Microsoft confirms IE10 won't run on Vista, millions of IE9 users shrug
engadget.com
engadget.com
Then it would have become a feature of Windows 7 instead of just another browser. It would have also given them the chance to try some new things without feeling like they had to keep any kind of IE legacy.
Yes, they would have had to support 2 different browsers for a time, but they have the resources to do that.
They could have taken the opportunity to compete more aggressively with a lighter weight browser. Microsoft is full of brilliant people, if they were given a mission that said "Make an HTML5 browser, give it the fastest, most rock-solid JS interpreter you can, and oh yeah, include the DLR by default" that they could probably deliver something pretty interesting without having to deal with the IE legacy.
I probably should have said that they would have to maintain two separate teams working on browsers; but I imagine they do that as well given the number of people that work on browser teams.
I totally disagree with this. You have to remember that a sizable portion of computer users don't really understand what a browser is. To these people, IE = internet. So for Microsoft to remove that kind of brand equity just wouldn't make sense.
They could change the name:
-- From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konqueror
Safari 5 came out 62 months after Tiger.
If we assume that IE10 comes out in 12 months from today then IE10 will come out 65 months after Vista.
Microsoft played the lock-in game too well and they can't even get their customers to upgrade to new versions of the same software. Since Windows is a one-time purchase, if no one is buying the new versions of Windows, Microsoft is making much money off of these new versions.
Upgrading to Windows 7 to get IE 10 seems like a classic "You're doing it wrong"!
It could be 3 successive IE releases, for example...
1. Small and declining user base for Vista means it becomes less important for Microsoft to target those users. In fact Windows 7 already has twice the market share that Vista does and it's still growing rapidly. http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-201003-201103
2. If you project what some likely release window for IE10 and the next version of Windows will be (Win8) Microsoft is positioning itself to only have to support two operating systems. The cost of investment into a 3rd OS, especially one with small and declining market share (relative to it's other OSs), could just be too costly.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/products/lifecycl...
But it's not the 1990s anymore.
Let google spend their money on this, or let mozilla spend their money on this.
Is there any reason microsoft doesn't bundle firefox with their operating system, and just EOL Internet Explorer?
/admitting ignorance here
Despite common belief, MS actually wants the best browser in the world. But they want it to be noticeably the best.
The fear MS would have if FF did their browser is that the FF browser for Windows offered no advantage over the one for Linux or the Mac. Or even worse, the Linux version of FF was substantially better than the Windows version.
Now you can argue that IE isn't as good as Chrome or FF, but at least MS knows that's their decision. They've allocated their resources and made their business case. If FF is providing the browser then MS could end up in a situation where the most visible end user feature is out of their control.
Let me flip the question on you. Do you think Apple ever would/should simply let FF or Chrome be their iOS web browser and stop doing Safari mobile?
Since Microsoft controls the OS, they can ship a browser with defaults set to sites under their control, like msn.com and bing.
My assumption is that they consider those properties as revenue (or potential revenue) sources.
I'd guess it would be kind of a PR nightmare for them though. Nobody questions those defaults when the browser is owned by Microsoft.
Microsoft provides a range of different development tools and programming languages for web development. There is the modern stuff such as ASP.NET, Silverlight, etc, but lets not forget VBScript, ActiveX, etc, the latter not widely supported by other browsers.
Microsoft has more to lose technology wise by dumping its browser than the other companies do.
By having a browser on one platform they can use hardware acceleration on the browser making a win for both and keeping their hold on both.
That's the theory anyway. They'll probably screw it up bit that's the theory.
It's already beginning to happen. For example: http://www.winrumors.com/bing-powered-u-s-searches-rise-to-o...
On the other-hand, MS is under the pressure, like never before to prove itself on the web, and few hard-choices need to be made for it o be nimble.