Pick Your Browser: Microsoft Shows Off Ballot

Page 5 - 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.
When in rome do as the romans its a simple concept to grasp for most people.

In order for European cars to be used in the US they must make them to certain standards, likewise the EU commission (rightly or wrongly) has decided to not be forced into a single browser OS at start up.

Get a grip already. If you dont like it stop buying european cars, wine, flowers, holidays, beer, here. I'm sure the Europeans will do likewise with your operating systems your PC's etc. Wouldnt the world be fun then..

Microsoft understands this, that why it has given the option on N products for the browser choice. They dealt with it, why cant you?
 
Making a mountain out of a molehill. Couldn't care less. After installing Windows, i go to download Firefox and use it. Never bother about using IE anymore, but still keep it updated with the latest fixes, just in case.
 
Too late!

Back in 1996, when Internet Explorer 4.0 was released there was a new feature called Active Desktop. In essence it would load IE4 along with Windows as a web mod for the desktop and Windows Explorer. As a logical consequence, loading the IE browser was considerably faster after installing it. On the other hand Windows loading would take longer and, due to memory swapping, most PCs would take long to load Netscape, which was the most popular browser until then.

Since the OEM Windows 95 Service Pack 2 (the so-called Windows 95 OSR2), the IE4 integration had always been present. With Windows 2000 it was no longer possible to get totally rid of Internet Explorer (and Outlook Express). Despite a number of supporters, Netscape and Eudora were permanently phased out after that unlegit measure from Microsoft.

But history always repeats itself and we'll see with our very eyes that IE will run faster and faster after every update while the competitors will seem like dinosaurs. The legal measure of presenting other browsers, giving users a choice, will not prevent Microsoft from "tweaking" their OS to run IE faster than the other competitors.
 
This is the dumbest waste of money in corporate history. As much as i believe that Microsoft is a corporate hegemony, its the easiest thing in the word to download whatever free browser you want and use it. I don't see the point of forcing Microsoft to offer and lay out options of competitors browsers. Isn't it the responsibility of your competitors to do your own marketing?
 
Will this apply to Mac and Google? I doubt it.

What next? Forcing Microsoft to not bundle in Microsoft Wordpad with their OS and giving people links to Open Office, etc? Or removing MS Paint and giving people links to Paint Shop Pro, etc? Stupid.

Most people buy a OS and expect it to work out of the box and have all the major features available from the get go. I instantly download Firefox on any machine I use, but I don't get mad that IE is there.
 
Safari is sad and I only use firefox for plugins but come to think of it I guess I'm too used to clicking on it because I'm in firefox right now. I prefer IE8.
 
"Do you think it's fair that Microsoft should have to give Windows users a choice when it comes to browsers but Apple does not?"

Your question makes no sense, Jane. I've had the choice to install other browsers on MS operating systems ever since Windows 98 came out.

Tony.
 
[citation][nom]WingedRayeth[/nom]Microsoft is not a monopoly, they are just popular. If they were a monopoly there wouldn't be OSX or Linux, or Solaris, or Unix, or anything else.[/quote]
Linux, Unix, and Solaris are really workstation or server OSes, and that's where they trash Windows and MS Server in marketshare (Well maybe not Solaris so much..). OS X is only supported on Apple's hardware. You can use various hacks and tricks in hardware and software to make it work, but that's against Apple's licensing terms and you're liable to be bricked by an update even if they never take you to court over it. Running OS X on anything other than an Apple branded computer is illicit and illegitimate as far as the market is concerned.
Windows runs on virtually all commodity PCs and if you include Apple's products under the PC label, Windows has over 90% marketshare. That's pretty monopolistic. Remember, being a monopoly doesn't mean there are absolutely no other offerings, it means you control so much of the market that competitors are virtually locked out of getting much traction.

The reason the bundling of IE is an issue here, according to the EU, is that MS used its total dominance of the OS market to artificially promote the use of its browser over competing browsers. This becomes problematic if you've ever spent any time around web devs and security gurus who are quick to point out the numerous failings of IE to display things correctly or keep users safe, and how hard it is to make websites compatible with IE's stagnant, non-standard cruft. This has kept the web itself from developing much, and in fact even the latest version of IE can't run Google's standards-based Wave service.
IE hasn't had to be competitive on features or quality until very recently, in fact IE 7 wasn't even released at the time Opera filed this complaint with the EU. That kind of stagnation is a hallmark of a product enjoying monopoly and inertia to fuel its adoption.

But just spamming me with a choice when I'm trying to get my new computer up and running? That is just asinine.
Click to expand...
Like you don't already have to do a dozen other things during setup and configuration of a new system. :b Maybe this way most people will actually learn what a browser is.
 
Bottom line: The EU loves stupid people. I for one am happy Windows comes with IE, if for no other reason than it makes downloading firefox easier. NOt to mention there are things that simply require IE to function properly especially in the corporate world. Therefore, I think that the EU decision to intervene in this particular situation is stupid. Lets now have apple not include Safari with OS X. Same shit, smaller company, but why are their multiple standards?
Morons.
 
[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom][/citation]
I'm glad there are still one or two people around who still remember WHY the IE thing was such a big deal back then. It was *not* about "bawwww, they're bundling a browser with their OS," and Apple had nothing to do with it; there is no Apple analogy that can be made with that situation, that I can think of.
 
Microsoft should have to do the same for Windows Media Player.
Put audiosoft.net EJukebox on the list along with Winamp.
 
Do you have a choice what brand of stereo system you wish to have in your newly purchased Nissan? Do you choose what brand of tires are going to come equipped on your new ride? But you are given a choice to either use IE or install another OS as it stands right now. Now it's IE but what's next? Calculator, Defragger, MSN Messenger or a plethora of Microsoft developed software could be put under such scrutiny. Stop this EU nonsense.
 
[citation][nom]asldkj[/nom]i need a ballot screen for notepad app, calculator app, paint app, defrag app, ......[/citation]
Already +20 but I have been saying this since day 1.

Seems as if all I have to do in order to get the EU to force MS to freely promote my software is to make a bit of Freeware that MS already do, such as a notepad or a pain program. Then I build up a huge organisation with staff and sponsorship and then run to the EU claiming that their existant product is harming my business.
As this is now a legal precedent I see no reason why writers of millions of other bits of freeware can't cite this case and get the EU to force MS to freely distribute their software for them and not pay a single penny to MS for it's promotion.
 
When in rome do as the romans its a simple concept to grasp for most people.

In order for European cars to be used in the US they must make them to certain standards, likewise the EU commission (rightly or wrongly) has decided to not be forced into a single browser OS at start up.
Click to expand...

That would apply to all European cars, would it not? Same thing for american cars sold in the EU, correct? Then, following your logic why wouldn't/shouldn't it apply to all operating systems?
 
[citation][nom]Eccentric909[/nom]That would apply to all European cars, would it not? Same thing for american cars sold in the EU, correct? Then, following your logic why wouldn't/shouldn't it apply to all operating systems?[/citation]
It's a daft comparison anyway, no one car maker has a monopoly and this isn't about standards. Even if it was about cars the comparison would be like walking into a Ferrari dealership and before they let you drive away they offer you a free gift of a baseball cap emblazoned with logos from Masserati, Lamborgini, Porsche and Ferrari.
The customer, who has just bought his brand new Ferrari, looks at the dealer as if to say "Are you taking the piss?" and the dealer explains that even though the caps are free to the customers, the other car makers spent a huge amout of money making their caps and seeing as the only caps offered to customers in a Ferrari dealership have a Ferrari logo on them it wouldn't be fair. The dealer goes on to tell the customer that if he drives his brand new Ferrari down the road to the Porsche or Lamborgini dealership and asks for one of their caps, even though he hasn't bought one of their cars, they would be happy to let him have one, indeed he could get a cap for every day of the week and they would all be happy. But as the caps aren't given out in the Ferrari shop they got REAL pissy and complained to the EU.

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid x10 to the power infinity.
 
unfair... i don't know why Microsoft agreed to that, if anyone wants to use another browser, they have the option to. that's all Microsoft needs to do
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]
I see no reason why writers of millions of other bits of freeware can't cite this case and get the EU to force MS to freely distribute their software for them... [/citation]
That's because you're either an idiot or a troll, but I learned that pretty quickly in all the past threads where I've tried to talk sense with you on this issue. You're too dim to even understand that MS isn't distributing anybody's software but their own, even under this agreement. MICROSOFT DOES NOT AND WILL NOT HAVE TO SHIP ANY BROWSER OTHER THAN IE WITH WINDOWS. You can't even grasp that, why should anybody care what you have to say about this?

[citation][nom]pjf1fan[/nom]Do you have a choice what brand of stereo system you wish to have in your newly purchased Nissan?[/citation]
Does Nissan have a monopoly on the consumer automobile market? Are they using this monopoly to artificially drive adoption of their OEM's stereos at the expense of other manufacturers'? If this is not the case, then nothing you are bitching about matters because you're not making a valid comparison.
 
[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]MS isn't distributing anybody's software but their own, even under this agreement. MICROSOFT DOES NOT AND WILL NOT HAVE TO SHIP ANY BROWSER OTHER THAN IE WITH WINDOWS.[/citation]
Isn't forcing people to choose a browser at first use, even if it is then downloaded, the same thing? Free advertising via digital distibution?
 
[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]Isn't forcing people to choose a browser at first use, even if it is then downloaded, the same thing? Free advertising via digital distibution?[/citation]
Anyone who is uneductaed enough to need the browser screen in the first place won't know the differance. I suppose Wheels Of Confusion is just marking me down -1 because he has severe emotional issues and needs to grow up. Enforcing a competitor as a choicd that hasn't paid to be included, by any means whether digital distribution, included in the install or just a big sticker on the packaging with the website where to get it your self is FREE ADVERTISING. Since when is the EU in the business of enforcing any company to advertise, FREELY, a competitor?

Coke and Pepsi form a duopoly in the fizzy drinks market. Are they forced to advertise on the outside of the can to "put this can down, buy that bottle of milk instead"? No. Because the notion is ridiculous. The fact that Coke's manufactured product has had to pay for the privilige of telling someone to drink something else is just insanity.
 
This is a pretty petty argument on the EU's behalf. Who cares if Microsoft bundles Internet Explorer with their operating system? That's a good business decision by M$, and it's counter intuitive to their business model to advertise for the competition.

Note, I don't even like internet explorer and I've probably used it a handful of times...Google Chrome all the way. But this is a pretty ridiculous battle for the EU to fight.
 
[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]Isn't forcing people to choose a browser at first use, even if it is then downloaded, the same thing? Free advertising via digital distibution?[/citation]
No. Do I really have to explain how not bundling any other company's software with Windows is different from bundling another company's software with Windows?
Bundling is even just a part of the issue, another is how tightly Windows and IE specifically were tied together, such that you couldn't uninstall IE from XP and if you managed to hack it out, features from Windows wouldn't work right.
Since people are so fond of the car+radio analogy, part of the agreement between the EU and MS is that Windows' special features that require a browser will now be opened up so that other browsers can be used instead. This is like a (fictional monopoly) car maker having a radio constructed in such a way that you can't remove it from the car and replace it, otherwise unrelated parts of the car would not work right. This agreement is like forcing the (fictional monopoly) car company to allow other manufacturers' radios to work in the car, so that you can have competition. Yes, you could always install another browser in Windows to surf the web, but up until Vista you couldn't do an online update through any browser other than IE, and IE was used to render help files, and you couldn't uninstall IE 6 even if you had IE 7.

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Coke and Pepsi form a duopoly in the fizzy drinks market. Are they forced to advertise on the outside of the can to "put this can down, buy that bottle of milk instead"? No. [/citation]
So there's already more competition there than in the MS case, and milk isn't even in the "fizzy drink market" last time I checked. Good job on looking S-M-R-T you wacky loon.

[citation][nom]Anastasios912[/nom]This is a pretty petty argument on the EU's behalf. Who cares if Microsoft bundles Internet Explorer with their operating system?[/citation]
I wonder if you even know what the EU's "petty" argument is?
 
[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]No. Do I really have to explain how not bundling any other company's software with Windows is different from bundling another company's software with Windows?[/citation]
No, I think we all understand the differance between having the programs installation files included in the Windows disk and a link that downloads the program directly from the internet. But in a high-speed-always-on-internet connected world, where the thing that is being downloaded is the internet browser, there is no real differance to the end user.
Isn't the point that MS wouldn't mind so much if the companies paid MS for the free advertising? Maybe a fixed fee for every time someone picks their browser at the select screen?
Despite anyone's personal feelings towards MS, the other companies are essentially getting EU mandated free advertising and the second they click the "select and install" link it is also free distribution.


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom