still upbto their old tricks
f*ck the law, bundle bad software, delay legal proceedings till its too late.
The Microsoft business model. ®
Microsoft's Internet Explorer clawed back some of its share of the desktop web-browser market in October, as it stood accused of costing rival Firefox valuable downloads by Windows users. Meanwhile, both Mozilla's Firefox and Google's Chrome have slipped in the browser rankings. Firefox-maker Mozilla blamed its dip on the …
But the 'bad software' was better than the competition. IE9 was faster than Chrome and firefox on release - and has had far fewer security vulnerabilities than either of them.
And now IE10 is also faster than the lastest Chrome and Firefox: http://www.neowin.net/news/ie10-is-8-faster-than-chrome-20-says-strangeloop
var a1 = "10 Acacia Avenue:Anytown:Countyshire:AB123CD"; // the sort of thing that might be returned from an AJAX postcode lookup script
var a2 = "123 High Street:Bigcity::EF45GH"; // big cities don't need their counties mentioned
var b1 = a1.split(/:/);
var b2 = a2.split(/:/);
With all browsers, we get b1 == ["10 Acacia Avenue","Anytown","Countyshire","AB123CD"] as would be expected.
With Webkit-based browsers (Chrome / Konqueror / Safari), Mozilla-based browsers and Opera, we get b2 == ["123 High Street","Bigcity","","EF45GH"] as would be expected.
With IE, we get b2 == ["123 High Street","Bigcity","EF45GH"] -- the empty element has been silently removed from the array; placing the postcode where the county should be, and leaving the element which should contain the postcode undefined (which sometimes causes an exception when trying to read its value).
There is no way in hell that that behaviour is remotely proper -- and neither is there any way this was accidental.
Being a Firefix fanboi (been using it for years) I was going to make a scathing remark to your post. Then I got to thinking just how bloated Firefox has been getting in the past year or so with each new release and realized you may be right.
I'm running Linux now, so the Firefox version isn't as bloated, but it's still better than being spied on when using Chrome.
This post has been deleted by its author
You missed the part where I said I was a Firefox fanboi. I was using Firefox in Windows, so when I recently switched to Linux, I had no reason to research other browsers as it also had Firefox.
You're right, I have never heard or SWIron, however, I have heard of Chromium, though have not looked into it enough to know it did not have the Google spyware. I just assumed (yes I know what that means) that it was Google Chrome for Linux so still would have the spyware.
Round 2 of the 100 Years Browsers War, I can't help but think: If a cop gave me a ticket for going 65 in a 45 zone, I couldn't get out of paying it because of "technical errors." And if I were silly enough to try that angle in front of a judge, I'd probably wind up with a doubled fine.
If this browser choice thing in Windows was so critical to the likes of Mozilla, how come it wasn't just MS that 'failed no notice' that it had disappeared, why did no-one from Google or Mozilla appear to notice either?
You took the words out of my mouth - I'm a long term FF user, but recently, it's become so slow and cumbersome - without any extensions/plugins - I'm looking at Opera or IE instead. Add in ABP, noscript and I'm looking at making a cuppa waiting for it to start.
Actually, in the states, you CAN get off of a speeding ticket for a technical error. If the citing officer does not follow the correct procedure, and it can be proven (usually by a lawyer), then the ticket is dismissed. You obviously have to pay the lawyer, but at least the state doesn't get to ding your record.
"If the citing officer does not follow the correct procedure,"
BUT: That's the COP making the mistake. If YOU make the mistake - e.g. your speedometer is in error, or you didn't see the sign, etc. - TOUGH NUGGIES, court clerk's on the left as you go out, cash, check, or credit card please.
This wasn't the court's fault, it was Microsoft's.
that's when the issuing side makes some misteak. If you (as the receiver of the ticket) commit an error by, say, transposing two digits in the fine payment reference number, I doubt that you'll have even a small chance of convincing the judge to let you off on this 'technical' error.
And how much memory do you think it should use? It depends entirely on the pages you have open and your plugins. I'm on the latest version and it doesn't use near that for 6 or 8 tabs.
Chrome actually uses more cpu and usually similar memory. They've just designed the gui in such a way that it feels more responsive. That and they use show that lame error page more often than trying to load a page. But afaik it still has a bug that let's render way too many elements when running across broken html so it performs far worse on some pages.
Have to agree. This is just FF trying to blame MS for their failings. Chrome has managed to catch up to them in a short time where as they seem to reckon they can only get people with the EU screen. I gave up on FF years ago and moved to Opera but now FF is my 4th browser of choice after Chrome and IE9
"If they had kept mum, I wonder if anyone would have even noticed..."
