Should Microsoft Switch To WebKit?

DeviceGuru writes "Although IE remains the one of the top browsers on desktops, it's being trounced on tablets and smartphones by browsers based on WebKit, including Safari, the Android Browser, and Google Chrome. Faced with this uphill battle on handheld mobile devices, Microsoft MVP Bill Reiss has suggested that it might be time for Microsoft to throw in the towel on Trident and switch to WebKit (though Reiss later decided he was wrong). But although there are lots of points in favor of doing so, there are also some good reasons not to, including security and a need for healthy competition to avoid having mobile developers begin to target WebKit rather than standards."

Comments

It's a silly proposition

[Stormwatch]

IE's problem is not the engine, it's the shitty interface.

(Ditto about Windows 8, many would say.)

Re:It's a silly proposition

[Xiph1980]

It's your opinion that you don't like the interface of Internet Explorer. I agree with you on that, it doesn't hold my preference either, but that doesn't make it a shitty interface. There's a reason why many people still use Internet Explorer.
You may call it what you will, (inertia, stubbornness, laziness, unwillingness to change,) but truth is that many people just prefer it and Internet Explorer is still popular amongst a big group of users, and in the same way you and I could be called the same for not wanting to change our opinion of browsers. Be it Firefox, Chrome, Opera, or whatever way you browse the web.

Just because you don't like a certain interface, doesn't make it shitty.

Re:It's a silly proposition

[cbhacking]

Personally, I actually find IE's interface one of the better ones. I don't like the approach that most browsers have been taking recently of minimalizing the browser UI; IE is no better off there than Firefox or Chrome (though its badness is slightly different) but things like the colored and automatically-combined tab groups, the ability to cycle through tabs in last-used order, the Favorites sidebar and feed reader, and the "Accelerators" feature for things like translating a text snippet instantly are all features which I appreciate, and feel are implemented pretty well.

Now, if it would just handle massive numbers of tabs more gracefully... there's a reason I use the "Ctrl+Tab cycles in last-used order" feature so much!

Re:It's a silly proposition

[Runaway1956]

AC says you're dumb - I disagree with him. Your opinion is pretty well thought out.

I do, however, disagree with your assessment somewhat. Trident needs to die, and die hard. Microsoft needs to pull that abomination out of Windows completely, along with all the ActiveX controls, all it's privileges, all of it's quirks, both good and bad.

I don't believe that I'll ever think that Windows is a "good" operating system, but the removal of Trident would make it one hell of a lot better. Sure, I know that many of IE's worst vulnerabilities have been "fixed", but I shall never forget how many vulnerabilities there have been, or how bad they have been.

As for Webkit - I've liked it since it's debut under Google's name. Sure, I realize it's not Google's invention, but webkit is cool.

If/when Microsoft shifts to Webkit, they really, really, REALLY need to install it as an unprivileged application, and make certain that it just BROWSES. It doesn't need hooks into dozens of programs, it doesn't need privileges, it doesn't need much of anything. A few plugins, addons such as Mozilla and Google offer for their own browsers. Leave it at that.

A browser on Windows should be just as much, and no more than a browser on any Unix-like. The browser shouldn't even be used for updates, as Microsoft has done for all these years. A separate and distinct updating program is a requirement, with no overlap in privileges.

Yes, Trident needs to die, quickly, and hard. It would be a wonderful thing if five years from now, Trident were just history, with zero support anywhere. I'd like to see websites assist people with updating from Trident simply. Just stop coding for Trident.

"This site is best viewed with ANY browser that is not Internet Explorer!"

Re:It's a silly proposition

[Tei]

No true.

The weak support for CSS and strange rendering, layout and JS interpretation are engine things.

The slowness of JS is another engine thing.

The bad security is again a engine thing (but may continue in other engine with the same people writting the defaults).

Re:It's a silly proposition

[Eirenarch]

The speed of JS in IE10 is pretty decent.

Re:It's a silly proposition

[hairyfeet]

Correct on IE, it is just using some weird design choices but I don't see how anybody can argue that Win 8 isn't wrong when this is the average user response I saw at the shop. When the user needs a fricking training course to use your damned OS like its 1986 all over again? Something has gone HORRIBLY wrong. IE's biggest problem isn't the UI, its the giant fucking bullseye painted on it by hackers because they know the clueless rubes that are still running that 30 day Norton trialware from 6 years ago and think that works is using IE. Add to that the fucking braindead choice to not port back to their supported OSes so that the ONLY way you can use the same browser across XP/Vista/7 is to NOT use IE and you have a browser made of fail.

As for TFA lets call a spade a spade, shall we? google needs their asses spanked for the redirect bullshit they have been pulling of late. If MSFT made all THEIR websites dump you into shitty mode if you didn't use the latest IE we'd be hearing screams of antitrust, but Google can pull the same shit and not a peep? bullshit, utter bullshit. I was against the "works best in IE" horseshit and I'm against the "works best in Webkit" horseshit, Google is making billions off the ads and data-mining they do in Chrome and this should be treated as what it is noncompetitive behavior. If the browser supports the features then they should work PERIOD and having to hack strings like its 1999 all over again is bullshit.

I use a webkit based browser (Comodo Dragon) but even I don't want a world where the only engine we have is webkit, that is how we get nasty zero days that can infect the whole damned planet. Did we not learn anything from IE 6?

Re:It's a silly proposition

[Billly Gates]

Trident in IE 10 scores a decent in HTML 5/5.1 and CSS 3.

It is not the piece of crap it once was in IE 6. Just because you have not used it in 12 years doesn't mean it is the same as in 2001.

Re:It's a silly proposition

[cbhacking]

Yeah. For the record, I'm aware that I can get all of these features, and then some, using enough Firefox extensions (although the implementation isn't always as polished). However, I appreciate the fact that they're built in, and that I don't have to worry if they're going to conflict, or leak RAM, or be broken by some update (less of an issue now). Still, I definitely keep Firefox installed. In fact, I keep all of the major browsers except Safari installed (I view Safari as offering basically nothing in exchange for its crap UI and since I don't have a Mac, I can't get the latest version anyhow). Chrome is "Safari (or more specifically, WebKit), but with a few more features and a slightly less-awful interface." Firefox is "Firebug and Gecko and don't open too many tabs or you'll have to restart it." Opera is "ALL THE FEATURES and Yet Another Rendering Engine but WHY are the keyboard shortcuts different from every other browser?"

Obviously, the above is over-simplified... Firefox loses points (and value) by being single-process, but despite being multi-process IE also starts to struggle if you open too many tabs at once (and it's not system resources, it's just the browser acting up). I actually use Opera as my secondary browser - I really do like the less-minimal interface; I think the thing that honestly pisses me off most about IE is the removal of the title bar - but no matter how often or how much I use it, its commands always feel just a little alien to me (I may use the keyboard more than most people do when browsing).

Re:It's a silly proposition

[Nerdfest]

The problem is that if they start getting a significant share of the browser market again, they're almost guaranteed to start their old extend/extinguish trick. Microsoft needs to stay an 'also ran' in the browser market until they learn to play with others.

Re:It's a silly proposition

[Billly Gates]

Right now I fear webkit will be the next MS, more than MS resurrecting from the dead.

Have you tried browsing the web with Firefox on Android? It feels like Netscape during 2003 all over again where IE 6 is the only browser that worked well or at all. As mobile takes over webkit will be the next IE 6.

Re:It's a silly proposition

[Nerdfest]

I too have that fear. The real basis for it is because Apple is the new Microsoft. Better design sense, but more greedy and evil.

Re:It's a silly proposition

[hairyfeet]

Insightful? Really people? hell why didn't he just add a fangirl squee while he was at it! he likes Webkit NOT for any features or design choices but "I've liked it since it's debut under Google's name" which means as long as its google he be a squeeing, and he hates Windows and "I don't believe that I'll ever think that "Windows is a "good" operating system" so billions of people are idiots but of course it would be better...if its done by google or uses a google browser.

