Don't be such a tech tard. The point of unbundling the browser would allow HP, Lenovo, Dell, etc. to sign their own deals or choose their own browsers. No one would buy a computer without a browser, but they don't have a choice at this point because Microsoft punishes their partners if they try to add on other products that compete with Microsoft. THAT's why Microsoft deserves every bit of punishment they'll get (and then some).
- Status
descendency
Distinguished
- Jul 20, 2008
- 582
- 0
- 18,990
If the EU actually knew anything, they'd know it's less concerning that IE has a "lock" on the marketplace because IE comes pre-installed than it is that web developers have to go out of their way to right IE only pages.
It's more of a monopoly that because of such a large user base that developers create IE only content, which wouldn't even be an issue if MS was forced to uphold web-standards for the stuff it implements.
It's more of a monopoly that because of such a large user base that developers create IE only content, which wouldn't even be an issue if MS was forced to uphold web-standards for the stuff it implements.
EU is getting sick.........first intel and now this?
seriously they need to sort out things the right way or at least get the hang of technology first!
seriously they need to sort out things the right way or at least get the hang of technology first!
The problem is that Microsoft made it impossible to separate IE from the Windows OS. You couldn't delete it. To Apple's defense, you can completely delete Safari from its OS as an app. Also, you can separate the WebKit API, which is open source, from Mac OS cleanly, whereas separating IE's APIs from the OS is impossible.
[citation][nom]Anti-Micro$oft[/nom]Don't be such a tech tard. The point of unbundling the browser would allow HP, Lenovo, Dell, etc. to sign their own deals or choose their own browsers. No one would buy a computer without a browser, but they don't have a choice at this point because Microsoft punishes their partners if they try to add on other products that compete with Microsoft. THAT's why Microsoft deserves every bit of punishment they'll get (and then some).[/citation]
Dell/HP/etc. don't already have the ability to install other browsers? I'd like to see any instance where MS punished an OEM for installing software that competes with any of the things bundled in Windows.
Windows 7 E will force OEM's to install a browser, and the vast majority of their shipments will ship with IE - only special orders where the customer specifically requests something else will ship with alternatives. Enthusiasts like us will have to take extra steps when installing Windows to get a browser, but we already know how to get alternatives, and IE8 is uninstallable if we don't want it.
As has been pointed out many times, the EU's solution (ballot box of browsers) won't solve the problem either, as the vast majority of users who don't already use (and know how to obtain) alternative browsers will simply choose IE. On top of that, MS would have to start fielding tech support calls for the alternative browsers, as they were included in Windows - which is something MS should never have to do.
This whole case is stupid; next thing you know, the EU is going to go after Microsoft for bundling Excel in Office.
Dell/HP/etc. don't already have the ability to install other browsers? I'd like to see any instance where MS punished an OEM for installing software that competes with any of the things bundled in Windows.
Windows 7 E will force OEM's to install a browser, and the vast majority of their shipments will ship with IE - only special orders where the customer specifically requests something else will ship with alternatives. Enthusiasts like us will have to take extra steps when installing Windows to get a browser, but we already know how to get alternatives, and IE8 is uninstallable if we don't want it.
As has been pointed out many times, the EU's solution (ballot box of browsers) won't solve the problem either, as the vast majority of users who don't already use (and know how to obtain) alternative browsers will simply choose IE. On top of that, MS would have to start fielding tech support calls for the alternative browsers, as they were included in Windows - which is something MS should never have to do.
This whole case is stupid; next thing you know, the EU is going to go after Microsoft for bundling Excel in Office.
duzcizgi
Distinguished
- Apr 12, 2006
- 243
- 0
- 18,680
Well, I've read all the flame to this point and want to clarify a couple of things.
1. Internet Explorer is in fact consisting of 3 main components, namely:
1. User interface -- that's what everyone sees when they click the internet explorer icon. Not a big deal and in fact can be removed extremely easily.
