MS To Slip IE8 Into Vista and XP Through OEMs

crazyeyes writes "Microsoft says it's 'optional,' but they are already planning to slip Internet Explorer 8 into all Windows Vista/XP PCs by March. MS claims that IE8 will offer better performance and security. But what about unwanted stuff like 'Monetization opportunities (for OEMs)' and 'These services will be used (by OEMs) to deliver brand exposure... to the users'?"

Comments

IE has had these for ages

[TheSpoom]

Ever notice the "Internet Explorer provided by Dell" title bar?

Re:IE has had these for ages

[plankrwf]

Hmmm... No, mine says: 'Slashdot | MS To Slip IE8 Into Vista and XP Trough OEMs - Mozilla Firefox'.

Oh... Wait...

Re:IE has had these for ages

[cbhacking]

It's a single registry key, easy to change. I've seen it used by everything from OEMs to non-malicious viruses.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[erroneus]

How do you know what options I want? Do you also know my taste in porn?

Re:IE has had these for ages

[Anonymous Coward]

Fap fap fap

Re:IE has had these for ages

[Aphoxema]

We could just start naming the articles "Microsoft still exists" and the content could be "Microsoft is still out there doing something and it's that time of day to bash them for it".

I'm quite happy with this idea, myself, for I find bashing Microsoft regularly to be a healthy practice. Everyone should do it and most people probably do in their own privacy.

I understand some people may need some 'stimulation support' with unclothed Firefox logos and centerfolds of penguins and free software ganging up mercilessly on bound bits of Windows and Photoshop. I, personally, have no need of these devices and will happily sneak a Microsoft bash in when no one's looking. Sometimes I do it out in the open, but only in places I'm sure nobody knows me.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[RonnyJ]

Recently the standard of Slashdot articles about Microsoft has taken a huge nosedive, any opportunity to bash them seems to be taken. It used to be mainly misleading summaries, but nowadays anything with an anti-Microsoft slant, even something basically made up or down to the incompetence of the submitter, seems to get posted.

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/06/1544207 - bashing Microsoft for letting you download Microsoft software on another PC besides the one you intend to use it on.
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/16/2259257 - the worst example I've seen - unfounded, unproven allegations with no substance whatsoever.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[Rary]

Just accept that Slashdot needs at least one masturbatory Microsoft bashing article every day and let the geeks get on with the wanking.

What, kdawson's previous "some guy tried to pirate Photoshop and then failed to understand how reparse points work so therefore Windows 7 is full of evil DRM" pseudo-article wasn't enough for today?

Re:IE has had these for ages

[LMacG]

Exactly. On the very rare occasions I need to use IE, it amuses me to see "Internet Explorer provider by Robot Aliens".

Re:IE has had these for ages

[Jurily]

Ever notice the "Internet Explorer provided by Dell" title bar?

I have a Dell laptop, but there's no such thing on it. Of course the first thing I did with it was fdisk.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[commodore64_love]

>>>at least one masturbatory Microsoft bashing article

Although I'm sure a "Girls of Microsoft" article in some future Playboy would be quite entertaining, I fear there's not enough under-30 females to fill the pages. Microsoft simply doesn't attract enough of the fairer sex. Nice idea though.

(goes back to reading "Girls of D.C.")

Re:IE has had these for ages

[Anonymous Coward]

We could just start naming the articles "Microsoft still exists" and the content could be "Microsoft is still out there doing something and it's that time of day to bash them for it".

I'm quite happy with this idea, myself, for I find bashing Microsoft regularly to be a healthy practice. Everyone should do it and most people probably do in their own privacy.

I understand some people may need some 'stimulation support' with unclothed Firefox logos and centerfolds of penguins and free software ganging up mercilessly on bound bits of Windows and Photoshop. I, personally, have no need of these devices and will happily sneak a Microsoft bash in when no one's looking. Sometimes I do it out in the open, but only in places I'm sure nobody knows me.

Sweet Merciful Crap, did you just invoke Rule 34 on Microsoft bashing? I just got an image in my head of what that would look like. The horror... the horror.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[RonnyJ]

As an addition, even those who have serious issues with Microsoft would do best to ignore these 'stories' and even perhaps make a stand against them themselves.

Posting half-truths, exaggerations and downright untruths discredits Slashdot probably more than it does Microsoft. If Slashdot focused on legitimate problems and grievances, and actually verified the accuracy of what they post, it would give those legitimate grievances far more weight than Slashdot carries right now.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[nmb3000]

Recently the standard of Slashdot articles about Microsoft has taken a huge nosedive

You're completely correct. The second link (the "story" from yesterday) was obviously the rant of a Windows luser who didn't have a clue what they were doing. The fact that it actually got accepted and posted to Slashdot was somehow both unbelievable and sadly also not that surprising.

Oh, that's right! Both of your examples were posted by the worthless "editor" kdawson. Since we can't do anything else, I suggest everyone who is sick of this crap exclude articles posted by kdawson in their preferences. Maybe if enough people do it Taco will get the message (assuming, of course, that kdawson isn't just a puppet Taco uses to post the asinine anti-Microsoft stuff which always gets plenty of adviews).

Re:IE has had these for ages

[paganizer]

I would agree with you, but I would almost be afraid to.
The last several times I've said anything about one of the several well-publicized vista problems, carefully leaving out the weirdness coming from Gutmann of course, like the slow network speeds, DRM lockdown of HD hardware via ICT (which, allegedly, won't be an issue until 2012), incompatibility with new Thawte Personal Email Certificates, intermittent broadcast flag issues, the file copying debacle, the "unused memory is wasted memory" bullpucky, etc, etc, etc
I have been modded "troll".
on slashdot.
a troll for pointing out problems with Vista. on /.
But wait, theres more...
I got modded troll for saying that compiz fusion was superior to aero.
I'm still in shock.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[Aphoxema]

There is no exaggeration to Rule #34.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[Penguinoflight]

That was posted a while ago. I know because I pointed out the authors misunderstandings in the firehose submission. Seeing as how "TechForensics" didn't realize his stupidity and have it pulled, I'd have to assume that he was intentionally spreading FUD.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[Rary]

Since we can't do anything else, I suggest everyone who is sick of this crap exclude articles posted by kdawson in their preferences

For years I've left my preferences untouched, preferring to just take the good with the bad, but now I have finally resorted to filtering kdawson's articles out of the front page.

For new Slashdot users, however, I wouldn't recommend this tactic. If you're looking to quickly build up your karma, there's no better way than to just browse the kdawson stories and be the first to point out how horribly distorted and flawed they are.

(assuming, of course, that kdawson isn't just a puppet Taco uses to post the asinine anti-Microsoft stuff which always gets plenty of adviews)

Allegedly, "kdawson" is this guy.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[rtb61]

Gees, but if you but if you block the articles you wont be able to complain about them, now how is that going to work for you? Personally the by line in the heading doesn't seem to say much at all except to provide a couple of quotes from the web page. So it would seem your complaint is with that article or perhaps the use of the word monetize.

Maybe you will be happier here http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/exec/ozzie/03-05-08MIX.mspx, talk about monetize on the brain, the word appears 12 times, PR jargon much, I personally prefer gouge as much profit out of the customer as possible, it really is far more accurate than monetize (look, monetize has been way over abused and now just comes of as really lame PR=B$).

This article of course is all about IE8 and M$ silverfish, written by M$ for M$ (I know this will also irritate you). Honestly if you don't like articles about M$ (see done it again) don't read them, or go here http://forums.microsoft.com/ for your stories.

PS as it seems you have missed it, the way people gauge the value of an thread on a forum is via the number of replies and reads, so you are promoting Kdawson threads rather than demoting them by reading those articles and posting in them.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[shutdown -p now]

We could just start naming the articles "Microsoft still exists" and the content could be "Microsoft is still out there doing something and it's that time of day to bash them for it".

Also, "Two Minutes' Hate" as the corresponding section name would be apropos.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[sapphire wyvern]

Certainly a snappier title. Thank you once again, Mr Orwell, for providing such a wonderful utopia for us to emulate!

Re:IE has had these for ages

[Nefarious Wheel]

Good reminder, thanks. Mine - work laptop - now says "Microsoft Internet Explorer provided by People Who Watch Your Every Move".

Re:IE has had these for ages

[urbanriot]

So far I've noted the majority of the erroneous, sensationalist or non-cited posts are coming through kdawson.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[hairyfeet]

Yes, but I refuse to deal with anymore screensavers involving oily naked guy butts after having to clean the fat girl's PC down the street ;-)

But seriously with XP Iso Builder or Nlite why would you NOT just roll your own Windows install? With XP ISO Builder it is so simple I let my 15 year old nephew roll his own so he could have the practice and learn about things like services. It is pretty damned simple and straight forward with an easy to use tool like that. It isn't like the old days when you had to learn all the Windows CMD for slipstreaming to update and customize the OS.

Just use autopatcher to get all the patches(also great to get all the Office patches and have them all burned to DVD), use XP Iso Builder to integrate them, or NLite if you want to strip anything out of the OS beyond language packs, and hit burn. Pretty simple. And then when you need a reinstall or get a new PC it is a simple matter to build a custom install for the hardware. You can even add all the drivers for your hardware so it is ready to go on first boot.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[hairyfeet]

The problem isn't just the stupid "branded by" crap, which I admit I have fun screwing with. On any of my builds if they hit "My Computer/properties" They get a little crest along with my phone number under the general tab. The problem is according to TFA(I know, but I got bored) they have an "extra" gotcha in the form of, and I quote:"Web Slices and Accelerators are additional web services within the IE8 monetization ecosystem which content providers have built specifically for IE8. These services will be used (by OEMs) to deliver brand exposure (Editor : Ads?) and content updates to the users."

