What is this, the FOX News blog?

Alex

hmm why only IE?

IE may be vulnerable, but they're not going to root it out of all new PCs being shipped. Plus, does a move like this make Apple nervous?

The only way this has a shot is if Dell or HP announce Vista shipping with Firefox as the default browser. Even then, the skeptic in me foresee's a service pack that makes IE7 the default again...

After this "ad" I no longer have Google as a search provider.

this explains everything very well..

because you're not a danger for google. but ie users are.. because they are vulnerable to be affected by the default preferences of microsoft.

google does not care your computer/browser is safe or not :)

But back to the new browser wars...

It's no secret that Firefox is the better browser, so why not promote it? In fact, Internet Explorer 7 may only be the third or fourth best browser in cyberspace. That's what the pros at SitePoint declared on a very interesting "Best Browser" poll at http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=433668

I've long suggested that web designers take charge of their profession by promoting superior software, including browsers, rather than bowing to Microsoft's self-imposed standards.

Suggesting that we're merely witnessing a rerun of the the IE-Netscape war is simply stupid. There are so many intriguing plots and subplots swirling around us. First, Internet Explorer is battling several superior browsers, with Firefox alone improving faster than the morons at Redmond can keep up.

Ironically, IE is also battling Microsoft. All the deservedly bad publicity that has been swirling around Vista and Zune can only drag M$ down. Of course, Apple is yet another superior competitor.

Though I'm not ready to bet money on any particular outcome, I think we may have reached a point where all of Bill Gates' stolen funds, dirty tricks and blatant corruption may no longer win the day. For the first time in his pathetic life, Gates is being forced to actually compete, and the spoiled brat just can't hack it.

As the proud owner of a new Apple MacBook Pro laptop running Safari, Opera and Firefox, I'm going to enjoy watching Vista, IE7 and Zune blowing up in millions of suckers' faces. Wake up, folks!

I can't get what you've got showing up (I'm not in the US). But it looks very similar to the type of Firefox promo Google's long done, as covered here:
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060510-082530

As for ads, here's the Da Vinci code on the personalized home page back in April:
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060413-095651

Here's Google Video doing a promo with the NBA on its homepage in January:
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060112-192520

Google Toolbar promo on home page back in October 2005:
http://battellemedia.com/archives/001933.php

Google Desktop promo on home page from March 2005:
http://www.webrankinfo.com/forums/viewtopic_25406.htm

NBC play on top of search results in Feb 2006:
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060210-181845

So, can we bury the "Google never puts advertisements on its homepage" statement once and for all. They do.

Your hatred of MS is clearly irrational. While it's plain that their tactics are somewhat shady, they are hardly the anti-christ. I personally have a lot of respect for the work Bill Gates is doing with his charities.

If you think that Google is somehow promoting Firefox because it wants to help people then you are delusional. Their actions are driven by what helps them and their stockholders, not what helps you. The same applies to any corporation, even your beloved Apple.

All companies are not the same in this regard. Your view that all their actions are fall out of a mathematical equation for optimization of shareholder value is simple-minded.

How does craigslist refusal to sell out to text ads fit into your neat little view of corporate culture? There are many many examples of companies acting with a conscience, (although not as many as those that "cut off the air supply" of competition, to the detriment of the marketplace).

Yes, Opera is yet another browser that's superior to Internet Explorer, as is Safari.

"I haven't seen Google's Opera search page, or Opera ads."

That's probably because Opera isn't open source software.

"Your hatred of MS is clearly irrational."

Oh, really? What makes it irrational, let alone "clearly" so? Did I mention that I live in Bill Gates' backyeard? I've taught in the Seattle public schools and ran for public office four times and have had some experiences with Microshaft. I've also done my homework. That's one reason I'm not so delusional as to imagine that Bill Gates is a genuine philanthropist. Try PUBLIC RELATIONS, paid for with money extorted from consumers and taxpayers. Sheez, he even screwed the taxpayers when choosing a new home for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Some philanthropist.

