Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft forced people to install their browser (2010)

toastytech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 142 posts

Re: Microsoft forced people to install their browser (2010)

#131

Post by scarface_74 »

android42 wrote: post #88
scarface_74 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flash was an “internet standard”??? Adobe claimed that it could have gotten Flash working on the original iPhone in 2007 if Apple had allowed it. When Flash did finally come to mobile in 2010, it required 1GB of RAM and a 1Ghz CPU on Android and then it barely worked and wrecked hell on the battery. The original iPhone came with 128MB of RAM and a 400 MHz CPU. An iPhone with those specs didn’t come out until 2011.

They probably half assed the android one, but would have allocated more resources to it if it had a future. I had flash 5 running just fine on my 2004 palm with 32MB of RAM and a 312 MHz CPU. This also would have been Macromedia though and not Adobe, not sure how many of the original developers they kept.

That wasn’t full desktop Flash. That was a very lite version that wasn’t compatible with what was then the latest version.

Do you really think that Adobe could have optimized Flash to support hardware that had eight times less RAM and was half as fast four years earlier?

Re: Microsoft forced people to install their browser (2010)

#132

Post by extraduder_ire »

throwawaysugar wrote: post #91
askonomm wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you install Firefox without using Edge? By default there is no other browser on Windows, and presumably you need a browser to visit firefox.com, no? Or you carry Firefox installer around on a USB with you?

Winkey+R and then powershell -Command "& {Invoke-WebRequest -Uri 'https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-latest&os=win64&lang=en-US' -OutFile 'Firefox.exe'}" Not saying it's ergonomic but since you asked ;-)

Don't think they still have an FTP site, but I used the trick of opening ftp.mozilla.org in explorer to get an installer at least twice during the XP era. That said, I also used the MSN browser for fun sometimes, as well as web browsing in explorer.exe.

Re: Microsoft forced people to install their browser (2010)

#133

Post by ikari_pl »

lupusreal wrote: post #53
ikari_pl wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, Microsoft was fighting against the whole concept of a browser as separate from its OS you mean, just like the Good Guy ChromeOS?

It feels like your comment is about 10 years too late, most people here are now very sour towards Google. They no longer have their sterling "good guy" reputation.

Yes, it was a little sarcastic and under an article about Internet Explorer, which isn't exactly the number one public enemy anymore either. A few thoughts:

At some point, the ideas of a browser, and an OS, seemed to converge a lot - expose more of the machine to the browser (webapps), provide task and memory management for the sites and webapps... More and more functionality overlapped. From that point of view, maybe the argument to see them as connected made a lot of sense - the deeper the integration, the less double work might be happening, maybe. The cost, however, is always portability, or at least interoperability.

But as much as "having common code everywhere is good", I think switching all browsers to Chromium is not the way to go either.

Re: Microsoft forced people to install their browser (2010)

#134

Post by 2Gkashmiri »

RunSet wrote: post #96
tinus_hn wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then again, iOS is a better OS because it can get away with supporting no third party browser engines.

Then again, Firefox is worse on iOS because Apple can get away with banning third party browser engines.

This really grinds my gears. Recently I was able to install Firefox addons and chrome addons on Orion browser on iPad when both chrome and firefox themselves arent able to. Why?

If Orion can do it, why not Firefox ?

Re: Microsoft forced people to install their browser (2010)

#135

Post by Zambyte »

askonomm wrote: post #89
xoac wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wtf I just install Firefox and literally don't even register that Edge exists. Have used 11 since the beta. People make this into some very big issue while ignoring that the only real monopoly in this space is Google.

How do you install Firefox without using Edge? By default there is no other browser on Windows, and presumably you need a browser to visit firefox.com, no? Or you carry Firefox installer around on a USB with you?

Is Firefox not in the Windows package manager?

Re: Microsoft forced people to install their browser (2010)

#136

Post by throwawaysugar »

jodrellblank wrote: post #126
throwawaysugar wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Winkey+R and then powershell -Command "& {Invoke-WebRequest -Uri 'https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-latest&os=win64&lang=en-US' -OutFile 'Firefox.exe'}" Not saying it's ergonomic but since you asked ;-)

-Command “& {thing}” is the same as -Command “thing”

Makes sense, sorry... I hate PowerShell tbh. I just googled/ChatGPT'd that!

Re: Microsoft forced people to install their browser (2010)

#137

Post by freediver »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #134
RunSet wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then again, Firefox is worse on iOS because Apple can get away with banning third party browser engines.

This really grinds my gears. Recently I was able to install Firefox addons and chrome addons on Orion browser on iPad when both chrome and firefox themselves arent able to. Why? If Orion can do it, why not Firefox ?

Alignment of incentives. Orion is funded by users and this is what they demand.

https://orionfeedback.org/t/extensions

Re: Microsoft forced people to install their browser (2010)

#138

Post by w0m »

xoac wrote: post #86
askonomm wrote: post #52

It's so much worse now. Ever tried installing a different browser on Win11 now? Edge tries to dark pattern all your info with 10 sneaky popups when you first open it. Then on Chrome's website Edge will show a popup indicating that Edge is better, and you should use Edge instead. Then setting Chrome to be default is also a pain, as you have to do that manually for each file type and protocol now.

Wtf I just install Firefox and literally don't even register that Edge exists. Have used 11 since the beta. People make this into some very big issue while ignoring that the only real monopoly in this space is Google.

As a primarily FF user on windows - I don't recall any of the complaints here being an issue. Odd.

Re: Microsoft forced people to install their browser (2010)

#139

Post by w0m »

smoldesu wrote: post #108
eimrine wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Bigger battery life 2. Decent PDF reader such as STDU, music player such as foobar2000 - if running all of these under Wine the battery life is going to become even less 3. If the computer is not needed to be connected to the Internets even occationally, there is no better option than W7.

> if running all of these under Wine the battery life is going to become even less Citation? Running a Wineserver should use less resources than a complete Win32 runtime.

In my experience, even a 'light' linux distro isn't optimized enough to match Win or osx battery life on the same hardware.

Maybe things have changed since my last test (Ubuntu on my ~2011 MBA installed ~12mo ago)

Re: Microsoft forced people to install their browser (2010)

#140

Post by smoldesu »

w0m wrote: post #139
smoldesu wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if running all of these under Wine the battery life is going to become even less Citation? Running a Wineserver should use less resources than a complete Win32 runtime.

In my experience, even a 'light' linux distro isn't optimized enough to match Win or osx battery life on the same hardware. Maybe things have changed since my last test (Ubuntu on my ~2011 MBA installed ~12mo ago)

Frankly, I think that's more of a Linux problem than a Wine one. You're right that Linux is overall worse at power management than OSX or Windows, but Wine itself is extremely light on any OS it supports. On a resource-constrained machine (eg. >2gb RAM), I'd imagine that Wine would be less resource-intensive than native modern Windows would.
Post reply on HN