Good God /. you are getting as bad as reddit or Digg with all the fangirl bullshit, we are supposed to be geeks and back shit up with legitimate arguments not "I realize it's not Google's invention, but webkit is cool." fangirl squeeing crap.

Re:It's a silly proposition

[Nerdfest]

The only thing they're missing is the monopoly part. They specialize in platform lock-in and anti-competitive behaviour. Look at their patent abuse. Look at iMessage, Facetime, and iBooks - all open protocols with proprietary extensions to lock them to Apple. Microsoft is killing themselves with Windows 8 to even approach the level of greed Apple has. The Metro interface MS store lock-in is a misguided attempt to copy them. Seriously, Apple just hasn't had enough time and market share. If people keep throwing money and free advertising at them, you'll see how Microsoft's behaviour was amateur at best.

Re:It's a silly proposition

[Locutus]

I agree 100% with your title that it's a silly proposition but not because IE is good, bad, or ugly. It's silly if you know anything about Microsoft's business practices over the last 2+ decades. They will continue to force IE on users because they must continue to own the majority of the developers. And any move to open standards is just temporary and for marketing purposes only. Microsoft is not getting into the phone and tablet market because they're looking for profits there it's about protecting the desktop and protecting the developer base. This is the exact reason why Microsoft does not do what Apple did or what Google did and that is build a mobile OS designed specifically and uniquely for the device model. They've tied Windows mobile to Windows desktop and Windows Server because fracturing the developer base makes them easier pickings. And being fractured means no dominance, no control.

Developers, developers, developers and going to Webkit and throwing out Microsoft IE on any of their platform does not follow that mantra their fearless leader, also known as Uncle Fester, has on the flag he runs up and down the hallways waving. Or not.

LoB

Re:It's a silly proposition

[Runaway1956]

See my reply to Hairyfeet above. I had played with Safari a little prior to Google getting involved with Webkit. But, I had ONLY played with it. When Google released their first version, I downloaded it, played with it, THEN realized that it was much like Safari.

For whatever reasons, Chromium's first versions ran better for me than whichever versions of Safari I had messed with. After browsing with Google's browser, I went back and grabbed Safari again, to make side-by-side comparisons. I found them to be very much the same.

I was careful to note in my post that Webkit preceded Chromium, that Webkit isn't a Google invention. It's just that Webkit didn't make an impact on me until Chromium came out. And, I'll bet there are millions of other people who would admit that the same were true for them.

Re:It's a silly proposition

[ducomputergeek]

The last time I checked Webkit was opensource. While Apple maintains functional control over the project if they tried to extend it you don't think Google or someone else couldn't fork it in a moment?

Arguments of convenience

[blarkon]

In the past many on Slashdot argued vehemently for web standards. It's interesting that a lot of people who used to be pro-web-standard when Microsoft was non-compliant with IE are now saying "hey, we're only going to target webkit because ..." The same reasons that applied to avoiding an IE monoculture for web development apply to a webkit monoculture. Rather than bathing in schadenfreude, people should be kicking over bins just like they did with IE to ensure that the most popular implementation follows the standard, not the standard follows the most common implementation.

Re:Arguments of convenience

[danhuby]

Who are these people that are only targeting Webkit?

Re:Arguments of convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

Just about every web developer who uses OS X, which unfortunately is most of them. "Cross browser" to them means it works in Safari and Chrome, and to hell with anyone using Firefox, IE, Opera, or some other browser.

Re:Arguments of convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

Google for one, which was the reason for the GMaps on Windows Phone brouhaha a few days ago.

