From the introduction:
|Original web browsers were applications designed to view static web content. As web sites evolved into dynamic web applications that compose content from multiple web sites, browsers have become multi-principal operating environments with resources shared among mutually distrusting web site principals. |
Nevertheless, no existing browsers, including new architectures like IE 8, Google Chrome, and OP, have a multi-principal operating system construction that gives a browser-based OS the exclusive control to manage the protection of all system resources among web site principals.
The battlefield is laid out - and they mean to Google one better!
IMO this is atypical of MS FUD documents meant to delay consumers from adopting new superior technology, such as Chrome, by muddying the waters with implications that MS will be quickly doing something even better.
[If you don't think Chrome is superior, try running some massively huge AJAX apps in other browsers, but I digress.]
I've actually been on the receiving end of major MS FUD more than once in my career and the best thing Google can do is ignore it because they have a leg up, keep giving customers what they want and need, and ignore the noise.
The noise is just intended to slow down the competition.
Microsoft indeed has a history of sponsoring papers that somehow make them look good. Even when general experience is opposite to the claims made.
I tried to read it but I stumbled on a what I know from my own experience to be untrue (like the table claiming IE7 is faster than Chrome), and then it kicked back into gear: this is research by a company well known for IE6 (a plain nightmare for us CSS people) and for its recently released IE8 (that totally ignores CSS3 and therefore will become the next stumbling block for many years in the road to using CSS3 effectively).
So whatever good in there, why don't they focus on fixing their currently deployed browsers first ?
Afther they get IE6 fixed, IE8 supporting as much as possible from CSS3 -at least to the level of other current browsers-, I might be tempted to read how much better their future lab contraption might be, till then: I don't really care, as what they have crafted and is used out there is the cause of more trouble than any other browser in current use.
Sounds impressive, yet at the same time it strikes me as having no substance.
Given that IE has critical flaws right now that microsoft warn they cannot fix i'm not inclined to bite on this one.
Google diving into Microsoft's world and Microsoft diving into Google's... This is going to be great to watch :D
As with Chrome experience, agreed to incrediBILL
The Gazelle Web Browser plans (or FUD) was published [research.microsoft.com] on Feb 19 09.
Have they moved anywhere in the past 180 days?
BTW: What does the word Gazelle stand for?
A Gazelle is an antelope. An animal known for speed and agility. Says enough about MS's intentions here.
If it weren't for the many bugs and quirks in Chrome, I would agree that it's superior compared to IE.
As it currently stands, I just dislike using either of them.
I'd never use Chrome simply because it gives big brother (Google) another way of spying on what we are all doing online.
They know too much.
FireFox it is for me....
The Gazelle is a weak animal that stays in a large pack for protection and is eaten by smaller packs of predators.
What a perfect metaphor for Microsoft.
Stoutfiles is right, Gazelles roam about in herds - offering up the weakest of the pack to an attacker.
MS needs to understand that as long as 0-day exploits against its current browser keep emerging quite regularly, its priority should be to disable once and for all any functionality that has to do with "multi principal operating environments" - it was a horrible idea in 1996, and it's still as dumb today.
Today's Excel exploit only being the latest in a series...
I go with chrome its great to use