I wish more companies would do something like this. Honestly, IE9 and all the surrounding tech media is really leaving an awesome impression on me. Gestures like this prove that the IE team wants to take part in a modern internet world much more than any standard compliance chart ever could.
On a side note, I found Office 2010/2011, IE9 and Windows 7 a joy to use. And this is in stark contrast to Office 2003/2008, IE8 or Vista. Some things seem to be changing in Redmond!
You're correct, during their browser war with Netscape, IE was introducing revolutionary features, albeit not all standards based. They even implemented web fonts in IE4 if I'm not mistaken.
And then they sat on it for 4 years, refusing to fully implement the CSS 2.1 spec, refusing to fix ridiculous positioning bugs, and even refusing to fix security flaws that they mandated non-critical, although several of them used together often lead to arbitrary code execution on the client.
Like it is with User Experience in general, they ruined all the positive cred they had with IE6, causing standards-aware web devs to develop for the lowest-common denominator or invest their own time on every project for Microsoft's technical debt.
It's not fair that IE6 quirking was a required skill and a to-do for web developers, only because Microsoft had a browser share monopoly. Was it to slow down the evolution towards applications/operating system in the cloud? Mere negligence? I don't care anymore, they broke my heart.
>and even refusing to fix security flaws that they mandated non-critical, although several of them used together often lead to arbitrary code execution on the client.
Source?
Anyway, even worse, back in the IE 5.x era when they added most of that stuff like XMLHTTPRequest etc., they focused on that instead of complying with even basic CSS1! (Yes, it was better than Netscape 4, but that was because the JSSS/CSS fiasco that resulted in was a lot worse) IE6 added DOCTYPE switching and a "standards" mode with better CSS1 compliance, but I don't think they touched the buggy CSS2 support, and during the time they sat on it, guess what people did with it that caused trouble when MS released IE7 that fixed some of these bugs?
You must be talking about the Msxml2.XMLHTTP ActiveX object that wasn't called XMLHttpRequest until the fine Mozilla lads decided calling ActiveX objects was not such a good idea (and wouldn't work in more... civilized operating systems), right?
Of course, Microsoft later added the proper XMLHttpRequest support that was lacking in until IE7, IIRC.
Not to mention that their newest, more standards-compatible browser is not available for their older OSes, ensuring we still have a nice long ride with their old crap browsers.
I thought you were joking about Firefox 7. From version 4 to 7 in one year, are you kidding? It turns out you're right. For some reasons, I really dislike software companies jack up version numbers: how can you have FOUR MAJOR releases within one year for a relatively complex software? That gives me an impression that they feel insecure of becoming irrelevant, instead of competing on features and usability, they choose to compete on version numbers.
I could be wrong, but I just don't feel like they fall into the same trap Netscape did a decade ago.
I could care less, but companies have done it several times.
Netscape skipped version 5 (a doomed project).
Microsoft ditched version numbers for years (95, 98, 2000), and then just names -- due to how version number increments on an existing product appear to end users.
To technically savvy it doesnt really matter "is it 5.0 or 4.5?"
But the version number or name is about trying to position the product as a "new one" or even just "mature" to the more typical end user.
I don't want to be "that guy" and I'm not trying to be a grammar Nazi. I know this is now an idiom in the USA, and therefore it doesn't have to make sense.
However ...
I've now heard it said, in four different countries, that this phrase makes the speaker sound like an idiot. I know it's now just "the norm" in the USA, but I wanted to let people here know that saying this makes a bad impression.
If you don't care how you sound to non USAians then don't bother. But if you're wondering what I'm talking about, David Mitchell does an excellent job of explaining "I couldn't care less"
Let me play devil's advocate (which might actually play in your favor, seeing as you've used that neologism). How do you think new words and phrases make it into the dictionary? It's by a proportionate amount of people using it for a specific meaning. Meaning is an abstract concept. Contrary to popular belief, language is not always logical or literal. It's an ever-changing organism: elastic and metamorphic.
The phrase you quote is not "now just" the norm. It has always been ever since I can remember living in North America. It's nobody's fault the British-speaking world has just discovered it. This reminds me a little of when the Europeans first discovered "America."
This is why Jorge Luis Borges once said, "Todas las palabras fueron alguna vez un neologismo" (All words were once a neologism).
It's common in the USA. People I've spoken to from other countries think it makes those who use it seem ignorant. I'm providing data, not making a judgement. I know that many idioms don't make sense when dissected.
The parts of the world I have regular dealings with - excluding the USA - all say "I couldn't care less," and that actually does make sense. The people I've spoken with about this have expressed bewilderment that the alternate version should be used. They say that it doesn't make sense, and it's open to misunderstanding.
When I speak with customers I don't use the same short-hand or code phrases that I use with my colleagues. Likewise students when applying for jobs or other positions use more formal language, because to do otherwise makes them look uneducated and ignorant. I'm just saying that I've seen the same attitude towards people who use this particular phrase.
Personally, I don't care. In fact, it would be hard for me to care less. I'm just offering a datum that some might find useful.
It's sarcastic in intent. Trying to condemn an idiom that is obviously logical nonsense misses the point. When I say "I could care less", it could be interpreted instead, "as if there were anything else I care less about."
Sounds like Microsoft has never heard of the Carlito's Bakery or Charm City Cakes. Considering M$'s size I think the cake could have been a hell of a lot cooler.
I think it's a hoax. If it was the real IE team parts of the cake wouldn't be on the pan. I'm also pretty sure the E would be hanging off the right side.
A clever MSFT plan. It motivates the Firefox team to increase the number of releases, so they eventually stop the actual development and realize that the infinite supply of free cakes is easily convertable to cash.
I guess it keeps the IE developers in a job. IE was neglected before FF started taking market share away. Probably not many (or the right people) working on it before that.
This is a bit of a naiive question, But what is the business rational behind Microsoft putting so much time and effort into IE? Where is the payback? Is it just so more people have Bing as their default search? Is it just so that Windows ships with a working modern browser as the user expects?
If anyone could clear it up for me,
Much appreciated
An excellent treatise on the topic is discussed in Breaking Windows: How Bill Gates Fumbled the Future of Microsoft, by David Bank. It describes a lot of the tensions that existed inside Microsoft as they tried to figure out how to continue selling Windows as a platform, while still seeing the threat of the web as a platform on the horizon. IE was part of that threat response to stay in the game, ahead of the game, and in control of the game.
Chrome is a thin client for using Google search (their UI has even removed he distinction between typing in URLs and searching Google).
Microsoft is too encumbered by regulation to tie IE in closely with their core product; instead they're compelled to offer "browser choice", compelled to offer a startup wizard to help you set your search engine to Google, and incapable of effectively integrating the browser into products people actually pay money for.
Even if they were capable of developing the sort of product that might be good enough to win market share back from competitors, I'm really not sure what sort of return they'd be getting in their investment in developing and promoting IE, over and above what they'd get bundling some rapidly-developed webkit-based browser with Windows 7 and leaving it at that.
Interesting point. However it seems like the only way to make big money on the internet is through advertisement and Google has that market locked up. Chrome is just another tool for their social data-mining. I'm sure they keep logs of what searches your IP has made (if you use Google Search), what emails you have read (if you use Gmail) and what websites you visit (through Chrome). If you sign up for any of their services then they can tie a name to an IP and then track what other computers you use (so they will know for instance that a work and home computers belong to the same person). This way they can profile people and then carefully target advertisement towards them.
So then they funny result is that the more people use them the better they get; and the better they get, the more people use them. It's a perpetual motion machine, they feed on their own sucess so it almost seems impossible to catch up with them.
So are you saying that microsoft is trying to replicate this with the Bing, IE, Live/Hotmail ? Clearly that won't be enough. They're gonna need a huge innovative breakthrough to win this battle...
I'm not saying Microsoft is trying to replicate this at all. I would posit that Google came and broke the rules of the software industry and made new rules. Microsoft is trying to take the game back. They are admittedly trying to copy Google on a number of points, but who can truly know what Microsoft's end game is and what's going on in their heads except for Microsoft?
One thing for sure, Google coming in and messing up the rules is directly attacking Microsoft's bread and butter: Office and Windows. That's where Microsoft makes most of their money, particularly Office. Google has docs, AppEngine, and more. For many mainstream people these days, the browser is the only thing that they need; Microsoft is still powerful, but if the trends continue, they'll be irrelevant. So I'm just claiming that Microsoft's trying to do what they can to rewrite the rules of the game again and take back control while they still have the resources to do so.
It's a lot more urgent now than before, which is why Microsoft is so heavily and now visibly investing into things like mobile, cloud computing, and the like. The effort from Microsoft was always there before, but it always seemed half-hearted. 3 years ago, you never would have thought Microsoft would care about web standards to the extent that IE9 does. MS Office was still offline packaged software. Etcetera.
Anyway, I highly recommend the book. It's a fascinating read.
For that matter, you could ask the same of Google and Firefox. Google clearly thinks that being the default search provider is worth the cost of a browser (or two, in this case).
As long as you can have significant number of users on your software, you can direct (or misdirect) the direction of that technology.
Nobody knows how bigger the web browser is going to be, MS sure doesn't want to lose the power in influencing and ensuring that their other product stay relevant.
So I've been tracking my karma on this post, its gone something like
1 -> 2 -> 0 -> 5 -> 2 -> 4 -> 0
Appears to be a submartingale(maybe)
Ok I stuffed up the experiment by posting this, the sequence after the 5th observations are no longer independent and invalidated.
This is an excuse for people the world over to try and get in their supposed witty slams on IE. I've personally always felt sad for the IE team because I'm sure the engineers want to put out a badass browser that competes with the best the market has to offer, and I'm sure the management and marketing types are the ones that are demanding it's hobbled in certain ways to try and keep their corporate clients on the hook using their products.
Maybe I'm in a particularly bad mood, but this was a lot cuter the first time. I hate IE so much that maybe I've become sensitive to everything they do (at least I admit that might be the case).
It feel condescending to me, especially in light of the many public embarrassment that FF has caused IE (cheating benchmarks for example) and given that if anyone deserves to get something for actually shipping it's the IE team.
To me this is like the owner of a used car company sending a cake to the president of Toyota for being the #1 car manufacturer.
I think it really is because you're in a bad mood.
There doesn't seem to be anything backhanded or condescending about this gesture. Hasn't the IE team been doing this since before FF beat them in market share?
This is more like the owner of Chevrolet sending a cake to the president of Toyota.
As much as I'd like it to be true, Firefox hasn't yet beaten IE in global market share. They are number one now in Europe (by some stats) and hold pole position in a bunch of countries but IE will need another 6-18 months to lose their #1 position at current rates.
So, maybe IE isn't a great browser, but it still has actual people working on it. I bet at least one person on the IE team uses Firefox or Chrome in the office for regular browsing.
Think of it this way: The people who work on IE are probably well aware of the areas that need improvement. They might not get to make the decisions about where the work is focused. There may not even be enough effort available to put into major changes. Then there's the issue of backwards compatibility that plagues Microsoft products.
Microsoft is full of really nice people and talented developers. This is a gracious gesture.
"Considering the way they drove Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox into near oblivion with devious practices, this seems a lot like sending a valentine’s day card to your rape victim, every year." - from the comments on the original article.
But seriously, it's a nice gesture from Microsoft, it goes to show that there are many different people working there and that we can't judge them as a whole.
sheesh lighten-up a little. I find the comparison spot on. Not that I'm saying that what Microsoft did can literary be compared to rape and the horrors it puts a victim trough. I just thought it's a nice metaphor sigh
No, it's a figure of speech. A metaphor is also a figure of speech, but similes are not a subtype of metaphors (I went to look it up both before my last statement and before this one, because I refuse to believe my own memory. You might want to do the same).
On a side note, I found Office 2010/2011, IE9 and Windows 7 a joy to use. And this is in stark contrast to Office 2003/2008, IE8 or Vista. Some things seem to be changing in Redmond!