So from the looks of it IE8 may have an extra "backdoor" or two built in so OEMs like Dell and HP can hit you with even MORE crap ads than they do on first bootup. It sounds to me IMHO that MSFT has added some adware hooks designed for third parties directly into IE8. Gee, I wonder how this could go wrong?

Re:IE has had these for ages

[commodore64_love]

>>>I'd have to guess that 90+% of women use Microsoft products.

I was talking about women who work AT Microsoft, just as "Girls of Penn State" refers to girls currently AT Penn State. I hate to use the old 80s slang "duh", but in this case it's appropriate: DUH.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[Korin43]

Yeah seriously. IE may be crap, but why are we bashing them for fixing it?

Re:IE has had these for ages

[gbarules2999]

I've only been on Slashdot a month or two, and I already know KDawson stories are always fun for various reasons.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[The End Of Days]

Sorry, I haven't read playboy ever. I'm not too interested in browsing the work of the airbrushing talent they hire. You'll have to forgive my ignorance.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[jonadab]

> Recently the standard of Slashdot articles about Microsoft has
> taken a huge nosedive, any opportunity to bash them seems to be taken.

Recently?

You must be new here. Microsoft-bashing has been one of the major purposes of slashdot since the mid nineties.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[syousef]

Ever notice the "Internet Explorer provided by Dell" title bar?

Hey mine says "Internet Explorer provided by l33tHax0r69". Does that mean I have an older version or something?

Re:IE has had these for ages

[Hal_Porter]

If you click on kdawson, select properties and uncheck the "Suck" box his submissions get better.

Yeah, I know it's a questionable default. Still easy fix.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[dhavleak]

MS is going to install "Monetization opportunities for OEMs" on our computers? That isn't even FUD - that's mindless garbage.

We should tag these dumb FUD attempts from kdawson with the tag "kdawsonisaretard" or something like that. He's abusing his position as an editor to further his agenda, and he's seriously damaging the credibility of this site in the process. If this article isn't proof enough of that, look at these other recent fud-attempts of his:
Draconian DRM Revealed In Windows 7
The Broken Design of Microsoft's "Fix it" Tool Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? How can we get rid of kdawson?

Re:IE has had these for ages

[gaspyy]

I'm quite happy with this idea, myself, for I find bashing Microsoft regularly to be a healthy practice. Everyone should do it and most people probably do in their own privacy.

I know you're joking, but for a brief moment I was reminded of the Two Minutes Hate from 1984.

Does this mean that Steve Balmer is Emmanuel Goldstein si Microsoft is Eurasia?

Re:IE has had these for ages

[Atrox666]

Better than Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law)

P.S. Microsoft = Browser Nazis

Re:IE has had these for ages

[Runaway1956]

Eh. Being modded a troll ain't no big thing. There should be two seperate troll ratings. Those who post meaningless nonsense filled with vile words get one type, and those who post unpalatable truths get the other type. I've been modded down multiple times, simply for stating an obvious truth. Good thing I'm not Hindu, or I'd take this karma thing seriously, right? Instead, I just ROFLMAO @ whichever nitwit modded me. Oh wait - I have 5 mod points to use!!! Mwauha-ha-haaaaa!!!

Re:IE has had these for ages

[ElmoGonzo]

When I got my Verizon DSL with the self-setup CD, it changed my IE title to say it was provided by Verizon. I found the registry key and made it say something different and less complimentary.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[bruce_the_loon]

Allegedly, "kdawson" is this guy.

Allegedly is incorrect. On the Background page and in his resume, he says he's a Slashdot editor.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[Dragonslicer]

If Slashdot focused on legitimate problems and grievances, and actually verified the accuracy of what they post

Then it wouldn't be Slashdot.

Re:IE has had these for ages

[atraintocry]

The last sentence was there to drive up comments/page views. Don't feed the submitter trolls. Oh, what the hell, I'll join you.

OEMs exist to make money? And have a brand to promote! Shocking! Oh, wait, it's not the 70s, we're not building computers from mail-order kits, and everyone knows what an OEM is. Don't want crapware? Don't pay for it. You have options.

In other breaking news, it may or may not be raining, depending on where you are in the country.

Rule of thumb.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Anybody who uses the word "monetize" or any variant thereof, is not to be trusted.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[ChopsMIDI]

Because profit = evil?

Seriously?

Re:Rule of thumb.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Profit isn't evil; but when people start spouting grotesque pseudowords referring to it, I get nervous. "Incentivize" is another troublesome one.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[Rinisari]

I DON'T TRUST YOU!

Re:Rule of thumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

Profit isn't evil; but when people start spouting grotesque pseudowords referring to it, I get nervous. "Incentivize" is another troublesome one.

Tell me about it. This guy on the street offered to galvanize me for free. I thought, hey, that sounds cool. The next thing I know I've got a face full of hot zinc and I'm getting tazered.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[djdbass]

I'm not sure I should believe you...

Re:Rule of thumb.

[hwyhobo]

grotesque pseudowords

Darn, I just ran out of mod points. You deserve +1 for that.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

Profit isn't evil; but when people start spouting grotesque pseudowords referring to it, I get nervous. "Incentivize" is another troublesome one.

According to the OED, monetize has been in use since 1867. Incentivize since 1968. Something tells me they were both in use well before you were even born.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[gardyloo]

They're just verbing their nouns, thereby incentivizing efficiency.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[spun]

No, because it's a euphemism for "let's find a way to take this previously free thing and charge people for it." It is a deceptive phrase, spoken by pointy haired bosses and marketroids with black little hearts and the morals of rabid weasels.

It's not that profit is evil, and money itself is not the root of all evil. The desire for money is the root of all evil, and this phrase is used by people who get a stiffy thinking of all the ways they can screw you out of yours. They fall asleep dreaming of ways they could monetize breathing. "Hmmm, zzzzz, poison the atmosphere... znurk, hmph, sell oxygen.... yeah... zzzzzzz"

Re:Rule of thumb.

[Lord Ender]

So if I say "doing X would provide incentive to do Y" I am just fine, but if I say "X would incentivize Y" I am grotesque?

I don't think so. Your insistence on using tedious phrases when equally meaningful, but much more convenient terms exist is sort of pathetic, though.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[Locke2005]

I thought only steel could be galvanized... say, you haven't been though any cosmic radiation storms or bitten by any robotic insects lately, have you?

Oh wait... people can be galvanized, just not the way that you said. "galvanize: to startle into sudden activity; stimulate." Yeah, I think I was pretty galvanized last time I went to the strip club.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[erroneus]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incentivized

The English language will always have various components and modules. There are regional and cultural words. There are fad and fashionable words. Some changes stick while others die. If you hate many of these new introductions, you're not alone. Personally, I find many of them to be extremely irritating and "incentivize" is rather high on that list. (along with words made to end with -izzle) But if you really hate all this change in the language, I suggest you go back and practice inserting "thee" and "thou" into your daily vocabulary.

In truth, there are few things as truly democratic as the English language. And just as in a democratic government, there will be laws and other aspects that you will absolutely hate and feel compelled to protest just as you do with words like "incentivize." But in the end, it is the collective will of the people that carries through because no one can really tell you how to speak. (I know, it's a subjective statement... just accept it as a generalization.) But one thing is for certain -- the [ab]use of the English language is one very unrecognized force that actually helps to ensure the spirit of democracy remains alive.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[Arthur Grumbine]

At least they're not nouning their adjectives. That'd really be a frightening.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[GuyverDH]

I wouldn't call you grotesque.. I might call you dub-ya - oh wait... nevermind...

Re:Rule of thumb.

[kaizendojo]

Tell that to your boss. I'm sure you'd prefer it if he 'monetized' your paycheck. So a company is naturally evil if it wants to make money, huh?

I guess that's why so many of them are laying off employees these days; to many gen x'ers convincing everyone of the idea that 'everything should be free, man'...MS is a publicly traded corporation who is not in the business to make nice; they're in the business to make money for themselves and their stockholders. Doing so means taking advantage of opportunities and pleasing partners/oems.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[Aphoxema]

Would you say they deserve to be moderitized?

Re:Rule of thumb.

[thedonger]

Since the word "monetize" will most likely be used by a marketing or sales guy, then yes, they are not to be trusted. But in reality they are just bearing the brunt of your anger for the guys performing the actions of actually monetizing something, e.g., programmers, or other techies.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[JohnBailey]

They're just verbing their nouns, thereby incentivizing efficiency.

Not to mention innovating the linguistic scope to leverage the creation of value from the verbal interface.

Or some such bullshit.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I say "doing X would provide incentive to do Y" I am just fine, but if I say "X would incentivize Y" I am grotesque?

I don't think so. Your insistence on using tedious phrases when equally meaningful, but much more convenient terms exist is sort of pathetic, though.

Except, that's not an equally meaningful phrase. In fact, your second version of the sentence doesn't actually mean the same thing as your first version.

"Incentivize" generally means "motivate" or "provide incentive to". If we play the replacement game, then here are your two sentences:

"Doing X would provide incentive to do Y".

"X would provide incentive to Y" (or, alternately, "X would motivate Y").

They're actually not the same. Why the confusion? Because, instead of using simple, common phraseology that actually makes sense in standard English, you played with buzzwords that you don't really understand. The result: you've confused your audience.

So, no, you're not grotesque. But you're not really communicating, either.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am Iron Man.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[Yvan256]

Still better than those who use the word "squirt" in their marketing slogans.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[Gonoff]

I do think so.

There are a number of real words that would fit the bill in your example. They include...
encourage
cause
incite
persuade
and lots more. The English language has an enormous number of words. Sometimes, when there isn't an appropriate word, one needs to be invented. Sometimes they are imported from other languages and sometimes they are existing ones used in a new way.

What it does not need is sub-literate PHB buzz-speak. That fits the word "pathetic". That sort of excuse for communication just shows the need for basic literacy.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[Nefarious Wheel]

"incentivize" bothers you? I guess I'm just not orientated that way.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[jabithew]

Utilize is especially insidious. It's the word 'use' with two pointless syllables. Ah well, it seems to make the Americans happy.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[jabithew]

Adjectival nouns?

Re:Rule of thumb.

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

I am Iron Man.

You, sir, get a +1 Ironic from me.

Re:Rule of thumb.

[Gonoff]

Especially if you don't eat your greens

Re:Rule of thumb.

[Dragonslicer]

Not to mention innovating the linguistic scope to leverage the creation of value from the verbal interface.

But where are the synergies in that?

Re:Rule of thumb.

[ConceptJunkie]

The synergies are part of the proactive paradigm.

standards

[incripshin]

I'll be happy when the Internet becomes more standards compliant. If it needs to be funded by Dell, so be it.

Re:standards

[davester666]

Well, if you want Dell to help make that happen, maybe encourage them to shovel money in a direction other than Microsoft, as it'll happen MUCH MUCH FASTER.

While IE 8 is more standards compliant, it is still significantly behind it's competition (Safari/Webkit, Opera, FireFox to name three). It's pretty sad, given that MS has thrown the most number of developer hours at it (except perhaps for FireFox), that IE 8 is still behind, but it's not the developers fault. Management has basically ordered them to make sure that IE helps them sell IIS and developer tools, because the corporate intranet sites will 'work best' with IE, and only with extra effort work OK with non-IE browsers.

Wow

[Dunbal]

Both a Microsoft ad, AND a dupe? Heavens no - on slashdot of all places!

blasting on my eyes?

[Skal Tura]

If they should you a computer, why do they need to blast their Logo on your screen too? It's not like you wouldn't be seeing their logo each and every day you use your computer.

I'd see it as annoying, then again, it's a very good branding technique.

Re:blasting on my eyes?

[value_added]

I'd see it as annoying, then again, it's a very good branding technique.

I assume you're talking about Dell here, but Microsoft does an excellent job without any help. Take a typical system, open a single IE window and then count the number of "blue E" logos that appear on your monitor. The count should be 5 (title bar, address bar, status bar, desktop, quicklaunch). Open another window, and you get 4 more.

Small wonder people associate the logo with The Internet.

Re:blasting on my eyes?

[Skal Tura]

Indeed, it's VERY powerfull when you see it constantly under your eyes. Where we used it, was very very effective aswell.

Re:blasting on my eyes?

[Kalriath]

Uh, go to a typical machine with Firefox and count the number of Firefox logos. There's three (title bar, desktop, quicklaunch) plus two Google (address bar, search box). Small wonder people associate the weird fox eating the planet being chased by a bunch of "G"s with The Internet.

(See what I did there?)

Re:blasting on my eyes?

[Barny]

Not really, I have firefox open at the moment, I have 1 firefox icon and 1 google icon (title bar and google search box).

Admittedly the grandfather post should have only said 3, since thats all actually in the window, but thats still 2 too many.

Re:blasting on my eyes?

[Kalriath]

Yes, but the GP (GGP now) was still cheating. The IE icon only appears in the address bar when the page does not have a favicon (which virtually all sites do nowadays). Admittedly, Firefox goes one better and just uses a picture of a blank page. Also, IE does not have an IE icon in the status bar. I just opened IE and got exactly ONE IE icon, in the title bar.

It got me building my own PC's

[HangingChad]

Originally what got me building my own PC's was all the crapware that came with an OEM installation. Unreal. So now it looks like they're pushing the crapware model on to the web browser.

But it's more secure crapware this time. Wooo-hooo.

Oddly enough

[moniker127]

At my place of employment, we still use IE6 because many of our systems don't render properly on IE7/8. I hope this update will be received by our IT, so that we can finally get those bloody systems updated.
I'm not holding too much hope though.

Re:Oddly enough

[cryfreedomlove]

You're lucky!

At my place of employment, we're still using un-networked Apple II computers so we can utilize a rocket thrust calculator written in BASIC by our founder. He's been promising us 64K Macs for the past 20 years but I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Oddly enough

[ivucica]

How about getting your systems to render properly on somewhat more standards compliant browsers - Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome? Of course, that is out of question if you use ActiveX... then again, if you do, why do you use ActiveX?

Re:Oddly enough

[Nerdposeur]

At my place of employment, we still use IE6 because many of our systems don't render properly on IE7/8. I hope this update will be received by our IT, so that we can finally get those bloody systems updated.

At my place of employment, I grudgingly load IE7 a couple times a day to access partner sites that specifically forbid non-IE browsers. They also do wacky things like use mis-sized framesets and forbid right-clicking!

Considering what a nightmare the sites are to use anyway - hey, let's make you log in twice, verify a security token and open three tabs to see one piece of information! - I picture their creators working in a dark basement, far from news of things like updated browsers.

Re:Oddly enough

[zonky]

If you can get out on the Interwebs with IE6, Leave your job. Your IT people don't care about security, which probably threatens your own Job Security. http://secunia.com/advisories/product/11/ IE6 should never be used on the interwebs. Ever.

Re:Oddly enough

[Nerdposeur]

Luxury.

At my place of employment, we have to use an abacus with razor-sharp beads, and when we get done, we have to verify our numbers by writing longhand division with the lump of coal we all share.

Re:Oddly enough

[Kalriath]

How about getting your systems to render properly on somewhat more standards compliant browsers - Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome

... IE8.

Re:Oddly enough

[Quest4RelativeTruth]

Why the hell don't they put you on Firefox? IE6 a security nightmare.

Re:Oddly enough

[LingNoi]

Why should the competent quit? Get the incompetent fired.

Re:Oddly enough

[LingNoi]

Happens at my girlfriends work too, as I'm sure it does a lot of other places. I have no idea why exactly.

On her first day she installed Firefox because they left her computer open with administrative privileges. A couple of days later when one of the admins was fixing an issue she had he noticed what she was using they said she couldn't use that, uninstalled it then locked down her computer so she couldn't install it again.

She got pissed so I suggested she used portable apps which has firefox, but for some reason it wouldn't work. So, yeah, she's stuck with IE 6, haha sucks for her.

My only guess is that BOFH works there...

Re:Oddly enough

[o2mcgovem]

Google Chrome installs without admin privileges... that's what I use at work now. :)

Re:Oddly enough

[dotar]

Oh, an abacus would be heaven!

At my place of employment, we have to simulate the movement of data with rows of stones, but management never budgets enough stones so we can never process accounting and pay ourselves or order more sto*&#

Re:Oddly enough

[ivucica]

In the name of all web programmers world-wide, may the Lords of Kobol make your words true :)

Re:Oddly enough

[ml0fl1n]

And the path from the parking lot to the office -- covered by 5 feet of snow -- is uphill both ways.

Re:Oddly enough

[Kalriath]

I use it almost solely at home. I find its standards compliance has vastly improved as well, as now when I write something with IE8 in mind, Firefox renders it identically (and IE7 makes it look like ass - case in point CSS backgrounds on input buttons, and the display:table properties).

Now if they could fix the pesky instability that frequently pisses me off - I'm getting sick of restarting the browser (I expected a release candidate to be a bit more stable).

Re:Oddly enough

[ivucica]

Personally I'm a Chrome (where available) and Opera guy myself, with occasional voyages into Firefox space, mostly for development purposes. I find the speed a priority, and IE, version 7 included, could not even closely satisfy me there. It's so sad that numerous users on websites I work on still use IE so I have to think about them too.

Based on your words, it seems taht soon I'll be able to remove "sad" part of the previous sentence. I still won't use it myself, for numerous reasons that are too small, but numerous, to be mentioned there. Still: dev purposes - thumb down, speed - thumb down (unless IE8 changes something), extensions - thumb down. And I find the UI of IE6 too featureless, IE7's is clumsy, and well, haven't tried IE8. Dunno. Mostly personal reasons.

Re:Oddly enough

[atraintocry]

Well when I say abacus, I mean it was more like a hole in the ground.

Ah yes -

[djupedal]

...time for the obligatory MS topic brought to you by the agreement to keep their flag flying high on /. That only leaves 6 or 7 more to complete the daily cycle.

your quotes are optional

[s4m7]

Yes, of course it's optional. IE7 is still optional even though they moved it to high-priority so most people who haven't lost update capacity to a worm or had updates turned off or something have already had it automatically installed. Why bunny-ear something that is actually true?

MS claims that IE8 will offer better performance.

[Anonymous Coward]

"MS claims that IE8 will offer better performance and security."

I have heard this joke before somewhere!

Anonymous Coward

Will the OEMs give the customer a choice?

[BlackSnake112]

If when selecting options for your new system you were given the options of different web browsers (or maybe different version of those wen browsers IE7, IE8, Firefox 2, Firefox 3...) would that be a bad thing for consumers? Letting the consumer decide (even if they selected *gasp* all of those free browsers). It actually might force microsoft to use a different metric for their web browser use then units shipped/sold. And choice is a good thing with computers.

On a side not the ad for this article (for me) is google chrome. I do think that the /. ad system is trying to be funny at times.

Re:Will the OEMs give the customer a choice?

[CannonballHead]

Yes, that would be a Bad Thing.

It would cause "What? That looks like Greek. I just want to use the Internet, not Firefox." reactions in a lot of people buying a computer. At some point, too much customization at once is a bad thing.

Of course, I'd have no problem if, say, Dell decided to ship Firefox with their boxes. Or whatever. But what next? Give the option of Silverlight or Flash pre-installed? iTunes pre-installed? Quicktime vs. some other variant? VLC as well as Media Player?

The answer to the browser war, if anything, is going to be "education" not forcing companies to give consumers every possible option.

Besides, the people that use IE probably don't know any better or if they do, have a good reason to use it; the people that don't use IE and would thus benefit from the choice already know how to download an alternative. All it'd really do is make purchasing a computer a little more confusing for those that *don't* know.

Re:Will the OEMs give the customer a choice?

[I'm not really here]

Why not take it a step further... offer options for installing bloatware. Let the vendors of the software pay to get you to install the bloat... AOL installer? $5 off computer. Norton Antivirus 90 day trial? $3 off computer. WildTangent game system with trial games? $10 off computer.

Add in all sorts of other softwares, and people who want a cheap computer can opt in to the bloat (and format it later and deal with that minor hassle), and those who just want a clean computer can choose not to have any bloat installed (and not get any discounts off the price).

The software providers pay the vendor per install anyways, and the savings are currently being passed on to the customers anyways, so why not do this, and allow those who don't want bloat to get the product at the cost the vendor would have to sell it if they didn't get kickbacks for installing bloat.

Win/Win, eh?

IE must be architecturally borked

[mcrbids]

IE has so many serios deficiencies that have been longstsanding and obvious, I can only conclude that these shortcomgs are architectural. Things that force web developers to implement two separate versions of their JS libs _ one for IE and one for everybody else who somehow, despite greatly reduced resource availability, are able to implement these features.

Whether you are talking about connection handling, spacing and padding attributes, or listen handlers, it's just a public embarrassment for the company that once cried 'DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS!'.

At my company (a vertical niche information system vendor) we've become so jaded that we now tell our users that we actually support firefox and only test for IE. Not surprisingly, our users are about 90% FF.

MS, you're dropping the ball, here, and those developers you once coddled have been SCREAMING about it for years. You're getting exactly what you deserve with your plummeting browser market share!

Re:IE must be architecturally borked

[mcrbids]

PS: I wrote this post using a moz-based browser on my mobile phone because the built-in IE browser is so bad that it can't even render slashdot in a usable (or even recognizable) fashion.

Re:IE must be architecturally borked

[CannonballHead]

Hrm. On the other hand, FF is dropping the ball, to some extent, too. It's a good browser, I'm using it now, but having it eat 300MB of RAM is ridiculous. :)

Re:IE must be architecturally borked

[mcrbids]

No ball dropped, just optimized for your platform. Really now - that 300 MB of RAM apparently sets you back about $6. Is that exorbitant? Firefox USES that RAM to speed up performance, and this can be fairly easily tweaked if the $6 is more than you can stomach.

For example, Skyfire is Mozilla based, and is quite usable on my 400 Mhz, 64 MB RAM Windows Mobile Pocket-PC phone.

Re:IE must be architecturally borked

[CannonballHead]

My main desktop machine has 7GB ram, that's not the issue I'm referring to.... memory leaks exist in firefox, it's not a hidden fact.

In fact, from the link you gave:

Memory leaks can cause Firefox not to release memory that it is no longer using, especially with older versions. There has been a lot of effort to reduce the leaks in recent versions, and Mozilla developers have have created tools to detect them. [5] [6] To minimize leaks, you should upgrade to the most recent version. The most common memory leaks appear to be fixed in Firefox 2. [7] Firefox 3 will likely use even less memory than Firefox 2 due to more memory leak fixes and further efforts to reduce memory usage. [8] [9]

Re:IE must be architecturally borked

[Tatsh]

Are you guys surprised by this news? Of COURSE they are going to put IE 8 into XP and Vista now that it is nearing completion what with RC's out now. I do not really care as I slipstream it anyway (with nLite), but otherwise I ignore it and use Firefox or Opera.

Re:IE must be architecturally borked

[Eskarel]

It's not actually an architectural problem, so much as a scheduling problem.

When IE 6 was originally released a lot of the standards were still being developed. The standards that were developed seem to have been made in the usual manner of "the official standard has to be different than the defacto standard", and so IE 6 didn't properly support them.

That in itself wasn't a problem, no other web browser did either.

The problem occured when Microsoft basically didn't update their rendering engine for the following 10 or so years. They didn't really have to until fairly recently because there weren't really any viable alternatives. Netscape lost to IE 5, Mozilla was huge clunky and slow and Firefox wasn't really useable for the masses until well into 2004.

I say this as someone who has been using it since about version .2 along with Mozilla before that, and Opera before that(I switched to Mozilla because its e-mail client was one of the few clients at the time to properly support SSL IMAP which I needed for university.

The even greater irony of your statement is that its in an article talking about Microsoft pushing out IE8(which is fairly standards compliant as far as my early testing has gone) and which will make your life and my life a lot easier.

Re:IE must be architecturally borked

[mcrbids]

So... IE7 sucked because everything else still sucked more? Except they didn't. They just hadn't started eating real market share. Hell, how many YEARS did Microsoft just sit on IE 6.0 without doing a damned thing? Here we are now, 5 years after you decided that other browsers were "good enough" and finally, after another alternative has come up that actually is pretty good, and MS is losing market share rapidly, NOW they finally start paying attention to us developers developers developers?

And IE8 is standards compliant - my ass. Care to see just how borked it is?

Yes, they fixed some things. Yes, I will appreciate (and use!) the improvements. But these guys have enough money in the bank to compare to the recent (so-called) stimulus package, and yet they can't fix "must have" stuff that developers have been bitching about all along?

They dropped the ball here pretty badly. The press wasted over the years bitching about these problems would bury their precious Redmond campus under a half-mile of wood pulp. Can't tell me they didn't know.

Re:IE must be architecturally borked

[lamapper]

No ball dropped, just optimized for your platform. Really now - that 300 MB of RAM apparently sets you back about $6 [pricewatch.com]. Is that exorbitant? Firefox USES that RAM to speed up performance, and this can be fairly easily tweaked [mozillazine.org] if the $6 is more than you can stomach.

Yea, that is what I thought too, got my additional RAM only to discover that the BIOS would not support it. And the BIOS company would not open their source so it could be fixed.

My next computer will have a motherboard that supports open source, period, or I will not buy it. And each and every component that I purchase will offer an open source option or I will NOT purchase it.

I want native open source support, no third party middle ware apps like ndiswrapper, wine, etc....

Re:IE must be architecturally borked

[Eskarel]

I said it was an issue of scheduling(when they decided to schedule updating IE) not architecture. I've never said Microsoft was right in sitting on IE 6.0 and it pisses the hell out of me too. When I said have I meant "have" as opposed to "should", they "should have updated their engine 9 years go, they "have" to update it now.

IE7 sucks because it's hard to jump straight out of a 50 foot deep hole, it's better than IE6 was.

As for your "standards compliant my ass", compare the fact that a subsection of event handling which most people don't actually use isn't quite fixed yet, to the list of crap that massively didn't work in IE6 or 7.

Is IE 8 perfect? Hell no! Do I plan on using it as my primary browser? Hell no! Am I excited that Microsoft is finally making my life easier by updating their browser to be standards compliant, even if they're not quite there yet, and that their update cycle is looking more like a year as opposed to a decade? Hell yes!

I am, among other things, a web application developer. IE's standards incompliance costs me more time than I care to think about. Every single incompatibility they fix saves me time, and I will continue to support their efforts to fix those incompatibilities for as long as they choose to do so.

The damage done by IE6 is immeasurable, and those of us who have to deal with it have reason a legitimate reason to hate Microsoft. That said the damage is done, there's no way to undo it and all we can do now is move forward. Microsoft is moving forward and since I'm not going to get rid of it, I'm going to be happy they're moving forward and hope they continue to do so.

Maybe by the time of IE 10, IE will be better than Firefox and I'll switch back to it. Competition and improvement is a good thing. Netscape dropped the ball after IE 5 overtook them, it took them the better part of 5 or 6 years to pick it back up.

Microsoft then dropped the ball with their usual lack of vision and screwed us harder. They've picked it back up too, even if it took a competitor to make them do it.

What is the current Slashdot opinion of MSIE8?

[erroneus]

I am not sure how I feel about putting MSIE 8 onto new machines but I recall that MSIE 8 was supposed to be more standards compliant or at least host a mode of operation that is more standards compliant. At one point I heard that the default operating mode was in standards compliance mode and later I heard the default operating mode was to be some sort of "compatibility" mode (which is much nicer to hear than non-compliance mode). There has been plenty of time for Microsoft to reverse positions and all that so frankly, I don't know where things are.

And what does MSIE 8 bring to the table not present in MSIE 7 or 6? With few exceptions, vulnerabilities found in one version of MSIE is found in all versions of MSIE, so I can't imagine better security is a feature of 8.

Ultimately, why is OEM inclusion of MSIE 8 a bad idea? For that matter, why is it a good idea?

Re:What is the current Slashdot opinion of MSIE8?

[Samschnooks]

why is it a good idea?

So I don't have to install it. There are still too many websites or sections of those websites out there that will not work with anything but IE - Neflix's "Watch Instantly" for example. Microsoft's website isn't completely functional without IE - yeah, big surprise there.

Re:What is the current Slashdot opinion of MSIE8?

[UnknowingFool]

Well compared to IE 7 or IE 6, IE 8 is more standards compliant; however compared to other browsers, it is pretty pathetic at least according to ACID3. The latest ACID3 test shows IE 7: 7/100, IE 8: 21/100. For perspective, all current releases of competing browsers score no lower than 71/100. Future releases of competing broswers show no lower than 83/100. Truly pathetic.

Re:Wow, you make IE sound like a roofie

[mc1138]

Bad enough to want to switch to a text based browser...

New computers need *SOME* sort of browser

[sunderland56]

A new out-of-the-box computer with no browser at all would not be fun - especially for the non-computer-literate user who doesn't have another system to download with.

So, if a manufacturer is shipping a box with Windows, why not supply the latest version of Internet Explorer??

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser

[sakdoctor]

Start->Run

ftp ftp.mozilla.org
cd /pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.0.6/win32/en-US/
get "Firefox Setup 3.0.6.exe"

IE is one of the most bloated firefox download tools there is.

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser

[Anonymous Coward]

In a word, laziness.

Any OEM is going to create some generic disk image that they can then push to *every* machine of the same (or similar) model. True, they may do some post-boot tweak for setting an individual serial number/activation code/product ID. It simply doesn't make sense for any large corporation shipping out hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of machines to install each machine by hand.

So, OEM's are lazy because something like Firefox or Opera are readily available and they could easily include it in their install image.

The only reason IE is dominant is because those same non-computer-literate users just don't know any better. If Opera or Mozilla were to push to have their browsers installed on new Dell or HP machines, then the market share would change. Those same users may not be able to visit those websites that are designed to fit whatever MS non-standard, but the developers of those sites should have had web standards in mind anyway.

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser

[the_humeister]

Yes, because command-line ftp is feasible for the general populace.

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser

[Rockoon]

All the competiting FTP clients are next on the bandwagon of "anti-trust" cases.

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser

[Seth Kriticos]

As far as I can remember, you can also enter it into the address bar of the Windows Explorer. At least you used to be able to do it, no clue how that looks on Vista interface where everything is located at a brand new +5 clicks fashion. Didn't see a Windows Explorer in ages anyway, thanks god!

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser

[CannonballHead]

and incidentally, firefox isn't excatly unbloated itself.

Actually, as far as FTP goes... last time I used FTP, firefox can only download, no uploading via FTP with FF. You can sorta do that with "IE" which can be a little bit of a timesaver if you just want to upload a single file or something like that, and you're already on the site, etc...

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser

[Kalriath]

This is the most retarded thing that always comes up in IE discussions.

Noone - NOONE - is going to go to all that trouble with a crappy command line tool just to download Firefox - they aren't psychic, so how would they even know that URL. Also, not everyone WANTS to use Firefox. Sometimes I don't (though I am typing this message in Firefox now).

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser

[jaavaaguru]

Because better alternatives exist

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser

[zonky]

Fireftp is an option in Mozilla.

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser

[Toreo asesino]

Just out of curiosity (and because I had suspicions) I just tried your command-line piece. It fails; wanting a "password".

So

ftp ftp.mozilla.org
USER anonymous
[enter password]
cd /pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.0.6/win32/en-US/
get "Firefox Setup 3.0.6.exe"
quit

You then have to find the file in C:\users\[windows login name] and manually run the program, following all on-screen steps.

I'm sure grandma would have no problems whatsoever.

Alternatively her machine could just come with a browser already of course.

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser

[BenoitRen]

Because every other web browser is better? Ship the Windows box with one of those.

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser

[ray_mccrae]

Your right a new out-of-the-box should come with a browser. However it should be the OEMs choice which one they ship. That's the real point. Historically Microsoft used underhanded threats to OEMs that registered interest in pre-installing competing software, together with the fact the IE is so intertwined with windows now that they have no choice now but to ship it.

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser

[arndawg]

Start->Run

ftp ftp.mozilla.org cd /pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.0.6/win32/en-US/ get "Firefox Setup 3.0.6.exe"

IE is one of the most bloated firefox download tools there is.

10 bucks that you used a browser to find the correct path!

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser

[dave420]

Windows users don't want to use the command line. That's why they're not using linux :)

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser

[DigitalSorceress]

Ahh, but when you put a URL in Windows Explorer, it detects that it's HTTP and runs Internet Explorer.

IF MS didn't bundle IE into the default OS, you wouldn't be able to do that.

Not that I'm saying I totally agree with how completely wrapped up IE is with Windows. It's far too embedded as far as I can tell.

Re:New computers need *SOME* sort of browser

[Thomas Cruise]

Where the hell did you see http in "ftp.mozilla.org"

Monetization

[sxmjmae]

Right from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetize

Monetization is the process of converting or establishing something into legal tender. It usually refers to the printing of banknotes by central banks, but things such as gold, diamonds and emeralds, and art can also be monetized by Standby Letter of Credit brokers. Even intrinsically worthless items can be made into money, as long as they are difficult to make or acquire. Monetization may also refer to exchanging securities for currency, selling a possession, charging for something that used to be free or making money on goods or services that were previously unprofitable.

Are you scared now went Microsoft starts to use the word Monetization?

Sounds like the IEAK to me.

[Champion3]

Doesn't this just sound like the IEAK that was used for adding branding to IE by ISPs and OEMs?

Re:Sounds like the IEAK to me.

[6Yankee]

What does IE8 have to do with dyslexics buying furniture?

And Microsoft deserves it.

[weston]

Just accept that Slashdot needs at least one masturbatory Microsoft bashing article every day

One Microsoft bashing article a day isn't what Microsoft deserves.

One for every 10 hours their product flaws and aggressive monopolistic practices have stolen from developer productivity (or general productivity) is probably about right.

The problem is that if you use that metric, even considering IE6 alone, you've probably got enough for 5 stories every day since Slashdot's inception.

Sometimes people act like the Microsoft bashing is simple knee-jerk or personal dislike. I'm jealous of the strain of ignorance that allows this belief to continue.

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[Anonymous Coward]

But how can one disagree with the truth?
Microsoft sucks, it is a widely known fact.
I know i will be moderated troll, but you are just abusing it, i am being 100% serious here.

Microsoft pushed out crappy tools that held people back, terribly optimized, full of bugs and bad practices. (Oh hey Visual Basic, case-sensitivity would like a word!)

Not only that, they have abused their position by allowing their software to stagnate.
IE versions being the major one here, they are terribly bad compared to others through the things entire life.
And to stick an even bigger finger to everyone else, they created that crap ActiveX, which when combined with their large marketshare has led to countless millions still being held up in Microsoft stuff because they went with some shitty company to design their software.
And to take it even further, they shat all over those people when they decided not to support them.

This is just some major examples that sticks out.
So, please, for the love of computing, tell me why this is classed as opinion?

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[mstahl]

If you're on a laptop either put down two fingers on the trackpad or hold down ctrl then click. If on a desktop just click the right sid of the mouse. Seriously why is this still a reason people make fun of macs for?!

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[pohl]

So, please, for the love of computing, tell me why this is classed as opinion?

As long as there are masochists, there is always room for that point of view.

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[Penguinisto]

And most importantly, they embrace the god damn two-button mouse.

Eh? Why all that anger at Amiga?

(hint: OSX has supported multi-button mice the whole time).

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[shutdown -p now]

But how can one disagree with the truth?

It would be good if MS-bashing articles contained any truth than, rather than a random assortment of hearsay, wild conjecture, lies, and outright idiocy on behalf of the author, like that recent one about "super-DRM" in Windows 7, which ended up being just a guy using a bad crack for Photoshop, and not knowing what an NTFS junction is.

Oh hey Visual Basic, case-sensitivity would like a word!

BASIC has been case-insensitive since it first appeared. VB is a dialect of BASIC. What's surprising about it?

A lot of other languages are case-insensitive too, by the way, and quite a few people consider case sensitivity to be a bad idea. I'm not in that camp, but it's certainly not a strong point for you to debate on.

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[bondsbw]

"They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far and no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!" - Jean Luc Picard, Star Trek: First Contact

If there's ever been a quote that represents people who disagree with Microsoft, this is it.

Take from it what you will: either that Microsoft bashers primarily want revenge, or that Microsoft represents an overwhelming force that stands on the principle of Embrace and Destroy.

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[sortius_nod]

It's not that there is a belief that non-MS products are better than MS products... it's a knowledge from experience that they are.

There's a difference there.

I thought myself that MS had fixed a lot of issues with Vista in 7, nope, same issues, just runs a bit quicker.

I thought MS had caught up with the browser market with IE8, nope, same issues as IE7, even some worse.

Your stalwart defence of MS and lack of knowledge outside the MS realm really takes away from anything you've posted. It's kind of like the Allegory of the cave - unfortunately you're sitting watching the wall.

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[lgw]

However, Visual Studio and its debugging facilities are second to none. C# is a great language.

However, I've found these don't combine well. Just hope you never have to debug a C# application dump file (assuming you make it past the minefield of configuring a system to capture these in the first place), or you'll be back in 1980 with the most primitive of command-line debuggers.

Yes, Microsoft, sometimes programs crash when there's no debugger attached, and we have to determine the cause of death via autopsy of the corpse. Much as I wish it wasn't so, providing no tools at all to do this isn't really helping.

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[FishWithAHammer]

Be fair, though: that's a pretty out-there edge case for what C# and .NET are targeted to. And the debugger facilities for native code are a good bit better.

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[lgw]

C# is a general-purpose programming languages - you're even encouraged by MS to write "user-mode drivers" in it now. How is "my program keeps crashing at the client site, but we can't reproduce it in-house" an out-there edge case?

My own experience with this has convinced me that C# is inappropriate for professional use, outside of thin GUIs.

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[weston]

Your post has some truth if we're talking web development, but even that is quickly becoming irrelevant heading into IE8 whose quirks are not so much standards related as they are just different in the way that Gecko is different than Webkit.

I sure hope so, because the quirks historically have meant that even many of the MS ways of doing things are half-broken. I honestly wouldn't have half the contempt I do for Microsoft if IE6 had even provided MS-only way of doing things that worked where their standards were broken.

And while I've got a little bit of hope that IE8 will be a real improvement, I'm not holding my breath, nor am I really going to give them a lot of credit for basically remaining 5 years behind everybody else. We'll *maybe* have more or less trustworthy cross-browser support for CSS 2.1. I'll believe CSS 3 when I see it, and I'd be willing to bet HTML5 will wait a few years at a minimum. At any rate, I doubt the differences will be irrelevant.

However, Visual Studio and its debugging facilities are second to none. C# is a great language. SQL Server and it's tools are awesome.

I agree with this by and large. These are good tools, my shallow usage of which has been largely pleasant and free of horror. In particular, I think C#/.NET does a good job of being a better Java or C++ for a good chunk of development niches.

But I don't agree they're standout examples of products that provide some evidence of an internal drive to quality at MS. Even C# and .NET, which I think are an achievement, are hard to recognize as essentially MS products: they're more or less a Borland project that happened inside Microsoft because they had enough intelligence and market power to brain-drain and essentially buy Borland. And it's surprising, in fact, how many Microsoft products and tools started life outside of the company and essentially only found their way in because of the company's position in the market. Or, perhaps it's not so surprising if more or less, to a business deal with IBM based on a product they didn't develop but purchased.

When it comes down to it, I can't think of a single product that I'm pretty certain wouldn't have been produced by the industry -- and in fact, wasn't competetively produced by the industry, with someone else holding a real lead at some point -- if Microsoft had mostly kept to the operating systems niche. And there's enough examples of ways in which they've held everybody back for their own interests that I'm not sure their good points are a net win.

Not everything they do automatically sucks. Their net effect on the industry and on developers within it is another matter.

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[drinkypoo]

Newer Macbooks, you can right click on the trackpad too, if you tell it to recognize that.

Oh yeah? Do you use your right finger?

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[jabithew]

Oh yeah? Do you use your right finger?

You can use any two fingers you like. I have eight myself, but if you only have the left and the right that's cool too.

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[CommentThingSucks]

Yeah, Microsoft is encouraging you to do something that isn't even technically possible.

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[Runaway1956]

Uhhh - see my sig. Truth to microsoft bashing? Just ask Digital Research, they can explain it to you better than anyone here can.

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[Runaway1956]

Right finger? That would be the pinky finger on the right hand? No. That pinky finger is about useless. Lazy as can be. It will only follow if the other three fingers wrap themselves around something first. Stupid pinky. That's something I would have liked to ask Darwin about..........

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[not already in use]

Ironic. You don't actually counter any of my points, you make over generalizations and claim I suffer from a psych disorder because of my opinion. Nice to see the slashdot crowd staying classy.

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[drinkypoo]

That pinky finger is about useless. Lazy as can be. It will only follow if the other three fingers wrap themselves around something first.

Really? I can hold on to things (e.g. my RAZR) with my pinky without using all of the other adjacent fingers (i.e. I held a toilet paper tube between the pinky's nearest neighbors.) Am I some kind of super-advanced human? And if so, can I get some kind of trivial reward for giving away the rights to my DNA or something?

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[RocketRabbit]

I use a 5 button mouse on my Mac without issue. The mouse happens to be made by Microsoft - one of the only quality products they have ever created.

Re:And Microsoft deserves it.

[Runaway1956]

No. I suspect that you are another illegal alien. May I see your green card? ;)

Re:Emulate IE7

[AndrewNeo]

As long as they don't have an 'emulate IE6' button. Then we'll see websites that say "Go do this to make our site look right!"

**applause**

[ivoras]

Is there anyone here that wants users to CONTINUE USING IE6??? Because IE6 is what's included in stock XP. As for Vista, well, IE7 isn't so great, maybe IE8 will be more standards-conformant.

Anything but IE6

[spinkham]

IE 8 isn't my favorite browser,but it's worlds better then IE 6.. It's quality related to IE 7 is harder to discern at this point, but anything that encourages businesses and other IE 6 holdouts to move forward is a good thing in my view. I'd rather they move to Gecko(Firefox), Webkit(Chrome, safari), or Opera, but please, I'm pleading, let IE 6 die...

Re:Anything but IE6

[jaavaaguru]

Anyone who actually cares about the quality of their browser won't be using one that's 9 years old... IMHO, there's not much point in comparing anything to IE6. The web has changed a lot since IE6 was released, and I wouldn't expect it to work too well with sites using all the latest CSS/Javascript features.

The problem with some businesses is that they have intranet web apps that only work in IE6, so IE8/Firefox/Opera et all can't really convince them to move on. The wonders of relying on proprietary software that not standards compliant.

Re:Anything but IE6

[spinkham]

I'm well aware of the problem, but there's something about being only 1 version behind the majority of IE users that makes it easier for businesses to keep on using IE 6. When IE 8 is the standard and they're 2 versions behind, it somehow seems more ridiculous to keep saying that IE 6 must be the corporate standard. Also, as the switch continues, more sites will continue to drop IE 6 support, for similar reasons.
Yes, it doesn't really change anything, but there it does highlight the ridiculousness of the current situation, and hopefully will motivate people to solve the problem.

Re:Anything but IE6

[cbhacking]

Actually, while IE7 is a major step forward in compatibility, it's still horribly borked - it just requires *different* workarounds. Most of the IE7 improvements were in areas like security and interface (I happen to like the new UI, though I'm not universal in that - IE8 lets you go back - but the additions of a search box and tabbed browsing are excellent).

IE8, by comparison, is faster (not up to Firefox 3 on JavaScript, but actually in the running - which 6 and even 7 really weren't), more stable (process-per-tab is nice), and actually passes Acid2. It's definitely not perfect (you will probably still need some custom Javascript, though their DOM is a *lot* better), but it's miles ahead of IE7. CSS should work across browsers, though.

"Incite"

[XanC]

The word is "incite", not "incentivize". There's no need to make up a new word when the word you're looking for already exists.

Re:"Incite"

[butlerdi]

Possibly, however "incentivize" got me over 50,000 hits on the google....

Re:"Incite"

[atraintocry]

People who make up new words should be forced to go door to door and add them to everyone's dictionaries. That way, only really important ones would get in. None of this "turn it into an adjective because I'm on the phone, only have 10 seconds left for my sales pitch, and can't think of the right word" BS.

And if you say "begs the question" you should have to wear a dunce cap every day until you die.

IT MAY BE A GOOD THING!

[HeavyDevelopment]

Who uses IE anymore? Seriously I haven't used IE, much less Windows, for personal browsing in two years. I mean I could care less if they force an update on XP. It actually may do some good in that the people that don't know any better and still use IE by default, usually don't know anything about secure browsing. It might make some people switch to FF, Chrome, or Opera....which is better for everyone.

Re:I Monetized Your Mom Last Night

[hierophanta]

which brings a whole new meaning to 'rule of thumb'

Of course it's optional.

[John Hasler]

Microsoft Windows is optional. You can easily opt out of it: there are many Web sites devoted to helping you do so. It need not even cost you any money.

Negative tone

[Lord Lode]

Why the negative tone? I'm glad to hear that even XP will come with IE8. Do you know what the alternative is? IE6. IE6 is old and useless, the less people use it the better. For web developers it's better not to have to support IE6 anymore. It doesn't even support transparent PNGs, you know? So yay for IE8 instead of IE6 in Windows. Even if I don't use nor like it, the fact that it gets shoved on everyone's PC instead of IE6 is good.

Re:Negative tone

[mgblst]

The fact is, that if any other company came out with ie6, they would be out of business by now.

Re:Negative tone

[ray_mccrae]

IE6's inadequacies had in some manner of speaking levelled the playing field for the other browsers. The user had to actively get IE8 which made it more akin to the effort to pursue an alternative.

IE6 served as a basic browser that could be uses as a vehicle for downloading a better browser.

Re:Negative tone

[CodeBuster]

Yes, thank you. Anything which provides better standards compliance and rendering than IE6 (which is just about everything newer these days) is an improvement as far as I am concerned. The sooner IE8 (or even IE7) becomes the majority browser the sooner we can all forget about the agonizing days of IE6 and its bugs which set the web and CSS back seven (7) years, wasted billions of dollars in debugging and hacking expenses, and generally made the lives of web developers miserable.

F*ck Microsoft

[Quest4RelativeTruth]

Windows had to be reinstalled 3 times in the last month; I haven't done the third reinstall yet, and I don't think I'm going to because it'll wipe out GRUB. I just got the one program I needed windows for running in Wine, and I'm in the mood for some Microsoft bashing.

Re:F*ck Microsoft

[Aphoxema]

Back in "the day" when I still regularly used Windows, I made it a habit to reinstall Windows at least once a month. What I really did towards the end was just archive the entire Windows/Program Files/Documents directories in Ubuntu and restore them as needed.

Re:F*ck Microsoft

[shutdown -p now]

Back in "the day" when I still regularly used Windows, I made it a habit to reinstall Windows at least once a month. What I really did towards the end was just archive the entire Windows/Program Files/Documents directories in Ubuntu and restore them as needed.

That must have been a long time ago. Back in 2004, I was already routinely having 1-2 months uptime on my desktop XP - it didn't bluescreen or otherwise hang, even when playing games and other stuff that's traditionally prone to trigger that, and I didn't reboot it because it had eMule running at the background pretty much 24/7.

Re:F*ck Microsoft

[Starayo]

What on earth are you doing to it?! I don't remember the last time I reinstalled windows because my PC still runs like a dream, and I've punished the crap out of it.

Now, I dislike Microsoft, and I would be using a linux distro full-time if it weren't for my PC gaming, but I never run into any of the problems people go on about. Hell, I've only had one or two bluescreens since Win98 due to some crappy display drivers! This PC is on practically 24/7, and I only ever turn it off when I'm going to be away for more than four days!

Re:F*ck Microsoft

[jonadab]

> What on earth are you doing to it?! I don't remember the last time I reinstalled
> windows because my PC still runs like a dream, and I've punished the crap out of it.

You're probably using an NT-based version, such as Windows XP.

The Windows 95/98/Me product line had a very strong tendency to need reinstalled every year or two, and I can easily see how with heavy use it might need it more often. The other poster said "back when I still used Windows", so he may have switched from this now-discontinued product line. Although, he also mentions Ubuntu, which if I'm not mistaken is at least a couple of years newer than Windows XP. Then again, Windows XP had a pretty bad reputation for the first couple of years, so some people avoided it, kind of like people are avoiding Vista now. So he may have still been using Windows 98, even though XP was available, and dual-booting to Ubuntu.

Re:F*ck Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Heard of Ghost?

Re:F*ck Microsoft

[fonduesatdawn]

I still have the same Windows XP I did when I met my girlfriend almost six years ago. Yes, I had lots of sex since then. I also partied a lot. I have intimate knowledge of Windows (and my girlfriend, but let's leave that)

chill out dude, this is slashdot, we know!

Re:F*ck Microsoft

[whereareweheadedto]

Hehe, I know :)

Re:F*ck Microsoft

[Aphoxema]

Oh, I didn't do it because things stopped working, I did it because for some mysterious reason everything ran faster in the first couple weeks. Then when I started using Ubuntu I was shocked to find I didn't have to reinstall to get this refreshing boost in responsiveness all over again.

Re:F*ck Microsoft

[Aphoxema]

That's like using a nuclear bomb to get rid of an anthill.

Re:Emulate IE7

[CannonballHead]

IE only websites has always been a lazy web developer problem, not an IE problem. There are still issues between Opera and Firefox that developers have to stay away from in order to get it to render correctly in both (and a lot of mozilla issues, too... like opacity).

At least it's better than IE6

[Quest4RelativeTruth]

IE6 is the worst browser ever, and they should force people to use IE7 or 8 if they're going to use IE. I'm all for Microsoft doing a security update which automatically upgrades users to IE7 (not that it's much better). Anyone with any sense doesn't use IE anyway.

Why branding ?

[billcopc]

I never really understood the value of OEM branding. I've already bought the damned PC, what more do they want ? Having a stupid Dell logo spin in IE while their site fails to load, is not going to make me want to buy more Dell gear.

People take branding way too seriously, especially when we're talking about major brands that everyone knows.

Re:Why branding ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but it might make anyone who looks over your shoulder think about getting some Dell gear. Same reason retail stores put their logo on your shopping bags.

Re:Why branding ?

[Anonymous Coward]

People take branding way too seriously, especially when we're talking about major brands that everyone knows.

Or, to put it another way: everyone knows these major brands because their companies take branding seriously.

Re:Why branding ?

[CodeBuster]

Why branding? Probably because a substantial portion of the Dell and other mass market PC buyers out there (i.e. the ones who refer to the blue "E" as "Internet" and couldn't tell you what browser they are using or even what a browser is) will believe whatever their vendors tell them about the PC they purchased. They might believe that "the Internet" as they know it is only available with Dell. That is what other vendors are up against and that is why branding matters.

Actually a blessing

[ProzacPatient]

I expected a lot of MS-bashing when I saw this but I have to say that this is going to be a huge blessing to web developers.
The sooner IE8 makes it to mainstream as the predominate version of IE the better because developing websites that are compatible between IE8 and Mozila/Opera/Webkit/KHTML is much easier then it was in the past.
Unfortunately though because of the huge flaws, non-standard compliance, of previous versions of IE; it is going to break a lot of websites that have special "IE fixes" (Which I am against for the most because of reasons like this).

Re:Actually a blessing

[Yvan256]

Actually, if you made your website with Microsoft's conditionnal comments (which are, by any other definition, simple comments) and were smart enough to only assume specific versions/ranges (i.e. don't do "if GTE IE7", do "if IE7") then you'll be safe.

Please bring in IE8 already, if only to make IE6 go away. That thing is a menace.

Great......

[ducomputergeek]

Now I hope they've got the rendering problems solved. Our site now renders fine in IE 6 and 7, but didn't work at all in 8 Beta. In RC1, it worked, but looked really funky with some divs being split in two with one half rendering on spot on the screen and the other half rendering somewhere else.

60% of our traffic is still MSIE based since most people are ordering from work and their office PC's have MSIE installed by default.

Re:And?

[gadget junkie]

The painful truth is MS products are good enough in most people's eyes, and that's all that matters at the moment. The computer is a means to an end to most people. They have real, actual concerns to deal with that don't involve nerd drama.

right and wrong at the same time. Yes, to my wife the PC is just a tool, to browse the internet and download e-mail, but even if the computer runs XP pro, she does use Firefox and Thunderbird... so if i had to change the computer to Vista, or Windows seven, I could always set up an ubuntu rig, she'd probably not even notice.

Why did I do that? because with most new versions of old software by Microsoft, be it office, IE, or vista, the unskilled user has had a more troubling experience, a steeper learning curve, and in many cases a noticeable lack of performance. try installing Vista on a 20 month old hardware, and you'll get the question "can I go back to what I was using?", followed by "is there something else?"

So no, it's not the slashdot crowd that's whining at windows anymore, it's the MS customer crowd. Slashdotters only gloat.

Re:Just so long as IE6 goes AWAY

[Yvan256]

Score: +several millions insightful

Re:Can we stop writing webpages for IE6 now?

[Yvan256]

We can only hope that IE8 will make IE6 go away sooner than later.

IE8 for people already using Windows XP?

[Yvan256]

Is IE8 for Windows Vista only or can we install it on Windows XP too? Please tell me I won't have to manage yet another Microsoft OS through VMWare just to test websites in IE8...

Re:IE8 for people already using Windows XP?

[Saija]

it can be installed in XP, i just installed a release candidate some days ago and work great, don't use it much but the few pages i've opened with seems to work good

Re:IE8 for people already using Windows XP?

[drinkypoo]

Is IE8 for Windows Vista only or can we install it on Windows XP too?

I can understand not reading the article. I can even be persuaded to understand not reading the summary. But not reading the title before commenting? Slashdot? YOU FAIL IT!

Re:IE8 for people already using Windows XP?

[drinkypoo]

What part was it that caused you to check the "Post Anonymously" box? A sudden attack of cowardice? Regardless, there's no way M$ would add IE8 to XP and not offer it as a download. IE8 is part of their world domination plan, and people will be using XP for some time yet.

March? They're rushing IE8. This could be bad.

[TodLiebeck]

As a developer of an AJAX-based web framework, I'm upset to see IE8 being thrown out the door so quickly. RC1 was nothing short of a disaster: it had a performance bug where nesting absolute-positioned DIVs would result in exponential performance decreases.

Test case here: http://echo.nextapp.com/content/test/ie8/

The 25-nested DIV test would require killing the browser. Nesting absolutely positioned DIVs is somewhat fundamental to delivering application-style user interface layouts in a web browser.

I reported this bug everywhere I could, and Microsoft actually did a great job in responding to it. They say they've found it and fixed it. But there is no way for us to test this. We must simply take their word for it and wait. They're going from RC1 to final, and begging and pleading for an interim build didn't warrant much of a response.

From reading forums (e.g. Ajaxian: http://ajaxian.com/archives/push-back-digital-tv-or-ie-8), my IE8 experience is not uncommon with other web frameworks as well. The average developer's opinion there suggests RC1 is nowhere near ready for a final release. Every build of IE8 (beta1, beta2, win 7's "beta2+", and the RC) have each had major unique problems not found in other releases.

I have developers asking me if their software will work in IE8 on day 1 and the only honest answer is "I have absolutely no idea." Anyone (without a final build) who tells you otherwise, even offerring a rough estimate, is a liar, IMHO.

I don't understand the point of putting out a "release candidate" and then not using feedback to determine whether the next release is a "candidate" or a "final". Our bug alone means that IE8 RC1 has never been publicly tested with many complex web-based applications.

KDawson is the Fox Mulder of Slashdot.

[Deathlizard]

I have to agree this is getting out of hand. I expect Slashdot to be Linux biased, but at the very least bash Microsoft with real news that matters, no BS made by BS'ers.

I've been here for years, and for what it's worth, kdawson is the most biased editor I've ever seen on this site. Period. No one else even comes close. I wouldn't even have a problem with that if there was solid evidence to back the stories he posts, but 9 our of 10 times he posts crap from some blogger that has an axe to grind, or infers something from a simple article to mean totally something else. Like this story for instance.

I'm almost positive I could put in a journal entry saying "Windows 7 Killed my Baby!", post a three paragraph rant on how my (nonexistant BTW) kid died from SIDS while I was installing Windows 7, post it to the firehose, and he would post it as front page news.

So, I've come to the conclusion that kdawson is the Fox Mulder of Slashdot. He believes that there's this all encompassing Microsoft Conspiracy to destroy everything not M$, and will do whatever he can to convince everyone he sees of this Vast M$ conspiracy regardless if the evidence is nonexistant to circumstantial at best.

"But what about unwanted stuff like "

[Anonymous Coward]

But what about unwanted stuff like ... etc.

          Well, what about it? That's par for the course if you get a Windows PC it is not really yours. The OEM plasters it with advertisements, shovelware, and various junk to keep the user experience under their control. Microsoft shovels on DRM to keep it under the MPAA and RIAAs control. With a Windows system (especially OEM) you are not in control of your own system. Solution? Do not get a Windows PC. My next machine will likely have Ubuntu (or Ubuntu Remix) on it. It will definitely not have Windows, I simply refuse to pay for it.

Same'ol Slashdot

[FyberOptic]

People talk as if this is a bad thing. Having actually used the beta myself, unlike many of the people commenting here I'm sure, I can say that IE8 is in fact better than IE7. If Apple or Linux distributed the newest versions of their software in this same fashion, this would be a non-issue.

Re:Will there be a choice?

[Kalriath]

Not instead of, but you could install Firefox and set it as the default browser using Set Program Access and Defaults, and apart from applications which explicitly request IE using DDE, Firefox would appear to be the only browser installed.

Re:March? They're rushing IE8. This could be bad.

[Curate]

I hadn't heard about this bug before, but I just tested out the bug using your web page, and the bug must have been fixed. All three pages (17 DIV, 21 DIV, and 25 DIV) loaded instantaneously. I'm using an unreleased internal build of IE8. Thank you for submitting the bug report to the IE team!

This is a GOOD thing

[jonwil]

Whilst it would be nice if OEMs shipped Firefox, Safari, Opera, SeaMonkey, Chrome or something else, fact is, they aren't. If they are going to ship IE, its FAR better that they ship IE8 instead of IE6. (IE8 is more standards compliant AND more secure than IE6)

Free Parking

[CobaltBlueDW]

IDK why everyone clings to the whole IE integration thing. That's probably one of the least monopolistic things M$ does.

It's like calling the cops on a burglar because they didn't wipe their feet in the entry way.

Re:March? They're rushing IE8. This could be bad.

[TodLiebeck]

Just tried your link with IE8 from W7.7000 and had no problems at all...

The stock W7 IE8 build is unaffected. It's between beta2 and RC1 though.

Re:March? They're rushing IE8. This could be bad.

[TodLiebeck]

I hadn't heard about this bug before, but I just tested out the bug using your web page, and the bug must have been fixed. All three pages (17 DIV, 21 DIV, and 25 DIV) loaded instantaneously. I'm using an unreleased internal build of IE8. Thank you for submitting the bug report to the IE team!

Good to hear it's still the case. This is what I've been told by other MS folks working on the problem. My concern is not about this bug, but rather the fact that IE8 RC1 had quite a few major flaws in it, yet there will be no RC2. With a product as influential as Internet Explorer, you need to wait until your release candidates are reasonably well accepted by the public before you fire the final.

As a software developer, I find that when you ship a really buggy alpha version (or beta/RC), all you're going to get as feedback are the truly GLARING bug reports. If you want to get the edge cases, you've got to release something that's polished enough for people to spend time using. IE8 hasn't done that yet.

Hardly just an "opinion," certainly not personal

[weston]

It's not ignorance - it's disagreement with your personal opinion.

If you have some kind of refutation regarding my "opinion" about IE6, then I'm interested. have my doubts that you've got any such thing, however, if you can casually dismiss it as "just an opinion."

It's certainly not just my personal opinion. It's not just groupthink opinion. It's a rather deserved judgment shared by just about every person I've ever encountered who's tried to do any serious client side development on the web, it's the opinion of tens of thousands of developers who've had to do systems or application-level development on anything Microsoft touched before Win2k, it's the opinion of tens of thousands whose projects and employment were touched by anti-competetive practices back in the day when Microsoft's market power wasn't just great it was genuinely frightening.

Re:Emulate IE7

[Firehed]

Well, cross-browser javascript problems go away* with JS frameworks such as jQuery, and unless you're doing something insane (read: probably wrong) with CSS, coding logically and to standards** will get it correct in Firefox/Safari/Opera/IE8, pretty damn close in IE7, and still quite reasonable in IE6. I'm certainly not defending IE6/7 nor the practices of the developers who cater to those browsers - if you can even call them developers - but a lot of problems are as much the fault of bad CSS/HTML as they are the fault of IE6's FUBAR CSS rendering.

Thankfully, Microsoft seems to have listened to the outcry of developers when it comes to IE8 - I've had no issues with it so far, other than it still having very poor JS performance. It seems to be pretty smart about when to render in standards mode and when to render in IE6/IE7 fallback mode. It certainly won't become my every-day browser by any stretch of the imagination, but it'll take a good chunk out of the "time spent cursing Microsoft" wedge of the web development time usage pie chart.

*well, 99% of the time, at least. Of the rare problems I've seen, it's more a DOM issue than one specific to any one browser. Like innerHTML always returning HTML instead of XHTML, even with an XHTML doctype. Honestly, that's about it, from what I've noticed.

**CSS2 is pretty safe, at least. As you rightly mention, some properties such as opacity fall apart in older versions of Firefox, not to mention the -webkit/-moz properties and pseudo-selectors.

You check the dictionary (and log in next time)

[XanC]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incentive

Allow me to quote:

incentive
noun
1. something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward offered for increased productivity.

adjective
2. inciting, as to action; stimulating; provocative.

Stockholm Syndrome

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

Your stalwart defence of MS and lack of knowledge outside the MS realm[...]

I think that is actually the psychological condition known as the Redmond Syndrome, where victims identify with the cause of the perpetrator. A very well known case once occurred in Stockholm...

Parent being informative proves the point

[jonaskoelker]

ftp [...]
cd [...]
get [...]

(parent gets modded +1 informative)

So, geeks know how to download stuff via ftp, I assume. So parent is modded informative due to providing the information I elided. I assume that's because the moderator didn't know the information off-hand.

How on earth can you then expect a user to know it? If you don't, how do you think they'll look it up? With the mighty web browser called "telnet"?

Besides, how many of you can remember this information? How many of you took notes of it? When you need it, are you going to look up this slashdot post with telnet?

Something is not right here...

On a related note...

[jonaskoelker]

I've found out that the danish telephone company 3 plays advertisement music when you call one of "their" phones (meaning the phone of someone getting their telephony services from 3).

The way I see this: you're a captive audience. Let's exploit the fact that you pretty much have to listen to whatever is coming your way if you want to make the phone call: let's shove some advertisement down your throat.

That's something I won't do to the people who know me and who I respect. So because of the phone company's branding effort, they've lost me as a potential customer.

Re:And?

[Runaway1956]

And, how much time, money, and headache have you spent in the past year, trying to prevent or cure viral infections on your Microsoft machine? Oh, I know, there are free AV's. They can be set up to do everything automagically. You're not out any money, and you're only out the hour or so spent downloading and setting up your AV. Problem is - it doesn't always work. Corporations have lost many BILLIONS in the last decade, because Microsoft systems are insecure. As for me, Debian's default installation is secure against almost every exploit on the internet today. Almost, I say. Nothing is perfect. But, it's safe to say, if every corporation in America switched to Debian or some other unix like operating system, they would save TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS within the next decade. Refute that, my freind.

What about Safari...

[Yadyn]

How come nobody is knocking on Apple for being a "monopolizer" since they have the GALL to bundle Safari with their OS? Where are the mandated Safari-less copies of OS X for the EU market?

Re:And?

[oliderid]

And, how much time, money, and headache have you spent in the past year, trying to prevent or cure viral infections on your Microsoft machine?

No a single second for mmmmh 4 years (?). The trick:

• I do not install warez
• I do not install freebies such as "Free screensaver!"
• I do not surf (anymore ;-) ) on freeboobs.com
• I do not surf on www.warezzz.org
• I do not open suspicious pamela_anderson_loves_you.zip
• I've got a firewall
• I use firefox
• I use thunderbird
• I only install software from legitimate sources.
• I only install software from well known and legitimate sources.
• I only keep applications that I use.

No antivirus, nothing. That's all. I have no kids, my gf has her own PC. I do understand that most windows users aren't wise but it is really possible to use Windows without an AV.

Re:Emulate IE7

[CannonballHead]

True, and I use jQuery and do w3 checks on xhtml, etc. But there are old browsers, non-IE old browsers at that, that still fail. IE just seems to be a bit behind lately, heh.

I haven't had any issues lately with IE, not even in IE7, for the most part. That may be just good coding (definitely not on my part though ;) ), or it's just acid3 tests that nobody actually does anyways...