Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Considered Renaming Internet Explorer To Escape Its Reputation
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft's Internet Explorer engineering team told a Reddit gathering that discussions about a name change have taken place and could happen again. From the article: "Microsoft has had "passionate" discussions about renaming Internet Explorer to distance the browser from its tarnished image, according to answers from members of the developer team given in a reddit Ask Me Anything session today. In spite of significant investment in the browser—with the result that Internet Explorer 11 is really quite good—many still regard the browser with contempt, soured on it by the lengthy period of neglect that came after the release of the once-dominant version 6. Microsoft has been working to court developers and get them to give the browser a second look, but the company still faces an uphill challenge."
They can't call it Web. That name is already take by the gnome browser.
I guess they are stuck with 'internet' something, or something 'internet'...
...feel Microsoft's pain.
After you push a substandard product for so long, nobody will buy your stuff even when it is improved to the point of being superior to the competition. The stink just will not wash off.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that the core IE engine is much improved from its terrible days of the past when it was intentionally non-standards-compliant, slow, and insecure.
However, I ask this as someone who hasn't touched it in many years: does it support adblock, noscript, ghostery, and httpseverywhere? If not, then I would not call it "quite good" no matter how much the core has improved. Those features are essential for using the modern web.
The problem isnt with the name Internet Explorer, the problem is the with the name Microsoft.
Microsoft is the one with the tarnished image.
They are trying to polish the wrong turd.
The term "polished turd" comes to mind.
This isn't a bad idea. It's one that Mozilla should consider for Firefox, too. Firefox has gotten a bad reputation for being a slow and bloated browser with a shitty UI that just imitates Chrome. Users are discarding it left and right, causing it to now have an approximately 10% share of the browser market. What Mozilla could do is rename the browser to something else, and then proceed down the proper path of innovation and good UI design. Instead of working on stupidity like Australis, which pretty much all Firefox users hate, they could fix the memory leaks and improve the performance. A restoration of the old UI, which was really efficient and easy to use, could very well make this new browser a winner again. Basically Mozilla should repeat what Firefox did to Internet Explorer a decade ago, but this time it's their new browser Firefoxing Firefox and the total stupidity that Firefox has become lately. When a browser goes from a 35% share of the market down to 10% in only a few years, the path it's on is obviously wrong, and the people making these decisions are obviously foolish. Instead of waiting for it to get to 0% market share, at which point salvaging it will not be an option, Mozilla needs to take action now to correct the situation and get back on the correct path. This means undoing some of the obviously stupid changes that have been made lately, fixing the long-standing performance and memory consumption issues, and probably discarding those contributors who have been responsible for harming Firefox so badly these past few years.
McDonald's is happy to introduce the all-white-meat chicken McNugget!
Wait ... what the fuck was in it before?
While they are at it, why don't they change "Microsoft" and "Windows" too. They have got terrible reputations.
I remember using ie4 on a sun Solaris box a long time ago. I was thrilled, because it was light years ahead of mosaic and Netscape.
Now? I don't care how good it is. I will never use it again. Microsoft's long established contempt for its users, laws, and even international standards bodies have guaranteed that I will never put anything even resembling trust in them ever again.
And they should lie in it. Microsoft's monopoly in IE was one of the principal causes of stagnation in the industry during the mid 2000s.
Then again, that stagnation arguably led to some great innovations by others in the industry, which is why we've witnessed the mobile revolution and downfall of IE since.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
My top Internet Explorer annoyances:
* secure browsing. Trying to download a file with that enabled is frustrating.
* startup delay. IE shows the UI and lets you start typing in the location bar but shortly after loads startup pages over top of what you may have just typed.
...and stop trying to take over the internet by adding proprietary extensions to said standards. Stop trying to push MS server or development products by tweaking the browser to work better with said products.
The browser wars are over. MS won the battle but is loosing the war. They need to drop the insurgency and learn to play nice if they want to play at all.
Never could decide which one I liked better: Internet Exploder or Internet Exploiter.
Microsoft should still be considering changing the name: As one posters here suggests, sometimes the stink will just not wash off.
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
Microsoft Considered Renaming Internet Explorer To Netscape Its Reputation
If it walks like MSIE,
...it's a duck.
talks like MSIE,
crashes head-first into a BSOD from malware-laden doom like MSIE,
I mean it worked for Windows Vista. (I'll always wonder if they didn't have to rename it would we have gotten what became Windows 7 as a service pack.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
a turd, and IE by any other name is still Internet Exploder...
There's plenty other crap going on in there. Plenty enough that just changing the name won't fix their poor code, their poor attitude, and the poor product, however shiny it looks.
Without the market share needed to embrace and extend anything, is there actually a real reason for Microsoft bother having their own a browser at all?
Wouldn't bundling another browser with WIndows and laying off the IE division make more financial sense that carrying on with a product that cost money to make, generates no revenue and is so badly respected by customers that Microsoft literally can't give it away?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
a pile of shit results in a painted pile of shit.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
"Wow, that lady is hot. Smokin! Just look at her luscious red lips. I'm gonna go steal a kiss."
*SMOOCH*
"Oh my God! It's a pig wearing lipstick!"
This never happens. People notice the pig first.
I don't care if they did have a change of heart on the name, and released a version for Linux.
I'm still not installing the fucking thing.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Firefox Downloader Enhanced
Internet Shitxploder. That wont work, every developer will still know its the same stupid browser which doesn't want to comply with the standards
Brendan Eich has a CEO could have fixed this.
Remember what happened to him?
Have it your way
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
Good Browser (Downloader)
New names? Let's get started. How about:
!-- if IE... -- ? (Can't put in the enclosing tags)
M$ Page Breaker?
M$ Still doesn't interpret SVG correctly?
M$ Web Designer F*^ker?
Any more?
As if I.E. was the only MS product full of bugs and security wholes !
MS is the epitome of savage tech companies releasing buggy software, software that should barely qualify as BETA was commonly released as 1.0.
After spending a week of cross browser fixing almost entirely focused on IE11 deficiencies i can tell you first hand that it still sucks in more ways to list here and changing it's name will only create a new image to hate.
There is only one thing MS could do to make me happy with it's browser: and that is to discontinue it, because they have proven time and time again that they cannot improve it sufficiently.
...In spite of significant investment in the browser—with the result that Internet Explorer 11 is really quite good...
While the quality of Internet Explorer has improved a lot in the past couple of versions, Internet Explorer still has a ways to go before it can be considered to be "quite good."
Those 2 years of bug fixes made a big difference to the reliability of Vista. It also helped that the price of RAM fell by more than a half.
From Wikipedia: "Microsoft licensed Spyglass Mosaic in 1995 for US$2 million, modified it, and renamed it Internet Explorer."
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Ca Ca still smells like shit.
photosMy Photostream
We're stuck writing apps that support IE8 because companies have so much legacy investment in other applications that require it they can't afford to move up to IE11.
Now if Microsoft came up with a browser that was secure, and supported all the IE8 wierdness, and was industry stand otherwise , and...oh never mind. Just keep calling it Internet Explorer and deal with the reputation.
It seems that every feature that Microsoft seems to add is aimed at selling their other products. There don't ever seem to be features that are just cool. I am not talking about their keeping up with the Jones' features; but anything new they add only seems to relate to their ecosystem. I can't seem to think of any WebGL type feature that they have innovated that was cool just standing on its own.
So maybe if they let engineers and developers steer the boat for a while instead of a bunch of MBA laden salesmen they might catch my interest.
As much as Enterprise customers like to push the "it has to work on IE" crap (because they're usually working with lazy IT departments or legacy applications written by people with less interest in standards compliance than me), in reality that shouldn't be my job for writing a web application. I code to the standards or I use libraries and frameworks that code to the standards. These work in Firefox, Safari, and Chrome with minimal modification (assuming I'm not using a cutting-edge new feature like web audio, notifications, or O.o()) and impressive consistency.
They never work in IE without modification.
That's not my fault. That will never be my fault.
If you want to court developers, you go out there with IE, pick apps that have not gotten IE-fixing mods, and YOU (Micro$oft) fix the browser to the standards-compliant web applications already out there.
I'm sick of and done with working around your messes for the last 15 years.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
.
Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, and tied it closely into the heart of Windows in order to get around the anti-trust legalities that Microsoft was facing.
Now Microsoft is paying for the error of those trust-avoiding legal tactics because internet Explorer is tied so deeply inside Windows that I have to reboot my computer when the Internet Explorer application is updated.
So 1990's...
for downloading firefox on a new windows install
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
'Microsoft Windows Internet Explorer"'
'Microsoft' = incompetent and expensive
'Windows' = poorly designed and useless by itself
'Internet Explorer' = buggy and utter shit of the Internet
Change everything.
Despite what MS fan boys keep spouting IE 11 is not really all that great, and the proof is in the compatibility numbers Somehow despite > IE 9 being "native html5" or whatever marketing bullshit Microsoft spouted, their browsers support less HTML5 features than say mobile freaking safari.
IE11 is definitely better than IE8, and IE11 is definitely better than IE9, but it's still not as good as Opera/Safari/Chrome/FF, and some of the mobile variants.
Windows 7 was better received by the market because it was BETTER than Vista. Windows 8 was crap and got he reception it deserved. Merely releasing 9 without removing the crapstatic TIFKAM interface will result in poor reputation.
The reasons Internet Explorer got a bad reputation:
1. It was tied to the operating system, unnecessarily. The browser has exactly zilch to do with the operating system. ActiveX controls, tying versions of the browser with versions of the OS, varying behaviour of same browser version on different OS versions etc. If IE is renamed, it should be delinked from the OS like other browsers.
2. Intentional non-compatibility with standards, because of the arrogant assumption that with marketshare they can bully the World.
3. No sandboxing, no protection from ads, popups, malware downloads, sucking upto to the MAFIAA in proprietary standards and DRM.
Fix these issues in the browser FIRST, then call it Internet Shit-hole, but people will still buy it.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Microsoft Thought of Renaming internet Explorer
http://geekthem.com/renaming-internet-explorer-shred-poor-reputation-reddit/
Please don't! I love using Internet Explorer to install Firefox.
Before Microsoft purchased it, it was called FTP Software's Explore OnNet. No doubt reverting to the original name will confound and confuse their critics.
Seriously, Microsoft... Internet Explorer has cost the company & its shareholders BILLIONS (wages, lawsuit settlements, DOJ/EU investigations, royalties, partnerships (e.g. AOL), etc.), yet made it $0 in income. If it wasn't for Bill Gates' inflated ego back in the mid-90s against Netscape, and if Microsoft would have partnered with a company like Netscape (back then) or Mozilla/Google/Opera (now), they would be in even better financial shape than they are in...
Sure, one can argue that MSN made a lot of money because it was the default homepage on IE, but MSN would have made the same amount of money if Microsoft bundled Netscape with Windows & set MSN as the default page--and would have pushed off all the R&D and risks onto a 3rd party. But no--almost 20 years later, we're still dealing with the hangover of those decisions. Business students should be doing case studies on the MS-IE debacle...
So, Microsoft, please deprecate IE!!! Do the world, and especially your shareholders, a favor. Stop at IE11. You've proven that you can deprecate things and support them on newer OSes (e.g. Jet/ACE). And since you'll need an HTML engine in future OSes (e.g. HTML Help, etc.), throw some money at Firefox (or Google, Opera, etc.) and force all "newer" internally developed programs (e.g. Visual Studio) to call this engine--while "older" apps stick with the deprecated engine (which still receives security updates) and/or are moved to the newer one over time... IE and its engine becomes a legacy feature and be done with it.
But, alas, the inflated IE ego syndrome still permeates within Microsoft...
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
Are you saying Brendan Eich should have renamed himself?
May still be worded better, but SHIT clearly describes IE and any possible successor best.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
..this.
http://xkcd.com/799/
As they use generic names like "Word" and a while ago "Mail", I can see them going with 'Browser' or 'Web".
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Microsoft has never really cared about confusing their users with branding. MSN was several different things at different times. Windows Live became a similar catch-all for a few months before it was killed. I still meet people who don't know if they ran Outlook or Outlook Express on their old computer.
Renaming IE would have been confusing for lots of everyday users. Maybe not as confusing as the Start Screen or the Charms bar, but plenty confusing.
The biggest mistake they made was when they killed the Hotmail name. Everybody knew what Hotmail was, and most people have had a Hotmail account at one point. Now it is outlook.com, but that can easily be confused with Office Outlook, or the old Outlook Express, or Office365 Outlook or who knows what else. Confusing branding helps no one.
