need to have a company's complete value in cash to make an acquisition. You usually acquire with a mix of stock and cash; Microsoft would issue equity to buy Google. If they were going to buy Google they would have done it when they could have picked them up for $15-20b.

    26. Re:Imagine that... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      "Google gave Opera (and Mozilla foundation) a chunk of cash in exchange for Opera being totally free (as in no ads) and google being the preferred search engine."
      No. They didn't give Opera any cash. But they offered a better search deal.
      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    27. Re:Imagine that... by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      You forgot my favorite: subLogic Flight Simulator.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    28. Re:Imagine that... by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      I'm not a broker or a stock expert or anything, but can't they use their own stock instead of, or in addition to cash?

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    29. Re:Imagine that... by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      And this week Dvorak pretends anti-trust laws dont exist.

      With the recent hard drive merger, why would he assume otherwise?

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    30. Re:Imagine that... by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      Seagate definately doesnt have the kind of market control that microsoft has (and hasnt been convicted before).

      I see your point though and I hope that we get both good sides out of the merger--a combination of the good points of both manufacturers along with another manufacturer stepping up to fill maxtor's place (hitachi? samsung?...microsoft? ;)

      --
      Bottles.
    31. Re:Imagine that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hotmail is NOT a Microsoft product. I have a hotmail account from back before Microsoft bought it and turned it into the spam infested app it is today.

      I also quite like C# except that object.ToString() doesn't return the object contents but details about the class which annoys me.

    32. Re:Imagine that... by onio · · Score: 1

      Interesting concept maybe google incorporated spyware like that damn search bar

    33. Re:Imagine that... by arbbie · · Score: 1

      object.ToString() doesn't return the object contents but details about the class which annoys me.

      So you would feel relatively comfortable if ToString() dumped some random segment of memory instead of being a virtual function which displays type information when not overridden by the class' implementation?

      Geesh.

  4. It works on all the major platforms... by ThatGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft doesn't want their stuff to work on all other platforms... After all, they intentionally discontinued work on IE for mac, and have bought several companies only to immediately axe their Linux offerings.

    Microsoft is not a company selling apps, Microsoft is a company selling lock-in. As long as customers are sticking with them, they don't really need to spend "pocket change" to keep up with technology.

    --
    What are you eating? isItVeg?.
    1. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by xiphoris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You must keep in mind that Microsoft has no intention of directly supporting Linux in any sense. If they buy a company because they like its product, why should they spend more of their dollars to continue Linux development?

      I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but you're being rather speculative in assuming that they bought companies specifically to shut down their Linux offerings. It seems more likey to me that they simply wanted the Windows version of the technology then saw no reason to continue Linux development.

    2. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by alchamy · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I wonder if they will drop the Mac version of office? Can they afford to? If they do where would that leave the corporate Mac users that have become dependent on MS Office?

    3. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how nobody whines around here when Apple buys a company and drops PC support...

      http://www.apple.com/logicpro/

    4. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and have bought several companies only to immediately axe their Linux offerings.

      Pardon my ignorance, but I think I missed this story. Which companies?

    5. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by powerg3 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I wonder if they will drop the Mac version of office? Can they afford to? If they do where would that leave the corporate Mac users that have become dependent on MS Office?

      Um, buying Windows licenses for their new Intel Macs?

      --
      Wild Eeep!
    6. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GeCad was one. There were a couple (or one) other.

      Merry Christmas.

    7. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by HogGeek · · Score: 1

      They aren't "allowed" to drop Office for mac, unless Apple starts selling a comparable product.

      Lookup the lawsuit history, and resolutions for more info...

      They could only drop IE, because Apple developed Safari... Legally speaking

    8. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by Pope · · Score: 1

      MS makes a decent amount of money selling Office for the Mac; by any rational, exterior viewpoint they would be shooting themselves in the foot to cancel that.

      However, good luck finding such a viewpoint in a company that big and with that much money being driven by whims of the people at the steerboard.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    9. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by mAIsE · · Score: 0

      that is because apple actually innovates.

      http://www.apple.com/aperture/quicktours/?RAW

    10. Re: It works on all the major platforms... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      I agree. Yet when I said that from a different angle, it was flamebait. :(

    11. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by Threni · · Score: 1

      > You must keep in mind that Microsoft has no intention of directly supporting
      > Linux in any sense.

      They'd support Linux if they could make money out of it. But where's the money in selling a browser? Microsoft trying to sell a browser for an operating system other than their own when there are many other popular and arguably superior browsers available for nothing would have been profoundly stupid even in the dot-com boom, and having survived that it's unlikely Microsoft are going to give it a go now.

    12. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by ortholattice · · Score: 1
      ... and have bought several companies only to immediately axe their Linux offerings.

      Pardon my ignorance, but I think I missed this story. Which companies?

      One of them was SourceSafe - they dropped the Unix version, apparently for the worse.

    13. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Legally"?

      I'm confused. Where is this law that says that Microsoft must continue to develop/support applications that Apple hasn't yet developed an alternative for?

      -sparX

    14. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by bigpat · · Score: 1


      "Microsoft is not a company selling apps, Microsoft is a company selling lock-in."

      That deserves repeating

    15. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by js3 · · Score: 1

      why isn't anyone asking why ms would want to buy another browser? They have IE all they need to do is fix it.

      --
      did you forget to take your meds?
    16. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by PaxTech · · Score: 2, Insightful
      MS makes a decent amount of money selling Office for the Mac; by any rational, exterior viewpoint they would be shooting themselves in the foot to cancel that. However, good luck finding such a viewpoint in a company that big and with that much money being driven by whims of the people at the steerboard.

      I heartily disagree. The one thing Microsoft is always 100% rational about is making money. The only way they'd ever cancel a money making app like Office for Mac is if they stood to make MORE money by canceling it.

      I'm far from an MS fanboy, but you can't say they make stupid and irrational business decisions. They generally make pretty good business decisions*, which is how they make so much money while making such crappy software.

      * Note that by "good business decisions" I mean "good for MS and their shareholders", not "good for their customers".

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    17. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by jZnat · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't that they don't want to provide their software on competing platforms; rather, it's the lack of a good enough market for them to develop on those alternate platforms. I'm sure that if OSX and Linux had considerable market share (together at least maybe 15-20%), Microsoft would put efforts into spending the money on developing and publishing software for said platforms. However, Microsoft just doesn't see any desirable return profits in doing that.

      Summary: Microsoft is a corporation, and corporations tend to spend the least amount of money possible while retaining the best quality they can get for that price.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    18. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      why isn't anyone asking why ms would want to buy another browser? They have IE all they need to do is fix it.

      Well, first off, because they've reached the point of infinite bugs. Every bug they "fix" exposes another bug elsewhere, or breaks another "hack" that was put in to make something else work right.

      Secondly, their idea is to eventually drop all browser support, forcing people onto dot.NET (and sticking with Microsoft) for everything. Technologies such as AJAX scare the crap out of them, because they allow people to do their stuff without lock-in. This was the real reason Microsoft had originally dropped the idea of any new browser after 6.0, then had to reconstitute the IE team in June of 2004 because Firefox was really taking off.

      Their problem is they can't keep people locked in with their browser any more (people *are* switching), so the browser has outlived its usefulness. Unfortunately for them AJAX came along and put a huge gaping hole below the waterline in their plans for "planned obsolescence" of browsers. Google maps and gmail showed the masses that browsers can support web apps - no need for dot.NET.

      If the market is smart (and they appear to be smartening up - are there still people still use IE as their default browser?) we're seeing the other key "lock-in" product - Office - also under fire.

      Longhorn/Vista/Whatever will be the final nail in the coffin. If Microsoft thought adoption rates of XP were "disappointing" (and how they couldn't have predicted that, with businesses telling them they didn't want forced upgrades is beyond mortal comprehension) they haven't seen anything yet.

      Remember - they make a profit on only 2 products - the OS and Office. Everything else is just there as window dressing or to "get the brand out", or, in the case of the XBOX, "oops - its not as easy as we thought, we need a few billion and a few years more, and MAYBE if we get lucky and nobody else does anything right ...".

      Time was, people would get all excited about any new stuff ("oh, wow, Windows 95 - gonna buy me 10 copies"). There's nothing in their 2 core profit centers - Windows and Office - that can't be done with other products. They are almost totally reliant in 3rd-party apps to keep people tied to Windows ... and those 3rd-party apps aren't magically going to break compatability with existing versions of Windows when Vista comes out.

    19. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by damsa · · Score: 1

      MS also owns Virtual PC. Instead of selling 2 products, MS can now sell 3.

    20. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by damsa · · Score: 1

      It was a result of a settlement or a contract issue, when MS bought shares in Apple a few years ago. Apple agreed to bundle Explorer in return MS agreed to develop applications for the Mac, because Apple knew that without further Office development, it was dead. Contracts are not per se illegal but theres where the GP was thinking of.

    21. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by kimvette · · Score: 1

      I HOPE Microsoft dumps M$ Office for the Mac.

      http://porting.openoffice.org/mac/ooo-osx_download s.html

      OpenOffice,org will only gain more ground and the need for vendor lock-in will go away as more and more people switch to OOo. Oh, and OOo will improve as well.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    22. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by jasonditz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They weren't selling IE to begin with (well... they were a long long time ago)...

      Why Microsoft should spend $400 Million for something that's going to support their platform either way and is going to be given away is beyond me.

      Microsoft stopped bothering with IE for Mac when OSX stopped making it the default, bundled browser. I can't say as I blame them, Safari came out of the gate at least it's equal and has vaulted past it in terms of speed and reliability. It's hard enough to get people to switch to a generally superior browser like Firefox... imagine trying to convince people to go out of their way to install an inferior one.

    23. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "* Note that by "good business decisions" I mean "good for MS and their shareholders", not "good for their customers"."

      Businesses are entities that exist to make money regardless of whether their actions are good for people. In fact, large businesses factor in whether it is cheaper to not kill people or to pay off the dead people's survivors. Which is why it is really creepy that in the USA, corporations are basically legally treated as people/citizens. We're going to be really sorry when the machines wake up.

    24. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      Tom -- go back and read the history of AJAX in, say, Wikipedia. You'll find that Microsoft invented AJAX, incorporating it into IE 5.5 to support OWA. There's a cool article in the Exchange Blog by Jim van Eaton which talks about the history, too. (Yes, the people in the story he tells are real. I've met all of them at one time or another.) Then, go look at Microsoft's financials for last quarter. You'll find that of the seven product units, only three are not wildly profitable. (And MED, while not wildly profitable, is basically break even.) Of the four profitable units, Server and Tools breaks out into several large groups, including Exchange (which is profitable), SQL Server (which is profitable), Windows Server (which is a version of Windows, and so is covered by your "windows and office" meme), and Developer Division (which is profitable). MSN is profitable. So, what was that about "only two profitable products"?

    25. Re:It works on all the major platforms... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      You'll find that Microsoft invented AJAX

      The Wikipedia is wrong - AJAX can be implemented by the use of a separate frame (not just an iframe) to do the data exchange, and having the javascript then update the apps window without refreshing it. This is another area where Microsoft is now claiming to have "invented" something when they didn't.

      Or did microsoft invent frames and javascript, which are all you need?

      AJAX does NOT require the httpxmlrequest object. It doesn't require an iframe. It doesn't require a java applet. Any means of passing xml data between the client and server, in an async fashion, and then using javascript to modify the document/app, meets the definition of AJAX.

      Asynchronous JavaScript And XML

      Get rid of the X, and you can pass any sort of data, even binary.

  5. sure... by B3AST! · · Score: 1

    it would obviously be the smarter thing to do, but they don't wanna admit they're wrong.....they're gonna hold IE close like it was their first baby blanket

    1. Re:sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The thing is, it really wouldn't be the smarter thing to do. What the fuck does Microsoft really need from IE that they won't get by bolting on a prettier interface with tabs and fixing a couple of nagging developer issues? Opera doesn't exactly render pages 100% compatible with IE which is kind of important. In fact, I'd venture to guess that Mozilla-based browsers render far more of the web than Opera. If it ain't that broke (to them at least) why would they bother going to that length to "fix" it?

    2. Re:sure... by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Er, how is Microsoft wrong to keep IE? It has about 85% of the browser market. I must have missed in business school how a browser with 2% market share should replace one with 85% is somehow "better".

      Pundits have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to Microsoft. Microsoft knows what they are doing: their OS runs about 95% of the desktops worldwide, and they are making sigificant inroads in the cellphone, handheld, home entertainment and server markets. Their net profit runs over $1 BILLION dollars a MONTH! Yet somehow, they are doing it all wrong and need advice from a guy who probably doesn't make $200k a year.

    3. Re:sure... by EEBaum · · Score: 1

      In fact, I'd venture to guess that Mozilla-based browsers render far more of the web than Opera.

      But Opera renders those pages much faster than the Mozilla-based browsers. Even trade, I'd say.

      --
      -- I prefer the term "karma escort."
    4. Re:sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you've only got 64MBs of RAM in your computer. I wouldn't call Opera's rendering of pages "much" faster than Mozilla-based browsers.

      Also, if you end up having to load up another browser anyway (take your pic IE or Firefox) for that part of the web that Opera borks up, where's your speed now?

    5. Re:sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, after trying both, they render most pages equally well. Thats of course is with FF v1.5 and Opera v8.51. Opera is still a bit faster. Where FF has been getting faster, Opera has been getting better at rendering most webpages. The only way that FF becomes better then Opera is with extensions. If you try Opera v9.0, its in beta, you'll find alot of the problems with CSS and a few other things are gone. If you exclude extensions Opera is the best out of the box which makes it the most appealing to the average user. With extensions FF wins hands down. I still use Opera though.

    6. Re:sure... by EEBaum · · Score: 1

      Maybe if you've only got 64MBs of RAM in your computer. I wouldn't call Opera's rendering of pages "much" faster than Mozilla-based browsers.

      Who only has 64MB of RAM these days? They're, what, included when you super-size a value meal? Even the ghetto Fry's specials come with 256.

      Also, if you end up having to load up another browser anyway (take your pic IE or Firefox) for that part of the web that Opera borks up, where's your speed now?

      Considering that I have to do that, oh, once every few weeks, I'm good with the speed.

      --
      -- I prefer the term "karma escort."
  6. Great idea! by BushCheney08 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wow! That's the best idea I've ever heard. There should be absolutely no problems shoehorning it into Vista by next year. Way to go, Dvorak! You deserve a raise!

    --
    Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
    1. Re:Great idea! by JWW · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sure they could get it to work in Vista.... As an application.

      Of course if they could do that it'd prove that all the "IEs part of the OS and can't be removed" stuff was bunk. Wheter that's actually provable already is also up for debate.

    2. Re:Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you remove IE, a lot of the help files don't work. See, its an integral part of the OS...

    3. Re:Great idea! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      It wouldnt prove anything of the sort, it would simply prove that its possible to run a different browser as an application - IE would still be there in the mshtml.dll file, which is also used for Explorer and a crapload of other stuff. You think that because the front end wrapper would be replaced with Opera, the rest would magically disappear in a puff of invertant logic? IE *is* part of the OS, because its based on OS provided APIs, not hte other way round.

    4. Re:Great idea! by burndive · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "IE *is* part of the OS, because its based on OS provided APIs, not hte other way round."

      Actually, I think it is the other way around: IE is a part of the OS because OS provided APIs are based on it.

      --
      ...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
    5. Re:Great idea! by rapidweather · · Score: 1

      Would be nice if someone would redesign the top part of the Opera browser to put more of the items over on the right, where Opera's advertisement bar used to go.
      Oh, wait, couldn't Opera just do that themselves? I really doubt MS would want anything to do with Opera. Not that it isn't good. It is, but MS does have IE built into their OS, and IE boots up fast, faster than Opera. Just because IE is a target for viruses, etc. does not mean that Opera, with a smaller footprint, would not also be targeted if it were offered with a Microsoft OS.
      Although I offer several web browsers with my Knoppix remaster does not mean that MS would want to suddenly offer both IE and Opera. They have never done that. We have always had to download AOL, or Netscape and tack that on to Windows. I like having a choice between Opera, Flock, Firefox and Konqueror in my livecd linux, but that is just not the Microsoft way of doing things. Fortunately Windows has not been hostile to a Netscape installation, for instance, and for years I ran the two together. I started with Windows 3.1 and Netscape 1.22, my ISP sent me the floppies for that along with the dialup software that Windows did not have.
      Dvorak is an interesting writer, and we all take his work with a grain of salt for sure, but this MS - Opera thing has at least been thrown on the Slashdot table for discussion, and maybe he is happy about that.

  7. Even if they did... by TheUncleD · · Score: 1

    Should MS beef up cranky old Internet Explorer for today's standards? Doesn't MS claim to be so great because of their amazing ability to innovate and change the world with their one of a kind technology... Now they're supposed to buy an existing browser, and do away with the one they've had since "who knows how long.." all for corporate image? Are they then going to re-write the windows OS to use "Operlorer" as well? It seems unlikely this will ever happen... Silicon says Google might buy Opera though - will they get to it first?

    1. Re:Even if they did... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Now they're supposed to buy an existing browser, and do away with the one they've had since "who knows how long.." all for corporate image?

      Actually this is what they did with IE anyway. Buy up Spry Mosaic, add a bunch of security loopholes and rename it Internet Explorer.

      The day Microsoft ever truly innovates with their technology will be a great day for ice skates salesmen everywhere. :)

  8. Sure by mugnyte · · Score: 5, Funny


    Then after the "MS Opera" release, firefox would have even less competition.

    1. Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIK Firefox is not afraid of competition. It even seems to be winning in the currently existing competition:
      http://www.xitimonitor.com/etudes/equipement12.asp

    2. Re:Sure by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      You say that as if it's a good thing.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    3. Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no hablo el french :(

    4. Re:Sure by MikeFM · · Score: 0

      Safari is the only competition that Firefox has so far. Opera is better than IE but still renders CSS poorly. So yeh, M$ switching to an Opera-based IE would be better but Opera would be stupid to go for it.. you do remember the great deal that led to IE in the first place don't you? Somebody got a really raw deal from that.

      IE should be switched to either a Gecko or KHTML based engine. Both are free to use with good standards compliancy. Why pay for Opera when better choices are available at no cost. Why roll your own when you could switch to a better engine for free. It seems M$ is going to probably have more pressure on them with OS X being moved to x86 - combined with pressure from Firefox - so they need a browser that can compete with Safari and Firefox. If a consumer can buy the same computer with Mac OS or Windows and they can see demo machines before their purchase is it likely that Apple won't be smart enough to create some demos showing off why Safari is so much better than IE? They'd be crazy not to make deals with major websites (Amazon, Google, Yahoo, etc) to get them to add functionality that won't work with IE. Some little gee whiz stuff like that could really sell the Mac especially once it's easier to compare the hardware specs.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    5. Re:Sure by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Okay, here it is in English (no, not Babelfish - me :-)

      Étude réalisée entre le 01/10/2004 et le 31/10/2005 sur un échantillon de sites web professionnels audités par XiTi, sur un total de 10 896 812 172 visites)
      Study conducted between January 1st, 2004 and October 31st, 2005 on a sample of professional web sites (my note - means no amateur web pages and stuff like that) audited by XiTi, from a total of 10,896,812,172 visits.
      Le navigateur alternatif de Mozilla va souffler sa première bougie,
      il est donc temps de mesurer le chemin parcouru au cours de ces 12 mois.
      It is now time to measure the path taken over these last 12 months.
      Observons tout d'abord sa courbe de progression depuis octobre 2004 (pourcentage d'utilisateurs monde).
      Please note the progress since October 2004 (global percentage of users)
      Après un départ très rapide sur les derniers mois de 2004, on note une progression légèrement plus lente sur le premier semestre 2005, et enfin un nouveau tassement de la courbe depuis juillet 2005.
      After a quick start in the last months of 2004, we can see a slight slowing down in the rate in the first week of 2005, and finally another upswing in the curve since July of 2005.
      Ceci dit, si la progression est plus lente, elle n'en est pas moins toujours sensible, et elle semble même avoir repris un peu de vitesse sur ces dernières semaines.
      This means, even if the rate of adoption was slower, it is still significant, and has even gained speed in the last few weeks.
      L'objectif des 10% de part de marché, annoncé par Firefox il y a un an, est quant à lui très largement dépassé depuis plus de six mois.
      The objective of 10% of the market, announced by Firefox a year ago, was already largely surpassed at least 6 months ago.
      Dans un marché des navigateurs où la domination écrasante d'Internet Explorer était incontestée depuis des années, l'année 2005 a donc indubitablement confirmé l'importance du navigateur libre de la fondation Mozilla.
      In a browser market where the crushing domination of Internet Explorer was uncontested for years, 2005 without a doubt confirmed the importance of the free browser offered by the Mozilla Foundation.

