Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Considered Renaming Internet Explorer To Escape Its Reputation

Posted by samzenpus on from the a-rose-by-any-other-name dept.

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."

260 of 426 comments (clear)

  1. Re: Call it Web? by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Funny

    They can't name it after Steve Ballmer either, Chrome is already taken by google.

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  2. American car companies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

    1. Re:American car companies... by Iamthecheese · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Audi, BMW, Porche, Volkswagen, Honda, Ford, Mazda, Mitssubishi, Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota weren't sitting on their thumbs in the 15 years it took GM, Ford, and Chevrolet to get their cars up to snuff.

      In that time every category of safety, performance, features, and mileage received a huge improvement with no significant increase in cost. Across the board, across manufacturer and country borders. The gap has closed but foreign makers raised the bar again. Frankly I won't be surprised (or morn) if Chevy goes out of business completely. US manufacturers still have some innovation to do. They should start with expiring patents from Japan.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    2. Re:American car companies... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      im not sure we are looking at the same car companies. the biggest gainers over the past 6 years would be the koreans with hundei and kia, and the domestics are making cars that are just as good if not better than the imports these days.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:American car companies... by Iamthecheese · · Score: 4, Informative

      I started a post with the aim to thoroughly rebuke you and refute your claim. The first place I looked was a Google search for standard warranties which gives US manufacturers' warranties as about the same lengths as foreign warranties. Next I looked for how well manufcaturers actually stand by their warranties. The number of hate articles and lawsuits over various foreign and domestic manufacturers' warranties seems about the same. Cars still on the road is another way to look at reliability. After some research I have come to the conclusion that the oldest cars longevity isn't related to quality of manufacture but rather dedication of the owners, older common cars are foreign -- but that doesn't count toward my point since the increase in US manufacturers' quality is relatively recent -- and common cars aging on the road today are about the same across country of manufacture.*

      The late 1980's and early 1990's saw Honda et al. Eating Ford's lunch and US manufacturers' advertising focused on brand recognition. Later ads focused on features. Since this is a case of competing against quality with features (and because Tesla) I'm not even going to contest that US manufacturers ever fell behind on features.

      Foreign cars still dominate in the mileage category but that alone is insufficient to state in the grand sweeping way I did that US made cars are inferior.

      In short I stand corrected. US manufacturers have fully caught up with foreign makers in most categories of vehicle quality.

      *excluding outliers.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    4. Re:American car companies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Especially since the browser isn't even compatible with the other services Microsoft offers like the Outlook Webmail.

      IE11 works perfectly with current versions of Outlook Web Access. What you probably are referring to is that with IE10 and later MS stopped supporting some old non-standard IE-quirks, which is a good thing (!) but affected old versions of OWA that targeted old IE versions - unless you put IE in compatibility mode, then also the old OWA works with IE10+.

      Which any admin with a minimum of competency very easily could and should have set up automatically for the users if they insist on using an outdated version of Outlook Web Access. So, if you have this problem you have a very incompetent IT department.

    5. Re:American car companies... by paiute · · Score: 5, Funny

      Microsoft Edsel

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    6. Re:American car companies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Audi, BMW, Porche, Volkswagen, Honda, Ford, Mazda, Mitssubishi, Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota weren't sitting on their thumbs in the 15 years it took GM, Ford, and Chevrolet to get their cars up to snuff.

      Glad to hear Ford wasn't sitting on its thumbs while it improved its cars.

    7. Re:American car companies... by JimSadler · · Score: 2

      Perhaps Microsoft should rename Explorer something like "Rancid Arm Pit oF a Dead Whore.".

    8. Re:American car companies... by Technician · · Score: 2

      I still look over parking lots to find cars with rust, peeling paint, etc as when I buy a car, I don't want it to look like a 10 year old junker in 5 years. I don't like the trend but some forigen cars are haveing American car paint jobs with peeling clear coat and badly oxidized paint. My 12 year old Toyota has better paint and is not garrage parked.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    9. Re:American car companies... by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 2

      The sys-admin should know that if the company is running an old OWA version but have deployed new browser versions, then he need to set his users browsers to compatibility mode and they will have no problems.

      What?!? You actually expect sys-admins to test before deployment?!? This is a Microsoft shop we're talking about.

    10. Re:American car companies... by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...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.

      Completely agree. The stink will take [at least] a generation to wash off. In the 90's I owned a Honda and the company cars were Fords. The Honda never gave us any trouble; the Fords had constant issues directly related to poor manufacturing control (side panels that would pop-off when the door was closed---on a two day old car).

      I no long work for the company that provided Fords. Since then I've bought 3 Hondas (all made in Kentucky), 1 Nissan, 1 Toyota (used), and 1 BMW (used; built in North Carolina). While I read the stats that say the American Big Three have their act together, I'm not about to bet $30K or more that they do.

    11. Re:American car companies... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Informative

      what about the thing where millions of GM cars from the past decade are at risk of shutting down the car while driving due to an ignition defect, which the company has known about but did not inform consumers about so many people died? how does that fit into your quality matrix?

    12. Re:American car companies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These days I'd say American cars are superior to European autos, and virtually in a tie with the Japanese.

    13. Re:American car companies... by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      That's not fair, Microsoft doesn't kill whores. They put nice lipstick on them and warn you about how free sex is really dangerous.

    14. Re:American car companies... by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      It stands as a mark against GM's corporate culture and their handling handling of the situation from both an engineering and PR perspective. Similarly to the problems with Toyota's acceleration pedals and all the backtracking that went on there.

    15. Re:American car companies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      IE still lags far behind in standards compliance and support for HTML5 and CSS. It has yet to become superior to the competition. It also ties some new features to the latest Windows (8.1) like SPDY. But Microsoft has dropped most of their opposition to certain features adopted by Google and Mozilla... IE11 supports WebGL and they have joined the Khronos group as of last week. There's no reason the browser can't catch up very quickly even without switching rendering engines (it was speculated they could switch to WebKit/Blink)

    16. Re:American car companies... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      the truth is the issue is no wheres near as big of an issue as its being talked about. I had a GM with an ignition problem. all it meant was the key could come out when the car was running, even if it powered off if its not as if the brakes engage, you simply hit the brakes and come to a stop, or throw it in neutral and start the car back up, not a big deal. the airbag recalls im more concerned with than this

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    17. Re: American car companies... by zzats · · Score: 1

      I am European, so my opinion is bound to be biased, but in short: you are wrong. I measure car quality by (fuel) efficiency, emissions, total cost of ownership and reliability. No American car manufacturer can match the level upheld by the big three (VAG/BMW/Mercedes). Ford comes close but their cars are just a little worse by every single criterion. There are statistics to support my claim, such as the inspection statistics released yearly from Germany.

    18. Re:American car companies... by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Informative

      I still look over parking lots to find cars with rust, peeling paint, etc as when I buy a car, I don't want it to look like a 10 year old junker in 5 years. I don't like the trend but some forigen cars are haveing American car paint jobs with peeling clear coat and badly oxidized paint. My 12 year old Toyota has better paint and is not garrage parked.

      Tough luck huh? I guess you don't spend much time in a place with a lot of salt. Try it in Canada some time, and you'll see 3 year old cars at times from companies like Toyota, Honda, and Kia already turning into rust buckets. Funny enough, the GM, Ford, Chrysler, and a few of the higher end brands like Audi, are still looking pretty good. Doesn't always hold true though, seems to rely heavily on just "how good" the steel was when the parts were made. And whether or not the person putting the final panels on(when the robots don't), nicked any edges.

