Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Edge On Windows 10: the Browser That Will Finally Kill IE

An anonymous reader writes: Windows 10 launches today and with it comes a whole new browser, Microsoft Edge. You can still use Internet Explorer if you want, but it's not the default. IE turns 20 in less than a month, which is ancient in internet years, so it's not surprising that Microsoft is shoving it aside. Still, leaving behind IE and launching a new browser built from the ground up marks the end of an era for Microsoft. “Knowing that browsing is still one of the very top activities that people do on a PC, we knew there was an opportunity, and really an obligation, to push the web browsing experience and so that’s what we’ve done with Microsoft Edge," Drew DeBruyne, director of program management at Microsoft told VentureBeat.

255 comments

  1. Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    For the ten windows 10 users.

    1. Re:Yeah by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Don't badmouth Windows 10 users- about half of them are going to be in your QA department.

    2. Re:Yeah by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That many testers for Mine Sweeper?

  2. Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If not, then Microsoft will not have the opportunity "to push the web browsing experience" for me.

    1. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2, Informative

      I tried Edge on my Windows tablet and wasn't impressed. The controls were smaller and harder to manipulate. My IE shortcuts were not imported to Edge, so I would have had to start all over.

      I installed Windows 10 on my tablet, tried Edge, then uninstalled Windows 10 from my tablet.

      The changes in Windows 10 make it more of a desktop OS, but make it much harder, imo, to start the programs you want on a tablet. The large buttons on the Metro 'Start' menu are gone. Apps open in floating windows. Essentially, everything became tiny and hard to manipulate with the touch screen.

      It wasn't enough to keep Windows 10. Luckily there is an 'uninstall' option and my tablet is reverted back to 8.1 now. You have 30 days after upgrading to revert. The revert was quick, it only took about 20 minutes.

    2. Re: Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess you need

    3. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      If not, then Microsoft will not have the opportunity "to push the web browsing experience" for me.

      No. Windows 7 fell out of mainstream support January 13, 2015. That means no new features. It's currently in extended support, which runs out January 14, 2020, at which point there will be no more security updates, either.

      Windows 8 will probably get it as it should be in mainstream support still.

    4. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I guess you haven't found the "tablet mode" feature.

    5. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by Aereus · · Score: 1

      Why would that matter for a web browser? Is Edge connected to the OS on some fundamental level again like IE? Regardless of them sunsetting Win7 too early, it would be shortsighted not to have it working on the OS with your largest install base.

    6. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by Ch_Omega · · Score: 1

      My IE shortcuts were not imported to Edge, so I would have had to start all over.

      You are aware that importing your favorites from other browsers into edge is about three clicks away?

    7. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      wahhhh waahhh change! waaahh waah change!

      Billions of the rest of us will move on and evolve.

    8. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 0

      Windows 7 is fully supported at least until 2020. There may be extensions after that. I will only upgrade to Windows 10 when I deem it to be an upgrade from Windows 7 ultimate. Windows 10 is an app-orriented (MS store oriented) mobile OS more than anything else. The only addition that may be useful for me at some point is Direct X 12, but I doubt that will be a major plus for some time to come. I will also wait until popular demand gets MS to allow some control over updates (at least a "remind me" feature). I don't use apps on my desktop computer, and so far Direct X 12 is not something I need. Right now Windows 7 is perfect for my purposes. MS will have to figure out a way to make 10 much more appealing than it is now.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    9. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the hell modded this clown up?

      There is a tablet mode, which you failed to figure out!

    10. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by chispito · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I did not expect to come here and fine someone complaining about how great Windows 8 is.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    11. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      What does Slashdot charge for such an infraction?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    12. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IE hasn't been connected to the OS on a fundamental level for quite some time now

    13. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Windows 7 fell out of mainstream support January 13, 2015. That means no new features.

      It's a shame that Microsoft is unable to develop a browser that is not part of the operating system, as it results in disappointed customers who want to try the new version of the browser app.

      .
      Oddly, both Mozilla and Google seem to have the technical wherewithal to develop browsers that are not part of the operating system. I wonder why Microsoft is so incapable of such a technical accomplishment.

    14. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by zlives · · Score: 1

      by 2020 windows 15 should be out and i will think about updating to it then.

    15. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use chrome in "windows 8 mode" on my windows 8.1 tablet. Mostly because of useful extensions. It's not bad but the controls are a bit tiny.

      I agree that IE 11 is pretty much the best power user tablet browsing experience. Its controls are quite touch interface friendly. (Android and iOS browsers are pretty crippled, lacking extensions and anything more than basic functionality)

      Sound like they pretty much didn't bother with touch interface optimization in edge or the rest of windows 10. I don't really blame them either. The entire computing world from casual to professional screamed a resounding "Fuck this shit!" about win8's UI.

      People that want a fully functional non-crippled browser with a touch interface are probably in a niche too small to bother with.

      I'll probably upgrade my tablet to win10 because I still primarily use Chrome

    16. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Probably won't be. It's written currently for WinRT which obviously Windows 7 doesn't support and the reason Microsoft is giving you a *free* upgrade to Windows 10. So it would be a pretty radically different web browser, comparable to writing Safari for iOS vs OSX.

    17. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Developed the Browser using WinRT which doesn't exist in Windows 7. Both Mozilla and Google had to rewrite their browsers to support Android and iOS. That didn't just magically happen they had to devote a lot of resources to using the Android and iOS APIs. This is no different. Microsoft is moving away from Win32. Win32 had a good 20+ year run but WinRT should eventually displace it. If they didn't write Edge for WinRT developers would cry foul and say "If WinRT isn't good enough for you why should we adopt WinRT?!" Edge is a Universal Windows Application so that means it runs on: Windows Desktop, Windows Mobile, Xbox One (this fall), Hololens and Windows IOT. In other words they did write it so that it could be easily portable... among windows 10 devices.

    18. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who the hell modded this clown up?

      There is a tablet mode, which you failed to figure out!

      What! Windows 10 isn't sophisticated enough to figure out if it is running on a tablet?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    19. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I did not expect to come here and fine someone complaining about how great Windows 8 is.

      Whenever a new version of Windows comes out, the previous version is ALWAYS better, no matter how crappy the previous version was.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    20. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      What! Windows 10 isn't sophisticated enough to figure out if it is running on a tablet?

      It's less a "tablet mode" and more a "touchscreen mode", and no, Windows 10 isn't sophisticated enough to figure out if you're going to use your mouse or your touchscreen to interact with your computer before you do.

    21. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      What! Windows 10 isn't sophisticated enough to figure out if it is running on a tablet?

      It's less a "tablet mode" and more a "touchscreen mode", and no, Windows 10 isn't sophisticated enough to figure out if you're going to use your mouse or your touchscreen to interact with your computer before you do.

      Well, that is something else entirely, then. They should call it touchscreen mode. Tablet mode sounds like you would want to use it on a tablet.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    22. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Developed the Browser using WinRT which doesn't exist in Windows 7

      So you agree that Microsoft does not have the technical ability to develop the Edge browser to run on Windows 7. It's quite interesting that Microsoft seems to be the only browser developer that has such difficulty with Windows 7.

    23. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Well, that is something else entirely, then. They should call it touchscreen mode.

      It's hardly entirely different, if you want to be pedantic they should probably call it "Finger Touchscreen Interaction Mode", because you might not necessarily use your finger on the touchscreen, you might use a stylus which is more precise and doesn't need control resizing. But tablet mode is probably enough of a generalization.

      Tablet mode sounds like you would want to use it on a tablet.

      You probably would want to use it on a tablet.

    24. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of mainstream support means no new Microsoft products for Windows 7, period. No new versions of IE, MS Edge, Office, DirectX, etc.

    25. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you agree that Microsoft does not have the technical ability to develop the Edge browser to run on Windows 7.

      No, if you read what he wrote you will see he said it was developed with WinRT which is not available on Windows 7. Could they develop a version for Windows 7? No reason why not, but given that version has already gone out of mainstream support and they are trying to move people off 7 and onto 10 they probably shouldn't.

      I get that you're being facetious with the "technical ability" (or perhaps you actually don't understand how software works) but the question is why?

    26. Re: Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly my sentiments as well.

    27. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      So you agree that Microsoft does not have the technical ability to develop the Edge browser to run on Windows 7.

      No. I very clearly stated that they technically can but they evidently chose not to write their new application for a product that has reached END OF LIFE and whose successor is FREE. That's a perfectly sane decision. "hey bob should we backport our new free product to people who refuse to accept our free upgrade?" "Fuck no!" "Yeah I didn't think we should either just checking."

      It's as easy to backport Edge as it is to port Chrome from Linux to OSX. You don't see Apple releasing Safari for OS 9. Safari no longer works on OS 9 because supporting an OS which has been End of Life'ed is ridiculous.

    28. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      What! Windows 10 isn't sophisticated enough to figure out if it is running on a tablet?

      It's smart enough that when I detach my keyboard from my Surface it switches to tablet mode. But it's not smart enough to know whether I want to be using keyboard and mouse or I want to be touching the screen. It used to be far more aggressive but that annoyed users when it tried to be 'smart' and switched when people didn't want it to.

    29. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Oddly, both Mozilla and Google seem to have the technical wherewithal to develop browsers that are not part of the operating system. I wonder why Microsoft is so incapable of such a technical accomplishment.

      I'm certain it is our fault.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    30. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But its a tablet.

    31. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      But its a tablet.

      And the only way to interact with a tablet is using your finger on a touchscreen? I think not.

