Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Windows 7 to ship in Europe without browser

Windows 7 to ship in Europe without browser
Thread Tools
Andy8
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 09:02 AM
 
Electronista | Windows 7 to ship in Europe without browser

Ok - so how does one download an alternative browser if the OS ships with NO browser?

Folks over at MS do not seem to be too sharp..
     
RAILhead
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 09:23 AM
 
From the article:

"...text obtained by CNET shows that PC builders will have to include a browser themselves, including Microsoft's, and will have the option of installing more than one."
"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
Andy8  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 09:37 AM
 
What if your upgrading an existing PC or building one yourself, your still stuck without a preloaded browser as such.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 09:44 AM
 
Ballsy move by MS, thumbing their nose at the EU. I like it.

The EU gave MS sh!t, so MS fires back saying "fine, no browser built in. See how you like THEM apples".

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 09:48 AM
 
I think Microsoft avoids implying that people could like them Apples.

As far as Microsoft's move, it's certainly not a good way to make the EU like them, but it's pretty funny since technically their complaint is about Microsoft bundling the browser, and not about Microsoft not including other competitors.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 09:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Salty View Post
As far as Microsoft's move, it's certainly not a good way to make the EU like them, but it's pretty funny since technically their complaint is about Microsoft bundling the browser, and not about Microsoft not including other competitors.
Exactly.

"Be careful what you sue for, you may get it"

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 10:08 AM
 
I mean, it could be MS thumbing their nose, or it could just be that they don't want to get fined another $100bn or whatever.
     
kylef
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Northern Ireland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 10:12 AM
 
Next Snow Leopard is to ship without Safari pre-installed.

I'm on MS' side on this one. They should have been allowed to .. sure it's competition - but they made the OS. They should have the right to say what goes with it.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 10:15 AM
 
This could be awesome. If people end up being forced to actually think about acquiring a browser rather than there just automatically always being one, there’s a slight chance at least some of them will choose something other than IE.

Unfortunately, I fear this won’t happen—the PCs will sell with IE as always, except it will be the PC builder’s choice, rather than Microsoft’s.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 10:27 AM
 
Builders here in Germany will include FireFox, instead.

FF was already at almost 40% market share here in Germany in January of this year.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 10:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
Ballsy move by MS, thumbing their nose at the EU. I like it.

The EU gave MS sh!t, so MS fires back saying "fine, no browser built in. See how you like THEM apples".
Clearly the EU would have preferred another option so this is perhaps not so good for MS after all. It indicates that the EU had relayed their desire for an amicable solution where MS would offer alternatives.

This has no consequence for the EU and honestly I expect this to result in many many many more installs of Firefox and even Safari than before. The only consequence for MS is that they are trying to play Microsoft with the EU.

I guess they still have not learned what the EU is - not a federal state, not really a political entity but the front for a united Europe. It has no will and no purpose except to protect the interests of the member nations.

Hehe I see more hefty fines for MS in the future. They seem to be dumb as bricks still.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Andy8 View Post
What if your upgrading an existing PC or building one yourself, your still stuck without a preloaded browser as such.
Step one: before moving to upgrade the OS, download the install file for your browser-of-choice and save it to a CD. Step two: upgrade the OS. Once the install is finished and you've done all the "pre-online" tweaks you want, step three: install your browser of choice from the CD you burned. Viola.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 10:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Andy8 View Post
What if your upgrading an existing PC or building one yourself, your still stuck without a preloaded browser as such.
You can be sure that MS will stick a huge, "friendly" (read: "annoying as hell until you comply") button on the desktop labeled "INSTALL INTERNET" that will auto-download IE once you click it and make it the default browser.

Should you fail to do so, they will remind you on every restart, citing "security concerns".
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 11:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Step one: before moving to upgrade the OS, download the install file for your browser-of-choice and save it to a CD. Step two: upgrade the OS. Once the install is finished and you've done all the "pre-online" tweaks you want, step three: install your browser of choice from the CD you burned. Viola.
Unacceptable for people building a PC for the first time. A browser has become ubiquitous. Forcing MS to remove something like a browser from a fresh OS install was shortsighted on the EU's part. It hurts the consumer because now they have to jump through hoops to get something as simple as a BROWSER.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 11:45 AM
 
The article mentions that Internet Explorer would be available on CD in stores. So when you pick up your copy of Windows 7 just grab one of those IE CDs as well. I'm sure the also mentioned FTP download won't be too difficult as well. Probably just a one-click thing.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
Unacceptable for people building a PC for the first time. A browser has become ubiquitous. Forcing MS to remove something like a browser from a fresh OS install was shortsighted on the EU's part. It hurts the consumer because now they have to jump through hoops to get something as simple as a BROWSER.
Forcing MS to remove the browser was PRECISELY what the EU wanted. Bundling ANY browser forces the user (in the EU's opinion) to use that browser, and gives MS a competitive advantage. So no browser bundled with the OS. Which MAY change the way the OS works, since up through XP the browser engine was used for Windows Explorer (their "Finder"), among other things.

People building a PC for the first time will probably be thrilled that they get to specifically configure the browser by themselves. Hobbyists are like that-I sure was the first few times I built a PC.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 12:26 PM
 
Ultimately if Microsoft wants to be immature they can go for it

Btw this will be a win for Chrome and Firefox. Safari won't be installed by any PC vendors.
     
Person Man
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 01:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Forcing MS to remove the browser was PRECISELY what the EU wanted.
Actually I just read an article where the EU Commissioner (or whoever) said that this was a bad thing that Microsoft did. What they want is for Microsoft to include alternative browsers in the installation and let the user choose which one gets installed at installation time. Microsoft is not doing that, so they're gonna get fined again.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 01:06 PM
 
The way MS did it, by completely removing IE, may not be what they "wanted," but it seems to be technically what they asked for/demanded.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Person Man
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 04:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
The way MS did it, by completely removing IE, may not be what they "wanted," but it seems to be technically what they asked for/demanded.
Without looking at whatever formal complaints were sent, it is hard to say. But the Commissioner mentioned "unwanted side effects," unintentional or otherwise. They may take action again to try to force them to do what they want, which is apparently allow the user to decide which browser to install at the time they install the operating system, without the user having to take extra steps after the fact.

How hard would it be for Microsoft to present a list of choices during the installation and then go download the latest version of whatever browser the user picked and install that as part of the setup process?
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 05:32 PM
 
It's not hard for Microsoft, but it requires them to do something they don't want to do, so they act like a snot nosed lil kid.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Person Man View Post
Without looking at whatever formal complaints were sent, it is hard to say. But the Commissioner mentioned "unwanted side effects," unintentional or otherwise. They may take action again to try to force them to do what they want, which is apparently allow the user to decide which browser to install at the time they install the operating system, without the user having to take extra steps after the fact.

How hard would it be for Microsoft to present a list of choices during the installation and then go download the latest version of whatever browser the user picked and install that as part of the setup process?
The Commission originally complained YEARS AGO that bundling IE with Windows was an unfair act by MS, having the effect of discouraging use of other browsers. They finally were able to force MS to no longer bundle IE, and this after years of argument and lots of money spent by MS. If you'd been ticked off over an extended period of time about the same issue, would YOU be likely to be "reasonable" when finally forced into something you didn't want to do? Childish? Maybe. But from what I've seen, the Commission couldn't prove anything legally and forced the issue by decree. I'm not that surprised at this sort of "unintended consequence" to their actions.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
torsoboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 06:20 PM
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/13/te...tml?ref=global

Microsoft’s offer to sell a browserless Windows system on the Continent did not go far enough
So, taking the browser completely away from the OS wasn't enough. Those EU guys are being a bunch of pricks about this it seems. They are now wanting to force MS to include rival browsers on their OS, and then only install the ones that someone chooses when they buy the machine. But who gets to choose which rival browsers to include? Do they include every single one of them in exsistance? Or just the ones that pay the EU guys to make sure they are on the list?

And then do they have to include every version of solitaire in existence? Because I am pretty sure more people use the bundled solitaire than any competing version.

These people seem to be going over the line with this crap.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 08:16 PM
 
Why is it the Commission is not giving Apple trouble for this? Safari is bundled. It’s not used the way IE’s engine was used in Windows Explorer, but it’s still bundled, and no other browsers are.

It doesn’t make any sense for the EU to try to force Microsoft into including software they don’t own in their OS. It seems like that ought to be an unconstitutional move. Windows is Microsoft’s product; you can’t force someone to buy other companies’ products and include them in your own product or not be able to sell the product at all.

Childish as it may sound, if I were Microsoft, I’d respond with a big, fat ‘f**k you’ gesture: not allowing Windows to be sold, distributed, or used within the EU at all. Might lose them some money, but I don’t think the Commission would be in a position to keep their end of the fight up for long if Microsoft simply pulled Windows from the European market altogether. Wouldn’t take long till they could sell their browserless OS and that would be that.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 08:44 PM
 
Apple has never been seen as a monopoly by the EU; MS has. That's why EU hasn't complained about Safari. And Safari is "bundled" rather than "integrated into the OS." Up until recently, IE was a very much integral part of Windows.

However, I like the "OK, you don't like our business practices? We won't do business with you at all." idea. Talk about causing some problems!

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2009, 08:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
Why is it the Commission is not giving Apple trouble for this? Safari is bundled. It’s not used the way IE’s engine was used in Windows Explorer, but it’s still bundled, and no other browsers are.
I believe it's specifically to do with how tied into the system IE is. You know, all those OS hooks which cause the security problems. I seem to remember that the main thing was that M$ weren't providing other browser suppliers with the hooks into the OS (thus giving IE an "advantage"). I'm not a programmer so I don't know the exact details, but that's what springs to mind.

Who to support? I don't care! It's like watching two fat, ugly chav girls mud wrestle. The only thing which sucks harder than M$ or the EU is a Dyson.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 02:26 AM
 
You know, I'd really like to see the EU push MS to the wall, and Bill tell them to go **** themselves, and not sell Windows in Europe ever again. I know it would never happen, but I'd have huge respect for them.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 04:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
Why is it the Commission is not giving Apple trouble for this? Safari is bundled. It’s not used the way IE’s engine was used in Windows Explorer, but it’s still bundled, and no other browsers are.
As mentioned, bundled != integrated.

Safari is easily replaceable.

What's integrated into the OS and used by various apps is WebKit - but that's Open-Source, so Apple's pushing something that is, strictly speaking, not even their own, but everybody's.

And the other point is that were Apple a quasi-monopoly abusing its market position to drive competitors out of the market, the situation would look very different, and they'd be hearing from the Commission.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 05:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
Why is it the Commission is not giving Apple trouble for this? Safari is bundled. It’s not used the way IE’s engine was used in Windows Explorer, but it’s still bundled, and no other browsers are.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the OS market, so there is no need for the Commission to take action. However, they should keep an eye on the iTunes Music Store … 
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 05:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
As mentioned, bundled != integrated.

Safari is easily replaceable.
But IE is no more integrated in Windows 7 than Safari is in OS X, is it? Didn’t Microsoft change this exactly because of all this EU gabbledyhootering? The complaint was that IE was integrated into the OS; Microsoft changed that. Now suddenly the complaint is that they’re not including others’ software, too?

I simply cannot see how the Commission can, in any reasonable or legal way (or at least anyway that should be legal), force MS to include other companies’ software into their own OS. Not including a browser at all is the best option there is, if you ask me. If it becomes reality, other browsers will surely be on the mark and start selling CD versions of their browsers, too (or giving away, if they want to stay free).
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 05:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
But IE is no more integrated in Windows 7 than Safari is in OS X, is it? Didn’t Microsoft change this exactly because of all this EU gabbledyhootering? The complaint was that IE was integrated into the OS; Microsoft changed that. Now suddenly the complaint is that they’re not including others’ software, too?
You're forgetting the other half of the issue:

Microsoft is a de-facto operating-system monopoly, leveraging its market position to secure browser market share. *That* is illegal.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 06:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
You're forgetting the other half of the issue:

Microsoft is a de-facto operating-system monopoly, leveraging its market position to secure browser market share. *That* is illegal.
Even if there is an annoying ‘security’-based popup thingy asking you to install IE, I still don’t see how they’d be leveraging their market position to secure browser market share if there’s no browser installed at all. Uneducated users would still download/use IE, even if there were an array of other browsers to choose from, ’cause blue ‘e’ with comet-thingy swirling through it = Internet to them; and educated users would probably not use IE in either case.

How the Commission would claim that Microsoft are abusing their monopoly to secure browser market share through not including a browser at all is beyond me.

I also wonder why the Commission has not broadened the complaint, if the cause is monopoly-based market share leveraging, to include WMP. That’s bundled (and previously also deeply integrated) into the OS, as well. Should Microsoft also be forced to bundle iTunes, VLC, foobar2000, etc. with their OS? Or firewalls and anti-virus programs—should they bundle a bunch of third-party versions of those, too?
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 10:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
You're forgetting the other half of the issue:

Microsoft is a de-facto operating-system monopoly, leveraging its market position to secure browser market share. *That* is illegal.
To which I would ask: "who cares?". It's a BROWSER. As someone posted here before, why not go after Solitaire too? A browser HAS to come with the OS nowadays, and MS is getting crap because *gasp* they bundled/integrated one with the OS? FOR SHAME!

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Phileas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 11:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
and MS is getting crap because *gasp* they bundled/integrated one with the OS? FOR SHAME!
Not to be an ass, but that's not what the case is all about.
     
torsoboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
Not to be an ass, but that's not what the case is all about.
Enlighten us.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
Not to be an ass, but that's not what the case is all about.
Uh, yes it is.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 12:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
To which I would ask: "who cares?". It's a BROWSER. As someone posted here before, why not go after Solitaire too? A browser HAS to come with the OS nowadays, and MS is getting crap because *gasp* they bundled/integrated one with the OS? FOR SHAME!
No, Microsoft was artificially integrating the browser into the OS to make it harder for people to use products by competitors. Remember, this is the company that added a little something to the install routine of Windows 3.1 back in the DOS days to check whether you use MS-DOS or DR-DOS. If they detected you used DR-DOS, you'd get a message of `compatibility problems.' Not that there were any.

The problem is not so much about whether Microsoft bundles its browser with the OS, but rather that it consistently abuses its monopoly. Monopolies are a bad thing, because they don't allow for competition. Forcing Microsoft to unbundle its browser is just one piece of the mosaic rather than a single focussed action.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 01:26 PM
 
I call BS on that.

Let's take a look at how this came to be.

Opera, a Norwegian company, bitched and moaned to the EU about unfair competition. Boo hoo. Nobody was using their browser.

Firefox, an American company, exploded onto the scene by MARKETING ITSELF. Opera didn't do that. Firefox has, what, 20% browser market share and Opera has almost none.

So let's take a look at that. From my point of view, Firefox didn't NEED to complain because it knew how to sell itself. Opera did not, so they cry to the EU.

Sorry, the whole thing sounds like bullsh*t to me. I don't like MS, but I can't blame them for integrating a browser into the OS at a time when some people were MAYBE using Netscape. Nobody could have foreseen what the browser market would become, but the EU decided all by itself to pull something out of their asses and tell MS they're doing wrong.

Uh huh.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
To which I would ask: "who cares?". It's a BROWSER. As someone posted here before, why not go after Solitaire too? A browser HAS to come with the OS nowadays, and MS is getting crap because *gasp* they bundled/integrated one with the OS? FOR SHAME!
You haven't been following the story at all.

This is about Micrsoft repeatedly, consistently, and shamelessly abusing its market position in very clearly illegal ways to push their own technologies over viable competing technologies.

This story has been ongoing for the past almost thirty years, and it took almost twenty years for anybody except the hardcore Apple fanbois to take notice.

The EU has been coming down hard on Microsoft for the past six years or so, slamming them with record fines for failure to comply with anti-trust laws and again for failure to comply with court decisions.

European Union Microsoft competition case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is just the latest installment of Microsoft trying to **** with the EU Commission, and the EU really getting fed up with their antics.

All computer sales points will have no problems at all handing out CDs containing the latest version of FireFox. The cost to dealers is negligible, and the cost to Microsoft considerable.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 01:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
You haven't been following the story at all.
Uh, yes I have.

And let's take a look at that link you posted, shall we?

"The EU said that it would begin to fine Microsoft €2 million (US$3.20 million or £1.53 million) a day until it did so."

$3.2million PER F'N DAY? THIS is what the EU thinks is fair? I'm sorry, but not even MS deserves that kind of ridiculous ruling.

EDIT-some other points:

If you're tech savvy enough to install another browser, it doesn't matter.

If you're not, you want a browser there, but the EU asked MS to REMOVE the browser. That's what they did.

If you're MS, you don't want people calling saying "my copy of Firefox doesn't work".

This is what the EU wanted - the unbundling of IE from Windows, and that's EXACTLY what they got.

In fact, I was reading an article back in January I think on Ars or Techcrunch that this could actually happen, and it did.
( Last edited by starman; Jun 13, 2009 at 01:45 PM. )

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 01:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
I call BS on that.
You clearly haven't been paying attention.
Netscape, the company from which Mozilla and then Firefox were born has long fought against Microsoft's unfair business practices. To quote them as an example of `how it is done' is rather ironic. If you look closely, Firefox is particularly popular in places where Microsoft's business strategies have been challenged. In Germany, 40+ % of the people use Firefox. Thanks to that, I can finally use ebanking on Safari, because my bank was actually forced to adhere to standards rather than make it work on IE.

You're under the mistaken impression that the European Commission is doing this for a particular company. They're not.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You clearly haven't been paying attention.
Netscape, the company from which Mozilla and then Firefox were born has long fought against Microsoft's unfair business practices. To quote them as an example of `how it is done' is rather ironic. If you look closely, Firefox is particularly popular in places where Microsoft's business strategies have been challenged. In Germany, 40+ % of the people use Firefox. Thanks to that, I can finally use ebanking on Safari, because my bank was actually forced to adhere to standards rather than make it work on IE.

You're under the mistaken impression that the European Commission is doing this for a particular company. They're not.
I still don't get how it was "unfair".

Launch IE
Download Netscape
Done

How is any of that "unfair".

And stop telling me I haven't been "paying attention" just because I have a different opinion than you.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
I still don't get how it was "unfair".

Launch IE
Download Netscape
Done

How is any of that "unfair".

And stop telling me I haven't been "paying attention" just because I have a different opinion than you.
It was unfair because 90+% of computer users don't KNOW that they can install a different browser. Back then it was more like 95%, and Netscape was working very hard to make themselves known. Today, how many people use Firefox in the US? Mozilla thinks there are about 270 million users worldwide. Compare that to how many Windows users there are worldwide... In 2007, iTWire indicated that Microsoft had about 1 BILLION Windows users. That would mean that only about 1/4 of Windows users use Firefox, right? Throw in the corporate angle, and we might be able to estimate that much more than 75% of the personal Windows licensees are using IE by default.

By the way, that "attention" has a historical angle to it. This whole thing has been going on for around 20 years.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 02:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
And stop telling me I haven't been "paying attention" just because I have a different opinion than you.
You used Firefox as an example and alluded that the European Commission was doing favors to a small Norwegian company (btw: Norway is not part of the EU). Firefox is a grandchild of Netscape, a company who has died fighting against Microsoft's unfair browser strategies. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

Of course, all this does not have to convince you of anything, but IMO you should at least choose examples that support your opinion.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 02:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No, Microsoft was artificially integrating the browser into the OS to make it harder for people to use products by competitors.
I actually spoke to an MS exec about this many years ago. If I understood that exec correctly, the idea was actually to have the concept of desktop browsing and web browsing unified eventually. Think of it as Safari and the Finder being the same program. That's how some were envisioning Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer.

Sure, doing this would exclude third party browsers to a large extent, but not completely. One could still install a third party browser purely for internet access.

So, at least MS had a real reason to do this other than for its monopolistic tendencies. The person I spoke with truly believed that such integration made more sense from a user point of view. Now you may disagree with that concept of integrating a web browser and a desktop browser as being good for OS design, but that's a different argument.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 04:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
...the idea was actually to have the concept of desktop browsing and web browsing unified eventually. Think of it as Safari and the Finder being the same program. That's how some were envisioning Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer.
Absolutely. It was in a lot of the trade magazines as far back as '95 or so. The experience of browsing resources on your computer versus on the Internet was seen as becoming seamless, with the same tools, techniques and capabilities for a web page as for a local document, except that you wouldn't be able to edit other people's web pages. It was actually a very nice idea. If early versions of IE had actually been anywhere near up to the challenge of even looking like they might be able to do that sort of thing, maybe a lot of this sort of discussions would never have happened. Plus, it saves a LOT of code to use everything but the download system and HTML manager in your file browser. A LOT of code.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 04:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
It was actually a very nice idea..
...Until they figured out that it's not the best security model.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 05:00 PM
 
@Eug
Yes, you're right, that was probably one of the motivations. Given Microsoft's history (after all, they were late to the game of browsers) and other motivations, it's not really about the technological problems here.

Disregarding this particular aspect, security-wise it's a horrible idea: a hole in your browser becomes an opening to your files. But I think they've gotten that message in Redmond by now … 

Edit: Doofy beat me to it

<offtopic>If rumors are to be believed, Microsoft finally manages to offer a free antivirus service (although they're years late).</offtopic>
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
angelmb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 05:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
I still don't get how it was "unfair".

Launch IE
Download Netscape
Done
If it works, don't fix it. People are still afraid of computers to even think about installing another web browser when they have already installed a working one.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2009, 05:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
...Until they figured out that it's not the best security model.
The idea was conceived before security was though to be an issue. And assuming the "behind the scenes" stuff could have been handled appropriately, users never should have had to worry about security. 'Course THAT happened...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:12 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,