Slashdot Log In
Windows 7 Lets You Uninstall IE8
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Mar 04, 2009 08:34 PM
from the if-thy-browser-offend-thee-pluck-it-out dept.
from the if-thy-browser-offend-thee-pluck-it-out dept.
CWmike writes "A just-leaked build of Windows 7 lets users remove Internet Explorer, the first time that Microsoft has offered the option since it integrated the browser with Windows in 1997, two bloggers reported today. The move might have been prompted by recent charges by the European Union that Microsoft has stifled browser competition by bundling IE with its operating system, the bloggers speculated. One solution under consideration by the EU would require Microsoft to disable IE if the user decided to install a different browser, such as Mozilla's Firefox or Google's Chrome. Microsoft had no comment when asked to confirm whether Windows 7 will let users dump IE8 or whether the option was in reaction to the EU charges."
Related Stories
[+]
Windows 7 Kill Switch For IE Confirmed — For More Apps, Too 208 comments
CWmike writes "Microsoft has confirmed that users will be able to remove its IE8 browser, as well as several other integrated applications, from Windows 7. Jack Mayo, a group program manager on the Windows team, listed in a blog post the applications that can be switched off. They include Internet Explorer 8, Fax and Scan, handwriting recognition, Windows DVD Maker, Windows Gadget Platform, Windows Media Player, Windows Media Center, Windows Search, and XPS Viewer and Services. He explained that the files associated with those applications and features are not actually deleted from the hard drive. The public beta of Windows 7 does not include the ability to 'kill' said apps. But a pirated copy of Windows 7 Build 7048 includes the new removal options, and has been leaked on the Internet." (We mentioned the reported ability to turn off IE8 yesterday as well.)
[+]
Your Rights Online: EU Wants Multiple Browser Bundling On New PCs 464 comments
An anonymous reader writes with a link to Ars Technica's report that "the EU is considering forcing Windows users to choose a browser to download and install before they can first browse the Internet, according to The Wall Street Journal (subscription required). While the latest Windows 7 builds let you uninstall IE8, 'third-party browser makers like Opera, Mozilla and Google are pushing for tough sanctions against Microsoft. The EU would rather have a "ballot screen" for users to choose which browsers to download and install as well as which one to set as default. The bundling requirement might end up becoming a responsibility for manufacturers.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
At last! (Score:5, Funny)
A compelling feature to drag people away from XP.
Now only if it included a utility to uninstall Windows...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
it does. it's called "format c:"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:At last! (Score:4, Informative)
I suspect it would fail when attempting to delete the deltree binary itself, or the directory it belongs to. Haven't tried, though.
(No such problem on Linux, of course; rm -rf / will happily wipe your entire fs, including the rm binary and the /bin directory.)
Parent
rm -rf / (Score:4, Informative)
(No such problem on Linux, of course; rm -rf / will happily wipe your entire fs, including the rm binary and the /bin directory.)
This is a "bug". Under recent POSIX revisions this is now considered incorrect behaviour (something about trying to follow "/." and "/.."):
http://blogs.sun.com/jbeck/entry/rm_rf_protection
Supposedly Debian (from Sid onwards) also does not allow 'rm -rf /'.
Parent
Re:rm -rf / (Score:5, Funny)
Cool! I think I'll try for myse
Parent
Re:rm -rf / (Score:4, Funny)
Tag: andnothingofvaluewaslost
Parent
Another bit of lore in danger of being lost (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a "bug". Under recent POSIX revisions this is now considered incorrect behaviour (something about trying to follow "/." and "/.."):
http://blogs.sun.com/jbeck/entry/rm_rf_protection [sun.com]
I didn't realize that had been changed recently. How sad. Another bit of Unix lore that only us old-timers will get to experience.
By their argument, `cd /; rm -rf .' still ought to work. Sigh. That lacks the drama, the feeling, the intensity of slamming down the return key knowing you're about to delete every file on the system. :-)
Supposedly Debian (from Sid onwards) also does not allow 'rm -rf /'.
Pathetic. But at least you get the source to rm(1) so you can fix that bug - or write your own, it's not that hard.
Now, get off my lawn.
Parent
Re:rm -rf / (Score:4, Informative)
This is not Debian-specific. Just RTFM of rm(1) from GNU Coreutils and you'll see the option --preserve-root is enabled by default. To override it use --no-preserve-root. Mine's coreutils-6.12 here.
Of course you can see this as another disadvantage of GNU.
Parent
Re:At last! (Score:5, Informative)
So to have more protection over temporary data in a program, open a file and then immediately unlink it - only programs that can manage to open it between(/at) its creation and unlinking from the directory structure will be able to access the data within it; this also leads to situations where the total space allocated on a disk [partition] (looking at, say df) can be much larger than is obviously apparent (using, say du) - this can happen if you have a large log file that is being written and you rm the directory entry for it: only when the program filling the log exits will the space be released.
Parent
Re:At last! (Score:5, Interesting)
disclaimer: i dont currently use ubuntu....but have used it in the past
i'm not sure why people think ubuntu is any more bloated than any other mainstream linux distro. They run the same software stack and if you listed the running processes when you reached the GUI you'd probably find most mainstream linux distros are much the same.
Most linux distros including ubuntu are built from the same standard components, and sometimes there are modifications made such as improvements to specific software and also corporate branding on images etc.
Such modifications are usually minor in comparison to the original software, and its doubtful that they add much to the memory footprint or speed of the OS as a whole...generally speaking.
Please identify the 'cruft' you refer to in ubuntu and I'll happily be proven wrong.
Parent
Re:At last! (Score:5, Insightful)
i'm not sure why people think ubuntu is any more bloated than any other mainstream linux distro.
Canonical are basically going to get criticised no matter which approach they take: if they don't go for the kitchen-sink approach then Ubuntu isn't casual user friendly and shame on them for making people rely on package management; when it does it's considered too bloated and crufty.
It's a no-win situation, someone's always going to gripe.
Parent
Re:At last! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Confucius say (Score:5, Funny)
Man who remove Internet Explorer but not Windows is a little like Lance Armstrong: still one Ballmer remaining.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No astroturf here, but on my 8 months removed from bleeding edge computer, (no I7 chip), windows 7 is leaps and bounds ahead of vista. Its *almost* on par with windows XP. Perhaps with a bit of learning, I could hollow out a corner in my cold dead heart for windows 7.
Anywho, its not AS bad as people are saying, in fact, it carries on XP's (well, much more linux's than XP's) tradition of only bugging you for admin rights when you need admin righ
Re:Confucius say (Score:4, Insightful)
Posting anonymously for reasons that are soon to be obvious.
Huh? I'm sorry, this isn't obvious at all. Is it because you made a pro-windows post and think you're going to get modded down? From what I've seen in my time here, well-thought-out posts that defend any OS seldom get modded down. Occasionally you'll get one or two downmods from zealots, but those will generally be corrected by later mods.
(I won't get into the silliness of posting anonymously to protect a fictitious karma number in the first place...
Parent
Re:Confucius say (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe he had mod points and wanted to mod himself up?
Parent
Sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
And who has money on the OS not working right afterwards?
Disable IE? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Disable IE? (Score:5, Insightful)
Me installing firefox does NOT mean I want IE disabled.
Ah, you may like it to be there. Not everyone does. And that's the crux of the matter... Having the freedom to choose. Which of course nobody cares about when they choose to go with the majority. Fortunately, the EU understands that the rights of minorities are more important.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
New Prank (Score:5, Informative)
Looks like the newest prank to play on someone's computer will include uninstalling all of their browsers.
I don't understand what is so complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems the astroturfers are going crazy trying to confuse the issue. This has nothing to do with end users. The important thing the EU is trying to get is for OEM's to have the ability to replace IE with (or add to IE) Firefox or some other browser.
Let's repeat this carefully:
1. An OEM (like Dell) must be able to load the computer with arbitrary programs, some of which compete with Microsoft's world domination plans, without Microsoft being able to punish them by changing the terms of their OEM contract.
