OP: Why Microsoft is Innocent with IE8

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why not shipping Firefox and Opera alongside Internet Explorer?
I think the next victim of this Microsoft's OS built-in policy will be antivirus software. Wait a few years and see.
 
[citation][nom]misiu_mp[/nom]Did you ever heard of wget? Its a single-executable, tiny (in kb) very flexible command-line program for downloading things from the web. Attaching it coupled with a few web addresses to other web browsers installation packages on the internet is not a problem.You dont need IE to install Firefox.[/citation]

I have, but do you seriously expect the majority of users to know this? You can't take people like yourselves and others here, that are computer savvy, to know such things unfortunately.
 
[citation][nom]thisformisbroken[/nom]Tuan: I think most of your concerns are well intended but rest on a scenario that is very unlikely to happen in real life. How many computer-illiterate people who would be unable to install a browser on their own are actually buying Retail OS disks off the shelf and coming home to do an install themselves? The "Average Joe" that your argument depends on uses what came with his computer, calls their computers-savvy friend when something goes wrong, or at best runs the OEM recovery / OS install disk. The Windows 7 E edition will not affect Average Joe.On the other hand, the modestly knowledgeable PC user (like you and me), if he has no desire at all to use IE now has a choice to have a Windows installation without IE. I see that as a Good Thing (R).Btw, while I agree that IE around 4.0 did offer a better solution than Netscape's at the time, the reason IE wiped out Netscape at the time was due to bundling IE with the OS (since Win98 IIRC) rather than technical superiority. The same reason why FF1 came nowhere near wiping out IE6 in usage share despite being clearly (I think you will agree) superior to IE. IE "competes" primarily through bundling, entrenchment, OEM deals, and other anti-competitive methods, and only secondarily through technical merits./Arcadia[/citation]

Agreed with most of your statement above. But just to clarify, I didn't mention that IE got better technically, I said Microsoft gave users a convenience, that's why Netcape, as a paid business model, died out, in favor of other models.

Imagine though of the universe was different and Netcape WAS successful, and the browser became a paid-for-software. What shall we do today with Firefox, Chrome, etc. Paid for? Who knows. But that's another debate altogether.

/ Tuan
 
First, I would agree, if Windows 7 arrived without a browser, it would be one of the first things I installed. And, I would agree that I would install Internet Explorer 8, although it would probably come after Firefox and Chrome, but IE8 is a very good browser, certainly not the disaster that IE6 and some of the earlier ones were. Microsoft isn't dumb, they waited until IE8 was at least closer to the competition, before unbundling. Still, Firefox and Chrome are better these days, they would go on first.

But, I would not need a browser to install an initial browser, I'm sure the competition would make freely available CDs from various sources, they could be installed via ftp, etc. To say you need a browser to install a browser, is well, silly. Many manufacturers and motherboard makers would also bundle browsers, to further ease the consumers' task. The parts of the Microsoft repackaging that bother me are more that it claimed for years that the browser was such an integral part of the operating system that it could not be separated out. That clearly was and is a false, monopolistic, anti-competitive claim, and while in general we don't want the governments involved too much in technical matters, the playing field here needed to be level.

But is unbundling sufficient? Not really, Microsoft for updates and other tasks has very heavily tied to IE proprietary features, many unpublished or non-standard, it purposefully does things in a non-standard but moving-target sort of way. That wouldn't be necessarily bad, but if you're a monopoly, it's a higher standard that you need to meet, you must play fairly. Not installing but making available for free IE8 would ironically still be monopolistic, to be fair to the competition, Microsoft should probably have to further unbundle, charging for IE8 enough so that it wasn't losing money, or divesting the browser part of the company so that there was not unfair leverage. All of the Microsoft websites should not have proprietary tie-ins, should work with other browsers. And the same for Windows servers. And there is the matter of what to do about damages, as there are some companies, Netscape, Opera, etc., that are going, once the decisions area reached, to potentially be in line for further damages and judgments. All of this might raise the cost of a PC we bought by $5 or $10, but in the long run its not a bad price to pay, if it results in more competition, a leveled playing field, the browsers would get suddenly much better, and the costs would come back down, probably even lower eventually.

I'm a little surprised to see this up on Tom's Hardware. Usually it has a higher standard for accuracy and completeness in its articles and views.
 
for a tech news article this is REALLY, REALLY stupid !!

seriously, Tom's, know what the hell you're talking about before posting stuff

"Imagine installing Windows only to find out you can't even get online to grab a 3rd party browser.

How does the EU expect me to be able to do that without a browser installed? "

are you that freaking uninformed ?

the EU wants MS to ship windows with competing browsers installed; not with no browser installed !

sheesh, get a freaking clue

I'm not saying the EU is right, but I am saying this article SUCKS !
 
The people dogging the EU are going a little overboard and being quite dramatic. Most people who are going to be buying a computer that don't the different browsers, or how to use automatic update are buying a pre-built computer, and that is where other browsers will be able to pick up market share. Sure most OEMs will stick with IE, but there will be some that offer different choices or make it custom to what the client wants, since they have to add a browser anyway. As for everyone who is building their own computer, they're most likely going to have the know how to get a browser on Windows no problem.

Big cries, little problem, especially from people who aren't even in Europe, and will not have any positive or negative effect from this at all.
 
[citation][nom]james_lankford[/nom]for a tech news article this is REALLY, REALLY stupid !!seriously, Tom's, know what the hell you're talking about before posting stuff"Imagine installing Windows only to find out you can't even get online to grab a 3rd party browser. How does the EU expect me to be able to do that without a browser installed? "are you that freaking uninformed ?the EU wants MS to ship windows with competing browsers installed; not with no browser installed ! sheesh, get a freaking clue I'm not saying the EU is right, but I am saying this article SUCKS ![/citation]

first of all this was an OP, an opinion piece by the author.
and second of all it think it's you who should get a clue.
ms bundle other browsers, and then what, is obligated to support the competitor's stuff?

yeah. right. if you're only going to read the surface of what the UE said in some press release, instead of digging into the matter deeper, and then coming to toms to flame, then i think you should stfu.
 
I life in the EU and use windows 7 and IE8 for some time now. I'm a developer so i have Firefox and Safari installed too. The whole thing with Microsoft and the EU started because of Opera! They own a low percentage of the browser market and maybe the should concentrate more on marketing and technologie. So my personal belief is to punish Opera for this silliness and do not use Opera in the future.
 
a few years back when space was measured in MB and not GB having a pre-installed browser that you couldn't remove meant probably the death of Netscape and the rise of ie as the supreme browser (thus allowing Microsoft with 95% PC share to essentially control the net)

Now it seems totally pointless to do this. unless of course they give choice to OEMs to install Firefox, Opera, Chrome etc.

to me they should have done something back then but technology moves too fast for legislators
 
The real kicker is that not only is Microsoft IE8 (and every flavor of Internet Explorer since 1.0) FREE, but so are 99% of all the alternatives. Seriously, when was the last time YOU paid for a browser?

Of course, by free, i mean that were it not included with Windows, it would be freely downloaded by anyone, even those running pirated copies of Windows operating systems.

How the EU justifies wasting its resources on this problem is beyond me. Living in the US, i would chastise the EU for their stubbornness, except that my government and the governments of most of the 50 states are doing the exact same thing.

I remember a story told by Herb Kelleher, CEO of Southwest Airlines. His airline had a customer who complained after every single flight she took. Either she didn't like seating arrangements, that there was no first class, that they didn't serve a meal, that flight crew's uniforms were too casual, or a litany of any other complaints. She complained enough that it got bumped up to him, and he wrote her a simple letter saying "We will miss you. Love, Herb"

I often wonder what would happen if Microsoft suddenly decided to stop doing business with EU countries. What transpires when Microsoft stops supporting its EU-based software immediately, citing an inability to properly conduct business in a hostile environment? In other words, just as Southwest CEO fired his customer, what happens if Microsoft fires Europe?

Surely Microsoft would lose revenue. There's a large installed base there. They may all have Windows XP or Vista now, but they would not have access to Windows 7. Not only do customers get left behind the times, but they also get left out to dry with regards to updates, patches and technical support.

It would be interesting to see Microsoft tell the EU where to stick it. The EU would fine Microsoft dearly for its actions, but as Microsoft no longer does business in EU counties, they have no chance of collecting that fine or forcing Microsoft back into business.

Of course, this is just pie in the sky dreams right now. Microsoft will never forsake that revenue stream, even if it does come with gnarled teeth of the EU attached.

Microsoft is under no obligation to include *any* browser with Windows 7. They are under no fire to offer a choice of downloads upon firing up Windows for the first time, a la "You don't have a browser. Which would would you like to download now?". If the thinks Microsoft is creating an unfair playing field by including their free browser, then let's just see what happens when none is included.

The easiest thing for Microsoft to do would be to charge an additional $20 for Windows 7, those costs going to distributing an additional CD with IE8. Package them separately and require them to be stowed on store shelves separately or shown on website store pages separately. That way, unsuspecting customers who buy Windows 7 will have to schlep back to the store to buy IE8 if they want a browser. It's not Microsoft's problem that they can't download it directly.

 
honesly i like the idea of having a browser of choice; i really do
and there is a way to get firefox without a browser, its called ftp and i hope it was not yanked out from win7.
i think EU has no clue what they're doing and if i were microsoft id lisen and make them learn the hard way. all those taxpayers money lost of debating stupid ideas.
they should of made IE installed by default and "uninstallable" from add/remove win components. problem solved.
 
I've posted before that MS should simply offer a "choices" screen during install that gives you the option to instll media player, IE, firewall, antivirus, etc, etc. Let the user pick what they want. No need to offer copetitor products, but give a choice on what to install - or not. I'd install all the defauly MS products I think. I have no problem with any of them. IE is my favorite and seeming fastest browser, web sites just seem to look better in it...personal opinion though and that's why it should be an option during install. That simple.
 
GREAT NEWS !!!
Years ago Microsoft used their monopoly position on the operation systems market to push out of the market Netscape. There is no argument about that! In the folowing years they continued to try pushing other competitors from the market and thats why they were fined repeatedly !!

IF MICROSOFT CARED THAT MUCH FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS THEY WOULD HAVE OFFERED A CHOICE OF BROUSERS FROM DIFERENT MANIFACTURERS!!!

But they did not! They care only for their market, PREFERRED TO HAVE GREATER SHARE OF THE MARKET RATHER THAN PROVIDE CUSTOMERS WITH CHOICE !!
And this is illegal as thay have MONOPOLY on the OS market! This is why the EU authorities had to intervene.

And now MS decided that if customers are not having IE thay are not having anything. Its interesting to se now when customers will have to go out and find a browser themselves if IE is going to keep their 70% share - I believe NOT !!!

For the people that keep asking how thay can go online without IE (this actually shows how well some people have been brainwashed) but PC manufacturers could bundle PCs with Firefox, Chrome, Opera etc!!!

THIS IS FAIR MARKET!!!!
 
There is a simple fix, just include all the available browsers with Windows 7 like Linux does, I say, include ie, firefox, chrome, and safari and that will be the end of it. And have a "Wizard" to guide the user through installing the browser they want.

 
The best solution for Microsoft would be: when a user account it created, after first login, after connecting to the web/opening the browser, the default is to force the first web page to direct to a Microsoft page to list all competing browser for download. This is similar to the choice of search provider choice after installing I.E. 7 on Windows XP.

I totally agree that, it's the development of technology that phase out those cannot adapt. Not because of those large companies. Why they become large is because they get the right technology and dominate. (though, there is rumors that, Microsoft fixed Windows API bugs to make Netscape become unstable or not running at all).
 
[citation][nom]pcwlai[/nom]The best solution for Microsoft would be: when a user account it created, after first login, after connecting to the web/opening the browser, the default is to force the first web page to direct to a Microsoft page to list all competing browser for download. This is similar to the choice of search provider choice after installing I.E. 7 on Windows XP.I totally agree that, it's the development of technology that phase out those cannot adapt. Not because of those large companies. Why they become large is because they get the right technology and dominate. (though, there is rumors that, Microsoft fixed Windows API bugs to make Netscape become unstable or not running at all).[/citation]
This is actually a really good idea. And it's easy to do too
 
OMFG, idiots... People act like MS loses money when people don't use their FREE(aka "no cost to you") browser. This is about security(or lack there of), and a broader agenda to facilitate spying for whomever MS is in bed with. Can anyone else explain to me how there's a business interest in maintaining marketshare for their browser that they give away for free? They've still sold their OS to you regardless(unless you're using IE on a Mac, which apparently MS feels is still worth the time and money to code), if everybody installed Firefox tomorrow, Microsoft's revenue is still the same, the "business interest" argument is easily the flimsiest straw-man argument ever.
 
look as fare as I am concerned Microsoft made a product and there useing there own Internet explorer so what its there product its not as if they are refusing to let any other brouser get installed on there product
If someone wants a diferent brouser then they install another one.
You know there lucky Microsoft is letting them install another one on it But I guess they have to by law so as not to monopolise what a joke
As much as I dislike Microsofts manipulation in stalling the development of OpenGL and other such softwheres so that there packages get released and used I still believe that they have done nothing wrong and should be able to use there own softwhere.the customers still can choose to buy another brouser to install if they prefer
I think the whole thing is one big joke
whats that saying again ( from the surblime to the redickulus )from Intel to the Microsoft
Gazz
Gazz
 
[citation][nom]james_lankford[/nom]the EU wants MS to ship windows with competing browsers installed; not with no browser installed ! sheesh, get a freaking clue[/citation]

And this is the exact problem. No government should EVER have the power to force a business to promote and sell his competitors products.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom