Microsoft forced people to install their browser (2010)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Microsoft’s bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows in the late 1990s and early 2000s is revisited as an example of how a dominant platform can distort web standards, lock in users, and burden developers with compatibility hacks. Commenters compare that era to today’s browser landscape, arguing that Google’s Chrome and Apple’s Safari now wield similar power through de facto standards, app store rules, and OS-level nudges that limit real choice. Many see technical progress in web compatibility since the IE6 days, but contend that platform control, dark patterns, and security trade-offs have simply shifted rather than disappeared.

Legacy of IE for Developers

  • Many recall IE as technically painful: large fractions of UI code were IE-specific workarounds, especially around layout.
  • Others argue IE introduced important ideas early: the “correct” box model (relative to what came later), early embedding approaches, DOM manipulation for “web apps,” and XMLHttpRequest.
  • There is disagreement on standards behavior: some say all vendors bent standards; others cite extensive Mozilla bug history and tests (e.g., Acid) showing strong efforts toward conformance and often following W3C choices that favored Microsoft’s earlier CSS work.

Standards, De-facto Standards, and Flash

  • Debate over what counts as an “internet standard”: formal specs vs widely deployed proprietary tech.
  • Flash is cited as a de-facto standard that “everyone had”; others stress it was proprietary, insecure, and never standardized.
  • Some praise Apple/Jobs for helping kill Flash; others note late mobile Flash was resource-hungry and poorly optimized.

Chrome, Safari, and “New IE” Arguments

  • Some see Chrome as the new IE: massive market share, sites optimized only for it, ability to set de-facto standards, conflicts of interest around ads, and alleged deliberate degradation on competitors.
  • Others propose Safari as the new IE: on iOS it’s effectively mandatory, with WebKit-only engines restricting web capabilities and tying developers to Apple’s pace.
  • Counterpoint: Safari’s global share and behavior are argued to be far less damaging than IE6-era stagnation.

OS Integration, Lock-in, and User Choice

  • Historical IE–Windows integration is compared to today’s practices:
    • Windows 10/11 pushing Edge (popups, special URI schemes, some apps ignoring default browser).
    • Difficulty changing defaults, and Edge reasserting itself after updates.
  • Some feel Microsoft’s old behavior was benign compared to current dark patterns; others emphasize that earlier attempts to fuse browser and OS were a serious threat to an open web.
  • iOS’s WebKit-only rule is criticized as freezing web standards and preventing real browser competition; defenders argue it brings security and performance benefits.

Security, Runtimes, and Updates

  • Using a single, well-audited runtime (browser engine, PDF.js, Electron/CEF) is seen as both a security win and a centralization risk.
  • Views split on Windows Update: some disable it to avoid unwanted changes and performance hits; others call this irresponsible and security‑risky.