2. Renderer -- that's what everyone sees as active desktop, windows explorer windows, common dialog boxes, help files (chm format and the new format) and of course, the document section of user interface. Removing this, practically removes windows as it is. No start button, no task bar, no desktop, no icons, no common dialogs etc. I don't think MS is going to remove that part. If it does, well, the resulting OS won't be Windows anymore.
3. Transport provider -- that is the part making the connection to the servers and providing protocol stack for http/https/ftp/rtp etc. Removing this part renders command line wget/ftp applications invalid. BITS service used by windows update (nowadays all update procedures are combined into Microsoft Update - for all MS products) won't work. That part also won't be removed, I guess, but if it'll be removed, then the competing browser provider should put the replacement service, or your windows will be "fresh" all the time and you won't be able to get the automatical updated.
So, MS deleted that small IE browsing application doesn't mean that it removed IE. Then, rest assured, all's going to be fine. But if, they decide to remove all IE resultin OS will be a multitasking 32/64 bit DOS. Have fun with that!
1. Internet Explorer is in fact consisting of 3 main components, namely:
1. User interface -- that's what everyone sees when they click the internet explorer icon. Not a big deal and in fact can be removed extremely easily.
2. Renderer -- that's what everyone sees as active desktop, windows explorer windows, common dialog boxes, help files (chm format and the new format) and of course, the document section of user interface. Removing this, practically removes windows as it is. No start button, no task bar, no desktop, no icons, no common dialogs etc. I don't think MS is going to remove that part. If it does, well, the resulting OS won't be Windows anymore.
3. Transport provider -- that is the part making the connection to the servers and providing protocol stack for http/https/ftp/rtp etc. Removing this part renders command line wget/ftp applications invalid. BITS service used by windows update (nowadays all update procedures are combined into Microsoft Update - for all MS products) won't work. That part also won't be removed, I guess, but if it'll be removed, then the competing browser provider should put the replacement service, or your windows will be "fresh" all the time and you won't be able to get the automatical updated.
So, MS deleted that small IE browsing application doesn't mean that it removed IE. Then, rest assured, all's going to be fine. But if, they decide to remove all IE resultin OS will be a multitasking 32/64 bit DOS. Have fun with that!
Tuanny boy spinning again... Got the paycheck in time for the last hit $tory on AMD?
Nice title: "Why Microsoft is Innocent with IE8"
The EU ruling was not about the "bundling" of exploder 8, but for the, ages old, deep integration of exploder in windblow$ - which cannot be uninstalled (shortcut deletion does not apply) - and the deliberate screwing of universally accepted (m$ as usual self-excluded) internet standards.
m$ can't follow standards, it knows only to impose their own crap on the whole world, abusing it's (toy) o$ monopoly.
"Imagine installing Windows only to find out you can't even get online to grab a 3rd party browser."
You, and all those stupid m$ fankiddies just showed your IT prowess again. A browser is not needed to download another one. FYI, ftp is a system command, loooong available, even in windblow$.
"After a Windows install however, the first thing I do is go and grab the latest drivers. How does the EU expect me to be able to do that without a browser installed? Does the EU expect me to use possibly old drivers from the CD that came with the motherboard, graphics card and whatever else I have? No thank you."
I didn't thought you can get dumber... but YES you really can exceed all expectations.
If you're not having the essential drivers (chipset, disk controller, network interface) already running in windblow$, how can you expect to download them from the internet?
BTW, there are linux distributions, which are downloading, compiling from sources, and installing the whole OS, from the internet, with just a few tens MB bootable media image without any browser.
"Here's the kicker though: almost all recent operating systems ship with browsers."
They ship with, [but are b]not[/b] bundled (deep integrated) with.
"Microsoft never forbid me and doesn't forbid anyone from using a different browser."
No, they don't explicitly forbid it, but are doing whatever possible, by any means, to make exploder the only one.
[citation][nom]Cuddles[/nom]If it wasn't for us Yanks, Russians, and Australians (forgot Canadians but come on do they really count... just kidding) we know exactly where you would be right now. Seriously, your great grand parents must be rolling in their graves right now.At least us non EU folks no how to put on a bit of a fight but this sniveling and whining is just for the birds.[/citation]
Tell that to all those who lived in the bolshevik controlled part, gratuitously offered at Yalta, you idiot.