      Interestingly enough, if you've got a complaint about how the cars look, you're better of telling the automakers to build their cars using polymer panels like what Saturn did. My old '96 saturn looked nearly as good as the day it rolled off the lot in 2014.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    19. Re:American car companies... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      Yes. Yes it would. Because the issue is not that a couple people died. the issue is that there is a culture at GM where they cover up mistakes instead of fixing them. So I'm not going to buy a car from them because if there's a mistake they won't tell me about it.

    20. Re:American car companies... by JeffAtl · · Score: 2

      That's not easy to do if you're rounding a curve though.

      To be clear, I agree that the "pound of flesh" crowd is out in full force, but this is a pretty major screw up. When the engine suddenly shuts off, most people are not going to know what to do in a split second.

    21. Re:American car companies... by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      A lot of that is due to environmental issues though - like road salt or parking under a tree.

      Also, the paint job you're looking at might not be the factory one.

    22. Re:American car companies... by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Audi, BMW, Porche, Volkswagen, Honda, Ford, Mazda, Mitssubishi, Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota weren't sitting on their thumbs in the 15 years it took GM, Ford, and Chevrolet to get their cars up to snuff.

      Since Chevrolet is a GM brand anyway (and has been since the early 20th century), I'd assume that's redundant unless Chevrolet is run and/or seen as being significantly separate from GM's other operations in North America?

      I specifically noted North America because I live in the UK, and your mention of those brands brought up and issue- the European market is quite different, both in terms of cars and in perception of brands. Chevrolet was virtually nonexistent here until the mid-2000s, when GM started using it for Korean-built lower-end models formerly sold under the Daewoo Motors brand (which they'd bought out). *That* probably bears little resemblance to what the brand is associated with in North America.

      (The Chrysler brand is interesting in that- following its reintroduction in the UK and Ireland (*) after the Fiat takeover a few years back - they *did* use an all-American voiceover and American-style ads relating to their heritage... hinting at, but never explicitly linking it to America. Which is probably because the cars being sold as "Chryslers" in those ads were those sold elsewhere in Europe under the Italian "Lancia" brand! (**))

      Similarly, Vauxhall and Opel, GM's "main" brands in the UK, and in the rest of Europe respectively (***) have a generally decent reputation, and even though Ford sells cars under its own name here, it doesn't have the generally-bad reputation it does over there. In both cases, this is almost certainly because most models sold by those companies in Europe are entirely different to the North American lineup, and also because they're generally either built in Europe or imported from Asia, not North America.

      In fact, to some extent, it's not so much North America and Europe, as it is North America and the rest of the world. It's been pointed out that the North American car industry may be an example of the Galapagos syndrome relative to the rest of the world. (For example, I can imagine many Japanese cars being usable on British streets, but some of the larger American models would be massively out of place and impractical on smaller and twistier British roads).

      But the tl;dr bottom line is that the repuation of such companies and their brands is often very different outside the US- often to their advantage!

      (*) Chrysler apparently tried entering the European market in the 1960s, but- unlike GM and Ford- didn't succeed, and left in the late 1970s.
      (**) Lancias were taken off the UK market after they gained a notorious reputation for corrosion problems in the 1980s- probably exacerbated by the climate here- and I suspect Fiat's decision not to use the brand here may still be for this reason, i.e. a European example of a hard-to-shake bad reputation.
      (**) Vauxhall has long been to all intents and purposes just the UK counterpart brand for Opel cars- the models are virtually identical.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    23. Re:American car companies... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      thats true i guess, the first time it happened to me i was on the highway and i was just like hmm, thats odd, kicked the car into neutral turned the key, kicked the car back to drive and continued on my way. But then again, the avg american is not brought up around cars (my father owned car dealerships growing up) and most americans dont know how to drive in perfect conditions let alone when something out of the ordinary happens

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    24. Re:American car companies... by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      The major problem that I've heard reported is that the ignition would go to the "accessory" selection and would lock the steering wheel. If true, almost no one wold be able to recover from that.

      The other problem (for many) would be the loss of power steering and power brakes. The power brakes might have some hydraulic pressure left initially, but that would go quickly.

    25. Re:American car companies... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I live by the sea so there is a lot of salt in the air. Exterior walls get a white dusting after a few years. Even so, modern Japanese cars (my own Mitsubishi included) don't seem to be rusting. If mine did I'd simply claim on the 10 year rust warranty. Don't they have rust warranties in Canada?

      FWIW the only modern cars that rust here are Fords (make in the UK).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re: American car companies... by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Do you have a link to those statistics? I'd genuinely like to know, because everything I've seen suggests that the German brands are not as good as Ford for reliability these days. Especially BMW, which may be nice to drive but can have some expensive problems (cooling systems that break after 60k miles, high pressure fuel pumps, diesel engine swirl flaps which can come loose and destroy the entire engine...). The Japnnese brands are typically better than both though.

      It's debatable to what extent Ford of Europe can be considered American cars anyway - they have traditionally had completely different models and manufacturing plants.

    27. Re:American car companies... by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Edsel

      Is there some browser I don't know about called Yugo?

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    28. Re:American car companies... by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      That's not fair, Microsoft doesn't kill whores.

      No, just like most companies they hire them and put them in Sales or Marketing.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    29. Re:American car companies... by paiute · · Score: 1

      Actually, You Go would be a pretty decent browser name.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    30. Re:American car companies... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Salt in the air sure, but we drive through the stuff roughly 9 months out of the year adding water to the mix. Corrosion against metal in "salt in the air" areas is magnitudes less than direct. Oh and we've got corrosion warranties in Canada, you *might* be lucky if the coverage is longer than 5 years.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    31. Re:American car companies... by jashsu · · Score: 1

      Predominantly used by new drivers to get to the Google or Mozilla dealership.

    32. Re:American car companies... by lucm · · Score: 1

      It's the same with electronics. A long time ago I was advising people to avoid HP or Dell laptops. Now I'd rather have a Latitude or Pavilion than a f*ing Lenovo.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    33. Re:American car companies... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      As Mr. Spock might say, "A turd, sprinkled with sugar, is still a turd."

      At least, in my mind, I always hear that in Spock's voice. Go figure.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    34. Re:American car companies... by Trongy · · Score: 1

      The faulty ignition switch, meant airbag would not function. It sounds like you never were in a accident that needed to trigger the airbag. Some people were and they died. How do you feel about driving around in a car where the airbags wouldn't work because the ignition switch was faulty?

    35. Re:American car companies... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      It is kinda not completely wrong.
      European Ford cars are very different.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    36. Re:American car companies... by zlogic · · Score: 3, Funny

      Audi, BMW, Porche, Volkswagen, Honda, Ford, Mazda, Mitssubishi, Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota weren't sitting on their thumbs in the 15 years it took GM, Ford, and Chevrolet to get their cars up to snuff.

      I agree, every time someone tries to sell me a Ford, I always tell them it's horrible and I'd prefer Ford instead.

    37. Re: American car companies... by zzats · · Score: 1

      http://www.anusedcar.com/ features compiled statistics. Most of the ford models are translatable to their US counterparts, but most of the trucks and bigger saloon cars are completely absent from the import programs and road traffic because in Europe we have this thing called climate change. :)

    38. Re: American car companies... by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      Yes. Drivers should be calm when driving a car that can go off for like, no reason.

