Windows 10 feedback: 'Microsoft, please do a deal with Google to use its browser' When Microsoft announced the preview of Windows 10, it emphasised the “opportunity to influence product development decisions through the new Windows Feedback app directly within the product". Users can not only give feedback, but also see — and vote on — the feedback of others, giving all of us a chance to assess what users …
@Frankee I think it would be cheaper, too. All they'd have to do is stop the Mozilla people from working on pet projects instead.
But I can't see anything like that happening until they start losing share in their corporate customers, many of whom still depend upon IE 6 compatibility. :-(
Not to mention IE period. We've got many business related web portals for financial that require IE. At the same time we've got absolutely none that require other browsers. As an enterprise we'd rather IE was maintained as the default indefinitely.
For home users perhaps, Firefix and Chrome are tinned worms for the enterprise due to the number of weird and wonderful business critical web apps* we have to support and often bork at every increase in version.
I'd be happier if they bundled some sort of browser for reading local html files(read me's/help files) - but accessing something outside of localhost would prompt to choose an internet browser. Something like you can open docs in wordpad, but it's likely you're going to use open office/MS office/libre office/a.n.other to do any writing in real anger.
*Not our choice to run them - and the dev team probably no longer exist!
A quick test shows 100/100 for IE 11 on the Acid 3 test...
Welcome to the 2010's!
Shame it only scores 376/555 on the HTML5 test, though. Still the bane of any web app developer's life.
(credit where it's due: it's better than it was a few years ago)
"Actually, I don't care as long as it reduces the number of browsers and permutations we have to support in the ecosystem. Pick a damned standard and stick to it, not 95% of a standard and 5% of undocumented fluff!"
Well, make up your mind. Do you want a reduced number of players, which favours de facto standards of the "whatever the market leader does is the correct behaviour, so reverse engineer what that is and code to it", or do you want to pick a damned standard and stick to it, which is best policed by having at least three or four independent implementations (or interpretations, if the standard is not clear).
Actually, I don't care as long as it reduces the number of browsers and permutations we have to support in the ecosystem
Yes, because the browser monoculture worked so fucking well for us before.
Browsers are far more standards-compliant, and significantly more secure, now because of competition. Reducing the number of major players will not help.
I hate IE (and Chrome; I merely dislike Firefox, with Classic Theme Restorer fighting back the Idiotic UI tide), but I don't want it to go away. Three major players is the bare minimum required to keep them on their toes.
I refused to 'upgrade' for the same reason so was stuck on v28.0. Then something weird happened and FF upgraded to v32.03 even though I didn't have it set to. I hate the UI so went about trying to change it. This add-on put everything back just as I had it - it's brilliant.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/
None of that australis nonsense for me.
This post has been deleted by its author
I cannot put my tab bar at the bottom any longer (directly above the web page I'm viewing). Also, even using the add-ons to restore the Add-On bar, the Add-Ons that relied on it are not supported since v.28, so the functionality since Australis has been irreparably diminished.
Knowing Australis was coming, I locked my FireFox version at 28, and downloaded the .exe "just in case". But mostly I've started using PaleMoon, where all the old stuff works just fine.
Yeah, I know ... Could someone please execute all ui designers who think that big ugly buttons are it? They only ever make sense with a touchscreen that gets some use ... and I have yet to see people use a touchscreen on anything other than a tablet/phone. Waste of screen real-estate for the rest of us.
Yes and no.
Chrome is a resource hogging abomination on a terminal server (regardless of the terminal protocol). The reason for this (and one of the reasons for its perceived "fastness" on normal hardware) is that it does most of the rendering on a canvas internally and updates the whole canvas at a time. Compared to that Firefox uses much more graphic prmitives from the underlying graphic subsystem. This allows remote access protocol implementations to optimize redraw and do a lot of ops locally. They do not get that chance with Chrome.
As a result of this, Chrome when compared to Firefox (or MSFT offering for Windows T Server) sucks royally in a thin client environment.
"Better than doing a deal to use Chrome would be one to use V8, its JavaScript engine. That's much faster than IE's."
The last 3 major releases of IE (9, 10, 11) have all been faster than the current version of Chrome at the time on the SunSpider JavaScript performance test...
The last 3 major releases of IE (9, 10, 11) have all been faster than the current version of Chrome at the time on the SunSpider JavaScript performance test...
And that's what could happen if your browser is deeply baked into the OS. An interesting benchmark would be to see what state the rest of your system is in while performing the JS tests...
It's a shame their JS engine will never be able run on my computer... actually, no it's not.
"The last 3 major releases of IE (9, 10, 11) have all been faster than the current version of Chrome at the time on the SunSpider JavaScript performance test..."
Here are the scores for the Octane benchmark on my 64-bit Windows 7 PC:
IE 11: 7,400
FF 32: 12,400
Chrome 38: 14,300
The V8 JavaScript engine makes Chrome nearly twice as fast as IE, but I'll stick with FF as I don't consider that to be spyware.
Chrome or Firefox? On an Atom Windows 8 tablet, give me IE every time. It is fast and touch optimised. Firefox is slow and doesn't have any touch functionality and Chrome is porky not touch friendly.
On a "proper" desktop with Core iN processor Firefox is great, but on a low powered tablet, you just can't beat IE at the moment.
Really? MS isn't recording every move with messenger, Skype, One drive and office 365 all being part of PRISM? You think Bing and IE isn't doing exactly the same???????
The only difference is Google make money from spying (and probably report on the spying), and MS is just openly one of the creepy brigade.
I like the feedback idea, but should be proven to work. Has any of the feedback been taken up I wonder. I mean what good is the tiles on the start menu if it doesn't actually allow personalisation.
On my Win7 at least, can be very annoying, affecting all pop-ups launched from one master, requires a Reload in each affected window to fix.
And, how does one make Chrome have the search/address and the tabs on one line to save screen space (almost never need to see the address anyway) - it is trivial in IE and I can't see anything in the settings, clicking around the tabs and address bar was fruitless too.
And, the Alt key doesn't make a menu system appear like it does on IE. I have to learn the Ctrl key shortcuts, is this CUA-compliant?
And, for the record, who starts a new IE?, run it once and just start a new tab, which is quick enough on my old Core i5, even at 1100 MHz. A restart is not unknown but rare enough to not give a shit about start-up times.
I've got Chrome on OS X 10.9 and OS X 10.10 beta. Both will play video in YouTube fine from YouTube.com, but if someone has embedded a video in a webpage there is just a gap where the video should be. Open the same page in incognito mode and the videos magically appear.
Can't figure it out since it works in incognito and the issue happens on two different OSes. Tried clearing cache, but to no avail. Seriously tempted to switch back to Firefox to be honest..
And when I set windows explorer to display 'Details' I want it everywhere. Not revert to ICONS when I go to the Recycle Bin. 99.999999% of the files in there don't have an Icon.
Finally, give me some easy way to remove the 20x20 ICON that when you drag a file to another directory opens up. Can someone please explain what 'extra' it btings to the operations.
Preferably we need a 'Uber Ultra Geek' setting that just gets rid of all the crap once and for all. Then we can get on with using the OS for real work rather than consuming music/media etc. Most of us have other devivces for that. Continued emphais on consumption is IMHO, a sure loser in this world of Phablets that will do the job just as well.
Given the Borg-like logic of Microsoft, merely the mention of Chrome will relegate the comment to the bin. IE precedes Bing by many many years yet it still goes on like a Celine Dion performance at Vegas. People tried Bing, hated it, laughted at it and these days largely ignore it. but with IE, MSFT is in some weird self-inflicting Monkey trap. Chrome is just sooooo much nicer and faster to use for so many people.
I expect though, that ceding to a foreign browser somehow makes people less tied in the desktop flavour underneath. And there lies the rub. Expect IE to continue to contribute strongly to the demise of the (consumer) Windows Desktop and the infanticide of Surface and it's siblings.
Get rid of Xbox logon to play games like Solitaire. I hate being told every few minutes while playing a game that the Xbox connection has dropped, or the terms of service have changed. I DON'T CARE!!!! I just want to have a little fun when I have a few minutes free.
I second the comment about OneDrive. Don't use it, don't want it, and I certainly don't want anything ending up in the NSA's playground by accident.