[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]... let's send them HUGE truckloads of mail and spam![/citation]
Typical brainless m$ fankiddie, inciting to illegal actions (like the father like the son).
Nice title: "Why Microsoft is Innocent with IE8"
The EU ruling was not about the "bundling" of exploder 8, but for the, ages old, deep integration of exploder in windblow$ - which cannot be uninstalled (shortcut deletion does not apply) - and the deliberate screwing of universally accepted (m$ as usual self-excluded) internet standards.
m$ can't follow standards, it knows only to impose their own crap on the whole world, abusing it's (toy) o$ monopoly.
"Imagine installing Windows only to find out you can't even get online to grab a 3rd party browser."
You, and all those stupid m$ fankiddies just showed your IT prowess again. A browser is not needed to download another one. FYI, ftp is a system command, loooong available, even in windblow$.
"After a Windows install however, the first thing I do is go and grab the latest drivers. How does the EU expect me to be able to do that without a browser installed? Does the EU expect me to use possibly old drivers from the CD that came with the motherboard, graphics card and whatever else I have? No thank you."
I didn't thought you can get dumber... but YES you really can exceed all expectations.
If you're not having the essential drivers (chipset, disk controller, network interface) already running in windblow$, how can you expect to download them from the internet?
BTW, there are linux distributions, which are downloading, compiling from sources, and installing the whole OS, from the internet, with just a few tens MB bootable media image without any browser.
"Here's the kicker though: almost all recent operating systems ship with browsers."
They ship with, [but are b]not[/b] bundled (deep integrated) with.
"Microsoft never forbid me and doesn't forbid anyone from using a different browser."
No, they don't explicitly forbid it, but are doing whatever possible, by any means, to make exploder the only one.
[citation][nom]Cuddles[/nom]If it wasn't for us Yanks, Russians, and Australians (forgot Canadians but come on do they really count... just kidding) we know exactly where you would be right now. Seriously, your great grand parents must be rolling in their graves right now.At least us non EU folks no how to put on a bit of a fight but this sniveling and whining is just for the birds.[/citation]
Tell that to all those who lived in the bolshevik controlled part, gratuitously offered at Yalta, you idiot.
[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]... let's send them HUGE truckloads of mail and spam![/citation]
Typical brainless m$ fankiddie, inciting to illegal actions (like the father like the son).
WheelsOfConfusion
Distinguished
- Aug 18, 2008
- 705
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]blackened144[/nom]And this is the exact problem. No government should EVER have the power to force a business to promote and sell his competitors products.[/citation]
Feel free to make that complaint when the EU actually does it. So far they've just decided to proceed with an investigation into MS (the move of dropping IE8 totally was an attempt to avoid the investigation). So far the EU hasn't made any decision besides saying they're going to look into the matter.
[citation][nom]tuannguyen[/nom]Alright, let's break down each of your points shall we?1. Fair. Like I said in the article, I understand the need for fair competition, but removing the browser is NOT the most brilliant way to do it. [/citation]
First off Tuan, let me say that it's been amusing watching people accuse you of an MS bias after that whole Mac comparison last year. 😉
Secondly, I agree that your points are well-intentioned but a bit misguided. It was MS's decision to "unbundle" IE, as said, in an attempt to avoid the EU commission's investigation altogether. If you think that was not the most brilliant way to do it, who's to blame here? They didn't even wait for a recommended course of action from the commission before throwing a fit.
[citation][nom]Tuan[/nom]Like I explained in the comments, the AVERAGE JOE, doesn't even know of other browsers out there. A lot of people, are not computer savvy. They will use whatever is given. If you remove it, and put it in at the time of the installation, they won't even know. Why? It is likely that someone ELSE installed the OS for them. This move only confuses the vast majority of users. Again, I am not talking of people like yourself who know what to do.[/citation]
The people who don't know what to do will most likely be buying their computers, operating systems, and software all at once from an OEM, which will most likely use an "IE8 Pack" to preinstall the browser before the customer even knows about it. Hell, they might even tout the inclusion of the browser as an extra feature. "Now with the power of Microsoft's Internet Explorer 8! Delivering the full power of the Web!" or some pitch like that. The people who "don't know" for the most part will probably be taken care of before they even have to think about it.
[citation][nom]Tuan[/nom]2. ... Right because bundling my software with my software is just wrong. [/citation]
You must have missed the part in the text you just quoted where it was determined that MS abused its monopoly position. That's why they're NOT being treated like any other software company that bundles products. What may be an appropriate way to deal with companies on one level might not apply once they become dominant in the marketspace. Monopolies often need to be treated differently because they are so influential over the whole market, not despite it.
I find it disheartening that someone writing for Tom's Hardware would ignore the relevant bit and pretend the issue is purely that MS bundled IE with Windows as if they were any other company, then pretend the EU is being inconsistent in their reaction to MS's attempt to duck under the investigation. An investigation which hasn't even been concluded yet with no course of action recommended to MS to satisfy their regulations. I'd appreciate it if you (and Microsoft for that matter) didn't jump the gun on this. Going half-cocked doesn't do anybody any good, it just muddies the issue.
[citation][nom]Tuan (earlier)[/nom]How can I even get Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, or whatever else I wanted without getting to each browser's respective website to begin with?[/citation]
Do you honestly think that's a significant technical hurdle for either MS or OEMs to overcome? Just throw in a graphical guide that explains browsers, gives users the option to select one, and then automagically wget or ftp their choice. The user never has to know how to do this themselves, they can go through an InstallShield-type guided process if need be. "Yes, I want an internet Browser. *click* *clicks on a browser from a list* Yes, I want to continue. *click*" "Installing now, this may take a few minutes blah blah blah."
I mean, you can even have Windows install updates without ever opening the MS Updates webpage on a browser. That's here, today, already well-established Windows technology. Don't pretend a browser is necessary to install another browser, Tuan. I think you're overreacting and this won't end up being the show-stopper you think it will.
[citation][nom]Tuan[/nom]3. No argument here.[/citation]
Yet OEM availability absolutely does not figure into your opinion piece (quibble: why it's in the News instead of Articles section I can't understand). Rather glaring omission, I think, given how enormous a role OEMs play in the availability of computers for average users (average users, remember, being the focus of your inconvenience argument).
[citation][nom]Tuan[/nom]4. Let's break down the scenarios shall we:A. EU "suggests" Microsoft make a list of installable browsers at the time of setup. Too bad the majority of computer users (not savvy PC users) don't know of other browser. In fact, IE is just a feature that they use that's like any other feature of the PC for them.[/citation]
Isn't that part of the whole problem the EU's commission is trying to address, here?
[citation][nom]Tuan[/nom]B. Make IE downloadable using Windows Update.Great. See A. And then we're back to IE again.[/citation]
Most users aren't able to click "Install all updates now (recommended)?" Or even "You need a browser to visit web pages. Click here to install Microsoft's Internet Explorer!"? And it might turn out that making IE available as a download could be all that the commissions asks for. Who knows? I don't!
[citation][nom]Tuan[/nom]Microsoft making Chrome, Safari, Firefox, through it's own Windows Update? Don't think so. Those are competitor products. Microsoft has the right not to bundle competing software.[/citation]
Perhaps they could be made to set up a repository where competitors would voluntarily submit and maintain their own browser packages? They could even put in a disclaimer that they don't offer support for non-MS software in the repo. Hell, I wouldn't mind if MS did that here in the 'States.
[citation][nom]Tuan[/nom] What are THOSE people going to do? Open a command console and ftp their way to Firefox? Right.[/citation]
Regardless of what happens, I think we all are of the view that using the commandline is an unreasonable option that won't be mandated. Perhaps we should all stop talking about that as if it would happen?
[citation][nom]Tuan[/nom] The EU has some idealistic intentions, to "even" the playing field.[/citation]
Perhaps you have an unrealistic impression of what the commission has in mind as a resolution.
