Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Internet Explorer Not Dead Yet 498

Posted by Zonk
from the doesn't-want-to-go-on-the-cart dept.
turnitover writes "The future's not all Firefox, Deer Park and Camino, insists Microsoft. At its Mix '06 conference in Las Vegas, reports Microsoft Watch, company execs insisted that there's a bright future for IE. They not only distributed a 'layout-complete' build of IE 7.0, but offered hints about what the new version of the browser geeks love to disdain (yes, it will include ActiveX) will include. Also shown: tools to test IE compatibility. But with what? Standards or IE 6?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Explorer Not Dead Yet

Comments Filter:

  • Also shown: tools to test IE compatibility. But with what? Standards or IE 6?

    Right.

    "See? It it renders these pages, full of our own standards, the W3c be damned. What's not to like?"

    Wait, wait.. OK, never mind. I thought I was going to be whelmed by word of IE 7.0, not overwhelmed mind you, but only whelmed. But the feeling passed, I'm OK now. Really.

    Honestly, I use Firefox for almost everything simply because I prefer the way it behaves, meaning, it behaves.

    Mar. 17, 2006, 50th anniversary of

    • I can't explain where standards are, but Bueller took the day off.
    • Not dead yet but not verry popular in my business. We only use it for some MS update, we are curently replacing Office for OpenOffice.org, but wait... Google is preparing something too ;-)
    • Also shown: tools to test IE compatibility. But with what? Standards or IE 6?

      Most probably neither, if we're to judge by history...
  • ACID 2.0 Test (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    When Microsoft IE can pass the ACID 2.0 Test come back to me.

    Sincerely,

    Firefox Fan
    • by ELProphet (909179) <davidsouther@gmail.com> on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:40PM (#14944063) Homepage
      Neglecting Firefox's inability to pass Acid 2.0. this [opera.com] might be better for you.
      • Neglecting Firefox's inability to pass Acid 2.0.

        Where I went to school, 70 percent was a D- but still "passing". Therefore, I consider a 70% intact face on Acid2 to constitute "passing". Opera is the first web browser to get 100% and run on Microsoft Windows, but Firefox is still "passing" by the school standard. IE 7, on the other hand, is still nowhere near 70%.

    • When Firefox can pass the Acid 2.0 Test, come back to me.

      Sincerely,

      Opera 9tp Fan

      (disclaimer, not bashing FF, just found the previous comment to be an offer too tempting to turn down)
      • The GP poster never claimed Firefox passes the ACID2 test. But at least they're working on it, and the current rendering is 100 times better than IE7's blood-stained test.
      • Re:ACID 2.0 Test (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AeroIllini (726211)
        When Opera opens its source, come back to me.

        Sincerely,

        Firefox Fan

        (disclaimer, not bashing Opera, just found the previous comment to lack perspective.)

        ------

        In all seriousness, Opera is a fantastic browser. I used it for a while and enjoyed the experience immensely. However, I prefer to use Open Source apps whenever possible, and since Firefox is as good as Opera and open source to boot, I prefer it. Personally, I don't care whether people use Firefox or Opera or Professor Whantunkel's Fantastical Whizz-Ban
    • Re:ACID 2.0 Test (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kimvette (919543) on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:51PM (#14944166) Homepage Journal
      While I am also a Firefox fan and use it despite Konqueror's being very nice and passing the Acid2 test, it should be pointed out that Firefox does NOT pass the Acid2 test. At least, Firefox/1.5.0.1 does not. The dev tree might, but who counts that? One may as well claim that Looking Glass [sun.com] is the best operating environment ever - but since it's vaporware/unreleased it would be a false statement.

      Sure, Firefox breaks less than IE does when loading the Acid2 test, however by a strict measurement, only one (two) browsers to date pass Acid2:

      KHTML (Safari/Konqueror)

      If you want to count dev trees/beta releases, then you've got:

      Opera
      Firefox

      Also, I think it's great that the Opera folks are almost mocking Microsoft, and challenging them to pass Acid2. Aside from KHTML which is there, and MSIE which TOTALLY pukes on it, Every other browser is almost rendering Acid2 to be recognizable as a smiley face. At least everyone else is attempting to handle proper CSS and bad CSS correctly, e.g, render compliant CSS, and downgrade gracefully on broken CSS.

