Slashdot Mirror
Sony To Put Chrome On Laptops
consonant writes "FT is reporting that Google has reached a deal with Sony to ship Chrome on the Vaio line of PCs. Google confirmed that Sony PCs carrying Chrome had started to go on sale and said it was in talks for similar deals with other computer makers. It said the arrangement was 'experimental' and part of wider efforts to boost distribution, including a deal to make Chrome available to internet users who download the RealPlayer software and the company's first use of television advertising. While mainstream media coverage and financial details were very sparse, El Reg terms it a 'Microsoft-snubbing deal.'
Google also mentioned it was pushing for similar deals with other vendors. Could this spell the beginning of the end for IE?"
I guess what's good for Bills in congress is now good for Installing Software.
Good or bad Software, I hate being marketed-to during a software install.
It's like trying to paint a wall in your house and having the paint can or paint roller through advertising at you! DO NOT WANT!
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Here we go again. Anyone think MS is going to pull the same crap that they did when OEMs tried bundling Netscape?
OMG Run! It must be rootkited!!
It refers to the Chrome browser, not the OS
Google *paid* Sony to pre-install Chrome, just like Symantec pays for Norton bloatware to be pre-installed on HP (etc.) notebooks. There seems to be a sort of OEM market here; for years already. Nothing to see here; move along.
Doesn't sound like it. Market forces at play ... except that Google has a near monopoly in one area, and could be using that to extend into other areas, just like how IE got its dominance in the first place. We'll need to see more details before wondering if this could be anti-competitive (leveraging one monopoly illegally in another area).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYs
On behalf of all the web developers and security people out there, let me post this for them.
Could this spell the beginning of the end for IE?
Or the end of privacy?
I'm probably not the only one who was startled that the Chrome OS would be on Sony laptops. Oh, well.
811.29.3.2
For some reason, I thought it was talking about the Chrome OS, which was particularly interesting because that'd be a big thing for a new OS, and because we haven't really seen much of the OS so far.
Shame on Google for naming two different things Chrome. It only causes confusion.
Probably nothing worthwhile..
I work with lots of laptops and sony is never one of them. I'd say Apple laptops are making a larger dent in IE than Sony ever could.
Pimp my laptop! Spinners on the fans, remote unfold, a cappucino maker in the CD-ROM bay, and chrome eeeverywhere. Whaaaaat!
... who imagined a laptop with 22"s, spinners, and a sound system that could drown out a space shuttle launch.
Does this mean they will be more durable? Made with REAL CHROME!
wait.. wait.. wait.. wait?????!!!
google chrome bundled alongside real player.....well there goes the neighborhood...
ah i forget.....Vaio's are those laptops that you have to format right after you buy them so they get rid of the tons of useless crap...
-Noc
I purchased a Viao a few months back and was surprised to see Chrome appear on the desktop instead of IE. If Google wants to buy browser market share more power to them. I had not tried Chrome before and I'm glad I have, its a great browser.
What happens when Good and evil combine? And why would anyone buy a computer of all things from a company that has placed rootkits on their paying customers' gear?
This doesn't make me think more highly of Sony, it tarnishes Google in my view.
Free Martian Whores!
The FT article (short and worth reading) is basically saying that Chrome's adoption is low and they are making OEM deals, advertising, and doing a "crapware" bundle with RealPlayer install. According to Google they are "frustrat[ed] at what they consider a lack of interest among internet users about browsers." and want to push awareness. According to Google they want to push browser development and competition:
"It's not so important everyone uses Google Chrome, it's more important browser technology evolves as fast as it can." said Mr Rakowski. Chrome set new records in terms of its speed, prompting a race among rivals to boost the performance of their own software.
The "browser snub" headline is just an attention grabber by the Register (go figure). I don't see this being much different than any other OEM making deals with third party application vendors to install and use their software as a default.
The thing I really don't like about this is the OEM deciding what third party software I use. If they are going to fool around here they should offer the default OS software or even better a list of options. I like to use Firefox. I would much rather install it by dowloading from IE than having some random third party vendor. I like Chrome, but I don't trust Google and I don't like how their software is installed along with their updater. I also hate the crapware opt-outs I have to watch for although to be fair vendors other than Google participate in that practice (Sun, Microsoft, Yahoo!, etc).
Don't think of it as a flame, more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage.
I'm all for Google getting Chrome on to vendor boxes, but it's not likely going to "end" IE. Nor should it! It should open up more competition and force MS (Chrome and Fire Fox too!) to improve their standards compliance though.
If Chrome manages to "end" IE's existence, how are we as consumers helped? We're stuck with Google overlords instead of MS overlords? Wow, that's a great improvement...
We are much better served by having multiple main stream browsers that all force each other to maintain tight adhesion to standards and to continue to push innovation.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Microsoft will start paying companies to keep IE just like they paid people to put IE on computers in the Netscape days. They paid vendors to put XP on netbooks when Linux was the only OS used so it's just a matter of time. And watch for the studies stating 4x the hassles when using Chrome over IE.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Why are we even continuing to ask this question? IE will never go away, and we all know this. As long as Microsoft has adequate competition, they will devote adequate resources to develop an adequate browser. And IE8 is that; perfectly adequate. Is it great at Acid3? Absolutely not. Does it do what most people want it to, most of the time? Sure; and the end result of that is that most people will never care enough to switch.
Will this deal be the beginning of the end for IE6? Now that's a question I want an affirmative answer to. I'd hope so, but it wont. That pos is being kept alive by the needs of organizations who are stuck using internal web apps that overworked programmers kludged together for IE 6. And it's going to take a whole lot more than a new Vaio (That will be slicked and re-imaged before the suits even notice this 'Chrome' thingy), to penetrate the rancid cloud of decay emanating from their decrepit web browser of choice before they pay to have those reworked.
Will it be the default browser?
When I first read it, I thought Sony has gone off the deep end and added more "bling" to their laptops.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Chrome as it currently stands won't ever garner wide enterprise acceptance.
In Windows, Chrome installs itself into the user's profile folder under the Local Settings folder, rather than into the traditional Program Files folder location.
This appears to be done to try to circumvent user restrictions, often imposed by network administrators to prevent users from installing unauthorized software. While this may work in some settings, any well crafted software restriction policy will prevent this attempt to bypass security restrictions.
As well, by failing to follow proscribed methods for installing software on Windows, Google is actually making it difficult for enterprises that might choose to distribute Chrome on their networks.
Until Google addresses this issue by creating an IT department friendly version of Chrome, it doesn't stand a chance of making any inroads on enterprise networks.
Wow... more bloatware on a VAIO, how surprising. They have like 10gb of junk programs you'll never use... now Google can add their buggy and insecure browser to the mix.
BTW.. has anyone actually USED Chrome? I have, and let's just say MS has nothing to worry about.
So will end users see it as "Google Chrome" or "Browse the internet"?
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
Thank all the computer gads for the PCDecrapifier http://www.pcdecrapifier.com/ Now we can add Google's browser to the list of unwanted pre-installed gunkware.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
IIRC Google is at least on the standards committee, which is more than I can say of Microsoft.
$ make available
If Chrome manages to "end" IE's existence, how are we as consumers helped?
Uh, Microsoft is forced to make IE worth using? Duh...
I run a cybercafe. All the computers have Firefox and that Blue e on the desktop. Nobody uses Firefox. If there's no Blue E on the desktop, I sometimes get a question like "how do you open the internet here? ". Back comes a blue "e" icon. If you remove the "blue e", and call something else "internet", that sometimes does the trick. Then there's the problems of the microsoft-only websites. Several small details of sites only work properly under IE. More questions.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
If Chrome manages to "end" IE's existence, how are we as consumers helped? We're stuck with Google overlords instead of MS overlords?
The problem isn't that Microsoft is an overlord, but that Internet Explorer is a crappy piece of software that causes headaches for web developers. If they cannot come up with a better browser, it's their fault.
Everybody is better off without IE.
There is a plug-in for Firefox that will let you use Firefox on the Windows Update site! Though I doubt an "Average" User could get it to work, from a quick glance at the instructions! Is there even any way to get the Chrome browser to work with Microsoft Update!! If not, what are the folks in Europe going to do to keep Windows up to date ???
I thought the beginning of the end for IE was when Firefox gained more than 20% of the browser market share.
Seriously, IE is going to be the default browser for a lot of people. A lot of IE users will look at Chrome and say "bleck". Firefox users, on the other hand, are more open to experimentation. Thus, I think this is going to affect Firefox's market share more than anything else.