[citation][nom]Tuan (earlier)[/nom]So what's the cause then? Could it possibly that companies who develop other web browsers are crying over the fact that their release isn't as popular? Could they possibly be making the claim that they're not shipping enough because Microsoft has an unfair advantage?[/citation]
Perhaps the issue really is that MS abused its dominance in the market to unfairly hamper competition in browserspace which resulted in retarded web development? Could it possibly be that the EU's motivation is precisely what they said in response to Opera's official complaint?
Should they just dismiss anti-trust complaints out-of-hand because Tuan Nguyen think Opera is being whiny, no investigation necessary?
Also, I have to say that I find basic argument of "It's not good to investigate monopolistic abuse because that's a bit more inconvenient for users" completely out of line. User convenience shouldn't be a defense in the question of abused monopolies. What if Standard Oil had said to US courts "But gee whiz, your honor! If we were forced to compete based on our merits instead of anti-competitive practices, some people might not be able to get their petrochemicals so easily?" Should that get them off the hook?
Besides, wouldn't this issue make users more aware of browsers and possibly what they put on their computer in general? It might end up being an educational experience in something many people take for granted. If one of the results of this kerfluffle is that more average people actually know what a browser is, I'd call that a plus.
Feel free to make that complaint when the EU actually does it. So far they've just decided to proceed with an investigation into MS (the move of dropping IE8 totally was an attempt to avoid the investigation). So far the EU hasn't made any decision besides saying they're going to look into the matter.
[citation][nom]tuannguyen[/nom]Alright, let's break down each of your points shall we?1. Fair. Like I said in the article, I understand the need for fair competition, but removing the browser is NOT the most brilliant way to do it. [/citation]
First off Tuan, let me say that it's been amusing watching people accuse you of an MS bias after that whole Mac comparison last year. 😉
Secondly, I agree that your points are well-intentioned but a bit misguided. It was MS's decision to "unbundle" IE, as said, in an attempt to avoid the EU commission's investigation altogether. If you think that was not the most brilliant way to do it, who's to blame here? They didn't even wait for a recommended course of action from the commission before throwing a fit.
[citation][nom]Tuan[/nom]Like I explained in the comments, the AVERAGE JOE, doesn't even know of other browsers out there. A lot of people, are not computer savvy. They will use whatever is given. If you remove it, and put it in at the time of the installation, they won't even know. Why? It is likely that someone ELSE installed the OS for them. This move only confuses the vast majority of users. Again, I am not talking of people like yourself who know what to do.[/citation]
The people who don't know what to do will most likely be buying their computers, operating systems, and software all at once from an OEM, which will most likely use an "IE8 Pack" to preinstall the browser before the customer even knows about it. Hell, they might even tout the inclusion of the browser as an extra feature. "Now with the power of Microsoft's Internet Explorer 8! Delivering the full power of the Web!" or some pitch like that. The people who "don't know" for the most part will probably be taken care of before they even have to think about it.
[citation][nom]Tuan[/nom]2. ... Right because bundling my software with my software is just wrong. [/citation]
You must have missed the part in the text you just quoted where it was determined that MS abused its monopoly position. That's why they're NOT being treated like any other software company that bundles products. What may be an appropriate way to deal with companies on one level might not apply once they become dominant in the marketspace. Monopolies often need to be treated differently because they are so influential over the whole market, not despite it.
I find it disheartening that someone writing for Tom's Hardware would ignore the relevant bit and pretend the issue is purely that MS bundled IE with Windows as if they were any other company, then pretend the EU is being inconsistent in their reaction to MS's attempt to duck under the investigation. An investigation which hasn't even been concluded yet with no course of action recommended to MS to satisfy their regulations. I'd appreciate it if you (and Microsoft for that matter) didn't jump the gun on this. Going half-cocked doesn't do anybody any good, it just muddies the issue.
[citation][nom]Tuan (earlier)[/nom]How can I even get Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, or whatever else I wanted without getting to each browser's respective website to begin with?[/citation]
Do you honestly think that's a significant technical hurdle for either MS or OEMs to overcome? Just throw in a graphical guide that explains browsers, gives users the option to select one, and then automagically wget or ftp their choice. The user never has to know how to do this themselves, they can go through an InstallShield-type guided process if need be. "Yes, I want an internet Browser. *click* *clicks on a browser from a list* Yes, I want to continue. *click*" "Installing now, this may take a few minutes blah blah blah."
I mean, you can even have Windows install updates without ever opening the MS Updates webpage on a browser. That's here, today, already well-established Windows technology. Don't pretend a browser is necessary to install another browser, Tuan. I think you're overreacting and this won't end up being the show-stopper you think it will.
[citation][nom]Tuan[/nom]3. No argument here.[/citation]
Yet OEM availability absolutely does not figure into your opinion piece (quibble: why it's in the News instead of Articles section I can't understand). Rather glaring omission, I think, given how enormous a role OEMs play in the availability of computers for average users (average users, remember, being the focus of your inconvenience argument).
[citation][nom]Tuan[/nom]4. Let's break down the scenarios shall we:A. EU "suggests" Microsoft make a list of installable browsers at the time of setup. Too bad the majority of computer users (not savvy PC users) don't know of other browser. In fact, IE is just a feature that they use that's like any other feature of the PC for them.[/citation]
Isn't that part of the whole problem the EU's commission is trying to address, here?
[citation][nom]Tuan[/nom]B. Make IE downloadable using Windows Update.Great. See A. And then we're back to IE again.[/citation]
Most users aren't able to click "Install all updates now (recommended)?" Or even "You need a browser to visit web pages. Click here to install Microsoft's Internet Explorer!"? And it might turn out that making IE available as a download could be all that the commissions asks for. Who knows? I don't!
[citation][nom]Tuan[/nom]Microsoft making Chrome, Safari, Firefox, through it's own Windows Update? Don't think so. Those are competitor products. Microsoft has the right not to bundle competing software.[/citation]
Perhaps they could be made to set up a repository where competitors would voluntarily submit and maintain their own browser packages? They could even put in a disclaimer that they don't offer support for non-MS software in the repo. Hell, I wouldn't mind if MS did that here in the 'States.
[citation][nom]Tuan[/nom] What are THOSE people going to do? Open a command console and ftp their way to Firefox? Right.[/citation]
Regardless of what happens, I think we all are of the view that using the commandline is an unreasonable option that won't be mandated. Perhaps we should all stop talking about that as if it would happen?
[citation][nom]Tuan[/nom] The EU has some idealistic intentions, to "even" the playing field.[/citation]
Perhaps you have an unrealistic impression of what the commission has in mind as a resolution.
[citation][nom]Tuan (earlier)[/nom]So what's the cause then? Could it possibly that companies who develop other web browsers are crying over the fact that their release isn't as popular? Could they possibly be making the claim that they're not shipping enough because Microsoft has an unfair advantage?[/citation]
Perhaps the issue really is that MS abused its dominance in the market to unfairly hamper competition in browserspace which resulted in retarded web development? Could it possibly be that the EU's motivation is precisely what they said in response to Opera's official complaint?
Should they just dismiss anti-trust complaints out-of-hand because Tuan Nguyen think Opera is being whiny, no investigation necessary?
Also, I have to say that I find basic argument of "It's not good to investigate monopolistic abuse because that's a bit more inconvenient for users" completely out of line. User convenience shouldn't be a defense in the question of abused monopolies. What if Standard Oil had said to US courts "But gee whiz, your honor! If we were forced to compete based on our merits instead of anti-competitive practices, some people might not be able to get their petrochemicals so easily?" Should that get them off the hook?
Besides, wouldn't this issue make users more aware of browsers and possibly what they put on their computer in general? It might end up being an educational experience in something many people take for granted. If one of the results of this kerfluffle is that more average people actually know what a browser is, I'd call that a plus.
The IE engine is tightly integrated into Windows operating system so removing I.E. 7 just removes the browser component. As someone above mentioned, on should still be able to access a site via Windows Explorer or other limited mechanism to allow for browser downloading and installation. MS shouldn't have to offer competitors browsers, they only need to even the playing field. By removing IE from Windows 7, they have effectively done that, imo.
One other thing, since MS is required to adhere to the expensive and resource heavy ISO 9000 Quality Standards and implementation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9000), they should also rightfully demand, should the EU force the issue, that any competitive browser also adhere to these standards.
I bet you anything there will be no problem with this. The only people that will have a problem are those you build there own systems.
Although Microsoft will not include a browser, I bet you all OEM makers (i.e. Dell, HP, etc...) will include some kind of browser. The installer will be there on the start screen next to all the other spamware they pack on the machine.
As for the people who build there own systems, I doubt they will have much trouble transferring a browser install via a flash drive or CD.
Although Microsoft will not include a browser, I bet you all OEM makers (i.e. Dell, HP, etc...) will include some kind of browser. The installer will be there on the start screen next to all the other spamware they pack on the machine.
As for the people who build there own systems, I doubt they will have much trouble transferring a browser install via a flash drive or CD.
dante01010
Distinguished
- Mar 14, 2009
- 45
- 0
- 18,530
They should not use/install Windows in the first place... go for Linux, its free, and "you can do whatever you want".
I do have some issues with Windows, but I'm accustomed to using it, so I have to live with it's shortcomings, or I might as well use other operating systems.
For those who doesn't want Windows just because it has IE bundled with it, then don't use Windows. Why demand Windows to give options to install other software from competitors? I have yet to see a McDonald's store giving options for a KFC chicken. Why force Microsoft to remove a software that they developed, did they forced you to buy their software? Use Linux then.
Easy as that for me.
I do have some issues with Windows, but I'm accustomed to using it, so I have to live with it's shortcomings, or I might as well use other operating systems.
For those who doesn't want Windows just because it has IE bundled with it, then don't use Windows. Why demand Windows to give options to install other software from competitors? I have yet to see a McDonald's store giving options for a KFC chicken. Why force Microsoft to remove a software that they developed, did they forced you to buy their software? Use Linux then.
Easy as that for me.
kewl munky
Distinguished
- Aug 4, 2008
- 76
- 0
- 18,640
Epic idea. Since Europe is being obnoxious with IE8 let's just do this. Microsoft ships a version of Windows 7 to everywhere but Europe with IE8 and then ship Europe a version without IE8 and let them figure out how to download a new browser without one to start with. Microsoft does not have to support software that they don't make. Windows 7 is the product, IE8 is a feature. If you like the product and features buy it, if you don't either don't buy it or buy it and don't use the features you don't like. Plain and simple.
shadowthor
Distinguished
- Jun 2, 2008
- 1,128
- 0
- 19,280
I can see most enthuasist using ftp to get their browser, but I doubt the average Joe would know how to use ftp.
Claiming M$ is innocent is ignorant to say the least.
The EU did NOT force M$ to publish it's OS without browser.
It wants M$ to detach it's browser from Windows. Try open Windows explorer (the file browser for Windows) and instead of a local folder location enter a web URL. - THAT is what the EU wants changed.
Name ONE OS where a browser has it's claws this deep into the OS. well?
The EU would have preferred M$ to ship Windows with a choice of browsers, not without one.
M$ is following a strategy to cloud the issue here - for that alone they should be fined again haha!
The EU did NOT force M$ to publish it's OS without browser.
It wants M$ to detach it's browser from Windows. Try open Windows explorer (the file browser for Windows) and instead of a local folder location enter a web URL. - THAT is what the EU wants changed.
Name ONE OS where a browser has it's claws this deep into the OS. well?
The EU would have preferred M$ to ship Windows with a choice of browsers, not without one.
M$ is following a strategy to cloud the issue here - for that alone they should be fined again haha!
[citation][nom]Derek2006[/nom]If I was Microsoft I would just be like screw you guys, you can keep using vista!! And then complain as to why Snow Leopard doesn't have IE in it and hope they get sued and tired of it too.[/citation]
And how would MS make money without selling new licenses and watching how Linux takes over?
And how would MS make money without selling new licenses and watching how Linux takes over?
[citation][nom]afrobacon[/nom]Why not just do something simple like including the top 3 browsers at the time of the OS's launch? Giving people not only a browser, but an up front selection.Would be nice skipping over the M$ exploder altogether; but at the price of not having access to something better isn't worth it.[/citation]
Why should Coke include a can of Pepsi with ever six-pack?....
Why should Coke include a can of Pepsi with ever six-pack?....
alextheblue
Distinguished
- Apr 3, 2001
- 3,078
- 106
- 20,970
Next up: Alpine whines about not selling enough aftermarket radios. EU forces Ford to give customers a free choice of head unit from Ford, Alpine, Sony, etc.
If a car comes with a radio, great. If you want a better unit, you get one installed. In the case of browsers it doesn't even COST you anything, and only takes a couple of minutes! Don't you people see how ridiculous this is? That Microsoft should be compelled to advertise and offer competing browsers?
This isn't about fairness or helping the people. This is about the same things all governments seem to be after: control and money. If they can't control them, they will damn sure get money out of them. Heck the EU seems to get both pretty effectively.
If a car comes with a radio, great. If you want a better unit, you get one installed. In the case of browsers it doesn't even COST you anything, and only takes a couple of minutes! Don't you people see how ridiculous this is? That Microsoft should be compelled to advertise and offer competing browsers?
This isn't about fairness or helping the people. This is about the same things all governments seem to be after: control and money. If they can't control them, they will damn sure get money out of them. Heck the EU seems to get both pretty effectively.
WheelsOfConfusion
Distinguished
- Aug 18, 2008
- 705
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]AlexTheBlue[/nom]Next up: Alpine whines about not selling enough aftermarket radios. EU forces Ford to give customers a free choice of head unit from Ford, Alpine, Sony, etc.[/citation]
I must have missed how Ford is using it's monopoly position in the auto world to make competition for head units unfair and stifle improvement in head unit space.
I must have missed how Ford is using it's monopoly position in the auto world to make competition for head units unfair and stifle improvement in head unit space.
derek2006
Distinguished
- May 19, 2006
- 751
- 0
- 18,990
[citation][nom]bizi[/nom]And how would MS make money without selling new licenses and watching how Linux takes over?[/citation]
Why stop at apple, get them sued too. And linux distro makers will most likely not be able to pay those ridiculous fines, so say by by to linux. In today's world Microsoft can make the distros have a pop up or whatever to convince people to put their software in the distros OS. If they don't like it Microsoft can just sue them, it's the answer to everything.
Microsoft can make all kinds of money if they figured out a better way to stop pirating. Currently there policy is something like, "We will give u a 10 second nag screen on startup, but you can still download updates etc." I would make it annoying and a pain to deal with. People will still pirate, mainly the enthusiast (not everyone, but I hope you know what I mean) which make up a small % of the market anyway. But make it harder for the average people to do it. Because right now anyone can do it easily.
Microsoft make every update have a validation tool embedded. Makes the real hackers have to do a lot of work and makes people have to go find the cracked updates then, it would be a pain in the butt that people won't want to deal with.
Why stop at apple, get them sued too. And linux distro makers will most likely not be able to pay those ridiculous fines, so say by by to linux. In today's world Microsoft can make the distros have a pop up or whatever to convince people to put their software in the distros OS. If they don't like it Microsoft can just sue them, it's the answer to everything.
Microsoft can make all kinds of money if they figured out a better way to stop pirating. Currently there policy is something like, "We will give u a 10 second nag screen on startup, but you can still download updates etc." I would make it annoying and a pain to deal with. People will still pirate, mainly the enthusiast (not everyone, but I hope you know what I mean) which make up a small % of the market anyway. But make it harder for the average people to do it. Because right now anyone can do it easily.
Microsoft make every update have a validation tool embedded. Makes the real hackers have to do a lot of work and makes people have to go find the cracked updates then, it would be a pain in the butt that people won't want to deal with.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Question Read and Edit Files Simultaneously on Multiple Devices from a HARD DRIVE
- Started by waghela
- Replies: 3
-
Question Can I offload frivolous VRAM tasks for System Memory?
- Started by TheyStoppedit
- Replies: 14
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram