Rip Internet Explorer?
http://venturebeat.com/2014/12/29/micro ... indows-10/
Reports and rumors of M$ making a new browser are floating around. Those same ones are telling us IE will still be there. What do you guys think of this?
Me personally I don't care. I install Firefox on first install anyway.
Reports and rumors of M$ making a new browser are floating around. Those same ones are telling us IE will still be there. What do you guys think of this?
Me personally I don't care. I install Firefox on first install anyway.
Comments
I kind of doubt this attempt will be successful though. I'm fairly certain it will go largely ignored. Especially if they're still shipping Internet Explorer along side of it.
When I first heard about this, the first thing that popped into my mind was MSN explorer. Anyone remember that? I expect a similar fate to befall this new project.
To me it sounds like they are just going to change around the IE UI again, this time to make it look like Google chrome, and perhaps give a fallback for the current UI (Which itself was a poor rip-off of the Safari UI)
There was some wild speculation about a seperate rendering engine, but I just don't see them backing down from their "integration" garbage. Still, it would make some sense to have one OS specific renderer for stable unchanging content, and another to keep up with the latest HTML version 287638726 or whatever BS of the day.
I'll probably just stay with Chrome, it does what a browser is supposed to do.
I'll still give IE12 (or whatever it's called) a try anyway.
Edit: My sister uses IE11. Whoops.
"Browser wars" are over. Google won, they even sucked the very life out of Opera. Bravo!
I don't think browsers are supposed to spy on you or be using Java for much of their code.
Pale Moon is the best in my opinion.
1. That Windows 9 was being developed in late-2012 to 2013 when it later was revealed to be Windows 8.1 (released as an upgrade to Windows 8).
2. That Windows 9 would be released in April 2015 (the latter of which sounds much more like the planned date for Build 2015, given that it will occur during the same timeframe), even when it later turned out that the next version was infact Windows 10 and would be released in late-2015 (Windows 9 was likely just an unofficial name that individual Microsoft employees used to distinguish it from Windows 8.1 and most likely was simply misinterpreted as being the official name of the next Windows version, considering that it was never even officially confirmed by Microsoft itself unlike with Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 8.1).
3. That the Start Menu in the next version of Windows was added back in due to popular demand from Windows 7 enthusiasts who wanted Microsoft to include a Start Menu replacement, even when Microsoft made it perfectly clear when demonstrating Windows Technical Preview (September 30th, 2014) that the real reason for why they even added it in the first place was due to provide an improved experience across desktop/notebook and touch devices while still providing the same features.
As you can clearly see, I have learned over the past several years not to trust every article that is posted on the Internet that makes any sort of "sweeping claim" whatsoever without evidence provided. If it is in any way inconsistent with what Microsoft would normally have done, then unless it is later confirmed by Microsoft itself, I'm skeptical, since otherwise such information is very doubtful at best, and as you can clearly see above, this certainly isn't the first time that doubtful information was posted online (and certainly not the first time that such information went viral either).
As such, I think that we should wait for someone inside of Microsoft to confirm these reports first, before deciding on the future of Microsoft's browser.
As for the start menu thing, of course they're going to say some bullshit like, "it's to provide an improved experience" instead of "ooops, our bad, here's a knock off start menu, will you buy our product now?" It's a PR move.
As for browsers, it does kind of suck that no one is retaining any originality anymore. They're all just copying Chrome. I would prefer the other browser vendors just stick with their pre-chrome designs or at least try to come up with something of their own rather than a blatant copy. I also wish Google would have stuck with webkit rather than forking it and making their own craptastic rendering engine.
It is true that some of what Mary Jo Foley stated at the time was later proven correct, such as Cortana integration, and others which were later proven partly correct but which quite understandably were misinterpreted (or perhaps not made quite clear), such as the Start Menu. This is why I said "misinterpreted" - I was not saying that everything said was completely wrong either, but rather that it is far too easy for some people (in general, not anyone specific) to misinterpret new reports to meaning something different.
It's really quite easy to see why some people incorrectly thought that the next version of Windows after Windows 8 would be Windows 9, and how and why they would believe the same regarding the next version after Windows 8.1 (the former being Windows 8.1 itself and the latter being Windows 10), for example. I myself originally thought the same way, but after seeing the release of Windows 8.1, I was far more doubtful of the "Windows 9" name actually being real (much less the final release name of the next version of Windows).
The same is true of Internet Explorer. What is very likely to have happened was simply that some people at Microsoft were simply referring to a new and upcoming version of Internet Explorer as being "Spartan" (the codename for their next browser), and other people misinterpreted it to mean that their next browser would be marketed separately from Internet Explorer. This is the problem with such reports as I have already explained previously, which is why I would normally consider such reports to be doubtful at best until a reliable source (in this case Microsoft) confirms it. Or, at the same time, it could also be that the same browser will help to improve user experience on touch devices, or it could just as easily be any number of reasons; all I'm saying is that we won't know for sure until Microsoft (or someone inside of Microsoft provides information regarding such upcoming products.
On that note, it seems very likely that they are working on an update to their browser family, which would explain the codename ("Spartan"). However, at the same time, the problem here is that a lot of people would simply prefer to believe that Microsoft is "ditching IE" simply because some users in the enthusiast community disapprove of Microsoft's own browser and would instead prefer other browsers such as Firefox, Opera, or Chrome. Much like with how they similarly disapproved of the Windows 8.1 Start screen and instead wanted Microsoft to bundle a Start Menu replacement, as I already explained earlier. They also missed the fact that even the Internet Explorer 11 in Windows Technical Preview currently has already had several updates to its code since November, which is also worth noting here. Well, by "experience across devices", they are referring to the PCs on which people are using Windows today. Desktops are devices, as well as notebooks, and particularly tablets (including not only the Surface Pro, but also other Windows tablets from other vendors). The way that Windows Technical Preview is designed, Windows offers many of the same features found on both desktops, notebooks, and touch, but in a way that adapts to each device (this also includes other features such as Continuum, which is for convertible tablets as well as systems with both, the keyboard and mouse as well as touch capabilities). As you can see here, it isn't quite as simple as providing a "knock off Start Menu" since it really is all about providing the same features in a way that works perfectly for different devices, as you can clearly see if you read the information on Microsoft's website.
And the Start Menu (referring to the one demonstrated by Microsoft for the Windows Technical Preview) is not really a return to the old Windows 7 Start orb and Start Menu as many people would like to claim, but rather is to provide a functional alternative to the Start screen in a way that is easily accessible for desktop users. This is also why the same demonstration video at Microsoft covers it from the point of view of new features in Windows generally rather than from the point of view of Windows 7 fans.
But I think that I'm getting far too off-topic here since this topic is about the future of Internet Explorer and not about the Start experience in Windows 10; all I'm saying is that this wouldn't be the first time that someone misinterpreted a new feature to be something different, especially when such reports go viral as this one obviously has; hence the age-old explanation "Don't believe everything you read". As such, I'll rather be waiting for official announcements such as those which will be seen in January regarding the upcoming Preview for Windows 10, as well as the Build 2015 conference, along with anything new that is posted on Microsoft's website regarding the status of its upcoming products.
Windows 10 is a departure from the "one interface to rule them all" philosophy they had previously. Now they're still sticking with the "one OS to rule them all" part of it, but instead trying to adapt the interface based on the device. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's obvious they realized they fucked up and now they're trying to go back to the drawing board and fix it.
I called the Windows 10 start menu a knock off because, frankly, it looks like one. It's like the Windows 7 start menu and the 8.1 start screen had an illegitimate child. Frankly, I could do without it. I've gotten used to the start screen.
Side note: I hope all those idiots that keep saying Windows alternates between good releases and bad releases realize that by that logic, Windows 10 will suck since 8.1 might as well be considered its own release.