      === end ===

      How many people do YOU know who still use IE as their main browser? I don't know anyone. I sent my friends stuff to check out to make sure it renders properly under IE, and they all say it looks fine. Then I find out none of them are looking at it in IE. Its too much of a pain to use it, now that its not their default.

    6. Re:Sure by kimvette · · Score: 1

      {
      Why pay for Opera when better choices are available at no cost.
      }

      Opera is now free thanks to Google making it so.

      However: why would you want to run Opera when there are better browsers out there, based on Gecko and KHTML.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    7. Re:Sure by dreemernj · · Score: 1

      My guess as to why any company is looking at Opera to purchase would be they want something that works, is cross-platform and is closed source. I think closed source would be a requirement for MS, and Google would definately want something proven to be successful. Opera seems to be the only for-profit company that makes a living off of its web browser.

      On top of that, Opera has a lot of features in a very small package, is very fast, and very easily retooled for different uses. Its got versions for various OSes including SymbianOS and they've already had a service of quickly developing versions of their desktop software customized to individual companies. Its a very fast and flexible company thats overcome a lot of struggles.

      --
      1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
    8. Re:Sure by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      M$ uses opensource code so long as they don't have to give back their changes.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    9. Re:Sure by fbg111 · · Score: 1

      Then after the "MS Opera" release, firefox would have even less competition.

      In fact, it would have no competition.

      --
      Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
    10. Re:Sure by Domo-Sun · · Score: 1

      Opera is better than IE but still renders CSS poorly.

      What makes you think that? You're obviously confusing the current opera with an older version because you don't use Opera. Opera has better acid2 support and better CSS support. You're misinformed.

    11. Re:Sure by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I've got the newest version (downloaded less than a week ago from Opera's website) and it shows pages incorrectly. I don't know what else to do if that isn't right. The sites I tested on have full strict doctype and Opera still displayed in almost IE-like manor rather than like FF or Safari.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  9. Secondary benefit by narcolepticjim · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A nice secondary benefit from acquiring Opera would be all their mobile browsing tech. Am I wrong in thinking they make more dough from the mobile device stuff than the regular browser?

    1. Re:Secondary benefit by tobiasly · · Score: 1
      Am I wrong in thinking they make more dough from the mobile device stuff than the regular browser?

      Considering the desktop browser is now free (as in beer) and the mobile browser isn't, I'd say that's a pretty safe assumption.

  10. What? by MSFanBoi2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This guy proves he is once again off his rocker. IE 7, even in beta (with the latest builds of Vista), is a damn fine browser. Better than even Firefox/Mozilla dare I say it. Microsoft's browser team is doing just fine on its own.

    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Better than even Firefox/Mozilla dare I say it.

      /. blasphemy!

    2. Re:What? by garcia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This guy proves he is once again off his rocker. IE 7, even in beta (with the latest builds of Vista), is a damn fine browser. Better than even Firefox/Mozilla dare I say it. Microsoft's browser team is doing just fine on its own.

      I don't use either IE7 or Firefox but so what? IE7 is a "damn fine browser" for now... IE overtook Netscape because it was the better browser at the time that MS was using other tactics to force its wide and successful adoption.

      Do you really think that IE7 will continue to be a "damn fine browser" when the masses begin using it and the spammers, hackers, and phishers decide it's now viable enough to heavily exploit?

    3. Re:What? by globalar · · Score: 1

      Dvorak aside, there is no way to get rid of IE without making its replacement back into IE. Too much functionality is dependent on the component interfaces of IE, the concept of a built-in browser, and the fact that way too many people use it and consider it essential to Windows. Replacing IE will not be accomplished with an acquisition or a rebranding or anything. It will be done over a period of no less than 10 years and two OS cycles, and we haven't even started.

    4. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, what revisionist history we have going on here! The only reason IE overtook Netscape, was not because it was the 'better' browser, but due to the fact that it was 'dumped' on to the market, had the $$$ to burn and 'integrated' it into their OS. Netscape didn't have a chance.

      Being 'Better' would imply that they (IE) followed W3C standards at the time, which simply wasn't the case. IE has pretty much -always- been a shit browser - it just does a better job in covering up ignorance (whether their own making and people who don't know better).

    5. Re:What? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Being 'Better' would imply that they (IE) followed W3C standards at the time,

      No. Being "better" in the context of the marketplace would mean being seen as better by more people. Your average user doesn't even know what W3C standards are. They don't care. From what I remember, the version of IE that was around at the same time as the final version of Netscape Navigator was pretty much the same feature wise, but was a little bit more responsive, and slightly more stable. A lot of people genuinely preferred it. It was also available without a long winded download, which wasn't exactly fair, but it did offer a definite competitive advantage.

    6. Re:What? by mahdi13 · · Score: 1

      IE overtook Netscape because it was the better browser at the time that MS was using other tactics to force its wide and successful adoption.

      IE overtook Netscape because Microsoft started offering IE for free and then wrapped the OS around it. The new PC owners never needed to 'shop and compaire' browsers since IE was there waiting for them.

      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    7. Re:What? by MSFanBoi2 · · Score: 1

      Give me a break, IE 4.0 was far superior to Netscape 4.0. It rendered a lot faster, it was a lot more stable, it used less memory and it "felt" a lot snappier. Hate Microsoft all you want, but IE 4.0 was the superior browser at the time.

    8. Re:What? by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      You never actually used either IE 4.0 or Netscape 4.0, did you?

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    9. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a developer who had to write code to support both IE 4.x and NS 4.x, I frequently wished any NS users a painful death so that I could just get on with working code that worked.

    10. Re:What? by brontus3927 · · Score: 1

      By the time I was in college and interested in such things, Netscape was also free. I had both Netscape and IE installed and with each update I would evaluate both. Netscape won out for a long time, but that changed when Netscape 6 came out. That was so horrible and bloated I decided I'd never use it again. I used IE exclusively until my brother turned me on to Firebird 0.7.1

    11. Re:What? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      I've used both. IE4 was way better than NS4. NS4 was just a horrible, horrible browser that I am doing my best to forget. That was what originally put me off of the Mozilla suite, I couldn't get past the default NS4 skin, even if it was easy to change.

    12. Re:What? by mahdi13 · · Score: 1

      It's not a "hate MS thing" it's what happened.

      IE 4.0 also happened to be the version that had caught up with Netscape. Then in 2000 when Netscape 6.0 was released everyone dumped it because it became to horrible to use.

      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    13. Re:What? by jZnat · · Score: 1

      You mention that Netscape 6 was bloated (which was based on Mozilla 1.6, an already bloated piece of software). Then you mention you liked Firebird. Sounds a lot like Ben Goodger (one of the lead engineers for Firefox).

      Just thought you might like to know.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    14. Re:What? by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 1

      Enough revisionist nonsense. IE4 won because it was, by miles, the better browser.

    15. Re:What? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      "Do you really think that IE7 will continue to be a "damn fine browser" when the masses begin using it and the spammers, hackers, and phishers decide it's now viable enough to heavily exploit?"

      Oh, boy, do I hate such non-sense. Of course it is very hard to develop really secure software, but to say that security only relies on the numbers of users is BS. IE4..6 all had the problem that they were at least partly build into the OS, and that most users run with administrative privileges. And then there is the easy way of distributing exploits known as Outlook. And "trusted" ActiveX plugins.

      Browsers can be made secure. They're pretty complex, which makes it harder, but you can, and somebody will, make a popular secure browser. The current firefox is pretty near, but I do not think they are there yet.

    16. Re:What? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Wow, what revisionist history we have going on here! The only reason IE overtook Netscape, was not because it was the 'better' browser, but due to the fact that it was 'dumped' on to the market, had the $$$ to burn and 'integrated' it into their OS. Netscape didn't have a chance.

      Actually, the Netscape 4.x series were pretty terrible browsers. I know many people switched over to IE because of it (I didn't myself - I stuck it out with Netscape until I discovered Opera 5). By the time Netscape got 6.0 out, it was too late - not to mention Netscape 6.0 wasn't that great of a browser either.

    17. Re:What? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1
      By the time Netscape got 6.0 out...
      ...I had been using Mozilla full-time for about 6 months, IIRC.
      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    18. Re:What? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Apparently you weren't one of the people whose Windows OS was wrecked by installing the first IE4 release. (My dad was one of these. He was so pissed off that he immediately switched to Mac. He now uses an OS X desktop and runs SuSE on his laptop.)

      In any case, IE4.01 was somewhat better in some ways than Netscape 4.x, and Microsoft tried to make sure that Netscape would never have the chance to come up with any significant improvements by strongarming the market in various unsavoury ways.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  11. Dvorak has apparently forgotten.. by McNally · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dvorak has apparently forgotten all the work that Microsoft put into stuffing Internet Explorer and its components into every unlikely corner of the Windows operating systems. You can't just easily rip that out and replace it with a new browser..

    1. Re:Dvorak has apparently forgotten.. by digidave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the reason you can't just rip it out is the same reason IE isn't going to support standards: MS needs IE to run all the crap that's already been written for it, especially on intranets.

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    2. Re:Dvorak has apparently forgotten.. by mcho · · Score: 1

      That's the first thing that came to my mind. But could they just "hide" it in the operating system?

      This prediction makes as much sense as the one I saw somewhere about Apple ditching their computers and instead only making iPods. How am I going to switch Apple?

      And there's nothing wrong with a company "locking you in" with their products as long as there are other products you could choose from. I always use FireFox for web browsing, but I do use Internet Explorer and Opera to check my web designs.

    3. Re:Dvorak has apparently forgotten.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you have apparently forgotten that microsoft started all over again with vista, so if they want to change browser, this is the moment....

    4. Re:Dvorak has apparently forgotten.. by uberdave · · Score: 1

      No, two or three years ago when they started coding for vista is when they should have changed. It is far too late now.

    5. Re:Dvorak has apparently forgotten.. by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      And Internets!

    6. Re:Dvorak has apparently forgotten.. by nick_urbanik · · Score: 1

      Yes, poor Microsoft have been locked into IE by setting their own web standards :-).

    7. Re:Dvorak has apparently forgotten.. by kevin.fowler · · Score: 1

      Just like I said about Google possibly purchasing Opera, I feel like this is all about having a better mobile web browsing platform.

      1. Buy Opera
      2. Integrate into mobile Microsoft platform and call it your own
      3. Can Opera's Windows distro
      4. ...
      5. PROFIT!

      --
      Bury me in mashed potatoes.
    8. Re:Dvorak has apparently forgotten.. by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 1



      Bad example... that actually DOES make sense. It falls into the category of "focusing on core business".

    9. Re:Dvorak has apparently forgotten.. by acebone · · Score: 0

      >And there's nothing wrong with a company "locking you in" with their products as long as there are other products you could choose from

      Come on - do you read what you write ? And if you do... do you think while you read ? "There's nothing wrong with 'locking you in' as long as you don't get locked in...."

      --
      Check out my PHP Url Validator
    10. Re:Dvorak has apparently forgotten.. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1
      And there's nothing wrong with a company "locking you in" with their products as long as there are other products you could choose from.


      I guess you have a different understand of the term "lock-in" from mine, then?
      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re:Dvorak has apparently forgotten.. by micheas · · Score: 1

      Although, IE 4 had an almost identical API to Netscape 4 (this was to make it easy for people writing to Netscape's API to dump Navigator for IE)

      I suspect that Opera or KHTML would be a near nightmare to use as an IE subsitute for things like ms money, outlook, outlook express, and the rest of microsofts web aware apps. Gecko might be doable, but it I don't recall API stablity being a big factor in the development of Mozilla 1.0. also, microsoft may have (I would be shocked if this was not true) added some microsoftisms to the netscape API after putting Netscape under, although, I can't believe that microsoft would be that sloppy about vender lock in.

  12. But what about OS integration...? by MarkEst1973 · · Score: 1
    Wasn't it critical to Windows to have IE deeply integrated within? I seem to remember something about it and that MS couldn't easily disentangle it from the bowels...

    But more importantly, IE is, I believ, used as the rendering engine for a whole lotta apps. I imagine the cost of replacing it would be a lot higher than the cost of buying Opera for $400m.

    1. Re:But what about OS integration...? by srock2588 · · Score: 1

      There would be no need to dientangle IE from windows, it just wouldn't be the app used to browse the internet. Or they could mech the best features form Opera into IE and the consumer would just think IE got a lot better.

      --
      Ehh...this is the life we chose.
    2. Re:But what about OS integration...? by jekewa · · Score: 2, Interesting
      M$'s idea of abstracting the network from the individual software (isn't Sun trying that now?) resulted in deep integration of IE into the other Explorer that is the desktop and file-browser.

      If you look at it from an abstract and high enough view, there's little difference to looking at a directory on your hard drive and one on an HTTP or FTP server. *NIX mount points are the kind of the same way; it doesn't matter if its a resource on your system or another.

      The proclimation, however, that the operating environment couldn't function without IE involved was (giving undue benefit-of-doubt) probably based on shared code and functionality that would have required them to either duplicate bits, or compile two copies; one with network savvy and one without.

      Konquerer will allow me to browse my mounted resources and the Internet without any real extra effort on my part (really, just a few extra characters typed separate HTTP from NFS), but KDE doesn't kick the crap out of Firefox or Opera if it's installed.

      --
      End the FUD
    3. Re:But what about OS integration...? by tezbobobo · · Score: 1

      OS integration is not a problem. Basically you continue to provide IE as a set of APIs, that is all the functionality that it previously provided. You take away the wrapper called Internet Explorer. Then everything that uses IE could still, but the default browser becomes Opera.

  13. One problem.... by MmmmJoel · · Score: 5, Funny

    Opera can be uninstalled.

    1. Re:One problem.... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      I don't think that fits in the category of 'problem.' Not to me, anyway.

    2. Re:One problem.... by Triple+Click · · Score: 1

      Believe me, Windows can be uninstalled too.

    3. Re:One problem.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called "satire". I know, you didn't get it.

  14. He's probably right by eyrieowl · · Score: 1

    But that would be admitting defeat with IE, so I wouldn't look for that to happen. Besides, where would we all be if we couldn't bi73# and moan about MS not being able to make a worthwhile browser? :)

  15. antitrust? by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't this be in violation of antitrust laws? Microsoft can't just buy out all of their competition out there. I don't think the government would allow it. At least they shouldn't. That's why I like Open Source, Because you can't buy it out. I think this is Microsofts greatest fear. A competitor they can't defeat, simply by buying it out.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:antitrust? by Bellum+Aeternus · · Score: 1

      Opera is not an American company - so the US government most likely wouldn't care. However, the EU would go ape over the deal and it would just never happen. Well, until Bill starts pouring money into helping EU farmers... which seems to be the only thing the EU commissions really ever care about.

      --
      - I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
    2. Re:antitrust? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I just said the government, nothing to do with America. However, knowing that it's the european government puts me a little more at ease. Even though MS is a convicted monopolist in the US, they don't seem to be doing much about it.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  16. I always thought Dvorak was an idiot, but... by Jason1729 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This makes me think I overestimated him.

    MS chooses to stop supporting the Mac with IE. For whatever reason, they think that's in their best interest. Now Dvorak thinks that's MS should spend $400M to abandon the browser they've been pushing for 10 years, to buy one that supports an OS they just walked away from.

    MS hasn't even stopped supoport for IE yet, just annouced it. If they changed their mind and think it's such a big mistake, they can continue IE on MacOS.

    1. Re:I always thought Dvorak was an idiot, but... by MBCook · · Score: 1
      The reason they stopped supporting the Mac (I don't think anyone will really disagree with me) was Safari. Apple made a web browser (and a VERY good one at that) and MS said "We don't want to play".

      Now I should mention that IE for the Mac is a piece of junk, and I assume it was back in 2003 when they stopped activly working on it. It's slow, clunky, and can't hold a candle to Safari or Firefox.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    2. Re:I always thought Dvorak was an idiot, but... by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      When they stopped working on it, IE/Mac was decent. Not the best, but decent.

      When it first came out, the most recent version of IE/Mac was the best browser on the planet: fast, with great standards support (for the time), and fit in well with the OS. Against Safari, Firefox or Opera it is definately second rate, but none of them existed when it came out. Test it against NS4, if you want to see what its compitition was.

      IE/Mac's been in matainence mode a long time. It shipped as the default browser on Mac OS 8, (IIRC) and has only had a few bug-fixes since, really. (The 2003 update basically was a recompile to Carbon, so that it would run natively under OS X. Beyond that, it was unchanged.)

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    3. Re:I always thought Dvorak was an idiot, but... by MBCook · · Score: 1
      I only got my Mac last year and I had only used them sporadically before that. I know that IE was the king of the hill for a while, but I think that the writing was on the wall that IE for Mac was dead when Safari came out (and probably before that).

      I'm still amazed that it is still included on Macs (or was up until very recently). It is so out of place with the rest of OS X these days (it has the old 10.0 or 10.1 candy stripes, for example) that it is almost jarring the few times I've had to use it.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    4. Re:I always thought Dvorak was an idiot, but... by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      This makes me think I overestimated him.

      Maybe you have, but slashdot will still put his crap on the front page. I guess it saves the editor the last sentence after the article blurb to start the ensuing flame war :)

      MS chooses to stop supporting the Mac with IE. For whatever reason, they think that's in their best interest. Now Dvorak thinks that's MS should spend $400M to abandon the browser they've been pushing for 10 years, to buy one that supports an OS they just walked away from.

      MS hasn't even stopped supoport for IE yet, just annouced it. If they changed their mind and think it's such a big mistake, they can continue IE on MacOS.


      MS has in my opinion screwed up royally with IE. Aside from its security issues and compatibility issues and all of its other issues, I simply don't like the COM thing where IE is just a wrapper around a ton of COM objects. Although it may be similar to OS X's webcore in concept, it is entirely different. Also, webcore is open source, open standards, and all that other jazz we like. I don't know if this has changed, but IE used to be required for IIS because IE is so tied to the operating system and I guess IIS uses some of the COM objects for parsing HTML or whatever. COM also kills portability. I would imagine that porting IE was more of a separate project, and that is why MS is killing it, plus it is completely redundant on the Mac. MS has also fallen into being trapped into IE because of its design and how so many customers have become dependent on it for intranets.

      Anyway, that is not really what we are talking about. What I would assume that Dmorak is alluding to is that MS should buy Opera because of their embedded market. (Did I guess that correct? If not, the rest of my post is probably offtopic as well).

      However, buying Opera for the embedded market is just another example of why MS screwed up with IE. Its not a portable product, and buying Opera would not do much more for them to decide whether to keep IE (Bob is the only fuckup that I know of MS abandoning) it would then just fragment their products, and then they have to decide again whether or not to keep IE.