"While it's plain that their tactics are somewhat shady, they are hardly the anti-christ."

Somewhat shady? Wow, I wonder what you consider criminal behavior.

"I personally have a lot of respect for the work Bill Gates is doing with his charities."

I'd be a lot happier if his charities didn't include public education. Our schools would be so much better off if Bill Gates took a flying leap off a cliff.

"If you think that Google is somehow promoting Firefox because it wants to help people then you are delusional."

So where did I write that??? Ironically, most of Google's visitors would benefit from a superior browser, but I never suggested that Google was following Bill Gates lead in pretending to be some sort of humanitarian organization.

"Their actions are driven by what helps them and their stockholders, not what helps you. The same applies to any corporation, even your beloved Apple."

Wow, brilliant observation, Sherlock. Though, once again, there's a huge gulf between Microsoft's crimes and the sins of its competitors. The CEO's of neither Google nor Apple have fathers who are associated with the sleazy law/lobbying firm of Preston, GATES & Ellis, of Jack Abramoff fame.

Do your homework before you start throwing words like delusional and philanthropist around, fool.

Personally I've tried IE7 and it was very disappointing. Microsoft needs to keep working in this department if they want to keep up.

Dell should give users the option of what browser they want. They give people setup options with everything else, why not the piece of software that people use more than anything else?

I don't want to get into a debate, this is not the place. I just want to say that if you think Bill Gates charity is a PR stunt, then that was a pretty poor way for him to spend $31 billion. Based on the amount of hatred Bill Gates and MS receive, it's obvious they succeed despite their image. I'm sure that if PR was their aim they would have found much more effective and much cheaper ways to achieve that.

Agreed. Owning an army of attorneys helps.

"I'm sure that if PR was their aim they would have found much more effective and much cheaper ways to achieve that."

How can you say Gates' P(R)hilanthropy is ineffective when he's got so many fools believing he's a philanthropist???

And it really isn't that expensive (for Bill Gates). Sheez, he has money gushing in from so many rackets. All he has to do is donate a percentage over tiime and get tons of "free" publicity, tax wrwiteoffs and on and on.

In the meantime, he also uses other strategies that are indeed inexpensive. For example, his wife sits on the board of directors of the Washington Post. Sending computer viruses to political candidates who criticize Mmicrosoft is another very inexpensive strategy for getting ahead.

The fact is that he likes to *win* and it's a good thing for all of us that he's now trying to beat Malaria, Aids and umpteen other world problems as opposed to trying to beat every other operating system on the planet into submission and stay on top of the rich list for as long as possible.

I also think the whole Vista fiasco may have been a bit frustrating for him - trying to save the world's poor from disease and starvation must have seemed like the easy option compared to getting Vista to ship on time.

Of course, all that isn't to say Firefox isn't the better browser, and I don't see a problem with Google promoting it. IE7 is a major step up over IE6, but I don't think it's caught up to firefox yet. The other browsers simply lack the level of extension support that firefox has, so while they might be a smidgen faster, they're not as useful.

LOL! The idea that Bill Gates is a pHilanthropist (just as George W. Bush is pResident) is itself a conspiracy theory.

"Everything I've read about the Gates Foundation suggests that they are truly dedicated to doing good."

Well, there's the problem. You base your opinion on everything you've READ in the corporate media, which is largely controlled by Bill Gates. (I wasn't kidding when I said his wife sits on the Washington Post's board of directors - along with Warren Buffet.) You also need to apply a little logic. Experience also helps, and I've lived in Seattle long enough to see how Bill Gates actually benefits education - NOT.

Hey, if Bill Gates cares so much about the poor, why did he throw a hissy fit when a super cheap computer designed for poor people in other nations was announced? Oh, that's right - it doesn't run on Windows.

"They're not just giving money away to get headlines, they're actually optimising and leveraging their giving for maximum beneficial effect."

That reminds me of another funny item...did you hear about the reception your philanthropist hero got when he spoke at an AIDS forum in Canada not too long ago? He was BOOED. It seems the real AIDS activists can spot a phony who's more interested in photo ops than actually helping people.

"I study these things, I am not easily fooled,"

Oh, please. I think you need to find the COMEDY forum.

"Bill *is* a philanthropist, and a damned good one.

"The fact is that he likes to *win* and it's a good thing for all of us that he's now trying to beat Malaria, Aids and umpteen other world problems as opposed to trying to beat every other operating system on the planet into submission and stay on top of the rich list for as long as possible."

My God, you're becoming my favorite comedian! If you really STUDIED these things you might remember when Bill Gates said he was going to give most of his fortune away to charity. So how can he still be the richest person in the world even after giving most of his fortune away? Do you suppose he's getting some sort of return on his INVESTEMENT in "phhilanthropy"?

I also think the whole Vista fiasco may have been a bit frustrating for him - trying to save the world's poor from disease and starvation must have seemed like the easy option compared to getting Vista to ship on time.

And your suggestion that Gates is no longer trying to beat other oeprating systems into submission is also absurd. Do some research on Microsoft's collaboration with SCO and RedHat. The real Bill Gates can be seen in the dirty tricks he has used against Linux.

"Of course, all that isn't to say Firefox isn't the better browser, and I don't see a problem with Google promoting it."

Well, how generous of you to recognize the obvious - that Bill Gates delivered an inferior browser.

"IE7 is a major step up over IE6, but I don't think it's caught up to firefox yet."

Really? You should share your insights with the geek community.

I have no illusions about Microsoft's motivations - they're a corporation, they're driven by the need to increase or at least maintain their shareholder value, because those are the rules, right? But you've got to understand that it's a huge company with competing factions who have different opinions on the best way to do that. Some of them no doubt think bribing politicians is a good idea. Others no doubt argue that being open and transparent and honest is the only way to go in this day and age. Maybe they have some secret "black ops" team doing really dodgy stuff, but I really doubt it, too much bad PR (internally and externally) if that ever came to light.

If, as you're implying, Bill's "Philanthropy" is merely intended to maximise the continued viability of an unpopular monopoly-rent-seeking desktop-centric company in the age of open source and the internet, then I'm still inclined to say *good on him*, because regardless of the motives in play, he's likely to do a lot more good for the world this way than he would by focusing on "winning" by other means.

But I'm inclined to be more generous, I'm positive it's more than just a ploy. Sure, he's still trying to "win", but he's picked less popular enemies - like death and disease in Africa, and the underfunding of American high schools.

If his trying to save a few million African lives doesn't matter spit to you because of something evil he did way back when, well I don't think he'll lose a lot of sleep over it, and neither will I.

Also, your concept that there is a "geek community" with whom I could share my "insight" with is er, somewhat quaint.

How do you know how much time or energy he devotes to his "philanthropy" versus his company? Time's up!

Here's how it works: Microsoft is one of the world's most hated corporations. So Bill Gates' propaganda machine tries to popularize the idea that there's a difference between Bill Gates and Microsoft. No matter how evil Microsoft is, Bill Gates is good. He even steps down as CEO, reinventing himself as "Software Architect." (Of course, he still controls Microsoft, but the general public is too stupid to realize it.)

At the same time, Bill Gates tells the world that he's now too busy serving as the Greatest Philanthropist in World History to bother much with such mundane things as software. And he does donate billions of dollars to various causes. So much credit does he deserve?

A project funded by Gates could indeed find a cure for malaria. I would then give Gates partial credit. BUT, any research that leads to a cure for a disease has to be built on a foundation built by previous researchers. Moreover, the money Gates pumps into "philanthropy" is effectively stolen from consumers and taxpayers. Seriously, it's hard to think of anyone who has invented more gimmicks for screwing people.

When you factor in Gates' motives, the waters grow even murkier. And public education is even worse, because Gates isn't even trying to find a "cure." Rather, he's part of the problem.

"I have no illusions about Microsoft's motivations - they're a corporation, they're driven by the need to increase or at least maintain their shareholder value, because those are the rules, right? But you've got to understand that it's a huge company with competing factions who have different opinions on the best way to do that."

For crying out loud, the company is owned and operated by BILL GATES and his sleazebag father. THEY decided on Microsoft's policies and strategies.

"Maybe they have some secret "black ops" team doing really dodgy stuff, but I really doubt it, too much bad PR (internally and externally) if that ever came to light."

Much of it has come to light. That's why Bill spends so much money on public relations, to counter his justifiably disgusting image.

"If, as you're implying, Bill's "Philanthropy" is merely intended to maximise the continued viability of an unpopular monopoly-rent-seeking desktop-centric company in the age of open source and the internet, then I'm still inclined to say *good on him*, because regardless of the motives in play, he's likely to do a lot more good for the world this way than he would by focusing on "winning" by other means."

If I understand you correctly, you're saying there are two possibilities:

1) Bill Gates maintains business as usual, without even a pretend philanthropic operation.

2) Microsoft remains a sleazy operation, and Bill Gates founds a "philanthropy" for public relations purposes. The philanthropy actually does some good, perhaps helping find a cure for malaria.

You're saying #2 is preferable to #1. I agree. But it still stinks. And it's far more dangerous than you realize. I'm not keen on corporations taking over the jobs that government has traditionally performed. After all, governments theoretically represent the people; Microsoft represents Bill Gates.

"But I'm inclined to be more generous, I'm positive it's more than just a ploy. Sure, he's still trying to "win", but he's picked less popular enemies - like death and disease in Africa, and the underfunding of American high schools."

Oh, puhLEEZ, celebrities have been flocking to Africa, and American high schools are NOT underfunded. In fact, public schools lose vast amounts of money to incompetent and corrupt school officials. So why does Bill Gates and other CEO's ignore that sad fact when they claim to care about education? Why isn't Gates speaking out against standardized tests and derelict teachers unions? All he focuses on is money. If his interest in education is that shallow and self-serving, then scr*w him.

As they say, a sucker's born every miniute. I suspect your five minutes of fame won't matter much more to Bill Gates than my criticism of him.

I'm not saying Bill and Microsoft haven't made some evil moves in the past, but I will say that right now they're being forced to change their game, they're collapsing under their own weight, and they're no longer really worth expending much effort trying to 'defeat'. Most web entrepreneurs (like me) are now more worried about Google's near monopoly on search than we are about Microsoft's near monopoly on operating systems or word processors. (BTW, I give huge kudos to Larry and Sergei, and I am a monster Google fan, but still, they are the big boys on the block now and us lesser mortals quake in fear as we contemplate the fact that they are now leveraging their serach dominance into other market sectors)

Me, I'm just glad that a lot of these ultra-competitors have turned to competitive philanthropy before their time as competitive businesspeople is over, so that important problems are getting the benefit of their brainpower as well as their cash. BTW, Steve Jobs is a laggard in this regard, he should get with the program and realise that people do actually care what he's doing (or not doing) with his billions.

Well, ok, actually most people don't care, and that's what really makes the case that Gates isn't doing this to look good, or to maximise Microsoft's profits. Do you really think he cares what you or anyone else thinks of him? Do you think he cares enough to spend a fair whack of his valuable time and a massive portion of his fortune on this stuff, just so that his detractors will hate him less? I think you're flattering yourself, personally.

In contrast, Bill Gates says, "OK, I'll donate some of the money I've extorted from customers and taxpayers to fight AIDS, if you agree to shun inexpensive computers designed for the poor in favor of more expensive computers running WINDOWS!"

Big difference, eh?

"I'm backing The Gates to get a heck of a lot more done for Africa than Bush or Bono ever will. Bill and Melinda aren't just going after Malaria, they're going after the *lot*.

Bill Gates is one of Bush's biggest supporters, and Bono is one of Bill Gates' biggest supporters. They're all a bunch of friggin' opportunists who exploit Africa's pain every chance they get.

"I'm not saying Bill and Microsoft haven't made some evil moves in the past, but I will say that right now they're being forced to change their game..."

The propaganda's a little slicker, but, otherwise, I think they're pretty much playing the same sleazy game they've always played.

"They're collapsing under their own weight..."

Agreed. However...

"and they're no longer really worth expending much effort trying to 'defeat'."

Don't count Bill Gates out until he's truly out. He's still the richest man in the world, and Microsoft is an enormously powerful corporation. They also have closer ties to the Republican Party than either Google or Apple does. Bill Gates remains very dangerous.

"Most web entrepreneurs (like me) are now more worried about Google's near monopoly on search than we are about Microsoft's near monopoly on operating systems or word processors."

It's good to be leery of any monopolistic corporation. However, Google hasn't committed a fraction of Microsoft's crimes. At the moment, I welcome Google as a counterweight to the Microsoft juggernaut. I'll wait until M$ has been ground into dust before I begin getting paranoid about Google.

"Me, I'm just glad that a lot of these ultra-competitors have turned to competitive philanthropy before their time as competitive businesspeople is over, so that important problems are getting the benefit of their brainpower as well as their cash. BTW, Steve Jobs is a laggard in this regard, he should get with the program and realise that people do actually care what he's doing (or not doing) with his billions."

At least Jobs isn't blackmailing public schools...and poor Africans.

"Well, ok, actually most people don't care, and that's what really makes the case that Gates isn't doing this to look good, or to maximise Microsoft's profits."

Are you stoned? Gates' "philanthropy" is front page news on a regular basis. I'ved talked to countless people who defend him as a nice guy based solely on what little nonsense they've read about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in the corporate media.

"Do you really think he cares what you or anyone else thinks of him?"

If it affects Microsoft's revenue, of course.

"Do you think he cares enough to spend a fair whack of his valuable time and a massive portion of his fortune on this stuff, just so that his detractors will hate him less?"

Isn't the answer obvious?

Of *course* people will talk about his new direction in life and say nice things, this is mre or less inevitable when you start trying to give away that much money in a productive fashion. But there is simply no way on earth you give away that much time and money to be "popular" or to prop up your company's share value. Not if your real goal is actually to make more money.

Also, nobody I know makes decisions about what operating system they're going to install or whether to pirate windows or buy it, or anything else that might alter Microsoft's share value based on how they feel about Bill. I realise you're from Seattle so everything about him must be amplified there, but out here in the rest of the world, people mostly don't care what the Gates are doing with their money, or why. I care, but I'm a philanthrogeek.

I think there are a lot of reasons he's doing it, improving his public image is probably one of them, but first and foremost he's recognised that the world has *problems* and that as a rich and clever guy, *he can help*, and not only that he feels that he has a *responsibility to do so*.

Anyway, I've got problems of my own to solve right now, hence, bye.

But Bill Gates does make more money.

"Also, nobody I know makes decisions about what operating system they're going to install or whether to pirate windows or buy it, or anything else that might alter Microsoft's share value based on how they feel about Bill."

You should check out some political forums. Many people hate Bill Gates for his evil Microsoft monopoly. Others are sick and tired of his crappy software. Still others are disgusted by his support for the Republican Party. I've seen many posts by people who have switched to Apple or Linux because they hate Bill Gates.

"I realise you're from Seattle so everything about him must be amplified there,"

Yes, Bill Gates' corruption is indeed amplified here. You should also do some research on his partner in crime, Paul Allen.

"I think there are a lot of reasons he's doing it, improving his public image is probably one of them, but first and foremost he's recognised that the world has *problems* and that as a rich and clever guy, *he can help*, and not only that he feels that he has a *responsibility to do so*."

Yes, the world has problems, all right. Many of the biggest problems will never be solved until we conquer corporate corruption, as symbolized by George W. Bush. Yet Bill Gates is himself a corrupt corporation, one that supports Bush. And how can Bill Gates hope to solve the problems in education when he doesn't even have a clue what they are? Some clever guy.