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    39. Re: American car companies... by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      I'm from Europe myself (well, Britain), so I know about the kind of models we get. It's not clear what "fault rate" means - does this refer to number of faults discovered at legally required inspections (like the UK MOT)? A simple percentage is a bit vague as it doesn't give any indication of how costly the faults are to fix.

      I was basing my original comments partly from the figures from here,as that tries to take into account cost of repairs too.

    40. Re:American car companies... by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Switching costs ... somewhat. Now that you have a few years experience with another browser MS isn't the incumbent. they don't have to just match others in features they need to offer something good enough to be worth switching + likely using something different than on your phone/other device.

    41. Re: American car companies... by zzats · · Score: 1

      Yes, a solid point. Basically the idea is same, it's the yearly inspection indicating the roadworthiness of the vehicle, so the fault could be either emissions not matching the scale or body fractures. Even tho one cannot estimate the cost of ownership from those stats, they are a pretty good indicator of the overall build quality of the vehicle.

    42. Re:American car companies... by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Ford - Fix Or Repair Daily
      "By a Ford, you'll never be bored"

    43. Re:American car companies... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I thought it was Found On Road Dead.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    44. Re:American car companies... by jittles · · Score: 1

      The major problem that I've heard reported is that the ignition would go to the "accessory" selection and would lock the steering wheel. If true, almost no one wold be able to recover from that.

      The other problem (for many) would be the loss of power steering and power brakes. The power brakes might have some hydraulic pressure left initially, but that would go quickly.

      Power brakes might as well be called "brake assist". You can stop just fine without power brakes unless you're driving a big truck towing a huge trailer, you should not have any serious difficulty. Well, grandma driving a huge Cadillac might kill a few pedestrians...

    45. Re:American car companies... by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      neat fact. all the current ford designs

      The problems I had were manufacturing related,not design related. You close the rear door from the inside and the plastic modeling would come off in your hand (happened to [at least] two different Fords bought at the same time).

      Maybe I'll trust them in 10 to 15 years when I buy my next vehicle if they outsource manufacturing away from Detroit.

  3. question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      on thing slashdotters have never learned to pick up on is PR.

      This whole article is PR by Microsoft to spread the message that "IE is much improved". By encapsulating the message in a seeming criticism, people are lulled into joining the discussion.

    2. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by armanox · · Score: 2

      Oddly enough, with all the disable this and that options IE has (Java, ActiveX), JS isn't one of them. I generally do system-wide adblocking via hosts file in addition to using ABP. Noscipt is a giant pain in reality, and is a little on the paranoid side to be honest. So is always using HTTPS.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    3. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think noscript is arguably THE most important extension. It's not that much of a pain. All the sites I regularly visit have their essential scripts whitelisted, and no further action was needed by me after my first visit. The first time I visit a new site, I want all scripts disabled, for security and privacy. I'll look and if it seems sensible and the site seems vaguely trustworthy, I'll whitelist its domain and its CDN if it has one. No "ad tracker" scripts though, no "analytics", nothing like that.

      Noscript isn't perfect, but it's the best thing I've seen to run the needed scripts while weeding out the unwanted and harmful ones. You can't do that with a single switch - you need a whitelist. Any browser needs that functionality at least as an extension, or it's a non-starter for web browsing. I don't know that many people who browse the web "unprotected" any more. Like a friend told me, "it's like a condom for your computer".

    4. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by themusicgod1 · · Score: 2

      What would it matter? So long as you can't know what's going on in IE's engine, ghostery is pointless as people who pay off Microsoft can still spy on you, your browser sessions can be unencrypted whenever Microsoft chooses, etc. You might as well not use Noscript, either, what's the point of forbidding people from running software on an already compromised-to-the-hilt machine required to run IE (ie Windows)?

      --
      GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    5. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by armanox · · Score: 1

      Considering how often I deal with malware on my own computer, I don't really see the need to deal with NoScript. Antivirus, IPS, and staying up to date take care of *most* threats (and not pirating software, etc). The last time I had an actual infection get through, I took the easy route of just restoring to last Sunday's backup (actually, Windows Restore takes care of a lot of things too...), which took a whole 20 minutes to pull off.

      Like I said, I've blocked most tracking and analytics in my hosts file to deal with things that exist outside of Firefox (say, a program with an embedded browser, flash, etc).

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    6. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by penix1 · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't which is one reason DHS has issued at least a dozen "do not use Internet Explorer" alerts over the years.

      Oddly enough though, employees of DHS can't use any other browser so to make those alerts without following it themselves rings hollow to me. And yes, I used to be a DHS employee. Now I'm with my state. You know, you grow...

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    7. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      The message that indicates that MS hasn't learned anything and IE is worth ignoring is that they're trying to get DEVELOPERS to give the browser another look. That whole "design for me, lock out the competition" mentality that sensible people ignore. If IE11 is that good, people should willingly use it, not be coerced...

    8. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      on thing slashdotters have never learned to pick up on is PR.

      This whole article is PR by Microsoft to spread the message that "IE is much improved". By encapsulating the message in a seeming criticism, people are lulled into joining the discussion.

      On the contrary, PR postings are usually quickly noticed as such.

      But this one is so blatant that I went along with the premise so that I cold give my opinions....

    9. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by armanox · · Score: 1

      And that, I am going to have to agree with. You and I have different ideas on security and usability, and you are encouraged to do and use what you feel is best for your requirements. That, is freedom.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    10. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, with all the disable this and that options IE has (Java, ActiveX), JS isn't one of them. I generally do system-wide adblocking via hosts file in addition to using ABP. Noscipt is a giant pain in reality, and is a little on the paranoid side to be honest. So is always using HTTPS.

      I strongly disagree with you but if that's your opinion, then by all means set up your browser that way. The whole point of extensions is that it allows people to customize their browser in a way that they feel is useful and prudent.

      Indeed, but extensions are also a giant ActiveX-like security hole. There have already been cases of popular browser extensions being bought and changed to malicious behavior silently on existing users. How many of current Ghostery users know that it was bought by an ad/tracking firm?

    11. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      If those features are truly "essential", I wonder why Mozilla, Apple and Google haven't picked them up, and added them to their respective browsers.

      What you consider "essential" obviously isn't that essential for a large part of the web-surfing public.

    12. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by armanox · · Score: 1

      Malware infections are not limited to just the browser as the source. It is *a* source, and a popular one at that.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    13. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Last I checked everyone had given up on bringing addons/GM scripts to IE.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    14. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      A large part of the web surfing public is too dumb to even think about, let alone understand, why basic proactive security features are necessary, and are content to take their system in to Best Buy once every couple of months to "get the viruses cleaned off" because they don't know any better.

      Mozilla/Google/MSoft would rather people not use security-enhancing tools because their business model (setting aside Moz) to a large extent rely on the collection and sale of user information, which any good security extension blocks by default. Keep in mind "most" people only use really their computer for email, work or school, social media bullshit, and porn/entertainment. That covers 90+% of the web surfing public. And the circle continues.

      After the nth time I wiped my parent's PC I ended up just installing Chrome with the requisite extensions, setting the shortcut as IE's icon, and telling them their "Internet Explorer got upgraded". Haven't had to clean it off since.

    15. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      FireFox with NoScript (and AdBlock) is the first line of checking -- any link I first open there, and if it's not in the handful of whitelisted and if the page is too bungled to read but seems legit, then I open it in Chrome. If it's at all suspect I just close the page, usually it's some crap anyway.

      Although really would be best to use two Firefoxes -- one with NoScript and one without but still with Adblock etc., instead of Chrome.

    16. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      I ask this as someone who hasn't touched it in many years: does it support adblock, noscript, ghostery, and httpseverywhere?

      That depends upon how much you're worried about the functionality than the brand name. IE's plug-in model is different than Firefox and Chromes (which are, or at least started out, identical). So if you look up adblock's FAQ on IE, the author pretty much says he could write adblock for IE, but doesn't feel like it. So there are other ad blocking plugins for IE. I don't know about the others, but I'm sure the story is similar. But IE does have a feature called TrackingProtection which allows you to block anything you want that's coming from a third party website. Also, plugin's can be loaded on a whitelist per website basis. So you can accomplish all of the same functionality that those brand names give you, but by other means.

    17. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      It does support adblock. Don't know about the other things as I hardly ever use it.

    18. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Adblock IS essential to me and I don't care if it's integral to the browser or comes in as a 3rd party extension. All I care is whether browser X can block ads, one way or another.
      Chrome has this nice feature which installs all plugins automatically after you log in to your Google account.

      With that being said, I use IE at work but strictly for internal company web apps.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    19. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by BancBoy · · Score: 1

      Is it petty of me to think back to the 90s and the naughties and find some pleasure in those particular tables having been turned?

      --
      [UID-HeinzIntel]
    20. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by armanox · · Score: 1

      Many ads no longer pay out unless they receive clicks - which most people are not going to do anyway. They simply waste space and bandwidth for something that provides no value to the person viewing the page. And also there are sufficient ads that are malicious to make them a security concern.

      Finally, my bandwidth isn't free either, and many people have limited usage per month.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    21. Re:question: does IE support adblock and noscript? by innerweb · · Score: 1

      We just got rid of IE and use chrome or firefox now. IE is blocked as a policy, though some applications want to use it. We have simply blocked those applications from accessing anything outside of the local network by policy.

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
  4. Polishing Turds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Polishing Turds by innerweb · · Score: 1

      lmao. Even the IT staff where I work, who are heavily pro-windows, MCSEs and such joke about the *reliability* of MS products. Yes, they complain about the relative complexity of setting up some things in Linux, but as of now, we are down two windows servers, replaced with one Linux server. The overall system utilization is almost twice as much, yet the system runs faster.

      Yeah, I know, many will say they were doing something wrong, but they are not. MS just eats more resources and handles applications with problems far less well than Linux. The Linux machine has been running non-stop since it was put together early last year, the windows servers still need to bounce every month (which is better than the 2000s with every night). And before you blame the applications poor design, yeah its poor, but the OS is what needs to protect against that. If it can not then the OS has problems. MS just has more of those types of issues than Linux or BSD do.

      You can call this whatever you want. It is just how it is.

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    2. Re:Polishing Turds by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 1

      Microsoft makes a number of quality products. .NET and especially Visual Studio come to mind as the best thing they've ever made and blows anything else made by anyone else out of the water. Windows 7 is a pretty solid product and then there's Kinect, which was a HUGE innovation. It's really horribly unfair to call Microsoft a bad company when they've done a lot of very good things.

    3. Re:Polishing Turds by GerryHattrick · · Score: 1

      So call it 'Bing Bong'. That should fix its reputation.

  5. Mozilla should consider doing the same for Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. All white meat by anmre · · Score: 5, Funny

    McDonald's is happy to introduce the all-white-meat chicken McNugget!

    Wait ... what the fuck was in it before?

    1. Re:All white meat by dcollins117 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait ... what the fuck was in it before?

      Only the finest, !00% natural, meat-bearing animals.

    2. Re:All white meat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your "joke" falls flat, because nothing you said implied that anything bad was in it before. Or even anything non-chicken. Or even anything not chicken meat. The change could have been as simple as switching from a white/dark mix to just using white meat.

    3. Re:All white meat by iONiUM · · Score: 1

      Dark meat?

    4. Re:All white meat by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      I.e. pigeon meat, not chicken meat.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:All white meat by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      i.e. thigh meat, not breast meat

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    6. Re:All white meat by gtall · · Score: 1

      Simulated meat. Now it is simulated all-white meat. They've cracked down on their McNugget farms. Now the McNuggets are only fed white corn.

    7. Re:All white meat by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      Simulated meat.

      You really think that McDonald's is going to spend more buying simulated meat when chicken is cheaper?

    8. Re:All white meat by Known+Nutter · · Score: 3, Funny

      You must be fun at parties...

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    9. Re:All white meat by PAjamian · · Score: 1

      Right, chickens have both white and dark meat. The white meat comes from the breasts and the dark meat comes from the thighs, legs and wings. The white meat is known to be healthier, while the dark meat contains more flavour. McDonalds is simply saying that the old nuggets had both white and dark meat while these new ones are only white meat. It's a play to try to say they are healthier now.

      Of course the health benefits of this switch when the nugget is battered and then deep fried either way are debatable. It would be more admirable if they switched to white meat, a wholemeal batter and baked them instead of deep frying, but good luck getting them to do that.

      --
      Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.
    10. Re:All white meat by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

      McDonald's is happy to introduce the all-white-meat chicken McNugget!

      Wait ... what the fuck was in it before?

      Grease and grizzle wrapped in talcum powder. Then deep fried in pure cholesterol.

  7. Change "Microsoft" too? by nukenerd · · Score: 2, Funny

    While they are at it, why don't they change "Microsoft" and "Windows" too. They have got terrible reputations.

    1. Re:Change "Microsoft" too? by Brandano · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yup, the next step is renaming the Windows brand. And to keep the current theme of something that is fragile, and allows easy access to people with bad intentions, they could just call it Microsoft Backdoors, I guess.

    2. Re:Change "Microsoft" too? by gtall · · Score: 1

      I vote they change Winders to Mundungus Fletcher, from the Harry Potter books. He's a thief and has the handy nickname of Dung.

    3. Re:Change "Microsoft" too? by mpe · · Score: 1

      I vote they change Winders to Mundungus Fletcher, from the Harry Potter books. He's a thief and has the handy nickname of Dung.

      Why not go the whole hog and call it "Tommy Riddle"?

    4. Re:Change "Microsoft" too? by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      I vote they change Winders to Mundungus Fletcher, from the Harry Potter books. He's a thief and has the handy nickname of Dung. Why not go the whole hog and call it "Tommy Riddle"?

      Naming a product after the founder's alter ego is seldom a good idea.

  8. Good luck by ilsaloving · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Good luck by rwyoder · · Score: 1

      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.

      Yes, I remember downloading it and running it briefly just for giggles.
      There is a sort of complicated story behind it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

  9. They made their bed by bondsbw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:They made their bed by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      Microsoft was always playing the "short game" - after all, it was always about announcing the latest vapour-ware, future plans to pre-emptively ward off competitors, etc. to keep the stock price up, We saw how that played out in both the phone and tablet markets, which is where both current and future growth is.

      "Never interfere with your opponent when he's making a mistake." Sure, the opponents often didn't have the resources to interfere significantly, but there's one resource Microsoft couldn't control - time. The accumulation of mistakes over time hurt them badly. Thank Ballmer. Also thank Gates for making sure Ballmer was CEO way past his best-before date. Just goes to show, we all bear the seeds of our own destruction.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re: They made their bed by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Ballmer's best-before date was before he became CEO. He rode the monopoly train well past the station. The fact that he allowed the company to finally take risks with new product is pretty much the only twinkling of worthiness he had during his tenure.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    3. Re:They made their bed by afgam28 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, I remember around the early to mid 2000s there was an article on Slashdot along the lines of "who will be the next Microsoft?" and the general consensus was nobody - because Microsoft wouldn't be stupid enough to be the next IBM. IBM's mistake in the 80s was to hand over control of DOS, and Microsoft understood this and wouldn't repeat it.

