OP: Why Microsoft is Innocent with IE8

Page 11 - 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.
If memory serves me correctly MSIE was, prior to vista, integrated into the OS. Meaning that many items such as Windows Explorer would not work if you did not have MSIE. This is where the monopoly entered and how MS got into trouble. Because there was no way to REMOVE IE from your system, due to it being a required part of the OS to even open your files. I have not/will not use Vista so not sure about Vista. Windows 7 also appears to integrate MSIE into the Windows Explorer feature.

Doubt me on XP??? Open add/remove programs. Go to Windows components. Attempt to remove MSIE. You CANNOT.. Also if you attempt to remove it from registry using regedit then try to launch Windows Explorer... IT WONT WORK

So congrats to the EU for forcing this situation.
 
[citation][nom]TheMan1214[/nom]So then apple and linux shouldn't be able to use browsers too.[/citation]
I don't care about apple, but with Linux you wouldn't have to have a browser installed when shipped... the package manager can install any browser thats available
 
[citation][nom]afrobacon[/nom]Actually, this MAY turn out to be a good thing. As stated several times in the past, the average computer user thinks IE is the only browser (or in most cases, the internet itself.) With the EU doing this it publicizes on the fact that there are others out there and that Firefox isn't a computer game thats all the rage.I don't believe in the EU's practices and I do think that M$ is in the right on this one; just trying to see some good in it.[/citation]

How is it a problem that some users think that IE is the only browser? It works very well for most people out there. My parents certainly can't see the difference between browsers, and why should they?
 
Little babies everywhere! If Windows comes w/ IE, DEAL WITH IT! What has this world come to? People complain because THEY buy Windows and it has IE on it.... A product of Microsoft.... That you don't have to use if you don't want to.... If it was my choice, I would have Windows not allow any 3rd party browswers and have IE nativly come with a filter that blocks all 3rd part browser sites. If you don't like it, TOUGH!
 
The part of the story Tuan chose to ignore.

In Windows 98 Microsoft included Internet Explorer as part of the operating system. It claimed it could not be removed, or it would break the operating system. They did this strictly to crush Netscape's browser. Microsoft made it's bed, and now does not want to lie in it.

Side notes:
98 was not bundled with IE 6, I think it was IE 4. I dare anyone to browse the internet with IE 4 and claim it was superior to any Netscape product.

Some are under the mistaken impression XP was the first OS to include IE. I can only assume they are young enough XP is the only OS they have ever known.

If you believe MS about the not being able to remove IE claim, use the search engine of your choice to research 98lite.

If you think the TCP/IP stack is part of IE, you should not comment on technical articles. By the way, Windows 95 connected to the internet just fine without Internet Explorer.

It is patently easy, and always has been, to load linux without a browser.

It is patently easy, and always has been, to remove a browser from Apple's operating systems.

Only MS claimed it's browser was integral to the operating system, hence it is the only one that has been wrangling in the courts over it's browser's distribution. Duh. Is that really so hard to understand, Tuan?
 
[citation][nom]mitch074[/nom].Shipping other browsers with Win7 wasn't possible, from a license point of view: several include GPL code, which forbid shipping with non-GPL code. [/citation]

This is not true. GPL forbids LINKING with non-gpl code. There is no problem SHIPPING GPL'ed applications in a proprietary system (using Operating System calls is not considered derivative work). This cannot be stressed enough.

Besides, firefox is not licensed under the GPL.
 
They could also do that with MSN Messenger.
People saying there's no problem in IE being the only browser seems unaware of the hazards of a monopoly. Until v4, IE didn't even allow to browse and download a file at the same time. The, now, standard tabbed browsing is present on IE just because a rival did it first and Microsoft would continue to fall behind without it.
A product without rivals, specially in hands of a giant like Microsoft, only evolves if it's really important to them, and a browser wouldn't be the case.
Need a real-life example of a stagnant product because it's by far the #1 and it isn't a priority for the company? What about it being an internet dependant one, owned by Microsoft itself and became standard because it was pushed along the OS? Then you have Live Messenger. It overtook the market, created by ICQ, and since it had little necessity, it hardly evolves. In truth, still by this day, it doesn't have some features ICQ had more than 10 years ago, like file transfer resuming.

For those concerned with how to deal without a browser being included, I guess some people already spoke about solutions. And let's not forget that Windows already comes with a FTP client (Windows 95 already had it). Also, Microsoft itself is recommending that OEMs pre-install a browser, even if it's Firefox, and they probably would do that nonethless, or someone thinks that they are stupid enough to ship systems without a browser, when they usually go far enough to pre-install things most people wouldn't even use?

