[Michael Alan Goff]

If anyone has used the internet for roughly ten or so years, they'd have seen a change in the internet. Initially, the internet was coded to work best with Internet Explorer. That is something that we can all agree is bad. That is something that means that the internet was held back, since it relied on a browser that wasn't really updated much over the course of five or more years after IE 6 was released. I don't think there's a single person who will tell you that coding to a single web browser is a good thing.

Nowadays, websites aren't coded to work best with IE.

Rejoicing, right?

Now websites are coded to WebKit first. This means that everyone has to either put special "act like WebKit" tags in their rendering or it won't work as well. Clearly the internet is enraged at the idea of mobile, and non-mobile, sites being made to work best with one browser as opposed to being coded to standards. They were upset about the idea of IE being 'the standard' on the basis that it was the most used. Clearly the fact that WebKit is growing in use won't mean that we should focus on coding to that, right?

Wrong.

WebKit-preference isn't just okay, apparently, but praised. There seems to be some idea that just because it's OSS that it's alright. I don't understand why people have this double standard. When Microsoft dominates the web and websites focus on them first, it's bad. When it happens with WebKit, it's somehow good to standardize. This is not amusing, and this type of behavior should not be tolerated by anyone who lived through the days when everything that wasn't IE didn't display the page correctly.

[BitPusher2600]

I was quite the Netscape man way back when, and an active user of the GOPHER but standards, meh.

[Michael Alan Goff]

Why meh on standards?

[BitPusher2600]

You said it yourself, "standards" do not always create optimal circumstances for everybody but then again there's no pleasing everyone and I'm a tough person to please :)

I was disappointed when Opera chose to ditch Presto in exchange for webkit. What do I know though.

[wapoz]

I used to use netscape back in the day before firefox and opera came out to hide all the porn viewing I did as a teen.... don't judge me.

[HeyCori]

Developing for Webkit and a total disregard for standards haven't made the web better. It has only made it worse. We use three browsers at work, Chrome, Safari and Firefox. It's fun watching them handle web pages differently. Printing information on a page looks completely different and better on Safari than it does on Firefox. Sometimes Safari can't handle Java and doesn't allow us to type in a page. Chrome will occasionally not render a page as good as others. It's just perfect.

[Michael Alan Goff]

You said it yourself, "standards" do not always create optimal circumstances for everybody but then again there's no pleasing everyone and I'm a tough person to please :)

I was disappointed when Opera chose to ditch Presto in exchange for webkit. What do I know though.

Except a lack of coding to standards now means that anyone using IE gets to have a substandard experience because they're coding to WebKit.

Developing for Webkit and a total disregard for standards haven't made the web better. It has only made it worse. We use three browsers at work, Chrome, Safari and Firefox. It's fun watching them handle web pages differently. Printing information on a page looks completely different and better on Safari than it does on Firefox. Sometimes Safari can't handle Java and doesn't allow us to type in a page. Chrome will occasionally not render a page as good as others. It's just perfect.

Exactly, that's pretty much all I can say.

[squire777]

Developers are too lazy these days to take time to adhere to standards and the web is becoming a mess because of it. It's kind of funny the way some devs shrug off problems with their websites -

"hey your site isn't working properly"
"what browser are you using?"
"IE"
"Yeah well I don't care about IE, use something else"

[jmshub]

Using webkit add ons that aren't specifically part of the html standard can be a pain...but I am webkit free and the web works fine for me.. the entirety of my web browsing goes through Internet Explorer and Firefox.

[Michael Alan Goff]

Using webkit add ons that aren't specifically part of the html standard can be a pain...but I am webkit free and the web works fine for me.. the entirety of my web browsing goes through Internet Explorer and Firefox.

Doesn't Firefox use the webkit tags?

[anony_mouse]

There's an easy answer for Microsoft - use WebKit. MS would save money by not having to maintain the IE browser core, and IE users would have better compatibility with the web.
Of course, they can still call it IE. The question is - is having their own browser core strategically important for Microsoft? What do you think?

[Michael Alan Goff]

There's an easy answer for Microsoft - use WebKit. MS would save money by not having to maintain the IE browser core, and IE users would have better compatibility with the web.
Of course, they can still call it IE. The question is - is having their own browser core strategically important for Microsoft? What do you think?

You do know trident doesn't just render IE, right? It's like how webkit does more than just render Safari for OS X. Heck, I think webkit is now used to render KDE things as well, though it could be blink by now. Moving to another rendering engine isn't something they just do, the rendering engine is an important part of the OS.

[HeyCori]

There's an easy answer for Microsoft - use WebKit. MS would save money by not having to maintain the IE browser core, and IE users would have better compatibility with the web.
Of course, they can still call it IE. The question is - is having their own browser core strategically important for Microsoft? What do you think?

But remember, competition solves complacency. Why did IE6 take so long to change? Because it had 90% of the market. Why is iOS7 a "radical" change? Because Samsung is chipping away at Apple's marketshare.

[anony_mouse]

You do know trident doesn't just render IE, right? It's like how webkit does more than just render Safari for OS X. Heck, I think webkit is now used to render KDE things as well, though it could be blink by now. Moving to another rendering engine isn't something they just do, the rendering engine is an important part of the OS.

Actually, WebKit originated with KDE. Apple took it from there.
I don't agree that it's a part of the Operating System, not by my understanding of Operating System anyway. Yes, it's an integrated component, but it could be replaced. It's basically a WebView and a browser.

[anony_mouse]

But remember, competition solves complacency. Why did IE6 take so long to change? Because it had 90% of the market. Why is iOS7 a "radical" change? Because Samsung is chipping away at Apple's marketshare.

Competition may solve complacency (well, that's an argument for another day). That might be an argument from the users' point of view. But Microsoft is a public company. Their first responsibility is to their shareholders and I'm not convinced that maintaining a separate browser core represents value for their shareholders. Do you think it does? How?

[HeyCori]

Competition may solve complacency (well, that's an argument for another day). That might be an argument from the users' point of view. But Microsoft is a public company. Their first responsibility is to their shareholders and I'm not convinced that maintaining a separate browser core represents value for their shareholders. Do you think it does? How?

Submitting defeat to Apple is definitely not going to raise their stock price. And technical issues aside, even if the stock market responded, where does Microsoft go after becoming just another browser pushing WebKit? Selling/replacing assets is easy, getting them back is hard.

[Michael Alan Goff]

Actually, WebKit originated with KDE. Apple took it from there.
I don't agree that it's a part of the Operating System, not by my understanding of Operating System anyway. Yes, it's an integrated component, but it could be replaced. It's basically a WebView and a browser.

Trident renders Explorer. It's why you can remove IE, but you can't remove Trident. It is used in Windows Explorer... the thing that is used to render the file system. So, yes, it is very much a part of the OS. For them to remove it, they'd have to redo the file system, make it to where it works with something other than Trident.

[anony_mouse]

Submitting defeat to Apple is definitely not going to raise their stock price. And technical issues aside, even if the stock market responded, where does Microsoft go after becoming just another browser pushing WebKit? Selling/replacing assets is easy, getting them back is hard.

Please can you explain what value maintaining their own browser core brings to Microsoft's shareholders? I think no one buys Windows for Trident.

[anony_mouse]

Trident renders Explorer. It's why you can remove IE, but you can't remove Trident. It is used in Windows Explorer... the thing that is used to render the file system. So, yes, it is very much a part of the OS. For them to remove it, they'd have to redo the file system, make it to where it works with something other than Trident.

I don't think Microsoft are so incompetent as to make their file system dependent on their browser core. If their file system interfaces directly with the browser core (which seems unlikely), there will be a well defined interface which could be remapped to WebKit or anything else.

[N_LaRUE]

I don't think Microsoft are so incompetent as to make their file system dependent on their browser core. If their file system interfaces directly with the browser core (which seems unlikely), there will be a well defined interface which could be remapped to WebKit or anything else.

I don't think you quite understand what the other people are saying. Trident is used in Windows Explorer, prior to the law suit MS had IE was completely integrated into the OS which is why the law suit came along. So to avoid that issue they made it so that another browser can be installed but Trident is still the core of Windows Explorer and IE. You can paste/type a web address into Windows Explorer and it will take you to the web page in IE. That's part of the integration.

Now could they or do they want to change this? Probably not. I have very little doubt that MS plans to integrate it all together again. Can they make IE more webkit friendly. Probably.

[HeyCori]

Please can you explain what value maintaining their own browser core brings to Microsoft's shareholders? I think no one buys Windows for Trident.

What value would it bring to shareholders if Microsoft got rid of Trident? Zero to none. But it would be a huge loss if Microsoft got rid of it as it's a vital part of their ecosystem. IE is now integrated into Xbox, Windows 8/RT, Windows Phone. It can sync bookmarks. It's one of the most secure browsers on the market. It has been designed to work wonderfully with existing Microsoft products like SkyDrive, Outlook and Office web documents. It has tracking protection built-in plus additional tracking protection that you can download. Plus Microsoft can do all this on a development schedule that works best for them. But Microsoft should give all this up so a handful of webpages will look better? Sounds like a massive defeat if they did. In fact, the last thing Microsoft needs is Apple dictating what features goes into IE and dictating what devices it will support.

[anony_mouse]

I don't think you quite understand what the other people are saying. Trident is used in Windows Explorer, prior to the law suit MS had IE was completely integrated into the OS which is why the law suit came along. So to avoid that issue they made it so that another browser can be installed but Trident is still the core of Windows Explorer and IE. You can paste/type a web address into Windows Explorer and it will take you to the web page in IE. That's part of the integration.

Now could they or do they want to change this? Probably not. I have very little doubt that MS plans to integrate it all together again. Can they make IE more webkit friendly. Probably.

No I don't think you understand the conversation. Or at least my point.
1. A file system is not what you think it is. A file system is something like NTFS, FAT, ext4, etc that determines the structure of data on the disk (or flash memory, etc). There is a layer, or several layers, of OS code between that and the UI. This abstracts the differences between the different file systems. I don't know what this layer is called in Windows, if it has a name, but I assume this is what people in this thread mean by 'file system'.
2. Windows, Android, iOS all have embedded renderers for web-type content. MS uses Trident, Apple and Google use WebKit. Mozilla's Gecko is very similar. All are relatively interchangable. In Android it's called a WebView. I don't know the name in Windows so I will use the term 'WebView'.
3. Applications can make use of this WebView. Windows Explorer is one example of an application that does so. Internet Explorer is another. They both use the WebView to render content.
4. It should, in principle, be possible to switch from one WebView implementation to another. Assuming Microsoft followed common software engineering practice, each component in their systems will have a well defined interface, and it should be possible to remove a component (in this case, Trident), and replace it with another equivalent/similar component (e.g. WebKit, Gecko, etc). Some porting, to adapt the interfaces, add missing functionality and remove anything unnecessary (if desired) will be necessary.
5. So it should be possible to replace Trident with WebKit, and integrate it into Windows in the same way.

Why might Microsoft do this? To repeat my points above - to save them money. The initial investment to remove Trident and integrate WebKit (or whatever) might be significant, but in the long run they save money by not having to maintain their own browser core - they get most of it for free. I doubt that anyone buys Windows products for Trident and similar technology is available for free, so Trident may not be worth Microsoft's continuing investment. They could devote those resources to something that actually adds value to their products, such as developing Windows Phone more quickly.

Do you now get my point?

[anony_mouse]

What value would it bring to shareholders if Microsoft got rid of Trident? Zero to none. But it would be a huge loss if Microsoft got rid of it as it's a vital part of their ecosystem. IE is now integrated into Xbox, Windows 8/RT, Windows Phone. It can sync bookmarks. It's one of the most secure browsers on the market. It has been designed to work wonderfully with existing Microsoft products like SkyDrive, Outlook and Office web documents. It has tracking protection built-in plus additional tracking protection that you can download. Plus Microsoft can do all this on a development schedule that works best for them. But Microsoft should give all this up so a handful of webpages will look better? Sounds like a massive defeat if they did. In fact, the last thing Microsoft needs is Apple dictating what features goes into IE and dictating what devices it will support.

I don't think you understand what I am saying. All of the things you mention are just possible with WebKit, and most would not be affected by affected by swapping out Trident. IE is not the same as Trident - it is built using Trident. You remember the Chrome plugin (IETab, I think) that opens a tab within Chrome that uses IE (or more accurately, Trident) as a renderer? I'm suggesting the same but the other way around. Microsoft get to keep their bookmark syncing, etc - that's part of IE, not Trident. And it will all work on Windows, XBox, WP, etc.
WebKit is an open source project. It is not controlled by Google, Apple or any other single party. If Microsoft chose to be involved, they could have just as much influence, and they are free to make whatever additions or modifications they like.

The point here is not about rendering a few webpages better (although that is a small side benefit). It's about saving Microsoft money and freeing talented resources to work on productive projects.

Genuine questions - can anyone think of a way that Trident actually contributes to Microsoft's shareholders? Or a function it can fulfil that could not be done by WebKit (or Gecko)?

[squire777]

I don't think MS has to worry about spending money on IE or having extra programmers. Also don't see what shareholders have to do with butchering web standards.

[Michael Alan Goff]

I don't think Microsoft are so incompetent as to make their file system dependent on their browser core. If their file system interfaces directly with the browser core (which seems unlikely), there will be a well defined interface which could be remapped to WebKit or anything else.

And so they'd have to make it to where Explorer starts to work with trident. It's not incompetence, every file manager needs something to render it. Apple uses WebKit, like I said.

No I don't think you understand the conversation. Or at least my point.
1. A file system is not what you think it is. A file system is something like NTFS, FAT, ext4, etc that determines the structure of data on the disk (or flash memory, etc). There is a layer, or several layers, of OS code between that and the UI. This abstracts the differences between the different file systems. I don't know what this layer is called in Windows, if it has a name, but I assume this is what people in this thread mean by 'file system'.
2. Windows, Android, iOS all have embedded renderers for web-type content. MS uses Trident, Apple and Google use WebKit. Mozilla's Gecko is very similar. All are relatively interchangable. In Android it's called a WebView. I don't know the name in Windows so I will use the term 'WebView'.
3. Applications can make use of this WebView. Windows Explorer is one example of an application that does so. Internet Explorer is another. They both use the WebView to render content.
4. It should, in principle, be possible to switch from one WebView implementation to another. Assuming Microsoft followed common software engineering practice, each component in their systems will have a well defined interface, and it should be possible to remove a component (in this case, Trident), and replace it with another equivalent/similar component (e.g. WebKit, Gecko, etc). Some porting, to adapt the interfaces, add missing functionality and remove anything unnecessary (if desired) will be necessary.
5. So it should be possible to replace Trident with WebKit, and integrate it into Windows in the same way.

Why might Microsoft do this? To repeat my points above - to save them money. The initial investment to remove Trident and integrate WebKit (or whatever) might be significant, but in the long run they save money by not having to maintain their own browser core - they get most of it for free. I doubt that anyone buys Windows products for Trident and similar technology is available for free, so Trident may not be worth Microsoft's continuing investment. They could devote those resources to something that actually adds value to their products, such as developing Windows Phone more quickly.

Do you now get my point?

2 is wrong. It isn't just interchangeable because... they all work differently. You'd have to rebuild the entire file manager and a few other programs. Did you know that Windows Media Player, for example, uses Trident?