    32. Re: Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by dfeifer · · Score: 1

      Free,.. Unless half your domain is still on Xp and vista.. Sigh.. Still on those os's due to lack of funding. At least with Windows 10's new development scheme we SHOULD finally have the whole domain on the same os in about 8-10 years.

    33. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

      Yes. It will just need to download some large dependency frameworks. For convenience, these will be packaged in a bundle called "free Windows 10 upgrade" :)

    34. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by secretsquirel · · Score: 0

      ..and yet some how IE9 wouldn't work on XP when Chrome and Firefox didn't seem to have any issues.

    35. Re: Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by TomH123 · · Score: 0

      I doubt he wanted to find the tablet mode. Otherwise there would be no reason complain and race back to win 8 and post about his bad experience.

    36. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I fricking HATED Windows 8/8.1 with a fiery passion but I hate to say it but...it WAS better than 10, why? Have you LOOKED at the fricking EULA for Windows 10? The datamining is fricking insane, it makes Google look like fricking privacy lovers by comparison!

      I knew when they said it was "free" there would have to be a catch, but I figured it'd be another ham handed attempt to push Windows other products but daaayyum, if you don't spend the first hour removing apps and turning shit off you might as well just send all your data straight to fricking MSFT!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    37. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever will Microsoft do without you?

    38. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you are using the tablet as a PC (ie. connected to a keyboard, mouse and/or monitor)? It's best to let the user decide when to switch modes.

    39. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      It's almost as if he didn't make much effort to find that.

      --
      No sig today...
    40. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Change for changes sake is not a valid reason for it.

    41. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the only way to interact with a tablet is using your finger on a touchscreen? I think not.

      It is a very tablet'y way to interact with one though.
      And for most of the tablets I see around me, it is the only way.
      Might not be for that one, but most, yea.

    42. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Windows 10 on a tablet will default to Tablet Mode, but when a keyboard/mouse/trackpad is attached it will switch Tablet Mode off.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    43. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the GP tried an early version of Windows 10--perhaps it didn't default to tablet mode on tablets at that time. The Verge article says it does now. Of course, maybe it isn't functioning properly....

    44. Re:Will Edge be ported to Windows 7? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Well then "tablet mode" is a perfectly fine name for it - despite the fact that you might want that mode on a non-tablet or not want that mode on a tablet depending on your interaction method which is why the automatic switching is an opt-in option and not a default.

  3. Another browser by guillemsola · · Score: 1

    That means webs will need now to support another browser.

    1. Re:Another browser by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope, we just keep supporting the standards, and Edge will work just fine. If all goes well, we'll actually be able to DROP support for more older browsers as more people migrate off XP & Vista.

      That's the dream, anyway. :)

    2. Re:Another browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you do anything browser specific, You're Doing It Wrong.

    3. Re:Another browser by bearinboots · · Score: 0

      For all the projects I work on, they are coded to standards and the message that the powers-that-be tell users: "If it doesn't work in your browser, get a better browser". Projects are tested in latest of Chrome and Firefox. If something doesn't work in IE, TFB. The same will apply for Edge.

    4. Re:Another browser by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      It's great when you can get away with that, but all too many companies (like where I work) have to deal with our customers as they are, not how we would wish them to be.

    5. Re:Another browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's great when you can get away with that, but all too many companies (like where I work) have to deal with our customers as they are, not how we would wish them to be.

      It's all the people like you who are the problem. If "use something standards-compliant or have a bad experience" were the universal norm, we wouldn't have these problems.

    6. Re:Another browser by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's great when you can get away with that, but all too many companies (like where I work) have to deal with our customers as they are, not how we would wish them to be.

      It's all the people like you who are the problem. If "use something standards-compliant or have a bad experience" were the universal norm, we wouldn't have these problems.

      You say that like you think it's my decision to do this. I assure you, it is not.

    7. Re:Another browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how ignoring the rules is a no-no behind the steering wheel but somehow considered normal and completely "OK, we'll accommodate you" with browsers.

    8. Re:Another browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all the people like you who are the problem. If "use something standards-compliant or have a bad experience" were the universal norm, we wouldn't have these problems.

      So if I just write to web standards and ignore anything browser-specific then what browser would correctly display it? As far as I am aware there is no browser that is 100% standards compliant.

    9. Re:Another browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally agree. I think your company could do with some new leadership. You really need to get your customers to mold to your ideas and visions. If your vision is to be conformant to standards, push that one them, if not then tough.

    10. Re:Another browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how ignoring the rules is a no-no behind the steering wheel

      And yet, Defensive Driving is a thing. Try another analogy.

    11. Re: Another browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, you won't be surprised at the financial institutions securing your money that have this attitude then.

    12. Re: Another browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't tell if serious.

    13. Re:Another browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally agree. I think your company could do with some new leadership. You really need to get your customers to mold to your ideas and visions. If your vision is to be conformant to standards, push that one them, if not then tough.

      No, companies need to cater to their customers, not the other way around. Whether the browser is standards compliant is not something the user should have to worry about. You think everybody would be using Windows if it were as simple as companies telling their users "hey we aren't going to offer you solutions, you have to mold to what we want and use Linux".

    14. Re:Another browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replying AC, work related. I'm an automotive safety inspector, and have learned to let little shit go, and nail people who bring me junk. Whether or not I pass someone is related to code as well as my own eithics. Ideally, everyone with a minor violation (I'm talking a misplaced parking pass on a window) would fail, but it's really not worth it. I'm in luck that my position does allow me a touch of personal discretion - there are gray areas. But if you're an asshole to me... it's 100% totally by the book, all the way. I didn't make the law, and this is where you live. Get up to standard, or get out.

    15. Re:Another browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all the people like you who are the problem. If "use something standards-compliant or have a bad experience" were the universal norm, we wouldn't have these problems.

      How you want this to work:

      Everyone agrees to build sites with optimal experiences only for users running standards-compliant browsers. Users who have refused to adopt these browsers get a bad experience across all sites.

      How things really work:

      You build your site to give an optimal experience only for users running standards-compliant browsers. I put in the extra effort and build my competing site to cater to both those users and to the ones who refused, for whatever reason, to upgrade. We get a more-or-less equal share of the users with modern browsers. I get all of the users running older, non-standards-compliant browsers. I get an edge in market share.

      This is a classic example of the Prisoner's Dilemma, where it is actually most rational to not act in our own best long-term interests.

    16. Re:Another browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's great when you can get away with that, but all too many companies (like where I work) have to deal with our customers as they are, not how we would wish them to be.

      It's all the people like you who are the problem. If "use something standards-compliant or have a bad experience" were the universal norm, we wouldn't have these problems.

      You say that like you think it's my decision to do this. I assure you, it is not.

      So let's be clear here. Firefox (Microsoft, Google, Gnome, SystemD, KDE, Slashdot Beta, etc) completely ignores users and creates what they think is good and what the users really should want. They are terrible and have ruined their respective UIs/etc.

      However you, *you* are the next Steve Jobs who can make the perfect product and give the customers what they don't even know they want yet.

      So tell me again... should why are companies like Mozilla, Microsoft Google, Gnome, SystemD, KDE, etc. be condemned for going off and doing their own thing?

    17. Re:Another browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a classic example of the Prisoner's Dilemma [wikipedia.org], where it is actually most rational to not act in our own best long-term interests.

      Eventually the long-term becomes the short-term and after that, becomes the right-now-term. You can put it off for a little while for the sake of momentary comfort but it remains inevitable. It's a case of suffering a little now and be done with that form of suffering, or do whatever's convenient at the moment and build up a bigger harder-to-solve problem in the all-too-near future. I'd rather take the lower-cost solution that lets me move forward thereafter. I like that better than the high-cost "solution" that I could have been done with already.

      Like that old saying goes, "no matter how far down the wrong path you've traveled, turn back." It's called cutting your losses. It's an even more rational option. When a consensus of people realize this, we'll have better standards compliance and later, we'll have more inclusive, reasonable standards. Achieving that consensus is the only real obstacle since the rest is straightforward and self-evident if you think about it.

  4. Is it still integrated with the shell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because if so, it'll be just as dangerous as it ever was.

    1. Re: Is it still integrated with the shell? by MemeRot · · Score: 1

      Edge is ie with all the crusty code needed for old version compatibility/quirks mode removed, or it started off as that at least

    2. Re: Is it still integrated with the shell? by Jamu · · Score: 1

      Clearly that's not the case now: It has integrated Flash support.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    3. Re: Is it still integrated with the shell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Clearly that's not the case now: It has integrated Flash support.

      There you go. Microsoft wouldn't stand still by letting some other manufacturer make a Flash plugin with vulnerabilities: they decided they could make all those vulnerabilities in-house.

    4. Re:Is it still integrated with the shell? by Guspaz · · Score: 5, Informative

      IE hasn't been integrated with the shell for a decade. If you type a URL into an Explorer window in Win7 or 8, it just launches your default browser, which may not be IE.

    5. Re:Is it still integrated with the shell? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 5, Informative

      No it's written in WinRT which is to say it's sandboxed from the rest of the operating system using the WinRT app model. One of the annoying things about developing for WinRT is just how low privileged an application in WinRT is without any means to escalate except by explicit user permission. Shell access is impossible. COM is nearly non-existent. The only way to get data to and from the application in the WinRT framework is through a specific API contract that makes Soviet Russia look like a libertarian paradise by comparison.

      In short, by writing Edge in WinRT they automatically picked up a lot of security features automatically. I would be really surprised if in its current state it could be used to modify system files.