2. This has NOTHING to do with what users do with their machine after they get it home. Astroturfers are trying to say this has something to do with installing alternative browsers, or some kind of installation switch to allow the users to choose, or other bullshit. That is just to make it sound like the EU is forcing the machines to be "hard to use". In fact it is making the machine easier to use because it allows end users to not have to do the "hard" installation step, this difficulty is in fact a major part of Microsoft's lock-in.
3. Yes the IE libraries are not going away. They cannot, as other programs use them and expect them. This is not relevant as the browser that people are using to talk to the outside world is not calling these libraries.
4. It does sound like the truth is that IE is somewhat more "integrated" than just the existence of libraries, and thus Microsoft had to do some work so that everything works if the ie.exe file is missing (such as apparently removing the ability to choose it as the default browser if it is missing). Good for them, they are obeying the rules.
Re:I don't understand what is so complicated (Score:4, Informative)
That was the case up until IE 7, but I things changed more there. And iexplore.exe and explorer.exe have always had separate process spaces, even back in the IE6 days. (Very important since an explorer.exe browser crashing requires restarting all of explorer.exe including the desktop. That gets very annoying, so using IE processes to browse the web have always been a good idea.)
And technically, IE6 was still a seperate program that just ran the same code as explorer.exe did for both browser and file modes.
When IE 7 is installed the explorer.exe is prevented from entering a web-browser mode. While the trident engine remains in the Windows core, the UI engine that IE7 uses is completely different. With IE7 and an old copy of IE6's iexplore.exe one can load the old IE 6 UI, but the IE 7 version of the trident engine is still used. The fact that the iexplore.exe of ie 6 can use browser mode, but explorer.exe cannot after the installation of IE7 does show that iexplore.exe has always been more than a stub.
Parent
Re:what about accessing windowsupdate via browser? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:what about accessing windowsupdate via browser? (Score:4, Informative)
At least be informed in your trolling.
Parent
Re:what about accessing windowsupdate via browser? (Score:5, Informative)
Server core still has IE libraries - for instance, WinInet which basically is a standard internet connectivity library is there. Hell, even Hyper-V server (the OS that is free and can only run Hyper-V) will actually get offered some IE updates - because some IE components are still part of the OS. Iexplore.exe isn't there, but other chunks are there because substantial parts of the OS (and even third-party applications) use them.
Parent
Re:You can already do this ... (Score:5, Informative)
Read the article. They state that iexplore.exe is gone.
Sure, some libraries will stick around. They have to, otherwise a lot of applications will break. You can't "decouple" a dependency from applications without breaking them. But IE was never integrated into the kernel; it was integrated into the shell. I know that doesn't jive with your particular interpretation of the definition of an "operating system", but that is the reality of the situation.
Parent
Re:You can already do this ... (Score:5, Informative)
The kernel isn't the operating system. That's the basis of the GNU/Linux vs. Linux debate.
That said, this seems to be functionally comparable to deleting the Safari.app on a Mac - the application is gone and cannot be launched, but the rendering engine sticks around because it's used elsewhere in the operating system for other tasks.
Parent
Re:You can already do this ... (Score:4, Insightful)
the rendering engine sticks around because it's used elsewhere in the operating system for other tasks
Meaning, of course, it's still there to be exploited by anything that exploits IE rendering bugs.
Yes, just like bugs in OpenSSL can be exploited if you have applications that load that library, even after other applications that use that library have been uninstalled. Of course, security patches will be released to fix those bugs, which is why it's important to stay up to date.
Parent
Re:You can already do this ... (Score:5, Interesting)
That was what people were saying for ages. There is almost no way to remove mshtml (the real ie) from an up and running Windows OS.
It was possible, one Aussie teacher made a state of art .inf file and called it Win98 lite. It was even mentioned in court by judge. In fact, it could impress anyone since the speed of OS actually skyrocketed.
MS was unhappy of course and they built this massive IT conspiracy making sure it will never happen again and they would easily say ''Order us to remove? Well, see what happens when it is removed''. With lazy Windows developers and gecko.dll never stabilizing enough like todays Firefox or Apple Webkit, the plot worked fine.
If one installs Windows of any kind today, he should never pass any IE updates since it is there, working and massively linked even by Microsoft's most die-hard rivals.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Got any examples?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the IE feature set isn't as pervasive as it used to be. For example Explorer (the file browser, not the web browser) used to treat folders as a kind of web page. If you wanted to customize a folder, you editing its style sheets and added VBS scripts. Lots of nice exploits there, which is why it no longer works.
On the other hand, I sometimes get an IE security warning when I right click on network files served by Samba. It appears that IE plays a role in displaying context menus!
Still, if the user
Why remove it alltogether? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why remove it alltogether? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you shouldn't rely on it, then? Detect whether it's available upon installation. If it is, use it - if not, install and use a different layout engine (gecko, webkit, whatever)
Parent
Riiiiight! (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know a how long it takes to get permission to use or even link users to download a piece of software? So many potential liability issues that a multibillion dollar product has to deal with?
Idealist heaven for you as it might be, it's pure hell for the developers.
Parent
Re:Why remove it alltogether? (Score:5, Insightful)
So then everyone has to distribute an engine with their apps or assume everyone has a net conection? Which engine? Will I end up with three or four render engines on my Windows desktop just like I have Qt, GTK+, GTK2 and whatever else on my Linux ones? Reminds me of all the software discs with "IE4 included!"
How about the option to remove the network stack or the window manager? The file manager? MS has a monopoly on file managers because Win comes with one preinstalled! To me, it's all part of the product they're selling, so I shouldn't complain if it comes with whatever feature they sold to me(bugs aside).
Obligatory car analogy: I think Ford should stop selling cars with alternators. Other parts of the car rely on having electricity to run, but what if I don't like the one they sold to me in my car?
Maybe MS should just improve the quality of its rendering engine.
Parent
Re:Why remove it alltogether? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe MS should just improve the quality of its rendering engine.
Lo and behold, they did! IE8 passes ACID2. It's still behind all the other major browsers, but they're actually working on trying to catch up.
Remember that no major browser has a currently-shipping release version that passes ACID3; Safari 4 beta and Opera 10 alpha don't count quite yet. It's been argued that Firefox scores higher than IE, but the reality is that neither of them will pass any time soon. IE8 really doesn't look too bad in this light - it's a couple years behind the curve, but only a couple years.
Parent
Re:Why remove it alltogether? (Score:5, Interesting)
So many strawmen, so little time...
One, Ford does not have a monopoly, therefore they are not subject to the restrictions put on monopoly players.
Two, does it really make a difference to you if you have three or four render engines on your desktop? The space used is negliegable today. Different from the different GUI systems you list for comparison, you'd not notice very much anyways.
Three, the file-manager-monopoly is entirely misleading. Having a monopoly is not illegal. Leveraging it to drive out competition is.
Four, this is not a matter of quality. Even if IE were the absolut best browser around, it would still be the same problem, except maybe that MS wouldn't drag the matter out over years and do every legal and some illegal tricks on the book to avoid a judgement, because they actually could win in the market. Again, this is not a matter of quality, but of protecting the free market from one of its worst enemies: A monopoly player.
Parent
Re:Why remove it alltogether? (Score:5, Funny)
> ... 6 apps that I have that will break, off the top of my head.
You may want to move your head out of the way - you're liable to get a concussion.
Parent
Re:Why remove it alltogether? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are now confusing a DHTML rendering component with a browser application.
The COM interfaces for IE are well-defined and there is nothing stopping anyone exposing identical interfaces from their own components. Bit of a bloody waste of time if you ask me.
Also I'm not sure if I'm too interested in having to look at a bunch of licenses for linking directly to Firefox libraries or whatever...
Parent
Re:Why remove it alltogether? (Score:4, Insightful)
Whoa, hold on there. Microsoft killing the browser market? Sure, no debates there.
Microsoft killing the DHTML renderer component market? Possibly. The same as they are killing the common-control market, the shell market, etc. Where do you draw the line?
I don't see people advocating removal of comctrl32.dll, or comdlg32... (Not to say they won't start whinging next). IMO a DHTML rendering control is part of providing a complete UI widget set - which is something that an application platform has to provide. Period. The MSHTML COM component *should* be part of the standard distribution (as it is NOT ie).
Parent
Re:You can already do this ... (Score:5, Informative)
Why couldn't this slashdot post point to the two people who actually came up with this? CWMike provided no original insight whatsoever.
Original sites referenced by CW's article:
http://www.aeroxp.org/2009/03/ie8-functionally-removable/ [aeroxp.org]
http://chris123nt.com/2009/03/03/win7-build-7048-ie8-is-removable/ [chris123nt.com]
Parent
Re:Windows updates? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and the application data folder?
what about the localstore?
did it place any files in %windir% or %sysdir%?
did it make any file extension associations?
did it add any environment variables?
etc.
crap cleaner won't clean -all- of that up.
That said, the original poster's comment was bunk; an uninstallation isonly as good as the uninstall routine. If it doesn't delete -all- files / remove -all- registry entries, etc. set upon install, then that's an issue with the uninstaller, not with the host OS.
I'm sure that so
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite; a number of apps put stuff outside of the .app wrapper directory. Anything that loads a kernel extension (vmware, for example), as well as other application that put frameworks in /Library and /System/Library. And then there's prefs and cache files left over in your own Library directory.
Still, it's significantly better than it is on windows.
Re:No IE? (Score:4, Interesting)
If it would have been at least 1$ cheaper and/or actually available in stores, it would have been more successful.
At least in my country Romania, where all stores receive free advertising money, billboards, promotional content and get lower prices if they don't sell computers with Linux pre-installed, every store only advertises Home and Premium versions of operating systems. The N versions are never in stock and if you really want to order them, it takes probably two weeks for the store to receive it from the Microsoft importer in the capital of the country.
Well, anyways unless people buy it for a company computer, people get laptops or computers with FreeDOS preinstalled (as there's law in the country saying all pc's must have OS installed) and then they pirate the OS or use Ubuntu or other flavors of Linux.
It's one thing to impose Microsoft the need of offering that N version, if you don't impose them to advertise it in equal amount with the regular version and to actually manufacture the physical discs.
I would personally buy a Windows 7 version without IE but completely without it, not just having iexplore.exe removed.
I would then laugh when I see Yahoo Messenger no longer works, the help system in Windows no longer works, Visual Studio's help no longer works, all the junk internal websites using proprietary IE stuff at my old work place no longer working and so on and so forth.
Parent
Re:Hardly new. (Score:4, Funny)
The problem is that even if you did that, certain programs would still launch IE (Autodesk's feedback utitlity for software crashes for example) instead of the default system browseer.
IE != Gecko. Gecko is used to render help files and other system-wide things that need an HTML rendering engine (same think as WebKit on OSX), but that does not mean that the IE application needs to be present to do so.
Parent
Re:Only removes IEXPLORE.EXE loader stub (Score:4, Insightful)
How about when IE crashes it DOESN'T take down file explorer with it? That is my single biggest non -security gripe with IE and the most obvious noticeable flaw in this embed-ie-in-everything approach
Parent
Re:HyperText but not HTML huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
So the same code that should be removed should be moved instead. OK, I can grok that.
I'm quite a bit older than '95, having cut teeth on Windows 2.x (Excel). I much preferred DOS, as did most of the sane.
But .HLP had its own set of issues, primarily around authoring and maintenance, and the indexing sucked. And under the hood it was basically a case of supporting a bastardised HTML anywhere. I think I prefer having 1 language, and one codebase.
Also it occurred to me after I posted that if you ensure Windows has no method of interpreting HTML out of the box, then you will assuredly end up with tens or hundreds of different HTML engines. Each must be updated, patched and managed. I don't believe this is a reasonable approach. HTML is common enough that I believe it should be a basic part of a client OS.
Parent