      Personally, I would rather MS keep IE and all the problems with it. Some day people will learn.

    5. Re:I always thought Dvorak was an idiot, but... by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      When did IE for Mac come out? Cause Opera existed in 1996...

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    6. Re:I always thought Dvorak was an idiot, but... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      It's actually kinda funny, the Mac offering of IE and Office usually get the new stuff first and work the best. After a year or so, the features work themselves over to the Windows side.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  17. It might be smarter... by giorgiofr · · Score: 2, Informative

    But it would be a terrible move from a PR perpective. It would be like admitting they're not able to program a decent browser; they'd look like they're buying the small guy, which many less-than-rational people think is a very bad thing to do; and the user experience would be so much different than what they're used to. Let's not forget Opera has always been years in advance of the competition - heck, they were teh cool way back in version 3.

    --
    Global warming is a cube.
    1. Re:It might be smarter... by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      The real reason it would never ever happen in a million years is really quite simple (say it with me now): backward compatibility. Switching to Opera would break a billion websites made in Frontpage and "designed to be viewed best in IE 5-6.0". It's that simple. Time and again Microsoft has deferred 'innovation' for the sake of maintaining backward compatability with things written in the stone ages. Buying Opera, maybe, but only to quash their puny insurrection. Buying Opera and using it? Not a chance.

  18. Way too much money, way too little upside... by lpangelrob · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If I were Microsoft, with the amount of money it would take to buy Opera, I'd rather just yoink 1.5 stable of Firefox and rebrand it as Internet Explorer. Releasing the code for all changes they make, of course.

    They can stuff it with their links, write in their ActiveX/DLL extensions, make a better Windows-like skin... whatever.

    Of course, I can't imagine them risking putting open source software in such a high-visibility area, but a web developer can dream.

  19. Who wants opera for 400 mil? by mj2k · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Seriously, it's not that good... I tried it a while back and went back to firefox... It doesn't even make sense to buy opera for $400 mil, the browser market isn't that fertile any longer, and I for one wouldn't pay for opera when an open source alternative, that works better mind you, is available. MS couldn't hardly ask people to purchase the browser, after giving away IE for so long... It'd be like throwning $400 mil down a black hole, since they could derive no direct monetary benefit. Sure it might help PR, but I don't see people leaving windows over IE in droves; they've still got the monopoly, and as long as they continue to patch IE holes as they develop most clueless EU's will continue to use MS products... The only thing they could hope to do is bring back people who left for linux or more secure alternatives, but how many of us are going to do that? Not that many...

    1. Re:Who wants opera for 400 mil? by Bin_jammin · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm pretty sure the point is that if MS buys Opera, it would not be to add a browser to the financial portfolio, but to have a more secure browser. MSOpera would form the basis of the next gen of IE, which would still be given away for free.

    2. Re:Who wants opera for 400 mil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You should try the newest Opera build, it blows FF away. The only possible way FF beats it is via extensions.

    3. Re:Who wants opera for 400 mil? by taskforce · · Score: 2, Informative

      Opera has been completely free (as in Beer http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/20/121723 2&from=rss) with no ads for a while now... I am really surprised how few people actually use it.

      --
      My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
    4. Re:Who wants opera for 400 mil? by drakaan · · Score: 1
      If it finally renders CSS (and supports Javascript) as well as Firefox, I'll agree with you. Opera was the fly in my cross-browser compatible AJAX + CSS web development ointment.

      (off to go download Opera and see if it sucks less today than it did 8 months ago)

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    5. Re:Who wants opera for 400 mil? by mj2k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      400 mil is an awful lot of money to fix a browser... For a 1/10 of that price, you could fix the current IE... Plus, MS has to save face here... Buying opera is as much as saying "IE is worthless, buggy, crap... we had to buy opera because it was just too bad to be fixed"... Not exactly positive PR...

    6. Re:Who wants opera for 400 mil? by utnow · · Score: 1

      But if this article was titled "MS decides to NOT buy opera and fix IE" you'd be complaining that they were wasting their time on a buggy crappy browser instead of using the more secure cross-platform alternative. Everyone already knows that IE is the least feature-filled one of the three (FF,Opera,IE) as well as the buggiest and the least secure. No-one needs to be told... in fact, having MS admit it finally may win them a little bit of respect. (just a little... lol)

    7. Re:Who wants opera for 400 mil? by Parham · · Score: 1

      Not exactly positive PR...

      it's not any worse than the attention they're currently getting though. they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't. the only difference is that if they do, they'll end up with better software.

  20. gee i dont know by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

    1. Would probably be anti-competitive and may cause more legal problems for MS.

    2. Will make MS look really bad if they can't keep up or rewrite a web browser. The world's largest software company can't handle their own web browser code? Major PR and industry set back.

    3. Would be a waste of almost HALF A BILLION dollars considering the money already put into IE. MS could afford to buy most small countries, but that doesn't mean its a good idea.

    4. Won't do activeX and other MS propriety stuff out of box. The labor to fix this could be spent elsewhere - making IE7.

    But the idea does mean Dvorak gets another paycheck. Bravo, man. Someday I hope to have a cush job like yours.

    1. Re:gee i dont know by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      1. Would probably be anti-competitive and may cause more legal problems for MS.

      Opera isn't even a blip on the radar as far as competition goes for IE. Firefox, with all its publicity, is still in the minority of browsers. Also, when you're talking about free ($) products, I'm not sure the anti-competition clauses even come into play.

      2. Will make MS look really bad if they can't keep up or rewrite a web browser. The world's largest software company can't handle their own web browser code? Major PR and industry set back.

      They've already proven that to be the case; it's not like it would be news to anyone at this point.

      4. Won't do activeX and other MS propriety stuff out of box.

      Bad for MS, but it'd be great for the users. Hence, they won't do it. *shrug*

    2. Re:gee i dont know by tezbobobo · · Score: 1

      I would disagree on a couple of counts. Thanks to the success of Firefox, Safari and Omniweb, as well as Camino, Shiira, and etcetera, I don't think anti-competition issues will arise soon. Besides, they would be providing a standalone browser which could be uninstalled.

      Also there are many examples of Microsoft buying and implementing other technologies, rather than write it themselves and this is how a free capitalist market should operate - do the best job for the cheapest process. Maybe people will appreciate people meeting their needs.

      As for the money invested, the API's that IE could still be available to other apps. All that has changed is the default browser. Besides, why keep investing in a dog. Just because you put money into something, doesn't provide a reason to continue.

      If they did adopt Opera, they would probably implement ActiveX in a style similar to when netscape open IE compatible pages in an IE window, within netscape.

  21. Another Dvorak article? Yay. by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 1

    Dvorak is an idiot.

    Why would MS purchase Opera when they have a relatively stable web browser of their own for free? They'll spend far less than $400M fixing issues and adding features to IE, and the best part for them is that they're already familiar with it and are used to working with it.

    If MS were to do anything with a new browser, they'd be smart to branch Firefox and develop an open source version that can do the things they want it to do (ActiveX). Or they could just continue working on IE7, which will probably ship with Longhorn, and have a browser they made, that they can control, that works exactly how they want, at a fraction of the cost of purchasing Opera, and will likely be just as stable and secure with the enhancements they're making in Longhorn.

    Yeah Dvorak... you hit this on the head.

    --
    You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Another Dvorak article? Yay. by theCAS · · Score: 1

      Why would MS purchase Opera when they have a relatively stable web browser of their own for free? Really? Are they going to release it?

      Seriously, IE is not stable: it is the main source of security problems of the OS.
      If they couldn't make it secure with years of work and no other code change the they simply can't.

      Even spending millions to acquire another browser can be more cost effective than patch that barely working hack that IE is.

    2. Re:Another Dvorak article? Yay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dvorak is an idiot. I totally agree. Why is it everytime this guy takes a dump there's a slashdot article about him and the shit that flows out of his ass?

    3. Re:Another Dvorak article? Yay. by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 1

      I take it you haven't tried the IE7 beta. It's quite a bit better than the previous versions of IE and should be considerably better by the time Longhorn comes out. Even though IE6 has a lot of security issues, saying that it's a barely working hack shows you're not even taking an objective look at the situation. Even though I use Firefox for nearly everything, I can at least admit that IE has improved a lot over the years.

      MS has been making great strides in increasing security and stability lately, and I expect it will carry over to IE7. Not to mention that Longhorn itself will be quite a bit more stable and secure, and should provide a better environment for IE to run in. A lot of issues were caused by IE and Windows together, not separately, as shown by the lack of problems that IE had on Macs. Make Windows better and IE follows suit.

      --
      You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
  22. Or without ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Microsoft does not give up markets with a whimper"

    Maybe it's that 2% of the market is using Mac, and maintaining a FREE product for that marketshare is dumb?

  23. Dvorak just needs to go away... by Svartalf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He's just another utterly clueless pundit. To have them buy Opera is to admit that they didn't have what it takes to secure and extend the thing. MS flatly won't be inclined to do that if they can help it- this suggestion is in the same class as saying MS ought to do a Linux version of MS Office.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    1. Re:Dvorak just needs to go away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's just another utterly clueless pundit.

      Pundit is Sanskrit for learned, wise or knowledgeable man, usually a priest (because priests were considered to be all of the above).

      So, there is no such thing as a clueless Pundit - it's like saying, he's a dumb genius. Or a talking mute.

    2. Re:Dvorak just needs to go away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      saying MS ought to do a Linux version of MS Office.


      Hell, us Windows people can't even get a Windows version of Office 2004 for Mac.

    3. Re:Dvorak just needs to go away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS bought an anti-virus company and an anti-spyware company. Is that an insult to their Windows security team?

    4. Re:Dvorak just needs to go away... by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      Another definition of "pundit" is one who gives opinions in an authoritative manner (syn CRITIC).

      A critic can definitely be clueless, especially in Dvorak's case.

      Besides, just because someone is "learned, wise or knowledgeable" does not mean they're learned, wise or knowledgeable about every subject.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    5. Re:Dvorak just needs to go away... by doxology · · Score: 1

      Not really, because they hadn't released any of their own such products.

      --
      sigfault. core dumped.
    6. Re:Dvorak just needs to go away... by Col.+2.7.0-default · · Score: 0
      ...they hadn't released any of their own such products.

      Perhaps because they were too busy creating the market for them?

      --
      My other /. account has a 4-digit ID, excellent karma, and a much wittier sig.
  24. Not compatible by wombatmobile · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unlikely. Opera isn't compatible with Microsoft's business strategy since it implements web standards.

  25. Note to Self... by srock2588 · · Score: 3, Funny

    1. Write some code 2. Slip Dvorak some free booze 3. Get bought by Microsoft for "pocket change" 4. Move to Grand Cayman

    --
    Ehh...this is the life we chose.
    1. Re:Note to Self... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      2. Slip Dvorak some free booze
      Dvorak's already proved he's pissed outta his head just by inhaling the fumes of the 6 pack under his desk. Bout time this person got a real job.
    2. Re:Note to Self... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bout time this person got a real job.

      He has a great job. I wish I could get paid to make no positive contribution to society.

      Oh.. hang on.. sounds too much like being president.

  26. Not the browser, maybe... by Otter · · Score: 1

    I don't know how much Microsoft needs the browser but Opera has (had?) some great developers. They don't get the credit they deserve for innovation (the market price for web browsers has always been zero, so almost no one has seen Opera) but they introduced a lot of new stuff including, IIRC, both tabbed browsing and popup blocking (later popularized by Galeon and Konqueror, respectively).

  27. Bah... by Chaffar · · Score: 1
    If this happening, the biggest loser might be Mozilla Firefox since many consider Opera to not only be the best browser available, but the fastest and the one with the best page rendering engine.

    If someone had posted something like this on Slashdot he would've promptly been slapped with a -1 flamebait.

    The smart move for the company would be for Microsoft to discard the entire code base of Internet Explorer and buy the Opera browser (from Norway) outright and use it instead.

    Not that it has ever stopped Microsoft from doing anything, but wouldn't it be illegal for them to buy their competitors when they have a 90% share of the market? At least that's what they taught me in ECO 101.

  28. Sheesh by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    I say bullshit. GOOGLE should buy Opera. Google at least is MUCH quicker at real-time updating of user interfacing with the world.

    On top of that, if the web-based apps become the new OS environment, then Google and Opera would be a finer marriage than Opera being bought and destroyed by ms' hands.

    C'mon. How is ms a good thing for us and for Opera users???!!!

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  29. They better not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't my browser of choice to start sucking.

  30. Me says MS should ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... buy Dvorak and lock him up somewhere.

  31. MS Buy? Say bye-gye... by el+cisne · · Score: 1

    The only reason that MS would buy Opera would be to stick it in a deep dark place where it would never ever be found, except to may 1) rip code off from it, and/or 2) try and use it as a basis from which to slap IP lawsuits against erstwhile competitors. There is no way in hell that MS is going to rip out IE, or in any other such fashion shoehorn or munge Opera code or Opera-like code into the picture. Just no freekin' way. Why should they? It is no longer in their interest to make IE available for other non-MS platforms, as it is no longer needed to help them be #1 in browser share. Yeah, it would be cool if they did, and used it to cover all these platforms and with an app, (note "app" not "OS functionality"), that was more secure, but that presupposes that they care about that. I submit that they don't. If MS were to buy Opera, then the fat lady will indeed have sung. (pun intended, sorry)

  32. Opera already singing IE's tune by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    Opera is already designed to appear to Web sites as Internet Explorer. This feature was added to prevent sites from blocking non-Microsoft browsers from capturing data and downloading.

    This sounds like the closest thing to a Borg assimilation that I have ever heard.
    Only another daring Enterprise can stop it from becoming part of the collective.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  33. OH GOD PLEASE NO!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Opera is such a great browser. MS buying Opera and sucking the browser down to its level of (cough) competence would be the kiss of death. This must NEVER happen! Ever. EVER! EVER!!!!!

  34. Newsflash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This Dvorak dude is an idiot.

    Why would MS want Opera? They've already got Internet Explorer.

    Which is scaleable. CE, XP, they've probably squeezed it on cell phones by now. And crashes less often than Opera (at an order of magnitude less often!)

    AND web pages actually render correctly in Internet Explorer. By "correctly" I mean "as the web designer intended." Don't give me that apologist bullshit - if it renders correctly, it renders correctly. Trust me, noone (no NORMAL person that is) except Steve Jobs and Linus Torvals gives a shit whether this proper rendering is a result of monopolistic practices or of rigorous adherence to standards. NOBODY SANE. You can write cheques on that.

    If you're a fanboi, then all I can say is grow up. If you're over 30, then shoot yourself. You'll have to make your own Carousel, because trust me, this world doesn't want you.

    1. Re:Newsflash by ooh456 · · Score: 0, Troll

      I am normally on the open source side of the argument...

      but I actually agree with AC and think he was unfairly modded down. When I read the headline, I immediately thought, "yeah, right." Love or hate MS, IE 6 usability and look and feel pretty much kicks ass. Once they plugged the vacuous security holes in Win XP SP-2, I only downloaded Firefox to test my sites on. IE will be the standard for a long time, and another reason to choose Windows over the 'competition'.

      The last time I downloaded and tested Opera, which had large banner ads rotating in the application space, it was third rate to Mozilla's second rate, and I was like, l8rz.

      And Dvorak seems to forget that MS has bought most of their good programs from other companies, including MS-DOS, the one that put the company into the big time. MS is vaccinated against "not-invented-here" syndrome. If anything they can't assimilate others faster enough... but not Opera (LOL)!

    2. Re:Newsflash by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I read the headline, I immediately thought, "yeah, right." Love or hate MS, IE 6 usability and look and feel pretty much kicks ass.

      What?... What?!?

      IE 6 is crap, through and through. It doesn't even have tabbed browsing. It is ugly. It violates plenty of basic UI principles. It does not have a build in, working ad blocker. The pop-up blocking is sub par. The security is abysmal and it can't even properly render Web pages written in WC3 standards set half a decade ago. It is ugly and unusable in my opinion.

      IE will be the standard for a long time, and another reason to choose Windows over the 'competition'.

      Nobody chooses Windows except OEMs that don't want to be run out of business. It comes pre-installed on every computer you buy (sans a few renegades that don't really affect the market). Some people choose the competition, but only after they have been forced to pay for MS's products first. I certainly hope it is not the standard for years to come, because that would imply that Web technologies will stagnate for another decade as MS refuses to implement any new standards and instead tries to covertly take over the Web using broken standards and proprietary extensions. I certainly don't look forward to another five years of coding pages to the standards, then working around all of IE's bugs and flaws.

      I agree MS won't buy Opera to use the browser, but that is because they want a broken browser tied to the OS as tightly as possible, not because it is not superior. The banner ads you complain of are because they actually have to pay for developers with money not acquired via a monopoly. MS just rolls the cost into Windows, which you have to buy anyway, even if you plan to run Linux. Don't worry, if MS does acquire them there would be no banner ads and even if you run Linux you'll be paying for the developers. Gee, great, huh?

    3. Re:Newsflash by ooh456 · · Score: 1

      I guess we disagree about usability.

      I have been a web designer for 10 years now and use the web on average of 10 hours per day. I test all browsers occasionally. Firefox is okay, but the rendering engine sucks IMHO in comparison to IE (it's not snappy, and the graphics slide in weird... and that's on Windows where it works best... don't get me started on Mac or Linux) and tabbed browsing is a vastly overrated gimmick IMHO. True, the CSS support is loads better in Moz and derivatives, but all they really tried to do was copy the usability of IE anyway. What do you think is so bad about IE usability? My mom uses it, so it can't be bad. Trust me, I am the LAST person to defend MS in any way (especially on the server side where they suck satans cock at an hourly rate), but I honestly wouldn't surf as much without it IE. Opera may have improved recently but it was pitiable the last time I used it. Now normally I say the masses are asses, but you can pry IE out of my cold dead hands. I say as I hand the devil himself my soul that I look forward to IE7 and hope that one day I can use an open source browser without closing the damn thing and running back to IE with my pitchfork between my legs. Maybe you've never used IE on and XP SP-2 machine? It's like silk pajamas.

    4. Re:Newsflash by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Things that make IE unusable for every day use:

      • No tabs - how do you manage more than four or five Web pages at a time? I have nine tabs open right now, and that is about average.
      • Pop-ups/pop-unders - How can you stand having pop-ups appear constantly cluttering your workspace. I can't stand it.
      • Adblock - hundreds of flashing, blinking, moving, bouncing banners. Some sites are good about them, but some are so bad as to be unreadable.
      • Active X - if I want software installed, I'll install it. I'm not so keen on this huge security hole.
      • CSS - IE can't show much of the nice CSS on pages and you can't specify a default CSS style (which is great for my relations with poor eyesight and for pages who insist yellow and white text and backgrounds go together)

      Now I've done my share of web development, but I'm primarily a user, but I can't see how anyone could use IE as an everyday browser after trying something else. Almost anything else is better. I've used pretty much every browser on every system, for testing purposes if nothing else. I just can't see how someone could recommend IE. If nothing else the popularity, Active X implementation, and co-mingled code with the file browser makes it such a huge security risk that it is just not worth it. I guess if you don't care about security and don't mind having to remove malware and viruses it might be an option, but I don't really see why.

    5. Re:Newsflash by UpnAtom · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Opera is now free, no banner ads and makes Firefox look and feel like a Java app.

    6. Re:Newsflash by ooh456 · · Score: 1

      None of those above issues you mentioned above has affected me since SP-2 which was last year, but I've said that before.

      IE6 is close to the end of its lifecycle and M$ is thankfully taking their time before releasing the next version.

      To me the quickness and professional look and feel of IE puts its ahead of Firefox. Most sites look better and perform better on IE. IMHO that's probably why people haven't been adopting Firefox as quickly after SP-2 than before. When Firefox is truly better OVERALL I will be one of the first to change.

      But back to the original subject. For M$ to buy Opera is a joke. IE is the clear market leader which works great and they are about to release a new version which should please nearly everyone. M$ wants no part of Macintosh or Linux browser market. There is no money in it for them, and the article makes Dvorak look like someone out of touch with reality.

    7. Re:Newsflash by ooh456 · · Score: 1

      What, so it's like IE now?

    8. Re:Newsflash by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      IE is the clear market leader which works great and they are about to release a new version which should please nearly everyone.

      I'll have to disagree with you. MS is the market Leader, but not by virtue of working great, as you put it. Luckily all the web development I do is for security and networking professionals, and Lynx compatibility is in about the same demand as IE compatibility. The pages I create degrade gracefully for IE, but certainly don't have all the same features, since IE cannot support them yet. They work fine in Firefox, Opera, and Safari (all three of which our customers do use). MS is the market Leader due to their illegal bundling and nothing else. Their browser stinks, and is sub-par, just not so bad that more than a small percentage of knowledgeable people go out of their way to find something else. Most people do not even know that there are other browsers. Certainly there is more money in subverting the standard and trying to lock people into IE and Windows if they want to use the Web, but you're one of the few Web developers that I've ever heard of that supported them in that endeavor. Usually only clueless people using FrontPage, that don't realize how broken the code it outputs is, speak in favor of IE.

    9. Re:Newsflash by ooh456 · · Score: 1

      That's your last punch, calling me a Front Page user? Them's fighting words.

      You are probably a Macintosh user or something.

    10. Re:Newsflash by edflyerssn007 · · Score: 0

      No tabs - how do you manage more than four or five Web pages at a time? I have nine tabs open right now, and that is about average. Alt-tab for fast window switching

      Pop-ups/pop-unders - How can you stand having pop-ups appear constantly cluttering your workspace. I can't stand it. Alt-F4 is my pop-up blocker

      As for the rest of the post, I haven't noticed the web breaking while running IE7. Yeah it has tabs, but since SP2 on windows a lot of problems (with popups and spyware) were greatly reduced.

      Besides, install Spybot Search & Destroy and Your Choice(tm) of viruscan and you should be good against most problems that come with the use of the internet.

      --
      So you see what had happened was....
    11. Re:Newsflash by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      Cool, I never got modded 'flamebait' before. :)

      Forgive me for assuming that you're a Firefox groupie.

      There are plenty of websites which explain why Opera is better. Speed is the obvious one, both of loading/rendering and usability eg gestures. The less obvious one is that Opera doesn't force you to adapt to it - it adapts to you. It's so configurable that it becomes more-or-less the perfect browser.

    12. Re:Newsflash by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I use Opera mostly, but at work, I have to use IE6. If you ask me, IE6 is terrible.

      *Opera is much, much faster. It renders faster, and most importantly you can go back instantly. Because IE6 re-renders the page when you hit the back button, it works at glacial rates in comparsion. You may also get errors if the previous page was a form or dynamically generated too. (this is also an issue I have with Firefox)
      *Mouse gestures. Enough said.
      *Integrated search. Enough said.
      *Tabs is not a gimmick to me. Sure, if you only have 1-2 sites open at once, it seems pretty pointless. But managing 10+ IE windows is a pain in the ass, but a breeze in Opera's MDI. (Firefox has some work to do here too, it likes to spawn new windows far too much)
      *Whenever you make a new window in IE, it reloads whatever is loaded in the current window. Annoying. Only recently did I figure out that you can get a fresh one by launching the IE shortcut in the start menu though. Still annoying though.
      *The pop up blocker in IE is awful. It blocks legit, desired pop ups all the time, while also letting through a fair share of the unwanted ones. Opera's isn't perfect either, but works much better.

    13. Re:Newsflash by ooh456 · · Score: 1

      No I actually (gasp!) use IE. If it's okay for Opera to have problems (popup ads and look weird in early versions) and then to get much much better very quickly, then why can't IE? Do I HAVE to hate it just becausen it comes from M$?

    14. Re:Newsflash by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      Wow, you really are in the Dark Ages - you don't even have tabbed browsing.

      Haven't MS have pretty much given up on IE?

    15. Re:Newsflash by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Alt-tab for fast window switching

      Gee that would be great, except I already use cmd-tab to switch between the twelve open programs I have running right now. (I'm running on OS where multitasking actually works, not Windows.)

      Alt-F4 is my pop-up blocker

      Manually closing pop-ups is the best you can do? Pathetic.

      Yeah it has tabs, but since SP2 on windows a lot of problems (with popups and spyware) were greatly reduced. Besides, install Spybot Search & Destroy and Your Choice(tm) of viruscan...

      Gee running a different browser on a different OS, I've never had any spyware. I did have a pop-up once, a few months back. I told my browser it was an ad and now nothing from that that server is downloaded by my browser. You forgot to mention in page ads. Can IE finally block those as well? So lets look at that again. With IE you can manually close pop-ups and run software to remove the crap that gets installed on your machine, or you can use something else and not have to worry about pop-ups or spyware. And you think IE is up to snuff here? I mean if it was just one browser that was better you could argue, but every other browser does better in both these regards.

      I think I'll stick with grouping my web browsing by tabs in one or two windows, and not worrying about spyware or random worms compromising my machine.

    16. Re:Newsflash by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      That's your last punch, calling me a Front Page user? Them's fighting words.

      Now, now. I just compared you to a FrontPage user. I wouldn't make such a dire accusation without having proof.

      You are probably a Macintosh user or something.

      Well, right at this moment I'm a OS X, OpenBSD, Linux, and Win2K user. But, I'm typing this message in Safari on OS X, just for you.

    17. Re:Newsflash by edflyerssn007 · · Score: 0

      Considering we're discussing IE and where it is now, that's why I mentioned alt-tab, considering IE is currently windows only. Alt-tab also seems to work in gnome though. The new versions of ie come with a decent popup blocker, and if you have your security set properly then it doesn't install any active-x on your machine without your permission. I have spybot to run the check, but I actually haven't had spyware on my computer in months, and I run IE7, with symentec corporate edition. There is also page filtering in IE, but no one uses it. I don't think ads on pages annoy as many people as you think, otherwise myspace would not be a popular website, and if you really want the ads to go away, add the servers to your block list and they go away.

      Essentially with a little knowledge most problems go away.

      --
      So you see what had happened was....
  35. After they innovated IE into Windows? by wren337 · · Score: 1

    Now that they've innovated IE into the core of Windows I don't see how they can replace it with another browser.

    Integrating IE tightly into Windows wasn't just a way to flout the antitrust rulings, it was a Really Good Idea (tm).

    1. Re:After they innovated IE into Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is IE a rootkit? 7 years ago I tried to remove it completely from windowsNT which resulted in having to reinstall windows.

  36. There is a deliberate reason why IE sucks... by Serveert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Microsoft doesn't want a very nice UI for the web unless they control it. If the standards supported a nice neat replacement for your typical win32 gui then Microsoft is pretty much out of business as they currently stand. It's inevitable that the web GUI encroaches on win32 GUI applitions hence why MS is getting more and more into online services. The writing is on the wall and they'll resist the writing as long as possible - which means a crippled IE with lagging features for all of us.

    --
    2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
    1. Re:There is a deliberate reason why IE sucks... by Hymer · · Score: 1

      "which means a crippled IE with lagging features for all of us."
      Would you have anything against speaking only for yourself ?
      Several of us haven't touched M$IE for years.

    2. Re:There is a deliberate reason why IE sucks... by Serveert · · Score: 1

      I unfortunately have to use IE for testing purposes - but you're right, I assumed too much :)

      --
      2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
  37. At the risk of being flamed mightily.. by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1, Interesting
    At the risk of being flamed mightily, what's wrong with IE?

    I have IE, Firefox, and Opera on my systems, and IE is consistently the fastest and least crash prone. I understand that IE has had security vulnerabilities, but, well, so have all the others just as soon as they gained some popularity. Sure, each have some nice features that IE don't, like built-in popup blockers and a password remembering feature that actually works, but all those things I have better any way free IE add-ons.

    I just don't see any real technical / usbility reason to switch. Plus, if i type "C:\" in the address bar of IE, it looks normal and usable, not like firefox, which puts me in the wayback machine to 1994 UI land, so I can actually interoperate between my local PC and web browsing easily.

    1. Re:At the risk of being flamed mightily.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I understand that IE has had security vulnerabilities, but, well, so have all the others just as soon as they gained some popularity.

      Saying "now that Firefox is popular, it will be just as vulnerable" is like saying "if everyone started driving armoured vans, then it would be just as easy to break into them as Pintos". It ignores the underlying fact that Firefox is simply built more securely to begin with, largely due to the fact that it is not so heavily tied into the operating system.

      Of course there are bugs in Firefox. There will still be a hell of a lot less than in IE's horribly insecure spaghetti code.

    2. Re:At the risk of being flamed mightily.. by MP3Chuck · · Score: 1

      "I understand that IE has had security vulnerabilities, but, well, so have all the others just as soon as they gained some popularity."

      That would require that "all the others" are as shoddily programmed and as unnecessarily integrated as IE is. I find that pretty hard to believe.

      Do you really think that "all the others" have gaping system-access vulnerabilities just waiting to be discovered week after week for years on end, despite all sorts of security "campaigns?" 'Cause I don't.

    3. Re:At the risk of being flamed mightily.. by metlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well said.

      I have often wondered the same thing. IE is quite usable, and quite nice.

      Firefox and Opera are great, and I use them both a lot of the time, but I also use IE often. On a Windows machine, IE seriously has some benefits that FF does not. For instance, doing an ftp://foobar gets me a nice interface in IE. In FF, Fireftp crashes so often that I stopped using it. As for adblocking, Google toolbar gives me the same thing. If you are careful about your security settings, IE can also be a safe browser.

      Not to mention running Java applets. Firefox seems to hang/crash everytime a Java applet is run, and has serious trouble handling Java. You'd think that IE would be having this problem, not FF. And on a system with low memory, FF simply crashes way more often, it's easier and faster to use IE. Worse yet, FF's memory management on slower and older systems sucks.

      Now, obviously both the browsers have advantages and disadvantages, but seriously, IE isn't so bad as most folks here make it out to be. But for the security vulnerabilities, IE is a nice browser that is quite nice and usable.

      While I'd put Firefox above IE, that definitely does not make it a bad browser.

    4. Re:At the risk of being flamed mightily.. by Drasil · · Score: 1

      This 'IE' sounds great... does it run on Linux? Do you have the link to the project page?

    5. Re:At the risk of being flamed mightily.. by EEBaum · · Score: 1

      I have IE, Firefox, and Opera on my system, and Opera is consistently the fastest. So there.

      Yes, Opera crashes on occasion, but it tends to do so in a very orderly fashion (i.e. right away vs. after hanging the system, and on restart it gives the option to pick up where you left off).

      --
      -- I prefer the term "karma escort."
    6. Re:At the risk of being flamed mightily.. by iamdrscience · · Score: 1
      and on restart it gives the option to pick up where you left off).
      I think this part needs to be bolded. This alone is one of the biggest reasons I use Opera (though certainly not the only one). If it crashes or you accidentally close it, it doesn't matter, you just open it again afterwards and everything is exactly how you left it. Similarly, if you close a tab you didn't mean to, you can just press CTRL-Z! It will bring back the page you closed, complete with its history.
    7. Re:At the risk of being flamed mightily.. by jalefkowit · · Score: 1
      At the risk of being flamed mightily, what's wrong with IE?

      *cough* ActiveX *cough*

    8. Re:At the risk of being flamed mightily.. by Pope · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I just don't see any real technical / usbility reason to switch. Plus, if i type "C:\" in the address bar of IE, it looks normal and usable, not like firefox, which puts me in the wayback machine to 1994 UI land, so I can actually interoperate between my local PC and web browsing easily.

      You want to talk about 1994 UI land?

      Number one: why are you typing "C:\" into a web browser's address bar? It's not a valid internet URL.

      Number Two: "C:\" itself is 1982 UI, so you're really stretching the complaint.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    9. Re:At the risk of being flamed mightily.. by AA1 · · Score: 1

      This 'IE' sounds great... does it run on Linux? Do you have the link to the project page?

      Run on Linux? yes.

      Project page? right here.

    10. Re:At the risk of being flamed mightily.. by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1
      why are you typing "C:\" into a web browser's address bar? It's not a valid internet URL.

      This is what I call a "slashdot moment." Where else can you get such self-assured idiocy? Man I love this place and throwbacks like you who still find the mouse to be a bit suspect and untrustworthy.

    11. Re:At the risk of being flamed mightily.. by ianezz · · Score: 1
      At the risk of being flamed mightily, what's wrong with IE?

      Its rendering engine is intentionally not available to non-Microsoft platforms, and it has several peculiarities when compared to other rendering engines which makes harder developing a website that is at the same time pleasant and actually usable by all major browsers out there. In the view of its dominant position, this means promoting the development of IE-only websites (because, guess what, it is cheaper to develope for just a single known target).

      IE-only websites currently translates also to Microsoft Windows-only websites (it wasn't so in the past: there has been IE "ports" for Solaris and HP-UX, and a version for MacOS X which has been discontinued days ago).

      For obvious reasons, that's bad in the short term for the Microsoft competitors, and is bad for web developers and users in the long term because it puts Microsoft competitors and people willing to develope cross-browser websites completely out of the market.

      You know that there can't be a free market without competition, and I'd go as far to say it took the release of both Firefox and Safari to convince Microsoft it was definitively the time to reassemble an IE development team and to start fixing also non-security related bugs.

      So, to summarize: there's nothing bad in IE itself (bugs aside), except it is higly instrumental in imposing Microsoft's policy down the trhoat of everyone willing to surf the web. Users are just the last ones cosciently being impacted by Microsoft choices, so that doesn't seem a problem to them; nonetheless they are impacted at some point, but usually when it's too late.

    12. Re:At the risk of being flamed mightily.. by hodet · · Score: 1

      Hey mumbles, no reason to flame your opinion, it's what you prefer so to hell with everyone else. That being said, I prefer Firefox for the way it makes the net a quieter place. The adblock extension and forcing newly spawned windows to open in tabs are gold to me. Now, to a certain extent on our corporate intranet I prefer IE. But that is because internal sites don't abuse ActiveX into doing things I don't want it to and our developers are Microsoft zealots who can't think outside of the FrontPage box. Various tweaks I have made to Firefox make it faster on my system then IE, unless you are talking about startup times which is not fair as IE loads a large chunk of itself when the machine starts up. In any event my rule is simple, inside the intranet IE is OK, but not on the internet. Cheers.

    13. Re:At the risk of being flamed mightily.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he has a valid point. A webbrowser is not and should not be a shell. They have two separate tasks and should not be combined. Being able to access your filesystem from a webbrowser is A Bad Idea, regardless of your OS, but especially so when your operating system had networking security tacked on *after* it was developed. Also, the concept of multiple roots (c:, etc) *is* outdated. All the OSes that use(d) it: * CP/M * DOS * Microsoft Windows * IBM OS/2

    14. Re:At the risk of being flamed mightily.. by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1
      Sigh. No, he doesn't.

      An application program exists to do real world tasks, not to fulfill some hypothetical void in some idiot's world of philosophical desktop nomenclatura for pencildicks. If a web browser integrated with a waffle iron turns out to be a useful thing in the real world, then it "should be." If the most elegantly written software that is provably correct but doesn't actually do anything useful should not. The computer exists to serve man, not the other way around.

      About your multiple roots idea: stop it already. i can just as easily type "my computer" (which i can rename to whatever the hell i want), or "my network places" or whatever the hell other arbitrary root i happen to want into there. just because you are ignorant of this does not make the facts any less true.

      And furthermore, just because you have an outdated cartoon version of windows doesn't make it true, either, nor does just because you have an idiot's view of "what software should be" CERTAINLY doesn't make it true.

    15. Re:At the risk of being flamed mightily.. by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Well, this may be unpopular - but I find that not clearly separating certain tasks leads to confusion and helps people be phished.

      For instance, many people aren't aware that typing www.foobar.com is fundamentally different than typing c:\mystuff in the explorer address bar. One is local, and entirely contained on your machine - no one else is involved. The other involves contacting remote machines run by unknown persons with unknown motives.

      The way IE and Konqurer work, there is not an obvious UI difference between going to the computer analog of your living room, and going to the analog of Times Square. So people can be phished because of this.

      Beyond the conceptual issues, there are some security issues. Having the filemanager also be an HTML renderer (or able to call those code blocks) opens you to issues where an exploit in the HTML renderer will allow "expected" dll calls to the filesystem manager and have allowed local file access via websites. Moreso, it allows *write* access.

      I'm a big fan of sandboxing though - limiting everything to read/write access to just what they need.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    16. Re:At the risk of being flamed mightily.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You need to chill out. An "idiot's view of 'what software should be'"? You mean having standards? Oh. Right. We're talking about *Microsoft's* browser. Sorry. Here's an idea: Since everyone who's using a webbrowser is using a kernel too, why don't we just put the browser right in the kernel? Why not just make the entire OS one giant piece of code? Because seperation keeps things orderly. Keeping things orderly keeps things secure and stable. (Ever used a classic MacOS? Unstable as hell in real life use.) Having the file:// protocol is one thing, but having an entire file manager built into a browser is called bloat. "About your multiple roots idea: stop it already. i can just as easily type "my computer" (which i can rename to whatever the hell i want), or "my network places" or whatever the hell other arbitrary root i happen to want into there. just because you are ignorant of this does not make the facts any less true." I think you're confused here. The "My Computer", etc are not roots. A root is the top level directory in a filesystem. Usually, a system's boot disk is root and all other disks and devices exist as files on the root disk, and can be mounted to directories below root. In Linux: Root is "/". The root directory is home to everything on your system. You may store your documents in the directory "/home/Me/docs". That paper I wrote may be "/home/Me/docs/paper.txt". Binaries in "/bin" (among others). The physical harddrive is represented by the file "/dev/hda" and it's partitions by "/dev/hda1", "/dev/hda2", etc. To actually use it, it is mounted. It is logically attached to the filesystem. I may decide to mount "/dev/hda5" to the directory "/mnt/FatDisk" (or wherever I choose) and then I'd be able to access the files on that partition by moving to the directory. Devices (Monitor, mouse, etc) are also files in the "/dev" directory. In Windows, etc: Each disk is it's own root. The boot disk is c: and all files on it are represented in relation to the "c:" root. "c:\Program Files\game.exe" is an executable in the PF directory in the c: disk's root directory. All other disks have their own roots (d:, z:, etc). The problem here is that there can only be a limited number of roots assigned (a-z). Not really a problem in home use, though. "My Computer" is really just a special directory with some links in it. Yes I know I suck at explaining things.

    17. Re:At the risk of being flamed mightily.. by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1
      You mean having standards?

      Bullshiat. Standards define INTERFACES, not the behavior or design of software.

      Since everyone who's using a webbrowser is using a kernel too, why don't we just put the browser right in the kernel?

      Bullshiat Argument. To the user the kernel is irrelevant. If you can make a better user experience with this (increased ability to tackle real-world problems), then go for it. The problem in practice is that while you could do this in the short term, this would prevent you from doing this in the long term because of code complexity and security issues.

      A root is the top level directory in a filesystem

      Windows PCs have a virtual root calld my computer. I'm sorry you are so ignorant about this. C:\ is logically "mounted" to my computer. Your ignorance doesn't make this less true.

      Your "limited number of roots assigned" (A-Z) is FALSE even if it were the case that "c:\" is a root, which it is not.

      So, to summarize: you are ignorant and wrong, and most likely an idiot. Thank you.

  38. Please no!!! by nicoaimetti · · Score: 1

    Opera is the best browser all around, microsoft don't deserve it.

  39. What?! by chroot_james · · Score: 1

    First, why does anyone care what Dvorak is saying. Second, Opera is irrelevant by any serious standards. I don't care about it's minimal market share or how well it works. Third, MS has hired so many security professionals to work on IE and have IE 7 in the works. It'd be a pathetic move to switch over from IE and then have to port everything that has been done over to Opera and audit the code first and get everyone familiar with the base and then integrate opera into the OS the way IE is integrated.

    --
    Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
    1. Re:What?! by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      "Opera is irrelevant by any serious standards."
      Ah, so that's why Firefox and Minimo (Mozilla's bloated "mobile" browser) keep ripping off Opera's features? Heck, just about all new features in Firefox 1.5 were nothing but trying to catch up with stuff Opera has had for years!

      Opera might not be big on desktop, but it sure is on mobile, and Mozilla keeps borrowing heavily from Opera.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    2. Re:What?! by chroot_james · · Score: 1

      You're stalking me.

      --
      Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
  40. Why so much Dvorak by guaigean · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why does Dvorak even make it on here? I'm not trying to troll, just noticing that every Dvorak post made is a HUGE flamewar against his ignorance in computing. I mean, sure, he can have his opinion. But why does it make slashdot EVERY single time he makes a comment?

    --
    Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
    1. Re:Why so much Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh, because he has the same name as that keyboard layout... therefore he's in a position of authority with computer stuff.

    2. Re:Why so much Dvorak by BushCheney08 · · Score: 1

      Because it's an easy laugh.

      --
      Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
    3. Re:Why so much Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words: Ad Revenue! (Okay, or maybe just one hyphenated.. either way, you get the point.)

    4. Re:Why so much Dvorak by tomcres · · Score: 1

      probably has something to do with his complete lack of clue..

    5. Re:Why so much Dvorak by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because flamewar = page views ~= revenue.

      Slashdot is a business.

      Plus, some people enjoy flaming Dvorak. It makes them feel superior, and every nerd needs an ego-massage once in a while (myself included).

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    6. Re:Why so much Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does Dvorak even make it on here? I'm not trying to troll, just noticing that every Dvorak post made is a HUGE flamewar against his ignorance in computing. I mean, sure, he can have his opinion. But why does it make slashdot EVERY single time he makes a comment?

      Well, Jon Katz seems to have disappeared, so who better to froth at than Dvorak?

    7. Re:Why so much Dvorak by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Listen to the most recent TWiT with TheWoz. Dvorak does his usual "talk over people" thing, but pretty much gets dominated by Leo and Woz.

      I also liked how that little bitch Kevin Rose kept his mouth shut when Woz was talking. A pretty good TWiT, actually.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    8. Re:Why so much Dvorak by RaNdOm+OuTpUt · · Score: 0

      So that millions of angry people can go to the site and slashdot it.

      --
      13. Any legal action is absolutly excluded. (Pi World Ranking List rules)
  41. To be fair... by Billosaur · · Score: 1

    From MarketWatch: Opera Software trades on the Oslo Stock Exchange for around 21 Norwegian Kroner or about $3 a share. Microsoft could buy the whole company for less than $400 million.

    Now if the Norwegians were smart, they'd put Opera up on eBay, to drive up the price. I can see MS and Firefox duking it out, and then Google comes along and snatches it away from both of them at the last second!

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
  42. First, Opera would have to sell. by FFFish · · Score: 1

    I'm not so sure they would, although perhaps as a publicly-traded company they wouldn't have a whole lot of choice. Maybe they could poison-pill their stock, call in Google as their saviour.

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    1. Re:First, Opera would have to sell. by whitehatlurker · · Score: 3, Informative
      I think that MicroSoft has caused sufficient negative karma with Opera to prevent a friendly take over.

      Extract of a chat with Jon held earlier this year:

      Q: Hi I've been using opera from Opera 4 . And after four years I still have it - in fact I can't live without it! If Bill Gates wanted to buy Opera, do you accept it ?

      Jon S. von Tetzchner: Hi Shima, thank you for using the best browser year after year! The answer to your question is simple: No. We would never sell Opera to Microsoft in a million years. Best regards, Jon.

      Disclaimer: Yeah, I'm an Opera fanboi! What's it to ya?

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
  43. Money wasted on a non-revenue Product ! by vishmaster · · Score: 1

    Consider this - IE has more than 80% of the browser market share IE is coming out with a brand new version boasting a lot of features with Vista IE does not make ANY MONEY for Microsoft So the question you have to ask is.. What was Dvorak Smoking when he wrote this ? I dont think Bill Gates became the richest Guy in the world writing a lot of checks ;)

    --
    ..And the people bowed and prayed, To the neon gods they made.
    1. Re:Money wasted on a non-revenue Product ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider this - IE has more than 80% of the browser market share IE is coming out with a brand new version boasting a lot of features with Vista IE does not make ANY MONEY for Microsoft

      Sure it does, thanks to crap like ActiveX. When lazy developers use it instead of using a multiplatform means of coding their web app or whatever, it forces Windows into places where another OS would be perfectly fine. That's how Microsoft makes money from IE: platform lock-in.

  44. MS should buy all browsers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, MS should buy all decent and half decent browsers and stop supporting all of them on all OSs, except Windows.

    Then Bill could be the Man of the Year again.

  45. Google should buy it. by Space_Soldier · · Score: 1, Informative

    Opera also introduced tabbed browsing and other cool features since adopted by Firefox but not, as yet, implemented by Microsoft.
    I'm not sure if it is his poor sentence structure or if he is trying to imply that Opera copied Firefox's tabs. Opera was the first to have tabs in Opera 6.0 (many years ago).

    Curiously, Opera is already designed to appear to Web sites as Internet Explorer. This feature was added to prevent sites from blocking non-Microsoft browsers from capturing data and downloading.
    Dvorak, do your homework; Opera 9.0 (soon to be released) identifies as Opera.

    Furthermore, Google is supposed to buy Opera, not Microsoft, and personally, I would preffer if Google buys it. If Microsoft buys it, they'll have to strip it dry and take only the rendering engine because they have Outlook Express and Outlook. They can't show that Opera and Gmail (Google copied Opera) have a better eMail client.

    1. Re:Google should buy it. by robertjw · · Score: 1

      I would preffer if Google buys it.

      I would pefer if nobody buys it. I like Opera, it's a good product and I would like to see it remain an independent product. Appearantly they are making money. It would be nice if the big boys didn't come along and ruin it just because they can.

    2. Re:Google should buy it. by pdxmac · · Score: 1

      Opera also introduced tabbed browsing and other cool features since adopted by Firefox but not, as yet, implemented by Microsoft.
      I'm not sure if it is his poor sentence structure or if he is trying to imply that Opera copied Firefox's tabs. Opera was the first to have tabs in Opera 6.0 (many years ago).
      --

      Yes, Dvorak is a tool, albeit a highly amusing one on the TWiT podcast. However, his sentence structure above is fine, if complex. Opera is the subject of the sentence. Introduced is the verb, reflecting that Opera did the introducing. (Introducing conveys an implication of being the first to the party.) The fact that these tabs were since adopted by Firefox , denotes the fact that the Firefox inclusion of tabs came AFTER their introduction in Opera. (Moreover, the word "adopt" conveys the idea that such inclusion was later.)

    3. Re:Google should buy it. by Icculus · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if it is his poor sentence structure or if he is trying to imply that Opera copied Firefox's tabs. Opera was the first to have tabs in Opera 6.0 (many years ago). It looks pretty clear to me that he is giving credit to Opera for tabbed browsing ("Opera also introduced tabbed browsing") and that Firefox mimicked that feature ("since adopted by Firefox"). Is his sentence just one of those inverted cube things in that there are two ways to see it and once you see it a certain way it's obvious? It seems pretty cut-and-dried to me what he's saying.

    4. Re:Google should buy it. by Space_Soldier · · Score: 1

      Yes, I concur. I must have read it wrong. The grammar lesson was not necessary; though, it made me read it again.

    5. Re:Google should buy it. by pdxmac · · Score: 1

      Sorry if it sounded pedantic. I was just trying to be explanatory. Didn't just want to say "No. You didn't read it right." without reasoning behind it.

  46. There's only one reason for MS to buy Opera... by Max+Nugget · · Score: 1

    There's only one smart reason for Microsoft to buy Opera: to stop Google from buying it or forming a Google/Opera partnership that locks MS out.

    Firefox is not a threat to MS. Opera is not a threat to MS. But Google has enough verve and popularity to potentially get a Google-branded Opera browser into the hands of the masses.

  47. Dvorak? by Liam+Slider · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Since when has he been right about anything?

  48. What the hell is the thought process here? by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

    Observation: MS decides to cede the Mac OS to Firefox and Safari.
    Conclusion: MS should totally abandon 10 years of IE development and research and go buy Opera.

    Nice job there Dvorak. While we're on the subject, why don't you go trade off your car because it's due for a tune up. Or better yet, sell your house because the furnace needs replaced.

    Seriously, is this what it takes to get hits these days? Christ this is Weekly World News quality. Why doesn't he just start writing about Bill and Bigfoots love child?

    1. Re:What the hell is the thought process here? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Funny
      What the hell is the thought process here?

      I disassembled it for you:

      NOP
      NOP
      NOP
      NOP
      NOP
      NOP
      NOP
      NOP
      NOP
      NOP
      NOP
      ...

      Fascinating, and, oh, look! Dvorak is little endian!

    2. Re:What the hell is the thought process here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or better yet, sell your house because the furnace needs replaced.

      Are you by chance from Pittsburgh? I know someone from there who has the exact same aversion to using "to be" in sentences.

    3. Re:What the hell is the thought process here? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1
      I know someone from there who has the exact same aversion to using "to be" in sentences.

      His name wasn't Hamlet, was it?

    4. Re:What the hell is the thought process here? by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Fascinating, and, oh, look! Dvorak is little endian!

      Could someone please tell me why there's a war between the big-enders and the little-enders?

      vi vs emacs is at least entertaining; I fail to see the entertainment (or any other) value in the endianness of a chip...

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    5. Re:What the hell is the thought process here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason the flamewar exists is because big endian proponents refuse to admit they're wrong.

    6. Re:What the hell is the thought process here? by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      Could someone please tell me why there's a war between the big-enders and the little-enders? I fail to see the entertainment value in the endianness of a chip...

      More importantly, how did Swift predict that war back in 1726?

    7. Re:What the hell is the thought process here? by Zenmonkeycat · · Score: 1

      I feel "little-endian" is a term with strong negative connotations; perhaps a better statement would be "Dvorak is a tiny, tiny dolt."

      --

      *****
      Dear Mary,
      I yearn for you tragically,
      A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.

    8. Re:What the hell is the thought process here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, his name wasn't Hamlet, but he lived in one...

    9. Re:What the hell is the thought process here? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Actually I just, like, meant he was being an MS shill because, like, Intel stuff is, like, little... endian... heh heh... um... hmm...

  49. Can't see it... by Pyrosz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can't see that happening, giving up on IE would show people that its not viable for anything anymore and they would lose people who wouldn't come back for the "new" IE browser.

    If they did buy Opera, I would stop using it in a second and go with Firefox. I would be very sad to lose such an amazing browser. Thankfully, I don't see this as a problem.

    --

    An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.
  50. MS should buy Dvorak by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Funny
    It'd just be funny, is all.

    He could be their mascot, and beat up the Linux penguin and the Mac... whatever the hell that thing is in the Mac logo.

    1. Re:MS should buy Dvorak by nazsco · · Score: 1

      > He could be their mascot ...recall Norton?

    2. Re:MS should buy Dvorak by lightningrod220 · · Score: 1

      "I get no spam!" ..... "dvorak.org/blog"

    3. Re:MS should buy Dvorak by Amouth · · Score: 1

      "whatever the hell that thing is in the Mac logo" that would be a mac.. or a sad mac http://www.macedition.com/partingshot/sad_mac_2001 0914.jpg.. it depends on if he hit the memory controler before the picture was taken

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    4. Re:MS should buy Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a pear

  51. Scrubs reference by revery · · Score: 1

    Let me give my opinion on the notion that MS should acquite Opera with an oddly appropriate Scrubs reference:

    Mistaaaaaaaaaaake!!!

  52. Christmas present by FishandChips · · Score: 1

    Ho-ho-ho, this wouldn't be the festive season without a good laugh from the world's wackiest columnist. Probably the best idea would be for Microsoft to buy John C. Dvorak and hastily patent that little portrait picture atop column. Dvorak would cost Microsoft chump change and he can be guaranteed to work across all three major platforms and a host of minor ones with almost no reconfiguration at all. A laugh is a laugh in any language and, heck, you only need a browser to read it.

    --
    Las qué passoun
    tournoun pas maï
  53. Mosaic by GoatMonkey2112 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft already covered this when they based IE on Mosaic years ago. Mosaic used to run on more platforms. They could just take the Opera code base and do the same thing they did with Mosaic, knee-cap and labotomize it.

    Seriously though, I think it's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. I don't see why MS should want to sink so much money into something that they already have and don't really make money on anyway. It may be pocket change for MS at this point, but that doesn't mean they should throw their pocket change in the gutter. The future not incredibly rosey for this point, they need better planning than to buy someone elses product that does the same thing as something they already have. You may not like IE, but it's good enough for the majority of users. I'm not trying to evangelize MS BTW, I'm writing this message through Firefox.

    1. Re:Mosaic by utlemming · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Worst idea? From a standards standpoint, it is a great idea. Opera is perhaps the most standards compliant browser out there. So developers would stop complaining that IE isn't standards compliant.Imagine, all the webmill people would shut up. Further, they could beef up Opera, and give it some access to those belove Microsoft API's, give it the packaging of Microsoft and well, now the browser wars have been won, all over again, before most of mainstream people even knew that that there was an arms built up. Instead of having to reinvent the Internet Explorer, they have effectively bought a browser, repackaged it, and shut up all the people that hate it. Think about it. I don't use Opera, but I don't have anything against it. Do you? A lot of people have problems with IE because of the Spyware and Security problems. Unless Opera is really buggy, it could provide a really nice code base for them to pound Mozilla. And I like Mozilla. And I am writing this from my Linux box.

      --
      The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
    2. Re:Mosaic by GoatMonkey2112 · · Score: 1

      Yes, worst idea, from Microsoft's point of view.

      I don't particularly like IE either. Like I said, I'm using Firefox right now.

      But from Microsoft's point of view, they can just put out IE 7.0, with everything turned off by default, and the average user will be perfectly happy with it.

      I don't believe that purchasing a standards compliant browser would help either, since it would just be modified to be backward compatible with older IE versions. And don't forget "Embrace and extend", commonly known as "we are the standard, resistance is futile.".

    3. Re:Mosaic by aaronl · · Score: 1

      The other poster is right. While they would end up with standards compliance, the problem is that Opera doesn't have all the IE rendering bugs. All the "designed for IE" sites wouldn't work right.

      They would have to hack in all the things that make IE a bad browser before they could release it as an upgrade path from IE.

    4. Re:Mosaic by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      But aren't they killing lots of the bugs / backward compatibility in IE7 anyway? They have said lots of sloppy sites *won't work* in IE7.

      Not that I want MS anywhere near Opera - but I think they are already throwing away backwards compatibility for standards complience (so some extent).

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    5. Re:Mosaic by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that once Microsoft gets it's hands on Opera and adds that Micrsoft API and ActiveX controls and slaps in a few other Microsoft must haves that browser will not look anything like Opera does today and will be just as buggy and exploit ridden as IE ever was. And once they have added all these "enhancements" to "fix" Opera it won't be able to be run on any other platform but Vista. Of course no one will want to run it on anything else anyway so that is a mute issue.

    6. Re:Mosaic by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The other poster is right. While they would end up with standards compliance, the problem is that Opera doesn't have all the IE rendering bugs. All the "designed for IE" sites wouldn't work right.

      Given IE's history, chances are IE7 won't have half of IE6's rendering bugs, while at the same time introducing twice as many rendering bugs to make up for the loss. Changing things over to Opera wouldn't really be any different.

    7. Re:Mosaic by kimvette · · Score: 1

      {
      Opera is perhaps the most standards compliant browser out there.
      }

      Er, no.

      Do you run MacOS? Open this page in Opera:
      http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html#to p

      Now open it in Safari.

      If you're on Linux: Open the same URL in Opera.
      Now open it in Konqueror (3.5.x)

      Which one doesn't fail miserably?

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    8. Re:Mosaic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *golf clap*

    9. Re:Mosaic by Millenniumman · · Score: 0

      The only browser I've used that passed the acid2 test was Safari 2.02 (And Shiira but its built from the same foundation.) Opera did second best though.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
  54. MS? I thought it was Google by dennison_uy · · Score: 1

    ... that had plans to acquire Opera?!

    --
    Take off every 'sig'!
    All your 'sig' are belong to us!
  55. Buy Dvorak instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His bullshit is just as lame as standart M$ bullshit, but alot more fun.

  56. IE stats not doing so well on my site..... by inventgeek · · Score: 1

    Yah I know I am a bit of a geek niche, but this months stats on inventgeek.com ( my site ) look to be at about 23% IE users and 56% Firefox users!

    I think IE is dieing in the geek market

  57. Opera developers by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Opera has (had?) some great developers. They don't get the credit they deserve for innovation

    Now THERE you're really hitting the point, but not even completely. It's not just their innovating new features, but the performance they're able to achieve with their application. The speed and memory requirements are fantastic compared to everything else out there. IE and FF can't touch Opera for memory usage OR speed (in most cases).

    I just wish it's renderer was better; it produces goofy results too often. I'd like to see them take the Gecko renderer and run it through the Opera-resource-debigulator(tm) and use that in Opera. I'd also like them to make an email client that doesn't require 30Meg of RAM, and actually performs at a reasonable speed. Ugh. Let's hope Thunderbird 1.5 is a big improvement in the performance arena, though I have no hope it'll be anything other than worse in the resource requirements arena.

    1. Re:Opera developers by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      "I just wish it's renderer was better; it produces goofy results too often."
      That's usually not Opera's fault. For some reason a lot of sites use browser sniffing to single out Opera and specifically break it by sending it broken code, or simply leaving out important parts of the code. Both MSN and Hotmail have done this. And MSNBC. Yahoo does it today, AFAIK. Lots of sites do it. You can easily verify it by using a proxy to spoof as Firefox. Suddenly all those sites start working!
      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    2. Re:Opera developers by n0dalus · · Score: 1

      The speed and memory requirements [of Opera] are fantastic compared to everything else out there.

      It isn't hard to write efficient programs. The reason Firefox is slower is because a lot of it is written in Javascript, so it can be easily extendable (Firefox extensions beat anything Opera has to offer). Firefox was not written to be fast and use little memory, it was written to be easily modified and extended.

      Interestingly, if the Javascript parser/runner was optimized in Firefox, it would provide speed increases for most of the application. I imagine there would be someone working on this.

    3. Re:Opera developers by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      You said 'a lot of sites' up above, but then listed only MSN and Hotmail, the only marginally useful Microsoft sites on the 'net.

      --
      resigned
    4. Re:Opera developers by owlstead · · Score: 1

      30 MB seems like a lot, but is it really? If it isn't used it'll get swapped out. Furthermore, I've got 1 GB at work and 1.5 GB at home. 30 MB is just 1/50 of the amount of the latter. Beyond that I've got a few services taking a couple of tens of MB's and a browser always on. Leaves enough stuff to do heavy Java development, run a server and a VMware instance. Now *those* things take memory. 30MB is not to be sneezed at, but most people will be able to run it just fine.

      That said, I would like a small service (including mailbox in the bar - see Xwindows of 10 years ago) that checks and downloads mail. No further GUI necessary, I'll start Thunderbird after there are enough interesting headers.

    5. Re:Opera developers by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Those are well known examples. I also listed Yahoo. Just check out Opera's "Open The Web" forum where people report and discuss these sites. There are loads of them. So yeah, most of these problems are caused by browser sniffing. I don't know why sites do that, but they do, and anyone can verify it by spoofing as Firefox.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  58. Heard of IE7? by RoadDogTy · · Score: 1

    "...many consider Opera to not only be the best browser available, but the fastest and the one with the best page rendering engine. Opera also introduced tabbed browsing and other cool features since adopted by Firefox but not, as yet, implemented by Microsoft."

    First of all, anyone who has done extensive CSS/XHTML based design knows that Opera is not the best "rendering engine". Second, this guy's whole article ignores the upcoming release of IE7, which not only has great tabbed browsing but a whole host of other features that are heads & tails above Opera (IMHO), so his whole article is osbsolete.

    I don't think I've yet read an article by this Dvorak fellow that made a good point.

    1. Re:Heard of IE7? by RoadDogTy · · Score: 1

      Typo... apparently:

      "/" != "/i"

      (duh) I need to start using preview. ;)

    2. Re:Heard of IE7? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      "anyone who has done extensive CSS/XHTML based design knows that Opera is not the best "rendering engine""
      It is certainly no worse than others. But of course you will be biased against Opera if you are a Firefox user, and only check your code in Opera once you've written workarounds for bugs in Firefox...
      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  59. Dvorak... by ribo-bailey · · Score: 0

    says a lot of things.

  60. Dude... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the fucking booze in the world isn't enough to write something this retarded! Dvorak needs to send me some of what he's smoking, cause it's gotta be some good shit!

  61. Reward succinct implementations of open standads by Baldrson · · Score: 1
    Dvorak is onto something: Open standards allow competitive implementations. M$ is cash rich. They can buy stuff. If I were in Ray Ozzie's shoes I would apply something like the C-Prize to the entirety of MS's application software offering based on open standards for the GUI's as well as the interchange formats. Let the contest anneal for a while, and adopt the language used by the winner as the next standard language for web-based software: put a dynamic compiler for it into the MS browser and submit it to W3C. From the resulting compressed code, I'd reduce the OS CD to those components required to create a web-delivered application platform. For backward compatibility with existing web standards, port the rest of the code into a maximally succinct but complete JS implementation of those standards -- I like TIBET(tm) but then I'm not objective about that.

    If job security for existing MS programmers is an issue, just given them all a yearly decreasing proportion of their current salaries for the next 5 years: 100%, 80%, 60%, 40%, 20% -- and during that time let them find financing to compete.

  62. Dumb...dumb dumb dumb. by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
    He's just another utterly clueless pundit. To have them buy Opera is to admit that they didn't have what it takes to secure and extend the thing. MS flatly won't be inclined to do that if they can help it- this suggestion is in the same class as saying MS ought to do a Linux version of MS Office.

    Yup. That and there's nothing inherently wrong with IE that MS doesn't basically refuse to fix. There's no patent's they'd be buying. Opera doesn't have (now) anything that other browsers don't or can't figure out how to make. Opera doesn't have the sort of resources that would make them worth acquiring.

    In other words, there is no way in hell this happens - MS is completely capable of creating a good browser if they care enough to do so. They've demonstrated this in the past. There's no need for them to spend $400M for the privelege.

    This one is even dumb by Dvorak's standards.

  63. Something ironic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is that the article page doesn't render correctly under Opera.

  64. Dvorak doesn't know what he's talking about by GWBasic · · Score: 2, Informative
    This article shows that Dvorak is blowing hot air.

    Dvorak claims that IE doesn't support tabbed browsing, but he doesn't allude to the very well-known features that are being included in IE 7. IE 7 supports tabbed browsing and is available in a private beta. (I'm using it right now.) Microsoft also is creating a Phishing filter. (I don't know what kind of anti-phishing effort Opera is making.)

    Personally, I see a browser as something like a car stereo. IE and Safari are "stock"; Opera and Firefox are "aftermarket". Creating a Mac version of IE is a considerable effort that won't bring any revenue to Microsoft. It will also hinder a browser-neutral web as web developers can just tell Mac users to "Download IE".

    In addition, Dvorak's statement about Microsoft waiting for the x86 Mac to port IE shows that he really doesn't understand the difference between computer platforms today. Computer programs, especially GUI intensive ones like web browsers, are easily ported among many CPUs because they are written in high-level languages. They are difficult to port among different operating systems because the GUI APIs are very different.

  65. Disconnected by pmbarth · · Score: 1

    There was a point in time that I thought Dvorak was an "industry insider" who had a unique perspective on technology and its impacts. Over time he's become less and less connected and as a consequence less and less relevant.

    Microsoft is a business and ultimately they invest their money when they believe they are going to get a good return on their investment. Purchasing Opera, beyond any anti-trust concerns, does not seem like a marriage of companies that would thrive. The cultural differences between them are likely large. This also assumes that Opera wants to be purchased although in the end everything is for sale if the price is right, I guess.

    --
    Paul Barth
  66. Microsoft and Money by neorou · · Score: 1

    They're going to have to compete with FREE browsers anyway. What? They think they can still FOOL people with a 'better' browser? Most web app developers nowadays aren't even using Microsoft technology anyway. Between software engineers who develop software because they need it and those that do it for the money, I would go with the former, anyday.
    HELLOOOOOO?????

    Also, if the EU imposing major daily fines becomes a reality, why do they even bother. I often wonder if Microsoft's technical and marketing staff are communicating with each other. Why don't they just cut their losses and develop XBoxes - that's about the only thing they're good at.

  67. It makes a lot more sense for Google to buy them by ShatteredDream · · Score: 1

    I think it makes more sense for Google to buy them because of the close ties that Firefox and Opera have with them. Not only that, but it gives Google a credible product for mobile platforms and a way of pushing their search engine on mobile devices the way that Microsoft uses Internet Explorer to push MSN on desktop PC and laptop users that use Windows.

    Besides, it would only add a lot of confusion for Microsoft's developers. Now, if Microsoft were to make it so that Opera's rendering engine became a replacement for Internet Explorer's that might be something else, but at this point, they've probably got too much money invested in IE for them to drop any part of it without a court order.

  68. Did work by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    t works on all the major platforms including the Mac

    Not after MS buys it.

    Btw, does Opera even support ActiveX, FrontPage extensions, and all the other elements of MS E^3?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  69. dvorak by kaosone · · Score: 1

    is too late for the you-mean-the-keyboard-don't-you thing?

  70. Just makes no sense by NickDoulas · · Score: 1

    Since when does the company with the dominant market share feel compelled to gobble up competitors with trivial market share for a product from which it doesn't make money?

    This just makes no sense at all on so many levels. As long as IE has a dominant market share, Microsoft has no incentive to improve anything about the web experience, and they have many incentives to do the opposite.

    By his reasoning of "web browsers leading people to search engines", maybe they should also buy Logitech. After all, it's the keyboard and mouse that really take people where they're going.

  71. This doesn't make a lot of sense by halr9000 · · Score: 1

    I can't fathom why MS would want Opera. Nothing against Opera, but IE is also application development platform for Microsoft, not just a browser. (Yeah, we know how secure that has turned out.) But Opera won't give them anything there.

  72. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With all the Anti-trust lawsuits, deserved and otherwise, Microsoft's lawyers were the first to say that.

  73. Appearance by msbsod · · Score: 1

    Dvorak wrote: Curiously, Opera is already designed to appear to Web sites as Internet Explorer.

    The same was true for NCSA Mosaic. And Mosaic became - you guessed it - the Microsoft Internet Explorer. :-)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer

  74. Dvorak... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut the fuck up!

  75. It seems that by Randall311 · · Score: 1

    Mr. Dvorak is now in his dotage. Although I have to admit, he gave it the old college try with his keyboard, but it will never take off. Oh wait, that was August Dvorak. Nevermind. This guy just writes bad articles.

  76. Re:Does it run on Linux? by milgr · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well now that you mention it, I occasionally need to run IE at work. Instead of booting into Windows, I run IE using Wine under Fedora Core 4.

    I wish I could say it worked great. It doesn't. But it works well enough that I can modify server side rule in exchange by using the Web interface. Yes, the web interface works in non-ie browsers, but doesn't handle enhanced mode -- so you can't do things like make rules. And, evolution doesn't implement exchange server side rules.

    I also need to use ie to enter my vacation time. Sigh.

    IE works under wine. Most of the functionality works. Occasionally something doesn't. The window flashes a lot. It does crash regularly.

    --
    Where law ends, tyranny begins -- William Pitt
  77. Cold dead hands by AlexMax2742 · · Score: 1

    Unless they buy the entire company and essentially transplant all of the management and programmers, Microsoft can pry Opera from my cold, dead hands.

    It's multiplatform, it's got tons of useful features that are built-in and don't rely on flakey plugins and it's fast as hell. If IE is any indication, any progress on new, useful features would stagnate as soon as it was integrated into the operating system.

    --
    I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
  78. Dvorak's reasoning is screwed up. by hawkeye · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't be too shocked if MS acquired Opera, but it wouldn't be for their value on the PC (Mac inclusive) desktop. It would be for their mobile market penetration.

    I think that's actually been driving the company (Opera) for a while now...

    --
    "...The smart and lazy ones I make my commanders." - Erwin Rommel
  79. Simple answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just one word: NIH

  80. Re:Buying Apple's Office App by mpapet · · Score: 1

    It's only a matter of time before Apple finishes an office suite. They've got some parts now.

    Either that or they use Wine to do the job and laugh at MS all the way to the bank.

    OpenOffice anyone? Anyone?

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  81. He's just another troll columnist by ianscot · · Score: 1
    Columnists' jobs are to provoke reactions, and Dvorak is all about getting eyes on the page. He's particularly irritating, yes, but it's a type of writer. Sports pages always have one guy like this, whose columns rip the home teams to provoke readers to write letters and so on.

    The difference with Dvorak is that he's got a sort of instinctive tendency to side with the bullies on the block. He identifies with MS, you can see it in his choice of topics over the years pretty clearly. Back in the day he was a big IBM guy.

    (The recurring front page items with this guy's blunders make me want the ability to mod stories themselves. Why am I a worse judge of what should rate home page priority than Taco? Give us a shared right to mod prospective stories; we can also edit them Wikipedia style. The results would be much better.)

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:He's just another troll columnist by k12linux · · Score: 1
      Columnists' jobs are to provoke reactions

      Who's job is it to report news or provide useful information?

    2. Re:He's just another troll columnist by bwintx · · Score: 1
      Columnists' jobs are to provoke reactions, and Dvorak is all about getting eyes on the page. He's particularly irritating, yes, but it's a type of writer. Sports pages always have one guy like this, whose columns rip the home teams to provoke readers to write letters and so on.

      Indeed. He was titled the "Anti-Editor" in the now-defunct MacUser magazine (well, the original U.S. version is defunct, anyway) and given the back page, and that was precisely his function: to stir up the pot, even if only with half-assed comments.

      --
      Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
    3. Re:He's just another troll columnist by genner · · Score: 1

      [shamless karama whoreing]

      Why it's the job of the good people at Slashdot of course.

      [/shamless karama whoreing]

    4. Re:He's just another troll columnist by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      Whose job is it to report news or provide useful information?

      That would be the bloggers' job.

      --
      resigned
  82. I think what Dvorak tries to say... by rkaa · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..is that he suffers from a mental illness, but for some reason has more to gain from being fired rather than retire of his own free will.

  83. Konkeror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey,
    Why don't they do like Apple instead and take an existing open source project... in fact they could take Safari!! or just Konkeror ;-) that would be so much fun! and standard compliant as well, just add Active-X to it so the old IE plugins work (and some exploits too!!)

  84. Exactly by Admiral+Frosty · · Score: 1

    Because Opera works on all platforms is THE reason MS should not buy it. Too many sites and media files are MS only. They force me to boot into windows just to watch a .wma or to view some web pages. and they like it that way because it stops people from jumping ship to mac or linux.

  85. Am I missing something? by Jammet · · Score: 1

    What's with this constant babbling about Opera being sold to ? Will you stop coming up with bogus news every day about yet another company to get their greasy hands on the Opera browser?

    --
    Leopard cub
  86. I'm going to beat Dvorak by RedShoeRider · · Score: 1

    ....if this were to happen. 'Been an Opera user since the 2.x days, love it, use it, and would *hate* to see a company that's been making a great product for so many years be sucked in to, and destroyed by Gates and Co. Ok, so we have Opera v. Mozilla v. whatever wars on here all of the time, but the fact is, do we all really want to see a great example of a closed-source company Doing It Right be eaten the very definition of the company that's Doing It Wrong?

    Does anyone know if Opera is a public company? 'Cause if they're not, they could always tell Microsoft the same thing I told Microsoft years ago: Fuck off.

    --

    Chris Knight is my hero.

  87. Let's assume that Microsoft DID buy Opera. by BrenBren · · Score: 1

    How long would it be before Opera's ability to work on most platforms became a thing of the past?

  88. I thought Google has dibs on Opera by clayasaurus · · Score: 1
  89. Fixed by Pope · · Score: 1, Funny

    Pundits have no idea what they are talking about.

    This goes double for Dvorak.

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  90. Obligatory by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

    But why does it make slashdot EVERY single time he makes a comment?

    You must be new here.

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  91. I guess Micro$haft didn't get the memo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but Google already purchased Opera. :-P ...and no, Google wouldn't bother reselling Opera so soon to their archrival.

  92. Dvorak should STFU. MS should buy Apple. by catmistake · · Score: 1

    I pray it never happens. But I don't see why it hasn't.

    1. Re:Dvorak should STFU. MS should buy Apple. by base3 · · Score: 1

      As long as Apple's around, Microsoft can claim they don't have a monopoly on (non-open source) desktop operating systems. So while they'll continue to own part of Apple, they won't buy it outright.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  93. In an interesting ... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    (yet not unexpected) twist of events.... Opera does not appear to render properly the webpage containing Dvorak's column.

  94. Well, if you read TFA by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    You would see that Dvorak got his valuation of Opera (approx $400 Million), by calculating the total value of all outstanding Opera stock on the Norwegian stock exchange. So, YES, Opera is a public company.

  95. Yup! by thunderpaws · · Score: 1

    Dvorak has a real knack for getting people discussing non-events.

  96. Nokia should buy Opera by Dracos · · Score: 1

    Opera isn't really anything in the PC browser market, but they are by far the biggest player in the mobile browser market. Why not sell to one of the partners licensing mobile Opera? The phone manufacturers now provide nearly all of Opera's revenue.

    MS wouldn't even consider buying Opera... they couldn't effectively use it until Vista2, and they've already implemented a silly, ass-backwards *ahem* XML namespace for display (XAML) which would require major hacking (code wise and philosophically) to get any browser other than IE7 to support it.

    Google might be doing some shadowy things lately, but I really doubt they want to become an end-user software company. They do web apps, and they do them well.

  97. Dear Santa! by Jammet · · Score: 1

    I've been a good kid, and I help mum and dad every day. Here is my X-Mas Wishlist!

    Please help make it come true, my parents would love you forever too, really, they've been good kids too.

    I want candy! I've always wanted my own TV! But most importantly this year I wanna have that Opera Company! I like their browser, I don't know how much room I have but I'll make lots of space and push my bed to the far corner so everyone will fit right in. They can work here and I'll make lots of coffee and treat them very nice, even my hamster would help.

    --
    Leopard cub
  98. Oh no... by WhoDey · · Score: 1

    ... another Dvorak post. This will undoubtably be followed by 400 comments about how he should stick to making keyboards by people who have no clue that this isn't the same guy.

  99. If this was the case... by HerculesMO · · Score: 1

    Microsoft would buy Opera.

    Microsoft would implement Active X into Opera.

    The browser would suck due to security holes related to Active X.

    Microsoft has succeeded in bringing down a good browser and turning it into a piece of garbage because the bugs in Active X aren't fixed, and they are instead just putting a new pretty face on it. Oh wait.. isn't that what they are doing with IE7?

    I am being sarcastic, but what's the point of buying Opera when there's no Active X support? I mean... that's the whole premise of Internet Explorer, being able to download and install patches for your OS and things like that. While they might be able to buy Opera for a song, they would spend millions making it compliant for their use -- and that's idiotic when they already have a codebase they can work off of (IE6) and improve.

    Sorry, Dvorak really has to lay off the crack.

    --
    The price is always right if someone else is paying.
  100. Dvorak is a fool. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IE was woven into the codebase for Windows itself. I doubt Microsoft has the talent to untangle it, even with Vista.

    Or maybe they wouldn't, and just leave the bloat there, with another userland application plonked down on top of it. Would be their style.

  101. and that's why they might buy opera by nazsco · · Score: 2, Interesting

    several companies depends on opera's browser. Can you think of mobile phones that does NOT use winCE?

    buying opera, M$ will remove the ground bellow them. Then to have a browser back or those companies develop their own, or ditch the OS and follow the flock with winCE. ...or, get together to fund open source development of a new browser :)

    1. Re:and that's why they might buy opera by aaronl · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, I've never seen a cellular phone that runs WinCE. Most cell phones actually run Symbian. Blackberry's run a proprietary OS. Some of the other PDA phones run PalmOS.

      Since most cell phones also come with a JRE, there is very little reason to make a phone wince with WinCE.

    2. Re:and that's why they might buy opera by MadJo · · Score: 1

      Sony Ericsson has a few phones in their offerings that run on WinCE (or Windows Mobile)....
      and there are more:
      http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/smartphone/ default.mspx

    3. Re:and that's why they might buy opera by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      Actually there are a few, sony ericson p910i i think is on ce the mda series of phones with t-mobile and the the xda series from o2, the m2000 from orange. they run wince as well.
      The HP iPAQ hw6500 Mobile Messenger , sprints i930 , samsung i730...
      see link below
      http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/default.msp x

      incidently active sync is now at 4.2 (link above)

      one of nicest phones i've seen lately is the mda pro
      http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/reviews/index.cfm?revie wid=165

      generally it is very nice but the screens still 320 by 256 which makes remote desktop more awkward than it could be.
      http://www.fpsece.net/index.html playstation emulator for ce
      http://www.scummvm.org/downloads.php allows you to run things like flight of the amazon queen and beneath a steelsky on ce and as you mentioned there is java gaming as well.

      The built in browser IE isn't great so opera may well be a welcome improvement. (id prefer a version of firefox thou)
        Very little reason to make a phone CE? for microsoft there is if you use MSOffice and Outlook there is.

      and of course there is GPS which can run while playing your mp3's and be your phone too.

      finally can i recommend velcro i put the hook half in a suitable space on my dashboard and the other half on my phone battery pack.

      you don't really want to leave your gps in the car its likely to get broken into for this alone. being your phone too means its with you.

    4. Re:and that's why they might buy opera by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Uh, SE have a few phones (P800, P910, P990) that run Symbian.

      What do they have that runs WinCE?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    5. Re:and that's why they might buy opera by scottme · · Score: 1

      Where have you been hiding? There is a wide range of mobile phones that run the latest versions of WinCE: Windows Mobile for Smartphones or Windows Mobile for PocketPC Phone Edition. Look at what's on offer at somewhere like Expansys.


    6. Re:and that's why they might buy opera by aaronl · · Score: 1

      Take my post a little more literally; I meant it exactly as stated. I know there are a few WinCE phones that exist, but they are so uncommon that I have never actually seen one in the real world.

      The site you linked has three vendors, and I've definitely never known of anyone that has a product made by them. The MS site lists a total of 9 phones in the Americas, and at least two of those aren't available in the US.

      I just wouldn't call that a "wide range" of phones.