More perversely, since Mozilla's share of the market only dropped in October, despite the ballot being missing for ages, can we conclude that it was Microsoft's admission of guilt that caused the drop in FF's market share?
Next month, perhaps MS can admit that Win8 is crap, thereby crippling Apple's share of the tablet market.
I've been getting fed up with FF quite some time ago but didn't really want to miss out on some of my plugins. So I eventually moved onto SeaMonkey. Its the Mozilla engine we initially came to love & respect but without all the bloat. In fact; by default it looks like your standard Netscape browser, which quite frankly suits me just fine.
I don't care that much for the interface (of course it has to be usable) but more so for my "browsing experience". Well SeaMonkey has what it takes IMO. Since a few updates ago its even fully Aero compliant (so you see download progress in the program icon).
I never looked back.
Whilst I agree that MS deserve a slap on the wrist for this the thing I find interesting is that the likes of Apple still get away with having a very closed shop mentality when it comes to products that can only use apps (officially) via its App Store and that if you try to submit a product that replicatates a core function they can reject your App. Or even worse, if your App has already been accepted and if what it does becomes a core function, that your App can then be removed from the App Store without warning. And as newer Apple products are disposing optical drives now it makes me wonder how long it will be before it becomes a problem on their desktop systems as well?
Mainly I'd say either "playing by the rules" or "gaming the system". The restriction against Microsoft was their consequence for breaking said rules... for better or worse, there is no requirement for anyone else to provide a browser choice dialogue.
I don't like Apple's behavior in this regard either, but they don't even seem to be on the radar of the EU regulators where the competition laws are quite broadly defined... much less in the US.
Ignoring the other differences, let's assume for a moment that it is an 1:1 comparison from an OS/Browser/technology standpoint... the legal distinction is this:
iOS came with their model out of the gate when it had, essentially, zero market share - they established their tablet monopoly with this constraint in place... Microsoft attempted to implement this model *after* they had an established desktop monopoly to the detriment of competition in the market (i.e. Netscape).
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that is the way the law works in this situation - in the states in the form of "misuse of monopoly power" and in the EU under the much looser guidelines of "anti-competitive behavior".
There is no legal requirement that "[an OS must allow a variety of browsers to run on it]", else ChromeOS would be illegal. The reason Microsoft has this requirement is that it established its desktop OS monopoly without the browser built in, and used its desktop OS monopoly power to establish a monopoly in the browser space.
A little f'd up maybe, but dems da rules.
How long is it going to take until someone sues them for bundling minesweeper ? It hurts open source game developers, you know ? Why not a "choice of OS ballot" as well ? Wouldn't it be fun to see a "Are you sure you want to install Windows" screen, along with a choice of other operating systems ?
This post has been deleted by its author
With a choice of OS, it would still favour Windows;
Choice A - Windows 8 or Windows 7 (pick one)
Choice B - Mac (Sorry, Apple has deemed you are not running Apple hardware so this choice is unavaiable)
Choice C - Linux (Pick a distro - 1 2 3 4 . . . . . . . 98 99 100) (Note you are responsilble for picking one suited to a beginner)
... all this Browser Choice stuff is bullshit.
You choose to buy a Mac and you get OS X with Safari preinstalled, there's no Browser Choice screen and nobody cares. If you choose to buy a Windows PC, then you should expect that your default browser will be a Microsoft one because you bought into Microsoft when you chose the Windows PC. It should be your responsibility to seek out a different browser if you want one - it should not be Microsoft's responsibility.
Apple is not a monopoly (legal term too big for your pea brain) trying to co-opt the internet - "browser as an application deployment vehicle" and so on and so forth by "bundling" (legal term too big ...)
When Apple have monopoly power, it may be relevant. Until them, pull you puny head in, should be easy enough because it must be minuscule!
@Anonymous Coward "Apple is not a monopoly..."
The term "monopoly" would imply that Microsoft are the only people to provide a browser for Windows. You and I both know that this is not the case, and on a similar front, Microsoft have never actually stopped you from downloading and using an alternative either. It's no easier to download a different browser now than it was back in the Netscape era; the only thing that has changed is public perception of the issue. So please, step down from your high horse and take your pathetic insults elsewhere.
But, if your smart enough to actually get on the Web, then you're also smart enough to take the time to learn about the Alternative Browsers, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari (for Windows). I for One can not recall ever having been ever greeted by a Browser Choice Screen ever.
Order of the Day in a fresh install is to get the Network up. Hop onto the Net, d/l Firefox install that, and get the rest of the latest Drivers. (e.g. nVidia, Realtek and Printer). The only time I have to fire up IE is on your second given Tuesday of any given Month to update the latest fixes to Microsofts Inection Exploiter.
So a better question to ask might be, why are we still forced to use IE to update our Machines?
I was using firefox for a long time and then started running into compatability and stability issues in more recent versions (end of 2011 beginning of 2012) so I switched to Chrome which has been pretty good for me although not a google fan from the privacy side of things I prefer it over firefox at this point.
Fortunately you can completely avoid Apple products and continue to use your computer, the Internet and smartphones in general quite nicely. Android has somewhat seen to that.
Now try doing anything on a PC without Windows. Ever noticed how so many computer-related learning courses are not so much "how to use computers" as "how to use Microsoft software"?
As I have already said here, does nobody remember what happened when Microsoft had a near-100% monopoly on web browsers? That's why they have been legally forced to provide the choice. Apple didn't try to own the entire Internet, even if they do sorely want to be Microsoft.
If the iThings ever got as widespread as IE did, and if Apple ever used that to try and dictate how the Internet works, then you watch the court orders come thick and fast. A little like the slap they just got for that non-apology.
M Gale wrote :- " does nobody remember what happened when Microsoft had a near-100% monopoly on web browsers? That's why they have been legally forced to provide the choice."
I certainly remember, and I think that those attacking the browser choice here from some sort of self-imagined moralistic high horse are perhaps new[er]bies who never saw how MS's abuse of that monopoly worked in practice.
MS deliberately kept moving the HTML goal posts for no other reason than to shake off rival browsers and OS's (but claiming "richer browsing experience"). IE was the only browser which worked properly with many sites built with MS's own authoring software (Front Page I think it was). Other browsers would appear "broken" when in fact it was the website which had tripwires put in it by MS software.
For example when my bank website was given a makeover, no doubt with Front Page, it stopped working in Galeon (my browser at the time). The bank told me to use IE to "solve" the problem. I refuse to use IE so I started using another bank instead.
Now that people use a greater spread of browsers (and I don't care if Joe Sixpack picks one at random - all the better spread) web site designers must make sure that they do not only work in IE - or go out of business.
Some people here ask sarcastically "Why just a choice screen for IE, why not Notepad and Minesweeper too?". Well, Notepad or Minesweeper are never going to cause anything like forcing someone to close a bank account or give up trying to use a shopping site, whatever MS do with them.
"For example when my bank website was given a makeover, no doubt with Front Page, it stopped working in Galeon (my browser at the time). The bank told me to use IE to "solve" the problem. I refuse to use IE so I started using another bank instead."
A web site that only worked in IE? Not really the fault of IE or Microsoft though, but rather the plebs who authored it.
"web site designers must make sure that they do not only work in IE - or go out of business."
And so they should! That's how it's been in, quite literally, all the places I have worked since the days of IE3. Back in the day, there was never any excuse for a public IE only site. And yeah, FrontPage sucked big sweaty gonads.
"Well, Notepad or Minesweeper are never going to cause anything like forcing someone to close a bank account or give up trying to use a shopping site, whatever MS do with them."
IE/MS never forced you to either. The forcing was done by the fuckwits who developed such site(s). When it was pretty much just Netscape and IE doing the free browsers, it was always possible to develop a fully functional site for both. Show me a developer who back then said not and I'll show you someone who was a lazy, incompetent fuckwit.
@M Gale "MS deliberately kept moving the HTML goal posts for no other reason than to shake off rival browsers and OS's (but claiming "richer browsing experience"). IE was the only browser which worked properly with many sites built with MS's own authoring software (Front Page I think it was)."
This is a weak argument though because the web is not, and never will be, fully standardised. The decentralised nature of the Internet simply doesn't permit it. Incidentally, FrontPage didn't need to guarantee cross-browser interoperability in the same way that Microsoft Word doesn't need to guarantee complete formatting consistency with OpenOffice. The people who chose to use FrontPage made a choice; they chose Microsoft.
I have a bad habit of keeping far too many tabs open. FF did improve it's memory usage problem a year or two ago, but it has regressed again, and I can tell by how many open tabs will cause one of my computers to grind to a halt and then crash FF. It now takes only one to two thirds as many.
I keep using FF because of the package of add-ons I use, especially Tab Mix Plus, which allows me to control completely how and where tabs open and close. Even if another browser were better by now, I stick with FF because I don't want to spend hours learning another browser and possibly finding out in the end that I can't make it behave the way I want.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019