------- Mark
It could have, but you're thinking about what the end user wants. Think like a developer who isn't getting paid for his open source work, but who wants to advance his career in the commercial world: what looks best on my resume? Maintenance programming or "shifted company to agile release schedule"? "adjusted menu spacing 1px to make it look like native look and feel and took rest of summer off" or "flat is hot this year, so I redesigned the entire UX for mobile and tablets!!"
And don't forget Metro. What a win that was. Now everybody calls it "that stupid Windows 8 touch UI that used to be called Metro".
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Seriously? You're proposing that manufacturer warranties are a suitable proxy for assessing product quality? Manufacturer warranties, particularly from car manufacturers, are best summed up with the immortal words of Cyrano Jones:"twice nothing is still nothing".
Are you old enough to remember the phrase "Fix Or Repair Daily" (FORD)? That didn't mean that the powertrain or engine was breaking every day like an Italian sports car. It was little things or slightly bigger things that aren't covered beyond the first two-three years. You're not going to buy a new car just because the passenger window started rattling or the intermittent function of the wipers stopped working after 3 years, but it's still crap quality when that becomes common. It's actually worse for product reputation because now your customer spends the next several years being figuratively smacked in the face everyday with a reminder of your company's poor standards.
Sadly not only do many of the Big Three still build vehicles where little shit starts breaking after the 2-3 years of warranty coverage is up, but so do Volkswagen Auto Group, Toyota and Honda.
I don't understand why I as a web developer have any use for IE. I don't target the Ice Weasel or Maxthon browsers, I target the W3C standard. Why would I care about IE as a web developer? I'm seriously asking? What is MS's argument for devs here?
Internet Exploder
I care a lot about IE when working as a web developer. Just not the current version. What I care about is testing my Javascript to be sure it works on the ancient IE versions which are still in use. The current version can be trusted to show the page just like any other browser.
The first problem with the name "Microsoft Internet Explorer" is
the "Microsoft" part. They need to start by changing the company's
behaviors and image. Then they can work on the products.
Chrome has the stupid 'login' feature. No thank you. I don't want to send all my browsing history to Google. I already send enough to Google by way of visiting third party web sites with adsense and use of Google's search engine. Not to mention the software is proprietary despite there being a bunch of code which has been released. Getting rid of Adobe Flash would be a good start for any modern browser.
While I'll agree Mozilla has made some poor choices in regards to firefox it still stands above the rest. I use Firefox 95% of the time and the only reason I sometimes use Chrome (or chromium actually, mostly) is that I want a fresh browser that hasn't got a thousand tabs open and I can easily clear my cookies, history, etc. without impacting the sites I have open currently.
I nominate the name (acronym): UFIA or UFIA explorer
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Actually this comes from a reddit ama.
... Instead of working on stupidity like Australis, which pretty much all Firefox users hate, they could fix the memory leaks and improve the performance. A restoration of the old UI, which was really efficient and easy to use, could very well make this new browser a winner again....
Pale Moon will continue to use the well-known fully customizable user interface, and will not be following Mozilla's move to the "Australis" user interface (by a number of people dubbed "FireChrome" because of its likeness with Google's Chrome browser interface) introduced in Firefox 29.
.
With the advent of Australis, an even clearer choice was made to not follow the Mozilla Corporation's direction in their attempts to create a "one size fits all" user interface from mobile phone to HD desktop. There is no such thing, and to attempt it is folly, in my opinion. For Pale Moon, there is also no reason to attempt "brand unity over operating system unity" (meaning an attempt to make the browser look the same regardless of operating system it is used on), and Pale Moon rather aims for "operating system unity over brand unity" (meaning an as high level of visual operating system integration as possible to provide a familiar, well-intergrated user interface).
Seems to me the obvious name would be GoogleScript.
That worked for Javascript, creating an immense amount of confusion. F.U.D. is Micro$oft's DNA.
Since everybody is trying to make a browser into an application platform, why not just rename it Microsoft PC? But we know it'll stand for puppy chow. It'll also be interesting to see if Micosoft ends up eating their own dog food. :-)
Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
IE good? give us a break. Worst piece of hidden publicity I have ever seen. It begs to be asked, who paid for this "article"?
Netscape was buggier than IE if you can believe it? Netscape set the standards and not merely disobeyed them!
No thank you. As bad as ancient IE around Netscape would have been a monopoly with no Ajax or Firefox if IE didn't exist. Dark times but oddly we remember them bright as we had no www previously
IE 11 html5 video playback is washed out and blurry. IE 11 like firefox runs choppy and slow when flash player installed, chrome is faster but does get a little bit choppy when you have Ad's but still faster than IE and FF. I use flash mainly for hulu and crackle. I'm running phenom ii x6@2700mhz, 8gb ram, 1gb radeon 6570 card.
First off, the market share hasn't dwindled nearly as much as you claim. Second, if all you can offer is empty negative criticism, your opinion isn't worth much. Third, renaming Firefox won't help because people like you will just badmouth the newly-named version too.
I know we're all supposed to hate the loss of trivial UI features and the new UI, and the alleged "Chromeification", yet that's all people like you seem to have noticed since Firefox 3. Has there been nothing good since then? At all? Apparently Mozilla could have rolled a perfect 300 since Firefox 3 and you wouldn't have noticed. Things would have ended up the same regardless.
Besides that, I'm not at all convinced the new UI is as slow as people claim it is. I've compared Pale Moon and Firefox 31, and the new UI is not slower. Startup times are faster in 31 too. It's only when I load up the old UI with Classic Theme Restorer that the performance in both is comparable (ie, 31 becomes as slow as Pale Moon).
So you're either talking about YOUR performance with the UI (muscle memory), or bugs they haven't worked out (because people like you don't help figure out the bugs, they just flock to Pale Moon after a brief bitch-fest). To date it's the alleged fans of Firefox who have caused more damage to it than Australis, the Eich conspiracy, and all the other negatives.
Nobody cares about Firefox anymore, they just want it to stay the same slow, bloated browser so they can complain about how much faster Chrome is.
I hope you at least consider a firewall. I just had this discussion with another IT guy. The face remains that you, at the least, want to have an AV solution. I get your HOSTS file modification (been doing it for years), but theree are times when known good addresses get compromised, so not having that last line could be devastating to a less informed/inclined user. Be careful what you promote. Something else to keep in mind is that there are advertising sites that tiger features that users may have get, shop off your going to mod hosts then be sure to be meticulous...
"Surfboard" is what you surf on and it goes with the "surface" theme.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The proposed name was the Bing Binger by Bing®
It already has another name that is commonly used: "Internet Exploder" Why don't they just use that already? They really are bit behind the herd, aren't they?
There will never be another nuclear incident at Windscale, because we've renamed it Sellafield...
Microsoft has such a bad rep, they should rename everything save for xBox. Windows has a bad rep, windows phone has a bad rep, IE has a bad rep..
They should add an email client, a WYSIWYG HTML editor, and maybe even an IRC client, while simultaneously making a simplified user interface and making it less resource intensive than Firefox. They could then rename it to something like Netscape Navigator, Mozilla Application Suite, or even SeaMonkey. It would be a much better web browser.
A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.
And a steaming pile of shit by any other name still has flies buzzing around it.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
This is a completely bogus story anyway. Having worked at Microsoft for a decade and a half, I can assure you that (a) the dev team can't just have a hallway conversation and decide to rename a product and (b) if the company did somehow decide a name change was in order, they'd pay a consultant millions of dollars to do research and come up with the new name. Marketing names like "PowerShell" and "Silverlight" cost about $100K a pop and basically have no input from "the development team".
As a web developer, you might target the W3C specifications, but you don't test against them. You would test on a number of browsers. Unless you don't do tests... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Is this really what is going on at Microsoft? Their staff has so much free time that they can sit around sorting out whether or not to rename a browser?
Are we going to get an educational campaign to go along with it? After all they will have to explain to people that, "Internet Explorer is not really gone. It is now called..." What is the life span of a bad idea in the minds of computer users? We still make fun of Clippy after all....
What an epic waste of time.
They need to suck up the fact that their product was sub-par for years. Focus on the improvements. Continue moving forward.
The exact audience who cares about the differences between IE, Chrome, WebKit, Trident and all of the cross roads of the various technologies is not going to be "fooled" by a re-branding. Those are the people who matter. Those are the people who are developing web technologies. Give them the features that they want. At the same time, give the end users a stable, secure application.
The truth is that the war is over. HTML5 is here. Everything that used to require ActiveX can now be done in HTML5. I am already seeing large vendors make the switch. One of our larger LOB application, a web app with hundreds of internal users, recently went HTML5. The vendor did a great job. The UI looks exactly the same. The only difference that the end users see is that the site now "magically works in Chrome".
I really like PaleMoon and am very glad this has been created. It's what Firefox WAS back in the version 3 and 4 days - read: lean, easy to use and fully customizable. It also has security updates to the codebase. All my extensions work just as they did in Firefox. The only thing I don't like about PaleMoon is that SpyBot Search and Destroy 1.6.2 (the old version because the 2.x version is a giant joke like Firefox has become) doesn't accept PaleMoon as being immunized and as such doesn't work with it as it did with Firefox. Though this sounds like a PR message, I'd really encourage those who hate Firefox to give PaleMoon a try. I am very happy I took the chance now and I'll never look back until Firefox becomes FireFix'ed and returns to their roots. Oh and Mozilla, no one wants your phones either especially now that you've butchered our favorite browser. Now if we could just convince the PaleMoon folks to update their website to something a 10 year old didn't code I think you'd see this catch on a lot more.
Funny how all the other browser makers are able to make browsers that work across your multiple versions of Windows, but you, the makers of Windows, are unable to. Until you learn that lesson and actually DO something about it, you can rename your browser all you want. You'll notice that US West renaming itself to Qwest didn't work, and renaming themselves again to CenturyLink didn't help, either. Hmm...
or dung pile.
A word to Microsoft:
You can run, but you can't hide.
Link is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2dk60t/we_build_internet_explorer_i_know_right_ask_us/cjq8wve?context=1
But Ultron is an inside-ish joke from 4chan and now reddit. More here: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/210as1/google_ultron/
Funny to see that Ars is misreporting this.
Actually, "Internet Explorer" is just about the perfect name. FOSS developers fail so miserably at naming, and should take a lesson from this.
If I was a clueless user and wanted to browse the INTERNET, what would I first think to use? "Mozilla," "Firefox," "Opera," or something else that has "Internet" right in the name?
"Photoshop" versus "GIMP" is just one more example. "Winamp" isn't perfect, but pretty good, compared with "XMMS" or "Audacious", and "iTunes" and "Windows Media Center" both hit it out of the park.
Forget the clueless users, even, and look at how you find software... How many times have you discovered that there was some application for task-X that you didn't know about, despite it being in the yum/dpkg list of your system?
When looking for an IRC client, I'm hardly going to expect "BitchX" is what I want. When looking for a new file manager, "Nautilus", "Konq" and "Dolphin" doesn't mean a damn thing to me... etc.
Sure, you could go for multi-million dollar ad campaigns to get your product's name out there (Firefox), or you could just damn-well name it properly in the first place, so someone looking for it, will find it...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
A crap IS a crap. If you are going to rename "crap" as "Queen Elizabeth's crown" nobody is still going to want it.
They could improve its reputation by changing its name from 'Microsoft Internet Explorer' to 'Blackwater Internet Explorer'.
The original owners of 'Blackwater' are also frantically doing name-scrubs, so the name is currently unoccupied. (Blackwater --> Xe (2009-2011) --> Academi (2011-2014 )--> Constellis (2014-whenever people catch on to the new name).)
> Netscape was buggier than IE if you can believe it? Netscape set the standards and not merely disobeyed them!
You're making ephemeral statements to try to assert that Netscape was worse than IE in some way. That was true, very early on. Netscape became a popular platform because it had more distinct features, better support for changing standards and was less buggy for day to day tasks. Since you can't even make a coherent argument, it's probably best you stay out of this.
The boss is the only one at my work who still uses IE on his computer, he is also the only one who gets viruses on his computer several times per year. One of his last viruses came from a pop-up on MSN, so it's not just back ally web sites. IE is just an open gateway for all kinds of malware from even trusted sites.
Is 'Steaming Pile of Shit' already taken?
Oh absolutely. It's simply NoScript that I'm not a big fan of. I have (and promote) firewalls, IPS/IDS, AV - all of that.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
IE11 is standards compliant. They have a page listing all the standards they either follow or are busy implementing. And I have as many issues with IE11 in testing as I do with the latest Firefox, which are both fairly low. The big problem is IE8 which businesses still use because of stupid 3rd party vendors that built non-standard web pages that break in modern IE.
The name Firefox was chosen specifically to avoid describing the product, because a descriptive name like Internet Explorer or Office cane be trademarked, thereby meaning anyone can make a browser and call it Internet Explorer, or Browser.
There was another browser before Microsoft's that was called Internet Explorer. When the guy who made the original Internet Explorer sued for copyright infringement, Microsoft pointed out that's just a description, not a protectable name. I don't recall if the judge agreed in that particular case, but certainly we have Star Office, Open Office, etc. - there's nothing preventing other companies from selling office software called Office, so in that regard. Microsoft chose a terrible name - it's a name Apple can use too, selling a competing application suite.
If you've ever wondered why cars have such weird names, mainly being named after animals and other random shit, that's why. Chevrolet can't sell a sports car and call Mustang, because where cars are concerned, Mustang means Ford. Had Ford used the name Power rather than Mustang, every other car company could also call their muscle car a Power.
Microsoft is scarcely alone in sucking up to the MPAA's stupid and dangerous demands. Every browser vendor dropped trau at about the same time. Google may have been first though, since they already owned a DRM company (Widevine) because Netflix wouldn't support Android without hardware DRM modules. And Mozilla held out for a while. But even they realized that giving consumers the choice between "your media" and "your principles", consumers will choose their media every time. Not giving them that choice would not actually stop the DRM, it would just make Firefox have the reputation of the "browser that can't play Netflix". Maybe if the DRM came with a waiver of the second amendment instead of the first, mainstream users would actually care.
Also, every other platform is linked to a browser nowadays. iOS outright bans competing rendering engines; Android ships with WebKit built into the platform; Chrome OS literally is a thin wrapper around a browser. Microsoft making IE free and tying it to Windows was, in retrospect, incredibly ahead of it's time even if it was downright evil at the time.
That's only true if you concede that being able to trademark a unique name is valuable. I do not. A name should be descriptive, not obscure.
While you can make different "Office" products, you can't sell it as "Microsoft Office" or use their familiar logos, so they're well protected.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Unless Microsoft is planning on releasing MSIE for Mac OS X, iOS and maybe Android for some insane reason, whatever Microsoft calls MSIE will still be called MSIE because of it's ties to Windows.
...Microsoft attempted the renaming trick before. Remember Mojave?.
How well did that work out?
First to be infected . . .
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
>wants us to die
>kill
and they say being a drama queen is a stereotype...
If you are a typical web developer, you don't target the W3C standard, you target Chrome if you are making it for PCs, and iOS Safari if you are making it for phones -- either way, you are locking into WebKit moreso than W3C.
The W3C standard is the ideal, I agree, but it is not the reality.
So here I am, comparing the GP's arguments to your arguments. One by one, the GP's arguments prove themselves to be true. One by one, yours prove to be bullshit.
Based on my web sites, which reach a wide audience, Firefox is actually below 10% on most of them. It used to be over 30%, a few years ago. Now I get more visitors using IE 8, IE 9 and Safari alone than I do using Firefox. I think the GP's 10% number is actually very generous. My numbers show Firefox is down to 5% to 7%.
And the GP doesn't offer empty criticism. The GP listed some really good ways to fix Firefox: get rid of the Chome UI, make it run fast, and make it use less memory. Those are the best suggestions of them all! Nothing can get more positive than them.
And renaming does at least get rid of the bad connotations that the name Firefox gives off. If Mozilla does it right, and makes the renamed Firefox truly better, then users would have no reason to badmouth it, and the new name wouldn't get a bad reputation.
And once more, you're wrong about anything good happening since Firefox 3. It still uses too much memory and leaks memory, it's still slower than Chrome is, its UI is really bad now, and they removed several useful config options from the preferences dialog. I can't think of one thing that has gotten better with Firefox during that time. Each release has offered a worse experience than the previous release.
And you're wrong about people wanting Firefox to stay the same. The GP has obviously said that he or she wants it to go back to how it was. Other people have said it. I've said it. We don't want to use Chrome. That's why we hate what has become of Firefox's UI! We want a usable browser with a sensible UI. Firefox used to offer most of that. Now it offers almost none of it.
If Mozilla doesn't change their direction soon, Firefox will be totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter which company or product it is, if it loses 20% of its market share and dips into single-digit numbers, then it needs to fix what's wrong or it will die as a product.
New to web development?
Back in 2004, we targeted IE6 specifically, because it was the only browser that supported modern technologies (ajax, css2, ...). And was one of the rare breed of browsers that could (via ActiveX) connect web browser to web cam, microphone, scanner, ...
There were no standards (W3C is still quite few years behind) and clients demanded the functionality that IE6 provided.
Made $0?
A decade of corporate web app log in generated $0?
I think it generated many, many millions if not billions. I forced people into OS licenses, and the software suites that followed, and a corporate culture around Microsoft.
I think it worked in their favor quite well, actually.
But like others have mentioned, they rode way past the train station on that ride, and now they're losing user share (numbers and mind) considerably
It fixed Comcast's rep when they renamed their services to Xfinity. Oh wait, no it didn't.
while
that we all know Microsoft are famous for (Excel, Access, Exchange, Powerpoint...), they should simply call it...
"TWENTY YEAR TRAINWRECK".
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
the point is unique vs generic. "Office" is generic, hence can't be stamped with a trademark. "Microsoft" is a brand. "Microsoft Office" is a unique product attached to a brand, hence is trademarked. "Internet Explorer" is two generic words (per the judgement to which you refer) which even together don't warrant trademark protection. However, "Microsoft Internet Explorer" being two generics *and a unique word protected by a trademark stamp* is by virtue of one of its words being protected, protected.
As to naming conventions using nondescriptives: it's easier, in the US commercial legal space, to claim trademark protection on a name that *doesn't* describe what a product *is*, than to fight for a commercial monopoly on a generic word. Hence "Mustang" vs "380BHP of steel and noise", "Opera" vs "Yet Another Browser", "Access" vs "Entry-level database management"...
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
A few days ago.
Oh yeah, and in the Reddit IAMA even before that.
Slashdot -- news for nerds that keep coming back because they don't know any better.
Oh wait ! Call it, Spry ! No No I got it. Call it ... Search ! 'Nother one; call it .... NCSA AIR. Ah too long. Here, call it ... IBOX. Ok Ok ... already taken. Better yet; call it ... Breath. Hay, it's almost like Bing ... in a Freudian kinda way. No no not THAT Bill Gates favorite pass-time way. Got it ! It's Coulomb. YEEEAAAAA. Even deeper Freudian than Breath.
Art, that is what it is! Art!
And they don't even pay me!
Ha ha
Maybe, maybe not. What's your evidence?
Looks to me more as if you're trying to post a political troll post.
That is all.
They should call it For Example instead of i.e.
Let's be honest, Firefox was never that great. It was just far, far better than the competition, which was mainly IE6 at the time.
The add-on architecture is antiquated and a security nightmare. Security issues in add-ons can be easily exploited. Firefox had some major memory and performance issues for the first few years, and now it has been surpassed by Webkit/Blink based browsers. The rendering engine is average, but doesn't get as much development effort as Webkit/Blink.
The UI was always just adequate. Nothing special, and outright bad in a few places like the history view (which was incredibly slow and lacked a search box) or the preferences window. Tab handling was awkward for years too, until they copied Chrome.
I switched to Chrome years ago, mostly because of the rapid release schedule and constant breaking of the UI every time I got used to it. In hindsight though, I wouldn't say Firefox was ever a really good bit of software. It just sucked less than everything else, except maybe Opera that never gets any love.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So web developers can say "look at how many Bong hits I have today!"
Just rename it "The Internet". You and I know that the web isn't the internet, but the average grandma doesn't. I'm surprised Apple haven't already tried it with Safari.
I'm starting to think that there's an active effort to discredit Firefox going on, and not one with any merit. Every possible chance there is to inject a negative diatribe about Firefox, you see one. It is never anything but overblown and self-serving nonsense about how Mozilla isn't doing what the commenter wants, and it's always rife with self-serving stats the commenter pulled out of their ass. Even better, they always take a holier-than-thou and finger wagging tone, as though Mozilla has done nothing positive at all, and the reader knows precisely how to solve the problems (which are generally things that Mozilla has been working on anyway, but the commenter apparently hasn't noticed any improvement since Firefox 3). It would all be amusing, if it wasn't clear that this kind of thing does nothing to improve Firefox and probably drives away more people than any changes Mozilla ever made.
What are they going to call it? Bob Jr.?
It's the FireFox old-guard, much like with Opera the "old-guard" put up the most stink (myself included) when Opera switched to Blink.
The new firefox is much improved over old, and I believe it purposely got rid of things like the "status bar" and old "addon-bar" to get rid of the extension cruft of useless crap that isn't even needed anymore and all the addon's that are barely masked spyware that needs those "elements" to run.
After spending close to a decade developing websites that had to work in IE6, the very name Internet Explorer causes my heart to start racing, my fists to clench involuntarily, and a sudden urge to punch something. Oh, the thousands of hours I spent screaming at that POS as I watched it puke out some incomprehensible interpretation of my carefully crafted sytlesheets, dooming me to the torturous hell of browser hacks and removal of features. I really could are less how great IE11 is or what it looks like, I simply cannot bring myself to ever voluntarily use that browser ever again.
You can slap a new name on it but in the end, all you have is a shiny pile of shit.
... his/her ...
... him/her ...
... herself ...
... her ...
... her ...
... her ...
... she ...
... his/her ...
... MR./MRS. ...
man you cant even keep your gender associations consistent, that sort of incompetence explains why your HOSTS file solution fails in so many cases.
After all, we know it's from MS so it's going to be buggy and crappy.
Be seeing you...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Why do you end every single paragraph with an ellipsis...
Did you fail first grade...
When they taught you about the period...
Or do you have a mental condition...
That forces you to abuse ellipses...
That's my guess.
This is absurd. So because long-time Firefox users point out some very serious problems (like bad UI changes, memory leaks that remain unfixed after years, performance that's worse than the competitors) that are affecting them and their use of Firefox, there's somehow an anti-Mozilla conspiracy going on?
Yes, I do agree that we see a lot of complaints about Firefox these days, but they aren't without merit. Firefox's new UI is pretty much a total clone of Chrome's, and a lot of people did continue to use Firefox because they didn't and still don't like Chrome's UI. It's totally reasonable for them to complain about the recent Firefox UI changes, especially as they make Firefox's UI more Chrome-like.
And Firefox still is slow. As somebody who uses both it and Chrome, I can say without a doubt that Chrome feels faster in every way. I think it's perfectly reasonable for Firefox users to expect Mozilla to be able to get Firefox to be at least as fast as Chrome is, if not faster. There's nothing wrong with holding Firefox to a high standard.
I don't think anyone can dispute that Firefox's usage has declined significantly relative to several years back, and it's continually decreasing. The exact numbers are irrelevant; the fact is that there is a decline going on, and that's not good for Firefox's long term future. People are choosing to not use Firefox, and that's not a good thing for it.
So cry "CONSPIRACY!" if you must. All I see here is a lot of people involved with Mozilla putting their fingers in their ears and going "NYA NYA NYA NYA NYA NYA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" when faced with valid complaints from Firefox users. The longer Mozilla plays this game, the more Firefox users suffer, and the fewer of them there will be. Firefox is facing some very serious competition these days, and it's totally failing in so many ways. The solution is for Mozilla to improve Firefox, instead of blatantly copying Chrome. The solution is not to write off reasonable and well-grounded complaints as part of some absurd "conspiracy".
Listen. You can act like spoiled children all you want. You can keep always asking for more more more, while never recognizing anything good that Mozilla does, or all the obvious improvements made to Firefox (just try Firefox 3 again; I dare you to consider it "no worse"). You can also keep decrying what you don't like, and conflating what that as "badness". Even simply the silly fact that it "looks like Chrome" to your terrible vision. No foul there, really.
But if you honestly think that this subjective and self-serving negativity is helping anything, and you want to read these as the reasons that Firefox will eventually die, then don't expect anyone to WANT you as users.
We all know that the moment there's no longer a "#2" browser like Firefox, you whiners will just shift your negativity campaign to Chrome. But Chrome won't care about you. In fact, you'll actually be ignored outright, just like you think you are with Firefox. And it's only fair - you guys can't contribute anything worthwhile except a lot of hot air and scathing reviews that resemble reality less and less as the months go on. I'll bet once they implement multiprocess tabs you'll still say Chrome is better, because god forbid anything Mozilla does be worth a damn to you.
Frankly I don't ever care anymore. Everything you people say shows quite clearly that you've got no interest in Firefox beyond what you think it should do for you. You'll go the extra mile unless it involves you actually having to do anything to help out. The only thing better than helping out is killing your favored product with bad reviews; that sure makes a lot of sense.
Also, if you want to take offense when someone points out how useless you are, and how your smearing of Firefox helps nobody, that's fine too. Just don't expect to be taken serious for your petty and closed-minded rants. Hell, you want so badly to be right that you have to assume that I work for Mozilla or something. I'm with others in this thread - you guys suck far more than Firefox ever did. And I don't care how you react to hearing that. At least Mozilla does something for the good of the web, and I'm not even a fan.
We usually call it "Microsoft Internet Exploder" because it always made look our sites like a bomb had exploded in. XD
GATE; because it's always missing something.
My program for hosts file construction adds security, speed, reliability, + anonymity & does more, more efficiently by FAR vs. addons + fixes DNS' security issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of benefits in link)
Summary:
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default)
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse"
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome redirects on sites, /. beta as an example).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity/room 4 breakdown,
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"
...apk
My program for hosts file construction adds security, speed, reliability, + anonymity & does more, more efficiently by FAR vs. addons + fixes DNS' security issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of benefits in link)
Summary:
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default)
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse"
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome redirects on sites, /. beta as an example).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity/room 4 breakdown,
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"
...apk
Well obviously, any plan to rename IE would eventually fall through when they realized the damn thing still sucks and then they'd just be gaining ANOTHER product under their brand that is universally recognized as a steaming pile of crap. ;P
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
So they *BUNDLED* the browser into the window manager, and then Gates almighty swore on a stack of bibles before a federal judge that "Its unpossible ya honer, wees can no way sep'rate tawone from tother." (These were the Netscape wars). They then did a few years of updates to fully see Netscape killed and decapitated. They then disbanded the team, spread them throughout the rest of the company (some left, some retired), and basically sat on the product for 10 years. No more new development, no advancements, full retail to the customer, stock options for the old M$ club, and pennies per share for shareholders (deferred). 10 years. And then along came Firefox. It was laughed at. It was a bloated joke. It was slow and buggy. And then it slowly got better. And got new features. And would render content correctly. And they lived by the 'upgrade your browser' story for years. And people started to switch when there were bugs that Firefox didn't have. And the tide started to turn. And they kept with the 'upgrade your browser' line. And the tide kept moving. Finally a decision was made, and they had to hastily re-assemble the team. And momentum was already lost. And no one at first could even make the old stuff compile. Then they came out with more, but it still wasn't enough. And Chrome came out. Suddenly they were against a multi-headed hydra, and the 'upgrade your browser' line looked stupid. And they are still behind. And people don't like it when a company takes advantage of them, takes them for granted. I really don't think they have learned that even now.
So what are they going to call it? Corn Sugar?
Because that tactic worked so well for Comcast. (Xfinity.)
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
You could put lipstick on a pig........oh wait that might offend somebody.
How about: you can call a pile of manure a rose but it still looks and smells like shit.
Just like the American car industry still lags behind far behind in quality and technology, IE also does. It is also only single platform. Lack of portability is generally a hallmark of dismal code quality. I can't believe in the current age, that Microsoft would not make IE multi-platform, if it was in decent enough technical shape to do so.
US companies are just not quality or R&D focused. It is like the difference, sitting in a VW, Audi, BMW, or Mercedes, and then going and sitting in some horrible thirsty plastic filled GM or Chrysler built horror. There is a reason that most of the US built vehicles aren't seen in countries with more sophisticated tastes. It is because they are bad. The same applies to IE. It's dominant market share is in the country most well known for unsophisticated taste - the United States. It is still bug riddled - I know, because I spend plenty of time working arounds its bugs. This week alone, I have struggled with the scrollbars in its list widgets, and cursed parts of CSS3 that are broken in it, resorted to making my own list widgets, and worked around a DOM issue, and my primary function isn't even a web developer.
Mozilla has SeaMonkey, but that browser needs a name change, too, but for different and reasons.
I had the same experience with IE10. I was developing an online game. Worked great in every other browser. People told me IE10 was now a good browser. Nope, it had a memory leak. Internet Explorer has always been toxic.
Chrome doesn't use Webkit anymore.
For reliability assessments I found the following sites useful the last time I went shopping for a car:
http://www.anusedcar.com/
http://www.reliabilityindex.co...
The first one is run by TÜV in Germany (Technischer Überwachungs-Verein, Technical Inspection Association). The ratings are based on 500 car defect reports each, any less and a model does not make the list. The other site is run by Warranty Direct, a British insurance company that sells direct consumer warranties. This site breaks down the faults by components.The sites mostly concentrate on European brands but Ford and Chevrolet are included.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
iCloud
Bong Cloud
iexplorer2_cloud.exe
Eye Eee Cloud
This solves everything. Instead of expensive programmers that creates security patches, simply rename it as the builtin backdoors are revealed.
Prediction: browser share is still going to be crappy after the renaming exercise.
Maybe Microsoft should consider renaming itself... its brand name is a stinking taint unto itself.
Pff! IE's a security/update nightmare. Just stick it in the cloud and call it IE 365 or IE Live or something.
They need to make it multi platform (mac, linux) so developer ever want to use it again. firefox & chrome made their cross platform development so much better. And the reason IE got better, is because MS was put into a corner, dev doing work with firefox and followed some standard, and they didn't look great on IE, forcing IE to adopt some standard if they still wanted to be relevents !
Can people install Internet Explorer 11 on Windows XP? Windows Vista? No. The product is still useless. You can't make people buy new computers or a new OS just so they can view your modern website properly. People will update their browsers however (see: Firefox, Chrome), but this is not possible with Internet Explorer. This is their main problem. If Firefox and Chrome can support Windows XP there is no reason that Internet Explorer cannot. (We'll leave Safari out of it, they are just as bad as IE for OS compatibility.)
I get sick of them trying to force themselves into all spaces, they hurt others who were truly creative, like Netscape, and what they leave stinks.
Typical of the greed obsessed corporapist mentality here. When your company or product name is tarnished by corruption, malfeasance and incompetence, why go to the actually work and cost of resolving the problems when you can simply obfuscate and confuse with a name change.
Call it Fido
I have had no sympathy for IE ever since Microsoft used their then-monopoly power in operating systems to destroy Netscape. I believe that the correct government response to Microsoft's actions would have been to require them to withdraw IE from the market (stop development, stop including it in future versions of Windows, and modify microsoft.com to refuse connections from it).
To what, Pathetically Inept Nonsensical Garbage (PING...to go along with BING)?
They will then have to drop the 'Microsoft' part, that tarnishes everything.
Microsoft can't quit an HTML engine from their OS because they need an HTML engine some place to draw their own screens when not having a browser installed (XHTML is a defacto standard for some GUI operations).
... mm ... that's all ... oh I forgot that MS made many proprietary products depending on IE ... if you quit IE then all these products won't work. First the need to clean everything else and to work with standards.
And
For me, a real OS must offer some way to attach an external composition engine for user interfaces if these engines have no security holes by themselves, in such case the OS will be broken on its roots.
MSolutions is the problem. MSIE renamed would be indicative of MS problems. Strict W3C, ISO ... Standards compliance is required.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
let's call it .....Netscape Navigator..... oh well so maybe they would have to buy the name from AOL...on second thought perhaps AOL has ruined the reputation of Netscape just as badly as Microsoft has ruined Internet Exploder
They don't necessarily need to change its name, they just need to apologize for foisting a shitty browser on the world for almost two decades now. Apologize profusely, in public, in newspapers and on the front page of microsoft.com, then change the OS to include several easy-to-find alternatives, and pinky-swear that you'll never do any bullshit like that again. Then, okay, we will begin to reconsider Internet Exploder. Until then, no.
Gee whiz, we can't call it Internet Exploder anymore.
I finally switched over to Pale Moon if only for that they've kept the old Firefox UI. Since it is Firefox under the hood the same plugins work but so far I've not had to install MemoryFox which is a good thing.
They should also rename Windows Phone to not include Windows. Most of the people I know refuse to touch one purely because of word association. Apple was smart there - there are a lot of diehard Windows fanboys and gamerkids with iPhones who would have never touched one had they named it OSX Phone over iOS.
Easedrop, 5by5, Curtain, Goto, Farscape, Blackbox, Now, Vortex, Rabbithole, Genie, Parallax, Lightyear, Bootup, Mirror, Freshaire, Tome, Checkeredflag, Candlelight, Spacetime, Weave, Connect, Slick, Lantern, Finishline, Rocket, Jackinthebox, Harpoon, Pictureframe, Synthesis, Energy, Peephole, Escape, Discoverer, Collector, Frontdoor, Footlocker, Gamma, Onoff, Wick, BBQ (better be quick), Windowcrank, Bolt, Frame, Hinge, Meteor, Crystalball, Bulb, Ace (anyone can explore), Bluesky, Flyingcarpet, Tether, Handle, Neo, Amp, Neural, Charge, Wave, Rivet, Next, Nebula, Solarwind, Redpill, Wetstone, Overdrive, Overpass, Link, PDQ
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
They should name it according to the way people use it:
"Microsoft Googler", or maybe "Microsoft Google Chrome Downloader", would seem to be good choices.
It's microsoft's interest to display adds. Microsoft's target audience has never heard of add blockers and all those technical things. They want an appliance. At least that's always been Microsoft's attitude.
"Escape"
How about
"Sorry-We-Tried-to-Ruin-the-Internet Explorer"
"Thank You Mozilla For Making Us Update Our Crappy Browser" Browser
"Google Chrome" (oops, that one's already taken)
I say continue with Halo naming, like Kortana. I suggest Phantom or Ghost, I prefer the latter. "Ghost" alone or "Internet Ghost" works also. It could also advance the use of secure, private browser sessions. call it "Ghost Mode"
Regarding AdBlock/W. Palant: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & he can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default + 'souled-out' to GOOGLE).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!
Result:
Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts & certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
ClarityRay is also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (however - it can't DO THAT to hosts files).
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from 1 FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - Funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Hosts = a superior solution that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Regarding AdBlock/W. Palant: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & he can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default + 'souled-out' to GOOGLE).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!
Result:
Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts & certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
ClarityRay is also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (however - it can't DO THAT to hosts files).
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from 1 FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - Funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Hosts = a superior solution that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Regarding AdBlock/W. Palant: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & he can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default + 'souled-out' to GOOGLE).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!
Result:
Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts & certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
ClarityRay is also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (however - it can't DO THAT to hosts files).
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from 1 FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - Funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Hosts = a superior solution that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Regarding AdBlock/W. Palant: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & he can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default + 'souled-out' to GOOGLE).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!
Result:
Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts & certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
ClarityRay is also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (however - it can't DO THAT to hosts files).
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from 1 FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - Funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Hosts = a superior solution that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... so *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That's illogical but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk
Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... so *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That's illogical but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk
Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... so *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That's illogical but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk
Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... so *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That's illogical but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk
My FREE program for hosts files adds reliability, + anonymity & does more, more efficiently by FAR vs. addons + fixes DNS' security issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
Summary:
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects, /. beta for example).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"
...apk
Regarding AdBlock/W. Palant: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & he can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default + 'souled-out' to GOOGLE).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!
Result:
Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts & certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
ClarityRay is also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (however - it can't DO THAT to hosts files).
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from 1 FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - Funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Hosts = a superior solution that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
My FREE program for hosts files adds reliability, + anonymity & does more, more efficiently by FAR vs. addons + fixes DNS' security issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
Summary:
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects, /. beta for example).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"
...apk
Regarding AdBlock/W. Palant: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & he can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default + 'souled-out' to GOOGLE).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!
Result:
Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts & certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
ClarityRay is also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (however - it can't DO THAT to hosts files).
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from 1 FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - Funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Hosts = a superior solution that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk