Microsoft Will Ship Windows 7 in Europe With IE Unbundled 578
jimmi_hendrix was one of several people to note CNET's report that 'Microsoft plans to remove Internet Explorer from the versions of Windows 7 that it ships in Europe, CNET News has learned. Reacting to antitrust concerns expressed by European regulators, Microsoft plans to offer a version in Europe that has the browser removed. Computer makers would then have the option to add the browser back in, ship another browser or ship multiple browsers, according to a confidential memo that was sent to PC makers and seen by CNET News." There's also a report at Ars Technica.
Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm jealous - we should be offered the same deal here in good old North America
Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:5, Informative)
You're not! Check the pirate bay after the european release is made. Furthermore, look to those Windows - LITE versions that people put together. They are also quite effective.
My question is if they are removing the blue E icon or actually removing the rendering engine? My guess is the former. The way things stand, I imagine many apps would be impossible to run without the rendering engine. A simple test would be to open a file browser and then type in a URL to see if an internet web page can be shown. If it's there, you will see it that way.
Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:5, Informative)
A simple test would be to open a file browser and then type in a URL to see if an internet web page can be shown. If it's there, you will see it that way.
MS got rid of the tie between Windows Explorer and IE with Windows Vista; trying to view a local folder in IE opens Windows explorer, and trying to view an internet URL in Windows Explorer opens your default browser.
My question is if they are removing the blue E icon or actually removing the rendering engine?
My reading is that they basically can't remove the rendering engine completely; too much stuff depends on it. HTML is behind the entire Windows Help system for instance, and I can't see them either altering the technology that radically or disabling help. There's also a lot of third party software (e.g. Steam) that uses it.
I don't know how much IE adds to the rendering engine though. It may be the case that MSHTML (what's used for the help system and such) is actually pretty lightweight and IE adds quite a bit, so this split is actually quite meaningful, but I doubt that's the case.
Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I recall correctly, the API:s that expose browser components (e.g. to Windows Help) were designed with the intention of making rendering engines pluggable. Thus, Windows Help could at some point in the future use Mozilla to render if Mozilla wrote a bit of code and Microsoft finishes this API.
The API to host IE is COM-based, so it consists of a bunch of interfaces [microsoft.com], all of which are documented. Technically, anyone can reimplement those interfaces to the spec, replace IE's CLSID [microsoft.com] in the registry with its own, and everything on the system will start using the new code. We do actually have the first part of it done already [www.iol.ie], though the coverage is not 100%.
The tricky part is that most applications that host IE also assume IE-specific behavior when rendering pages, running scripts, ability to host ActiveX controls inside, and so on. That's what's hard to duplicate.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What kind of weed are you smoking there ?
Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:5, Informative)
Geez, how about just making the help consist of GODDAMN HTML FILES?
Um, they basically are. They're zipped together somehow because help usually has multiple pages and they want it in one file, but that's what they are behind the scenes.
They point is how do you display that HTML? It's that which we are talking about. Right now Windows uses MSHTML to display them. The APIs under discussion would allow Mozilla to hook up Gecko so that it could render your help files (which would maybe allow you to totally remove IE stuff from the system), or someone to hook up Webkit to display help files, etc.
(Another interpretation of what you say is to just have the web browser itself display help files; this has a number of drawbacks, not the least of which is that without a browser in there by default, you wouldn't be able to read help. And it's exactly that situation which is why I'm postulating that MS isn't going to remove MSHTML.)
WINE : Gecko (Score:4, Interesting)
Meanwhile, WINE is happily working without any IE code at all.
The trick is, WINE uses another HTML engine (Gecko in this case) whenever a software expects to use MSHTML. (And I'm ready to bet that ReactOS does a similar trick).
In theory you could completely remove IE, as long as you replace the rendering engine with some other, and provide the necessary bindings so all the softwares using HTML can still function.
But currently, beside WINE & ReactOS' Gecko-based implementations, I don't know if there are that much replacement to help people run softwares requiring an HTML engine.
Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:5, Insightful)
My question is if they are removing the blue E icon or actually removing the rendering engine? My guess is the former. The way things stand, I imagine many apps would be impossible to run without the rendering engine. A simple test would be to open a file browser and then type in a URL to see if an internet web page can be shown. If it's there, you will see it that way.
Who cares if the rendering engine is still there? The *browser*, the thing that Microsoft uses to leverage one illegal monopoly into another, is gone, and that's what counts. The rendering engine can sit amidst the countless gigabytes of crap that is already there, and serve local help pages, steam, and other crap, and it really doesn't matter at all.
Arguably this fight is over anyway. Microsoft has already lost the leveraging power it had in that space.
Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's still sitting there making Windows less secure, because you'll still be able to embed it as a component and feed it data
Well, it's up to developers to do or not do that, isn't it? And you as a user to affect their choice by those means you have available (namely, your wallet). With QtWebKit available, you may be able to make a strong case.
And EU actions weren't about security anyway, they were about monopoly abuse.
Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The users wont do that for them
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Doxygen is able to write .chm files, so I think it is sufficiently documented so that another browser could display them.
I think the complaint is more that Microsoft is not providing any means to call another browser. Assuming the file is adequately documented and actually serves some purpose then the browsers should interpret them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
WTF are CDs?
Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft did not allow any *other* browser to be installed in OEM copies.
I think it is Microsoft shenanigans that got it changed to "remove IE". What should be allowed is that an OEM can sell the system preset to use a different browser by default, and remove the 'e' from the desktop and menus. It should not really matter if IE is there.
Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it sucks that they won't package IE
Your opinion is noted.
and the EU needs to stop meddling with these things.
No they don't. The US needs to start enforcing their laws so businesses don't go to the EU to get the same laws actually enforced.
If they want to support open source software by doing something ...
They don't this has nothing to do with OSS.
...but to cripple a OS over it is weak.
Is Windows crippled because MS doesn't get to pick which CPU it is run on or which video card it is run on? Why would it be crippled if OEMs pick the browser it runs with?
What if they forced everyone to include every alternative software bundled with the product, and what decides which alternative programs will get the special treatment?
What if? What if they stab all blonde people or make fire illegal? Do you even know what this article is about?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I realize you're modded Insightful and all, and I guess I'm sticking my "excellent" karma up for grabs, but the GP has a point - what does unbundling the browser from the OS really solve? I mean, what problem is being addressed? Is the problem with Microsoft that they bundle the browser they develop with the operating system they develop? People are free to choose their OS, right? So what does it matter what software the vendor chooses to ship with that OS? If the public doesn't like the software choic
Re:Why are we deprived of this in North America? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a question: why aren't people angry that Apple bundles Safari with OSX?
Allow me to anticipate the answer: because Apple doesn't hold a monopoly on consumer operating systems. This is true, Apple does not hold a monopoly on consumer operating systems, and arguably Microsoft does.
No, it's because Apple has not abused a monopoly to try to enter other markets. When they start to do that (for example in the iTunes space), you can expect the EU start to go after them. Now I'm sure the EU process can be corrupted, and they're far from perfect, but in this case I don't think they have an illegitimate target.
So why are people fighting to have Microsoft's software unbundled with Microsoft's other software? Why aren't people fighting against the OS monopoly itself, instead of the fringes of the monopoly?
Having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing that monopoly to apply leverage to your partners and customers is. Sometimes the radical solution to a monopoly has been to break up the monopolist, however I think fines and sanctions for abusive behaviour are a better remedy, as they set limits on the kind of thing companies think they'll get away with.
In this case, it seems Microsoft thinks they can do whatever they like, and have decided to thumb their nose at the EU by claiming they'll just unbundle IE from retail versions too (I imagine the focus of the investigation is OEM versions). If instead they decided to stop trying to abuse their monopoly position and just produce better software, this problem (and many others) would go away, but I don't think that's in their corporate DNA.
I mean, what problem is being addressed? Is the problem with Microsoft that they bundle the browser they develop with the operating system they develop? People are free to choose their OS, right?
Wrong. Because of past pressure by Microsoft on OEMs and other dirty tricks, all commercial competitors to them in the open OS market have disappeared (OS2,BeOS). The only competitor left is Linux, which for obvious reasons is more difficult to attack, though that hasn't stopped them trying.
Apple wisely (for now) sticks to producing their own hardware to get round this problem, otherwise I'm sure you'd see Ballmer saying I'm going to fucking kill Apple [wikipedia.org] and putting extreme pressure on the likes of DELL to never bundle Apple products. That would be illegal, but they've done it before, and they'll do it again.
OEM versions of Windows are the real battle-ground here - people do not choose their OS, they choose a computer, and MS has cleverly shut off almost all alternatives to them in that space. Having done that, they bundle IE so that they can control competitors like Google by controlling access to the web - classic abuse of monopoly status to attack competitors.
So the problem is not having a monopoly, the problem is abusing it to try to attack competitors - because of Microsoft's track record in that area, and huge existing power, they are not given the benefit of the doubt when bundled software could extend their monopoly in other fields. Forcing them to level the playing field on browsers is a good first step to stop them trying to control the web and tie it to Windows.
HugeOrNot (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it just me or is this huge?
We'll finally be able to measure IE's marketshare in a non-biased market.
Re:HugeOrNot (Score:5, Insightful)
We'll finally be able to measure IE's marketshare in a non-biased market.
Not really. Many years of a broken market have created a huge number of Websites and Web applications broken to only work properly with IE. Unless this is remedied, we'll only have a slightly less broken market. Additionally, this applies only to the EU, so any company doing business anyplace outside the EU or Web developers wanting to target customers outside the EU will still be subject to artificial market incentives caused by MS's bundling elsewhere.
Re:HugeOrNot (Score:5, Informative)
I've been saying this same thing for a long time now, but the odd part is, I've been using firefox and chrome between work and home and I almost never happen on an obviously broken site anymore.
To a certain degree I probably have a higher tolerance for things that don't line up, etc., but I'm pretty sure the web is a LOT cleaner than it used to be... in that regard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on what the 'Computer Maker' companies choose to do with this. They very well could assume that people will want what they are used to and ship IE anyway, and in all honesty that is probably a safe bet. The people who don't care already know IE and the people that do care know how to get their alternative. Of the people that don't care, I bet 50% of them would have to call up their family computer wizz because they couldn't find the little 'e' on their desktop.
IMO, the best result would be a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From your own link:
StatCounter's total scores for Europe put IE marketshare at 48 percent and Firefox at 38 percent.
That said, it does appear that some IE users are switching to firefox at a slow pace (2% every 1/4 year, or 8% a year). At that rate, in a year and some, firefox may overtake IE share.
Re:HugeOrNot (Score:5, Insightful)
We'll finally be able to measure IE's marketshare in a non-biased market.
Now browser market share in Europe will be determined by what kickbacks and/or threats the computer makers receive from the companies behind the major browsers.
Is that what you meant by non-biased?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, we were able to do that once before. Back in the Win95 days, before a browser was bundled with the OS, both IE and Netscape were available in retail stores such as CompUSA, Computer City, and Egghead, as a boxed product, although few people remember them. According the PC Data retail sales reports at the time, IE handily outsold Netscape.
Getting Firefox? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm confused. So if I get a copy of Windows in Europe and do a full reinstall, how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Blame Microsoft for not adding wget in the OS-default install :-P
Re:Getting Firefox? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what a governing body demanded. It doesn't have to make sense.
Re:Getting Firefox? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm confused. So if I get a copy of Windows in Europe and do a full reinstall, how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?
FTP?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So you're saying that they're shipping an FTP client, and instructions to lusers on how to use it?
Re: (Score:2)
Instructions? What average users ever follow those?
I can just see the euros pouring into Microsoft's account from the phone support charges...
Re:Getting Firefox? (Score:5, Funny)
Wait till the EU finds out they are shipping an FTP client!!!
Yes, command line ftp has been in every version of windows since 95. Directions? It has directions that are equivalent to the directions shipped with IE. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a microsoft OS ship with Directions? Dos 6.0?
Re: (Score:2)
95 shipped with a user's guide. It was, coincidentally, 95 pages long.
The Win 3.1 manual was a freakin tome. Ginormous even.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't have a Vista box handy right now, but I know the Win7 help text is quite extensive compared to older versions of Windows. Typing FTP in Windows Help provides instructions on how to use Windows Explorer to access ftp sites. Though it's not much more complicated than accessing any other files, you just type the address in the address bar (and to get you started they give ftp.microsoft.com as an example).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's assuming the PC manufacturer doesn't include a CD with the browser on it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is trivial for MS or an OEM to create a BAT file that will run ftp / wget / etc to fetch an installer from a well known URL. Do this for each browser and create a simple GUI with simple controls to allow the user to select a browser. Then the user just points the mousey thing at the buttoney thing on the screeney thing and does a clicky thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
God help the internet helpdesk people who have to walk 67-year old customers through command line FTP in Windows 7 to get their sparkly new computer online, and the retail people who get yelled at because the computers they sold "don't work", etc.
Re:Getting Firefox? (Score:5, Interesting)
Presumably Microsoft want to get you all worked up about the absurdity of the EU demanding that they unbundle their browser in consumer editions of Windows.
I doubt the EU is demanding this specifically, and if they are, they've got it wrong.
Meanwhile, the real battle over which browsers OEMs are allowed to install by Microsoft (enforced by secret OEM contracts) will be forgotten.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming they still ship an FTP client. Of course, we know how this is really going to work. Nobody will buy the version without IE and system makers will add IE, so your full reinstall will already have IE which you can use to get Firefox without having to learn FTP.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
duh... you didn't have the foresight to stick a copy onto your pen drive? Than I don't think you have the competency to re-install an operating system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While I think the OEMs will handle the majority of this set up for you. For the retail stores, I suspect there will be a stack of free or nearly free Windows IE8 CDs next to the boxes of Windows 7.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm confused. So if I get a copy of Windows in Europe and do a full reinstall, how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?
And thus Microsoft proves it's point to the EU.
Re:Getting Firefox? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm confused. So if I get a copy of Windows in Europe and do a full reinstall, how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?
Well if you're compentent enough to do a full re-install surely you're competent enough to make a copy of Firefox on CD/DVD/flash drive before you do it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't it just make more sense to leave IE in, and let people use whatever browser they want?
Not if you understand why antitrust abuse is illegal. If you don't understand, find out. I'm tired of explaining it.
Re:Getting Firefox? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's what Microsoft have proposed, but I don't expect that the EU will let them get away with it. They are not stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a computer literacy test, if you fail - it's not safe for you to go on the interweb!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?
The same way we did back in the days before bundling; from third party media. Remember when every magazine cover CD and ISP setup CD came with a copy of netscape and IE installers? Or if you're just reinstalling from your custom OEM media/restore partition, you'll get their setup, including browser.
Of course, it's not like they're actually *removing* IE; they're just flipping the switch in the registry that says to hide the shortc
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the computer retailer gave you a disk with Windows on it so that you can do a reinstall, smart money is that they also supply a disk with the rest of their bundled software on- including their browser of choice. If you downloaded/bought a copy of Windows yourself, you're probably smart enough to obtain a browser too. And you never know, we might even start seeing "free" browser CDs again, like the AOL days (I could do with some more coasters).
Not only that, but what's the betting that somewhere in the Eu
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who wants to bet they'll include some sort of "add/remove Windows components directly from the Microsoft website" (a la virtually any Linux distribution you care to name) tool which will happily install IE?
And I would not be even remotely surprised if the first thing Windows 7 EU edition does when you first boot it is run this tool and offer to download IE.
Great opportunities (Score:5, Interesting)
Computer makers would then have the option to add the browser back in, ship another browser or ship multiple browsers
So, in other words, the status quo will be preserved: Microsoft will likely enter into agreements with OEMs to put IE back in (while keeping Chrome and Firefox out), which will only result into some additional revenues for European OEMs and tax collectors. Nothing else to see here, move along.
Re:Great opportunities (Score:4, Insightful)
Streisand Effect for Opera (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The more people who know that alternative browsers exists, the better for Opera. In addition to that, Chrome is standards compliant, so if it became the dominant browser, even more sites would be standards compliant, which would be good for Opera. Remember, Opera reported a massive increase in downloads after Chrome was launched because of the renewed interest in alternative browsers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't really think that google cares about Chrome's market penetration in and of itself.
My theory is that google cares about getting fast, reliable, standards compliant javascript rendering a bigger market share. That's why I think they released chrome under a BSD license instead of as GPL(or some other form of copyleft license). If Microsoft and Mozilla steal Chrome's javascript engine, Google wins, if Chrome gains substantial market share, Google wins. Google wins because they're getting very close to n
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i still dont see the logic (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:i still dont see the logic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:i still dont see the logic (Score:5, Informative)
Can someone explain to me why bundling IE with windows is considered to be a trust?
No, because it isn't considered a trust. You don't even seem to know what a trust is, so one can only assume your ignorance of this topic is extreme. Have you considered a dictionary?
An antitrust law is a law against undermining the operation of a free market by using overwhelming influence in a market. A trust is a group of companies or organizations that collude to use their market power to this end. A monopoly is a company with enough influence to do it my themselves. MS has been ruled to have such influence in the "PC Operating System" market (differentiating it from the workgroup server OS market.). As such, they are forbidden from using that influence to disrupt other, pre-existing markets. The Web browser market qualifies as such a market.
MS doesn't charge any money for it
Irrelevant.
... and it was better than Netscape when it came out...
Irrelevant.
...why is it all of the sudden a trust and not a trust 15 years ago?
They had a monopoly then too, and it was a crime then, the US charged them with it. Since then other countries have tried them for it over the years. The EU finally charged them in response to complaints from their victims.
Re:i still dont see the logic (Score:4, Informative)
Is there really a "web browser market" when only one of the four major players are actually trying to charge for their product?
Yes. AT&T was forced to stop bundling telephones with their telephone service, despite the fact that no one was selling telephones at the time. Immediately thereafter there was en explosion of innovation including push buttons, autodial, answering machines, wireless sets, etc. Why do you think that is? Why do you think we have antitrust laws?
IE, FF and Chrome are free.
IE is Windows only and every time you buy Windows you're paying for it. The cost is bundled into the price of Windows. "Free" is just marketing. The others make money in ways other than directly charging for the browser.
The only company out there trying to make money by selling a web browser is Opera.
Opera's regular browser is free too.
When I was using a WinCE phone, Opera Mobile was absolutely the best browser for that platform.
Guess what, you paid more for that phone than you should have. The phone maker paid Opera. Opera spent millions working around broken Web pages. Broken Web pages exist because IE is broken and was artificially granted huge market share despite being inferior. MS's actions, thus, cost Opera money and they pass that on to you, which hurts their business by making their product more expensive and less useful because of MS's illegal act.
Despite whatever technical merits their browser might have, I think Opera is looking to the government to create a market for them that in a truly free market, wouldn't exist.
Yeah, expecting the government to enforce the laws and MS to obey them the same as everyone else sure is unfair. Let's cut to the chase then. Do you feel antitrust law is wrong in principal or do you feel it should not apply to MS in this case. Why?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But back to anti-trust law and Microsoft browsers. The market has pressured Microsoft to incorporate better standards compliance into their browser. That's the end goal, right? To make sure that the monopolist supports what the people say that they want.
The point of antitrust law is to ensure every player in continually pressured by the market to make the best product. Right now MS is feeling pressure to make the worst browser slightly less terrible, but still not as good or better than every other browser out there. Therein lies the problem. Unless the laws are enforced, there is no reason to expect the type of rapid innovation and improvement we see in other markets because the financial incentive is not there. We're a decade behind where we should be al
Re:i still dont see the logic (Score:5, Informative)
If someone wants a new browser they should get it themselves. Can someone explain to me why bundling IE with windows is considered to be a trust? MS doesn't charge any money for it, and it was better than Netscape when it came out, why is it all of the sudden a trust and not a trust 15 years ago?
It was antitrust 15 years ago. The DOJ found for Netscape. Then we elected Bush, and the enforcement of the ruling went out the window.
(BTW, it's antitrust because MS leveraged their OS monopoly to gain market share for their browser, after Netscape turned down their purchase offer.)
Doubt this will affect much (Score:3, Interesting)
Any OEM with any brains at all will re-add IE to their system images, lest they field a mass of tech support calls claiming their computer doesn't have 'the internet' because they don't see the big blue E on the desktop.
This will only affect people buying at retail who likely already know how to install and configure an alternative browser, but now have to download via FTP or flash drive.
This will be hell (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to guess that this statement applies to most of the people on slashdot.
"I provide tech support to my friends and family."
Doesn't it chill your blood to imagine that you could very suddenly be in a situation where every single person you know who gets a new computer is going to need you to set it up? They will be totally and completely helpless without Internet explorer, they won't be able to burn it to a CD or put it on a flash drive without your detailed instructions.
And then it won't work. And it won't be what they're used to be because FireFox/chrome/IE 8 isn't IE 6. And then you'll have to come over again to explain that the download manager isn't stealing their awful FWD: jokes.
This isn't progress, this is a punishment to each and every one of us.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't image this would be the case. Either there will be an option right on the desktop or upon first run where the user selects between Opera, Safari, or IE (I doubt Firefox or Chrome.) OR there will be an easy way to add/remove programs and add IE. And you can probably still teach them to add the address bar to explorer and type in a web address, watching explorer magically turn into Internet Explorer.
This doesn't affect anyone outside the EU so it doesn't affect me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeh yeh because an OEM is going to provide a PC without a web browser. God dammit why does this ludicrously moronic argument come up time and again. I pity the people who rely on you for tech support.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
``This isn't progress, this is a punishment to each and every one of us.''
If we choose to support Windows, that is.
I stopped doing that years ago, because I saw it as a sort of punishment in and of itself. The thing is, ideological arguments aside, I use Debian because it requires very little time for maintenance. Supporting any sort of other operating system besides is going to increase the maintenance burden, and that is particularly true if maintenance requires a lot of manual actions or even physical ac
MS Updates (Score:2, Interesting)
Now how will anyone go to Microsoft WindowsUpdate for updates, it barely works with Firefox but has no problem with IE.
Re:MS Updates (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
afaik Windows 7 Updates works with a seperate program, not via the browser.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What year is it in your little world, 2000? Critical updates have been delivered via control panel applet/service since, what, Windows 2000 at least. Non-critical ones can be easily downloaded using Firefox, or any browser you'd like to name.
Vista (and possibly XP; I haven't had XP in awhile) even let you select the non-critical ones from the same control panel as the critical ones, so there's absolutely zero reason to use IE to get updates. Not that there has been one in ages, anyway.
Only Half the Story (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Only Half the Story (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be hard for the EU to make a case that Microsoft's proposed remedy doesn't address the complaint. After all, if they're no longer bundling the browser with the OS, it can't be considered "illegal tying of a different product to a monopoly." It shifts that part of the regulatory burden onto the OEMs, who aren't nearly the kind of deep-pockets attractive target for a fine that Microsoft is.
It's not hard to see why MS would prefer to ship "no browser" than a competitor's browser.
Microsoft is NOT removing IE (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft is not removing anything, they are hiding one of the shell applications around the HTML control. All the same dangerous and insecure code will still be there, as part of Windows Explorer and Control Panel and Windows Media Player and Windows Update. Stil rendering websites for you, still displaying untrusted content.
Does that mean I can install ANY browser I want? (Score:3, Funny)
Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh.
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
If my readings on Neowin are anything, I think it's a bit simpler than that:
* People either don't KNOW about Microsoft's history with the law, or
* People don't care, or don't see it as being particularly important
The first is simple ignorance. Keep in mind a lot of younger folk won't remember or will have heard about past issues with MS. Furthermore, Slashdot seems to be the only site that has a fixation about Microsoft's anti-trust issues, and since we keep going on about it in comments, people from the outside see us as IRRATIONAL Microsoft haters instead of wondering WHY.
The second is simple - unless it affects them, people don't care about what Microsoft does. The EU are seen as money-grabbing corrupt bastards, and everyone's trying to get a piece of the Microsoft pie. Poor Microsoft.
So don't act surprised.
thanks a lot (Score:4, Funny)
I can see the commercials now. (Score:4, Funny)
MAC: Hello, I'm A Mac
PC: And I'm a PC (PC is holding up a chicken statue in one hand and an Egg, in another)
MAC: Say, you should see my new picture collection of my trip to Cupertino that I posted on Facebook using IPhoto? They came out great.
PC: (stares intently at the chicken and egg.) You don't say. I'd love to but I can't until I figure this out
MAC: Figure what out?
PC: Well, since Windows 7 doesn't ship with a browser anymore, I can't look at webpages, and since I can't look at webpages anymore I can't get a browser. It's so philosophical.
MAC: I see. well, Macs come with Safari, the worlds fastest web browser, so you can browse the internet out of the box.
PC: Must be nice.
MAC, Well, since you can't look at my page, how would you like to listen to my new MP3 Mix tape I made using Garageband. It sounds awesome.
PC: Well.....
(Show picture of IMac with the Mac Background)
How many idiots are there here on Slashdot? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know if it is stupidity or Microsoft shills.
However if you read the fa, or even if you think a little bit:
NOBODY IS GOING TO SELL A COMPUTER WITHOUT A BROWSER!
The machine the end user gets will have a browser. Likely more than one. Probably the blue E and the firefox will be on the desktop. The user can click on either one.
This is what Microsoft did not allow before and what they have been forced to allow.
They are still up to the same shit, saying "IE is missing" without saying exactly what they were forced to do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For that matter, OEMs themselves were free to take the hassle/cost of installing a different browser if they so desired.
You blew it there. That is a LIE.
I've seen people argue both for and against it several times on /. - i.e., that OEMs are strong-armed into leaving IE in place (some even say that agreements they sign legally require that, some say it's just behind-the-scene), or that OEMs are free to do whatever they want. However, neither side has so far produced any references backing up their claims. I would be curious to see either.
Note however that I'm talking about the present-day situation, not what was going on 10 years ago...
Re:What next EU: (Score:4, Informative)
And I'd also go ahead and point out that there was a time when web browsers were sold seperate from the OS. At that point there was competition to IE - Netscape. Then MS bundled IE with windows so that you *had* to buy IE even if you also bought Netscape, and Netscape died overnight. And then we went 7 years without a new version of IE.
So yea, I'd certainly include "bundling IE" as one of MS's more egregious business practices.
Wordpad/Notepad? Probably staying bundled. But Word and Office? You'll note that they were never bundled, but if they had been I'm sure undoing that would be part of this deal as well.
Re:What next EU: (Score:5, Informative)
Big difference that you seem to be willfully ignoring. Neither Apple or any Linux vendor strong armed OEMs into exclusively installing their browser.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How many versions of Windows have been released since then?
This isn't 1998 anymore..
Re: (Score:2)
i know, a
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Total protectionism by the EU (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Total protectionism by the EU (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even in the US....
That's very true. Our agricultural protectionism is something my right wing friends tend to overlook as they ballyhoo free trade.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:I don't understand you guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean I really don't understand you...
Yup, that's pretty obvious.
Why is this a good thing?
It helps to restore the free market so we can have innovation in Web technologies.
The fact that you need a browser in order to get a browser (no, a bundled wget would certainly not do for Windows users), for me means that the browser should be part of the operating system... However isn't the fact that you REALLY need to bundle a browser an indication that it should be part of the OS?
You really need a display to get a browser too, should it be bundled with the OS? You really need a CPU to use an OS, should it be bundled with the OS? If Microsoft were to come out with their own brand of CPU tomorrow and required all PC makers to buy a bundle of Windows with their CPU, instead of just Windows would you support that? After all, a OS won't work without a CPU. And PC makers can always throw away the MS brand CPU and buy one from Intel or AMD right? And if you wanted to run Windows on a PC you were building you could just throw away the CPU too right? And just because MS pays to create that CPU and deliver it does not mean the price of Windows was raised to include it, does it? After all, it comes "free" with the OS.
Perhaps we should have Apple remove Safari next. The DO have a monopoly on pretentious/cool-wannabe devices, don't they? ;)
They don't have a monopoly on desktop OS's or on Web browsers, so it does not undermine the market. MS does have an effective monopoly on desktop OS's so anything they bundle with it does undermine the free market.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You really need a display to get a browser too, should it be bundled with the OS? You really need a CPU to use an OS, should it be bundled with the OS? If Microsoft were to come out with their own brand of CPU tomorrow and required all PC makers to buy a bundle of Windows with their CPU, instead of just Windows would you support that? After all, a OS won't work without a CPU. And PC makers can always throw away the MS brand CPU and buy one from Intel or AMD right? And if you wanted to run Windows on a PC you were building you could just throw away the CPU too right? And just because MS pays to create that CPU and deliver it does not mean the price of Windows was raised to include it, does it? After all, it comes "free" with the OS.
Oh, come on, of all the arguments you could use you resort to cheap sophism? I can't seriously respond to this, perhaps I could revert to humor... but...
This isn't sophism, it is how antitrust law works. Answer the question. Should MS be able to bundle a CPU with their OS? If not, how is a CPU qualitatively different from a browser? Either action is the same in terms of effect upon the market and both are illegal under the same antitrust law.
I have no doubt you can't respond to this, but not because it is not a serious argument. It's because you;re completely wrong in principal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
allright,
although this has been mentioned on slash about a million times before, here it goes:
-there are other ways to install a browser, you can have a downloader supplied, you can do it via FTP, or you can simply pick up a CD.
-IE is insecure, and simply having it on your system is a risk. someone may accidentally use it, other programs with vulns can invoke it etc.
-apple does not have a monopoly on the consumer OS. And even if they did, they're not abusing it.
Microsoft was not found guilty of being a mono
Re: Microsoft are dealing with the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
looks like Microsoft are dealing with the problem
With all due respect, I disagree. This is window(s) dressing, and I think MS knows this. They still appear to think that trying to game the EU Commission will work like it has with the US DoJ (which, as a result, has lost a HUGE amount of credibility), and I think (and hope) they're in for a very rude awakening.
MS appears to forget that it's now under extreme scrutiny because the EU Commission fines to change behaviour, not posturing. The Commission hasn't