[avsbst]

The main reason IE doesn't adopt webkit is that IE's current purpose is to provide stability and backwards compatibility to enterprise customers. A large portion of corporations have custom built webapps to provide basic services like HR, Payroll, etc. and they rely on IE to provide consistent behavior for these services.

Should they update their apps? Probably, but it costs money to build systems like that and most corporations don't want to drop money on something that already works perfectly fine.

Adopting webkit would completely disrupt all of these services, and Microsoft would basically destroy its customer base/relations.

Alternatively, Chrome is about pushing the boundaries of what's possible on the web. It's great for new companies, startups, and small developers, but as they move fast and implement new standards / functionality they also break stuff, and unlike Microsoft it doesn't really matter to the webkit dev team if a certain medium size corporation's old payroll app no longer works because of the latest chrome update.

Different browsers serve different purposes, and IE's is to provide stability. Hence they don't adopt webkit.

(I was an intern with IE this past summer and I asked the very same question minus the last part to my manager, and this was his response)

[X-Istence]

You can still use Webkit without requiring your browser to be bleeding edge. You can still update at the same glacial pace that IE has updated by using Webkit, shaking all the bugs out of it, and then releasing it.

There is no requirement that it be exactly like Chrome. Look at Safari on OS X, that Webkit engine is not the same one that goes into Chrome. By the time that Safari is released Chrome is already several Webkit versions ahead.

[scotty79]

They could provide trident so corporations can safely live in IE6 world until they die or grow up and webkit by the default for rest of the users.