      What MSIE renders could just as well be accomplished by splashing paint on a sheet of canvas. With the way Microsoft is handling things, I wonder why they don't just ignore CSS altogether and turn their browser into a random pixel renderer?

      Get with the program, Microsoft. You have the greatest market share so it is in your best interest for maintaining your share to act responsibly. I hope the mass reaction to MSIE 7.0 is for major sites to either block the browser, or to use CSS which causes MSIE to totally break, and for those sites to recommend all browsers which are not MSIE as alternatives.

      Microsoft has held the web back long enough with their refusal to implement proper PNG rendering - their holding back the web has to stop now.
      • Re:ACID 2.0 Test (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TheoMurpse (729043)

        I hope the mass reaction to MSIE 7.0 is for major sites to either block the browser, or to use CSS which causes MSIE to totally break, and for those sites to recommend all browsers which are not MSIE as alternatives.

        As a web developer, I'd love it if IE would support fully CSS, but as web developers, our loyalties are to the end user; writing code that will break on 30% of their browsers is a failure to perform our job adequately. That's like a doctor saying, you know, I'm just not going to help fat peop

    • Re:ACID 2.0 Test (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CastrTroy (595695)
      I think I heard that safari passed the ACID 2.0 test, and then I hear tons of people complaining that Safari doesn't render things properly. The ACID 2.0 test is not some wonderful test that verifies your browser will render all HTML/CSS content perfectly. You could program your browser specifically to pass the test, and it still may not render everything properly. Reminds me of video card manufacturers tweaking their drivers to get higher frame rates on Quake 3.
  • translation (Score:5, Funny)

    by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:33PM (#14943988)
    Translation: We're working on ways of tying this thing even further into our operating system than before.
  • Oh boy! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:33PM (#14943990)
    I can't WAIT to watch the objective analysis that this thread will surely contain.
    • Re:Oh boy! (Score:3, Insightful)

      I can't WAIT to watch the objective analysis that this thread will surely contain.

      Analysis? What is there to analyze? MS issued bunch of PR about Internet Explorer that fails to address the most egregious failings of the product. It has control of the market with this pile of crap simply because they bundled it with their monopoly OS. The consumers are suffering, but that is old news and this does nothing to make most of us believe it will change.

  • Ash (Score:5, Funny)

    by thatguywhoiam (524290) on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:33PM (#14943994)
    "Its a trick. Get an axe."
    • Re:Ash (Score:2, Funny)

      by Mayhem178 (920970)
      Us: Gimme some sugar, baby.
      M$: Okay! *hands over IE 7.0*
      Us: Ugh!
      M$: You found me beautiful once...
      Us: Honey, you got real ugly!
  • by RLiegh (247921) * on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:34PM (#14943998) Homepage Journal
    But it's certainly beginning to smell like it is!
    • Or...

      With proper technology, even Frankenstein's monster could be resurrected.
      Doesn't mean it's a good idea though.

    • by Tackhead (54550) on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:56PM (#14944201)
      > But it's certainly beginning to smell like it is!

      Dont' worry, it'll be stone dead in a minute.
      $ rm -rf /source/vista/ie7/*

      But seriously...

      User: I wish to make a complaint!
      Ballmer: (hurriedly) Sorry, we're about to ship Vista.
      User: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this web browser, what came bundled not five years ago from this very operating system.
      Ballmer: Oh yes, IE, ah, version 6. What's, ah... W-what's wrong with it?
      User: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It's dead, that's what's wrong with it.
      Ballmer: No, no, It's ah... it's undergoing a security upgrade.
      User: Look, matey, I know a dead browser when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
      Ballmer: No no, i-it's not dead, it's... getting its user interface upgraded!
      User: User interface?
      Ballmer: Y-yeah, the UI. Upgradin'. Remarkable browser, IE, isn't it, eh? Beautiful layouts!
      User: The layout-complete build don't enter into it. It's stone dead!
      Ballmer: Nononono, no, no! 'E's bein' upgraded!
      User: All right then, if he's bein' upgraded, I'll run 'im!
      (starts typing)
      IEXPLORE.EXE! C:\MYDOCU~1\HELLO.JPG
      Looky looky looky! Happily rendering the Goatse Guy! Hey, IE, I've got lots of lovely RAM for you if you're running, Mr. Internet Explorer!)
      (pounds keyboard)
      Ballmer: There, the page refreshed!
      User: No, he didn't, that was you clicking reload!
      Ballmer: I never!!
      User: Yes, you did!
      Ballmer: I never, never....
      (pounding Ctrl-Alt-Del on the keyboard again)
      User: HELLO, WORLD! HELLO TASK MANAGER! PLEASE WAKE UP!
      Now that's what I call a dead browser.
      Ballmer: No, no.... No, it's just running a signed ActiveX Control in the background.
      User: A ACTIVEX CONTROL!?!?
      Ballmer: Yeah! You invoked an ActiveX control, just as it was wakin' up! Believe me, IE runs those easily, major!
      User: Look my lad, I've had just about enough of this. That browser is definitely deceased, and when I booted its PC up after buyin' it not half an hour ago, you assured me that the PC's total lack of computational power was due to it being tired and shagged out after a prolonged virus scan.
      Ballmer: Well, he's... it's, ah... probably needin' activation and authorization with Windows Genuine Advantage.
      User: WINDOWS Genuine ADVANTAGE?!? What kind of talk is that? Look, why did the OS crash flat on its back the moment I plugged it into the router?
      Ballmer: The Norwegian Bluescreen prefers kippin' on its back! Remarkable UI, though, isn't it, guv, eh? Lovely layout-complete screenshots!
      User: (coldly) Look, I took the liberty of examining that browser cache when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that the PC had anything to run on its hard drive in the first place was that it had been bundled in there along with the spyware and the DRM.
      Ballmer: Well, of course it has DRM there! If I hadn't bundled that browser and nailed everything down with DRM, all the content would have nuzzled up to those wires at the back, bent 'em apart with its little bits, and VOOM!
      User: "VOOM?" Look matey, this browser wouldn't "voom" if you put four thousand kilobytes of W3C standards through it! It's bleedin' demised!
      Ballmer: It's not! I-It's just authenticating!
      User: It's not authenticatin,' it's passed on! This browser is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late software release! It's a stiff! Bereft of RAM, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the system with DRM and your monopoly it'd be pushing up the daisies! Its spawned processes are of interest only to historians! It's hopped the twig! It's shuffled off this mortal coil! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This.... is an INACTIVE X!
      Ballmer: Well, I'd better upgrade it, then.

      (I'll stop it now. It's silly.)

  • by Jesselnz (866138) on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:36PM (#14944018)
    I'm sure FreeBSD is saying the same thing...
  • In other news.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:36PM (#14944021) Homepage Journal
    Honda claims next year's Hondas will be the best cars ever, Magnavox claims to produce the greatest ever stereo system, and Goya state that their upcoming batch of red kidney beans are going to be the absolute mind-blowingly best batch of red kidney beans ever set upon by human sensory organs.

    Why is it news when a company advertises its own products?
    • Re:In other news.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Firehed (942385) on Friday March 17, 2006 @03:32PM (#14944513) Homepage
      Especially when their products have upwards of 80% market share... Don't get me wrong, I love Firefox, but it hasn't come anywhere near killing off IE. Honestly I still can't see why MS cares - if nobody uses their browser, less coding for them and less potential tech support. MSN Search, maybe; but the browswer itself, being freely available and all, is hardly a money-spinner.
      • Re:In other news.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TexasDex (709519) on Friday March 17, 2006 @08:38PM (#14946210) Homepage
        They give away the browser for free for a reason, and that isn't because they're nicer than Netscape. Microsoft stands to benifit enormously from being the only browser on the market. All the IE-only web pages that just plain won't work right under Linux or OSX help keep Microsoft's OS monopoly firmly entrenched. If HTML/Javascript/XML/etc were truly standardized then people would realize that they could use whatever operating system they wanted, and Microsoft would lose out.
  • by clevershark (130296) on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:36PM (#14944026) Homepage
    The decision was cheered as "guaranteed work for the next decade" by computer security experts worldwide.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:37PM (#14944031)
    I have not heard it reported anywhere, but note that Microsoft will be hosting an "IE7 Compat Lab" at Mix '06, where developers can test their applications for compatibility with the latest IE test builds. As Microsoft itself has acknowledged, there could be app-compatibility hiccups with IE 7.0.