And finally, I just want to have a normal, local logon account. No fancy, useless Microsoft Live account or whatever it is.
Actually that was my experience as well. Windows 10 bitched like hell about not having a ms e-mail to set up an account. Since I was running this in a VM the easiest way was to disable the network and then it gave me a prompt for a local account. I'm sure that there are more elegant ways though
And finally, I just want to have a normal, local logon account. No fancy, useless Microsoft Live account or whatever it is.
You can - when you're installing, select "Create new account" and then at the bottom of that screen is a tiny text link to create a local account with no Live tie in. This page covers it:
https://www.liberiangeek.net/2013/11/daily-windows-tips-install-windows-8-1-with-local-accounts-only/
And this covers changing an existing account:
http://www.cnet.com/uk/how-to/how-to-switch-your-windows-8-1-log-in-to-a-local-account/
(Sorry - no clickable links for me!)
You can - when you're installing
It should be more fucking obvious! There should be a "No, fuck off!" button right next to the "Sign in" or "Create" buttons. Same size. Isn't that what happens on Android?
Not hidden at the bottom of the 2nd (create an account) screen, almost the same colour as the background - who's sole purpose is to give them the ability to say "oh, accounts are optional - your fault you created one"
Luckily I knew it was optional, so I actually tried to figure out how to avoid it.
I believe that last time I set up a Win8 box I used "no@example.com" as my email address. It failed to validate, so I re-entered it and on the second or third attempt Windows said, "OK, you'll have to use a local accound instead". I don't recall seeing any small links at the foot of the screen, so perhaps in my case it really was in exactly the same colour as the background.
But yeah, deliberately causing an error seems to be the only way to use a local account.
and then at the bottom of that screen is a tiny text link
The worst case of forced selling droidism comes in the mantle of reasonableness with tiny text links squirreled away in unexpected places. Or at the end of a stultefying meaningless EULA.
In a sane world, the person responsible would be dragged out of his/her cozy redmondian office then pitchforked with extreme prejudice.
"a stultefying meaningless EULA."
When OS X Mavericks was released shortly after Windows 8.1 I got the chance to compare their presentation of the EULAs.
Apple won by a mile by allowing me to save them to disk for later perusal, and they weren't peppered with forgettable URLs which you had to write down to stand a chance of remembering.
I give more latitude to any package that allows me to save and peruse at my leisure whatever the heck it is that I'm agreeing to by merely glancing at it. Then again, the people who do give you that option tend to be very upfront about how you'll be treated. I don't believe there are many illusions left around Apple, it's all part of the service ;-).
its not even a beta release and might not be out for a year.
As for the browser debate, if you actually have to support end user PCs in a corporate environment then you pretty much need to be running IE. Firefox is a pain to deploy and an even bigger pain to manage, even doing things that are simple like setting it to use a proxy involves editing config files, etc. At least Chrome picks up most IE GPO settings so is easier to manage, no messing around with config files etc
You mean you don't know how to push files to a Windows desktop without GPO ?!
As for suporting end user PCs, here at my current workplace we're stuck with IE8 because of apps compatibility so they have to support a second browser which must not be IE (compatibility mode will no do). We're pretty happy with Chrome alongside IE and it will be like that for a long time.
So, some good feedback in there - pinning tiles to the desktop is perhaps a good idea if implemented appropriately.
Browser wars clearly abounds. Most of the world still uses IE of course, but despite the 'waaah IE sucks' attitude that seems to prevail so strongly, Microsoft /have/ been making steady improvements to IE over the last few years, and the reality is that it works just fine.
/IF/ Microsoft wanted to switch to something different (and they don't) then they wouldn't necessarily need to do a deal with Google, they could just do exactly what Google did, and grab themselves a slice of Webkit, ditch the Trident rendering engine and replace it.
This isn't going to happen of course, despite feedback, certain things are still 'red lines' and won't be changed. Feedback on the general functionality of Windows 10 (and bug reports) is one thing - asking for fundamental strategy shifts is quite another.
