Microsoft's IE9 look leaks to the Web

[cap10Ibraim]

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//2010/08/25/ie9-ui.png

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20014664-56.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=BeyondBinary

what do you think ?

[Cuddles McKitten]

As long as it actually adheres to web standards (such as rendering CSS properly), I don't care how it looks. :) It does look like Chrome has had a rather strong effect on other major browsers though.

[RiceMonster]

If that's a real mocup, it seems as if most of the browsers are going in a very similar diection interface wise.

[Oxwivi]

That's pure ugly. Firefox 4 wins in looks by a light year.

[whiskeylover]

That's pure ugly. Firefox 4 wins in looks by a light year.

Nope

[juancarlospaco]

Ugly :D

[Austin25]

I think there's too much wasted space around the edges.

[TheWeakSleep]

Is that the tab bar? that tiny little space beside the address bar?

[whiskeylover]

I think there's too much wasted space around the edges.


If you look closely, the"wasted space around the edges" is the webpage itself.

[juancarlospaco]

Nice, they learn to code a Photo Portrait!

[pookiebear]

I have dozens of medical insurance sites (not maintained by me) that have not been updated enough to run on IE8 much less IE9. Seems like you need a whole other set of full time staff just to keep up with the changes between the browsers. And "compatabilty view" has never helped, for those that are thinking it ;).

I wish they would fix the previous version instead of coming out with a new version that probably still does not work....

But it does have BNG.... Bold New Graphics ( a sarcastic term used in the motorcycle industry a lot).

[schreber]

It looks nice overall but I kind of wish they'd use a site not associated with Microsoft to see how the browser actual renders the site.

It'll be interesting to see how quickly people/sites transition over as a lot of the sites I visit (Korean) have a tendency to be rather backwards (i.e., slow to adopt to new technology (many are still running their sites as if IE 6.0 is brand new)).

[MasterNetra]

Is that the tab bar? that tiny little space beside the address bar?

yeap,

Keep in mind it is still in development, this may not be its final look and setup.

[donkyhotay]

Is that the tab bar? that tiny little space beside the address bar?

That was my first thought too "Where's the tab bar?". Sure going for simplicity is nice and I like how they have tried to maximize viewing space however they went a little too far for me. I like having a permanent search bar next to the address bar.

[Linye]

Looks good.

[TheWeakSleep]

Well i just hope it's a little more usable when it's final, for the sake of everyone stuck with it :p

I mean, could you imagine having more than a couple of tabs open in that?

[Spice Weasel]

This looks exactly like Chromium, Firefox 4 and Opera. Why are all browsers ripping eachother off? I prefer the classic look.

[rajcan]

As long as it actually adheres to web standards (such as rendering CSS properly)

Well, surprisingly IE9 actually gets a 95 on the Acid3 test. Javascript is improved as well. It's not nearly as fast as Chrome but it's significantly improved.

[Paqman]

I prefer the classic look.

Come back in a year or two, this will be the classic look.

[Spice Weasel]

Come back in a year or two, this will be the classic look.

What happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."?

[rjbl]

Bing??????? Iconic, innit! Cringe'n'laff all at the same time.

rjbl

[alexan]

A lot of people would have it installed, not that they actually want or will to install it.
IE9 will simply forced to every windows user (XP too probably: "no latest directx for you.. but we will kick IE9 up your -.-.- anyway") with windows update without they even realize it.


(and a lot of people instead admit to be tricked/forced to install IE9 will simply praise it)

[Paqman]

What happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."?

It got happy-slapped by "Change is the only universal constant" ;)

[Merk42]

IE9 actually renders standards related things much much better than previous versions.
I kind of figured the UI would go through some change as the alpha preview available now has no UI whatsoever.
I like a few others feel the tab bar is bit to small, but then again this is prebeta so plenty of time for UI changes.


A lot of people would have it installed, not that they actually want or will to install it.
IE9 will simply forced to every windows user (XP too probably: "no latest directx for you.. but we will kick IE9 up your -.-.- anyway") with windows update without they even realize it.


(and a lot of people instead admit to be tricked/forced to install IE9 will simply praise it)IE7 and IE8 were not forced upon users.
IE9 won't even exist for XP.

Typing uneducated hate in this forum...

[pwnst*r]

That's pure ugly. Firefox 4 wins in looks by a light year.

Wrong.

[Giant Speck]

1. You could have posted a bigger screenshot.

2. It doesn't look bad, but I have to say, putting the tab bar and addressbar on the same level is an odd design move. Perhaps there's something about that specific juxtaposition that isn't translated well in a static screenshot. Surely, Microsoft put more thought into it beyond making it look nice.

3. Firefox's new look is already outdated, as it looks almost exactly as Opera has for several releases.

[Exershio]

Wrong.
First of all, how can someone's opinion be wrong? Second, why not actually contribute something to the conversation instead of just posting a useless one word post?

I think it looks awful. No search bar, very small area for tabs, and they're still trying to make everything transparent (aero glass).

Although I'm sure most of that's customizable, it's still a step in the wrong direction. They turned down usability to make it look better. And it doesn't even look better.

[Madspyman]

Well, at least they're trying, no not really. Microsoft would be doing most people a favor by just giving up on creating a pertinent web browser, and just adding a IE 8 upgrade that recommended installing Chrome or Firefox instead.

[julio_cortez]

I may be biased because I use Firefox since 1.5 but.. No search box and no favourite bar kill IE9 in my opinion.
At least, I won't use IE9 even on Windows (let alone in Wine) if the final UI is like that. They'd better make it customizable :D

[Oxwivi]

What happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."?
It is broke, did you watch the video explaining the new design of Firefox 4? I agree with the reasoning wholeheartedly.

But forget Firefox or IE, if only there was a good ad blocking capability for Chrome, I would learn to fly like Neo to use it.

[NightwishFan]

It is not ugly but I do not like the glass and minimalism, hope that is not wrong. Supporting web standards? If so then great, they will make the product good for both users and web developers.

[Oxwivi]

Glass is there for version 8 and Firefox 4 as well. The structuring of the items on it looks ugly to me.

[asddf]

Looks great!

But kinda he same as Firefox 4?

Who cares about browsers now tho? wars over, chrome won.

[m4tic]

Beautiful

[Oxwivi]

Who cares about browsers now tho? wars over, chrome won.
Nope, Firefox still owns as long as Chrome can't block ads.

[Giant Speck]

Nope, Firefox still owns as long as Chrome can't block ads.
AdBlock for Chrome has been available for months, dude.

[Oxwivi]

AdBlock for Chrome has been available for months, dude.
Have you tried them? They suck - plain and simple. Chrome still has to introduce the codes to allow ads to be not fetched at all. Pre-ABP years at Firefox, anyone?

[amitabhishek]

First of all, how can someone's opinion be wrong? Second, why not actually contribute something to the conversation instead of just posting a useless one word post?


^^This

[Giant Speck]

Have you tried them? They suck - plain and simple. Chrome still has to introduce the codes to allow ads to be not fetched at all. Pre-ABP years at Firefox, anyone?

Version 2.0 of AdBlock for Chrome prevents the browser from even downloading the advertisements in the first place. It even blocks ads from showing up on YouTube videos.

AdBlock for Chrome supports the same filter lists as ABP for Firefox, and has blacklist and whitelist options. Additionally, the Browser Button add-on allows you to block certain parts of pages and even walks you through blocking exactly what you want it to block.

[alexan]

IE7 and IE8 were not forced upon users.
Yes they are.. but you can keep you faith if you wish... and believing that people install the various IE in the same way they install everything else.


IE9 won't even exist for XP.
By Microsoft saying... even XP won't exist anylonger: then suddenly "netbook" appeared and they urged to respawn (zombie?) it.
If in the browse share fight.. microsoft need the XPs share.. it will be IE9 for XP user. No matter what (this is why they are taking time before cast out IE9: hoping XP lose more share)

[Oxwivi]

Version 2.0 of AdBlock for Chrome prevents the browser from even downloading the advertisements in the first place. It even blocks ads from showing up on YouTube videos.

AdBlock for Chrome supports the same filter lists as ABP for Firefox, and has blacklist and whitelist options. Additionally, the Browser Button add-on allows you to block certain parts of pages and even walks you through blocking exactly what you want it to block.
I admit, my info is as latest as early this year's at best. Gotta recheck on the updates. The feature to block fetching has been added already? I thought I was subscribed to that issue, but I might've forgotten if I ever unsubscribed...

[lee shore]

It looks wrong.

[Oxwivi]

it looks wrong.
+1

[kaldor]

Ugly :D

If it were a FOSS browser nobody would say that.

If that is real, the IE team actually did well for once. It doesn't look bad in the very least.

[wkhasintha]

Meh!

[Sand & Mercury]

If it were a FOSS browser nobody would say that.

If that is real, the IE team actually did well for once. It doesn't look bad in the very least.
Hate to say it but I agree.

They are headed in the right direction, which is about what I expected. Chrome schooled everybody on how a browser should look, keeping the er... chrome to an absolute minimum. The browser war has forced everyone, including Mozilla and Google themselves, to pull their head in.

I must admit though, having tabs next to the address bar is an odd move and not a great one at that, imo. They'd be better off using more of the blank space at the tippy top of the window than sacrificing room for tabs. Really, these days I begin to wonder if we really need an address bar at all.

[Oxwivi]

If it were a FOSS browser nobody would say that.

If that is real, the IE team actually did well for once. It doesn't look bad in the very least.
I personally wouldn't care if it's FOSS or otherwise. Ugly is ugly to me.

[RiceMonster]

If it were a FOSS browser nobody would say that.

You know, I was thinking the same thing. It doesn't look amzing, but it certainly doesn't look any better or worse than the new firefox design. I'm going to agree with everyone criticizing the tabs beside the address bar idea, though. I think that leaves very little room for tabs.

[Sand & Mercury]

You know, I was thinking the same thing. It doesn't look amzing, but it certainly doesn't look any better or worse than the new firefox design.
I do hope the new Firefox look isn't gonna carry on into the final release. Compared to the mockups they posted way back when, it looks like ****. Spewboy's Strata40 skin so far has done a much better job of sticking to the original design.

[juancarlospaco]

If it were a FOSS browser nobody would say that.


Right.
Because if its Open Source, dont complain, patch!.

[Merk42]

Yes they are.. but you can keep you faith if you wish... and believing that people install the various IE in the same way they install everything else.
Uh, no they really aren't.
Yes they are selected by default when doing Windows Update, but that's hardly forced. Using that logic you could say Ubuntu forces kernel updates and even updates to newer releases.



By Microsoft saying... even XP won't exist anylonger: then suddenly "netbook" appeared and they urged to respawn (zombie?) it.
If in the browse share fight.. microsoft need the XPs share.. it will be IE9 for XP user. No matter what (this is why they are taking time before cast out IE9: hoping XP lose more share)
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but Microsoft have said that it wouldn't be available. Given the extended support that XP is currently under it makes sense. Microsoft provides patches, but not new features. Much like how Hardy can still get patches, but not new features.

[alexan]

Uh, no they really aren't.
Yes they are selected by default when doing Windows Update, but that's hardly forced. Using that logic you could say Ubuntu forces kernel updates and even updates to newer releases.
1. Windows update is Microsoft's only channel for distribution. No one, can add/remove anything (I mean: use it as channel of distribution)
2. You could have an alternate kernel by just installing a .deb package: its not required permission from Linus Trovalds or Mark Shuttleworth.

You may eventually find options on both Linux and Windows. But use options on windows may result broke the EULA = forced.
Simply: you're not entitled to remove IE from your windows installation... and by not updating it you'll will face security issues.


I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but Microsoft have said that it wouldn't be available. Given the extended support that XP is currently under it makes sense. Microsoft provides patches, but not new features. Much like how Hardy can still get patches, but not new features.

Microsoft need to declare the death (end of life cycle) of older Windows in order to give reason for higher priced brand new Windows.
They didn't extended the XP life cycle for charity.. they extended the XP licence (and giving it for free) for the netbook. With clear and specific propose to kill the rising (linux) netbook market.

