Yes it is. Microsoft disbanded the ie team after the release of ie6. This coupled with Longhorn/Vista's delays entrenched Windows XP and by extension ie6 stronger than it otherwise would have.
Why? Because of the huge amount of legacy code that relied on IE6, and would not run on IE7. Microsoft could have kept in ActiveX support and all the insecure bits that these applications relied on, but instead they did the right thing, deprecated their proprietary interfaces, and released a more secure and all-round better browser. And people didn't switch to it.
It did in that Microsoft did not originally plan to release an update to ie for Windows XP. The idea was that next gen OS would come with next gen browser.
>IE7 was available on XP, and companies just flat out didn't want to upgrade from XP or IE6 ...
Do you not think that that has something to do with the fact that there was a 5 year window, in a pivotal time for the internet (2001-2006), that allowed ie6 to build up massive mindshare and massive web-app dependency?
Worse, when ie6 came out it was the best browser out there, and the default choice on an operating system that dominated the industry. There was no Firefox, or Chrome or Safari or open source WebKit. So it easily became entrenched quickly. After that, inertia carried ie6.
The right thing for Microsoft to do was to NOT disband the ie team and release ie7, ie8, ie9, ie10 at reasonable release cycles (annually for example).
Consequently, I'm of the opinion that they made a rod for their own back and it became very costly to maintain and enhance their browser. Truly, they were hoist on their own petar!
The truly frustrating thing was that for most sites (though certainly not all) browser spoofing was all you needed to make them work with Opera... So much rage.
