5 ms·

I don't think they can. IE's (since IE5) is not your usual standalone browser application - it's an operating system component, that's used in a lot of places,

I don't think they can. IE's (since IE5) is not your usual standalone browser application - it's an operating system component, that's used in a lot of places, starting right from the desktop. Tighter integration and mutual OS-browser dependence means it's not as easy as saying "ok, let's allow IE10 to run on Vista".

ars 11y ago
I've heard that, but no one is forcing them to program it that way. They could do the equivalent of static linking and include the necessary components in the browser instead of the OS. That's more or less what the Utilu IE Collection does I think.
- netheril96 11y ago
  Yeah, they could do that now, but that doesn't help the IE 6, 7, 8 problems, does that?
  - lmm 11y ago
    Yes it does. They could ship a statically-linked copy of Edge to Windows Vista (and even XP) users via Windows Update. The old IE DLLs would have to stay there to be used by the system, but the actual web browser could be a newer one.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      That's a terrible idea from a security standpoint.
      - lmm 11y ago
        If they're stopping delivering security updates for those versions of IE then it's better than nothing. Actually assuming they keep the statically linked Edge updated via windows update then I don't see any issues (as annoying as a large update to a statically linked program will be).
    - Kwpolska 11y ago
      Microsoft Edge is a Universal Windows App, i.e. uses APIs that exist on Windows 10 only. And Microsoft is not backporting that.
- pjc50 11y ago
  It's the other way round: programs include the browser as a COM component. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa752040%28VS.85%29.aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa752040%28VS.85%29... So on the older operating systems, programs that shipped with the OS will be embedding the browser as a COM component, usually for help purposes. If they're rendering local HTML (or generated HTML!) then they require that to keep working. So that particular interface has to be maintained, making it very difficult to upgrade. Microsoft were kind of correct in the "browser choice" lawsuit that they'd used the browser as an OS component, and everyone else was correct that this was kind of a bad idea. On the other hand, how do you embed a browser component in a forward-compatible way?
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    On the other hand, how do you embed a browser component in a forward-compatible way? Use a consistent API and just upgrade the rendering engine, while maintaining quirks mode. It's not as much of a problem anymore because HTML5 specifies consistent parsing and rendering behavior for new and old documents.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    Embedded rendering of local HTML doesn't need security updates, so that's not a major problem. You can leave it alone while you update the actual browser.
  - scholia 11y ago
    > Microsoft were kind of correct in the "browser choice" lawsuit that they'd used the browser as an OS component, and everyone else was correct that this was kind of a bad idea. Unfortunately, Microsoft signed a consent decree with the DoJ in 1995 which allowed them to add features to the operating system but meant they couldn't tie a separate program to the operating system. Therefore the browser had to be an added feature. This was only a tiny part of a much broader decree. None the less, you can thank Janet Reno and the US government for the problems this has caused ever since ;-)
    - pjc50 11y ago
douche 11y ago
Not even counting all the things like COM integration and embedded browser components in WinForms and the like... I do some work with various embedded extension APIs in different office and collaboration tools, and it's quite a mess trying to figure out what those web browsers actually are
hs86 11y ago
I remember that installing an older version of IE on Windows 95 enabled some features like the Quick Launch bar in the task bar. Previously, I believed that this was a feature exclusive to the newer Windows 98 but that IE installation backported a lot of the visible Windows 98 changes into the Windows 95 Explorer.
- realityking 11y ago
  That was Internet Explorer 4. It was however an optional part of the installation and if you installed IE5 without installing IE4 before, you couldn't get it. Messy.
jessaustin 11y ago
...it's an operating system component, that's used in a lot of places... This is a strategy tax, for a strategy that stopped being reasonable a decade ago. Numerous alternate browsers have had no problems competing with an "integrated" IE, for many years now. The DOJ case was settled by a completely different set of executives, so the current bunch don't have to pretend that OS integration is somehow vital to the function of a browser. Someone should draft a memo to the browser department: that stupid shit you were supposed to do 15 years ago? stop doing that. An organization that continues with such a farce for so many years is puzzling.
- drdaeman 11y ago
  They did exactly this with Edge, which - AFAIK - is not a system component, but a standalone application, just like the others.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Sure that's the plan, but it doesn't seem to have actually rolled out to any users yet? Why do they need IE 11 if Edge is ready to go?
    - drdaeman 11y ago
      Probably because Edge is a Metro/ModernUI app that doesn't work on Vista and 7.
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        So... not actually standalone. Chrome and Firefox don't have that dependency. I guess that memo still hasn't been sent.
        drdaeman 11y ago
        But it's perfectly normal to depend on some OS parts and have minimum version requirements. Happens with everything out there, just that thresholds are different. Any recent Chrome doesn't run on Windows XP. IE11 doesn't run on Vista. Edge doesn't run on 7. Safari 7 doesn't run on OS X 10.8. What do you propose to MS - to spend time supporting Windows Vista? Or make a browser that supports it? Bet they just don't care about Vista, besides security patches and alike stuff that they have to do under various enterprise contracts. Given that they go lengths to persuade 7 & 8.x users into upgrading to 10, doubt they care much about those versions, too.

ars 11y ago

I've heard that, but no one is forcing them to program it that way. They could do the equivalent of static linking and include the necessary components in the browser instead of the OS. That's more or less what the Utilu IE Collection does I think.

netheril96 11y ago
Yeah, they could do that now, but that doesn't help the IE 6, 7, 8 problems, does that?
- lmm 11y ago
  Yes it does. They could ship a statically-linked copy of Edge to Windows Vista (and even XP) users via Windows Update. The old IE DLLs would have to stay there to be used by the system, but the actual web browser could be a newer one.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    That's a terrible idea from a security standpoint.
    - lmm 11y ago
      If they're stopping delivering security updates for those versions of IE then it's better than nothing. Actually assuming they keep the statically linked Edge updated via windows update then I don't see any issues (as annoying as a large update to a statically linked program will be).
  - Kwpolska 11y ago
    Microsoft Edge is a Universal Windows App, i.e. uses APIs that exist on Windows 10 only. And Microsoft is not backporting that.
pjc50 11y ago
It's the other way round: programs include the browser as a COM component. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa752040%28VS.85%29.aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa752040%28VS.85%29... So on the older operating systems, programs that shipped with the OS will be embedding the browser as a COM component, usually for help purposes. If they're rendering local HTML (or generated HTML!) then they require that to keep working. So that particular interface has to be maintained, making it very difficult to upgrade. Microsoft were kind of correct in the "browser choice" lawsuit that they'd used the browser as an OS component, and everyone else was correct that this was kind of a bad idea. On the other hand, how do you embed a browser component in a forward-compatible way?
- nitrogen 11y ago
  On the other hand, how do you embed a browser component in a forward-compatible way? Use a consistent API and just upgrade the rendering engine, while maintaining quirks mode. It's not as much of a problem anymore because HTML5 specifies consistent parsing and rendering behavior for new and old documents.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  Embedded rendering of local HTML doesn't need security updates, so that's not a major problem. You can leave it alone while you update the actual browser.
- scholia 11y ago
  > Microsoft were kind of correct in the "browser choice" lawsuit that they'd used the browser as an OS component, and everyone else was correct that this was kind of a bad idea. Unfortunately, Microsoft signed a consent decree with the DoJ in 1995 which allowed them to add features to the operating system but meant they couldn't tie a separate program to the operating system. Therefore the browser had to be an added feature. This was only a tiny part of a much broader decree. None the less, you can thank Janet Reno and the US government for the problems this has caused ever since ;-)
  - pjc50 11y ago

douche 11y ago

Not even counting all the things like COM integration and embedded browser components in WinForms and the like... I do some work with various embedded extension APIs in different office and collaboration tools, and it's quite a mess trying to figure out what those web browsers actually are

hs86 11y ago

I remember that installing an older version of IE on Windows 95 enabled some features like the Quick Launch bar in the task bar. Previously, I believed that this was a feature exclusive to the newer Windows 98 but that IE installation backported a lot of the visible Windows 98 changes into the Windows 95 Explorer.

realityking 11y ago
That was Internet Explorer 4. It was however an optional part of the installation and if you installed IE5 without installing IE4 before, you couldn't get it. Messy.

jessaustin 11y ago

...it's an operating system component, that's used in a lot of places... This is a strategy tax, for a strategy that stopped being reasonable a decade ago. Numerous alternate browsers have had no problems competing with an "integrated" IE, for many years now. The DOJ case was settled by a completely different set of executives, so the current bunch don't have to pretend that OS integration is somehow vital to the function of a browser. Someone should draft a memo to the browser department: that stupid shit you were supposed to do 15 years ago? stop doing that. An organization that continues with such a farce for so many years is puzzling.

drdaeman 11y ago
They did exactly this with Edge, which - AFAIK - is not a system component, but a standalone application, just like the others.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Sure that's the plan, but it doesn't seem to have actually rolled out to any users yet? Why do they need IE 11 if Edge is ready to go?
  - drdaeman 11y ago
    Probably because Edge is a Metro/ModernUI app that doesn't work on Vista and 7.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      So... not actually standalone. Chrome and Firefox don't have that dependency. I guess that memo still hasn't been sent.
      - drdaeman 11y ago
        But it's perfectly normal to depend on some OS parts and have minimum version requirements. Happens with everything out there, just that thresholds are different. Any recent Chrome doesn't run on Windows XP. IE11 doesn't run on Vista. Edge doesn't run on 7. Safari 7 doesn't run on OS X 10.8. What do you propose to MS - to spend time supporting Windows Vista? Or make a browser that supports it? Bet they just don't care about Vista, besides security patches and alike stuff that they have to do under various enterprise contracts. Given that they go lengths to persuade 7 & 8.x users into upgrading to 10, doubt they care much about those versions, too.