Re:Arguments of convenience

[ikaruga]

Arguing against IE back in the days made sense because it was a closed-source engine controlled by one company with monopolistic policies. Webkit is open source, anyone can implement it anywhere and anyhow they want. What else do you want? If you ask me, webkit could become the web standard itself, and as long as it's renewed every few years for new features(webkit2 is already in the works, btw), I wouldn't care. The only webkit related issue I can think of is the iOS gimped implementation, but that is more of an Apple problem than Webkit problem.

Re:Arguments of convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is, the reason developers are targeting WebKit is because of the iPhone (Safari) not because of Chrome.

If it works in Chrome on Windows, it will work on Safari on the iPhone, without needing to test if it actually works on the iPhone.

Although that has problems too, as Chrome and Safari use different Javascript implementations, and Google uses an inherently terrible method of sandboxing that wastes extreme amounts of memory. Also Chrome has no 64-bit version on Windows which is a non-starter, where as MSIE does have a a 64-bit version. Chrome and other 32-bit only browsers are rapidly going to hit a memoryspace wall should there be some shift in the way graphics resolution comes along. We see this problem already on the Retina displays, as the browser engines become unable to deal with pages that are wider than 1000 pixels (let me ask... how many people actually run their web browser full screen? Probably nobody.) Imagine now UHDTV at 7680 × 4320 that's over 7 times wider. So right now the only released Windows browser that can conceivably render a UHDTV native web page is in fact 64-bit MSIE.

Someone needs to slap around the Chrome engineers and tell them the pre-fork model is dead.

Re:Arguments of convenience

[luke923]

Wrong! As a professional web developer who both uses OS X and works alongside other developers who use OS X, I know first hand a large number develop against Firefox before testing in Webkit. I also know a handful who develop against Opera before testing against any other browser; however, most of the decisions to not target Opera stems from management decisions based on analytics. Still these same management types still tell us to target Firefox and IE going back to IE7.

As far as using Webkit extensions, if any developer uses any Webkit extension it's because: a) they target mobile and the Webkit extensions render faster that any W3C/JQuery/Javascript implementation equivalent, or b) they're prototyping a new browser engine feature knowing full well that it won't be cross-browser compatible. That said, the problem in the past that many had with IE non-compliance had more to do with IE's reliance on ActiveX controls in order to implement new features which not only locked you into the browser, but also locked you into a particular OS. And, since Webkit has no OS constraint along with performance improvements attached to Webkit extensions, no one is -- to use the parlance -- kicking over bins over the purported standards non-compliance coming from Webkit.

Then again, the whole purpose of vendor extensions is for the community to experiment with new features before they become part of the W3C standard. Also, it's important to note that not only does Webkit have its extensions, but Firefox (with -moz-), Opera (with -o-), and even the newest versions of IE (with -ms-) have their own extensions for the purpose of introducing new features out into the wild. And, it seems very few have any problem with this setup.

Re:Arguments of convenience

[BZ]

A lot of people have problems with this setup, precisely because people end up shipping sites that only work in only one browser.

Re:Arguments of convenience

[BZ]

Everyone and their mother designing "mobile" sites. For some big names, Google, Disney, Comcast, DirecTV, Flickr will all sniff whether you're on "mobile" and either serve you WebKit-only sites or detect that you're not using WebKit and serve you totally different, mostly unusable, sites than they do to WebKit-based browsers.

You should really try using a non-WebKit browser on Android. It's worse than trying to use a non-IE browser in 2000-2001 or so.

Re:Arguments of convenience

[Anonymous Coward]

In the past many on Slashdot argued vehemently for web standards. It's interesting that a lot of people who used to be pro-web-standard when Microsoft was non-compliant with IE are now saying "hey, we're only going to target webkit because ..."

The same reasons that applied to avoiding an IE monoculture for web development apply to a webkit monoculture. Rather than bathing in schadenfreude, people should be kicking over bins just like they did with IE to ensure that the most popular implementation follows the standard, not the standard follows the most common implementation.

Webkit is open source. IE was not.

The people and companies working on webkit are not trying to kill Mozilla. Hell, the biggest contributor to webkit is Mozilla's largest source of revenue.