Today market share of XP is: 49.17%
Vista+Seven MS is: 36,43%

IE9 only for Vista+ has the obvious propose to definitively kill XP (factual reply from MS: "no innovative HTML5 for XPers.. buy (or pirate) our next Windows product").
But XPers (wich are 1 out of 2 pc in the global world) are mostly unlike to remain "backward" without try something else on the way: Opera, Chrome, Firefox.
If the market share of XP don't fall very quickly (who know... maybe the next Windows XP update wouldn't be just for security ;) ).. Microsoft is very urged to bring IE9 on XP.. or see the IE share ruinously, and quickly, fall.


Hope I'd explain it better now

[Groucho Marxist]

To quote Aerosmith, I think it's "the same old story, the same old song and dance."

[NCLI]

I really hope the location of the tab bar is configurable. If so; good job IE-team!

If not... Dear god...

[The Real Dave]

I predict some serious tab crowding. I'm liking Firefox4 with Tabs on Top, and AppTabs (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1560304) :)

[Merk42]

1. Windows update is Microsoft's only channel for distribution. No one, can add/remove anything (I mean: use it as channel of distribution)And? Programs have their own updaters, yes it's inconsistent but it doesn't really provide Microsoft with any particular advantage. XP users can actually get something like Firefox 4 automatically the day it's released and not have to wait 5months because it's a big scary version number change.


2. You could have an alternate kernel by just installing a .deb package: its not required permission from Linus Trovalds or Mark Shuttleworth.You could have an alternate browser by just installing an exe: it's not required permission from Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer


You may eventually find options on both Linux and Windows. But use options on windows may result broke the EULA = forced.You can use Windows without ever touching IE and not break a EULA.


Simply: you're not entitled to remove IE from your windows installation... and by not updating it you'll will face security issues.So then it's a good thing by default users get the most recent version of IE isn't it? Oh but it's bad you have to have something installed that you don't want to use? Okay let me know how to uninstall all of Evolution from Ubuntu (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/evolution/+bug/553733)...


Microsoft need to declare the death (end of life cycle) of older Windows in order to give reason for higher priced brand new Windows.If "buy the new version" is the only reason to drop support of software, why isn't Warty Warthog still supported?


IE9 only for Vista+ has the obvious propose to definitively kill XP (factual reply from MS: "no innovative HTML5 for XPers.. buy (or pirate) our next Windows product").
Indicator-applet, UbuntuOne, etc have the obvious purpose to definitely kill Hardy (factual reply from Canoncial: "no innovative desktop experience for Hardy Users")
There's also absolutely nothing stopping an "XPer" from using Firefox, Chrome, Opera or Safari to get "innovative HTML5"


Hope I'd explain it better now
Sure you have, you're the type of Linux user that feels ANYTHING Microsoft does is inherintly evil and there's no telling you otherwise.


I hope one thing we can agree on is our discussion has gotten very off-topic.

[pwnst*r]

And? Programs have their own updaters, yes it's inconsistent but it doesn't really provide Microsoft with any particular advantage. XP users can actually get something like Firefox 4 automatically the day it's released and not have to wait 5months because it's a big scary version number change.

You could have an alternate browser by just installing an exe: it's not required permission from Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer

You can use Windows without ever touching IE and not break a EULA.

So then it's a good thing by default users get the most recent version of IE isn't it? Oh but it's bad you have to have something installed that you don't want to use? Okay let me know how to uninstall all of Evolution from Ubuntu (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/evolution/+bug/553733)...

If "buy the new version" is the only reason to drop support of software, why isn't Warty Warthog still supported?

Indicator-applet, UbuntuOne, etc have the obvious purpose to definitely kill Hardy (factual reply from Canoncial: "no innovative desktop experience for Hardy Users")
There's also absolutely nothing stopping an "XPer" from using Firefox, Chrome, Opera or Safari to get "innovative HTML5"


Sure you have, you're the type of Linux user that feels ANYTHING Microsoft does is inherintly evil and there's no telling you otherwise.


I hope one thing we can agree on is our discussion has gotten very off-topic.

/thread

[Giant Speck]

Right.
Because if its Open Source, dont complain, patch!.
Because all open source users are developers, amirite?

[Hyper Tails]

looks pretty cool!!

[julio_cortez]

Yes they are.. but you can keep you faith if you wish... and believing that people install the various IE in the same way they install everything else.People don't install IE the way they install other programs, you're right.
They install IE the way they install other OS updates (that means that they are free to uncheck IE7 or IE8 from the list and live a happy life without it).
I've seen a lot of my customers still having IE6, so IE7 and IE8 updates aren't either forced or mandatory.

Plus, I can't explain why IE7 hasn't been included in SP3 for XP if the IE updates are forced upon users..
Wouldn't have it been way easier for Microsoft to say "if you want the latest SP, you have to have the latest IE"?

And even if IE9 doesn't get released for XP:

There's also absolutely nothing stopping an "XPer" from using Firefox, Chrome, Opera or Safari to get "innovative HTML5"

You could have an alternate browser by just installing an exe
This.

XP is dying, eventually. It's sad to see such a glorious OS die but it's about time (and not for commercial reasons): XP has become outdated, no matter how many patches you install. So I can see why there won't be IE9 support for it.
It surely won't be the lack of IE9 support to kill it. Its destiny is already written. :(

[Nick_Jinn]

Its easy to make a browser look nice when viewing a pretty picture, but that is merely a distraction from the browser itself.

[alexan]

And? Programs have their own updaters, yes it's inconsistent but it doesn't really provide Microsoft with any particular advantage. XP users can actually get something like Firefox 4 automatically the day it's released and not have to wait 5months because it's a big scary version number change.
You're happy with "Windows Security Updates" which force you to install/update software you don't want use (IE).. even if you've removed it.
This don't make it "less forced"... it just make you (as individual) more pliant to it.



You could have an alternate browser by just installing an exe: it's not required permission from Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer
Still.. the IEXPLORER.EXE (vers. 7, 8, 9...) come in your PC.. you willing or not.



You can use Windows without ever touching IE and not break a EULA.
Random software run IE with specific calls. These software are unpredictable and (by using themselves and without any previous warn) simply popup a IE window (which is in the kernel).
A) IE is not a standard: windows is a standard as well HTML is a standard. If third party software makers are sure you've IE in windows (not a generic "html" request as it should be) is because third party software know youre forced to have it. They use a your "non choice": they don't need to know if you want to use IE or not.. becouse you can't choice to not use it.



So then it's a good thing by default users get the most recent version of IE isn't it? Oh but it's bad you have to have something installed that you don't want to use? Okay let me know how to uninstall all of Evolution from Ubuntu (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/evolution/+bug/553733)...

It's good when you can/you're allowed to remove software you don't want. Unusable residual of Evolution aren't Canonical choice to force Evolution upon you (for company "needs"). IE is it.




If "buy the new version" is the only reason to drop support of software, why isn't Warty Warthog still supported?
With Ubuntu in each new version.. you get your money back ;)



Indicator-applet, UbuntuOne, etc have the obvious purpose to definitely kill Hardy (factual reply from Canoncial: "no innovative desktop experience for Hardy Users")
There's also absolutely nothing stopping an "XPer" from using Firefox, Chrome, Opera or Safari to get "innovative HTML5"
With Ubuntu in each new version.. you get your money back ;)



Sure you have, you're the type of Linux user that feels ANYTHING Microsoft does is inherintly evil and there's no telling you otherwise.
Microsoft does something good and somethings bad... like any other company (probably like Canonical too)... other things they do, instead, are done with the only propose to keep its dominant role: taking piece of choices away from their clients and hardware manufacturer.
You can proof contrary to what I say... or cry out I should stop do it.


I hope one thing we can agree on is our discussion has gotten very off-topic.

Not that much, I am still talking about brand new IE9 and the developer company (Microsoft).

[julio_cortez]

Random software run IE with specific calls. These software are unpredictable and (by using themselves and without any previous warn) simply popup a IE window (which is in the kernel).
Strange. All the software I've seen either relies on the default browser you choose (and if you install Firefox but choose to keep IE as default browser it's your choice and not MS's fault) or asks you to specify the path of the executable file you want to run for that task..

Well, there's only a program I saw doing what you state, and it's Windows Live messenger which triggered an Explorer window anytime I checked for the mail from within the program (even if my default browser has been Firefox since version 1.5).

PS: On the other hand, Teamviewer did the same in Kubuntu. Despite I had Firefox for everything, after being closed it still popped up a Konqueror window with info about it being a beta and such..

[Merk42]

You're happy with "Windows Security Updates" which force you to install/update software you don't want use (IE).. even if you've removed it.
This don't make it "less forced"... it just make you (as individual) more pliant to it.You're happy with "Update Manager" which forces you to install/update packages you don't want to use (Firefox).. even if you've removed it.
This don't make it "less forced"... it just make you (as individual) more pliant to it.


Still.. the IEXPLORER.EXE (vers. 7, 8, 9...) come in your PC.. you willing or not.Still... the Firefox (ver 3, 3.5, 3.6) comes in your Ubuntu install, willing or not.


Random software run IE with specific calls. These software are unpredictable and (by using themselves and without any previous warn) simply popup a IE window (which is in the kernel).
A) IE is not a standard: windows is a standard as well HTML is a standard. If third party software makers are sure you've IE in windows (not a generic "html" request as it should be) is because third party software know youre forced to have it. They use a your "non choice": they don't need to know if you want to use IE or not.. becouse you can't choice to not use it.
Go ahead and completely remove Firefox and see how many applications (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/Lucid/FirefoxNewSupportModel/xulrunner-list) no longer work and/or want to reinstall part of Firefox


It's good when you can/you're allowed to remove software you don't want. Unusable residual of Evolution aren't Canonical choice to force Evolution upon you (for company "needs"). IE is it.So you're saying Canonical is just as guilty here with Evolution? okay


With Ubuntu in each new version.. you get your money back ;)Good job of avoiding the questions "why isn't Warthog still supported? and "Why does Hardy, which is still supported, not get new features?"


Microsoft does something good and somethings bad... like any other company (probably like Canonical too)... other things they do, instead, are done with the only propose to keep its dominant role: taking piece of choices away from their clients and hardware manufacturer.
A business (Microsoft/Canonical) does things to be at the top of their game? Shocker!


Not that much, I am still talking about brand new IE9 and the developer company (Microsoft).
No you're ONLY talking about the developer company (Microsoft). The only IE9 specific things were what you said in the first place were that it will be forced (which you've been told by many people other than myself that it isn't true) and referenced XP users (when it won't even be available for XP)

So unless you want to say something about the GUI in that leaked screenshot or something about the HTML/CSS rendering from first hand experience with Internet Explorer Platform Preview I don't see any point in your posting in this thread.

I don't go to some thread about Evolution or Epiphany and rant about how GNOME are a bunch of arrogant jerks that claim GNOME is "for the community" when it's really "for coders by coders".

[Johnsie]

I like IE8 so I hope IE9 is good too. I use Windows more than Ubuntu these days, so it's nice to have a choice of several top browsers. With Linux Chrome and Firefox are really the only browsers worth talking about and they are available on Windows anyway. Opera is nice on phones, but not really on the desktop.

[Cam42]

Needs more Metro.

[MadCookie]

It is an improvement, but i don't get how you're supposed to have a lot of tabs.

[Oxwivi]

It is an improvement, but i don't get how you're supposed to have a lot of tabs.
I suppose they're transferring this job to the stackability in the new Windows 7 taskbar.

[Yvan300]

It looks kinda great! Minimal.......just like chrome, but i'm sure its still crap under the hood.

[Oxwivi]

Just like Chrome? I beg to disagree. The placement of the tabs and other stuff looks really disorganised to me, unlike Chrome.

[Sand & Mercury]

It looks kinda great! Minimal.......just like chrome, but i'm sure its still crap under the hood.
Have you tried the tech preview? The rendering engine has been given a total overhaul, it's fantastic.

[doorknob60]

I really hope the location of the tab bar is configurable. If so; good job IE-team!

If not... Dear god...

This :P

It looks pretty nice, and I'm sure there will be plenty of improvements before the final release, and I think this could finally be the first respectable version of IE, though I still won't use it (Windows only).

[Merk42]

Have you tried the tech preview? The rendering engine has been given a total overhaul, it's fantastic.
I did notice a rendering bug on one of the sites I've made. Do you know where I would file it?

[Dustin2128]

As long as it actually adheres to web standards (such as rendering CSS properly), I don't care how it looks. :) It does look like Chrome has had a rather strong effect on other major browsers though.
+ ∞ to this.
And have like a hidden update thing to kill off Internet explorers 6 7 and 8. Please, please do this microsoft, you're holding back the web by a decade by supporting IE6, and stopping the glory HTML5 with 7 & 8.

[alexan]

You're happy with "Update Manager" which forces you to install/update packages you don't want to use (Firefox).. even if you've removed it.
This don't make it "less forced"... it just make you (as individual) more pliant to it.

Still... the Firefox (ver 3, 3.5, 3.6) comes in your Ubuntu install, willing or not.
Go ahead and completely remove Firefox and see how many applications (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/Lucid/FirefoxNewSupportModel/xulrunner-list) no longer work and/or want to reinstall part of Firefox
sudo apt-get autoremove firefox -y
and:
firefox firefox-branding firefox-gnome-support removed.


So you're saying Canonical is just as guilty here with Evolution? okay
No, that's what in your mind.
In real life world IE its just MS way to impose IE as standard for the web. Evolution it is not.
Canonical can quit Evolution and do not lose anything from their business.. Microsoft, with IE, does.


Good job of avoiding the questions "why isn't Warthog still supported? and "Why does Hardy, which is still supported, not get new features?"
Becouse Canonical and Canonical's client don't need that Hardy get supported?
Microsoft's global market share is 49% Windows XP
Hardy is not.

By not supporting Windows XP.. Microsoft get more money (people forced to switch/buy new licences for the same pc)
By not supporting Hardy... canonical don't get more money.
Also...

Hardy is OpenSource: everyone can give it new life
Windows XP not.



A business (Microsoft/Canonical) does things to be at the top of their game? Shocker!
Both Microsoft and Canonical does things to be at the top of their game.
Microsoft is the only one to ensure there's no other player around them.



No you're ONLY t[..cut...]nity" when it's really "for coders by coders".
I've cut some of the part of what you did write about what I did wrote.. which, based upon your logic, is OFF TOPIC.

[Dustin2128]

this^

[Merk42]

sudo apt-get autoremove firefox -y
and:
firefox firefox-branding firefox-gnome-support removed.What about all the XUL stuff? It's using up my precious harddrive space and I don't use Firefox.


No, that's what in your mind.
In real life world IE its just MS way to impose IE as standard for the web. Evolution it is not.
Canonical can quit Evolution and do not lose anything from their business.. Microsoft, with IE, does.Yeah maybe like 10 years ago with IE4 up to maybe IE6. IE9 actually supports quite a few standards, as many if not more than other modern browsers. Of course you wouldn't know that because you haven't tried it.


Becouse Canonical and Canonical's client don't need that Hardy get supported?
Microsoft's global market share is 49% Windows XP
Hardy is not.

By not supporting Windows XP.. Microsoft get more money (people forced to switch/buy new licences for the same pc)
By not supporting Hardy... canonical don't get more money.
Also...So if an upgrade is available for free, it's okay to drop support? IE7 and IE8 are available for free to XP users, yet if Microsoft dropped support for IE6 you'd complain they were 'forcing' users to upgrade their browser.


Both Microsoft and Canonical does things to be at the top of their game.
Microsoft is the only one to ensure there's no other player around them.
[Citation Needed]
There's maybe the antitrust thing, but that was about THE BROWSER not the OS. Also it was almost 10 years ago.


I've cut some of the part of what you did write about what I did wrote.. which, based upon your logic, is OFF TOPIC.*Looks at entire post for a single mention of IE9*
Hmm nope, guess your entire reply was off topic

So, can we please talk about IE9 the browser and not the company that creates it? Otherwise there might as well be a rule in the CoC that says never mention any Microsoft related product, for the same reason religion/politics is a frowned upon topic.

[1nv151b13.b0b]

HTML5 is not a drop in replacement for Flash

yes it (almost) is. other than sound, it has the same capabilities.