Don't forget, Microsoft /is/ making strategy shifts. Given how many of Microsoft services are now available on rival platforms (You can get OneNote on Android watch, Office on an iPad etc), I really don't think anyone can accuse them of being the 'bad old Microsoft' of years gone by. Not saying they're perfect - but they're different, in a good way, and should be applauded for the approach they're taking in Windows 10.
Years in the industry left me jaundiced - I simply don't trust MS to have my best interests at heart. And I don't trust IE. I stopped using it waaayyy back when MS took their blatant management-driven decision to force its roots down into the OS, so that they could claim to the US courts that they couldn't possibly unbundle the two (Win 98? I forget; long ago) - and thereby opened a shed-load of unnecessary security holes that took years to close again. And even though that's ancient history now, and my attitude is in all probability now antediluvian and entirely illogical - I still avoid it like the plague. I only ever fire it up on those rare occasions when I hit a web site that I absolutely MUST use, that is so badly (or parochially) coded that I can't get another browser to work on it - and then I go have a good wash to get rid of the unclean feeling.
It's been said that it takes years to gain trust; it takes minutes to lose it. Never were truer words spoken
Indeed I can completely appreciate that, however by your own admission it's illogical.
It is indeed ancient history, and judging a company based on the decisions made over a decade ago - often by people no longer working for Microsoft- is quite simply unfair, and smells of grudge-holding.
It is indeed ancient history, and judging a company based on the decisions made over a decade ago - often by people no longer working for Microsoft
I'm sorry, but those still in charge have been there for more than 10 years. You're a mug if you think Microsoft are changed, just like an abused partner "he said he'll change..." - and you think you'll be nothing without them, because that's how they've conditioned you into thinking.
Microsoft are the same company they've always been, no matter how much they try to look like they've changed... it runs through them like a stick of rock. Now that they're becoming irrelevant and competition is fierce, they'll be getting even more desperate over the coming years.
I'm wriggling out of their meat hooks as fast as I can, and the more of you idiots who are still stuck with them - the better for me!
If you like Chrome - Great! Good for you - Happy you found something that works.
Me? I'm F'ing sick of everyone and everything cramming Chrome down my throat. I've tried it, It was all right, but I'm a fan of Firefox and my select group of Extensions and tweaks that match my workflow.
So many things try to stealth install Chrome: Google Earth? The default option is to install Chrome and make it the default browser (That last bit is the really obnoxious part). Same when you install Avast or Adobe Reader, both of which set it as default if you use the default options.
On the Enterprise side, Google will install and run without administrator rights, which is a clever trick, but it means the security and admin teams have to take special steps to control it's use, and if it gets installed in per user mode and made default (Again: Default behaviour), it can break other web functionality for all users (http://www.slipstick.com/problems/this-operation-has-been-cancelled-due-to-restrictions/)
The Google Homepage nudges you into using Chrome every so often, and that's besides the Web Developers who evangelise it - Understandable from their point of view, as most like new, shiney (and possibly unfinished) web standards, rather than the sysadmin's view of not breaking existing functionality, the end users view of UI stability, and the security team's view of validating and testing updates - for all but the web devs and the more technical end users, Firefox ESR or Internet Explorer are viable alternatives.
Here's a fun experiment: Go and talk to your non tecchie friends, see how many of them have Chrome (or the "Shiny multicoloured ball") installed on their PC, and how many of them say "It just turned up one day - I don't know where it came from" - I bet that group make up a non-trivial amount of Chrome's meteoric rise up the browser usage percentage - If Microsoft pushed and bundled that hard, they'd probably be talk of anti-trust by now.
No.
- Windows (in Europe) asks you what browser you'd like to install.
- Less experienced users don't like IE because of bundled toolbars and other crap.
- Less experienced users actually trust Google.
- Users at work have to use IE<10 because of <insert lame excuse from IT>, so they install Chrome instead of putting up with an old IE.
- Firefox still has the "open source" or "geeky" stigma... people just want to google something, and see it. (we're talking end users, here)
- I've used Firefox since Navigator.
Blame whoever it is keeps writing "web apps" that only work with ancient versions of active X. I'd have IE banned from my network if I could manage it - at the very least the damn thing should be force updated to the latest version - but we're stuck at IE8 because we have software which uses it as a front end and the vendor refuses to update their shitty code so it will work with anything else.
Fully agree. And your justifiable rant reminds me of the question I've been meaning to put to anyone more experienced with the windoze environment than I am.
Is it not possible to create either a registry setting or registry checker or firewall setting (etc etc) which simply and automatically blocks any attempt at installing not just Chrome but ANYTHING which we don't explicitly (and consciously - for example by being required to enter a randomly generated PIN rather than just clicking a button or pressing Enter) permit? AND, having said NO, will never permit any future attempt to ask us about the same app again unless we go in and re-enable the question for that particular application.
I'm very familiar with many of the registry change blocking shields (on my systems, ZoneAlarm blocks them, Avast blocks them and I've got Regwatcher alerting me to any changes) and even with those aids and few decades of windoze experience, some still get through. So I've acquired considerable expertise in removing the bastards, but prevention would be so much better than cure and protecting my clients, friends and family from such intrusions is virtually impossible.
Not an easy request Harry, but if you can be bothered to set it up fully, AppLocker in WhiteList mode may do the job: Only used it on Domain/Enterprise networks, but looks like it's there in Workgroup machines (Pro/Business editions only), if you want to try it:
http://esihere.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/step-by-step-guide-on-configuring-applocker-in-the-domain
It's a pain to use (Especially in Whitelist mode), but it's great for tightly controlled networks, and it gave great emergency protection against CryptoLocker & co. earlier this year.
> Fully agree. And your justifiable rant reminds me of the question I've been meaning to put to anyone more experienced with the windoze environment than I am.
You are looking for Windows Applocker: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd759117.aspx
(part of Windows since Windows 7 - before that there were software restriction policies).
With Applocker you can enforce a policy where executables are only allowed to launch from a few protected folders, such as Program Files and Program Files x86. Or you can set a policy that only select publishers are whitelisted, e.g. Microsoft, Adobe etc.
Microsoft considered re branding IE because it may be a damaged brand.
Adopting Firefox would be a much better than that re-brand because it would be more than a marketing move. They would also have a much better ecosystem of third-party developers and web development tools.
For the love of God, though, please do NOT let them consider buying Mozilla! I want them on Linux, and after trying their Firefox-based IDE think Firefox OS deserves a place in the future!
“Office Word, Excel and PowerPoint should be free and built into Windows 10, this would tempt people away from Chromebooks and Mac”
Still wouldnt use them even if they were free, my daughter dislikes them with a passion after Office 2012 was forced upon her laptop. So down-vote away but its my opinion.
"Windows Feedback requires you to create a Microsoft Account, please enter your password to...."
Wow, they're even getting you to create a Microsoft Account in technical previews too! Very clever.
And back to the browser debate....I recently switched back to Firefox from Chrome. I found Chrome generally not kind with resources, but moreso it reads / writes to my AppData folder like a crazy boy.
Give users a choice of alternatives to as many thinigs as possible on startup.
Web browser, give a choice of chrome / opera / safari / firefox / those other ones nobody knows the names of.
Cloud storage, oneDrive, dropBox, others
Photos Flikr, Picassa, Others
On the one hand it pushes people away from some microsoft tech, on the other, most of those people wouldn't have used it anyway, and it gives them grounds for good will "look how good we are, letting competitors on our stuff!"
And still Windows let you install much more competitors' software than most other platforms.
It's not due to their generosity - far from it. To have a viable platform, you have to let anyone use it or it just wont become popular - it's not good enough to be an exclusive club. The trouble Microsoft have is they're both a provider and consumer of their platforms, and they need to sacrifice one part to benefit the other (I honestly believe splitting the company would benefit MS and everyone else).
There are also anti-competitive laws, but since MS platforms are quickly becoming irrelevant, I doubt these would apply for much longer.
I've been using IE safely for years and years (just a tad upping the security setting, and, of course, refusing permission to things offered by websites). I do not want a deal with Google.
Since the beginning of this summer, Google is not my home page. Google knows too much and is involved with too much for my comfort anymore when using the computer. Sure, I do YouTube and often search via Google, but I'm also going elsewhere now for search. I certainly do not use their phone home Chrome.
So I do not see why Microsoft should do "a deal" with Google. Google has its tentacles into too many places already.
It's all about extracting data from you. With a combined search, when you type "Adobe Photoshop" to launch a local application, the characters get sent to Microsoft. Information about your installed applications, contacts, email searches, etc., will all be sent to Microsoft.
This is valuable and personal information. So valuable, that it is the same reason why they don't want that information being sent to Google or anyone else.
The unified search and address bars in browsers was all about slurping personal data too. Before combining them, if you were typing in the name of a locally saved bookmark, or entering a URL directly, that information wouldn't find its way to Google. By combining them, Google has an excuse to monitor everything you type.
With windows is that you have so little control over the product that you own. Those "live tiles" are resource HOGS. It slows down your computer and as far as what ever the windows browser is at the moment I can assure you it is the same. It takes over your computer and hogs resources. That's why you need so much memory, cpu etc to operate it. What a mess...who wants to deal with that if you don't HAVE to? I realize money is an issue in many cases in enterprise, but for end users...if you have a choice...nobody wants to deal with redmond.
1) Please give me the choice of browsers to use!
2) For the love of god, give us the choice to disable one drive.
3) I don't fucking want Bing. It's perhaps the most worthless search engine there is. Besides, if you refocused those resources on the OS, maybe you wouldn't be losing market share.
MS, I realize this is only three suggestions, but do you see a common theme here? A lot of us do NOT want to be thought for. We don't want to be forced into using crap we don't need or don't want.
I love how people think Microsoft is going to let them use Google as the default search -- their *competitor*...
I also love how people apparently think they know that I don't want web search in my start menu.. If I want web searches in my start menu (which I do), I should have the option to turn that on. And let other people who don't want it turn it off. As a software developer myself, I can tell you it's not very hard to program a switch or a check box in there.
... Of course, by the time people are done with the Feedback app before release, Microsoft will probably have implemented so many checkboxes in Control Panel that it will probably be even more configurable than CompizConfig or dconf editor! LOL
I remember the feedback/answers site for the Windows 8 beta. The top issues, upvoted by many thousands to the top were:
1. Where the fuck is the start button and menu? I need a start button, not some stupid hover corner and full screen of big chunky squares.
2. How can I remove metro and all that shiznit that goes with it?
So I guess the biggest issue is whether they will actually listen this time, or whether it's still just a corporate exercise to pick and choose and ignore anything that does not fit with what the boss man has decided.
...not a separate one, whoever says it should be separate is an idiot.
I start typing and starts showing ALL the results, categorized eg Programs, Communication (emails, chats, texts etc), Google results, Bing results (eg KB results) etc. Yes, all in one pane, that's the point.
How is having all this stuff in one place going to be helpful? So when I want to search for a specific email, I have to wade through a ton of irrelevant search results (gauranteed to be rubbish if Bing is the default, but sadly the same can be said for google these days!), irrelevant reults from programs and documents and whatever else winds up in there.
If I want to search for an email, I'll use my email program. I'm intelligent enough to figure out where my emails are most likely to be found. And if I want to find a program or document, I'll search on the file system. Web results? Well I use a web search engine for that.
Me smart. Me got brain. Me know what me want look for. Me no need be treated like dumbfuck by MS. Or any other OS provider for that matter.
"...modern apps should not all start in full screen in desktop view, some apps (eg, Calculator) should default to a smaller size,” say 30 users."
"You mean a pencil is not as useful when it's in the shape of a pretzel? How are we supposed to innovate if we can't change its shape to something slavishly following an abstraction?"
Astonishing that MS would need to obtain blindingly obvious suggestions to restore lost functionality such as this via such a cumbersome route. Users might want to use a calculator in conjunction with some other activity, such as a document being edited? Wasn't this the whole point of windowing and Windows in the first place? Sure enough we got it right, 30+ years ago.
Truth is truly stranger than fiction.
nothing should ever start full screen on a desktop
It should be optional. If I want a program (say browser or picture viewer or whatever) to open full screen then that's how it should open. If I want it to open 1 pixel wide, that should also be my option. Just remembering how it was last time would be a start.
Some people will like everything opening in full screen, or somethings, or nothing. Give us the option (there's that horrible "give users options" thing again!)
It's funny how many mindless users don't understand Chrome is the best spyware ever written, one that users actually install themselves. It was also turned into a spyhardware called "Chromebooks".
It's a perfect example of social enginnering. Give people something for "free" and they will blindly forget whatever you steal them in exchange. After all, weren't people accepting to give away their first born for free wifi access?
Add the powerful Google advertising machine and Google drones ready to swear Chrome is the best piece of software ever written, and you get the perfect spyware.
Chrome is the best spyware ever written
I have a genuine question: Do you have anything to back that claim up? For example, Wireshark or Fiddler dumps comparing each browser in their default state.
Or are you just echoing what you've read in a forum?
The reason I ask is, there isn't much Chrome could report to Google that they don't already know.
"It's funny how many mindless users don't understand Chrome is the best spyware ever written, one that users actually install themselves."
Not at all; unless you sign into it (easy to switch off) then it's just another browser. I personally prefer Firefox, but I've found that Chrome makes for an excellent IE replacement on business desktops thanks to its ease of deployment and management via GPO.
IE is a very ugly looking desktop browser (admittedly the TIFKAM version isn't too bad). I've spent a bit of time using the Windows 10 tech preview and it still looks ghastly.
IE is a very ugly looking desktop browser
I know... it's dreadful, only the most loyal fans can like it - or pretend to.
How come all the cross platform browsers manage to fit in with the OS, but IE just looks so out of place and it's like they got the Windows 3 developers back?
It makes me want a touch-screen just so I can punch IE!
I remember reading on HN someone was saying that chrome was sending "encrypted data" back to google. A Chrome developer responded and suggested he submitted it as a bug.
The original reporter had a list of excuses why he was unable to do that, was even unable supply the logs or IP...
My experience of IE remains grim. Most recent major issue was when I tried to use the diagnostics in IE11 it crapped out irrecoverably. Uninstall/reinstall didn't work. I had to revert to v10 (or sacrifice hours, unpaid, to properly investigate and fix). Developing for web I still need to test 4 browsers (and multiple version of IE) and it's usually IE that causes grief. The automatic (and Windows version independent) version upgrades for FF & Chrome at least mean I don't have to check my stuff works in 6 year old versions. IE11 may be MS's best yet but there are still unfortunately many users on Vista & XP and stuck with older IE versions
Funny how nobody's mentioned Safari & Opera...!
Well no, if MS dump IE in favour of Chrome, then we would in effect be moving from one old monopoly to a new monopoly. Diversity in any product choice is important for progress and competition. This is quite apart from what Google may be doing with the usage data it collects.
I use Firefox, Safari, Chrome and IE, and they all behave differently and render some websites better than others. I look forward to all browsers being HTML5 compatible, so I can use one. With my corporate hat on, yep testing for several different browsers is a pain, internally you only want one, but externally, who am I to dictate which browser my clients choose.
So MS lets keep IE, sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad, but at least it's a standard on the corporate desktop, and I really don't want to have to retest all my apps on another browser, let alone do all the security testing for an even more leaky product.
People asking for Chrome have forgotten that IE has features that Chrome doesn't. For example, extra features useful for Intranet applications and colour management. (Yes, Chrome cannot display color images with the correct colors - and, of course, avoiding putting in this critical feature helps win the performance benchmarks). Even so, I am not seeing Chrome perform faster than IE on my desktop - in fact, it chokes stone dead when there is disk IO.
1. Add other search engines! I personally hate Bing, and there are many people that hate it. Bing can be the default when you boot up your device for the 1st time, but not be forced into being the default.
2. More browsers than IE! I'm not saying get rid of IE, but add Firefox and/or Chrome, with options for Opera. They are more universally liked. IE can be the default browser to begin, but the option should be there.
3. Add Microsoft Office for free. Major advantages of that is that would give it a boost over Chromebook and Mac. You should do that for Windows 8 as well. Do something like Office Money, which is money that is used for Office downloads. It comes with $50 in Office Money, which is 5 programs of the user's choice. Each program would cost $10 in Office Money. The Office downloads should be the newest version and updated, but retaining the option to have older versions of Office.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