    I have read that Microsoft acknowleding on the Mix '06 Web site, "reduced need to hack around quirks in older browsers, however, means that existing pages written specifically for older browsers may render differently in IE7. In addition, IE7 includes a number of new security features which may have impact on binary extensions such as toolbars, browser helper objects, and ActiveX controls."
    • The sad thing is that there are two rendering modes for Internet Explorer, "quirks", where it intentionally gets things wrong regarding the W3C specifications, and "strict", where it unintentionally gets things wrong regarding the W3C specifications.

      Decent web developers make sure they trigger strict mode, because, although it's still atrociously bad, it's still a bit more compliant than quirks mode.

      However Internet Explorer 7's updates that break compatibility do so only for one of the modes. Guess

  • by Pantero Blanco (792776) on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:38PM (#14944040)
    I don't know about a bright future, but it's not going away any time soon. I'm not sure how massive a screw-up it would take for IE to lose its largest customer base - the people who can't be bothered to look for anything else or don't know anything else exists.

    As long as the Gecko crowd and Opera manage to hold on to enough marketshare to force web developers to use REAL standards instead of Microsoft's so that my browser of choice works, I'll be content.
  • by otis wildflower (4889) on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:38PM (#14944041) Homepage
    .. Or is it pinin' for the fjords? /obvious
  • Yes, but... (Score:5, Funny)

    by GillBates0 (664202) on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:38PM (#14944043) Homepage Journal
    ...has Netcraft confirmed this?
  • What's bright.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fm6 (162816) on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:39PM (#14944055) Homepage Journal
    If "bright future" means technical excellence, then of course this is obvious bullshit. But if it means 90% of the user base, then I'm afraid it's a foregone conclusion.

    The thing is when you're a company like Microsoft and you've got this huge, unstoppable cash flow: you never really have to pay for your mistakes. Which makes it hard for you to stop making them. I hate to be the one to point this out, but Google has the same problem!

  • Extensions (Score:3, Insightful)

    by quokkapox (847798) <quokkapox@gmail.com> on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:40PM (#14944065)
    IE is kind of boring nowadays because it isn't extensible. At least, not voluntarily.

    I just can't imagine installing IE7 on my machine except if I REALLY have to to verify that my websites load and operate with it. And that would be really sad.

    • Re:Extensions (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Osty (16825)

      IE is kind of boring nowadays because it isn't extensible. At least, not voluntarily.

      BS. It's not extensible through HTML/CSS/Javascript like Firefox, but it is extensible, and in many ways even moreso than Gecko-and-XUL-based browsers. You can add new functionality to IE via Browser Helper Objects (BHOs) [wikipedia.org], or embed/extend the browser by referencing the browser COM object.

      BHOs are actually a very powerful way of extending IE. For example, when popup blockers started showing up in other browsers way b

  • The Firefox browser has got some work to be done on it too.

    In my view, the guys at Mozilla should grade the extensions in relation to how stable or otherwise they leave the base Firefox installation. The FoxyTunes extension for example, while being touted as completely compatible with Firefox 1.5.0.x, still makes the tab browsing interface completely inconsistent.

    I also feel that at this point in time, the Firefox interface looks ancient. It's time for a revamp. How about that guys?

    • Firefox interface looking ancient? What would you replace it with, FisherPrice-looking crap? Ugly blue gradients like Office and now OO.o? Apple-style glass effects? Why is it that every time Microsoft or Apple comes out with an ugly new look people think sensible designs are outdated? Count me out! I'd rather have FF look like Motif than Office or the current Netscape version!
  • NOT DEAD YET? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by peterpressure (940132) on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:40PM (#14944071)
    Isn't IE still 90% of the market share? where did this subject line come from?

    Sure I wish it was dead just like everyone else, but last I checked my grandmother wasn't going to download firefox so she can receive RSS feeds and use tabbed browsing...

    what a bias misleading subject...

    i thought /. was completely non biased and objective

    muahahahahahahaha
    • by Ravatar (891374) on Friday March 17, 2006 @03:05PM (#14944284)
      i thought /. was completely non biased and objective

      You must be new here, welcome.
    • Isn't IE still 90% of the market share? where did this subject line come from?

      A Mac user? [slashdot.org]
    • where did this subject line come from?

      From the fact that the only new feature in the past few years was the popup blocker. Microsoft hadn't been arsed to do anything about new features or standards compliance until Firefox came along. The IE "team" was just there to spackle over the latest high-profile security crack.

      IE is still the 500 lb. gorilla in user share terms, but it's a lazy, out-of-shape 500 lb. gorilla.

  • Dead (Score:2, Interesting)

    by certel (849946)
    I still find that IE is faster than FireFox and hope that they can continue to work out the bugs... Wow, am I really saying that? I've tried FireFox and although I am a fan of the browser, I still find that I use IE more.
    • The one time I have to use IE instead of Firefox is for one trivial feature at my bank's website.
      Is it an IE-only function of the bank's software? No.

      It's the "print just this frame" function. My bank's website has a frame layout, and on the lower frame, it shows all my transactions. It's over a secure connection. In IE I can right click and choose to print just this frame(I think that's how it goes), and boom, it prints out my bank statement and I balance the checkbook.

      If I try this in firefox, it insists
  • IE7 [microsoft.com] shows warning messages for 'Reported Phishing Websites.'

    Maybe this will finally catch the 'big one that got away.'
  • by NorbrookC (674063) on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:47PM (#14944134) Journal

    FTA "reduced need to hack around quirks in older browsers, however, means that existing pages written specifically for older browsers may render differently in IE7. In addition, IE7 includes a number of new security features which may have impact on binary extensions such as toolbars, browser helper objects, and ActiveX controls."

    I'm still scratching my head over this. From what I think this says, it means that the pages that relied on the MS specific stuff for IE5x and 6 won't look the same when viewed with IE7. Which doesn't say anything about following standards, or comparing it to how the page looks using FireFox and Opera. And, the new "security measures" will screw up all the toolbars, objects, and ActiveX that they've encouraged web developers to use. Gee, wasn't this why I switched to FireFox in the first place?

    As long as they have an iron grip on the desktop OS, and insist on intertwining it into their OS, of course it has a "bright future." It doesn't mean that it's going to be any more secure (although hope reigns eternal), or be compliant with standards. I'm still trying to work out what the hell they meant.

  • by Foofoobar (318279) on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:47PM (#14944136)
    Sure IE isn't dead yet but by not working with standards, by being overly invasive, by being integrated into the OS and several other mistakes that they REFUSE to correct, they are doing their best to kill it. It's like they are doing there best to ignore the public outcry while cramming something else down there throats.

    Sure Joe Average user doesn't care about these things (at least not directly) but he does care about the indirect problems that these things incur. All he knows is that with Firefox, he doesn't get POPUPS, it lets him modify it to what he wants it to look and act like and it's simple easy and fun to use. Most users completely forget about IE until another applications forces them to open it and asks if they want it to be their default browser.

    Now even universities, schools and businesses are installing Firefox and doing their best to remove all pointers to IE due to security risks. And once the end user becomes familiar with the brwser at work or school, they will be more likely to download it and install it at home.

    There is a reason why some sites show Firefox usage as high as 30%; hell even internally at Microsoft, 8-11% of people use a Mozilla based browser (based on stats from exclusive third party vendors to Microsoft).

    In this case, Microsoft is their own worst enemy and needs to modify their business strategy or else continue to lose market share in the browser.
    • All he knows is that with Firefox, he doesn't get POPUPS, it lets him modify it to what he wants it to look and act like and it's simple easy and fun to use. Most users completely forget about IE until another applications forces them to open it and asks if they want it to be their default browser.

      Um, IE has had a popup blocker for years now, and the average user doesn't even know you can plug things in.

      There is only one reason Firefox has gained marketshare: IE's vulnerability to spyware. If they fix t

      • There is only one reason Firefox has gained marketshare...

        People need a really good reason to use something other than what works well enough

        People need several reasons. One isn't generally enough to cause people to change from something they are comfortable with and used to. You may think it is only one reason but it is a combinations of issues that have plagued their browser. Lack of CSS support, lack of W3C compliance, activeX vulnerabilities, vulnerabilities to the OS, spyware, viruses, browser hijacki
    • There is a reason why some sites show Firefox usage as high as 30%

      Yep, it's called wishful thinking, or more accurately, Lies.

      All he knows is that with Firefox, he doesn't get POPUPS, it lets him modify it to what he wants it to look and act like and it's simple easy and fun to use.

      You're right, Joe average doesn't care, but IE has a popup blocker, and lets him modify just as easily as firefox. (drag and drop) It's no simpler or easier to use, and the supposed security advantage over IE looks like more

  • IE: I'm not dead yet Firefox: Well you will be soon enough IE: I feel happy, I feel.... *WHACK* Firefox: Thank you very much, see you thursday
  • by Kelz (611260) on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:54PM (#14944189)
    Does it run on Linux?

    *ducks*
  • IE may not be dead now, but if MS don't stop implementing open standards how and if they feel like, IE will be loaded on the cart and clubbed in the head by Eric Idle.

    Sure they've fixed a lot of stuff, but one of the most critical is the lack of support for the application/html+xml mime type.

  • by ichin4 (878990) on Friday March 17, 2006 @02:58PM (#14944216)

    The summary implies that the "right" engineering decision would be to eliminate ActiveX. This is complete bullshit.

    ActiveX is a mechanism that allows compiled code delivered via the web to run on the client. This feature is an absolute must-have for many corporate environments.

    Was Microsoft's ActiveX security framework insufficient? Absolutely. Were their implementation buggy? Yes. Were their security defaults too lax? Certainly. But with a feature as important to your customer base as this, the right solution isn't to cut the feature. It's to fix the problems.

    • I agree 100%. IE has ActiveX. Mozilla has plugins. Both are extensibility interfaces that are essential for web browsing. Properly implemented and secured they are a great asset for the end user. Improperly implemented they just become a security or usability nightmare.

      I'm not convinced either browser does it well yet but Firefox does seem better than IE.
    • well to "fix" activex would require major changes at the OS level to allow safely running untrusted native code.

      personally i think the best option for activex is to leave it completely disabled by default with a hidden setting somewhere for those corps that bought into it (maybe because they didn't have a proper app deployment setup or whatever) to enable it for a few spefic sites. Its most certainly totally inappropriate for the open web.

  • mhm.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by niXcamiC (835033) on Friday March 17, 2006 @03:03PM (#14944259)
    The future's not all Firefox, Deer Park and Camino

    Right, its Opera.

    ducks

  • ...on the Mac. Not that I'm complaining about it. Camino [caminobrowser.org] works just fine for me.
  • ...When Firefox is infinitely and openly extensible?

    A quick visit to the Firefox extensions archive, and anyone can see
    IE is primitive by comparison. I've got at least 15 extensions running
    in Firefox, which add functionality to Gmail, Amazon, Ebay and yes, Hotmail.

    I've also got FireFTP, for in-browser FTP'ing, G-Space for file storage
    on Gmail, weather reporting, in-page/on the fly foreign-currency to dollar conversion,
    a sophisticated download manager, right-click access to Wikipedia, Dictionary.com,
    and Ti
  • by Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) on Friday March 17, 2006 @05:28PM (#14945390)
    Then let's get the mob together, light some torches, march up to the castle, and pound a stake through its fucking heart. That should do it.
  • by Hosiah (849792) on Saturday March 18, 2006 @06:24AM (#14947460)
    That would take several rounds each of silver bullets, wooden stakes, holy water vials, and several pounds of garlic. Not to mention black candles, a goat sacrifice, and a prayer to Cthulhu not to send IE back from the void after we dispatched it.
  • by devnull17 (592326) * on Saturday March 18, 2006 @06:29AM (#14947472) Homepage Journal
    Only on Slashdot will you hear it implied that a product with 65% marketshare [w3schools.com] might be "dead."

Thufir's a Harkonnen now.

Working...