      Now in 2014 it's easy to see that IE6's stagnation and Ballmer's laughing dismissal of the iPhone has put the company in a very similar place to where IBM was in the mid 90s.

  10. Annoyances by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re: Annoyances by arielCo · · Score: 1

      Wow, someone's ulcer is flaring up.

      FF never loaded my routers page because some stupid certificate bullshit at the time.

      If you're using https, it's worthless without a trusted certificate. Blame who made your router. And psst... it can be bypassed with an exception, even permanently.

      Opera, forced an update on me right in the middle of writing down stuff.

      I don't use the Wonder from the North, but apparently the update can be postponed, and the whole auto-update mechanism can be disabled.

      Why are developers so shit? You'd think they'd sit down and just think things out. PLAN THINGS YOU IDIOTS.

      I know, right? So hard to find competent help these days. So fire them!

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    2. Re:Annoyances by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "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."

      Thats the standard MS procedure, the desktop after login reacts just the same. It fools the sheep into thinking its quick

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    3. Re: Annoyances by arielCo · · Score: 2

      Then add the bloody exception, because a man-in-the-middle attack is out of the question and that's precisely what it's for.

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    4. Re: Annoyances by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      The latter is part of a system to view the default homepage and get fake pay per views on their ads. You'll notice how IE ignores interaction for a short while loading the homepage.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  11. Just make it fully standards compliant... by GrantRobertson · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...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.

    1. Re:Just make it fully standards compliant... by the_B0fh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why did mods mark it troll? He is perfectly accurate. Microsoft is *STILL* doing it these days. Right now, my favorite is the one where when your client sends a SYN, and the server responds with a RST, the client sends a couple more SYNs, you know, just in case the app wasn't really sure if it wanted to talk or not... There's even a kb article on it, and a registry setting. Which has a minimum setting of two - so no matter what you do, it will send out two extra spurious SYNs.

      We really need a TCP/MS for all the crap they pull.

    2. Re:Just make it fully standards compliant... by Livius · · Score: 1

      So... stop being Microsoft?

      (I'm not saying it wouldn't work, I just don't think the implied institutional suicide will appeal to them.)

    3. Re:Just make it fully standards compliant... by the_B0fh · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://support.microsoft.com/k...

      enjoy.

  12. Microsoft naming practices by eyepeepackets · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Microsoft naming practices by Cyberdyne · · Score: 1

      They need to pick a name which is similar, to be identifiable, but less tarnished by past bad experiences. I propose Infernal Excrement: still "IE", but much less off-putting than the name they have soiled so badly with IE6 and other fiascoes.

      To be fair ... it does suck much less now. I suppose it's rather like working for a surviving offshoot of Enron or Lehman Bros... Who, thinking about it, have probably done less economic damage globally than IE has.

    2. Re:Microsoft naming practices by Livius · · Score: 1

      Easy - Internet Exploiter. It hasn't caused physical explosions for a very long time, but there's probably several exploits happening because of Internet Explorer just while I'm typing this.

    3. Re:Microsoft naming practices by eyepeepackets · · Score: 1

      Yes, a good point about the exploits-as-we-type attribute of Microsoft's blackbox software.

      Historically, IE earned the name "Internet Exploder" because during its early days, it would not only crash, but crash and take the file system down with it, requiring a complete reinstall/rebuild of the system. I was slow moving from the Atari ST world onto PCs for my home system and when I did, the new PC came with Windows '95 with Internet Explorer built in to the OS. In the first thirty days of owning this system, IE crashed and trashed three times, after which I went down to Powell's Books in Portland and bought a copy of SAM's Slackware Linux -- and never looked back.

      --
      Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
    4. Re:Microsoft naming practices by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Insecure Exploder. And its companion mail program, LookOut!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    5. Re:Microsoft naming practices by eyepeepackets · · Score: 1

      You, sir, are a world-class wag. Cheers!

      --
      Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
  13. Totally misread the title by e065c8515d206cb0e190 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Microsoft Considered Renaming Internet Explorer To Netscape Its Reputation

  14. A rose by any other name... by DaveM753 · · Score: 1

    If it walks like MSIE,
    talks like MSIE,
    crashes head-first into a BSOD from malware-laden doom like MSIE,
    ...it's a duck.

    1. Re:A rose by any other name... by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 4, Informative

      HEY! Most of the ducks I've met have been more competent at running computers than your average MCSE.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  15. Well, I wouldn't be surprised if that worked by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Well, I wouldn't be surprised if that worked by GreatDrok · · Score: 2

      "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.)"

      Indeed, I have Windows 7 64 bit home premium on my home PC and a spare copy of Vista 64 bit Ultimate on my MacBook Pro in VMWare so I use both relatively regularly. The main visible difference is the change to the task bar and honestly, I prefer the Vista version to what they did with Windows 7. Other than that, modern hardware zips along running Vista just fine and if it wasn't for the fact that I can see the different task bar I would be hard pressed to tell the difference in actual use.

      Mind you, run 7 for any length of time and it soon starts to decay with the classic MS bit-rot and it still suffers from frequent reboots whenever it updates because it can't replace files that are being used. There's really very little different about 7 other than dropping the Vista name and little that couldn't have simply been a service pack because Vista today doesn't bog down anything like as much as it did when it first came out. Vista and 7 are still way more bloated than XP and that was a fat pig compared with 2K (my personal favourite Windows, gone too soon)

      --
      "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
  16. Why compete with free? by Andy_R · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Why compete with free? by Brandano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because it's the only way they can get their Bing search engine as a default setting and try and steal some revenue from Google, is my guess.

    2. Re:Why compete with free? by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      They could pay the other browsers the same way Google does

    3. Re:Why compete with free? by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 1

      Good plan. Pay the Chrome team to make Bing the default. Even if they paid Mozilla I doubt Mozilla would be willing to bury the Google option like Microsoft does in IE.

    4. Re:Why compete with free? by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Well it's number 3 now (after Yahoo) so I'm sure they pay some money for that position

    5. Re:Why compete with free? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I've got a Windows 7 laptop. Chrome uses Bing by default. I don't know how they did it (and I use Chrome seldom enough that I really don't care).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  17. Painting by Stumbles · · Score: 1

    a pile of shit results in a painted pile of shit.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
  18. Never never never. by cshark · · Score: 1

    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

  19. Re:Mozilla should consider doing the same for Fire by loufoque · · Score: 2

    Brendan Eich has a CEO could have fixed this.
    Remember what happened to him?

  20. Re: Mozilla should consider doing the same for Fir by arielCo · · Score: 1

    Have it your way

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  21. It's still terrible by tomxor · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:It's still terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did your non W3c compliant webkit prefixes and touch events not work?

    2. Re:It's still terrible by danomac · · Score: 1

      At this point I agree they'd be better off discontiuing it. Moving forward, they should pick another browser to bundle with Windows, and write a module for it that enables GPO processing on the new browser. AFAIK there's still not another browser that has features for centrally managing installs for large-scale deployments...

    3. Re:It's still terrible by tomxor · · Score: 1

      No they work fine... surprisingly a lot of the new css prefixed stuff has equivilent "-ms" prefixes. And i wouldn't have issue with those not working, using prefixed css properties comes with the knowledge that you cannot rely on them cross browser or even in the future.

      What i have found is more of the same: browser quirks, things that are standards compliant and they claim to support fully but do not.

  22. Really quite good by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    ...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."

  23. agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:agreed by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      I think one of the main issues with Vista was that it was allowed on hardware that couldn't run Aero because Intel had millions in chipsets that it would not have been able to sell. Two years after Vista most of that hardware had been sold and newer Intel chipsets could handle Aero at the basic level. This left a bad impression on top of all the bugs as it added to the notion Vista was not ready for release.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:agreed by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      No, the main issues with Vista were the fact that for most of its life, its driver support sucked (It was v1.0 of a new line, what do you expect?) with many really broken ones out of the gate (because they released the OS way too soon for the hardware manufacturers to be ready) and it's broken security model which incessantly asked its users if they were sure whether they wanted to let this or that do something or the other.

      They fixed both of these issues (for the most part) in Win7. Which is why people still want Win7.

      --
      That is all.
    3. Re:agreed by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Also, Vista was crammed on machines with 512 MB of RAM. I used it on 1 GB, and it was pretty damn slow. How could anyone think it would work in half that?

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  24. Mosaic by BrendaEM · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Mosaic by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't forget fucking over the original developers in the process. Microsoft negotiated the price down to $2 million by agreeing to pay royalties to Spyglass for each copy sold... Then turned around and gave the product away for free. Spyglass should have worked a better deal, sure, but it was a dick move by Microsoft.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    2. Re:Mosaic by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Oddly, not original. I worked for a company specializing in a particular business utility segment, the market leader in mainframe software at the time, which was contracted by a minicomputer company to release a version of the business utility for that minicomputer line. Flat fee plus royalty on sales, and the item was already on the price list. The guy who negotiated that contract got a big bonus. What nobody realized until 2 years later was that to support an iron-clad policy of never discounting their hardware, the minicomputer salespeople had flexibility to discount *software* - like, say, utilities. Our product, 10x or more the performance of the previous in-house release, was sold for a dollar. Another layoff story. :-)

  25. Ca Ca by alfredo · · Score: 1

    Ca Ca still smells like shit.

    --
    photosMy Photostream
  26. Will it be backward compatible? by tomhath · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Will it be backward compatible? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Which is why there is thing called a GPO you can set sites to run in IE 8 compatibility mode

      Yea, If that worked they would use it. On the other hand, if it introduces other strange behaviors they won't use it (hint: they won't use it).

  27. No features aimed at me by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    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.

  28. "not my job" - It is *Microsoft's* job by acroyear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:"not my job" - It is *Microsoft's* job by acroyear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft's ability to control de facto standards is long gone. When Netscape collapsed but Firefox was too immature, they had control. The Standards bodies worked to make html4 and Microsoft could happily ignore all of that, create their own broken implementation of CSS (this is worse than their jscript problems) and happily make everybody else play along.

      Now what they want is that same control back, but as Disney once said, "That ship has sailed." This idea of pushing to developers to create specialized webapps that are IE compatible betrays the fact that they have not been in control for years now.

      I am not going to code to IE compatibility; I'm not going to break my application by trying to get it passed IE's continually broken CSS. I code to the standards because the standards are the greatest likelihood that my application, if converted to a full-out mobile app via Cordova, or converted to a desktop-app via Adobe Air, will continue to function without change. My stuff mostly works in IE. It is up to IE to finish their job and fix their CSS and their event model and all of that stuff. I'll come part-way by using certain libraries that others are willing to address compatibility issues (jquery, for example) but no closer.

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
    2. Re:"not my job" - It is *Microsoft's* job by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Back in the IE6 days this was more true - you had to create a site that worked in all the browsers, then create a site that worked in IE. Every release since then it's been getting better. Partially it's that the IE market share dropped so MS had to get their browser back up to working with sites, but they've done a lot of work to make it closer to standards and not include non-standard extensions. These days I can pretty much code one site and just review it in IE to make sure it works fine (though libraries like jquery have helped that on the javascript end).

      I still wouldn't use IE, but at least I don't have to spend as much time in it testing.

    3. Re:"not my job" - It is *Microsoft's* job by acroyear · · Score: 2

      Yes, CSS tends to be my biggest issue. Some aspects of IE events are still wrong. How IE decided that the "unresponsive script" dialog should come up was horrid, constantly causing issues in sproutcore/ember apps.

      Some of these things are better. They are getting closer to the standards. My take remains: it is their job to finish that, not my job to meet them half way anymore. If my stuff works on IE, great, but I'm not and will never go out of my way to make it work anymore. I personally will never actually run my personal apps in IE, ever. I have 1 Windows7 box left in the house (and 2 XP boxes are now Ubuntu); that box got Chrome on it as the very first thing.

      (yes, professionally others in my company are doing that with our primary product. I professionally support that decision, though all I am doing as part of that effort is code-reviewing. These opinions are for my own personal projects independent of all of that.)

      A lot of all of this is what and where is your market. A big corporation targeting big corporations is free to spend that kind of money. But to do that, M$ needs to stop acting like they want to attract 'developers' as the original article implied. M$ does that by attracting execs and having such decisions forced on the developers from on high. Just as they've done in so many other things.

      A small development shop targeting a more general user has no need to worry about IE compatibility as their primary concern. Wait for the money to actually be there (or at least be promised) before you invest in that type of thing.

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
    4. Re:"not my job" - It is *Microsoft's* job by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What is O.o()? I haven't seen that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:"not my job" - It is *Microsoft's* job by acroyear · · Score: 2

      Object.observe() - new built-in mechanism for getting change events when a plain javascript object changes (new property, deleted property, changed property, deleted). Chrome 36 is the first browser to get it, but it is an established part of the html5 standard.

      Greatly simplifies a lot of the work the model layers have to do, and eventually means that many frameworks will over time get rid of their setter/getter mechanisms and all the weight they have.

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
    6. Re:"not my job" - It is *Microsoft's* job by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Got it, thx

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  29. Reboot when updated... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
    I don't like to use applications that require me to reboot the computer when the application is updated.

    .
    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...

    1. Re:Reboot when updated... by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      You have it completely backwards. Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows is what CAUSED the anti-trust lawsuits.

      The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. --United States v. Microsoft Corp.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    2. Re:Reboot when updated... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      Regardless, Internet Explorer is tied too closely to Windows, which was my main point.

  30. explorer is VERY useful by v1 · · Score: 1

    for downloading firefox on a new windows install

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:explorer is VERY useful by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      for downloading firefox on a new windows install

      That is why I skip that and use Ninite.

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
    2. Re:explorer is VERY useful by markimusk · · Score: 1

      How do you get to ninite.com without a web browser?

    3. Re:explorer is VERY useful by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      On a secure machine?

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
    4. Re:explorer is VERY useful by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      With a secure browser? (Or just keep my general generic install package installer on a stick.)

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
  31. Re: Call it Web? by LordKronos · · Score: 4, Funny

    Microsoft Chair - makes the internet so fast, it flies.

  32. Renaming never worked to improve reputation by jkrise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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....
    1. Re:Renaming never worked to improve reputation by JDG1980 · · Score: 2

      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.

      I agree that tying versions of IE to specific versions of Windows was a really bad idea. Many web developers are still stuck with supporting IE8 because it is the latest version that runs on XP, and many users (and even companies) still haven't upgraded. This has clearly retarded the adoption of modern technologies like canvas and SVG support, which is a serious problem.