And about Netscape being killed, in addition of that already written, MS also pushed a lot of proprietary tags instead of following W3C. A classic example was on how to embed a midi file on a page, something that was popular on later 90s... there was already a tag for that, but MS created a different one while also supporting the other, and when using MS Frontpage to create a html and embed a music on it, guess which of the two tags would be included on the code?
Up to this day, there are things, like some pages in ASPX (a language from MS) that won't work properly in non-IE browsers. An easy way to make your rivals look broken.
 
[citation][nom]CopperBot[/nom]Why can't I go in and say: "Ok, I'm buying a new laptop with windows 7 and for my free software bundle I'll choose the one that comes with Firefox, Nero, etc blah blah blah" Have your employees on hand educating consumers about their options so they can choose wisely. Don't just give them one option and keep shoving the product out the front door...[/citation]

And I think it might be a good idea if computer retailers did that...unfortunately all of the computer retailers who WOULD have been priced out of the market at this point.

Would you really want your mother picking web browsers based on Microsoft's recommendation?

 
[citation][nom]msmollin[/nom]I think everyone here, including the author, has missed the entire point of the reason behind the EU's original filing, and why it continued to go against Microsoft. Yes, having a browser installed by default is in fact handy to have. No, Microsoft should NOT be forced to include other browsers... that's strangling a fair market economy. The reason why the EU originally ruled to remove it entirely was because Microsoft made it so that you could not in fact uninstall IE. IE is so heavily integrated into windows that if you try to remove IE it will inherently "brick" the install. Then, Microsoft began using their monopoly powers to create websites that "Worked best in IE"... that is also strangling a fair market economy. The author here is correct... the EU should not be forcing Microsoft to remove IE8. What SHOULD be required is to force Microsoft to make it an option to uninstall after the fact. I never use IE except to download Chrome and Firefox before that and Netscape before that... oh and to go on the 2 websites or so that have horrid ActiveX loaded in them.In short... the EU is wrong, and the author is wrong, and over 60% of the people commenting here are wrong. Linux and OS X give you the opportunity to remove their packaged web browsers after the fact. I'm sure if Apple was in a similar position of power as Microsoft, they would have done the same thing, so they are not innocent in this. They just HAVE to allow the removal of safari in order to please the 15% of us who don't want to have a web browser integrated into the core of the system. The other thing is... many times in the past and present a good amount of security issues in windows arise from the integration of the browser and the rest of the system. People can remotely take over systems by exploiting bugs in IE. This rarely happens in 3rd party browsers (with the exception of plugins like java and flash). I imagine a lot of Microsoft's energy that is used on patching remote code exploitation bugs could have been spent separating and sandboxing IE (similar to how finally IE8 handles things) to prevent much of this in the first place.[/citation]
Your arguement is tired. Your entire premise is that you can not uninstall IE from Windows. Well, it was BUILD INTO THE OS. If you have a problem with that, dont use the OS. This should be MS's answer to the EU. "Internet Explorer is an integral part of our operation system. Use Windows with Internet Explorer or dont use Windows at all. Oh yeah and GFY."
 
The EU is simply attacking Microsoft for the wrong reasons. A company should be able to ship whatever they want with their product it's their product! This whole situation is asinine, makes you wonder if the EU is just looking to make a quick buck.

That said Microsoft does need to be taken down a level. I've read but cannot confirm that Microsoft offers incentives to company's that agree to only sell/distribute Microsoft products. That is what the EU should be clamping down on. Not IE.

There's a clear difference between a company saying:
If you buy my product you get item A,B,C,D where as your competition only offers item A,B,C with theirs.

or a company saying:
If you buy my product you get item A,B,C,D and if you agree to only buy my product and none of my competitions then I'll give you A,B,C,D for half the price.

I think the EU is attacking Microsoft on the former scenario which is legitimate business instead of attacking Microsoft on the second scenario which is anti-competitive.

Respectfully submitted vie FF on my XP machine that I can't uninstall IE on (but never needed/desired to). Speaking of which why does anyone care whether or not IE can be installed or removed? I'm having a hard time understanding why some are so adamant about that.
 
[citation][nom]robert17[/nom]Of course all OS's should be required to only be that, an OS. No peripheral/add-on files of any kind. Everyone should have to determine what they want and how to get it. Load OS; command prompt after determining communications protocol; submit to open service; command line to server requesting file using FTP (assuming file name is known or knowable); download and expand; ready to go. Sure, everyone on the EU Board of Running Everyone's Life/Grabbing Bucks for Socialism knows how to write code and assumes everyone else does too. That's why they are going to require all autos come without engines; that should be the consumers' choice too, choose/install your own.[/citation]
Why should OS's be required to do that? Thats retarded. I want my OS to do as many things as possible so I dont have to go out and buy or download so much crap. If other people feel differently, well, then they can go out and buy or download whatever crap they want on their system. Oh, and look at that, they can..
 
A monopoly can only be created by government decree.

"Success breeds competition" -- unless the government says NO. Example: the US Postal Service.

Microsoft does not have a monopoly.
 
I think what people are forgetting is that they are not applying the same standards to other companies. MSFT has the most money thus the EU can fine them even more knowing that they are able to pay it. I dont see the EU telling Apple to remove its web browser. I think this is all about how easy it is to install the OS and get running. I dont want to have to download 20 different apps because they couldn't be included in the OS cause some small company yells about not being included in the same amount of market that the OS has. Common users arent going to want to download a media player, file extractor, web browser.. and all the other things that you could argue are anti-competitive programs. If firefox and opera want to be more included how about selling their software in stores and how about designing their own os's so they can include their browser in it. Firefox actually has a high adoption rate and its not even sold in stores. I run both firefox and IE. The point is that if your going to force these things on one company than you need a policy that covers all the others. Putting firefox or opera into windows is idiotic. Does MSFT get a chance to put their IE into a product of either of those competitors? Nope.
 
What about MAC? Talk about a monopoly just because microsoft controls most of the market doesnt mean they are a monopoly. They just have a more user friendly product especially for those who are very computer illiterate. When you buy a mac everything is MAC MAC MAc. When you buy a PC its open to any vendor. EU should just let business be business and if you fail you fail if you prosper you prosper.
 
Blah blah blah, "OMG Windows 7 won't have a browser now" blah blah. Whatever. If this happens it'll be incredibly easy to get around anyway. Companies like Dell will just have the browser on a seperate CD from the OS, with their crapware (most likely), and users who are doing fresh installs on self built machines aren't fucking stupid enough to have this be a problem anyway.

Personally, just me, I would MUCH rather have an Windows 7 install that DOES NOT have IE8 on it. IE8 freaking SUCKS. I'd go as far as pay more money (as much as an extra 20 bucks) to not have that abomination of a browser on my new build.
 
[citation][nom]RodIshiCi[/nom]Up to this day, there are things, like some pages in ASPX (a language from MS) that won't work properly in non-IE browsers. An easy way to make your rivals look broken.[/citation]
Well said. Exactly one of the cases I was thinking of.
 
[citation][nom]sublifer[/nom]Well said. Exactly one of the cases I was thinking of.[/citation]

I'm in a agreement, I would love to see Microsoft adopt the w3c standards.

But... just to play devils advocate here. Other browsers like FF could in an effort to better compete offer their browsers with the capability to render both pages conforming to w3c standards and pages using Microsofts standards. One could argue that microsoft can develop whatever they want as a standard, it's the consumer that chooses whether or not they want to adopt it.
 
LOL. I guess Apple is next and will not be allowed to ship Safari with their OS.

Imagine if the same rules apply here, u and i will not be able to d/l Firefox/Opera (for that matter UBUNTU), instead, we have to buy a magazine that came with a cd that has the software (reminds me back in the 80 and early 90's).

 
[citation][nom]rbeamj[/nom]If memory serves me correctly MSIE was, prior to vista, integrated into the OS. Meaning that many items such as Windows Explorer would not work if you did not have MSIE. This is where the monopoly entered and how MS got into trouble. Because there was no way to REMOVE IE from your system, due to it being a required part of the OS to even open your files. I have not/will not use Vista so not sure about Vista. Windows 7 also appears to integrate MSIE into the Windows Explorer feature. Doubt me on XP??? Open add/remove programs. Go to Windows components. Attempt to remove MSIE. You CANNOT.. Also if you attempt to remove it from registry using regedit then try to launch Windows Explorer... IT WONT WORKSo congrats to the EU for forcing this situation.[/citation]
Im sorry but I still dont see your point. MS makes the OS. They can include absolutely anything they want to in there. If you dont want it, you dont have to install Windows. Period. The EU ruling on this and the previous ruling on Media Player are total BS. If the EU thinks they can do a better job, they need to make their own OS.
 
I don't agree with this move by the EU, as I think it's the wrong solution and many years too late. But I think a lot of you are missing the point. Microsoft used their monopoly and non standards compliant "optimizations" and technology (ActiveX) to make it extremely difficult for people to browse the internet without using IE. Microsoft definitely was in the wrong here, but most of that is in the past now and while there are still some sites that are IE specific most site developers are a lot more conscious to make sure their site works well on different browsers and platforms. I think requiring them to offer no browser is idiotic as it's considered a basic and necessary function of a modern OS. What should have been done, many years ago, is for them to make Microsoft allow these technologies work correctly in every browser and platform but it's a bit of a moot point now. I also don't believe MS was the sole downfall of Netscape. While IE sucks IMO, Netscape did plenty to kill themselves (with the help of MS), by becoming rather bloated and slow. Firefox has shown if you offer someone a compelling product to switch to, they'll do so gladly.
 
It's so easy to get a browser without using one. If you find it hard then take your computer to a professional. Plain and simple!

PS: remember there are other ways of getting data on your PC (gasp) _without_ the internet!
 
Netscape went out of business not because of Microsoft IE, but instead because of two very ironic things; 1. Companies trying to sell a browser found out quickly that free web browsers were more popular. 2. The free web browser that killed Netscape, and quickly Internet Explorer is actually a derivative of the Netscape code. Mozilla Firefox and trying to sell a web browser as a product are the two reasons why Netscape finally called it quits.

As for including a default web browser in an operating system, I have no issues with Windows coming preloaded with Internet Explorer,no more than I would have an issue with Apple bundling Safari with Mac OS. Ubuntu comes with Firefox, and I have no problem with that.

What the problem is, and this is where Microsoft has been under fire for quite some time, is that they didn't just bundle Internet Explorer with their Operating Systems - they literally built the operating system to *require* Internet Explorer. That's where they crossed the line, and took a flying leap into the realm of Monopoly.

If Internet Explorer were not an Operating System Requirement, and easily able to be uninstalled, then we're back to legal territory.

In that the EU tried to have Microsoft offer other browsers than Internet Explorer, and Microsoft instead decided to remove Internet Explorer altogether in the European Win7 releases is simply childish.

It's akin to Microsoft taking the ball and bat home because they weren't getting their way.

In the end, that may actually hurt them in the European market... why pay for an OS if people can get Linux for free, and with an assortment of browsers at their disposal from the get-go.

 
omg, and I thought I could whine myself - what a bunch of whiney babies. Did anyone here not use Win3.1? How the hell did you get Netscape on it? More than likely you even used Netscape to download IE back then and try it out. And the writer of this supposed article works at a tech site? I think that speaks for itself. Heck is this even an article or someone's crying session?

[citation][nom]article[/nom]If you can't adapt, you're going to be phased out.[/citation] uh, I think someone should take their own advice. Sounds like a whole lotta can't adapt to me. I would love a Windows version without IE myself.

Heard of FTP? How many people here don't have a second computer or a work computer? Or a flash drive? Can't download the browser you want before you upgrade? And what about the old days where they packaged multiple install packages with the OS? Who said they can't do that and it just isn't installed? Oh or the opportunity for all the "other" browser company's to hand out free coasters reminiscent of the AOL CD days?

If you're commenting here I would think you're supposed to be tech enthusiasts. All this laughing and whining sure isn't showing it.
 
Anyone who knows anything about world governments knows that european countries are generally left leaning and sometimes socialist in nature.
They are against big companies that are successful like microsoft.
 
This is a very sad and poor journalist work! I thought Tomshardware was supposed to be an independent entity. How much is Microsoft paying for this article? Why are you choosing such a narrow minded view?

-IE isn't the most used browser because it is the best (regardless of being it or not). It's the most used because it is shipped with the dominant OS. Any other browser would be dominant if given the chance of being shipped with Windows exclusively. Most people don't even know what a browser is, much less are capable of replacing it. It's just the "Internet"...
-Just because Microsoft doesn't bundle IE with windows 7, it doesn't mean users will have no browser when they turn on their new PC! Manufacturers will ship other browsers (and even IE if they choose to do so) with new PCs. Just like every new PC ships with other software, like MS Office previews, anti-virus, etc.
-The difference is that there will be a diversity of browsers deployed and this is good by all measures: MS will have to make sure that IE respects Internet standards (no longer will sites say "Designed for IE, screw everyone else), competition among browsers will be greater and so will browsers. Competition is good. Monopoly bad.
-Had AT&T not been split up, were would US citizens be today regarding phone and Internet service and costs? I believe (from what I read in places such as TomsHardware) that they still lag behind Asia and most of Europe.
-Stop supporting Microsoft just because it's an US company and action is being taken by EU. Had George Bush not become president of the US, Microsoft might have been split up, and we would, most likely, be more advanced today than we are. Think about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom