IE No Longer Getting Updated
 

mm.

So anyone care? I presonally am a pretty hard-core CSS/semantic markup guy, and news like this makes me sad.

I want a browser that adheres to standards. I want my PNG. I want a browser that won't do strange things for no apparent reason, blow up, or otherwise be hideously buggy.

Anyone here care?

I don't understand. :confused: Is Microsoft no longer updating or coming out with new versions of IE? Because that sounds a little odd to me. What will they use for a browser then?

The operating system will be the browser, I think. (if i skimmed those articles correctly)

Here's the slashdot article for anyone interested. Wasn't this the main complaint in the anti-trust suit -- that the OS and the broswer are tied together too closely? This seems to move it in that direction for sure!

I care. As a person that works on Mozilla development, bugs, and testing, there are a lot of concerns I have regarding this. This is discussed a little more here.

Yeah, webdesigners are in for a rough ride. I'm sure IE's standards-support will be up to par by then, but that's quite a while to wait. The reason this is happening is definitely a legal issue. Look at his words carefully; he says that it will be in the same install. Architechture may change a bit (it'll be more ActiveX-based), but it will still be seperate from the OS as it is now. Still, this is enough justification legally to bundle their product with their OS. It also has the secondary function of forcing you to buy Longhorn if you wish to use their browser (I can't see right now why you would), which you'll have been waiting for longer than we waited for Netscape 6.

A big question right now in the Mozilla comunity is what AOLTW is going to do. After being hit with a $750 million-dollar bribe plus free use of IE and WMP9 from Microsoft, they have the choice of continuing Mozilla development, or axing the Netscape division, and a lot of good people along with it. If they're smart, they'll do the former. Unfortunately, they aren't.

Wait, no more mozilla? uhoh...
Wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft does even more stuff like FP extensions to screw with webpage stuff. >_<

It seems a few of you are confused about this. Microsoft will continue updating IE for new, and better, non W3 compliant websites. What's happening, is they're no longer releasing any STANDALONE IE updates. They're just making the browser fully integrated into Windows, much the way it is now, but moreso. Yes there have been legal problems with this before, but it's Microsoft, they can do pretty much whatever they want. That said, I'm sure this will allow for better integration of something into somewhere. Probablly security vulnerabilites into the Windows OS. But you'll still be able to use Mozilla or Opera or Netscape whatever other browser you use in Windows. And if you use IE, well, the change wont even be noticble to you, besides updating IE through Windows updates instead of updating just the browser. I could go all day about this, but yeah, I don't really care. In time, none of this will matter.

I said no more mozilla because of the post before mine, saying possibly no more mozilla development.

"Would you like to install this other browser?" click yes
"Are you sure?" click yes
"It'll crash your computer, you sure?" click yes
"It is inferior to IE" click yes
"You sure you don't want to use IE?" click yes
"Installation aborted by Longhorn" *start kicking computer.

hehehe

There's only a minor chance of such a thing happening, and personally I think it's quite unlikely, but anything dumb is possible with the people high-up in AOLTW; there were a few scary moments right after the deal, but chances are nothing will come of it. It's just that some people who don't know any better will say, 'hey, if we have seven years of free rights to IE, what's Netscape for anyway?' IE will not be updated standalone, meaning you have to wait until Longhorn, which incorperates some underhanded things a lot of people will be hesitant to install. This is 90% legal, to get away from those pesky anti-trust and monopoly proceedings which almost r0x0red Microsoft, and 10% technological.

Scenario: You are an IE-loving web-developer (yeah, they exist :) ). You've been waiting for standards support and a browser that can catch up to Opera and Mozilla for almost four years. Sadly, the only way that's happening is by buying a packaged OS made in Redmond, USA just for you by your friend Bill.

Longhorn is projected for between Q4 2004 and Q1 2005. IE's next version will be integrated so as to avoid legal problems, but will likely be completely seperate from the OS as it is now (and it is; any OS-integration Microsoft currently claims is just UI illusion). This also allows them to get away with saying in court that a) they are no longer competing in web browser industry, and b) they don't have to go through all that default browser garbage, so every time you click on a link in Longhorn or HTML file, it'll open it up in the same window.

Edit: There are rumours that I keep hearing about the new IE layout engine being based on Tasman, the power behind IE/Mac. This is a very good engine; it's fast, small, and standard-compliant. There's more here .