Presently, I am no fan of Microsoft and am somewhere close to neutral about Google. We know what to expect of Microsoft. Google is quickly becoming a wildcard and they are primarily an advertiser and ultimately sells its soul to the highest bidders.
The way I see it, the more Google software you install on your computer, the more information Google has to collect and use with their privacy promises always subject to change like everyone else's. (Ever notice you don't even get to know exactly what is being collected on you let alone be able to purge or delete it?)
For once I would like to see a computer with just the OS and a disk of things that "could" be installed by the user. Let the machine run as fast and as efficiently as possible to begin with.
...which is more than I can say of Microsoft.
No it's not
... I'll be impressed when I Toyota agrees to put Chrome in the Prius.
Anybody want a peanut?
No. Not likely.
But why is Google getting these deals? I'm betting it is because the OEMs want some of that sweet search revenue from Google. Google is dominant in the online advertising market, and now they are using that dominance to get OEM deals to distribute Chrome.
Sounds a bit like Microsoft, doesn't it?
How are other browser vendors going to compete with Google here exactly? How can they possibly compete with Google's 50/50 revenue split? If Mozilla does this, they won't be able to offer more than a third for each party: Themselves, the OEM, and the search provider (likely Google). Is that a similar unfair advantage to Microsoft's operating system monopoly and the destruction of the browser market?
Clever signature text goes here.
I totally would buy a nice, shiny, chrome-plated laptop!
Oh wait, you are talking about a web browser. I think some perspective is needed: http://xkcd.com/198/
And of course a huge spoiler!
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
", but it's not likely going to "end" IE. Nor should it! "
Yes it should IE is a horrible browser.
Consumers are helped becasue the best Browser won.
Of course, there will still be plenty of other option besides IE.
Naturally if MS actually improves IE, that's also good.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
One of the World's most compact, lightweight and fast browsers will be included in that gigantic bundle DVD (yes, CD not enough) which I noticed most Sony users/fans hate, especially after Vista/Win7.
I am afraid to ask if Sony will provide updates or Google? In case of Google, welcome to "check updates for every 2 hours", in case of Sony, security updates not shipped for weeks...
This really makes no sense both for Google and Sony, maker of high end multimedia laptops. Normally, each Chrome install benefits us, Apple users (Webkit based) but this thing really doesn't make too much sense. Especially imagining compatibility hell Sony users will live when they browse Sony support pages themselves. I had to run IE under Virtual PC 7 (PPC) just couple of months ago, to help a Vaio emergency.
"...sells its soul to the highest bidders."
hyperbole much? clearly you are not neutral, that was a poor attempt to try to seem non biased to validate your point.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That was a huge letdown. I thought the OS was what would be installed on the Sony laptops. I thought Google had a huge leg up all of a sudden. The browser being installed isn't that big a deal.
The problem for MS is that a lot of content depends on IE's legacy behavior. Standards compliance is primarily a developer's issue in particular for developers that don't use IE for browsing or even run Windows (except for testing). The later you introduce a browser the easier it is to be compliant because you don't have any legacy users to piss off.
What would prevent Microsoft from striking similar deals with other OEMs, effectively numbing the effects of European regulators? They should go for it.
Meanwhile, Google should improve their Chrome browser's interface so that it is more appealing to the first time user. It is not that beautiful at first sight.
Mock-ups from folks at Mozilla could be an inspiration.
This becomes a nasty little quandary for the ethics department - and it'll be interesting to see what comes of it. The Chrome browser is not only fairly decent (ignoring the current lack of extensions), but evolving at what can only be considered to be an alarming rate, at least if your a competitor.
Microsoft is on the committee, too.
You know, you could check these things before posting them. You'd sound less stupid.
Comment of the year
Because, monopoly or otherwise, right now, the Google overlords are better than the MS overlords.
I don't want another monopoly either, however, I'll take Google over MS at this point, its the lesser of two evils.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
As long as Chrome allows the download of Firefox...
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
If you're a web developer and you're not keeping up on web browser releases, then shame on you. Microsoft *has* come up with a better browser; it's called IE8.
Your problem is with IE6, not with IE. Unfortunately, while Microsoft has the ability to release better versions of IE, they don't have the magical ability to go back in time and remove IE6 from existence, which is I think the only thing that would make wags like you happy.
Look, Microsoft wants to upgrade people to newer versions of IE as much as you do. Don't blame Microsoft for people still using IE6, blame all the companies out there with lazy IT departments-- they are the ones holding on to IE6 for dear life.
Comment of the year
Would IE still be installed on the laptops along side Chrome? If so, this really doesn't matter.
"During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
height:100%
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Sony put Chrome in the PSP, or Opera or anything but the browser used now is crap.
seriously? this is just getting up here? They've been doing this for almost a month now...
That's what advertisers do. If they don't do that, they won't be advertisers for long. Google is a very successful advertiser. You must accept reality for what it is. Lions and tigers will eat people given the opportunity and the need. It's what we call "the nature of the beast." I can accept that Google exists as an advertisement based business. In general, I disapprove of advertisers as in general, they do not have much respect or regard for their target audience.
That said, I am still neutral about Google as it has given much to the community at large and offers many cool and useful free things. Would it be more accurate to say I am "torn" with regards to Google?
Yup, that's probably it. Dell et al preload their machines with all sorts of unwanted, never asked for crap including Norton, MS Works etc. I just bought a new Dell and spent quite some cleaning all the unwanted junk & default links off the thing.
Not to turn this into an Apple love fest but the lack of "extras" was something I found pleasantly surprising when I purchased my Mac Book Pro. Only "extra" software was iLife and Safari (If you consider a browser extra)--no partner crap, no dial-up links, no "lite" versions of applications with nag screens, no extra links to online games...nothing but a computer OS.
I guess another reason Macs might be a little higher in price: no crapware to defer the cost of the machine at the expense of the user and machine performance.
I love the sound of distortion in the morning -- webcommando
Provide Chrome on the PS3, and I'm golden! Please? Google? Sony? Heck, any decent modern browser would be great. Anyone?
You sure about that?
But it did not happen. Even before IE7 and IE8 were released, before Chrome, when FF was rising rapidly among the geeky users. What kind of incentives Microsoft was giving to the vendors to make them forego the obvious marketing plan? Must have been a really really sweet deal. Now a struggling fourth ranked vendor Sony is breaking the ranks. It is to be expected. Sony has least to lose and most to gain by antogonizing Microsoft. But this gives other top three vendors some more clout. They will negotiate for a tougher deal from Microsoft, even if they dont break ranks. If they do, Microsoft will finally abandon all the sweeteners and all the vendors will seek brand differentiation by installing various packages.
But no user is going to accept non inter operable PCs. The result is going to be, Microsoft has to make its products interoperable with others, web sites have to become standard compliant etc etc. It is good for the future. Microsoft's market share might never fall below 50% in OS or Office or 33% in Browser. But merely adding a new player enhances the standard compliance and levels the playing field.
The deal is good for the future
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
People are already too stupid to tell the difference between XP and IE, why would Google go against that paradigm?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Don't blame Microsoft for people still using IE6, blame all the companies out there with lazy IT departments-- they are the ones holding on to IE6 for dear life.
Who sold those IT departments IE6 as the panacea? Which company wrote lazy software that assumed a completely open, no security, no check, ActiveX enabled all the way to hell and back IE6 as the front end to corporate clients? Which company was so blinded by Netscape's rise that it did despo things just to kill Netscape and in that process created a mess that it can not clean up?
It was the shortsightedness of Microsoft that spawned this monster IE6. Microsoft could not tell the difference between ease of use and lack of security. No one else has to be blamed for it.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Windows 7 Breaks 1% Share
XP 71.79%
Vista 18.8%
OSX 10.5 3.45%
Win 7 1.18%
OSX 10.4 0.99%
Linux 0.94%
W2K 0.92%
iPhone 0.33%
Operating System Market Share [August]
Browser Version Market Share [August]
IE 6 25%
IE 7 21%
IE 8 15%
FFX 3 12%
FFX 3.5 9%
Safari 2.6%
Chrome 2.0 2.5%
IE 8 Compatability Mode 2.5 %
Opera 9.x 1.8%
Search Engine Market Share [August]
Google 76%
Yahoo 12%
Bing 8% [Up about 1% since July]
AOL 2%
IE doesn't seem to be in any immediate danger. That can't be said for the "alternative browsers."
If I were the Moz Foundation, I would be out looking for other sources of revenue. Just to be on the safe side.
I often find myself working in bed, next to my (sleeping) wife. Recently, I was looking for a new laptop. MacBook Pro was one obvious option, so I thought I'd take a look at the PCs as well, given that Windows 7 is coming out soon and all. The only somewhat decent option was Sony FW series, but it disqualified itself on two counts:
1. Very noisy trackpad buttons. Jesus freaking Christ, why is it that only Apple thinks of details like this?
2. Crippled virtualization support. I know I can flash a hacked BIOS onto it, but WTF? Who was the genius that decided to disable it by default?
So MacBook Pro it will be (again).
My parents bought a Sony VAIO for my brother just before he was deployed to Kosovo. It arrived at the very beginning of August and I prepared it for him, installing a few games and other programs. The Chrome browser was preinstalled. This was a Vista Business install with the "no crapware, thanks" option selected when ordering.
Microsoft actually chairs some of the standards committees and has been involved with them for much longer than Google.
http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html
No, it isn't.
Darn.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That would stop MS forcing its idiotic ways on the Internet.
Perhaps then they would try to make good products instead of leveraging their monopolistic position.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Google can up the offer if needed.
Or they can pay other manufacturers.
And frankly in an era when Google=Internet, which manufacturers will shun it to favour Microsoft?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio. And in magazines. And movies. And at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts and written on the sky. But not in dreams. No siree!
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Chrome is a fine web browser, but it's hardly a complete product.
It doesn't even have Print Preview for chrissakes!
And that is why I just replaced my laptop OS with a Debian Testing Netinstall; only the software which I want is installed. 8-)
fuck off, bitch
I believe that when the submitter refers to IE, he refers to the legacy of IE, particularly its popularity despite its standards non-compliance. This may well be another death for the old IE.
And, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft would actually resort to changing the IE brand in the future, if things got really rough.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Chrome is pretty slick and very fast compared to IE. Its also following Googles principles of keeping it simple. IE on the other hand is bloating out like a pregnant pig. IE8 is just abysmal. On a modern fast four core desktop thats no biggie but since the most popular computers right now are smartphones and netbooks performance counts a boatload in reality.
HTTP/1.1 400
sYESeKwLA3P=v?hctaw/moc.ebutuoy.www//:ptth
factor 966971: 966971
Wow, that's a great improvement...
I know you said that with great sarcasm, but it actually would be an improvement. Google has proven they'll keep innovating, even when in a dominant position. Microsoft has proven the opposite. So although competition is best - yes, we'd be better off, stuck with Google overlords.
Uh, IE8 is still far worse than every other browser. It only looks "good" in comparison to how horrifyingly bad IE6 and IE7 are.
If Chrome were to "end" IE existence consumers would be helped because a world of interoperable standard compliant browsers would become a possibility.
Now this article is in fact sentationalist because Chrome is nowhere near ending IE existence. But then the prospect of Chrome ending IE existence in the short to medium term is just as irrealistic as the prospect of Microsoft maintaining a thight adhesion to standards. They just can't. This wouldn't be Microsoft. They have to "embrace and extend", leverage monopoly power, play incompatibility games to undermine comptetitors. They always have and always will, or at the very least will for the few coming years.
Yes, we are better served by having multiple mainstream browsers like Opera, Firefox, Safari and Chrome. But this list does not have to include IE and, looking at recent history, probably shouldn't.
It's a shady journalism tactic. If you want someone to read/watch/buy your otherwise boring article/show/tabloid, you ask your audience a question in the headline or at the end of the summary. The question is not designed to pique your curiosity, or (directly) provoke discussion, it's designed to evoke anger, fear, or shock. It's designed to manipulate you.
The best example I can think of is the typical mid-prime-time nightly news ad: "Are your children safe from Internet predators?" "Is your house killing you?" "Will tonight's full moon turn your dog turn into a werewolf who will disembowel you just after you've nodded off watching pathetic infomercials in the wee hours of the morning? Details at 11."
Now let's take the Slashdot one apart: "Could this spell the beginning of the end for IE?" The Slashdot editors know their audience: 20- or 30-something males. Almost all computer computer experts in some way. Most lean strongly to the left, politically speaking. A good majority are Linux users (who browse from work using IE) and a large percentage are into other hard sciences like aerospace, biotech, engineering, and so on. And we Slashdotters hate Microsoft. They laugh in the face of standards and defiantly write applications to be *deliberately* incompatible with existing standards, even when there is no reason to. Just to be jerks. Bullies. What infuriates us the most is that even when we Linux geeks have retreated completely into our Linux-only man caves, we continue to be confronted with websites that only work in IE, and nifty programs that only run on Windows.
We Slashdotters desperately want to see the Microsoft bully get his due. And boy howdy are we going to tell all the other Slashdotters about it after an obvious question like that.
</armchair psychology>
I can't believe Google is now bundling with both SONY and worst of all REAL !!
.... Apple ?
Who's next?
I'll see your hokum and raise you a boondoggle.
Chrome rootkit...
sigs are for nerds
Nice for them but that'll only affect everyday users anyway.
People who know a thing or three about computers usually wipe new machines and install it fresh anyway.
Personally I'll stay with Firefox and Opera. That's a proven combination.
Wow. Foam at the mouth, much?
Who sold those IT departments IE6 as the panacea?
Companies like Oracle and Siemens and IBM and others. Companies that offered intranet applications that relied on ActiveX and other IE6-only technologies. Oh, were you expecting me to say "Microsoft?" Sorry.
Which company wrote lazy software that assumed a completely open, no security, no check, ActiveX enabled all the way to hell and back IE6 as the front end to corporate clients?
Ok. ActiveX ranting.
Was ActiveX insecure? Yes. Ok? Let's get over that point right now.
Now, as to Microsoft including it in IE... HTML was originally designed to be extensible. We now (as an IT community) realize that this was a bad idea, but that doesn't change the fact that it was designed to be extensible. HTML was *designed* to have companies add a MARQUEE or BLINK tag to it. HTML was *designed* so that you could script your webpage in any programming language.
Microsoft's adding ActiveX to their browser is simply embracing that concept. There was nothing wrong with that at the time they added it. In versions released after IE 5.5, ActiveX has been restricted more and more and more in every version-- Microsoft's doing everything they can to get vendors to stop using it.
But those vendors (like Siemens, Oracle, IBM listed above) are the ones writing those lazy apps you mentioned, and they still won't get rid of it. All they do is add an item to the Read Me that says "oh BTW, go into IE settings and disable the pop-up blocker, all security warnings, our app won't work otherwise." Believe me; I've "installed" tons of these apps, the "installation" basically consisting of disabling most of IE's security features.
Which company was so blinded by Netscape's rise that it did despo things just to kill Netscape and in that process created a mess that it can not clean up?
I have no clue what you're even referring to here. The worst thing IE is guilty of, as far as I see it, is implementing CSS before the spec was finalized, and therefore getting the box model "wrong." ("Wrong" meaning in this context "correct for the version of the spec they used, but the spec changed later to make it wrong.")
If you're talking about proprietary tags/DOM commands, then Netscape added at least as many of those as IE did. And one of the ones IE came up with, XMLHttpRequest, basically re-vitalized the entire web development community and became part of the standard, so you have to chalk that one up as a "win" in their column.
It was the shortsightedness of Microsoft that spawned this monster IE6. Microsoft could not tell the difference between ease of use and lack of security.
Microsoft writes the software their customers demand. Customers didn't demand security, so Microsoft didn't write security.
And yes, other companies need to get the blame! If you work in a corporation using IE6 on the desktop, go talk to your IT department and say, "which intranet app requires IE6?" I can guarantee the answer is *not* any Microsoft app. It'll have come from Siemens, Oracle, IBM-- THOSE are the lazy developers you should be foaming-at-the-mouth mad at, not Microsoft.
Do you seriously think Microsoft *wants* people using IE6 when IE8 is out? Are you honestly that deluded?
Comment of the year
Thought bundling with realplayer was a good idea? Worst media ever invented. The only thing realplayer does well is bombard you with a tsunami of adds and guarantees without a shadow of a doubt your computer WILL RUN SLOWER.
And this has been another installament of Captain Obvious!
Take "SRWare Iron" out for a spin.
http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_faq.php
It is my opinion that the Chrome browser needs work before gaining wide acceptance. Over time, it uses more memory and slows to a crawl. It can not do pass-through authentication and has bugs (like tabs separating suddenly), etc. I use FireFox and OffByOne (when necessary). IE is just a paper weight and Chrome was uninstalled. Opera works good on my smart phone. As to Google pushing their browser with Sony...it is just business. Only people in Redmond should really care or, rather, be concerned.
The Thing is.