Webkit is used by many browsers on many platforms from many companies (Safari on mac and iOS, Chrome on everything, RIM's blackberry browser, ...). IE was intentionally tied to a single OS.

WebKit has a long history of respecting standards. There are extensions which are prototypes for future standards, but they are clearly marked as such with vendor prefixes. If you don't believe me, read their mailing list. IE drew no line between standard and non-standard. From the trial we learned that this was an intentional strategy to kill competitors.

Webkit is nothing like IE in terms of standards compliance. I don't want a monoculture, but comparing webkit to IE is silly.

Re:Arguments of convenience

[rdebath]

I would strongly disagree with this.

Having a standards committee design the next step in a technical advance is one of the worst ways of working possible. What you usually end up with is a huge conglomeration of random ideas and special interests. For programming the result is frequently described as "feeping creaturitus".

The reason for web standards is not technical, standards don't help make better mousetraps they exist so that a hundred mice can wrestle the cat into submission. So that the little guys can make stuff too and they don't get forced out of the market by a brute who can throw either money or lawyers around to kill off the competition.

If webkit became "the web browser" this would be no different from (for example) the single source of the Perl language. There wouldn't be the problem of the secret Trident, where nobody can compete or the technology can be politically leveraged to for the use of other software (eg an OS). Because, being freely forkable, if the current maintainers don't support an environment patches against the source can be added by others. What's more if the maintainers make enough of a fuckup they can be force out completely.

But there is a problem for Microsoft; several years ago they claimed that IE was an essential component of their OS and they very hurriedly tried to make sure that this wasn't a complete lie. Because of this lots of parts of the OS now use DLLs and libraries from IE to do simple jobs or use IE as a local display processor. The result is that Microsoft will have a difficult job removing IE and it's html engine, so much so that it's probably easier for them to fix IE than to navigate the maze of interdepartmental politics that would be involved in removing it.

Re:Arguments of convenience

[Billly Gates]

I do not give a shit whether it is opensource. I do give a shit whether it enslaves the web and enforces another decade of stagnationm, where we can't move on to HTML 6 and corps lock a special version of Chrome from this decade to support their apps.

Maybe Android 3.x will be used and corps will downgrade their phones for just that one version 10 years from now if the W3C makes changes that the current webkit does not support. Only Google's way of doing it is different.

IE 5.5 was cutting edge and MS was inventing new standards and it was the best browser back then. THe problems came when w3c decided to recommend the same standards implemented differently. Then IE 6 did things one way, and Firefox rendered them in another.

Open source or not I do not want to see that problem again.

Re:Arguments of convenience

[Billly Gates]

A standards committee is what caused IE 6 inertia.

The problem is the W3C decided to use a different box model and other things in CSS that IE 5.5 and IE 6 pioneered when it was still new and cutting edge. THe response was websites igoring the W3C due to content managers being older and corps locking IE 6 to this very day to all their users as their apps were made before the new standards were set.

Chrome just invets shit and throws it out for a pissing contenst for HTML5test.com to make the geeks drool. The W3C can do something different and then you have incompatibility. Chrome might as well keep their proprietary hacks ---webkit in order not to break these mobile sites. Its 2003 all over again!

Re:Arguments of convenience

[Pieroxy]

What is the problem with the iPhone browser? Do you mean to say it's worse than the default Android browser?

Oh my...

No monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's a bad idea to put all your eggs on the same basket.

Re:No monopoly

[marcosdumay]

Don't like that? Fork it.

It'd make my life easier

[danhuby]

As a web application developer, this would certainly make my life much easier. I'd estimate that implementing work-arounds for IE can add 30 to 50% on to the initial HTML/CSS build, and IE specific issues add a fair amount of to ongoing support costs. This is for versions = IE8, I'm not sure if IE9 / 10 are better.

Re:It'd make my life easier

[gigaherz]

IE9 is mostly standards-compliant, and IE10 is better. The days of IE-specific hacks are in the past (or in people stuck with supporting XP clients). If you stick to the supported versions of the browsers (that means Firefox 10 long-term + the newest release Firefox, the latest chrome, IE9 and IE10), you only have very minor differences between browsers, at least when it comes to the standardized feature set. Now if you want to use experimental features, you have to start messing with prefixed identifiers and different implementations, but that would be completely your problem, then, not IE's fault.

Re:It'd make my life easier

[Anonymous Coward]

And developing to webkit instead of standards helps you with the XP/IE8 problem how exactly?

Re:It'd make my life easier

[cbhacking]

IE10 is available for Win7. It's technically a "preview" release, but I use both Win7 and Win8, and IE10 behaves the same on both. It's the most release-candidate-level software I've ever seen go for more than a week without actually being released (it became available over a month ago).

No, they simply should adhere to the standards.

[Xiph1980]

Why should Microsoft move to WebKit? I mean, yeah, it's a more secure browser engine perhaps, but it's still their prerogative to use their own. I think it'll be more important for Microsoft -- and any browser (engine) for that matter -- to follow the W3C standard accurately, possibly with their own extensions if they want, but in the basis they should support the standard to make sure web sites render uniformly and accurately over all browsers.
That'll finally bring more choice to the user, in stead of the pseudo-choice now.
I prefer opera and have that installed as my default browser, but still have IE and Chrome installed because some websites will only work on either of those. Between the three I can open all sites that I need, but it shouldn't be necessary if all just follow the standards, and consequently, all web sites only need to be written to that standard as well.

Re:No, they simply should adhere to the standards.

[Jesus_666]

Right now would be a horrible time to switch to WebKit (besides it being pointless anyway). With IE10 they finally got Trident into a respactable shape and switching to WebKit wouldn't do anything to alleviate the main issue Internet Explorer has - Microsoft's utter disregard for backwards compatibility. IE versions are usually only compatible with the current and previous Windows release, leaving people with older versions of Windows with no upgrade path other than to replace the entire operating system. Thus web designers need to support ancient IE versions because they simply won't drop below the "we can afford to ignore this" margin for years after they've become obsolete.

IE/WebKit would be just as much of a standards-retarding nightmare as IE/Trident is, not because of the engine but because of Microsoft's policy on backports.

No, and I love Webkit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Trident is getting better with each major release, which is a good thing.

And Microsoft still has some input towards standards as well, such as the WebRTC spec if I remember correct, or something similar that also had some features missing from it.

Yeah, you could argue that things would be simpler if there was just ONE thing, the one thing that correctly interprets the specs, but it is also those incorrect spec implementations that have driven competition, driven the creation of new ideas to replace old ones and inspired so many developers to create methods to deal with them in their own ways.
Not only that, without all this mess, there would be no experimentation with future specs, and all these separate browsers lead to browser prefixes being implemented, even by Microsoft recently.

The main problem with web dev is most devs are terrible. Admittedly that is mainly a problem with such inconsistency in JavaScript, and HTML allowing spaghetti syntax all over the place.
And lets not get started on scope. Holy crap, so many people are clueless about it. And again, that it is true globally in any form of programming. Abuse of global namespaces being the biggest headache in all programming, such things that make you want to headbutt your monitor with your fist, a physical impossibility! But damn it I will find a way and collapse the universe just so THEY don't exist!

The next huge change in JS is going to bring a lot of new features, but also a bunch of changes to the way JS is executed.
It is going to be a shaky decade when that comes about. But it will be for the better. I hope...

Re:No, and I love Webkit.

[luke923]

The main problem with web dev is most devs are terrible. Admittedly that is mainly a problem with such inconsistency in JavaScript, and HTML allowing spaghetti syntax all over the place.

I wouldn't say they're terrible, but most front-end developers seem to come from a background with classical inheritance, which isn't what Javascript is about. Javascript is about the prototype and method delegation, which can be very elegant when done right; however, most front-end developers don't have enough of an understanding of the language in order to do it right.

And lets not get started on scope. Holy crap, so many people are clueless about it.

Again, it's because these people come from a classical background, which forces them to implement crazy hacks in order to work around their lack of understanding of prototypal languages like Javascript. When you combine that with having to deal with IE quirks, you get MacGyvered code -- you know, code held together with bubble gum and paper clips -- that pollutes the global namespace at every turn.

Healthy competition

[TheP4st]

IE = healthy competition? I can only presume that the author is a MS shill, alternatively is too young to remember all the anti-competitive moves made by Microsoft during most of Internet Explorers history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case

Re:Healthy competition

[Billly Gates]

That was over 10 years ago.

Lets go to today? Right now webkit is causing problems being this decades IE 6 in terms of mobile browsing and HTML 5 and css 3.

If you own a Windows Phone (I know you do not, but bare with me ..) and go to disney.com or cnn.com will it render correctly? Nope. THey use ---webkit prefixes. HTML5Test.com is part of the problem too as Google is in a pissing match on being the best browser, but what that site doesn't tell you is that these are not implemented the same as W3C drafting process.

In an open web you should be able to use the OS and browser you choose. What if you want to use a FirefoxOS phone? Will these sites still feed ---webkit specific code? THe answer is yes and you will have to click desktop version on it.

Don't you see a problem with that?

Recently, IE 10 is a great browser with good HTML 5 and CSS 3 and standards support. MS had to change as it is not the monster it once was. Google is just as evil and we all know Apple is after watching Samsung leave the US market due to crazy patent lawsuits.

Webkit is too prevalient in my opinion. We need more engines so webmasters wont do anything stupid and vendors do not get greedy and do anything stupid as well. Webkit is bringing flashbacks from IE 5. Remember at one time it was the best browser too and was just starting to convert Netscape users at the time. Chrome is the way point today.

Re:Microsoft != a healthy competition

[cnettel]

Yes, they are on the same level, but the point in healthy competition is that you do not rely on the benevolent actions of the parties involved. A Microsoft and an Apple, with the same inherent company values and attitudes, are far better for the marketplace than just having either of them.

Not possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Trident (or MSHTML) is built on COM+ like everything else in Windows. Bundled with it comes numerous COM interfaces, maybe 100+ in total. Interfaces that are used by the OS all over the place and also by a lot of 3rd party software. To integrate WebKit into Windows would require making it compatible with all those COM interfaces and that is simply not worth the amount of work required.

Here they are, laid out for all to see...

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh801967(v=vs.85).aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj206442(v=vs.85).aspx

Konqueror indeed!

[Dr. Spork]

I wonder if the people who were writing KDE back in the 90's ever suspected that their code would make it so far! If they heard 15 years ago that some Microsoft MVP would be talking about replacing the rendering engine of IE with the rendering engine from Konqueror, they would have shit themselves.

Went back on his suggestion

[denpun]

There is an update on MVP Bill Reiss's blog now.

http://www.billreiss.com/follow-up-to-webkit-for-ie-hint-i-was-wrong/

Seems like he changed his mind. He is now against the idea and has instead suggested allow Win mobile devices to be allowed to change their default browser.
Sounds like a good idea, effectively making IE, a tool used by the OS that has browsing functionality.

Effectively what he is saying is that the other browsers, can serve as browsers while IE is now reduced to a tool!

Re:I find Trident faster than WebKit.

[BZ]

Actually, in a very real sense the engine _does_ belong to the competition. To actually get your code landed in WebKit you have to convince the current project maintainers (mostly Google and Apple) to accept it.

Which means that if you want to do something that Google and Apple don't (both, often!) approve of, you have to maintain it as a separate branch and deal with the merge pain. No different from other projects where you have to collaborate with others, but a lot different from having control over the code as Microsoft does with Trident right now.

Wrong approach

[brunes69]

Microsoft is a public corporation.

The default opinion should not be "why SHOULD we switch to webkit", it should be, "why SHOULD we continue to invest tens of millions of dollars per year into developing, testing, and maintaining an engine that does not serve a competitive purpose anymore".

Trident literally makes Microsoft NO money, and costs them a TON of money. They don't license it. It serves no marketing or branding purpose, because people using IE do not know or care what engine is running their web pages. And the original plan of embrace the web and extend it with trident-specific extensions failed, and doesn't look like it is going to succeed any time soon.

So, why continue throwing all this money into this sinkhole? That is what I don't understand. As a shareholder, that is the question I would be asking.

Re:Wrong approach

[afgam28]

Right....maybe they should switch from using NTOSKRNL.EXE to Linux too. After all, no one cares about the kernel; users and developers only care about the UI and APIs that sit above it. And maybe they could turn Visual C++ into a front-end to LLVM, and have .NET target the JVM. All of these changes would save Microsoft from the trouble of developing several large pieces of software.

From Microsoft's point of view, of course they should keep Trident development going. I'm surprised this is even being questioned. To do otherwise would be to give control of the web over to Apple and Google. The only reason that Apple and Google care about standards right now is because Microsoft is still a big player in the game. If it was up to Google, they'd be making their own proprietary versions of HTTP, JavaScript and ActiveX ;)

Then there's Apple - and even though I'm a Linux user, I'm happy that Microsoft is there to keep Apple in check!

Re:Polishing a turd.

[Plumpaquatsch]

Now if Microsoft would switch to something other than Windows 8 and RT, maybe companies like Samsung wouldn't be abandoning them in droves.

http://www.samsung.com/global/ativ/ativ_s.html

Re:Ditch HTML5 for stronger web and user protectio

[Billly Gates]

Webkit is making MS honest.

Have you tried IE 10? I know the thought probably sends shiver down your spine but I have to say MS really is caring and shaking in their boots. It is a great browser. I fear webkit becoming too dominate at this point and Windows Phone users are whinning they can't view mobile sites as they cater to just webkit.

I can't advocate openstandards and bash IE 6, yet fully support webkit at the same time. I would be a hypocrite otherwise. What if you want to use FirefoxOS in your next phone? Will you be screwed over? Right now, yes.

IE has standard behavior now. Since IE 9 it passed all the acid tests. Just because you hate one browser doesn't mean you should support the entrenchment of another or support things like html5test that test non standard non implemented things. It encourages all the things that caused IE to be proprietary when implementations of things like the CSS box model came about locking corporate desktops up for decades.

Re: Content management

[Billly Gates]

Content managers upload code today.

Most web-designers do not even know how to code today. Usually some intern comes in and cuts and paste word docs into the system and she clicks the upload button. If the content management software was from 2011 it will only include -webkit support.

Go upgrade? HA, didn't we just blow $50,000 for this just over a year ago! I DONT THINK SO! etc.

Watch what happens when the W3C decided to make changes to the standard and older webkit engines do not render it properly? It will be IE 6 all over again where corps will downgrade new phones with out of date Android versions ... shudder. ... it gets better. Website makers will now have to put conditional comments for specific webkit versions as these corps will run outdated versions of android to run their enterprise apps. We do not want to loose those customers do we? Hmmm this sound very familiar like I heard this before?

The prefixes might cause more problems than they fix. I will wait for a few years and see what happens? I think all this will do is make new IE 6,s and IE 7s in specific webkit versions if this fucks up.

Re: Content management

[BZ]

> People ought to know that the prefixed attributes
> are in beta and may change.

That would be true if WebKit didn't explicitly promise to never remove or change them. Which they do. So people assume they can use them with no fear.

> Fortunately none of the vendor-specific extensions
> are anything but minor enhancements,

That's just not true for transforms, where not supporting them makes a page done entirely using positioning via transforms totally unreadable.

Or for animations where an element is display:none or off-screen and then animated in: no CSS animations means you never see the element at all.

Seriously, I suggest using a non-WebKit mobile UA for a bit and seeing just how broken some sites are.