O wait, isn't tha the same thing IE does? maybe its more the inferior os than the browser. In my opinion, IE basically always has been part of the OS and they are just now making it "common knowledge" Whens the last time you could use windows without IE? I know my school's lab had to replace it after it was deleted because the system was useless. And as far as this no longer updating... what about Mac? I bet this is why Apple started Safari, they must have had insider information, or wait, maybe its cause IE sucks that much. Mozilla for Windows may suck but there are a few good version on Mac like camino which is my second favorite browser, only to Safari.

I am proud to say mozilla/firebird/various incarnations are quite good. (Although firebird did decide to crash viewing this thread... talk about irony)

Whats happening has been explained. I guess alot of people are now waiting breathlessly and hoping something happens, or someone somewhere will do something.

I just don't want to live with strange bugs... and lack of PNGs. (Wants alpha-transparency... somehow)

iBob, all (except possibly XP, but not for long) versions of Windows to date can be used without IE. Microsoft removed the uninstall entries for IE, and the shell is slightly integrated, so Windows won't work. There are programs like 98Lite and IEradicate for removing IE. There's no real reason to, but it's a proof of concept.

Re: IE No Longer Getting Updated
 

If you want a browser that can do that, then why would you ever use IE?

I mean, I know what you mean...yeah, IE is pretty stable, compliant, all that...but I can't stand a browser that has so much bloat that it makes me feel like I'm using a slowdem again...

--Petey

Wow! So exciting- M$ IE! For those of you out there that actually use M$ as your default OS
Do you people actually use IE?
I am saddened if there is more than One among all of u.

umm I use IE6 / Opera7. IE6 when I'm just looking at like CD and caching up on maybe news. Only when im doing stuff very important I use Opera. Its tabs, coolness, and so many short cut keys make it king. The best feature it has is the paste and go (an of coures its option ot pick up where u left of browesing). that thing save like 1sec everytime you go sum where( which over time really add up). When I reformat my comp whenever the new ram im gonna order comes in b/c of XP being a pice of ___ and gayanateing my comp wit several BSOD's a week. It almost as bad as when I had my P-II 400 w/98 FE. Now I have AMD XP 2000+ as my cpu. Hopefully reformatting will fix the problems. Then I'll spend another week of installing software and customizeing XP again b/c all of the default stuff sucks. and by the way what ever happened to the great browser wars. Opera may start a new one and make IE get updated (at least thats what I hope). I would install redhat linux, but I have sum great comp games that I really love by microsoft...... One thing i hate really really hate is when u go to site and its like this must be viewd by MS IE like the MSN gaming Zone. Come on we all know that Opera and NS are both capable of viewing that.

MSN Gaming Zone has some screwed-up scripting that makes some parts work wrong (you can sort of get in by spoofing your UA string). For the software, it's made to work with IE, and a lot of the commands just don't work with other browsers. Sure, MSN is shutting out other browsers (in fact I, and others, contacted them about their Mozilla support), but it's partially due to the fact that the Zone Software was made to be called up by IE. I used to play Rogue Spear there (and was freakin' good at it), but I had to use IE to get in. My IE desktop shortcut read 'MSN Gaming Zone' for the longest time :) .

Guys - I use IE. So what? Microsoft is the largest software company. They are going to have little errors and can't (better word - won't) support everything. He has to make it to where it's compatible w/ 99% of the stuff out there. So what if people use IE? Does that make them lesser of a human? Bill Gates is just making money off of what he created. A monopoly? Not in my eyes. He created this windows atmosphere (or giant for a nother better word) - so he should be able to run it any way he wants to.

I salute Bill. I wish to create something like he has done, and take a small peace of the American dream. I want to have money coming out of places that I never knew I had.

That is my 02¢

Doesn't this only help Mozilla/Opera/all the other browsers?

As of now, Mozilla and Opera already compare favorably to IE 6. A year and a half after XP came out, only 20-30% of windows users are using it. Thus, people don't upgrade very quickly to a new MS OS. We can assumet that it will be a similar percentage for Longhorn. Thus a year and a half after Longhorn comes out (which is already going to be a long time from now) 80% of windows users will have an obsolete browser. Mozilla and Opera will have had 3 years then to totally obliterate IE6 in features.

I am not surprised at this one bit

They are not only integrating IE but WMP 9, and most of their other applications into the OS.

This is all to set up their next thing called TCPA/Palladium. Now they claim it is trustworthy computing, but I believe it will be the complete opposite.

Palladium is basically software that connects with Fritz chip inside the processor of a windows computer that restricts software and files to whatever the content providers want.

For example, music companies can access your computer and delete a pirated MP3. There are also a bunch of other disturbing things that Palladium can do.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html (If you want more info)

Anyways Palladium will eventually will hurt competition

Aaggghhhhh... just read the above linked faq on Palladium. Glad I'm not tied to Windoze and Intel....

Anyways, the death of IE as a stand-alone product is not only entirely bringing to fruition all of the claims of the Microsoft Anti-trust suit (bundling/bungling).....it's also really stupid on their part.

All I can see this leading to is people defecting to better alternative browsers and/or better operating systems ... TCPA/Palladium is scary and IE sucks anyhow.

Safari for OS X isn't even out of beta yet and it's by far a better browser than any version of IE that I've ever seen.

Aaron Knight
Webmaster and Videographer
Team 891: Neverending Chaos....
http://first891.topcities.com

Yep, Safari is on the rise, i hope that Apple will make a port of it to some Non-Mac based Linux/Unix Distros In the Final version.

What's wrong with Konqueror?

Yeah that is the truth about Palladium. I don't think the corporate world has any business on our personal computers. If they want to deal with P2P websites, let them deal on just that.

One example of Palladium that is surfacing very soon is in the next version of Office. You will need to buy a key from Microsoft to un-lock your documents. Thats lame. We shouldn't have to pay more than we have to.

Microsoft always talks about its advantages, like the secure documents with the military, but there will always be third party software that can do the same thing, maybe even better. I think Microsoft might win a couple of companies, but they will lose a lot more customers.

Nothing is wrong with Konqueror/KDE 3.x but it would just be nice to have it available if I ever wanted to use It. I'm not a big fan of Low CPU power at a high cost {Macs}.

I'm not sure I follow you. What does Safari have that Konqueror doesn't? (you do realize that Safari uses Konq's rendering engine, right?)

ah- that i wasnt aware of.
It will still be interesting in the Final version if they add anything special.

I use Safari and i agree with everyone else saying that it is the best browser out there. Gotta love macs. In OS10.3 it should probably change out of beta for a much needed update. But as far as Microsoft not developing anymore updates for IE i don't care at all. In articles i have read the new Mac OS 10.3, thats not out yet, is going to blow XP out of the water. This is not from mac zealot websites but from other computer and tech. magazines. Microsoft might be trying to change this trend around by building the browser into the OS itself.

IE is now Windows only
 

Microsoft just announced the death of IE for the Mac.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/?http://www.p...y.php?id=43191

This however is weird because they made IE 6 for MSN for OS X.

I use both Windows and IE. I use it because it is fast, simple, and lets me worry about more important things :yikes:

For those of you who don't understand this, think about it this way. If someone has started out using windows (this is back with 3.1 I remind you) and is used to all the commands, shortcuts etc... why would they want to put forth a lot of effort to convert to another OS when they can both do all the same stuff? Granted, one may do something faster than the other, or be more stable, but unless there is a huge benefit to switching... they wouldn't switch. Likewise, it is the same with internet browsers. I have used IE forever now, and I just don't see any huge reason for me to take the time to install, learn and use a new browser ;)

<ducks from all the flames>

tabs (keeps my taskbar clean...)
popup blocking
same controls as IE (as in keyboard shortcuts are the same, at least for phoenix)
bookmark keywords (i type google search term and up pops the google page for that search term, also have it for webster's dictionary, etc)
faster than IE (though when you get down to it, both are so fast it really doesn't make a difference)
extensions (there are alot. they do alot of different things, no way to describe them all. you get stuff that enables mouse gestures, and other fun stuff. haven't had to hit the back button/backspace for a long time, cuz i can just right then left click quickly.)

neither windows nor IE are "fast, simple" things to use. lol, they're both fairly large, monolithic things. anyway, what is a huge benefit? the switch from IE to phoenix for me was pretty much nonexistant. i downloaded the phoenix file, unzipped it, made a shortcut. they both behave exactly the same for normal browsing, and the extensions will blow your mind.

For the power-user, and especially any web developer, I can't think of one reason to use IE (as a main tool anyway). Opera and Mozilla derivatives are far more advanced and intuitive. Some suggested reading:

-101 things you can do in Mozilla... (this misses a whole lot of great features)
-Why you should switch to Mozilla Firebird (More of a Mozilla App suite vs. Mozilla Firebird document)

Wait, mozilla has the same kb shortcuts? That's odd, I'm using firebird right now and I need to hit CTRL+SHIFT+L to get my url. Is there any way to change that? A tweakable config file maybe?

If there was Safari for Windows, I'd use it. But luckily, I've got a fast enough computer more than enough knowledge to run Windows XP fine and it does what I need to do (and for the moment, that is to play Vice City at 1280x1024 with 32 bit color and draw distance maxed)... hehe.

f6 works for me... and i think there is a way to tweak keyboard shortcuts. most definately NOT for the faint of heart though.

btw: since when did windows require a fast enough computer/enough knowledge? :-P my old windows 95 disk is install and go. windows 2000 is "click yes 20 times, then go grab some food, its gonna be awhile." i want your gfx card though.

Kyle: thats the thing, they're cutting off standalone development. you either subscribe to MSN and get the latest and greatest MS Browser, or you don't. They're still probably doing SOMETHING with those engineers, just don't expect to get it for free.

I'd just like to point out that Apple produces the worlds fastest personal computer, it is also the first 64 bit processor in a personal computer and you can read all about it and the numbers from benchmark tests here http://www.apple.com/powermac/

Also, Safari has reached final 1.0 on Monday.

I would like to point out that Opteron came out a month or so ago and was the first 64 bit processor... obviously, anyone could've ordered that (and did) to make their own 64 bit personal computer. Apple's claim annoyed me.

Secondly, note that Apple manipulated the data for the benchmark tests. I thought something was weird and apparently so did other people. This appeared on slashdot yesterday and is quite disconcerning: http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/

Btw, I can appreciate Safari though, but right now I'm just interested on getting the specs for the highly anticipated new laptop from Apple... hopefully a G5 and not an overclocked G4.

My friend and an advisor were talking about this at this years robotics competition. I just stared blankly at the both of them. In fact the only thing I really did understand was the advisor saying that all computer companies manipulates the data to make there computer look faster. It comes as no surprise to me.

I figured someone would try to pull that crap and show that article. That guy ranted and raived but didn't have sufficent evidence. The specs were not manipulated to make the G5 look that much better. I've been reading many articles in the past few days and actually the test make the G5 look a little worse than it coudl be. If Apple wanted to manipulate results, it could have a number of ways to make the G5 appear even faster but instead chose to make it fair and test the systems on standard, equal benchmark tests. As for another 64bit processor... So what? This is the first shipped pc with one, and it is the fastest, regardless of how much u want to not believe the results.

I'll state that I'm not biased towards new technology, regardless whether it's from Apple or not. I agree that computer companies will manipulate data to make their computer look well and I disagree with this practice, regardless whether it's from Apple or not. The dual 2ghz is *fastest* according to what Apple put on their site but not all the time, especially with real appications which benchmarks do not simulate. And I don't understand what you mean it's the first shipped computer with a 64 bit processor... Opteron was released a bit back and it was shipped to companies and users. I just don't like Apple's bluntness in promoting their new hardware.

First of all, regarding that article. Some of the points that person makes are valid, and some are not. For example, when Dell publishes their spec benchmarks, they disable hyperthreading on the same tests. They wouldn't do that unless hyperthreading made them slower in those benches. Yes, SSE2 wasn't enabled but neither was altivec, considering that most applications aren't compiled for either, it was more valid to disable both. I don't like Apple's malloc library, though.


The new apples are the first Personal Computer with a 64 bit processor. I haven't seen Apple claim anything else. The Opteron is a server processor. AMD's desktop 64 bit processor will be out in a few months and called something else (Athlon64, last I heard). And of course, AMD isn't the first company to release a 64 bit processor. Itanium came out several years ago, and Alpha, Sparc, and PA-RISC have been around for over 10 years.

Besides, why are you complaining about dual 2ghz when the fastest opteron availible is dual 1.8ghz?

That article is just a bunch of rubbish.
First off I think SPEC test are the most stupid thing next to MHz. The reality is that there is really no good way to measure performance. Systems can be tweaked in certain ways, and it totally depends on a bunch of variables. Plus your system slows down anyways, when you add more programs.
I believed that Apple run the test as fair as possible. Probably more fair than everybody else does.

Overall I love the G5's. I am going to buy a 1.8 G5 by the time I go back to collage. The only thing to complain is that Apple was a little skimpy on the RAM (only 512mb), and they only got one optical drive slot. A word of caution though, the low end (1.6 GHz) only get 4 memory slots and no PCI-X. That aside, the G5s are top specs. Not just in the processor but the whole architecture is dramatically different and removes any bot-necks that the previous G4 had. Also I like how Apple now has somewhat of a decent roadmap than they did with the G4 era.

Is it the "World's Fastest Computer," well maybe. But it is fast enough for me. But you have to admit, it is cool telling people that you have a 64-bit computer. Because before now, 64-bit computers were only available to servers (Sun & Intel), and cost something like $10,000 a piece. 64-bit computers may not seemed relevant now, but soon 4 gigs of memory will not be enough for your needs, especially for Pros.

Like Joe said, the Opteron is a server processor like the Itanium and the Ultra Sparc 3. The Hammer will be AMD 64-bit/32-bit desktop processor, however I don't know when it is coming out.

At WWDC Steve Jobs clearly showed that G5 is quite capable in real world applications. It either meet or beaten the Intel processors. There will always are some apps that are more optimized or PPC than X86 and vise versa.

Interesting. Read the bottom part.

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=822071

I'm a big fan of Windows XP AND IE. I admit, my IE hates Java, so I simply use Opera when I need Java support (::cough tigerbolt cough::). But I do disagree with Windows being "large and monolithic". Windows is always going to have the most developer support. Always. No version of Linux or Mac will ever come close, not for a long time, anyways. And that's what it's about, isn't it. Being able to run your favorite programs, the best that there are, without having to dual boot or buy a second system (though that's always fun). As for IE, I actually find it less bulky than other browsers. It would be very hard to switch, and probably wouldn't speed me up too much. I would rather power-surf with a browser I've used for 5 years than take my time trying to find buttons on a faster, sleeker browser. It just isn't worth it. If you have XP and IE, and you're computer is slowing you down, put your money where your mouth is and buy a new system or a faster connection. As for me, I'll be playing SWG (1600 by 1200 -.- ) on XP. As for webdesign for IE, yes it's a pain in the arse, but it's the most used browser, so you NEED to design for it!

I never "DESIGN" for IE. I make sure it works, but I don't design for IE, I design for STANDARDS.

BTW: Large/monolothic is completely seperate from developer support. Windows could just be a lean mean OS, and STILL enjoy developer support. The thing is Windows has a tendency toward including stuff that really doesn't need to be included. (IE? Outlook? What does that have to do with being an OS? Its stuff like this that makes computers so "complicated".)

IE and Outlook are complicated??

I never found them complicated (besides trying to set up my webmaster account from Affinity).

grrr. read the sentence again please.

Tell me why an OS should have an email client bundled with it? Extraneous FEATURES make computers buggy.

Lets put it this way, making a cup of coffee isn't complex, (this is a semi-long route, but meh). You grab your beans from the freezer, dump it into a grinder, then dump the stuff into the machine, and there you go. Windows is sort of like a freezer/coffee grinder/coffee machine all at the same time, when all you really needed was a freezer. The more you add on, the more likely it is something won't work right, and since everything is interconnected, you might be in trouble. (And this is WINDOWS we're talking about, the freezer probably includes a small oven, microwave set and a small pool, because SOMETIMES they're helpful to have in addition to a freezer.)

Some of you may be interested in this. Get it while it's hot. The last three IE screenshots (the ones showing features) all have something in common. They were all originally mozilla.org (and to some extent Opera) ideas. I personally dislike the new IE UI, but I get the feeling it's going to be (in general) nice for a change. As long as Microsoft standardizes XAML (an XML UI language idea stolen from mozilla.org's XUL language which is more advanced than XUL and will be more successful because it's introduced by Microsoft), I'll be more than optimistic. The only thing is, people are goijng to start having to redesign sites, maybe even predominantly in this language. Not cool for those of us who are XHTMLing new pages right now.

Man, I dunno if it's just me, but I think Windows is trying to look more like *nux. It's like they can't make their own stuff anymore.

I personally wouldn't want XAMP to succeed.

As a general rule, I really don't want single companies being in control of things like that. I wish XUL caught on, and more people knew about it.

Anyway, I sincerely doubt that MS will standardize XAML or play nice in any way. I forsee a horrible horrible world where MS makes a private sandbox in the internet, where those with windows can play, and the rest of the world is shut out. Its a smart thing to do financially, but bad for the 'rest of us'. :-/ If it happens, I'm going to keep my laptop running w98 and switch everything over to some horribly obscure *nix distro and become a hermit. :D

Some of us Mac users out there would argue that Microsoft hasn't made its own stuff in a long long time - oh wait, even DOS wasn't made by Microsoft, Bill Gates bought it on the cheap.

Well, Bill & whoever made Apple (I forgot his name) did make the first computer as far as I know....but that was back in the 80's or somethin' like that.

But yea, you are right. I got a big book about the history of Windows......but it's also about repairing pc's.

Steve Jobs and the Woz (Steve Wozniak...I think he was an original founder) founded Apple Computers, but they had nothing to do with the first computer...which was the HVAC way back in the 50's (maybe 40's).

If you're thinking about the first "personal" microcomputer, they still had nothing to do with it.

What Apple did do first is the GUI...which Microsoft so dilligently jacked for Windows ;) It's not a copy of the MacOS GUI, but the concept is still there.

Did you ever end up reading it? :P Having and reading are two very different things.

There are some people from Xerox PARC who would disagree that Apple made the first GUI.

Heh. I read upto the part about the Windows stuff I just said. It didn't get to interesting after that.

Well old Billie in order for him to be able use the code he copied from a basically open-source environment had to make MS-DOS in order to get around the legal disputes. Also if you look at the original Lotus 123 then you will notice, "hey that looks a lot like microsoft word/office/etc. "It's actually the other way around since microsoft basically copied the Lotus program and changed it into Microsoft word. There are some other basic word processing programs and spreadsheet programs that Gates and MS copied but changed the code around in order to make it look like he legitimately came up with the program.

Its... iunno. Its really hard to say a program COPIED another... For instance, wordpad and notepad both have editing windows. The UI is roughly the same, but I wouldn't say one copied the other. I don't really expect a program to really be able to represent a sheet of paper in any groundbreaking ways. White slab with text on it is as intuitive as it gets... :-/

but WordPad is rich-text, whereas Notepad is plain text ;)

Try to add colors or different fonts in Notepad...you can't.

That's the beauty of xEdi--I mean Wordpad. :p

Actually that depends on what you call a GUI. There was a person who worked for the navy who invented the mouse, and created primitive types of GUIs on Unix computers. There was a whole article on him on ZDnet this year.

If you took a look at a screenshot of that Xerox machine, it looks nothing like the first Macintosh.

That's a clear misrepresentation of the facts.
Lotus 1-2-3 for MS-DOS looks very little like Word (even the DOS versions), with the exception of the menu commands. 1-2-3 is a spreadsheet, like Excel, and consequently functions quite differently. You say that MS copied Lotus 1-2-3. While both Excel and 1-2-3 share many common interface conventions, those same conventions are common to other, older spreadsheets (seen here*)--so MS wasn't copying Lotus, they were using a style of interface that had been familiar to spreadsheet users for a decade already (or 4 years, if you count MS's first spreadsheet, called Multiplan). 1-2-3 is commercial software--absolutely not open-source. They would not have had access to the code which you contend that they changed.
As for the suggestion that MS copied code for word processors, think about it--does it really make any sense? Word 5.0 for DOS is an ugly and counterintuitive program. Who in their right mind would copy that from anywhere?



*Despite being an abandonware-related site, it doesn't offer downloads, and therefore can't be considered "warez".

Thats sort of my point though. Notepad and Wordpad use similar UI. They both have a big blank place that your letters go into. I think its weird to bash Microsoft for "copying" Lotus. (Does OpenOffice copy Office because they both allow you to write on virtual sheets of paper and have icons that let you alter formatting?)

I think I'm just trying to say that there is a distinction between plagerism and ... upholding the status quo? UI remains the same because that is what a good UI should be.

I agree. :)

Why reinvent the wheel? If it does the job right, leave it be. OOOoooo nooo they're similar. Take a look at any competing software...they're going to be similar or else they wouldn't fall into the same market.