5 ms·

I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't just include a WebKit or even Chromium fork right in the OS. They could have > 90% browser market share again.

by 300bps 12y ago

EugeneOZ 12y ago
Because of legacy. Spartan based on the old Trident engine, but refactored and without "compatibility" modes and quirks (as they promise). They need Trident to render old sites. Just imagine how huge is amount of old IE-only sites in corp. segment.
- aout 12y ago
  Completely true. But is it so hard to imagine a fallback instead of a rewrite / refactor? I mean, aren't you tired to develop for X renderers? Couldn't Microsoft adopt something like the Khronos group for once and stop fucking around with proprietary bullshit?
UK-AL 12y ago
Competition is good, it brings invocation. A monotone world would be very boring.
- OmarIsmail 12y ago
  This is not a universal law of the world. There are times when using a common technology is better. In this specific case why is "competition good" and who cares about boring when it comes to developer's productivity. Being able to code against one browser and being certain that it works properly in all browsers would be a tremendously wonderful thing for everyone. To sacrifice that ideal vision so that things aren't "boring" doesn't seem worth it to put it kindly.
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    We had developer productivity with IE5. But it's also good to get innovation on browser platforms. Maybe it's possible that a single browser, today, would get all the love and continued development. But it seems more likely that without pressure to improve (even if it means improving runtime perf/memory usage) we could easily see stagnation.
  - UK-AL 12y ago
    Then you get no one trying different js engines, or trying different approaches rendering. IE6 was pretty much a monopoly, how well did that go?
    - OmarIsmail 12y ago
      Webkit does not include the JS engine. And the different approaches to rendering is also incorrect. Google has Blink which is - for all intents and purposes - Webkit. IE6 was closed source, and under control of one company. Webkit is open source with contributions from many major organizations.
joshuapants 12y ago
A) That would probably be politically unpalatable within MS B) That would definitely be a bad move for consumers. Monoculture is bad, and even though a fork would allow them to go their own way to some degree their existing codebase is probably more pliable to what they have in mind.

I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't just include a WebKit or even Chromium fork right in the OS. They could have > 90% browser market share again.

by 300bps 12y ago

I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't just include a WebKit or even Chromium fork right in the OS. They could have > 90% browser market share again.

EugeneOZ 12y ago

Because of legacy. Spartan based on the old Trident engine, but refactored and without "compatibility" modes and quirks (as they promise). They need Trident to render old sites. Just imagine how huge is amount of old IE-only sites in corp. segment.

aout 12y ago
Completely true. But is it so hard to imagine a fallback instead of a rewrite / refactor? I mean, aren't you tired to develop for X renderers? Couldn't Microsoft adopt something like the Khronos group for once and stop fucking around with proprietary bullshit?

UK-AL 12y ago

Competition is good, it brings invocation. A monotone world would be very boring.

OmarIsmail 12y ago
This is not a universal law of the world. There are times when using a common technology is better. In this specific case why is "competition good" and who cares about boring when it comes to developer's productivity. Being able to code against one browser and being certain that it works properly in all browsers would be a tremendously wonderful thing for everyone. To sacrifice that ideal vision so that things aren't "boring" doesn't seem worth it to put it kindly.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  We had developer productivity with IE5. But it's also good to get innovation on browser platforms. Maybe it's possible that a single browser, today, would get all the love and continued development. But it seems more likely that without pressure to improve (even if it means improving runtime perf/memory usage) we could easily see stagnation.
- UK-AL 12y ago
  Then you get no one trying different js engines, or trying different approaches rendering. IE6 was pretty much a monopoly, how well did that go?
  - OmarIsmail 12y ago
    Webkit does not include the JS engine. And the different approaches to rendering is also incorrect. Google has Blink which is - for all intents and purposes - Webkit. IE6 was closed source, and under control of one company. Webkit is open source with contributions from many major organizations.

joshuapants 12y ago

A) That would probably be politically unpalatable within MS B) That would definitely be a bad move for consumers. Monoculture is bad, and even though a fork would allow them to go their own way to some degree their existing codebase is probably more pliable to what they have in mind.