3 ms·

Because one of those browsers is a core component of the operating system, used in a ton of places and embeddable by other programs which means a major update c

by bskap 13y ago

Because one of those browsers is a core component of the operating system, used in a ton of places and embeddable by other programs which means a major update can potentially break a lot of things. And the others are just standalone programs that only have to worry about their own performance.

Tobani 13y ago
I'm just saying it doesn't have to be that way. They could keep the core os component running the old version and have the newer standalone version of the browser running next to it. There may be some minor technical hurdles with all the shared libraries. Sure. But there's no reason it couldn't be done.
laumars 13y ago
Microsoft could still build a standalone version of IE if they really wanted. The reason they cut off support is laziness, greed (pushes people to buy new windows licences), and there's likely some legal issues due to the old anti-trusts cases where MS argued that IE couldn't be separated from the OS.
- pionar 13y ago
  So, not wanting to maintain two separate codebases is laziness? How about the ROI on such a solution is hideously low.
  - laumars 13y ago
    What about the code base we all have to maintain supporting those shit browsers? Plus I doubt it's that fundamental a change to the code base. Just point IE to a few newer DLLs and write a different deployment package. If MS are able to update .NET, DirectX and all their other libraries and maintain backwards compatibility then I'm sure they could with IE as well. There's no real technical reason hampering them, just a lack of incentive and plenty of excuses. And the ROI point is moot because it's already been pointed out that all of the other big browsers still support XP. Every 3 years its the same bullshit, MS release a new version of Windows and suddenly all their new software cannot run on their older versions of Windows - as if this new OS magically changes the way how Trident works. As someone who's hacked his way around some of Windows internals, I don't buy MSs marketing, it's just a ploy to sell more copies of their latest OS.

by bskap 13y ago

Tobani 13y ago

I'm just saying it doesn't have to be that way. They could keep the core os component running the old version and have the newer standalone version of the browser running next to it. There may be some minor technical hurdles with all the shared libraries. Sure. But there's no reason it couldn't be done.

laumars 13y ago

Microsoft could still build a standalone version of IE if they really wanted. The reason they cut off support is laziness, greed (pushes people to buy new windows licences), and there's likely some legal issues due to the old anti-trusts cases where MS argued that IE couldn't be separated from the OS.

pionar 13y ago
So, not wanting to maintain two separate codebases is laziness? How about the ROI on such a solution is hideously low.
- laumars 13y ago
  What about the code base we all have to maintain supporting those shit browsers? Plus I doubt it's that fundamental a change to the code base. Just point IE to a few newer DLLs and write a different deployment package. If MS are able to update .NET, DirectX and all their other libraries and maintain backwards compatibility then I'm sure they could with IE as well. There's no real technical reason hampering them, just a lack of incentive and plenty of excuses. And the ROI point is moot because it's already been pointed out that all of the other big browsers still support XP. Every 3 years its the same bullshit, MS release a new version of Windows and suddenly all their new software cannot run on their older versions of Windows - as if this new OS magically changes the way how Trident works. As someone who's hacked his way around some of Windows internals, I don't buy MSs marketing, it's just a ploy to sell more copies of their latest OS.