After all but abandoning Internet Explorer since releasing version 6 on August 27, 2001, Microsoft is readying an October launch of Internet Explorer 7. As this article details, the problem is, it’s not ready for prime time, and they’re making it an automatic download. Heck, the video actually demonstrates a rendering bug right under their noses â?? on the IE7 development team’s blog, no less. Support centers â?? brace yourselves!

For us web developers, the promise of Internet Explorer 7 is grand, because the prior version (used by >80% of the world, sadly) is the biggest piece of crapola because it doesn’t adhere to any semblance of standards. This arrogance on the part of Microsoft requires countless hours of testing and tweaking code to create web sites that work well regardless of the browser being used.

Finally, Microsoft has pledged to release a standards-based browser.

But, that just ain’t so. I’m not breaking any news here, for sure. Any web developer worth his salt knows IE7 is another half-baked MS product that only goes part-way to standards compliance. The perfect example of this is the Acid2 Browser Test from the Web Standards Project. This is a tough test that until recently no browser could properly render. But, everywhere but Redmond change happens rapidly, and other companies take this seriously. Even tiny iCab, written by Alexander Clauss, can render the test properly. As an illustration of how broken IE7 (Microsoft’s latest) is, let’s compare the output.

First, the reference rendering, which is basically a smiley face, show below:

Now, compare Apple’s Safari (v2.0.4), the default browser on all Macintosh computers:

And Opera 9.02 on Mac (same results on Windows):

And iCab 3.03:

And FireFox (Mac and Windows are the same):

And, finally, Internet Explorer 7 Release Candidate 1:

Above test notwithstanding, I just had to post the following video, which I think speaks for itself. It is a direct screen capture of the official Microsoft IE7 team blog. There, the program manager for IE7 announced on October 6th that “IE7 Is Coming This Month…Are You Ready?”. Erm, yes and no. Yes, in that the betas and release candidate that I’ve seen do a much better job at rendering web pages to standards (certainly not perfect as the above test illustrates…but believe it or not, WAAAAAY better than Internet Exploder 6). But what makes this a bit worrisome is that the plan, according to Microsoft, is to deliver new browser via Automatic Updates. So, users will have no easy choice. Meaning, we will conform, like it or not. Well, this isn’t really a departure from Microsoft’s tactics, so why complain now? You git what you git and you don’t throw a fit.

Except, the browser really isn’t ready for prime-time. It has numerous bugs, a fact that Monday’s (October 9th) blog posting by IE7 Program Manager Uche Enuha highlights so very succinctly. Seems that on first visiting the comments page, certain content mysteriously moves into a no-display zone on the left side of the screen. A reload corrects the anomaly. But I, for one, don’t want to have to re-author my sites to detect IE7 and force every page to reload so that the end user can actually see my content completely. That’s way too reminiscent of the current approach to Internet Exploder 6.

Video showing a rendering bug in Microsoft Internet Explorer 7

Hint to the Microsoft development team: Look at anchors.

Who’s running the ship over there in Redmond? The lurid tale of software hijinks, hardware foibles, and back-of-the-napkin business plans.

Holy cow. If there was ever a tale of how market share gained through monopolistic practices results in sub-standard products, Microsoft is it. Before you dive headlong down that slippery slope whereby you claim that Microsoft’s lack of vision somehow empowers others to have vision, stop. I’m not talking about the rest of the market place and the products that derive from it. I’m talking about the products Microsoft offers.

Microsoft’s history is replete with examples of a “Not Invented Here’ ethos. Better said, Microsoft has made a mint ripping off ideas from other companies and individuals, and then wedging the consumer into a place where they can only use Microsoft’s offering. Argue all you want, but the proof is in the pudding. How else can you explain a) the practice and b) Microsoft’s 1000-pound weight in a barrel of skinny chimps. Examples: Windows. Internet Explorer. Word. Excel.

In the past, Microsoft’s dismal track record for “creating” products that are both easy to use and reliable has been limited to software. Now, however, Microsoft is taking another approach. They are, my friends, in the hardware business.

Microsoft has (and will be) victimized by questionable business logic, born of the seemingly endless supply of cash that a monopoly like theirs provides (Windows creates $20 billion in yearly revenue…given their snail-like pace in updating that aged piece of hackery, we’re talking nearly 100% profit from that $20 billion). In a nutshell, it goes something like this. In order to dethrone the competition, Microsoft can flood the market with a low-cost version of a product even when it is highly unprofitable. Laws notwithstanding, there is a real anticompetitive stench there. Microsoft did it before (offering Internet Explorer as a free alternative to Netscape Navigator, brain child of Marc Andreesen, which was being sold as a commercial piece of software. Microsoft had to absorb a licensing fee on each copy distributed, losing millions in their bid to destroy up-start Netscape). Now, they’re in the hardware game doing roughly the same thing, though they can’t offer it for free because the devices cost far more than a software licensing fee.

Take XBox for example, Microsoft’s attempt to muscle into the gaming console market dominated by Sony and (to a lesser extent) Nintendo. The result, well, let’s let Steve Balmer, Microsoft CEO, explain:

“Generation one was lose moneyâ??gross margin loss on the console for the lifetime. You’ve got to take a lifetime view. We did have a lifetime view that said if you add all the revenue from selling consoles and all the costs of shipping consoles, it was negative. It was a model that made that back on royalties and third-party games and our own first-party games. We actually thought we could pencil it out.”

So, let’s get this straight. Microsoft’s business model for XBox is one that sacrifices profitability on hardware in exchange for the hopes of royalty revenue down the road. How’d that work for you, Stevo?

“We also didn’t think we would lose as much money as we did because we thought we could charge a premium for a device that had a hard disk in it.” â??Steve Balmer

Source: Business Week

Gotcha. Didn’t work so well. Which explains why XBox 2 is priced up there in the stratosphere.

So let’s take a look at Microsoft’s recent entry into another hardware category: the personal music player space. You know, the one currently dominated by Apple (but started by Creative). This is a market that appeals to a hip young crowd. Now, Microsoft (by anyone’s standard) wouldn’t know hip if it bit them in the ass. No matter. Let’s start that rocking chair a-creakin’, and get a Microsoft product on the market.

They’ve repackaged an already-released player (Toshiba Gigabeat) that has faired poorly on the marketplace. “While we have great respect for Microsoft, we are frankly underwhelmed by the much-hyped Zune device,” American Technology Research analyst Shaw Wu reported. Microsoft has added a few features, but they drastically reduce the already dismal battery performance of the device. As an added bonus, they’ve managed to match Apple’s pricing (even though the economies of scale don’t even come close). And they’ve launched the device in brown.

BROWN.

That big black round thing that one might think replicates the iPod experience? Well, it doesn’t. It’s a glorified grouping of up-down and left-right arrows PRETENDING to be the input device that is so critical to iPod’s ease of use.

Steve Ballmer, Microsoft’s CEO, said his company’s upcoming Zune player fits into the hardware model (you know, the model that gave us XBox), because (now get this): the value, if it’s successful, is all in the software. “It’s in community [the ability to share music and pictures with other Zune users],” he said. “I want to squirt you a picture of my kids. You want to squirt me back a video of your vacation. That’s a software experience.”

Given the color of the thing, I’m not sure “squirt” is going to elicit a positive response amongst the young and the restless.

And then, there’s the whole back-of-the-napkin approach to deal, that makes me shake my head in dismay. It’s XBox all over again:

“The truth is, if it makes money, it will be built into the gross margin on the hardware. We’ll figure out how to make money on the community perhaps later though advertising or other means.” â??Steve Balmer

Source: Business Week

New research prototype with 80 cores detailed by Intel CEO, who promises production versions within 5 years.

Today at the Intel Developer Forum in San Francisco, Intel today revealed a new research prototype processor with 80 floating point cores on a single die. Each core runs at 3.16 GHz, according to Justin Rattner, Intel’s chief technology officer. That’s 80 FPU cores at 3.16 GHz producing (let me do the math at about 0.2 milliFLOPS) 252.8 GHz!

The silicon die on this experimental chip, just 300mm², is capable of achieving a teraFLOPS of performance, or 1 trillion floating point operations per second on a single chip. This is not to be confused with the marketing hype currently being spewed by Microsoft and Sony regarding their gaming consoles being able to pump out teraFLOPS (pure hype and funky math).

CEO Paul Otellini contrasted this with Intel’s historic breakthrough 11 years ago with the world’s first teraFLOPS supercomputer, a computational beast occupying 85 cabinets in 2,000+ square feet, powered by nearly 10,000 Pentium Pro processors. That computer, ASCI Red, was decommissioned this year by Sandia National Nuclear Security Administration, after nine years of use.Of interest is that despite its 10,000 processors, the system was able to average several hundred hours between hardware-caused interrupts, handily beating its design rating of 27 hours between meltdowns.

Otellini pledged to have a commercially available 80-core CPU within the next five years (with, presumably, much improved TTBM [Total Time Between Meltdowns])! That’s both comforting and shocking all in the same breath.

This week Intel announced quad core processors ready for market in November (named Core 2 Quad).

Image courtesy of News.com (http://news.com.com/2300-1006_3-6119652.html)

Interesting Factoids:
Some interesting facts are that the KLAT2 supercomputer at the University of Kentucky cost about $640 per gigaFLOPS. This had fallen to $82/gigaFLOPS when the University of Kentucky installed the KASY0. If one considers the very specialized GPUs in ATI or NVidia video cards, a gigaFLOP today can be had for about $1.

Internet chatter (mere speculation) regarding Apple’s cell phone plans is fascinating, evolving from “Will Apple release an iTunes-enabled phone?” to “When will Apple release and iTunes-enabled phone?”

Apple’s fall from computing dominance was driven in part by the company’s focus on launching market disrupting technology called “Newton”, the first hand-held computer (now called a PDA). In that instance, being first to market nearly destroyed Apple as they fettered away copious amounts of cash and Macintosh market momentum publicly trying to perfect an overpriced, poorly performing device for which most people weren’t yet ready. The icing on the cake was when a large number of Apple employees bolted to join a little company cofounded by Apple veteran Donna Dubinsky called Palm Computing.

Has Apple learned its lesson? I suggest they have, as they appear to be consciously dragging their feet in entering the music-enabled cell phone business. Their 2005 partnership with Motorola to produce an iTunes compatible cellphone resulted in a bit of a marketplace row when the product shipped sporting only meager musical capabilities. Apple’s problem? Heck no. It was a Motorola phone that disappointed, not an Apple phone.

Now, with 25 entrants in this increasingly crowded field, the time is ripe for Apple to make a huge splash in a market that curiously has benefitted from the mere speculation that Apple might come to play. I suspect in hindsight, we’ll marvel at the market awareness of Jobs et. al, in that they sat back, perfected an initial offering that dwarfed those of their early-to-market competitors, without giving up market share in a business where brand allegiance is trumped by feature set. And the iTunes universe is the killer feature set. Yes, Apple appears to have learned that lesson well.

Read more: http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2073

Note: The iPhone rendition above is provided courtesy of MacRumors.com. According to that site, the iPhone will sport the familiar iPod click wheel interface, which will slide down to reveal a normal numeric phone keypad. I suspect that the functionality of the click wheel will be integrated into a touch-sensitive LCD screen, based upon recent US Patent Office applications by Apple for such an interface. Their filing, made September 30, 2005 is titled “Proximity detector in handheld device.” See image below, courtesy of the US Patent Office.