This past week has been big for the web browser world. We saw Microsoft finally release Internet Explorer 8, and Google release their 2nd version of the Chrome Browser. The tech world has essentially rolled their eyes at IE8 since they have already given up on Internet Explorer for several years now in favor of alternatives, primarily Mozilla's Firefox browser. But Google's Chrome browser has started to raise eyebrows since its release in September 2008.
First let's start with Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer still has the biggest share in the market, primarily because it comes standard with Microsoft Windows. A lot of people don't make the switch because they really don't know the advantages that come with some of the alternatives like Firefox, Chrome, or any of the others. They just stick with Internet Explorer because it's already there. Internet Explorer holds about 60-70% of the browser market share split between versions 6 (20-25%) and 7 (40-45%). And now version 8 is hitting the interwebs and so far for the first week, there's not much that has changed, but why expect a giant flood of adopters? IE7 started off slowly and since IE8 is not yet even into Microsoft/Windows Update, I fail to see why this is even being analyzed so soon. IE8 was just released, and while I don't want to just flat out bash Microsoft, it's no doubt got some bugs in it. People can guess this and will hold off upgrading. I myself will be holding off as well. And already some early adopters are starting to downgrade to IE7. Again, it's too early to really say anything too harshly about it. And because of this, I don't believe you can really look too hard into IE8's impact. If you really want to see what IE8's impact is, check again in a couple months or when IE8 jumps into the list for Windows Updates.
Web developers have hated IE for quite some time and IE8 is apparently no different. I blogged about this a while back after the first IE8 beta was released and how my site's alignment got screwed up. It was on my old design so I really don't know yet how my new design stacks up. There are certain standards that are accepted for HTML, CSS, and Javascript. Internet Explorer pretty much just laughs at them as Microsoft uses their own standards which have a nasty habit of changing with every version. Essentially what you have now is 4 standards. The W3C Standard (The real standard that Firefox, Safari, etc follow), the IE6 standard, the IE7 standard, and now the IE8 standard. I mean come on, it'd be one thing if you have a standard that differs from the official one, but now devs have to make sure it works on 3 different browsers. Either way, I digress, it'd just be sooooo much nicer if Microsoft just adopted the W3C standards and stuck with them.
Google Chrome is where things get interesting. I downloaded the 2.0 beta and this browser is FAST. Javascript heavy sites like Google Docs, Reader, GMail and sites in general are amazingly fast. So fast it almost makes Firefox look bad, and by far makes IE look like a turtle in comparison. I mean in today's world with Broadband adoption picking up a lot more than say 10 years ago, speed in web browsers probably isn't a huge deal so long as they're not super slow, but I have been impressed so far by Chrome 2.0, so much in fact that I've switched over to it on Windows. The one thing that I like about Firefox is its extensibility. Through extensions and addons, you can add to Firefox's feature set. Well apparently Chrome 2.0 has the foundations for extensions as well. You put that into Chrome and I'd definitely be curious to see what happens.
The browser war isn't going anywhere anytime soon, different people have different wants when it comes to browsers, but it's nice to see some healthy competition. It wasn't that long ago when all you really had was Internet Explorer. And now, we see IE's marketshare starting to fade. Competition brings about improvements with each company trying to get the leg up over the other. Stay tuned too because Firefox 3.5 is still under development for release sometime later this year.
Microsoft just announced that there will be 6 different versions of Windows 7. Read that again...SIX versions. Why pray tell do you need to release 6 versions of one operating system? Does anyone remember Windows XP? There were 3 versions. Professional which included better network administration tools for businesses; Home for most home users, and later down the line Media Center which was Windows XP Pro with you guessed it, media center capability. Then came Vista with 4 versions (at least 4 anyway). Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate, and I can safely say I'm honestly not quite sure what all the differences are between them, only that Ultimate was the best. (as if the name didn't sort of give that away) And Now Microsoft is going even higher with 6.
Let's ignore for the moment how silly releasing 6 different versions of essentially the same piece of software sounds. To a not-so-technical user, giving them 6 different versions of Windows 7 to choose from is going to confuse them to no end. They're going to go to the store and see 6 different versions and probably have no clue as to which version is the one they need or want. And in all honesty there will probably be 2 versions of each version as well (1 for the upgrade license and another for the stand alone install). And if they go to a place like Walmart or Best Buy to purchase it, heaven help them because I've listened to some conversations between customers and the employees and was amazed how off a lot of the employees were on a lot of the technical answers they were giving. So now, not only are the customers going to be confused as to which version to get, but they may also very well get some bad answers to questions they ask in their attempt to get the correct version.
In all seriousness though, Microsoft really should go back to 1 or 2 versions. One version would be great because it would be simple, and many people including myself like simple. But even two versions wouldn't be too bad. A version geared towards the business environment, something Microsoft really needs to win back, and a version for the normal home user. Simplicity helps, the last thing you want to do is to make it more complicated for the consumer.
This commercial pretty much says it all.
Microsoft earlier in the month released the public beta of their upcoming Windows 7 operating system. And while I have not yet had the chance to take the plunge, what I've been hearing about it seems to show a huge improvement over the ill-fated Vista.
Microsoft seems to have acknowledged that Microsoft Windows Vista was a failure and a flop. Between the bloat and the Vista-Capable debacle many people steered clear of the OS, including which was probably the biggest blow, companies and businesses. Microsoft depends a lot on businesses purchasing licenses and using their operating system so when the majority of corporate IT departments opted to stick with Windows XP, the nail was hammered in just a little deeper. It got so bad that a lot of the computer companies were offering XP downgrades (upgrades) on new systems (normally for a price). Needless to say, this has since given Microsoft a black eye as what was supposed to be "a huge improvement" over XP, was actually being passed up for XP. It has also probably had a hand in the growth of Apple's OS X and the Linux operating system.
So because of all that, Microsoft pretty much has to dig themselves out of the grave they dug for themselves and so far it seems like Windows 7 is starting to do just that. From the seemingly better performance and the new UI, Microsoft appears to have at least somewhat sturdy footing to begin the rise back up. The question remains though as to how much the new Windows 7 can help and how long this seemingly good press will last. Windows 7 remains in beta so some bugs found in the OS can be attributed to its beta status, but if future fixes or future bugs cause more issues with the OS, then this good press can quickly do a 180 and lead Microsoft right back to where they started. With all that said, more people are also going to have to be convinced that the new Windows 7 is not just a "new Vista". That's the thing with reputations, once you have a reputation, its hard to change it. And in Microsoft's case, right now its a bad reputation.
VS 
By now, I'm sure you're all aware that Windows Vista, Microsoft's latest operating system is taking the world with a lot of criticism, and with Windows XP's end of life fast approaching at the end of June, many people may very well be in a dilemma on what to do.
First things first, Windows XP's end of life is June 30, 2008, less than 2 months away. What this means is that vendors are no longer supposed to sell Windows XP either standalone versions, or bundled OEM versions. Although there are a few exceptions to this, namely the budget laptops, but for all intents and purposes, the June 30th date holds. Windows XP, compared to Vista requires far less system requirements to run so older computers normally will have no problem running the XP operating system. This in itself is what leads to the dilemma. People with older machines may want to upgrade their computer and may not want to spend the extra money for a computer that can truly handle the lofty Vista requirements. This can be particularly problematic for the current high school seniors who are heading out to college in August and September who will be buying new computers. Do you buy the computer now so you can get XP with it, do you suck it up and just deal with Vista on a computer that may not be truly able to handle it, or do you buy a standalone copy of XP and just wipe the Vista install on the new computer. None of the options are incredibly pretty. A lot of computer companies have deals late July and early August for the "going away to college" crowd which can save a fair amount of money, but this would be after the June 30th cut-off. Buying the computer now, should still allow for the purchasing of a computer with XP, but the price savings wouldn't be there. And of course buying XP now and installing it later on the new computer bundled with Vista would probably negate most of the savings since you'd pretty much be buying 2 operating systems and only using the one.
Despite all my criticisms of Vista, I have since installed it on my desktop and I don't hate it as much as I used to, especially after turning off the damned UAC. Vista for me has been running smoothly, some of the new UI features are actually pretty nice, but my desktop computer is for all intents and purposes, different from the norm. My desktop is not the run-of the-mill basic computer, it is relatively powerful and rates a 5.6 on Vista's hardware rating. Most basic laptops and desktops you would buy from companies like Dell are not specced nearly has high as my Desktop so they wouldn't be able to run Vista nearly as well as I can. And this is where my criticism of Vista really is rooted. Vista's system requirements are too high for an operating system. XP has a relatively good balance between minimum requirements and the computers capable of running it (at least as far as Windows goes). And it's because of this that consumers might find it tricky to figure out what they want to do about future desktop purchases and if they want to give Vista a shot or not.
A few things to note are that Windows XP SP3 support continues til 2014 so software updates will still be available to you after June 30, 2008. Another note is that Dell has mentioned that they plan to continue to sell XP even after the end of life date passes. Whether this means that Microsoft may again extend the June 30 cut-off or if Microsoft will put a stop to Dell's plans remains uncertain.
Of course Windows XP and Vista are not the only choices people have for new computers. Apple computers are growing in popularity and rightfully so. Macs have become solid machines of late and their OS X operating system is definitely a good alternative to Windows, and something I would personally reccommend. Another choice of course is Linux, particularly Ubuntu which in my opinion is a friendly Linux Distribution for someone new. In fact, Dell actually sells machines pre-installed with Ubuntu. You can check out these hints if you're trying to get someone to switch over to Linux.
Some of those that know me could possibly call me a fanboy of both Apple, Linux, or the XBOX (yes, I know the last one is almost a contradiction in terms since its made by Microsoft and I tend to favor Microsoft's competition over its Windows OS). I however take a different stand. I don't consider myself a fanboy of Apple, Linux, or XBOX. Yes, I love my Mac, my iPod, my iPhone, my Linux server, and my XBOX 360, but does preferring one platform over another really make you a fanboy?
So this leads me to my question: What exactly constitutes a fanboy?
I've heard some people say that if you prefer company A's product over company B's, then you are a Company A fanboy. I don't believe this is true. To be a fanboy in my opinion, you must love a product so much that you will jump on any opportunity to badmouth any competition, ignoring anything that the competition might actually be doing better than your product. Fanboys tend to be relatively close-minded on issues surrounding whatever it is that their product or company is involved in. We'll take the gaming consoles for the example. A Microsoft XBOX fanboy would be so into the XBOX that he would be blind and try to find a negative spin on anything that Sony or Nintendo might come out with for the PS3 or Wii, even if what Nintendo or Sony does is better than how Microsoft happens to do it for the 360.
I'll say it first, being ignorant goes nowhere, and fanboism is no exception. Take me for example, I much prefer OS X over Windows, hands down, no second guessing with pretty much no competition. Do I hate Windows? Do I hate Microsoft? No, I don't. I don't like some of the things Microsoft does, I don't like some of the ways Windows does what it does, but that doesn't mean I hate them. And even though I love OS X, I still dislike some of Apple's practices. And this is pretty much the core reason why I don't consider myself a fanboy. I recognize Windows strengths, despite my fondness towards both of it's competitors, OS X and Linux. And the same goes towards Sony's PS3 and Nintendo's Wii compared to my preferred console, the XBOX 360. In the end competition is what drives markets, and operating systems and gaming consoles are no exception. Without competition, there would be less motivation for companies to improve upon their product lines. Can you imagine still working on machines with Windows 98 if Linux or Mac weren't around and Microsoft was less motivated to come up with something new? I'm sure that's an extreme situation that probably wouldn't have happened, but competition drives innovation and innovation leads to improvements. So the next time you immediately want to bash a competing site, product, or company, look at it and see what it is all about. Don't just jump to conclusions and bash it blindly. It may be competing with your sacred product, but it may have its own strengths, and in a roundabout way, may very well lead to improvements for your side of the fence.