  102. Why do people still give Dvorak any attention? by dswensen · · Score: 1

    Hasn't John Dvorak repeatedly been shown to be an utter imbecile, and almost invariably wrong about everything he says, for about a decade running now?

    Why is anything he says found newsworthy? Aside from the allure of the ridiculous, I mean.

  103. Four Hundred Freakin' Million Dollars? by feijai · · Score: 1

    Last time I heard the number $400 Million, it was the price that Apple paid for NeXT Computer, and at the time people said that was way overvalued. Do people really think Opera's software has the value that NeXTSTEP did?

  104. Stupidest thing I've ever heard by abradsn · · Score: 1

    It would cost MS 400 million dollars just to rewrite the internal code that uses vbscript and such. Unless Opera supports this wouldn't that be an issue. I guess MS could add that support to opera though.

  105. Vista? Next year ?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Wow! That's the best idea I've ever heard. There should be absolutely no problems shoehorning it into Vista by next year. Way to go, Dvorak! You deserve a raise!"

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    Vista? Next Year?!?!? Please Mod parent up to +5 for funny!

  106. One thing to say to Dvorak by mnmn · · Score: 1

    Shut up! Opera is the best available browser on many platforms, and Microsoft will just use its engine and kill the other ports. They'll also bastardize its engine again to break standards, so people will have to use MS Opera for many sites giving Firefox more grief. While its a smart move for Microsoft, it will hurt the consumers more.

    Stop giving them ideas that will hurt us.

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
  107. MOD PARENT INFORMATIVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    It's so lovely to see entire enterprise networks failing because some retard developed a mission-critical application using ActiveX controls.

    The BEST is when a vendor sails in with their "browser based" technology - that only runs on IE, totally negating the benefit of real browser-based apps (that run on ANY BROWSER) - and a 10,000 bed hospital implements it on all their computers. "Oh, we can't implement XP SP2, because it breaks our primary app and all our medical records are it! What? All the machines are infected with a virus and they have all formatted their own hard drives? Our backup server too? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHH!"

    Been there, seen that.

  108. Weak Argument... IE's Future is Much Different by ThinkFr33ly · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As usual, Dvorak's knowledge of the topic at hand is shallow and his conclusions are simplistic and short sighted.

    Microsoft is not interesting in gaining browser market share outside of the Windows platform. Sure, they might be able to steer more people toward MSN and thereby make more in advertising revenue, but how much more? If 90% of the market already uses Windows, and gaining that extra 10% is fairly difficult for a wide variety of reasons, it may not be worth it to them.

    Even if it was, it has nothing to do with why Microsoft dropped support for the Mac. The direction Microsoft is taking IE is different than the direction everybody else is taking web browsers. Microsoft sees IE as an application that will allow users to access both web pages and smart client applications.

    They see the future as a mesh of standard web apps and smart client applications created with things like ClickOnce (at first), and eventually IE-hosted Avalon applications. (WPF.) Their hope is that eventually the line between web apps and client apps will blur, and since it will be (they hope) via IE and Avalon, it will draw even more people to using Windows since the UI/functionality experience is so much better than standard web applications. At least that's the business point of view.

  109. I say Dvorak should jump off a cliff by GeekDork · · Score: 1

    but does he listen? No. Do I care? No. Does MS care? No. Even Opera most likely doesn't care.

    To quote Lewis Black: Why the fuck open your mouth?

    --

    Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.

    1. Re:I say Dvorak should jump off a cliff by bob_calder · · Score: 1

      2nd that

      Dvorak is seldom right when it comes to this kind of thing. Anyway, when anybody says something like this, it just contributes to the power of Microsoft's next Barney Job.

      --
      Any preoccupation with ideas of what is right or wrong in conduct shows an arrested intellectual development. (Wilde)
  110. Why such a bad idea? by pavera · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All the posts here are saying this would be a terrible idea but no one has mentioned why.

    Yeah it would suck because MS would inevitably discontinue opera on all platforms besides windows, rename it, integrate it into the OS and make it uninstallable, and, then, MS would really have the best browser offering, and we'd all have nothing left to complain about.

    But, that is why it would be such a good move. Fixing IE is gonna take alot of developer time and money, probably about as much as they'd pay to purchase Opera. Yeah, to fit into MS's strategy they'd have to completely hobble Opera and basically destroy all the good things about it.. But, they'd get a secure, fast, bloat free, feature rich browser that was coherently developed.

    I think you're all opposed to the idea because it would be about the worst thing that could happen to OSS/Mozilla/Firefox. It would be a complete slap in the face, and it would destroy Firefox's momentum overnight. I'm against the idea too, cause I like opera, and it would be sad to see it destroyed by MS, but I don't think its a bad idea for MS. I think it would be about the most intelligent/strategic thing they could do right now.

    One post mentioned "why spend money on something that you don't make money on" well they've been spending money every year for developers to build IE it doesn't seem to be a problem, another poster said "why spend money on something you already have" MS doesn't have an Opera-calibur browser, and making IE an opera-calibur browser is going to take alot of time and money.

    I think MS is really pretty scared about the competition from google, from the web finally starting to matter in a real way. As MS loses market share in browsers, they lose hits to msn.com. honestly how many of you firefox users have your homepage set to msn.com? But IE comes with msn.com as the default homepage on every computer I've ever used. That loss of hits costs them money. They have no choice but to try to maintain 90%+ browser market share, if they were to drop to 50% market share, they'd really be hurting. I don't think anyone uses msn.com through an active choice... People choose to use Yahoo, Google, whatever, the only people who use msn.com are those who haven't changed their default home page. In short MS's only competitive advantage on the web is that they have a huge userbase that uses their browser... If they lose that, they lose everything else on the web, everyone will be at Google or Yahoo.

    1. Re:Why such a bad idea? by rtechie · · Score: 1

      All the posts here are saying this would be a terrible idea but no one has mentioned why.

      Short list of reasons:

      1) MS could just steal it.

      You heard me. MS is a big powerful corporation and Opera Software isn't. MS can just TAKE whatever features they want from Opera. OperaSoft could sue, but they'd lose.

      2) Opera isn't the shit

      Most sources seem to think that Opera has about a 1% market share. I've used it, and I don't like it. I don't like the "sea of windows" interface, but most importantly, it's SLOW. Slower than Firefox, way slower than IE. Slower than Safari on OSX too. At least that's been my experience.

      3) MS is going in a different direction with IE

      As has been noted by other posters, the key features of the new IE will be it's search functionality (Vista will have something like MSN Desktop Search standard) and tighter client/web integration, allowing programmers to write software with UIs that will work both on the PC and over the internet with little performance hit. This is made possible with MS' new APIs. Yeah, you can do it wiht Java but Java is dog-slow.

  111. Its poking fun of the handicaped. by crovira · · Score: 1

    Its part of the nastier side that we /.ers don't really like to expose.

    But Dvorak is such an ass-hat that we just can't help it.

    In a real democracy he would be hauled in front of a tribunal forced to recite a litany of all his failed prognostications and the have his hands and mouth duct taped so he can't find anymore means to spew his bilge.

    If I was nasty I'd ask him how his shares of Apple are doing...

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  112. no. by plobby · · Score: 1

    Nevvvvver, they'lll ruinnn everything.

  113. Opera by somethinghollow · · Score: 1

    Opera seems a little off as far as rendering goes. Mozilla and Safari tend to agree 99% of the time on how things should be rendered. When it comes to certain CSS tags (default borders, default padding, etc), Opera isn't quite there. Granted, if you explicitly set the value, it renders the same across all three. It is a few steps above IE for sure.

    What I really wish is that Microsoft would just use Mozilla, even if they funk up the code with proprietary bits so that any submissions back to the community "won't work" (like Apple supposedly did with KHTML). There is no need to reinvent the wheel here. Microsoft could quit worrying about making a top-notch HTML engine and concentrate more on good UI and security while at the same time improving it's Evil Empire image. Web developers would have one less engine to try to test against. The OSS community MIGHT get some useful code back. Most IE users would be none-the-wiser. Everyone wins.

    Maybe that is what Dvorak was arguing for Opera, but I didn't RTFA (I'm allergic to Dvorak, sorry). But Opera buying would lose all the OSS goodies that MS would get from using Gecko instead.

    1. Re:Opera by serbanp · · Score: 1

      Scrapping IE and adopting one of the competitor browsers amounts to a face-losing situation. For the company governed by the Dancing Monkey, this is not acceptable.

      So no, it's very probable that Microsoft will stick to their own browser.

    2. Re:Opera by cruachan · · Score: 1

      Because on numerous peoples machines Firefox periodically throws memory down a black hole and slows to a crawl. And yes, I am running version 1.5.

      Basically Firefox is your usual Open Source crock. Superficially it looks good, much better in fact than what was perceived as the main opposition in IE, but underneath there's serious bugs that no-one can be bothered to fix 'cause doing so is less cool than adding the new hyperspatial n-cube cool-o-delux plugin.

  114. Dvorak not a troll... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Some of his early stuff seemed pretty good. I was less informed then though. However, his latest stuff has been poor. I suspect it may be some form of senility or something. From my perspective, things seem to have started going downhill once he lost the Silicon Spin show on TechTV.

  115. Re:Buying Apple's Office App by Nataku564 · · Score: 1

    Yeah ... cuz using Wine means you dont have to pay for office ...

    Wait a minute ..

  116. Ever notice GOOD columnists have a 'talkback' by crovira · · Score: 1

    But Dvorak doesn't.

    He doesn't want anybody's knowledge interfering with his opinions.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:Ever notice GOOD columnists have a 'talkback' by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Feel free to send him an email. But remember: he gets no spam.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  117. flase premise by bokmann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    His entire argument is predicated upon the false premises that Microsoft wants to support open standards and that they want to support the Mac.

    Microsoft has virtually bottomless resources - if they really wanted to, they could crank out a secure cross-platform web browser that supported relevant standards. What Microsoft has is exactly what they want - vendor lock-in with a mediocre product that through its various 'feature-driven' incompatibilities gives them some sense of control.

    If Mircosoft can't own the roads, they want to own the potholes.

  118. Re: Can't Understand French? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you can understand the graphs, maps and tables without difficulty. Perhaps it would be nice to understand the methodology.

  119. I've a better idea by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 2, Funny

    Opera should buy Microsoft

    **waits for Slashdot to pick the bait and bring some traffic**

    1. Re:I've a better idea by warkda+rrior · · Score: 1

      You forgot the link to your website...

      --
      You need to install an RTFM interface.
    2. Re:I've a better idea by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 1

      Wait I'm not done yet. How about Microsoft should hire Linux Torvalds to improve Windows,
      and then he and Bill Gates can spend some quality time inventing all-new jokes about Linux.

      Wow imo gonna be a reach blog owning bastard. Mommy you'll proud o'me!!

    3. Re:I've a better idea by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 1

      Oopsie

      Linux Torvalds = Linus Torvalds
      reach = rich

      Sorry for typos, but for the purpose of coming up with ideas for absurd articles, I thought I'd switch to Dvorak layout keyboard.

  120. In soviet russia by ickleberry · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia IE buys YOU!

  121. Rendering, Ironically, by swordfishBob · · Score: 2, Funny

    I viewed the article using Opera, and the text ran over the advertisement on right-hand-side.

    --
    -- All your bass are below two Hz
    1. Re:Rendering, Ironically, by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      Can't you just block the graphics from whatever server is pumping them out?

      As far as I can tell, there is NO advertising on Slashdot (NetBSD version of Mozilla with no 'Flash' installed and all adweb sites have eventually been blocked)

      --
      resigned
    2. Re:Rendering, Ironically, by swordfishBob · · Score: 1

      Slashdot renders fine. The site carrying the article, linked from /., has advertising. It's a regular in-place ad that the text should arrange around, but it didn't.

      --
      -- All your bass are below two Hz
  122. Opera rendering by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    I find Opera to be useful in development. While it's rendering is often goofy, it's also more unforgiving of HTML errors, and often shows broken things AS broken. I find more HTML bugs with Opera than I do with IE or FF.

    If they could replace the renderer with Gecko or the one in Konqueror/Safari, and still keep the speed and low resource requirements, I'd be all over that thang.

    The problem at this point is - I'm hopelessly addicted to many of the Firefox plugins available; absolutely invaluable nowadays, and I can learn to live with Firefox's problems because of them.

  123. Well, he does av a point by talornin · · Score: 1

    Let me just say that I have used Opera as my main browser since version 3.2 and would be wery, _wery_ frustrated if MS got their filthy hands on it.

    But Dvoraks article isnt that far fetched if you look at it as loose musing on the subject. He does make some valid points.

    Though, if it is meant as an outright prediction of the near future it is naught but the rambelings of a wery sorry excuse for a serious journalist.

    --
    When in danger, whewn in doubt! Run in circles, scream and shout!
  124. exactly, they'd buy Opera... to shut it down by swschrad · · Score: 1

    maybe take two routines out of the code library, put everybody out of work, and cut off the users. they don't want no steenkin' interoperability. they don't want any other platforms.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  125. Just takes him long time to be right by riversky · · Score: 1

    Remember he did say Apple would move to Intel 3 years ago. After the annoucement by Jobs on the move, Jobs stated that they always had MacOS X for Intel from the beginning and Freescale's CEO said they were ready to move years ago but the G5 stopped the move....

    Perhaps MS buys Opera in 2009 :)

  126. NOOOOO!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft would butcher it! If they even did anything with it, it might just be tossed like everything else good that microsoft has ever gotten their hands on. Look how well they've done with IE, or not done rather.

  127. Dvorak says.... by rmallico · · Score: 1

    Stand on one leg.. Hop like a bunny.. I'm bored so I will write something stupid... jeez

    --
    sig goes here!
  128. That thing in the Mac logo by Medievalist · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's either an Apple, a Platypus, or a dogcow. Depending on the Mac.

    Hell, I'd pay money to see Dvorak being beaten up by a platypus.

  129. I've lost a lot of respect for John C Dvorak... by UberDork · · Score: 1

    ... since he invented that silly keyboard thing.

  130. Another idiotic Dvorak idea by mclaincausey · · Score: 1
    Does he even understand that IE is meant to be the Windows Explorer? The idea is that the operating system browser can browse locally (as a filesystem browser) and remotely (as a web/ftp browser) with transparency. Say what you will about the idea, but clearly Microsoft likes it, and clearly the addition of a third party browser that only does web pages breaks the scheme of a unified OS/Web browser.

    Does he understand the insistence on ActiveX? How could an alleged technology writer/pundit not understand such fundamental issues? Microsoft freaking went to court over this issue, it's not like it's a secret. What an idiot.

    --
    (%i1) factor(777353);
    (%o1) 777353
  131. So many errors... by Kelson · · Score: 5, Informative

    Shall I start with the bit about how Microsoft has no reason to develop Mac programs anymore becuse they can just use the Intel-based versions? He seems to have forgotten that fact that the platform is more than just a processer archtecture, there's the OS API as well. It takes a lot of glue code to get an x86 Windows app to run on x86 Linux (and even then it's rarely perfect), and the same would be true on x86 Mac.

    Then he goes off on the whole "Opera identifies itself as IE so we don't know how many people use it" bull that's been debunked over and over and over again. Opera IDs itself as IE in the same way that IE identifies itself as Netscape -- and for the same reason. If you're paying any attention at all, you can tell the difference.

    Some examples:
    Netscape 4: "Mozilla/4.7 [en] (WinNT; U)"
    IE 6: "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)"
    Opera 7: "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1) Opera 7.50 [en]"

    You'll note that IE spoofs Netscape, that Opera spoofs IE (including the Netscape spoof), and that all three are easily distinguishable if you're looking in the right place.

    Does this guy have a clue what he's talking about?

    1. Re:So many errors... by Thuktun · · Score: 2, Funny

      Opera IDs itself as IE in the same way that IE identifies itself as Netscape -- and for the same reason.

      Because each identifies the spoofed one as the One True Browser?

    2. Re:So many errors... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because each identifies the spoofed one as the One True Browser?

      Mozilla, Mozilla, Moziiiiiiiillllaaa!

    3. Re:So many errors... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      He seems to have forgotten that fact that the platform is more than just a processer archtecture
      He probably has never known this - we are talking about the guy who complained out the system idle process in MS Windows using all his CPU and slowing everything down.

      He's got a big name in some way in the past and his opinion pieces are now beyond the reach of being checked by editors for correct technical content.

    4. Re:So many errors... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      the bit about how Microsoft has no reason to develop Mac programs anymore becuse they can just use the Intel-based versions?

      That was a big WTF? moment for me. Though it is likely there will be more and better Windows emulation as Mac goes to Intel, to run IE means running Windows itself, as IE won't be a separate product, which will not be cheap in either cost (you'd probably need Longhorn licence) or resources (how many GB of disk and RAM and cycles will it suck up?). Compared with the free stand-alone version of IE for Mac now (for a week anyway) avaialable, this does not seem attractive.

    5. Re:So many errors... by wwwillem · · Score: 1
      ... as the One True Browser ...

      There's only one true browser:

      telnet <server> 80
      GET / HTTP/1.0

      :)

      --
      Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
    6. Re:So many errors... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably has never known this - we are talking about the guy who complained out the system idle process in MS Windows using all his CPU and slowing everything down.

      So, please tell us how to get that process to stop wasting CPU time, when there are other processes waiting to get a chance to run, and the user waiting for those processes.

      Currently, the only "solution" I have (except for rebooting) is opening the task manager and trying to kill it. It never succeeds, but somehow it stills makes it let go of the CPU so that other programs can get to run.

  132. Or.... by In+Fraudem+Legis · · Score: 1

    ...or MS could just reverse-engineer Opera's src or steal Firefox's src.

    --
    Per Aspera Ad Astra.
  133. MS, and multiplatform?! Huh?? by amigabill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >It works on all the major platforms including the Mac which IE won't support anymore

    They say that as if Microsoft might want to support other platforms. IE works on Mac but they're tossing that out, so why would they buy another browser for that reason?

    Nah, the only reason MS would buy Opera would be to lock it in a dumpster somewhere, never to be seen again.

  134. Then buy out Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh wait...

  135. IE sucks... is not the way to win customers by twitter · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Microsoft doesn't want a very nice UI for the web unless they control it. If the standards supported a nice neat replacement for your typical win32 gui then Microsoft is pretty much out of business as they currently stand

    As any old yahoo can download Knoppix or Mepis and boot into and install a standards compliant browser on a platform that does not suck, Microsoft is already out of business. It's been obvious for years, they just don't know it yet.

    Microsoft has been good enough at everything but delivering software. Game over.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  136. Their battles in thepast might get in the way by amcuri · · Score: 0

    I guess we are forgetting the background between these 2 companies. To cut off a deal like this, even with Microsoft money, might be hard to pull it off. These two companies got into major battles in the past, and Opera's management team might go to Google's way instead of MS.

    From the opera site:

    Opera Press Releases
    Opera releases "Bork" edition
    The Swedish Chef Goes After Microsoft

    Two weeks ago it was revealed that Microsoft's MSN portal targeted Opera users, by purposely providing them with a broken page. As a reply to MSN's treatment of its users, Opera Software today released a very special Bork edition of its Opera 7 for Windows browser. The Bork edition behaves differently on one Web site: MSN. Users accessing the MSN site will see the page transformed into the language of the famous Swedish Chef from the Muppet Show: Bork, Bork, Bork!

    In October 2001, Opera users were blocked from the MSN site. The event caused an uproar among Web users and MSN was forced to change their policy. However, MSN continues a policy of singling out its Opera competitor by specifically instructing Opera to hide content from users.

    "Hergee berger snooger bork," says Mary Lambert, product line manager desktop, Opera Software. "This is a joke. However, we are trying to make an important point. The MSN site is sending Opera users what appear to be intentionally distorted pages. The Bork edition illustrates how browsers could also distort content, as the Bork edition does. The real point here is that the success of the Web depends on software and Web site developers behaving well and rising above corporate rivalry."

    MSN now allows access to users of Opera 7, but is still targeting and sending users of earlier versions a broken page. This treatment is completely unnecessary, as the page would look the same in Opera as in Microsoft's own Internet Explorer if it had been fed the same information.

    "We are working hard to make sure the Opera browser works well on all Web pages, even those that do not follow the Web's standards to the letter," says Hakon Wium Lie, CTO, Opera Software. "But it becomes impossible when we are targeted and fed distorted pages that don't work in any browser. It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster! Microsoft should clean up their act on MSN and their other Web sites."

  137. Microsoft Opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if Microsoft bought Opera then where would Firefox get its best ideas from!?

    (I'm shooting for +3 Funny ;)

  138. could be smart in the real world by PurpleWizard · · Score: 1

    Opera becomes the new IE would be clever because it would also be unbundled from the OS and therefore get around some major legal baggage too.

  139. Can we make a rule? by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

    How 'bout this... new Slashdot rule... anything submitted with "Dvorak" in the heading or body, that doesn't also contain the word "keyboard," is rejected.

    And yes, I am ABSOLUTELY serious about this.

    I don't know why people reward this moron with millions of hits.
    If you're curious about future trends or events in the tech industry, read Dvorak's column, and envision the exact opposite. Time and time again, this is what usually happens.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    1. Re:Can we make a rule? by TenLow · · Score: 1

      If I had any mod points, I'd buy you a drink.

    2. Re:Can we make a rule? by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      I appreciate the gesture.

      Cheers!

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    3. Re:Can we make a rule? by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 1

      I'll risk eternal damnation and state I like Dvorak's columns.

      To me, its a guilty pleasure. He's kind of the Andy Rooney of the tech world - he's been ranting in this space so long that he's one of the few commentators with a historical perspective. I'll take his crackpot rantings for entertainment value over the people commenting in this space that can only remember back to Windows 98. For every silly opinion about what the next big thing is, there's a nice frank blast of some stupid product from a company that should no better.

      So, a prediction from Dvorak about Microsoft's Mac agenda is the equivalent of Rooney spouting off for the 10th time about how they used to put more coffee in a can of coffee. Might have a funny line or two, and easily avoided if its dumb.

      --
      Sleep is for the Weak
  140. OT: How can the mentally challenged find such by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    great employment as writers for the tech-pop-media?

    Enderle, Didio, O'Gara, Lyons, Murphy, and Dvorak, among so many others.

    These people actually get paid - a lot - for being babbling morons. And here we are on slashdot giving it away for free.

    How do I get a job like that? I have much better credentials in I.T. then any of those bozos. I know how to troll. I'll even suck up to msft if there is enough money on the line (why not? nobody believes that drivel, anyway).

  141. Maybe I have been reading Slashdot too long by Enrique1218 · · Score: 1

    The stories are getting repetitive. Case in point: Yet another Dvorak column!!! Is this guy some tech guru. Judging the adjectives from endless repetitive comments- hack, flamebait, troll, has made a career out of spouting sensational bullshit, fool; one would think not. Yet, his columns must posted more than any other columnist. So, with this and the endless duplicate stories, is Slashdot being run auto pilot with a real shitty AI. Is Taco on a beach in Maui, Timothy in Rome, or Zonk on safari? Editors!! Come back to us, RTFA for a change and can you pick articles for us simple folk with IQ of at least 3 digits can enjoy and spout endless comments that no one will read.

    --
    You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
    1. Re:Maybe I have been reading Slashdot too long by Enrique1218 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it is probably a shitty AI. You know- next to Dvorak columns- there are equally a large number of stories about DVORAK keyboards that are even more pointless. It must be keyed to name "Dvorak" and posts stories automatically.

      --
      You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
  142. Email client. by Poromenos1 · · Score: 1

    You mean like the builtin Opera mail client (M2)? It's ultra convenient. Plus, Opera has a download manager that can resume, a feed reader, an IRC client and soon bittorrent support (although I don't see anyone ditching their client because of it). Oh, and voice recognition. And fully customizable interface/shortcuts. OK, I can go on for a while, but I won't :P.

    P.S. I'm not being sarcastic, it just came out like that.

    --
    Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
    1. Re:Email client. by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      I was referring to a standalone mail client, but it's good you mentioned Opera has the capability.

    2. Re:Email client. by Poromenos1 · · Score: 1

      The built-in mail client is so full-featured and light (well, Opera is) that you can think of Opera as a standalone mail client with a built-in browser :P

      --
      Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
  143. A better idea by bxbaser · · Score: 1

    buy a bunch of opera stock at 3$

    write an acticle statimg microsoft should buy it

    wait while a bunch of people buy opera stock hoping microsoft does buy it

    sell your stocks for more than the $3 you paid

  144. Mobile handset compatibility? by kenevel · · Score: 1

    Isn't Opera supported on mobile/cell phone operating systems other than the MS variants? If so, buying Opera would give MS a way into other mobile OSs, wouldn't it? How would that fare in an anti-trust hearing as regards Windows CE and its version of IE?

  145. Oh yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  146. Re:Does it run on Linux? by Drasil · · Score: 1

    :o Serves me right for being sarcastic I guess. If I was trying to make a point it's that technical issues are not the only consideration, some of us prefer FOSS for other reasons as well. Me, I haven't had windows installed for 5 years or so, so I'm probably not qualified to comment on it's weaknesses. As far as Microsoft buying Opera goes: I can't see it happening, they have too much invested in IE to cut and run now.

  147. Troll by electricdream · · Score: 1

    Can we mod everything that comes off of Dvorak's desk as a troll?

    --
    -- force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins ayn rand
    1. Re:Troll by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Also remember he gets NO spam.

  148. how about the flipside by recharged95 · · Score: 1

    With all these rumors about '' buying Opera, could be just the "great marketing machine" really hinting to us that Opera secretly wants to sellout?

  149. If Dvorak stood you by geekoid · · Score: 1

    there would be a loud popping noise as his head comes out of his ass.

    400,000,000 is not pocket change to any company. IT's a lot of money.

    MS would save even more money if the stopped developing IE all together.

    Chorus "MS would save even more money if the stopped developing IE "

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  150. Re:Missing Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any overt attempt to deny Apple users MSOffice is... denied!

    So, yeah Apple gets the best of both worlds and probably a few other wine capable applications too.

    I can see Steve Balmer now...

    Steve: "MUUUHAHAhahaa... I've cut Apple off at the knees. My corporate market empire is complete. All customers are mine. No Office for them, no Exchange, nothing. Evar!!!! AAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!"

    Middle Manager: "Uh. Steve, Apple is running Office through an emulator. It looks like they are running other Windows-only applications too."

    Steve: "WHAT!?!" Throws chair "You're Fired! Get that Office Project Leader in here! He's fired too! I demand to know how this happened without our consent!"

    Today's Lesson: Office by itself makes them less and less money every year. It's most profitable years are behind them now. They need to add things on top to keep it profitable and those most profitable things right now would be something like Exchange, or even their Server CAL's with extra Office Sauce.

  151. how the hell did this tripe get modded up? by Tezkah · · Score: 1

    As for adblocking, Google toolbar gives me the same thing

    No it does not. Google Toolbar blocks popup advertisements. That is something that is BUILT INTO Firefox. Adblock is a seperate plugin, and removes IN LINE advertisements on websites.

    Annoying flash advertisements all over the page? Gone with Firefox and Adblock. Google Toolbar? It might block the one popup advertisement that it tries to show you, but it wont prevent the dozen flash ads or the one that scrolls and hovers over the text until you click the tiiiny (x close) button.

    Also, please dont complain that Firefox isn't useable when you type in C:\, it isn't meant to be a file browser, it isn't meant to be part of the computer interface. It is a browser, not a swiss army knife that breaks on using half the tools it has like IE.

  152. Can someone tell me why by synonymous · · Score: 1

    No browser on Linux renders mlb.com correctly. Not even Opera. Firefox on Windows is just fine rendering mlb.com. I think Safari on Mac is okay too. And why is Flash so buggered up on Linux? Pull downs pull down behind Flash animations and images. It has been this way for a long time.. Will it ever work??

  153. Wait... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    When has Microsoft actually come up with something on their own?

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:Wait... by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Bob and Clippy.

  154. Here is why by geekoid · · Score: 1

    MS would want to change it to have all the same features the IE has, including intgration. That mean they wouod end up exactly where they are, with a schizo browser that can be exploited to attack the rest of the system.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  155. Hearing the other side by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 1

    "Dvorak Says MS Should Buy Opera"

    What did Qwerty say to that?

  156. I suspect it would be more like this: by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    MS: "Dear Jon, we would like to hand you 400 million dollars, cash, for Opera"
    Jon: "OK"

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  157. Won't happen by sbenitezb · · Score: 1

    Opera is built with QT library. Do you really think Mocosoft will sport a new browser built with open source technology?

  158. But...but...but... by MsGeek · · Score: 1

    HE GETS NO SPAM!!!!!

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  159. How come... by sbenitezb · · Score: 1

    a keyboard can think? Mmmm... that should be a brand new from MS.

  160. Four reasons this would be a bad move... by Peter+Bell · · Score: 2, Informative

    1. Different APIs - Lots of rewriting and adjusting to get it to work. 2. Huge time setback for future OS and browser release (like Vista). 3. IE is a good browser - Since XP SP2 much (naturally not all) of its security weaknesses have been dealth with, and its fast. And IE7 stands a good chance of being much more secure than IE6. 4. Antitrust lawsuits - Opera is someone MS can point at and say "See! We have competition! So don't sue us!"

  161. Maybe microsoft doesnt want to support intel macs? by HaMMeReD3 · · Score: 0

    Aside from the fact that IE for mac is a POS and barely works as is, the first thing I thought about when microsoft cancelled IE support for Apple was that this was in response to the move to intel. When apple was on powerpc it was a seperate market segment that was not a huge dent in microsofts wallet, although now, with the news of intel apples, the possibility comes up for people to buy apple OS/X and put it on there wintel machines, microsoft doesnt want this, thus they will not provide any application for intel apples that could potentially loose them market share in the operating systems market.

  162. You don't know Opera or the people running it... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

    The guy has been running the company for ten years. He's had the chance to become filthy rich many times. But he isn't in this for the money.

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  163. ... and ruin it by krysolid · · Score: 1


    Not that any other major software/computer company would
    not, but Microsoft has been so key in ruining tech and
    the Internet with its insecure and dysfunctional software.

    What about a major anti-trust breakup of this industry?

    Probably never happen due to the need for the government to
    snoop on all of us, but I think this is a watershed moment
    in human history that can determine whether we have a
    big brother type totalitarian nighmare or the possible
    dawning of a new technological age.

    We all have the curse of living in "interesting times".

  164. Dec. 6 Dvork Column in PC Magazine by JonBuck · · Score: 1

    Title: "XBox 360 to the Rescue".

    Quote blurb: "I have not seen a hardware/software system as well thought out as the Xbox 360 in a decade or more."

  165. Stop posting about bullshit content by gilboooo · · Score: 1

    Dvorak is pathetic. Very poor knowledge on almost anything he speaks about.
    That's incredible to be so bad at so many subjects.

    But the biggest dickheads are those that keep selecting his crap and posting it to Slashdot.

  166. The problem with this is just what IE IS. by jonwil · · Score: 1

    IE (as seen in current windows) is just an exe file that loads shdocvw.dll and mshtml.dll to do HTML rendering. (and uses other dlls like wininet.dll and co to talk to the internet).

    Now, if you wanted to talk about replacing the microsoft HTML rendering engine (mshtml.dll & friends), thats different. But, you would need to make it 100% API compatible AND it would need to support all the things that apps need in order to work (including every HTML help file out there). Just look at how hard it is for the WINE team to get mshtml.dll and shdocvw.dll to work right :)

  167. Etaoin Shrdlu by baomike · · Score: 1

    Merganthaler was one of those types.

    Note to moderator; Find connection between subject and Mergenthaler. Hint; they hung out in newspaper offices and other places.

  168. Try it, you'll like it. by ncurtain · · Score: 0


    Firefox isn't a patch on the latest Opera. I admit I kept losing things while I was getting used to it but now I am converting everything from FF.

    What tickled me pink was the notes thingie (Oh man; if Mchronic gets it filthy, dirty, shitty, stinking, rotten, slime covered claws on it, I will be a bit upset.) and the other stuff... Mmmmmm... Opera.... well.. to be honest, Firefox's latest edition is right with it in most other departments.

    I hate to say it as I was a confirmed FF nut but it really is BEAUT! An almost perfect browser.

  169. Google already owns it by blueapples · · Score: 1

    This is totally stupid. Google is already underwriting Opera. That is why it's free now. That's why I'm using it. Google already *owns* Opera. It'd be a good idea, John, but Microsoft is too late.

    --
    www.blueapples.org
    1. Re:Google already owns it by Skudd · · Score: 1

      But if Microsoft DOES buy Opera, that means they'd also have to buy Google (or Google buy Microsoft), thus creating the largest-ever monopoly in the state of computing.

      Last I knew, monopolies are illegal in the United States, where both Microsoft and Google are based.

  170. Stupid... by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

    Why not take firefox then, it wouldn't even cost them a penny... just rebrand it and hack the code to support activex... That would be so mouwwahahahah

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
  171. Instead of MS paying $400 million for Opera by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

    Pay my company 400 million and we'll deliver a better than Opera cross platform browser. The SDKs for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux, and maybe even the BSD ones to boot. MS would haev a state of the art object oriented design from the ground up. All pure code written for hire, standards compliant SVG wrangling, CSS current standard support, kitchen sink thrown in (read Active X / .NET) browser that had the smallest possible footprint based on what the user enabled, integrated with Exchange, and supporting just about anything else they care to name. 400 million USD is a lot people!!!

    {insert little finger at edge of mouth fingers curled palm facing out}400 ... MILLION ... DOLLARS!

    --
    - Tjp

    I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

  172. Dvorak is a retard by melted · · Score: 1

    First of all, $400M is not pocket change for anyone. Total cost of one developer in Redmond (including all kinds of overhead, like real estate, insurance, facilities, etc. etc.) is around $250K per year. This means for $400M you can have FIVE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE people working for THREE YEARS on the project without skimping on anything. Probably a lot more if you consider that about 20% of work will be outsourced to India and China.

    Second, Microsoft can't just say "sorry, your old stuff won't work anymore" to its enterprise customers. That's just not going to fly for a sales guy trying to get a customer to renew a support contract. So Opera, if they buy it, would have to be made compatible with all quirks of MS browsers down to IE 5.5 (lowest version officially supported by MSFT). Which kind of defeats the purpose of buying Opera in the first place.

  173. Freedom to Eliminate!! by krygny · · Score: 1

    Uh, er, I mean inovate.

    --
    Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
  174. Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Those who are ignorant of history are bound to repeat it. Does anyone recall Spyglass Software, and what Microsoft did to their product? Remember, older versions of IE were decent.

    What Microsoft should do is *outsource* to the Opera crew, i.e. no Microsoft developers would be allowed to touch the code, and Microsoft managers wouldn't be able to manage the project.

  175. Re:Missing Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you have a point here.

    There is only so much that's needs to be done in an office. Once you automate all of it, you're done, there's no point in making more software.

    Eventually office software will be as exciting and profitable as staplers and ballpoint pens. Sure, both things were revolutionary in their nascence, but today... anyone can make them and they cost at most a couple of bucks and they last forever.

    Seriously-- how is the every-couple-of-years makeover of office software productive? Everyone should still be using WordPerfect 5.0 and Lotus 123. That stuff would *fly* on a 2.6 GHz machine.

  176. I have a better idea. by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

    How about if John Dvorak shuts the hell up?

  177. fool by emmons · · Score: 1

    MSFT has yet to be even remotely close to an announced release date for any version or flavor of Windows since the 3.0 days. Vista won't be out next year.. of it is, it'll be a bastardized version of 2003 ala ME.

    --
    Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
  178. Thunderbird performance by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    You're right that the memory isn't really the worst aspect of Thunderbird performance. It's just damned slow for whatever reason. I don't care what the reason is, I just want it fast. And more features.

    I _so_ can't wait to switch to OS X. *sigh* C'mon Apple, make with the x86 Mac mini already! (So I can choose other apps not available on Windows.)

  179. Re:You don't know Opera or the people running it.. by FFFish · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I rather suspect Jon is filthy rich a few times over, regardless. I've met him and he is a very solid sort of guy, well-grounded. I expect he knows fully that his life won't get any better with an gross excess of wealth, and I rather doubt he measures his achievements in dollars. Money is great and all, but it's gotta be kept in perspective to all else that's important in life.

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  180. I'm confused by petrus4 · · Score: 1

    John Dvorak is a troll, and not even an entertaining one, yet his antagonistic, clueless opinions have often been promoted on the front page of Slashdot.

    Many from this site have also considered me a troll...I've been modded such numerous times, and also can point to ten individuals in my freaks list who share this opinion...and yet I don't get the kind of promotion which Dvorak enjoys, even though I'd probably like having it even more than he does.

    Could somebody please explain the cause of this inconsistency to me?

  181. Opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks odd, has adds in it.. and doesnt render pages correctly.

    why.. should I choose it over firefox?

    I really dont understand why people like opera.

  182. IE a GOOD browser? Not in comparison.. by cheros · · Score: 1

    Let's not forget that it's Microsoft who brought us this badly controlled Active X infestation that allows most of the trouble to happen - and IE's "integration" with Windows is another nice route of attack.

    If it wasn't for (proprietary) Active X there would actually be no reason to have IE on your machine at all. IE6 isn't a patch on Firefox and Opera, both products who have innovated where MS was busy elsewhere - that MS 'innovates' is a marketing illusion.

    As IE7 being 'safer' I would respectfully point at a particular problem in proving that assertion: track record. MS is generally getting better under pressure from their customers (thankfully) but they have quite a bit of catching up to do..

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  183. Yes by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

    but it's not interesting, truly relevant or funny. +5 coming your way

  184. Microsoft HAS bought Opera!? by baadger · · Score: 2, Informative
  185. System idle doesn't consume cpu - it's idle by dbIII · · Score: 1
    So, please tell us how to get that process to stop wasting CPU time when there are other processes waiting to get a chance to run
    It doesn't waste time, a single halt instruction every now and again is the hack to stop MS Windows using 100% CPU even when nothing is going on and cooking your CPU. When something does want to execute the CPU is sitting there waiting for an instruction in the halted state - so it goes and executes it immediately. Casual users may not know this but Dvorak should have bothered to ask someone instead of putting made up garbage in his column.

    A lowly 60MHz system can run sixty million instructions per second, so a single extra instruction after everything else has finished does not make any difference but cuts down on power consumption considerably. The next clock cycle after something is due to happen it can execute the next instruction. Doing anything at all thus "kills the system idle process", since the CPU now has an instruction coming in for it to execute.

  186. No, they have NOT bought Opera. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  187. ofcourse, by sad_ · · Score: 1

    they should use the gecko engine or khtml as their html rendering engine (i don't care which shell they put around it). that would benefit everybody, but they will never do such a thing (at least apple has half a clue).

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  188. May I be the second to say... by HeX314 · · Score: 1

    Update: Opera recently confirmed that Microsoft has not approached the browser maker and there is no active acquistion deal between the two companies currently.

  189. HELL NO! by LupusCanis · · Score: 1

    Personally, I think that Opera and Mozilla merging would be the best thing. Think about it, the speed of Opera with the customisability of Firefox ... *drool*

  190. That is a logic fallacy by rrgg · · Score: 1

    That is a logic fallacy