Microsoft building a completely new browser for Windows 10

[HEXUS]

Codenamed Spartan, the new browser is expected to be unveiled on 21st Jan.

Read more.

[wasabi]

Lack of support for extensions is primarly what is killing IE for me. Will be interesting to see an IE browser with Ablock, Ghsotery et al, Euro cookie acceptance tweakers et al that are a must-have IMO

[crossy]

It will be interesting to see how Microsoft makes Spartan a distinct and appealing offering as it has been trying to improve the reputation of it IE browser for years.

Well they could easily make it "appealing" by increasing performance and making sure it was fully standards compliant. And by "standards compliant" I mean to everyone else's standards, not come up with a new way and declare it a "defacto standard". A mobile version of Spartan (with bookmark sync to the desktop) would go a long way to pleasing people too.

Allowing 3rd party extensions is a good start - there's a raft of security-related stuff that I'd like to be able to use. That said, I'm firmly cross-platform these days, so why would I want to use an IE replacement when Chrome and Firefox not only support Windows, but mobile and Linux too.

[1stRaven]

A mobile version of Spartan (with bookmark sync to the desktop) would go a long way to pleasing people too.

IE already does this. My bookmarks, open tabs etc all sync to my mobile quite happily.

[crossy]

IE already does this. My bookmarks, open tabs etc all sync to my mobile quite happily.

And if you're not using Windows Phone? So Android/iOS without using some third party workaround.

[Saracen]

Well they could easily make it "appealing" by increasing performance and making sure it was fully standards compliant. And by "standards compliant" I mean to everyone else's standards, not come up with a new way and declare it a "defacto standard". A mobile version of Spartan (with bookmark sync to the desktop) would go a long way to pleasing people too.

Allowing 3rd party extensions is a good start - there's a raft of security-related stuff that I'd like to be able to use. That said, I'm firmly cross-platform these days, so why would I want to use an IE replacement when Chrome and Firefox not only support Windows, but mobile and Linux too.

That, TBH.

Assuming MS meet my other prerequisites with Win10, I'll take a look at 'Spartan', but it'll need to be very, very impressive, in oh-so-many ways, to surplant Firefox, Opera, etc. As for Chrome, I'd rather use IE. At least it doesn't come from Satan's Spawn, Google.

[Corky34]

Doesn't IE allow addons already ?
Knowing Microsoft there will be very little support for addon developers, or they will just end support after a few years and close the addons gallery like they did with desktop gadgets.

[TheAnimus]

IE was the first to allow addons IIRC.

It's just programming for them was hard for most web types, because they had to use languages they didn't know. Most people who are familiar with languages required for COM don't build extensions for websites, because web technology programming is horrible, just horrible. It's like the milton keynes of programming.

[1stRaven]

And if you're not using Windows Phone? So Android/iOS without using some third party workaround.

It’s an interesting comment. Do Microsoft support their competition by allowing this (which would mean releasing Internet Explorer for those devices) or do they suggest that you move to windows phone if you want that functionality?

When compared to Firefox or Chrome, Microsoft are the only ones that cover both the full desktop OS ( I am discounting Chrome OS due to the limited functionality) , a desktop browser, a mobile OS and a mobile browser. Apple are the only ones who can really compare but if you take the % of desktops running an Apple OS, then they needed to release safari and iCloud for windows otherwise few people (in terms of % of Iphone owners) would have this browser sync functionality. Do Microsoft really need to do the same?

[crossy]

[And if you're not using Windows Phone? So Android/iOS without using some third party workaround.]
It’s an interesting comment. Do Microsoft support their competition by allowing this (which would mean releasing Internet Explorer for those devices) or do they suggest that you move to windows phone if you want that functionality?

Thing is that Microsoft already support their competition - to some extent. Office and OneDrive are both available for iOS and Android, and Microsoft don't seem to be persecuting the open source projects providing OneDrive for Linux.

In my original post I was speaking purely personally. Sure, my works laptop and gaming desktop (and console come to think of it) are Microsoft products, but they're not a large part of my personal "compute environment". So for the new browser to be a "must have" in my book then it needs to be able to integrate with the rest of my kit - and that means Linux (my preferred desktop) and Android (smartphone and tablets).

The bit of your post that I cut out though is quite correct, if there's one company that should be capable of offering a browser product that was seamlessly cross-platform I'd put my money on Microsoft. One of my PM's put their finger on it, "it doesn't have to be perfect, just notably better than the competition ... or at least, less annoying".

[Saracen]

...

The bit of your post that I cut out though is quite correct, if there's one company that should be capable of offering a browser product that was seamlessly cross-platform I'd put my money on Microsoft. ....

"Capable of ..."? Sure.

But .... willing to? Not so sure, personally.

There has (IMHO, of course) long been a mindset at MS that there's two ways of doing things, the MS way, or the wrong way, and MS philosophy has always tried to ignore any way that isn't the MS way, anything that doesn't live wholly on Planet Microsoft. This has gone, fairly often, as far as trying to use MS market power to undermine and destabilise anything that doesn't live in MS-World. I'm not convinced they've shaken that mindset yet.

[1stRaven]

Thing is that Microsoft already support their competition - to some extent. Office and OneDrive are both available for iOS and Android, and Microsoft don't seem to be persecuting the open source projects providing OneDrive for Linux.

In my original post I was speaking purely personally. Sure, my works laptop and gaming desktop (and console come to think of it) are Microsoft products, but they're not a large part of my personal "compute environment". So for the new browser to be a "must have" in my book then it needs to be able to integrate with the rest of my kit - and that means Linux (my preferred desktop) and Android (smartphone and tablets).