      But at this point you really can't fully remove IE from Windows without breaking stuff. Sure, you can use the uninstall option to remove iexplore.exe (and newer versions of Windows let you do that), but if the back-end components like mshtml.dll were also removed, then a non-negligible amount of existing software would break. Since backward compatibility is really Microsoft's strongest selling point, this is a non-starter. Don't forget that Microsoft Help files also use HTML, so the Trident rendering engine is needed to view them. You could argue that this is unnecessary tying, but I'm not sure a custom proprietary format would really have been a better choice than HTML for help files – it seems a fairly sensible choice.

    2. Re:Renaming never worked to improve reputation by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      If backwards compatibility is so damned important to Microsoft, why does IE11 ignore IE7 compatibility mode settings?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Renaming never worked to improve reputation by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

      Windows Mojave was also better received than Vista and it *was* Vista.
      Once perception sets in it's hard for people to change even if they don't even try it.

    4. Re:Renaming never worked to improve reputation by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Windows Mojave, as I remember, was demoed to people who didn't get to actually use it themselves. Any sufficiently rigged demo is indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  33. Why not just deprecate IE and save some serious $? by BUL2294 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  34. Special Hip Internet Tab? by gweihir · · Score: 1

    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.
  35. Their reddit comments remind me of by Netdoctor · · Score: 1

    ..this.
    http://xkcd.com/799/

  36. Browser or Web? by houghi · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:Browser or Web? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      How about just "porn"?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  37. but they killed the hotmail name by smallmj · · Score: 2

    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
  38. Re:Mozilla should consider doing the same for Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    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!!"

  39. And Metro! by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

    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
  40. Re: question: does IE support adblock and noscript by reanjr9417 · · Score: 2

    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?

  41. Re: question: does IE support adblock and noscrip by soluzar296 · · Score: 1

    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.

  42. Naming contest entries by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    I nominate the name (acronym): UFIA or UFIA explorer

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Naming contest entries by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I nominate the name (acronym): UFIA or UFIA explorer

      How about "Webbie" who would guide you like clippie ("It looks like you are searching for tentacle porn, today")?

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:Naming contest entries by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      Stupid Webbie, I'm searching for furry tentacle porn.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    3. Re:Naming contest entries by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      I nominate the name (acronym): UFIA or UFIA explorer

      They should go after the 8 year old girl market and call it Dorathe Explorer.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    4. Re:Naming contest entries by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Bib. Bob for the Internet.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  43. Re: question: does IE support adblock and noscript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually this comes from a reddit ama.

  44. Re:Mozilla should consider doing the same for Fire by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    ... 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).

  45. GoogleScript by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    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.

  46. Microsoft PC by RudyHartmann · · Score: 1

    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!
  47. Re:Mozilla should consider doing the same for Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  48. Re: question: does IE support adblock and noscript by GSystemsOnline · · Score: 1

    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...

  49. Re: Call it Web? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Microsoft Chair - makes the internet so fast, it flies.

    How about "Stool" instead.

  50. Surfboard by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    "Surfboard" is what you surf on and it goes with the "surface" theme.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Surfboard by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 2

      Motorola already names a cable modem that.

  51. new name by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    The proposed name was the Bing Binger by Bing®

  52. Internet Exploder by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    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?

  53. A rose by any other name by msobkow · · Score: 1

    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.
  54. Re: Call it Web? by TWX · · Score: 4, Funny

    How about "Stool" instead.

    No, you see, they're trying to change how we perceive it, not reinforce the current perception...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  55. Re: question: does IE support adblock and noscript by Great+Big+Bird · · Score: 2

    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?...

  56. Waste of time by dave562 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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".

  57. Re:Mozilla should consider doing the same for Fire by chaosdivine69 · · Score: 1

    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.

  58. Way to miss the point! by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    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...

  59. A rose by any other name... by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 2

    or dung pile.

    A word to Microsoft:
    You can run, but you can't hide.

  60. Actually, it's the PERFECT name by evilviper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Actually, it's the PERFECT name by aybiss · · Score: 1

      You're exactly right. This can probably be blamed more for the non-arrival of that 'Linux Heyday' we keep pretending is arriving than anything else.

      --
      It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
    2. Re:Actually, it's the PERFECT name by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Under Debian with KDE, most of my menu items describe what the application does rather than using it's name. So at least at the foundation of a huge number of distros, there is no excuse for relying on the "cute" names application developers have come up with.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    3. Re:Actually, it's the PERFECT name by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1

      There is one advantage with going with an odd name, namely that your application name becomes the de-facto standard name for the task it is supposed to do. For example you don't manipulate an image, you photoshop it. You don't buy music in an online music store, you iTunes it. That gives brand recognition.

    4. Re:Actually, it's the PERFECT name by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Photoshop is the big exception, and it probably only worked because of "photo" right in the same.

      I've never heard of someone "iTunesing" or "Winamping". Nobody has ever "Firefoxed" the web, or "Outlooked" their e-mail.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Actually, it's the PERFECT name by evilviper · · Score: 1

      That's a good move for KDE, and it helps users a bit, but does nothing to help you find and install the applications you want in the first place.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  61. Suggested new name by Viadd · · Score: 1

    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).)

  62. Re: Call it Web? by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 1

    You owe me a new keyboard... :-D

    --
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
  63. Still tied to OS = Virus path by bobjr94 · · Score: 1

    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.

  64. New IE Name Suggestion by MAurelius · · Score: 1

    Is 'Steaming Pile of Shit' already taken?

  65. Re: question: does IE support adblock and noscript by armanox · · Score: 1

    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.
  66. Just make it fully standards compliant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  67. Trademark. Anyone can call their browser IE by raymorris · · Score: 1

    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.

  68. Re:Trademark. Anyone can call their browser IE by evilviper · · Score: 1

    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
  69. Name it "Patient Zero" by hduff · · Score: 1

    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
  70. You're an out of touch Mozillian. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:You're an out of touch Mozillian. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't even regularly use Firefox, so I don't see how I could be an "out of touch Mozillian". To me this all smacks of sour grapes. Firefox changed its UI and removed some crufty options that caused problems elsewhere, and suddenly that's grounds to treat it like the scum on the bottom of your shoe. Besides that, your few sites aren't the law on the Internet. I'm involved with sites that reach millions of people and Firefox is still not 10% of our share - but real web-wide stats still pin it around 18-20%, not 10%. If I wanted to I could cherry-pick sites that show Chrome at under Firefox's usage. But I won't, because I'm not out to build a narrative about Firefox that's entirely negative. Maybe that's because I don't feel slighted by their changes, and am not an oblivious fool.

      Firefox will become irrelevant not because it's an inferior product, but because it has no foothold outside of desktop computers. As those slide into irrelevancy, so will Firefox. Unless of course their direction with FirefoxOS saves it. But apparently that's a bad idea, because a few people still cling to the notion that their favored form-factor will somehow survive it's continuing downfall, and that if only Firefox would cater to my tastes, it would survive this inevitability. Face it, you're the ones who need a reality check. Mozilla works hard for you lot, and if this is the best you can do as "fans" then you really don't have any say in what Firefox does. You're just a bunch of selfish clowns who can't even say anything nice about your choice of browser.

