Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Internet Explorer The Internet Operating Systems Software Windows

Microsoft Will Ship Windows 7 in Europe With IE Unbundled 578

Posted by timothy
from the when-bureaucrats-slither dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Will Ship Windows 7 in Europe With IE Unbundled

Comments Filter:
  • by TropicalCoder (898500) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @04:57PM (#28300107) Homepage Journal

    I'm jealous - we should be offered the same deal here in good old North America

    • by erroneus (253617) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:03PM (#28300189) Homepage

      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.

      • by EvanED (569694) <evaned.gmail@com> on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:09PM (#28300319)

        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.

        • by eosp (885380) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:35PM (#28300783) Homepage
          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.
          • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:52PM (#28301025) Journal

            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)

            by moon3 (1530265)
            Windows Help could at some point in the future use Mozilla to render

            What kind of weed are you smoking there ?
        • WINE : Gecko (Score:4, Interesting)

          by DrYak (748999) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @08:00PM (#28302509) Homepage

          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.

      • by johannesg (664142) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @06:00PM (#28301161)

        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.

  • HugeOrNot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alain94040 (785132) * on Thursday June 11, 2009 @04:57PM (#28300111) Homepage

    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)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:05PM (#28300247)

      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)

        by nametaken (610866) on Friday June 12, 2009 @02:04AM (#28304765)

        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)

      by Toonol (1057698)
      I think it would still be very unusual for a vendor to not include IE on a machine. I use Firefox nearly exclusively, but want IE on my machine for the odd web-page. The only real difference is that it may mean most vendors will ship with both IE AND Firefox... or maybe Opera, if they can score some sort of deal.
    • 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:HugeOrNot (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mpcooke3 (306161) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:16PM (#28300451) Homepage

      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?

    • We'll finally be able to measure IE's marketshare in a non-biased market

      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)

    by InvisibleClergy (1430277) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:00PM (#28300141)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Blame Microsoft for not adding wget in the OS-default install :-P

    • by Bacon Bits (926911) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:03PM (#28300183)

      This is what a governing body demanded. It doesn't have to make sense.

    • by causality (777677) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:03PM (#28300185)

      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?

        • by snl2587 (1177409)

          Instructions? What average users ever follow those?

          I can just see the euros pouring into Microsoft's account from the phone support charges...

        • by icebike (68054) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:13PM (#28300397)

          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?

          • 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)

            by VertigoAce (257771)

            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)

          by 91degrees (207121)
          Most people who are confident on how to reinstall an OS will probably be comfortable with using FTP.

          That's assuming the PC manufacturer doesn't include a CD with the browser on it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rob1980 (941751)
        FTP?

        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)

          by Serious Callers Only (1022605) on Friday June 12, 2009 @04:50AM (#28305423)

          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.

    • by N3Roaster (888781)

      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)

      by TropicalCoder (898500)

      ...how am I supposed to use my already-active internet connection to get Firefox?

      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)

        by Darinbob (1142669)
        Before web browsers were pre-installed (if the kids remember back that far) you could just pick up a free CD at computer stores that had Netscape, and ISPs would send you a "starter kit" CD that had a browser on it (and other junk). AOL used to even send you several CDs a month whether you wanted them to or not.

        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)

      by vertinox (846076)

      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.

    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:16PM (#28300465)

      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:Getting Firefox? (Score:5, Informative)

      by bunratty (545641) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:17PM (#28300485)
      You don't even need to RTFA. RTFS:

      Computer makers would then have the option to add the browser back in, ship another browser or ship multiple browsers

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by miggyb (1537903)
      My understanding was that windows would ship with a "browser download tool" that would let you select a browser during the OS install. Kind of how they let you choose a search engine for IE now.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        That's a potential remedy for bundling violations that was proposed, but Microsoft just yanked the browser entirely instead.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by bigsteve@dstc (140392)
          ... but Microsoft just yanked the browser entirely instead.

          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.

    • by mpcooke3 (306161)

      It's a computer literacy test, if you fail - it's not safe for you to go on the interweb!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by arkhan_jg (618674)

      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)

      by Patch86 (1465427)

      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)

      by jimicus (737525)

      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)

    by rumith (983060) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:00PM (#28300155)

    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.

    • by afidel (530433) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:11PM (#28300363)
      No, MS will not enter into agreements with OEM's, that's what got them in trouble in the first place! They will have the kit available to OEM's but I really think they will stay far away from an official or unofficial pressure to use it. For consumers they will probably offer it as an optional component in Windows Update which hasn't been tied to IE since Vista launched.
  • by orin (113079) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:04PM (#28300203)
    What we will probably see is a bidding war between brower manufacturers with each OEM to get their browser put on new computers running Windows 7. In terms of deep pockets, you'd have to say that Google is going to fork over to get Chrome on machines, which isn't going to help Opera (or Firefox) one bit. The ultimate outcome of Opera's complaint will most likely be to increase Chrome's market share. Who will pay OEMs to put FireFox on new Windows 7 computers?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by hkmwbz (531650)
      And where does the Streisand Effect enter the picture?

      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)

      by Eskarel (565631)

      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

  • by meow27 (1526173) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:04PM (#28300213)
    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?
    • by Toonol (1057698) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:16PM (#28300447)
      We don't like IE, so we invent justifications to pretend including it is illegal. We like arbitrary laws when they can be twisted to our side.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by zonky (1153039)
      They *do* charge for it. You have to pay for it whether you use it or not, the price is part of your OS. Those developers are not working for free, and MS doesn't run that business unit out of the good of their heart.
    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:27PM (#28300649)

      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.

    • by Ironica (124657) <.gro.kcodnoob. .ta. .lexip.> on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:33PM (#28300743) Journal

      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.)

  • by MLS100 (1073958) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:06PM (#28300255)

    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)

    by Useful Wheat (1488675) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:06PM (#28300267)

    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.

    • 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)

      by cyber-vandal (148830)

      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)

      by RAMMS+EIN (578166)

      ``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)

    by Wowsers (1151731)

    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)

      by zonky (1153039) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:18PM (#28300495)
      Updates in Vista uses a seperate contral panel applet, presumably its the same in 7.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      afaik Windows 7 Updates works with a seperate program, not via the browser.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Blakey Rat (99501)

      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)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:11PM (#28300353)
    The article submitter fails to note the EU is not necessarily on board with this as they've been circulating a survey [arstechnica.com] asking PC companies about how many and what browsers should be pre-installed as well as asking questions about if MS is pressuring them on the issue.
    • by Slothrup (73029) <curtNO@SPAMhagenlocher.org> on Thursday June 11, 2009 @06:28PM (#28301585)

      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.

  • by argent (18001) <peter@slashdot.2 ... com minus physic> on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:30PM (#28300695) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Klistvud (1574615) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @05:43PM (#28300899)
    I've heard of this fast, sleek, free browser called IceWeasel. Apparently, it gets installed in mere minutes, including all its accompanying dll's and stuff (the bundle is called Debian Lenny or something like that). And, purely as a bonus, it makes your system seem twice as fast!
  • Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hkmwbz (531650) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @06:19PM (#28301449) Journal
    Cue hundreds of comments like "why can Apple bundle a browser but not Microsoft" (Apple is not in the same dominant position, and didn't break the law), "EU is a bunch of commie bastards" (ignoring the fact that the US has the exact same antitrust laws as well), and so on. It's the same old drivel every single time. It's as if there is a legion of Microsoft shills just waiting in line to post the same fallacies over and over again every time someone posts about the EU antitrust case. I can't believe that some people still don't get the basic facts of this case.

    Sigh.

    • by GF678 (1453005) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @09:05PM (#28303039)

      I can't believe that some people still don't get the basic facts of this case.

      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.

  • by bitt3n (941736) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @06:44PM (#28301751)
    great, now I have to go find IE6 and download it myself. thanks a lot jerks
  • by Deathlizard (115856) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @06:48PM (#28301807) Homepage Journal

    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)

  • by spitzak (4019) on Thursday June 11, 2009 @07:48PM (#28302419) Homepage

    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.

The more cordial the buyer's secretary, the greater the odds that the competition already has the order.

Working...