The bit of your post that I cut out though is quite correct, if there's one company that should be capable of offering a browser product that was seamlessly cross-platform I'd put my money on Microsoft. One of my PM's put their finger on it, "it doesn't have to be perfect, just notably better than the competition ... or at least, less annoying".

It is an interesting one. Personally, I tend to use Microsoft products for my desktop and mobile needs and so, their current products work great for me but with the small market share that windows phone has, I can see the requirement to support the other mobile devices, the same as they have done with Office and Onedrive. This will (hopefully) bring more consumers into the Microsoft fold. Oh saying that...

"Capable of ..."? Sure.

But .... willing to? Not so sure, personally.

There has (IMHO, of course) long been a mind-set at MS that there's two ways of doing things, the MS way, or the wrong way, and MS philosophy has always tried to ignore any way that isn't the MS way, anything that doesn't live wholly on Planet Microsoft. This has gone, fairly often, as far as trying to use MS market power to undermine and destabilise anything that doesn't live in MS-World. I'm not convinced they've shaken that mindset yet.

Again, an interesting issue when you take other companies into account. Apple for instance, only has the Apple way which is something that I have come across multiple times when trying to use their devices and software in a workplace. I get the impression and this is only my opinion that this idea came from see how Microsoft operated in the old days and the requirement to control how people use those devices to that they just 'work'.

Google is a bit of a different beast as they are more willing to work outside of their product design which works well for them and allows flexibility in the way that those devices are used. Android OS is a great advert for this.

Outside of those main companies, you have the open source area with Linux etc. where everything can be made to work but the controls are not there and so, it take community involvement to make everything work together. I remember when I last tried to use it and AMD graphics drivers were a nightmare to get working.

Companies will want you to stay within their own environment as they can make sure that everything works together and the consumer faces no issues but in the open marketplace we have, I can see how this method of thinking can frustrate consumers when their different devices do not work together.

[Corky34]

There has (IMHO, of course) long been a mindset at MS that there's two ways of doing things, the MS way, or the wrong way, and MS philosophy has always tried to ignore any way that isn't the MS way, anything that doesn't live wholly on Planet Microsoft. This has gone, fairly often, as far as trying to use MS market power to undermine and destabilise anything that doesn't live in MS-World. I'm not convinced they've shaken that mindset yet.

Wasn't that more of a Gates and Ballmer mindset rather than a Microsoft one, granted they set the tone of Microsoft for most of it's life but what'is name seems to have a different attitude.

[Saracen]

It is an interesting one. Personally, I tend to use Microsoft products for my desktop and mobile needs and so, their current products work great for me but with the small market share that windows phone has, I can see the requirement to support the other mobile devices, the same as they have done with Office and Onedrive. This will (hopefully) bring more consumers into the Microsoft fold. Oh saying that...



Again, an interesting issue when you take other companies into account. Apple for instance, only has the Apple way which is something that I have come across multiple times when trying to use their devices and software in a workplace. I get the impression and this is only my opinion that this idea came from see how Microsoft operated in the old days and the requirement to control how people use those devices to that they just 'work'.

Google is a bit of a different beast as they are more willing to work outside of their product design which works well for them and allows flexibility in the way that those devices are used. Android OS is a great advert for this.

Outside of those main companies, you have the open source area with Linux etc. where everything can be made to work but the controls are not there and so, it take community involvement to make everything work together. I remember when I last tried to use it and AMD graphics drivers were a nightmare to get working.

Companies will want you to stay within their own environment as they can make sure that everything works together and the consumer faces no issues but in the open marketplace we have, I can see how this method of thinking can frustrate consumers when their different devices do not work together.

I take the point, but I'd argue that MS and Apple are actually different. Apple's stance seems to be, a bit like Rolex, keeping the product a bit elitist and attracting people (well, most people) by having that almost iconic, fashion-statement, must-have factor.

MS, on the other hand, and at least in regards to Windows products, act in a much more monopolistic way than a 'premium' desire-driven way, a la Apple. So, for instance, in attempting to ram MUI down people's throats that have exactly the same arrogant mindset that IBM used to have.

You'd think, though, that MS would be aware of what tends to happen to arrogant, monolithic monopolistic companies like IBM, MS having been the one that taught IBM that very lesson.

And what happens, by the way, is that users (otherwise known as "customers") get fed up with being treated in an offhand, cavalier and high-handed manner and, given half a chance, desert in droves because they're fed up with being dictated to. And by the time that arrogant monolithic company has woken up to the danger, the point of no return is way, WAY gone.

Building bad feeling with customers is FAR easier than building a good name, and rebuilding customer relations after bad blood has been established is orders of magnitude harder again. If indeed, it's possible at all.

[Saracen]

Wasn't that more of a Gates and Ballmer mindset rather than a Microsoft one, granted they set the tone of Microsoft for most of it's life but what'is name seems to have a different attitude.

Maybe, but recent actions make me doubt it. For instance, the Win8 MUI debacle. But also, some relatively recent u-turns, like XBO always-on, and even permanently active Kinect.

There is either that self-same arrogance going on, or some appallingly lousy market research.

Know what it puts me in mind of? This year's Apprentice episode where a team leader sent a sub-team out to get market research feedback on product choice, then absolutely ignored it and did the absolute opposite.

[Corky34]

Wasn't all those things decided before Satya Nadella took over ?
Either way i guess it's going to take time for Microsoft and it's employes to change a mindset they have had for over 30 decades.