    6. Re:Is it still integrated with the shell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While your comments are correct, they are applicable to third party WinRT apps, if app is signed with Microsoft signature, it has more privileges, and potentially can access COM or shell. Whether that is actually the case, only insiders can tell at the moment.

    7. Re:Is it still integrated with the shell? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      You're correct that they could theoretically do anything they want, however when Edge was first released to Insiders you couldn't access LocalHost files (aka .html files on your desktop or a local Apache server). The Public APIs have a checkbox for "local host" so I took that to mean that they were working from the public developer defaults in their compiler options.

      Also since Edge is intended to run on all universal windows platforms I assume they're going to avoid API hooks which might not be available (like shell access or COM which might not be available on Windows Mobile). Adding hooks back into Win32 means they have to have those same hooks available to Hololens etc.

    8. Re:Is it still integrated with the shell? by secretsquirel · · Score: 0

      XP support just ended last year iirc. Could be mistaken but when IE9 wouldn't work on it I could only be left to assume it was due to some complex technical integration issue.

    9. Re: Is it still integrated with the shell? by TomH123 · · Score: 0

      There you go assuming.

    10. Re: Is it still integrated with the shell? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      This way you get to wait for Adobe to push out their fixes to Microsoft, to then incorporate and push out to end users as a update.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    11. Re:Is it still integrated with the shell? by butlerm · · Score: 1

      Native messaging support is on Microsoft's radar. If they don't do something like that, IE is likely to be around for a very long time. Or companies will just Chrome instead.

      https://twitter.com/shimonamit...
      https://developer.chrome.com/e...

    12. Re: Is it still integrated with the shell? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They have moved to the Chrome model of bundling Flash and running it in a heavily sandboxed environment. It has worked well for Google; I don't recall a single Flash vulnerability that was critical for Chrome users.

      It also means you don't need the exceptionally shitty Adobe Updater to keep it up to date either. Presumably Microsoft will update it via Windows Update too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. Um... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think Firefox dealt it the mortal blow, and then Chrome finished the job.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Um... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Informative

      And then Chrome turned around and finished Firefox.

    2. Re:Um... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Yes, well, we often hurt the ones we love.

      About the only place I still see IE is on some web-based applications from the late 90s thru the mid-00s that were built using IE 5 and 6's very insecure ActiveX architecture. Up until last year, we were forced to use such software on one of our government contracts, and it literally meant viewing the site in Compatibility Mode with security settings cranked down to nothing. They finally updated the underlying Siebel engine to the HTML5 version, and after that everyone just seemed to go to Chrome. I suppose at that point where we start rolling out Win10 desktops, Edge might end up being used, but I have a feeling that MS has missed the bus here, and Chrome is king.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Um... by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Which is now why Chrome is so bloated.

    4. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Firefox, unlike any other browser was meant to improve the internet. It succeeded. IE was created to force competition out of existence and Chrome to gather larger quantities and more accurate user data. They still fail.
      So, I'd say there is still room for Firefox to make a comeback.

    5. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really hate that some corporate applications are dependent upon IE. My wife sometimes needs to use Citrix when she is on home call (as a medical doctor) and that was IE-only until recently. I found a recently released Citrix plugin for Chrome, but it is still not explicitly supported by the IT of the health care provider she works for. I hate that the corporate (and government) world is so damned beholden to such an insecure system.

    6. Re:Um... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      We are primarily a government contractor, and our main contract had a Siebel-based client management system (only a government would have the combination of money and stupidity to invest in an ancient technology like that, but oh well), and up until late last year, we had to run IE in the lowest security mode and IE7 compatibility mode just to make the ActiveX components function. The new version is by and large HTML5 compatible, and though they recommend Firefox, we've had only a few bumps running Chrome. I doubt more than a handful of our staff even use IE now.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to use IE to BUY stuff on the MCM catalog website, which is very annoying and I stopped shopping there.

    8. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And then Chrome turned around and finished Firefox.

      Chrome didn't kill Firefix. Mozilla's UX team killed Firefox.

    9. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't get to see inside any companies I guess.

    10. Re:Um... by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure Firefox turned around and finished Firefox. *sigh*

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    11. Re:Um... by bjdevil66 · · Score: 2

      I know that Chrome is the 45% usage king, but it's not like Firefox (~15%) is dead by any stretch.

      No it's not perfect, but Firefox is good enough for me - Sync, AdBlock Plus, Firebug, etc. And I'm not interested in giving Google every piece of info about my browsing habits.

    12. Re:Um... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2, Informative

      And then Chrome turned around and finished Firefox.

      Chrome didn't kill Firefix. Mozilla's UX team killed Firefox.

      Don't forget the LGBT mafia who chased out one of the founders because he donated a small amount on his own money on his own time several years ago for a cause they disagreed with.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    13. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then Chrome turned around and finished Firefox.

      Chrome didn't kill Firefix. Mozilla's UX team killed Firefox.

      Don't forget the LGBT mafia who chased out one of the founders because he donated a small amount on his own money on his own time several years ago for a cause they disagreed with.

      Don't talk about them, they're as bad as the church of...... you know who.....

    14. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd see an increase in Firefox usage if they weren't so stuck up. Firefox is effectively unusable behind corporate firewalls because it doesn't play nice with Window's security certificate store. Along with the UI and UX (yes UI and UX are two different things) changes, browser issues that don't exist yet are partially fixed in the next release, and a loss of focus on things that actually matter, I think Firefox is primarily it's own enemy. Nothing is killing Firefox but Firefox. Chrome just gave people a place to go to get away from the sinking ship and crazy crew.

    15. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social justice can't wait. Outta the way, peck!

    16. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He had a penis. He never had a chance.

    17. Re:Um... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Now would that be Chrome on Android vs FireFox on Android or Chrome on Windows vs FireFox on Windows or Chrome on Linux vs FireFox on Linux or just all jammed together. A lot of Chrome numbers come from Android and FireFox not being the default loses out in a big way on the mobile phone platform, especially when a lot of the default actions on a mobile phone reach out to the internet to do local use stuff.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    18. Re:Um... by bjwest · · Score: 1

      And then Chrome turned around and finished Firefox.

      I think Mozilla is doing that themselves. With each FF upgrade, I seem to loose more and more functionality and it gets slower and slower. I find I'm starting use Chrome more and more lately, even though I know I'm loosing some privacy in doing so.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    19. Re:Um... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      This. The only reason I dropped Firefox was because of changes the Firefox team made (and the attitude they had when making those changes), not because of features other browsers introduced before Firefox.

    20. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except supporting that case is pretty much the same as saying it's ok to donate my own money for hitlers cause of killing all the jews. Bigotry is bigotry, you can't excuse shitting on human rights based on your religious views. But only religious people are retarded enough not to understand this, of course.

    21. Re:Um... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the LGBT mafia who chased out one of the founders because he donated a small amount on his own money on his own time several years ago for a cause they disagreed with.

      Are you seriously suggesting that his leaving contributed significantly to the downfall of Firefox?

      Are you also suggesting that people who feel they could not support a company he was head of should force themselves to use Firefox anyway, or perhaps be mandated to do so by law? I imagine a lot of companies would employ bigots if that were the case, just to force people to use their products.

      Look, I don't buy Sony stuff because they are a shitty company. I don't eat at certain restaurants because they serve halal meat. And I don't read books by authors who use the profits to fund causes I find abhorrent and immoral. Sorry, that's just the way the world is, you can't completely separate your private actions and beliefs from your professional life.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    22. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh Chrome has been come the lastest piggy browser...I will still stick with Firefox.

    23. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, 15% market share is no worse than FF has been for most of their history. If they can hold onto that, they have a chance to make a comeback in the future.

    24. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As someone once said "now people who believe in traditional marriage will be persecuted for their beliefs."

      We can only hope.

    25. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, FF with flash player enabled is running faster then the previous versions. I'm removing Chrome, it's sluggish, memory hog, and it freezes with and without the flash player enabled.

    26. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dropped firefox because...

      1) UI-wise, it's a shitty clone of Chrome
      2) Performance. It would randomly freeze for a dozen or so seconds for no discernible reason a few times a day on my mac. Also, it's JS engine was slow at the time.
      3) Updating: Firefox gets in your face about updating. Also, at the time I started to switch, Firefox still broke all extensions every update due to the whole "version numbers define compatibility" moronic mantra they adhered to.
      4) Switching to Yahoo (Bing) as the default search engine
      5) Bloat and bullshit that should have been extensions: tab candy, sync, removing RSS icon, the star/favorite bullshit, new location bar, and a dozen other minor annoyances that are the result of some dev deciding his personal pet addon wasn't getting enough attention so lets make it part of the browser.
      6) The Final Straw: ads on the new tab page. Fuck mozilla for this shit.

      Chrome is flat better in every way than Firefox

    27. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, you can't be both a bigoted asshole and a leader that people respect.

    28. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm not interested in giving Google every piece of info about my browsing habits.

      SRWare Iron

    29. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With Chrome's decision to change plugin framework - effectively breaking everything. Firefox is the browser of choice these days.

      IE is only good for one thing -- downloading another web browser.

  6. There will be some early bugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's normal for products that are ... Bleeding Edge

    1. Re:There will be some early bugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      YEAAAAAAAAAHHHHH

  7. It's like winning the lottery! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    New Browser code from Microsoft written from the ground up? Time to go look up details on Microsoft's Bug Bounty program.

    1. Re:It's like winning the lottery! by cbhacking · · Score: 4, Informative

      The browser UI is new, but the rendering engine is still based on Trident. They just removed all the legacy stuff, and focused on clean implementations of the standards without worrying so much about backward compatibility. Edge will puke about as badly as Chrome or Firefox will if fed code and markup intended for IE7, instead of falling back to IE7's rendering style.

      Which isn't to say there aren't going to be security bugs, of course. But then, the same is true of all the big browser vendors.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    2. Re:It's like winning the lottery! by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      New Browser code from Microsoft written from the ground up? Time to go look up details on Microsoft's Bug Bounty program.

      From what I'm gathering, you may need to wait a while. Its still so raw that a lot of it is Not Even Wrong yet.

    3. Re:It's like winning the lottery! by netsavior · · Score: 1

      even better... it is a fork of the IE codebase. NOT from the ground up. You could probably get some bounties just investigating things they already fixed in IE.

  8. But it is from M$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I remember back in the days when IE was considered good. After all that's microsoft, they will mess it up and it will suck, just give them some time.

    1. Re:But it is from M$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you don't, because it never was.

    2. Re:But it is from M$ by halivar · · Score: 1

      Not true. Around 2000-ish, your only options were IE (crap), Netscape (at the end of its life it was a crashy, bloated warthog), and Opera (yay, ads). Of those three, IE was the most palatable (I'm not going to pay for a browser). Even open-source Mozilla, when it first came out, was unbearably huge. Now, when Firefox née Phoenix came out, I was done with IE forever and ever, amen. But before that it was the best of the bunch, for better or worse.

    3. Re:But it is from M$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back then, I was using IBM Web Explorer on OS/2. No Windows for me.

  9. woot! by mt1955 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    just what we developers needed, another compatibility problem

    1. Re:woot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually pretty good. Our QA team only filed about 450 bugs against it after doing a pass against our very complicated single page app. That's better than IE9 that has nearly twice that number still open despite the fact we've worked for years to workaround its problems.

    2. Re:woot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      pretty good...only filed about 450 bugs

      Only Microsoft can lower expectations so much that 450 bugs is considered "pretty good."

    3. Re:woot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It keeps us employed, so shut up.

  10. Quick question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Other than superficial UI bullshit, does Windows 10 have any features? Was there any kernel development? If so, what was produced?

    1. Re:Quick question by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Funny

      Other than superficial UI bullshit, does Windows 10 have any features? Was there any kernel development? If so, what was produced?

      Yes, they've now added an "Ex" suffix to every system call. You now have to specify an average of 17 flag constants each with a name that averages of 30 upper-case characters, as well as initialize and provide "long pointers" to an average of five large C structures for each request you make to the OS.

    2. Re:Quick question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I know this is completely anecdotal and very short-term data, but for the three developers we upgraded to 10 last night they haven't had a crash yet or even had to reboot because Windows becomes too slow to use. We typically reboot three times a day, so assuming they can make it another couple hours before they reboot tonight, that means they will have cut the number of reboots per day by a third! That is signification since it usually takes us almost an hour to get VisualStudio, SQL server, IIS, etc. back up and running. For our typical ten hour work day, that's three hours per day wasted! If we can cut that to one hour, we've saved ten hours per week. I'm hoping 10 remains working as well as it has so far!

    3. Re:Quick question by rescendent · · Score: 1

      What's new from a developer perspective; different than a system/admin or user perspective though https://dev.windows.com/en-us/...

    4. Re:Quick question by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I know this is completely anecdotal and very short-term data, but for the three developers we upgraded to 10 last night they haven't had a crash yet or even had to reboot because Windows becomes too slow to use. We typically reboot three times a day, so assuming they can make it another couple hours before they reboot tonight, that means they will have cut the number of reboots per day by a third! That is signification since it usually takes us almost an hour to get VisualStudio, SQL server, IIS, etc. back up and running. For our typical ten hour work day, that's three hours per day wasted! If we can cut that to one hour, we've saved ten hours per week. I'm hoping 10 remains working as well as it has so far!

      That's pretty bad. If I have to reboot at all during the day I assume something is seriously wrong with the computer. I am on Windows 7, which is fairly stable. At home, I don't ever reboot Windows 7. It runs until the stupid updates makes it reboot. It literally never gets slow or crashes.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    5. Re: Quick question by MemeRot · · Score: 1

      Http2 support in IIS is only available on windows 10

    6. Re:Quick question by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Does anyone even use the Windows API directly? I'd have thought people would avoid it for exactly the reasons you mention.

  11. I found this bit quite funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You might be wondering, why didn’t Microsoft put Cortana in a different place in Edge; why the address bar? DeBruyne spelled it out for us: “Second to the start menu, it’s probably the most trafficked place in the Windows user interface.”

    So why did you remove the start menu in windows 8?

    1. Re:I found this bit quite funny by fredgiblet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because it's better to use the search functions than the start menu. Also, in this context "Start Menu" probably includes the start screen of 8.

    2. Re:I found this bit quite funny by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

      Because it's better to use the search functions than the start menu.

      Please explain why.

    3. Re:I found this bit quite funny by vux984 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So why did you remove the start menu in windows 8?

      Lol, well said.

      However, to be fair to MS, they didn't "remove it" they revamped it. They rightfully identified that there was a ton of functionality jammed into it, and that it was a shitty UI for most of it, while simultaneously its primary design driver was a vestigial hierarchical folder structure from Windows 95 that really was quite hideous and unusable, and rarely used.

      Every one used the start menu to shutdown, to get to control panels etc, to access frequently used and pinned apps, and to search.

      shutdown? because that's where it was. No real need for it to be there relative to anywhere else.
      control panels same thing. So they moved them (and also added them to right click start menu).
      pinned apps... you can still create taskbar menus and pin apps etc in win8.

      search -- there's two types of search:
      -- type one ... "power user quick launch" . For example type cmd to launch command or pow to launch powershell, etc etc... the win7 start menu worked well for this

      -- type two -- actual search. Where you want to find something that you don't know what its called, or to find a document. Having your whole search interface in a small popup in the corner that was liable to disappear on you at random was silly and useless. The win7 start menu sucks for real search.

      Finally... heirarchical start menu browsing... was clumsy in Windows 95 and all but useless in a modern PC. Nobody used it unless they had to, and browsing multiple levels of nested folders was clumsy.

      The start screen in windows 8 ... was better for search. And the other commands were relocated. The problem with windows 8 was simply that the new locations were non-obvious. (how do I shutdown?) And the "type one" quick search-launch functionality was now really clutzy switching to a full screen app for quick launch makes no sense. (And really the whole 'go full screen' was a mistake. The old start menu was broken... but the new one was also broken, better in some ways, but worse in most.

      But they were looking for a solution to a definite problem. Anyone who honestly looks at the windows 7 start menu has to acknowledge that it does too much, and does MUCH of it poorly. It needed attention.

      Unfortunately windows 8 was a step in mostly the wrong directions. Too touch centric. Too much key functionality hidden off screen. Charms bar was just bad. Not having window border controls for mouse users was just bad. Defaulting to using 'modern ui' for viewing pictures etc was just bad. 8.1 cleaned up a lot of that, but it was still not ideal. Too much was driven by the tablet/mobile design rather than really trying to solve the problem for desktop users in a way that made sense for desktop users.

      Windows 10 (build 10240) seems like a pretty good compromise so far. There's still plenty I don't like, but I think its a genuine step forward from 7 rather than a step sideways.

    4. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft went back to their roots with Windows 8 - literally the fastest way to start a program was by typing its name into the search box on the start screen. A command line - just like DOS.

    5. Re:I found this bit quite funny by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Essentially, they redesigned that bit of the interface around the only part of it that was still useful in the modern age: the program search feature..

    6. Re:I found this bit quite funny by jmyers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fastest way to launch a program is to click on a shortcut. The start menu is for discovering what programs are on the computer. Searching is useless if you don't know what is installed.

    7. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fastest way to launch a program is to click on a shortcut.

      That's what the "metro screen" gave us. It can definitely fit more shortcuts on the screen than win7's little "All Programs" scrolly section where you can hunt for the one you want.

    8. Re:I found this bit quite funny by fredgiblet · · Score: 2

      Speed. You can dig through the start menu or tap the first two letters of the program's name.

    9. Re:I found this bit quite funny by fredgiblet · · Score: 0

      Actually you can probably open a program with the search function faster than you can use a shortcut. Unless you're a true hunt-and-peck.

    10. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no.

    11. Re:I found this bit quite funny by fredgiblet · · Score: 0

      Precisely. There's almost no reason to dig around in nested menus when you can just tap a couple keys.

    12. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who thinks that the removal of the pop-out start menu with Windows Vista was a step in the wrong direction which made the hierachical menu extremely cumbersome to navigate through? WIth that postage stamp sized list box searching for an entry is now a tedious scroll-and-click-fest that I could do without. The search box serves as an efficient stop-gap if you know what you want, though.

    13. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      User jmyers already explained why that isn't the case (see last sentence of his reply).

      Respectfully (honest!): both this post of yours and your preceding one ("Because it's better to use the search function...") beg the question. (Reference if you don't know what that means).

    14. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately doing so hits lots of false positives for some program names, so the program may be half way down the list after some links to documentation, websites etc.

    15. Re:I found this bit quite funny by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      The fastest way to launch a program is to click on a shortcut.

      That's what the "metro screen" gave us. It can definitely fit more shortcuts on the screen than win7's little "All Programs" scrolly section where you can hunt for the one you want.

      I have to assume you are being sarcastic since it is pretty clearly impossible that the screen could fit more of the gigantic icons that constituted metro, than to fit a couple of words in standard font and which also allows nesting of structures.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    16. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Or you can do this little trick

      To create an "All Apps" Folder on the desktop just follow the steps below; Right Click the Desktop background >Select New and Shortcut In the "Type the location of the item" copy and paste or type exactly the following; %windir%\explorer.exe shell:::{4234d49b-0245-4df3-b780-3893943456e1}

      Select a name next and finish

      That way you can resize and control the apps you add to what is essentially a window launched from a shell link. Naturally this is a recursive process so if you do the same thing inside the the window icon you just created to your desktop, Windows will self immolate, implode then become a black hole!

    17. Re:I found this bit quite funny by exomondo · · Score: 2

      The fastest way to launch a program is to click on a shortcut. The start menu is for discovering what programs are on the computer. Searching is useless if you don't know what is installed.

      I'm sure you can come up with a contrived scenario but are you really just exploring a computer and looking for a program to run without knowing what you want to do that often that using the start screen rather than the start menu was that much of an inconvenience? Even if you have a file and you don't know what program you want to open it with the "Open with..." menu generally lists all the appropriate programs, again you can come up with a scenario where this doesn't happen but it's far from typical.

    18. Re:I found this bit quite funny by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who thinks that the removal of the pop-out start menu with Windows Vista was a step in the wrong direction

      It was terrible before too, if you wiggled the mouse too much and you were 7 layers deep into the heirarchy the start menu would close or flip over to another folder, and you'd have to start all over...it was usability garbage.

      The replacement in vista was still tedious, but the previous incarnation was gouge-your-eyes-out-bad if you had to navigate to something that was deep.

    19. Re:I found this bit quite funny by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      Speed. You can dig through the start menu or tap the first two letters of the program's name.

      Presuming that the first two letters correctly identify the program you want to run. And then there are the dead ends when you mistype a letter....

      .

    20. Re:I found this bit quite funny by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Honestly, search has been here since Vista and was refined in Windows 7. The only time in the past 7 years I've actually dug through a menu was when I forgot what a program was called but I could remember what the icon looked like.

      Want to start Handbrake? Tap start > Type "han" > Hit enter.
      Want to start Word? Tap start > type "wo" > hit enter.

      I can do most of these faster than anyone can even take their hand off the keyboard and move it to the mouse.

    21. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protip: You can Pin stuff to the start menu so no typing is required at all - you just point and click.

      Why search when you can click?

    22. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Speed. You can dig through the start menu or tap the first two letters of the program's name.

      Presuming that the first two letters correctly identify the program you want to run. And then there are the dead ends when you mistype a letter....

      .

      While we can all argue about the milliseconds saved by.......

      The right way to open programs

      What Winws 8 got so wrong was that people wanted to open their programs the way that wanted to open programs. And a lot of people like shortcuts on the desktop One of the biggest complaints I got was that some of the programs (desktop apps) coulld be placed on the desktop, many couldn't (metro apps)

      Not everyone is a fine typist, and we look pretty stupid trying to explain why the customer cannot have what they want, And that they have to either use both the desktop and Metro, or modern or whatever they call it at any given time.

      So if a person likes search and type - fine, but least time I cehcked, there was no war declared on people who liked otherwise.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    23. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      Honestly, search has been here since Vista and was refined in Windows 7. The only time in the past 7 years I've actually dug through a menu was when I forgot what a program was called but I could remember what the icon looked like.

      Want to start Handbrake? Tap start > Type "han" > Hit enter. Want to start Word? Tap start > type "wo" > hit enter.

      I can do most of these faster than anyone can even take their hand off the keyboard and move it to the mouse.

      So? do women stand in line to have your babies? You get to have a couple extra cups of coffee with teh time you save? Different people like doing it differently.

      That's why they have different ways to do it. Your way is just fine, Slash dotter uber program-openers need to get a gnarly tat of thier superior program opening method to rep their street cred.

      Okay, back to normal now. Lets get to arguing something important, like emacs vs vim.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    24. Re:I found this bit quite funny by kingbilly · · Score: 2

      One thing the Linux desktop environments got right (for the most part) was placing programs in the menu by category. Terrible program names aside (GIMP..), it was a lot more intuitive to see programs listed by category on those interfaces, than on Windows where it was under a manufacturer's name. So much easier to find the music player under sound/video, than browsing folders/menus named after the last name of the company founder.

    25. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's why I have UX-Motherfuckers.

      Fucking assholes keep telling me how I should be using software; as opposed to how I want to use software.

      Fuck Gnome, Fuck Ubuntu, Fuck Apple and Fuck Microsoft.

    26. Re:I found this bit quite funny by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The GP asked why it was better, I told him, speed and efficiency. Use it or don't use it. I couldn't give a shit. You're acting like me answering someone else's question hurt your feelings. Jesus get over yourself man.

    27. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Jesus get over yourself man.

      I can't, because the search panel program starters have made me feel inadequate and robbed me of my self esteem.

      We have a real old fashioned donnybrook going on here where peopel are asserting superiority over how thy start programs. I got involved, because it's a riot as well as ridiculous. And yeah, your's is one of the funny ones.

      Tell ya what sparky, Get a sense of humor, and I promise to get over myself.

      Kiss kiss, and you can have the last post to call me an asshole. It's the least I can do.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    28. Re:I found this bit quite funny by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      I'd bet money it still saves time in the long run even when you count mistypes.

    29. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I guess they called it 'Windows' for a reason, and there is a reason so many people like it so much better than they liked the command prompt. I mean, why do so many of these guys think saying "Here's your Graphical User Interface, now type with you keyboard here.." makes sense to anyone? Everyone seems to be making the same mistake with bookmarks, no you shouldn't put them in folders and why would we sort them in alphabetical order for you, just search in big bag of crap.

    30. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they should take it to its logical conclusion and remove all the visual elements and stop calling it Windows. You really are part of the problem man, have you not noticed that "My way or the highway" doesn't fly with users? Meanwhile Apple is rolling in it, are they following your advice?

    31. Re:I found this bit quite funny by secretsquirel · · Score: 0

      You must be mistaken, the metro screen only launched apps.

    32. Re:I found this bit quite funny by secretsquirel · · Score: 0

      I use it. Not for the 89% of the time that I used a frequent app but for the 11% of the time that I don't.

    33. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fastest way to launch a program is to click on a shortcut.

      Bingo. In Win7 the Quick Launch bar can be manually reenabled and positioned on the bottom of the screen under the taskbar. I have ~10 icons there for home,~50 for work. Why would I ever need to click the Start button, much less search for everyday programs in it?

    34. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Finally... heirarchical start menu browsing... was clumsy in Windows 95 and all but useless in a modern PC. Nobody used it unless they had to,

      But it was useful for lumping related application files together rather than having them spread all over the start menu because it only has one layer.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    35. Re:I found this bit quite funny by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I'm humourless, but not a prick.

      oh what the hell.

      Asshole :-p

      Phew that does feel good. I think I need professional help.

    36. Re:I found this bit quite funny by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      To be fair I do forget the names of apps some times, particularly these days where all the good ones are taken and we have to rely on stupid abbreviations and faux URLs. Developers also have a habit of giving odd names to sub-apps in a suite, e.g. you might have an electronics cad program with separate schematic capture and PCB layout apps. Fortunately Windows 10 is good at figuring that stuff out and showing it when you search for the app suite name.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    37. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I guess they called it 'Windows' for a reason, and there is a reason so many people like it so much better than they liked the command prompt. I mean, why do so many of these guys think saying "Here's your Graphical User Interface, now type with you keyboard here.." makes sense to anyone?

      I never looked at it that way - but you are right - Thanks for the insight.

      As for the folks yapping about typing in the search box, I wonder if that didn't get started with Windows 8, when people complained about Metro, and the faithful had to come up with some reason it was the complainers fault. I don't recall seeing much about opening programs from search before then.

      I like the multiple ways of opening programs myself, because not everyone uses the same working style. It's just a pity that Microsoft picked the worst one to shove in your face with Metro.

      As for me, I pin the applications I use most to the taskbar - SmartSDR, SDRCat, Firefox, Thunderbird, OO, and command prompt. Acts much like OSX's Dock.

      But that's just me. I certainly don't use it as bragging rights.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    38. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I'm humourless, but not a prick.

      oh what the hell.

      Asshole :-p

      Phew that does feel good. I think I need professional help.

      That's what I'm here for! And you have a better sense of humor than you think, it would appear. Oh well, that's about enough for this agitation engineer.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    39. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can save time, provided you know what weird name MS gave to it. Trying to find the place to set manual IP addresses on NICs took a while on Win8. On XP, it was network neighborhood, right click on device, properties, ip-v4, properties. I think.

      Typing "network" on win7 does NOT, anywhere, give me the right applet to launch. When I googled for it, I get directed to go through device manager. This is *not* something that is faster by any stretch of the imagination.

    40. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to assume you haven't actually compared the two. "All programs" in the Windows 7 start menu shows 20 items at a time. The Metro start screen easily shows 40, and usually more, depending on resolution. They're easier to click on, too, for those of us that didn't spend the last decade playing Counterstrike.

    41. Re:I found this bit quite funny by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Want to start Handbrake? Tap start > Type "han" > Hit enter. Want to start Word? Tap start > type "wo" > hit enter.

      I can do most of these faster than anyone can even take their hand off the keyboard and move it to the mouse.

      I hazard to say that many people's workflow would be taking their hands off their mouse and having to type. In those cases, any reliance on Search is a drawback to workflow.

    42. Re:I found this bit quite funny by GungaDan · · Score: 1

      Yep that's perfectly intuitive. If I want to start my dvd-ripping tool I'll just remember "Han shot first" and for word processing, either Joey Lawrence or "woe is me."

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    43. Re:I found this bit quite funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid answer.

      Actually it's worse.
      Why? Aside from the issue of most people hating it. (User experience is king)

      Windows 7 already had the ability to search. Taking away the ability to do anything else isn't better -- it's just what you personally like. It sounds like you would rather force your preferences on everyone that disagrees with you because based on your subjective opinion that it's "better".

      The fact of the matter is, functionality was lost, not gained.
      Microsoft has been in the business of creating change for the sake of change.
      Sometimes with improvements, but unfortunately those improvements are layered in garbage - to the detriment of their customer base, and ultimately to their own demise.

      Microsoft is Apple's best marketing tool.

       

    44. Re:I found this bit quite funny by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Well there's always a menu.

      ^^^ Typed from my mouse....

      This post took 20 minutes..... :-)

    45. Re:I found this bit quite funny by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Well there's always a menu.

      ^^^ Typed from my mouse....

      This post took 20 minutes..... :-)

      You should switch to voice recognition like my workplace has.

  12. I don't want to 'feel' it, I want it to be real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "He then laid out Microsoft’s three goals with Edge:"

    1) Build a browser that feels “responsive, fast, and lightweight” but that is also “clean, doesn’t get in your way, and also works great with the modern web.”

    No, idiot, build a browser that IS responsive, fast, and lightweight. I don't care how it makes me 'feel'.

    2) Build a browser that is trusted and lets people feel safe.

    Again, no, I want the browser to BE safe, and don't care how it makes me 'feel'. All this touchy feely crap you can leave to the hippies. Also if you want me to trust your browser, then make the code open-source and the software FREE (as in speech, not beer)

    3) Build a browser that is “personal and productive,” fitting in with what Microsoft is trying to do overall as a company.

    No, I don't want a personal browser, I want a simple browser that answers 1 and 2 without the bloat that is IE (or worse Office)

    1. Re:I don't want to 'feel' it, I want it to be real by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      This is why you don't let the marketroids and UI gurus design tech things. They go for feel, not substance. Substance matters.

      You can enhance substance with proper UI design, so that things "fade in" as they become secure, or count down dots indicate what's enabled, but you need to actually build it right in the first place.

      (caveat: my first degree was in BusMgmt Sales & Marketing focus)

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:I don't want to 'feel' it, I want it to be real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      'feel' is being use as an emotive marketing term to engage the buyer more.

      If they're being truthful then the way they'll make it 'feel' responsive, fast, and lightweight is by *being* responsive, fast, and lightweight, but enough so that you actually notice the difference to before and to competitors. So fingers crossed.

      Trust and safe though are more about brand. Doing away with the IE brand and calling it edge rather than IE12 is dumping their old baggage - the history of bugs (ActiveX etc) and the fact it's frankly too boring, old and corporate. They get to give it an fresh new look, and the promise of no bugs because they're starting again with the lessons of the past. Of course they have to actually keep it secure now, otherwise the trust will call away and it'll become IE12 in all but name.

      'personal' and 'productive' is just pure marketing blurb. It's perfect for the end user because it's personal to them and it's perfect for business because it's productive. Completely meaningless. Any browser that provides bookmarks can be called 'personal' and any browser that actually functions is 'productive'.

    3. Re:I don't want to 'feel' it, I want it to be real by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Also if you want me to trust your browser, then make the code open-source and the software FREE (as in speech, not beer)

      Looks like you're not the target audience......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:I don't want to 'feel' it, I want it to be real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, idiot, build a browser that IS responsive, fast, and lightweight. I don't care how it makes me 'feel'.

      Clarke's Law #3: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

      Anonymous' Law #3: Any software that feels responsive is responsive.

      Even if there are some shenanigans going on in the background, as long as it FEELS faster, it is.
      Remember how IE 4 or MS Word would load so much faster than early versions of Firefox or Openoffice/Staroffice, and people complained, and the response was that they were built on Windows components that were loaded at boot? It may have been sneaky, but it sure worked! IIRC, Openoffice.org still has an option to load on Windows startup so that it loads faster when you decide to open a document.

    5. Re:I don't want to 'feel' it, I want it to be real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trouble is nobody *actually* wants a lightweight browser, but they *do* want them to be fast. There are hundreds of lightweight browsers out there, but zero people use any of them.

      So what you get is a browser that does everything the competition does, prefetches *everything*, keeps *everything* in memory as early and for as long as possible, etc. That's how you get the feature rich browser that's still fast, but has to juggle resource usage in crazy ways.

    6. Re:I don't want to 'feel' it, I want it to be real by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Wow, someone got out the wrong side of bed this morning...

      I think it's pretty clear that by "feel" he means "is" in every practical sense. I mean... How do you make it "feel" fast without actually being fast? Paint go faster stripes on the side perhaps?

      The "personal" bit was a little less clear, but he is referring to plug-in support. IE had it but it was shit, and other browsers all have it. Edge will get it soon. Personally I won't be using it until there is a port of uBlock and Privacy Badger or some similar tool, so I'd say it's a pretty important feature.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:I don't want to 'feel' it, I want it to be real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you also want a pony?

  13. Windows, IE and Lifecycles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You can point your finger at Microsoft, Windows and IE and point out a lot of problems. One thing they do a pretty good job of however, is supporting their systems for a long time. Contrast with Apple... my company bought me an iPad in 2010 shortly after the first version came out. Less than 3 1/2 years later, no more iOS updates were available on it (5.1.1 was the last version) and over time apps stopped supporting this version of the OS.

    Microsoft supports their OS's for a decade or more and even unsupported versions tend to just keep working. IE was a leading edge browsers for quite a while before they got mired down in ActiveX controls and other issues that caused it to become a huge security hole and recently I began preferring it over Firefox again. I am actually looking forward to trying out Windows 10 and the new browser... we'll likely be using both this time in 2025.

    1. Re:Windows, IE and Lifecycles by spire3661 · · Score: 1, Informative

      You mean like Kin, Zune or Plays for Sure? The original ipad was obviously a 'prototype' design to see if it would catch on. The ipad 2 should be considered the first true production ipad, and it runs the latest iOS. My fully 64 bit Mac Mini should get OS updates for a very long time. (the 64 bit issue is why we have seen a lot of older macs lose support.). Apple's 'planned obsolescence' is a bit overblown.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:Windows, IE and Lifecycles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plays for sure is my favourite. I wasn't having trouble playing stuff in the first place so when Microsoft started pinky swearing that things would play for sure I knew to stay the hell away.

    3. Re:Windows, IE and Lifecycles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean like Kin, Zune or Plays for Sure?

      Those are exceptions to the norm. You want a cookie for finding those?

      Apple's 'planned obsolescence' is a bit overblown.

      No, it isn't. They are kings of fucking customers over for as much profit as humanly possible. Planned obsolesce is just one of their tricks.

    4. Re:Windows, IE and Lifecycles by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Less than 3 1/2 years later, no more iOS updates were available on it (5.1.1 was the last version) and over time apps stopped supporting this version of the OS.

      That's about the same time as there was between buying our XP netbook and Microsoft dropping support for XP.

      (Not that it mattered, as I stuck an SSD in there and installed Linux soon after buying it)

    5. Re:Windows, IE and Lifecycles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Less than 3 1/2 years later, no more iOS updates were available on it (5.1.1 was the last version) and over time apps stopped supporting this version of the OS.

      That's about the same time as there was between buying our XP netbook and Microsoft dropping support for XP.

      (Not that it mattered, as I stuck an SSD in there and installed Linux soon after buying it)

      But how long was XP supported prior to you buying a netbook? You can't compare your stupid decision to buy a product 3½ years before support ended (knowing that support would end cause XP was already around forever) with buying a brand new product and having it only be supported for a few years.

    6. Re:Windows, IE and Lifecycles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Umm... if Apple tossed their -entire- iPod base, made a new MP3 player which required different DRM, a special interface, and so on, things would be different.

      PlaysForSure was a mainstream, first tier system that MS asked every vendor making a MP3 device to get on the bandwagon. In return, MP3 files from MS Urge would play on a Napster based player, and so on.

      Well, MS decided to completely screw everyone over, the users, the OEMs, everyone, and go with a different utility and DRM system (keeping the WMA container) for the Zune. Their loss.

      MS could have had the Android of the MP3 player market. Not one brand, but they would be making some money from licensing from each player sold. Because they double-downed on their own product, they lost their bet, and now, that market is pretty much Apple's.

    7. Re:Windows, IE and Lifecycles by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      I still run the Zune software and have a Zune Subscription. I don't know what you're talking about, because I'm still enjoying my 10 free songs per month!

    8. Re:Windows, IE and Lifecycles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are just off the top of my head.

      Zune
      Kin
      XNA
      PlaysForSure
      Flight Sim
      Encarta
      Expression Suite
      SteadyState
      Silverlight
      Windows RT
      Windows Phone 7
      Forefront TMG
      Front Page

      There are many more.

    9. Re:Windows, IE and Lifecycles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because it is based on when 0123456 buys a product not when the product was first released...

    10. Re:Windows, IE and Lifecycles by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      You can point your finger at Microsoft, Windows and IE and point out a lot of problems. One thing they do a pretty good job of however, is supporting their systems for a long time. Contrast with Apple... my company bought me an iPad in 2010 shortly after the first version came out.

      The original iPad was an outlier as a previous poster said. The next version of iOS that will be introduced in a few months will support all iPhones and iPads released since 2011. Apple released a patched in March of 2014 for a security vulnerability found in the iPhone 3GS released on 6/2009. Which other manufacturer supports their mobile devices that long? Android manufacturers definitely don't.

      Microsoft supports their OS's for a decade or more and even unsupported versions tend to just keep working.

      Tell that to Windows Phone 7 users or even all of the enterprise customers that had multi-million dollar deployments of $1200 ruggedized Windows CE devices.

  14. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't it posted on here not too long ago that all of the files in "Edge" still refer to itself as IE 11? I don't think it counts as building from the ground up when you leave all the walls and floors in place and just redo the roof.

  15. Early results... by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

    ...still needs work. Here's what I saw this morning on twitter from Jeff Atwood (of CodingHorror / StackExchange fame)

    errr.. is there any way to use MS Edge browser in fullscreen mode on tablet? I see a lot of wasted toolbar space here.

    Richard Gregg @odgregg 10h10 hours ago

    @codinghorror No. And even F11 doesn't go fullscreen

    Jeff Atwood @codinghorror 10h10 hours ago

    @odgregg :( so much screen space wasted, toolbar at bottom, 2 toolbars at top. Bad regression now I see what @drpizza was on about

    Richard Gregg @odgregg 10h10 hours ago @codinghorror @drpizza Yeah, edge definitely seems only 2/3rds there so far. Web notes should have been lower priority

    1. Re:Early results... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      I have yet to figure out this obsession some people have with screen space. Bitching about three friggin' toolbars?

    2. Re:Early results... by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      I don't know what size tablet he was trying to use, but I do know that when your screen space is really limited, having a huge percentage of it taken up with interface elements is beyond annoying.

      On my home desktop at 1280x1024x3, yeah its no big deal.

    3. Re:Early results... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I have yet to figure out this obsession some people have with screen space. Bitching about three friggin' toolbars?

      Tablets have insufficient screen space. Wasting any of it is sacrilege. I would complain about three toolbars, too. I have zero toolbars on firefox, That seems to be about the correct number.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re:Early results... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      I have yet to figure out this obsession some people have with screen space. Bitching about three friggin' toolbars?

      On a smaller tablet that screen space does come at a premium, but if that's the biggest complaint then it's pretty impressive.

    5. Re:Early results... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Also and perhaps more of a problem for business people and youtube freaks, Edge has serious problems scaling web pages correctly at 1080P. So essentially any exec that takes his laptop to a convention and plugs it into a big screen high def tv running at 1920x1080 is going to not be able to use the browser. I discovered this problem during with the tech preview and they still have not fixed it. With windows 10 all other browsers that I tried web page scaled correctly. I submitted this problem and they skated around it and made light of it! So essentially for serious presentation work Chrome, IE and Firefox will be used until they fix this oversight.

      I discovered this problem when testing youtube fun vids it was this one, my favourite bit of fun on the tube. I will say windows ten is much better at controlling things though because you can still disable flash in edge and ie and it does render html5 videos better than 7 with ie11! Google Earth is great on directx 12 so they are on the right track but they had better get their act together and pay attention to how users will actually use Edge and much of it will be to drive big screen TV through HDMI connections.

    6. Re:Early results... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of my reading is in the browser. I always go fullscreen to read long texts. It's not so much about the screen space -- it's about getting rid of distractions.

  16. Ageism for the next generation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "IE turns 20 in less than a month, which is ancient in internet years , so it's not surprising that Microsoft is shoving it aside."

    Hard to get into the article when the summary is already so full of B.S.

    Let's see now, the internet itself is over 25 years old; guess it's got to go. Linux is also nearly 25 years old; what a fossil. Heck, Windows is nearly 30 years old; how can Microsoft justify selling such an outdated P.O.S?

    The reason I.E needs to go has little to do with it's age and more to do with it's design/implementation. As with many high-profile Microsoft products, the focus on useability for novices has caused severe problems over the years:

    Microsoft Windows nearly single-handedly created the antivirus industry by neglecting security (and still does to this day).
    Microsoft Outlook (aka Outbreak) allowed these problem to be sent/received from people all over the world.
    Microsoft Internet Explorer just spread the problem beyond the people on your mailing lists.

    Think about all the other security problems Microsoft introduced as 'features' (like ActiveX and embedded scripts).

    What do we get in return, operating systems that constantly ask the novice user if they are sure they want to run this program (for seemingly any program to be run). Novice users don't know any better and the constant annoyance means they click yes faster than an I Agree on a EULA.

    I just wish Microsoft could put a little more effort into making an operating system that is still usable by novices without sacrificing the security that we all need and deserve in the 'internet age.'

    1. Re:Ageism for the next generation by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Windows nearly single-handedly created the antivirus industry by neglecting security (and still does to this day).

      Microsoft, yes Windows no. I can remember using McAffee anti-virus on MS-DOS long before I started using Windows.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:Ageism for the next generation by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      Agreed -- the grand parent is pretty ignorant of the history about viruses.

      https://nakedsecurity.sophos.c...

      i.e.

      * 1982 - Prehistory: Elk Cloner
      * 1987 - nVIR
      * 1988 - HyperCard
      * 1990 - MDEF -- (Windows 3.0 released)
      * 1991 - German folk tunes
      * 1995 - Word macro viruses (Window 95 released)

    3. Re:Ageism for the next generation by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      I wonder how Microsoft caused so many viruses to exist on the Amiga platform during the 1980s and 1990s...

      The Amiga was where I first had to use anti-virus.

  17. Familiar Character by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Funny

    IE is like the horror movie killer that keeps coming back after repeated stabbings, burnings and exorcisms. Call it Chuckie, Freddie or a Leprechaun, it will be back.

    1. Re:Familiar Character by maestroX · · Score: 1

      when i grow up there will be a day
      when everybody has to do what i say
      when i grow up there will be a day
      when everybody has to do it ... my way
      my way
      my way
      my way

  18. "Edge" will not kill IE any more than it is by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't see why people think IE can be "killed." Until you convince curmudgeony old people (like governments) whose web-based tools break on anything other than IE to pay green money to update their websites, IE will stick around. And, since some people (mostly governments) will never be willing to pay money to fix something that "isn't broken" (as long as you use it on IE), IE will never, ever be completely dispensable.

    1. Re:"Edge" will not kill IE any more than it is by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Certainly if all it took to "kill IE" was a higher-quality browser, IE would have had its dead carcass chunked into the Indian Ocean years ago.

    2. Re:"Edge" will not kill IE any more than it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Will it be enough to push Windows users over the Edge?

    3. Re:"Edge" will not kill IE any more than it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see why people think IE can be "killed." Until you convince curmudgeony old people (like governments) whose web-based tools break on anything other than IE to pay green money to update their websites, IE will stick around. And, since some people (mostly governments) will never be willing to pay money to fix something that "isn't broken" (as long as you use it on IE), IE will never, ever be completely dispensable.

      It kills it because its a default Windows browser so the "old people" that are too lazy to switch to something better will start using Edge once windows 10 gets installed on their desktop.

    4. Re:"Edge" will not kill IE any more than it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My government web-based project, which has been stuck on IE 8 for a looooooooong time, just got approval to revamp for modern browsers with a requirement that no one specific browser be required. Times are changing.

    5. Re:"Edge" will not kill IE any more than it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, it only runs on Windows 10. Which many of us will not be installing. Chrome runs on XP, why can't Edge?

  19. When I use Edge by xenotransplant · · Score: 1

    I feel like I'm on the peak of the icy mountains in Nepal. Oh wait that's a peppermint patty.

  20. Mainstream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IE turns 20 in less than a month, which is ancient in internet years

    Look, the Internet has been around more than 25yrs. Can we stop this internet speed "really moves fast" thing. Really. Facebook has been around since 2008 and Google since 1998. And look at their progress. Not much since 2006-2008. If you want beta, crappy apps and ideas, and stupid trends, yes, the Internet "moves fast" in that context. If you want services & products that you incorporate into your life, aka the real "Internet" (ignoring the hipsters that adopt anything), it's actually a slow process on par with other industries.

  21. Wow, the mods here are hard-core Microsoft fanbois by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone says it is only three times as reliable as a previous version, and they mark this guy as a troll. This used to be a nice technical site instead of hailcorporate.

    The one QA guy we put on 10 has only had to reboot once so far today. 10 looks pretty good. Usually since they run our entire production stack locally (IIS, SQL enterprise, ~1M line .NET app, BIRT Analytics with ~50 GB test database, and about a dozen other components), they crash several times per day. Last I checked the guy had worked about five hours so far with 10 with only a single crash. 10 looks like a big improvement.

  22. IE is NOT 20 years old. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The name is, the current IE is not. I would be surprised if many parts of it is not still alive in "Edge".

  23. Re:Wow, the mods here are hard-core Microsoft fanb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > ...only had to reboot once so far today. 10 looks pretty good.

    It's sad that our expectations for Microsoft are so low that we use the words "pretty good" to describe crashing once in only part of a workday. When I worked for MSN Autos, we probably wasted half of our time at work waiting on reboots, updates to Windows, updates to Microsoft tools, waiting on fixes to Microsoft libraries (admittedly we were on the cutting edge of .NET at that time), and struggling with Windows compatibility problems. Things have gotten better, but it's depressing that a company with almost 120,000 employees can't seem to get their act together.

  24. re windows 10 by williemaexhrk · · Score: 1

    in my opinions windows 10 excellent tool for surveillance users

  25. Still missing lots of niceties by dnwheeler · · Score: 2

    The core browser functionality is there and working, but there is still a lot missing. For example, the right-clicking on a hyperlink only has options for opening in a new tab or new window. All the other options (Copy Shortcut, Properties, Save Target As..., etc.) are missing. As previously mentioned, F11 doesn't do anything and there doesn't seem to be any way to run full-screen at all (just maximized, which leave the title bar). Also, when first launched, the address bar is not shown - this feels very strange (I'm not in the habit of typing URLs into search boxes, and it makes actually searching for pages containing a URL to not work as expected.).

    Hopefully with their new "continuous releases" process, these things will come incrementally and regularly.

    1. Re:Still missing lots of niceties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, the right-clicking on a hyperlink only has options for opening in a new tab or new window. All the other options (Copy Shortcut, Properties, Save Target As..., etc.) are missing.

      UXtard here! Why would you ever want to do something that the person who designed the site didn't anticipate you'd do? I mean, saving an image locally? Viewing HTML source? That's either copyright infringement or you're trying to watch porn without being tracked. And no way, no now, do we condone that sort of thing. Just because it runs on your PC doesn't mean it's your web browser. A browser is on your system in order to render the UX as implemented by the webdevs, it is not not there for you!

  26. Any ad blockers for it yet? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hey Cortana, how can I block ads when I'm using Edge?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Any ad blockers for it yet? by Albert71292 · · Score: 1

      Hey Cortana, how can I block ads when I'm using Edge?

      Once I can block ads, I'll give it a serious try. Until then, I'll stay with Firefox.

      --
      "A Bird In The Hand Will Poop On Your Wrist"-Benny Hill,1982
  27. Re:Pretty sure it doesn't run on Linux by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Thank you for that insightful and informative comment which has added so much to the discussion.

    Oh, wait, no it didn't, you just wanted to remind everyone that you don't own a television.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  28. changing the name? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    MS can call it whatever they like... the chances that at its core this thing isn't going to be IE are small.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:changing the name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There I had to reply to your tidbit after modding you down on notch so if you don't reply I don't care. But you are wrong because the engine running Edge is going to make a ton of people actually try IE 12 on Windows. I know I was a beta tester. IE 12 is actually very functional, it renders html5 beautifully, you can easily now just shut off flash, in fact during beta testing that is what most users recommended to get a better web render speed. The directx hardware acceleration of web pages on IE 12 is really stunning, things like google maps run like a rocket. All and all I suspect that EDGE is going to have the complete opposite effect and turn users on to IE 12!

  29. Re:Pretty sure it doesn't run on Linux by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0

    Thank you for that insightful and informative comment which has added so much to the discussion.

    Oh, wait, no it didn't, you just wanted to remind everyone that you don't own a television.

    Pretty sure my 1080p 42 inch HDTV counts as a TV.

    Although it is true many scientists don't own TVs, to minimize distractions.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  30. Trust. by Moof123 · · Score: 1

    So IE is old and badly maintained, so just "trust us" that our new Edge browser will get better maintenance and support after it replaces IE. Never mind that it will be the same pile of schlubs maintaining the thing as were maintaining IE. It will be different this time, just "trust us".

    If MS ever officially apologizes for the Ribbon interface and throws it into the same burn pile as Clippy, then I might start trusting them a little more. So far they have a nasty habit of shoving garbage down their customers throat, being horrified by the public outcry, temporarily mending their ways, then reverting to old behaviors on the following product cycle. But "trust us", this time is different, we promise to force updates that won't wreck your machine...

  31. Re:Pretty sure it doesn't run on Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    haha holy fuck you just missed the point

    take a nap and try again tomorrow hun

  32. Re:Wow, the mods here are hard-core Microsoft fanb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > ...only had to reboot once so far today. 10 looks pretty good.

    It's sad that our expectations for Microsoft are so low that we use the words "pretty good" to describe crashing once in only part of a workday.

    It's sad that you think rebooting a system and crashing are the same thing.

  33. Re:Pretty sure it doesn't run on Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL! This comment only serves to make Linux users look stupid, please stop using Linux until you climb a little higher on the intelligence ladder.

  34. Re:Pretty sure it doesn't run on Linux by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure there will be a competing browser running on another device other than an xBox which utilizes screens. Pretty sure most of our blade servers make your desktop machines look like ancient Ford jalopies.

    The vast majority of work done in the world is done by machines which don't talk to humans most of the time. Including the vast majority of work done on the web itself. Which is just a framing representation of various inputs and outputs we built to allow disparate machines to intercommunicate and occasionally present the data to humans.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  35. Mirosoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck Microsoft. If they can put malware on your computer that constantly tells you to upgrade to Windows 10, what the fuck are they going to do next.

    1. Re:Mirosoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't own your copy of windows, you own a license for that copy of windows.

      And not only that the they're pretty much allowed to add and remove whatever components of their system they want to. (Excluding 3rd party addons, that the user has installed.)

  36. We Must Save Internet Explorer 6!!! by Cito · · Score: 1, Funny

    Everyone join

    http://www.saveie6.com/

    The best browser ever! Don't submit to a post Gates Microsoft!

  37. So Microsoft Edge will finally kill Windows, eh? by jkrise · · Score: 1

    The only things holding back people to Windows, I thought - IE and VB style client server apps. There are still ao many websites, specially banking and so-called inhouse web apps that rely on ActiveX and Craptive things on the Windows Ecosystem. So with Edge, the intrwebs will be forced to support a standards-compliant browser on the Windows desktop. Very good.

    Once that is complete, the only reason for Windows on the desktop will be gone, and browsers like Firefox, Chrome and Opera - which are all standards-compliant, more so than IE at any rate; will become first class citizens again. And there will be nothing to hold back Linux in the Enterprises which have moved on from VB crap.

    Good to hear.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  38. A word to the moderators by jandersen · · Score: 1

    Sorry to change the subject here, but I see a trend recently, where posts - like the one I am replying to - get modded down unreasonably. Modding down simply because you are annoyed that somebody makes a joke about your pet fetish, is petty and immature.

    I know there is a feature in /. called 'meta-moderation', but it is too long-wided to use, or it was when I looked last time, so could we have a button beside all posts that have been moderated (up or down), that would allow logged-in users to agree or disagree with the moderation? And then you could use the stats on how people's mods were agreed or disagreed with to affect the standing or karma of modders.

  39. on again with the fishy practices by choupette · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just installed windows 10 yesterday as an upgrade to windows 8.1.

    it kept all my settings, in a very accurate way except for one : it replaced my browser with edge. So at the first reboot I launched chrome, and it whined about not being my defaut browser, so I clicked the "make chrome my defaut browser" button, and a window came, recapitulating my prefered apps for music / videos / etc, I thought to myself that it was thoughtful to show me all those settings, but I had other things to do, so I closed that window.

    Well, next reboot, same problem : chrome wasn't my default browser, you actually have to go to the bottom of the window that pops up, and the deselect edge for your prefered browser at the bottom of the window. So I finally did it.

    I thought about the same thing : " ... browsing is still one of the very top activities that people do on a PC" yes, so why the hell don't they change the browser as chrome requested, and why the hell do they put this option on the bottom of the window, which is not visible unless I scrolled down (I have a 1920x1080 screen) ?

    well I think I know why, I'll be sure to check edge's market share in the next months.

    --
    -- moo
  40. MS was the browser killer by richman555 · · Score: 2

    The irony here is that Microsoft never had interest in 'web browsing' on the internet. IE was simply a response to the popularity of Netscape in the 90s. Microsoft envisioned an internet where desktop apps would use web services under the covers to get data over the internet. Being locked in and locked down is essentially what they wanted. Also Microsoft attempted several times to kill off development of the browser once IE had marketshare. They also claimed there was no more innovation to be had in the modern web browser. So after all of this, perhaps Microsoft is changing their mind.

  41. This is a paid submission to slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And when did they change the microsoft logo from the billborg?

    The language is right out of a press release - utter shit - uses same rendering engine, windows 10 is just windows 7 without the fullscreen starter added in 8.

    fuck microsoft

  42. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  43. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  44. "IE turns 20... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    ...in less than a month, which is ancient in internet years"

    Because people have been using the exact same version of IE for the past 20 years. It's not like there hasn't been new versions and code changes along the way to which only the name has stayed the same while the underlying browser engine has changed. No that hasn't happened...*eye roll*

    Moron.

  45. Edge? Will the AV program be called Bono? by KatchooNJ · · Score: 1

    Poor Edge... Oh well... at least U2 doesn't have a bass player named Cortana.

    --
    "Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
  46. No, it's not that old. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    " IE turns 20 in less than a month, which is ancient in internet years,"

    No, IE is not 20 years old. IE 11 bears no resemblance to IE8, which bears no resemblance to IE3, which bears no resemblance to IE 1.5.

    This sort of description is like declaring the 1978 Saab 900 was anything like the 1994 Saab 900.

    There have been 11 major versions of IE. Better to state that the name has been around for 20 years, or a product named that, but then we have to consider that 'Windows' has been around for 29 years. Does anyone even consider 'Windows 1.0' from 1985 is anything like current Windows, and shares the name only?

    Lazy writing, worse thinking.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  47. Build new from the ground up??? by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    So why do we see the exact same flaws and shortcomings in Edge as we did in IE11? Are we made to believe that Microsoft's developers were utterly inept twice in a row? I think it is more than the IE rendering engine got all the backwards compatibility removed but otherwise did not change by much. Even worse, simple JS that works in IE11 fails on Edge. Return to sender.....