      Enjoy Firefox while it lasts. Soon it and all of it's spin-offs (like Pale Moon) will die. And it won't be because of Mozilla's shortcomings, but rather the fact that it's own fanbase can't be arsed to help out anymore. I've reported and helped them solve bugs, and written addons for fun, even if the browser isn't my personal choice. I'm sure that if even a few of you vocal anti-Mozilla Firefox fans would get off your asses and pitch in, then things wouldn't seem so dire. But nope - as usual, it's easier to pin it all on Mozilla, and then pat yourselves on the back for watching it sink.

      >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.

      This is just evidence of what I mean. If you want it to go back to how it was, an ever buggier, laggier, and more resource-consuming beast, then that's your prerogative. You're not helping anything by pretending things were better in the "good old days". They never were. You just happen to not want to adapt to things anymore. Customizing Firefox isn't cool anymore, especially when they "force" you to install an addon to get some stupid checkbox or square-tabs back. Go ahead and keep smirking, but Mozilla are the only ones here trying to keep Firefox alive as a product, all you ungrateful lot are doing is killing it faster. For my part, I say good riddance. One less browser to worry about supporting. But I can't say I'm looking forward to you guys infesting my browser's support forums when the time comes.

  71. Re:Call it Web? by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Informative

    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".

    If that's the case, I'd suggest that all the money MS paid those consultants for endless rebrandings has ultimately proved to be hugely counter-productive. As I commented on another site a couple of years back:-

    This is the same company changed the name of its "passport" service a ludicrous amount of times:-

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

    "Microsoft Account (previously Microsoft Wallet, Microsoft Passport, .NET Passport, Microsoft Passport Network, and most recently Windows Live ID)"

    I'd have said that MS's stupidly confusing naming is marketing-over-clarity, but *it's not even good marketing!!* I bet the man on the street doesn't have a clue what MS's constantly-changing brands-of-the-week are supposed to mean to him anyway, beyond being a confusing and counter-productive mish-mash of pseudo-terminology.

    The quintessential ironic example of how MS just don't get it was their (then-)latest media-player compatibility scheme called "Plays for Sure" which obviously implied Apple-style "no brainer just works" straightforwardness. They proceeded to totally undermine this by renaming it to tie in with "Certified for Windows Vista" (which also encompassed other schemes) and launched a separate, incompatible DRM/compatibility scheme for their now-defunct Zune range. Does anyone know (or care) what MS's attention-deficit clusterf*** of overlapping brands are supposed to mean?!

    I'm guessing that either:-
    (i) MS were throwing money at consultants for repeated relaunches because they had no focus
    (ii) The environment was conducive to consultants making money out of MS by constantly encouraging pricey rebrandings and relaunches
    (iii) The constant rebranding was a reflection of the politics, internal power struggles and identity-stamping going in within MS, or
    (iv) All of the above.

    At any rate, I'd be interested to find out how on the money- if at all- this guesswork is, from someone like yourself who actually worked at MS. :-)

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  72. Re:Why not just deprecate IE and save some serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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

  73. Great... by pouar · · Score: 1

    It fixed Comcast's rep when they renamed their services to Xfinity. Oh wait, no it didn't.

    --
    while :;do if windows sucks;then mv windows /dev/null;pacman -Sy linux;fi;done
  74. in keeping with descriptive naming by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    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
  75. Re:Trademark. Anyone can call their browser IE by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    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
  76. Re:No they didn't, it's a joke. by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Umm, looking at the replies to the parent comment shows a bit different picture. They seem to have pondered it seriously.

  77. Re:Mozilla should consider doing the same for Fire by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    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.
  78. Re: Call it Web? by BancBoy · · Score: 2

    I checked the rules...he absolutely does not owe you a new keyboard!

    --
    [UID-HeinzIntel]
  79. Re:Mozilla should consider doing the same for Fire by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  80. Call it "Bong" by vbguyny · · Score: 1

    So web developers can say "look at how many Bong hits I have today!"

    1. Re:Call it "Bong" by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fun in Binging from Bong.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  81. New Name by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

    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.

  82. Re:Mozilla should consider doing the same for Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  83. Re:Mozilla should consider doing the same for Fire by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

    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.

  84. No, never, ever again. by raxtich · · Score: 1

    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.

  85. Well by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    You can slap a new name on it but in the end, all you have is a shiny pile of shit.

    1. Re:Well by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      A polished turd by anyother name?

  86. Renaming won't work by Nyder · · Score: 1

    After all, we know it's from MS so it's going to be buggy and crappy.

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:Renaming won't work by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      After all, we know it's from MS so it's going to be buggy and crappy.

      That's actually a good point. What they really need is to disassociate the products from the parent company in some fashion. Maybe call the group of internet enabled apps ...xfinity... nope, that's taken. And that wouldn't follow the apparently required theme of naming things generic. They probably can't call it "the internet". Hm. I got nuthin.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  87. What it should be called... by bswarm · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  88. Re:Call it Web? by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

    Call it Big Ol' Browser.

  89. Bing Browser by Blain · · Score: 1

    That's my guess.

  90. Re:To quote Cyrano Jones... by witherstaff · · Score: 1

    I always thought it was Found On Road Dead. Or : Recent studies show that 95% of all Ford vehicles are still on the road. The other 5% were towed home.

    My mother bought a Ford Explorer with a chrome running board option. Before the 5 year bumper to bumper car warranty expired the chrome was noticeably starting to flake. Except the bumper to bumper excluded that option.. the chome option was only a 3 year warranty. I do have to give it to the Ford engineers to be able to devise a fail date just slightly longer than warranty. Now that's quality work.

  91. I've Got It! I've Got It! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    GATE; because it's always missing something.

  92. Ultimately a bad idea... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    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*
    1. Re:Ultimately a bad idea... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      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

      Right, but hasn't that been pretty much the way its gone for decades now?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  93. brilliant... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    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.
  94. Re: question: does IE support adblock and noscrip by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

    Chrome doesn't use Webkit anymore.

  95. Car reliability ratings... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

    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
  96. MS Buzz words incoming! by danknight48 · · Score: 1

    iCloud
    Bong Cloud
    iexplorer2_cloud.exe
    Eye Eee Cloud

  97. Re: Call it Web? by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    Can't wait for the marketing spam on that one: Have you tried Stool yet? Click here to sample stool.

  98. Stick it in the Cloud by coofercat · · Score: 1

    Pff! IE's a security/update nightmare. Just stick it in the cloud and call it IE 365 or IE Live or something.

  99. Re: Call it Web? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Bing Steel.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  100. How can they get rid of the smell? by aurizon · · Score: 1

    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.

  101. A debate that shouldn't exist by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

    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).

  102. Re: Call it Web? by mgf64 · · Score: 1

    Let's call a turd a turd and a spade a spade...

  103. Drop the 'Microsoft' part by mhoogkamer · · Score: 1

    They will then have to drop the 'Microsoft' part, that tarnishes everything.

  104. Re:Why not just deprecate IE and save some serious by malvcr · · Score: 1

    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).

    And ... 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.

    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.

  105. MS or MSIE by any other name will stink. by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    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?
  106. Apologize by CauseBy · · Score: 1

    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.

  107. Re: Call it Web? by Vastad · · Score: 1

    It can't turn left. A problem it's had since it was created.

  108. Internet Exploder by Mars729 · · Score: 1

    Gee whiz, we can't call it Internet Exploder anymore.

  109. As well as... by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    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.

  110. Names by Sciath · · Score: 1

    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
  111. Name should follow use: by 3vi1 · · Score: 1

    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.

  112. of course not by wijnands · · Score: 1

    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.

  113. Re: Microsoft Renaming Internet Explorer To... by peacefool · · Score: 1

    "Escape"