Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Busting Its Own Browser+OS Myth
An anonymous reader writes "Longtime Microsoft watcher Mary Jo Foley used her Redmond magazine column this month to point out that after years of arguing that the browser is 'inextricably linked' to the operating system, the company's current push to get users to drop IE 6 for newer versions, plus IE's separate release schedule, are disproving its own argument. From the article: 'Microsoft has insisted that its browser is part of Windows, and, ironically, that's coming back to haunt the company. Customers can mix and match different versions of IE with different versions of Windows. ... But Microsoft has done very little to get this message out there. I'd argue this is because it makes plain the absurdity of the company's claims that IE is part of Windows.'"
Damage has been done. Sure Firefox, Chrome, Opera and the lot are slowly regaining market share, but that was a tactic they needed when they wanted to drive Netscape out of the market, which they ultimately did. Companies like this don't create arguments that hold up to long term scrutiny, they don't need to.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
And nobody believes it now.
A possible alternative headline could be "Obvious lie from MS turns out to be a lie"
IE is not inextricably bound to the OS because MS has intentionally been keeping it split.
Which is the very thing that Microsoft told the court was not possible. So...ummm....yes, Microsoft lied.
Did they tell the court that the browser is inextricably bound to the CURRENT OS or to future OS's?
Were does one draw the line between OS and application (and let's not draw libraries into this).
The operating system manages the hardware, and provides an interface between the hardware and applications. Everything else is an application (including most libraries, since they're just reusable parts of applications).
Um, when Microsoft made that claim, they were referring to Windows XP and Internet Explorer 6 which are both almost 9 years old. At that time, IE6 was very likely tightly linked to the OS. They slowly "unlinked" it over the years which I'm sure was a lot of work. You can argue that they shouldn't have linked it in the first place (you may or may not be right). The fact that you could upgrade from IE6 to IE7 or 8 does not mean it was not linked - can you not upgrade certain pieces of the OS on Linux, Unix, or MacOS in small pieces? Isn't that what a patch is?
We are now to MAJOR OS versions later and Microsoft doesn't claim the OS and the browser are linked anymore.
Popisms.com - Connecting pop culture
Microsoft released a version of Windows without IE, and it was unstable, erratic, and unreliable.
IOW, indistinguishable from the regular version.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
And their argument didn't even work at the time. Their own video tapes showed that it worked fine without IE. It was pretty hilarious, actually.
Furthermore I don't think the author's argument makes any sense; she is not a programmer, she is an author and analyst. Any programmer will know that even if the browser were an integral part of the OS, it could still be replaced as long as those parts that are used by the OS remain (which can obviously happen when you upgrade your own browser).
She also tries to claim that Microsoft is trying to be consistent in its arguments, but Microsoft (like any competent spin-doctor) doesn't care if their arguments are consistent, they only care if they convince at the moment. Unlike geeks they feel no need to be consistent with arguments from 10 years ago that no one remembers.
Qxe4
A web browser needs an internet-connection library, a display library, and a parser library for the data between them.
If you put that into your OS, other application developers may suddenly decide they want to use the internet library and some of the parser library, instead of whatever libraries the OS used to have, or whatever code they were planning to implement themselves.
Now someone says "we order you to remove the web browser from the OS."
You say "that is impossible. Parts of the web browser now serve as parts of the OS."
The only thing you can remove is the browser executable itself, which in the extreme case is just a call with particular arguments to a function in a library you can't remove. So you remove the browser executable and convince the issuers of the order that you have done their bidding.
Good question.
At the time Microsoft was defending Windows 98, claiming their browser was integrated with it (which was true). Of course that OS was retired in 2001 (me was the last version). We now use a completely different OS called Windows NT 5.x (XP) or 6.x (Vista/Seven) so the old argument that IE is integrated no longer applies.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The web would have resulted in the loss of MS profit if it had been allowed to grow freely. At that time many production machines were still using very simple systems that could be implemented on web based interface. Companies like Compaq were still competing hard and had non-MS offering that were less complex and more reliable than the PC. MS Office was not quite everywhere, and options existed. The fight was going over who controlled the application front end. If the application front end was platform independent, then people could run software on MS servers, but the desktop could be anything for the average worker drone.
This could not happen. So MS made IE into a application front end that would only run on windows. This meant that the servers and desktop had to run MS software. OEM could not develop intelligent terminals that would have saved huge amounts of administrative costs. OEM could not sell this intelligent terminal for the same price as a MS PC and pocket the profit.
In reality what happened, the lie that MS could make people believe, no matter who much they said it, is that there is a real benefit to having the server run the same software as the desktop. So people continued to use MS desktops, but many switched to linux servers. This meant the bombs that MS put in IE to connect it to MS Windows became a liability. They tried to stop *nix with ad campiagns, in the courts, but with IE 8, even if the propaganda continues, the effect is clear.
Which is also why there is so much activities over phones and tablets. The OEM is nevery going to make a fair profit with MS, neither are developers. That is why most of the cool stuff have been developed in places outside of the US. Google is sharing profits, and, no matter what any says, so is Apple. The App store has made it possible to make money. MS is now where Unix was in the 80's. An expensive albeit still relevant dinosaur. It is a matter of time until people look on our old desktop like we looked at IBM 360 of VAX. A little nostalgic, but happy we have something bette.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The last time I installed Windows 95 (the first release, which did not yet have IE) I then tried to get a browser onto it.
Since I was tech-savvy enough to know about FTP, I tried FTP'ing to various browser-software sites, including Microsoft and (iirc)Netscape. I was not successful, and could not get directions from any web sites, since there was no browser to get to the web sites with. I eventually was able to telnet to a *nix shell account, and use a text-based browser (lynx, iirc) to get a windows-compatible browser file.
As a car analogy, a web browser is like tires. If you managed to get an [car]/[OS] without [tires]/[browser], good luck getting to the [tire store]/[browser installer].
Who cares if Microsoft lies, they don't know what they are doing, anyway. Their long term vision lacks anyway. Apple has a store MW wants a store. Apple has an App store, Microsoft wants an App store, Apple has Ipod, Microsoft wants an Ipod. Etc. They want to be the best, but each time they just give up. If Microsoft ever had the edge of vision, they have lost in anyways. They are already have become the boring IBM Gates never wanted to be. And Gates is gone. There is no leadership, there is no focus. They just want to do everything, and they do everything.... Poorly
Microsoft illegally leveraged their monopoly at the time. Including a competitive browser for "Free" with Windows was the downfall for Netscape. The browser did have a cost but it was blended in with the cost of Windows which almost everyone run. Netscape could no longer sell their browser and the rest is history. The browser was never a part of the operating system and really never needed to be. It just was Microsofts way of protecting its monopoly. I think what most people miss is that Microsoft never wanted web browser technology to exist! They only produced IE in order to kill off Netscape. They had that idea that only specific windows desktop applications would provide some access to the internet in a very controlled way, not like browsing or surfing the web for whatever content you would like. Development for IE almost came to complete halt if it wasnt for open source browsers coming of age.