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.'"

Comments

Re:Why should they care now?

[sopssa]

What does this prove? Different versions of IE's can obviously provide the system and application wide libraries too, but there has to be at least one of them installed for it to work.

Then there is also the fact that countless amount of software uses IE's rendering engine, which has to be present in the system for those to work. Which again works with different versions of it.

I'm happy Steam changed to it's own WebKit, but it was just a few months ago and there still are thousands of other software that uses it.

Nobody believed it at the time

[91degrees]

And nobody believes it now.

A possible alternative headline could be "Obvious lie from MS turns out to be a lie"

Re:Nobody believed it at the time

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, few people care or listened at the time. Anybody who is still using IE6 does not give a rat's ass what MS has claimed about the ties between IE and the OS. Very few civilians paid attention to the details of the anti-trust case, and they are not convinced that they cannot upgrade their browser because of something MS lawyers claimed in a court room a decade ago.

Re:Nobody believed it at the time

[Blakey Rat]

It was true when they said it, about Windows 98. Windows 98 couldn't (for all practical purposes) be run without IE-- even drawing the desktop depended on it. Moreover, there would have been no way for MS to remove the IE integration within the ridiculous time frame the court was asking about. (90 days, if I recall correctly.)

Here's a secret, one the article writer didn't tell you, that I'm about to reveal. You may want to sit down for this... ready? Ok, here goes:

THINGS CHANGE OVER TIME

Shocking, I know.

The reason IE isn't integrated into Windows anymore is because every version of Windows, from XP to 7, has been working to remove the integration that was previously present.

And you know what? IE aside, a HTML renderer of some sort *is* required by Windows-- just as it's required by OS X, most Linux distributions, and Chrome OS. So if you take IE to mean "iexplore.exe", then no it's no longer required. If you take it to mean "the Trident HTML rendering component", then yes it is required-- exactly as required as WebKit is in OS X.

Re:When is a line not a line?

[StormReaver]

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).

That claim is almost 9 years old...

[in10se]

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.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:When is a line not a line?

[blair1q]

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.