# Microsoft Wimps Out!!!



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Microsoft, accused by the scum at the European Union (EU) of unfairly bundling Internet Explorer with its OS, had announced that they would deliver Windows 7 with no browser, allowing manufacturers or users to install whatever they wanted. 

I loved this solution. It complied with what the EU claimed it wanted and at the same time told them to go to the devil. It meant that as there would be no browser installed, Users would have to rely on the PC's manufacturer to handle the problem or they would have to obtain browser software on their own... they couldn't download it.... no browser!!!

Opera, a browser used by 9 people, wanted a so called ballot screen that would allow the user to select a browser from those available and download it. Let's see, hows that again? They want to force Microsoft to write a program to promote everyone else's browser and include it in Windows 7?

Apparently, Microsoft has wimped out and agreed to do this. I think it is a horrible precedence. They need to tell the EU to perform an unnatural act upon themselves.

Forcing ANY company to promote other companies products is just wrong!

Come this winter, in Europe, IE will still have 60+% of the browser Market, Firefox will have most of the rest, Google will get some and Opera will have 12 users. The world will sleep easier.

Larry


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> Opera, a browser used by 9 people,


!rolling

I don't think it's about promoting other browsers... It's about giving people a choice... As long as IE is on that list, what's the big deal?? Many people will still pick IE... because it's the name they know... and they don't know any better...

Ahh well... The world goes on...


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Given where internet revenues are derived from, browser choice is really not that much different than Microsoft offering a choice of default search engine providers when you first fire up IE8, is it?

After today's search alliance with Yahoo, I'll bet offering a default competitor's search engine choice is an equally tough one for Microsoft.

That said, props to Google for offering the option to make Bing or Live Search the default for Chrome. I was really surprised to see that show up as one of their basic set-up options.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

NO company should be forced to promote anyone elses product. The EU wants IE left out of the OS, that's fine. Force them to include competitve products? No Way! Next they will wanted every copy of Office 2007 shipped with a copy of Open Office. Or maybe they will want Chevy Truck Dealers to put Ford pickups on their lots...

Give people a choice, just don't force Microsoft to provide it. It is a dangerous precedent.

If Steve Balmer was handy, I'd kick his butt for agreeing to this.



Greg Alsobrook said:


> !rolling
> 
> I don't think it's about promoting other browsers... It's about giving people a choice... As long as IE is on that list, what's the big deal?? Many people will still pick IE... because it's the name they know... and they don't know any better...
> 
> Ahh well... The world goes on...


----------



## HDJulie (Aug 10, 2008)

Who decides which browsers to offer as a choice? Are the ones discussed (IE, FF, Safari, Opera, & Chrome) the only options or are there other weird browsers out there & if so, will they be offered as options.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Perhaps the time has come for Microsoft to adopt a "Region" concept for their OS products, much like is done in the DVD/Blu Ray world...

That would allow them the ability to provide world-region variances, and also cut off any areas of the world ruled by morons like in Europe.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

LarryFlowers said:


> Opera, a browser used by 9 people, wanted a so called ballot screen that would allow the user to select a browser from those available and download it.


That is by far the best solution. Rather than rendering a PC incapable of downloading, it would be a small app that would execute a download utility to retrieve and install the browser of the user's choice. It's about stopping M$ from forcing their will on users.

The other option would be OK also if PC manufacturers would install each of about 5 or 6 browsers as options.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

And I guarantee there are far more than 9 people using Opera which is leaps and bounds above IE for security and user friendliness.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Hang on guys. I've decided to design a browser to be included in the list in Europe, at least.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Why... Firefox users have had no difficulty downloading their favorite browser in spite of the presence of IE, and in Windows 7 it will be even better. They can download Firefox and then uninstall IE if they so desire. Why should Microsoft be required to put competitive software in their OS?



SayWhat? said:


> That is by far the best solution. Rather than rendering a PC incapable of downloading, it would be a small app that would execute a download utility to retrieve and install the browser of the user's choice. It's about stopping M$ from forcing their will on users.
> 
> The other option would be OK also if PC manufacturers would install each of about 5 or 6 browsers as options.


OK... there are probably more than 9 users... but they barely register as a percentage of world wide browser use. Fire fox has managed to carve a big chunk of the browser market for themselves. If Opera is so great then why haven't they managed to do it as well?

I am also tired of hearing the crap about IE security... At last years BlackHat conference... Safari was chosen as the least secure browser made. It doesn't matter... as Firefox got more and more popular, they required more and more patches. As long as there are people out there who are determined to exploit holes in the browsers, ALL of the companies are going to spend inordinate amounts of time patching their browsers. There is no perfect browser. Find one you like, use it.



SayWhat? said:


> And I guarantee there are far more than 9 people using Opera which is leaps and bounds above IE for security and user friendliness.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

According to the District 39.org stats, which is in no means representative of the world, just my corner of it...

For the month of July...
36.1 - IE6
24.6 - IE7
17.9 - IE8
12.3 - Firefox
1.3 - Safari
0.8 - Chrome
0.2 - Opera

(A full report is attached. transsierran.com is an alias for district39.org) 

OK, this sucks because I still have to ensure compatibility with IE6 even though IE7 is somewhat more compliant. What also sucks is that, without kludges, I cannot have more than one version of IE installed, but I can have multiple versions of Firefox AND Opera installed.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Seems to be a very reasonable solution to me. 
But then again, I'm not obligated to MS to promote their products on forums, etc. So I guess in that respect, I'm slightly biased.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I'm curious ... Does Apple offer a choice of alternate browsers when he OS is installed? How about all of the Linux distros?


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Anyone can FTP a browser, so I'm a bit curious about the EU's decision and most of all Mircosoft's.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

First off Larry.. What would you proposal? Keep IE8 on the desktop and let people update to their browser of choice or leave no browser on the desktop and then provide a user with the ability to download IE8 and then they can download their browser of choice or get some CD or flash drive to install the browser of choice (The CD and Flash options I would consider too high threshold to be acceptable solutions to the issue). 

I think given the prominent position a browser takes in the consumer market today that if the market demands choice (EU appears to feel strongly on this issue) it is not too much to ask the largest OS vendor to provide choice in the most easy way it can. What you described I personally would consider acceptable as a consumer. 

I do agree with you that it would likely will be FF and IE having most installs but not because IE8 is a great browser. People would select IE8 because they are use to it since it has always been right there for them. If user choice was offered 5 years back, I personally feel that this would not be the case and that tells a lot about the current browser situations. In terms of browser equality I think the boat was missed long and given MS's position and tactics 5+ years back they should have been forced to do something like this back then. 

Mark.. You must deal with a lot of corporate users or people really slow to adoption if your major viewer is an IE6 viewer. From the numbers I have seen, IE7 and FF have taken the two top spots with IE6 third. UGH!


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

smiddy said:


> Anyone can FTP a browser, so I'm a bit curious about the EU's decision and most of all Mircosoft's.


The vast majority of computer users have no idea what FTP even means, let alone how to use it.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Ron Barry said:


> First off Larry.. What would you proposal? Keep IE8 on the desktop and let people update to their browser of choice or leave no browser on the desktop and then provide a user with the ability to download IE8 and then they can download their browser of choice or get some CD or flash drive to install the browser of choice (The CD and Flash options I would consider too high threshold to be acceptable solutions to the issue).
> 
> I think given the prominent position a browser takes in the consumer market today that if the market demands choice (EU appears to feel strongly on this issue) it is not too much to ask the largest OS vendor to provide choice in the most easy way it can. What you described I personally would consider acceptable as a consumer.
> 
> ...


Wow... You guys don't get it do you? The main issue that defenders of this type of law don't get is that this goes against the fabric of a free market! People like you complain that you don't have freedom of choice, well I'm sorry to say, *but having the government make your choice for you is less free market and more like communist russia!*


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Drew2k said:


> I'm curious ... Does Apple offer a choice of alternate browsers when he OS is installed? How about all of the Linux distros?


Nope.. But they don't have 80% of the consumer market and if they did my guess is the EU would be asking for it from Apply and the Linux community. In my opinion you just have to look at MS's dominance in the OS market, do the some math, look at history, talk to the Netscape folks, and you could see how MS used the OS to obtain their browser dominance.

Since MS and Apply play both in the OS and App world they hold a unique position and they need to allow for a level playing field. The browser field in the last 5+ years has not been a level playing field and personally any action towards making it as level as possible I applaud.

Hopefully it carries into US market.

As for FTPing.. My guess is not everyone knows how to FTP. For the average Joe and this is what I think the issue is about you need to make it easy to do.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Ron Barry said:


> Mark.. You must deal with a lot of corporate users or people really slow to adoption if your major viewer is an IE6 viewer. From the numbers I have seen, IE7 and FF have taken the two top spots with IE6 third. UGH!


The web site is for District 39 Toastmasters, which is a public speaking/leadership educational organization. Thus, we have people who join toastmasters who visit the site from work or a state agency.

When I designed the site, I set up a standard that the site is compatible with IE6, Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Konqueror. That was in January, 2007. Things have changed. I think I can safely drop Konqueror and add Chrome. However, both Chrome and Safari use the Webkit engine.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Ron Barry said:


> Nope.. But they don't have 80% of the consumer market and if they did my guess is the EU would be asking for it from Apply and the Linux community. In my opinion you just have to look at MS's dominance in the OS market, do the some math, look at history, talk to the Netscape folks, and you could see how MS used the OS to obtain their browser dominance.
> 
> Since MS and Apply play both in the OS and App world they hold a unique position and they need to allow for a level playing field. The browser field in the last 5+ years has not been a level playing field and personally any action towards making it as level as possible I applaud.
> 
> ...


And hopefully it doesn't. A free market is one where consumers and businesses negotiate over goods. Businesses largely are destroying the free market, now consumers want the government to do the same for their choice?

I'm sorry to say, but if you can't download the software yourself, don't complain. It's Microsoft's software. It's not Opera's or Mozillas.

How about I advertise my business on your lawn? Apparantly, none of you will mind if I do that without your permission?

This is what will happen due to this. Just watch. I personally can't wait when the people for this type of thing have the EU put signs advertising businesses ON THEIR FRONT LAWN.

This type of thing breaks down laws making people's things their own private property. Microsoft's software is their's, but now it's also Mozilla's and Opera's. You guys have taken a nice big step towards everything being the peoples property. Congrats.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

My support would go to the original solution. The EU thinks that the presence of IE is unfair. Fine. Microsoft offered that version 7 E would have no IE8. End of compliance. The choice of browser is left up to the consumer or the manufacturer of the computer.

Microsoft went through this once before and removed Windows Media Player from the OS... Guess what... they couldn't sell it.

The EU supposedly wants a level playing field... fine, remove IE8 from Windows 7 and the playing field has been leveled. Any user will have to do something to install the browser of their choice.

But that's not what Opera is insisting upon... they not only want competitive browsers advertised in the OS, they want Microsoft to be banned from using the Blue "E" logo.

The real point here is that the EU starts this crap, costing American companies millions of dollars and in the end, the people of Europe won't buy the crippled versions. They have no difficulty in acquiring full US versions of the software, just as they did when the EU made Microsoft remove WMP.



Ron Barry said:


> First off Larry.. What would you proposal? Keep IE8 on the desktop and let people update to their browser of choice or leave no browser on the desktop and then provide a user with the ability to download IE8 and then they can download their browser of choice or get some CD or flash drive to install the browser of choice (The CD and Flash options I would consider too high threshold to be acceptable solutions to the issue).
> 
> I think given the prominent position a browser takes in the consumer market today that if the market demands choice (EU appears to feel strongly on this issue) it is not too much to ask the largest OS vendor to provide choice in the most easy way it can. What you described I personally would consider acceptable as a consumer.
> 
> ...


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Ship it without.. sell disk full of browsers for 39.95 :lol:


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> The vast majority of computer users have no idea what FTP even means, let alone how to use it.


Giving a new user instructions on how to use FTP is akin to what has been proposed.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

I would be cool with the no browser solution and let the PC guys either offer up a choice or provide options and let the user decide. That would similar to user choice option though I do still like providing a user choice as it could easily be rolled into the US as I think it should be.

If this was done 5 years back when the PC manufactures actually cared what their users desired I think the landscape of the Browser Market would be a lot better. The Browser market basically froze for 5 years and in my opinion it was because of the dominance created by pre-loading IE6.

As for costing American companies money, I seriously doubt this feature would run in the millions of dollars and given the pain MS has done to the Web Development community having to deal with years of a poorly implemented browser I think providing the consumer a choice at install is the least they can do to make up for the multi-millions of dollars they have cost companies both in the US and world wide.

As for the WMP, Have any links to articles that talk about the effects it has had. I am sure it would be a interesting read.



LarryFlowers said:


> My support would go to the original solution. The EU thinks that the presence of IE is unfair. Fine. Microsoft offered that version 7 E would have no IE8. End of compliance. The choice of browser is left up to the consumer or the manufacturer of the computer.
> 
> Microsoft went through this once before and removed Windows Media Player from the OS... Guess what... they couldn't sell it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Zellio said:


> Wow... You guys don't get it do you? The main issue that defenders of this type of law don't get is that this goes against the fabric of a free market! People like you complain that you don't have freedom of choice, well I'm sorry to say, *but having the government make your choice for you is less free market and more like communist russia!*


Sorry but I do get it though my opinion my be different than yours. I have worked developing and using consumer based apps for a very long time and I am well aware of what MS did to obtain their marketshare.

MS has a unique position of being both an App provider and the a dominant OS provider. By being this this position should work to provide a level playing field in the areas it competes both at an OS and App level. To me pre-loading your Browser is not providing a level playing field. Same goes with using hidden OS APIs on your DB server to gain competitive advantage. This position allows MS is to easily do things like bundle MSMoney, hide the cost in the OS, and take out Quicken. These type of practices even in a free market should be discouraged and laws should be put in place to prevent such practices. It is these type of practices that got MS in hot water a number of years back.

Let me give a real world example here in the US that I have ran across each day.. I work for a company that has two type of markets that we do business in. We are a dominant player in one market and do well in the other. We could do much better if we could leverage the data from the two sides of our business, but there is regulations in place that prevent us from doing it and are in place to provide a level playing field for the companies participating.

The browser issue here in my opinion is not about free market and whether MS should be able to do what ever they want to do with its assets. To me it is much more complicated and one has to consider the OS/App aspect to the issue, browser history, and the effects history has played on today's environment.

Well I am sure I am not going to convince you and I am not trying to. It is my opinion as you have yours.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Zellio said:


> Wow... You guys don't get it do you? The main issue that defenders of this type of law don't get is that this goes against the fabric of a free market! People like you complain that you don't have freedom of choice, well I'm sorry to say, *but having the government make your choice for you is less free market and more like communist russia!*


The government is not making a choice or forcing anyone to choose any specific product. A group of governments is telling a monopolistic behemoth that it must offer a choice to their customers.

I second the desire to see this expand to the U.S. and Canada and all other markets.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

While it probably never happen, it would be kinda funny if MS told the EU to piss off, no more windows for you. :lol:


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

SayWhat? said:


> The government is not making a choice or forcing anyone to choose any specific product. A group of governments is telling a monopolistic behemoth that it must offer a choice to their customers.
> 
> I second the desire to see this expand to the U.S. and Canada and all other markets.


The only example of a monopoly that anyone can give is the fact that people use IE more then anyone. So they now want the OS to come with software that people don't use because others don't like the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly DUE TO CHOICE.

Again, this doesn't add choice, it take it away.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Here are the facts:

A majority of people use IE.

When presented with these facts, people deny that people may just want to use IE, they act like these people are stupid and need the choices on their OS.

When the same results come back, what are you guys going to do then?

It's funny, you say you are adding choices, when your simply insulting people who use IE because it's not your browser.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Above all else, lets bring to mind that a monopoly means lack of consumer choice, not the BS people try to make it out to be, and that a free browser market is nowhere near a true monopoly.

It should also be mentioned that you paid for browsers before Windows 98, when Microsoft added IE, and other browsers hd to become free to compete (Which btw, Opera was also pay for originally). So who exactly is the monopoly here?

Microsoft made the browser market free! You should be thanking them, but instead you guys seem to want to make the browser market a pay for market again.

Lets mention this again: If Microsoft hadn't bundled IE into their OS, you would be having to pay for Mozilla and Opera, and the browser market would not be as fierce as it is today.

It hilarious that people in this topic are defending a company (Opera) who would rather have you buy their software then have real competition.

And I will say this, continue on with these illogical ideas and you'll make the browser market into a pay market again. And this won't be from the 'M$' you guys hate so much, it'll be from Opera and Google.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

another fun part of this is when average people just pick one and then call for suport.. I'm sure microsoft is not gonna suport them all.. also the pc manufacturers won't either..


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

The funny part about arguments like this is they always boil down to the fact that maybe, just maybe, people *choose* IE because that is their *choice*, and people who argue that Microsoft is a monopoly don't like that choice and don't want to think people would ever choose IE.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Zellio said:


> The funny part about arguments like this is they always boil down to the fact that maybe, just maybe, people *choose* IE because that is their *choice*


Hardly.

You're talking about the same lot of people who would like to not run AIM, YIM, and a handful of other startup programs automatically when their computer starts up, but they haven't a clue as to how to make that happen.

They install a new HP printer by clicking OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, and then seem amazed that their PC now takes twice as long to startup and their default image viewers have suddenly changed.

They also run the the Yahoo, Google, MSN, and Yahoo IE toolbars concurrently, and when asked about how they all got there they say, "They just showed up there one day. Can you get rid of them?"

They don't "choose" IE.
They simply don't know how to choose anything else.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Marlin Guy said:


> Hardly.
> 
> You're talking about the same lot of people who would like to not run AIM, YIM, and a handful of other startup programs automatically when their computer starts up, but they haven't a clue as to how to make that happen.
> 
> ...


Unless you have valid data supporting your ASSumptions, I would stop stereotyping people.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> Hardly.
> 
> You're talking about the same lot of people who would like to not run AIM, YIM, and a handful of other startup programs automatically when their computer starts up, but they haven't a clue as to how to make that happen.
> 
> ...


Well said...


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Marlin Guy said:


> Hardly.
> 
> You're talking about the same lot of people who would like to not run AIM, YIM, and a handful of other startup programs automatically when their computer starts up, but they haven't a clue as to how to make that happen.
> 
> ...


 yep, now they can do that and have 6 browsers installed :eek2::lol:


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Well said...


I can see that the crowd here likes emotions rather then logics and data, if that was well said.

Nice to see guys saying that the 56% of people or so using IE are like this. You of course have no proof, just an emotional hatred of Microsoft.

BTW guys, I'm a technical person, and I love IE. Can you explain that?

I have had experience with dos, Windows, Linux, OSX. I used AOL in the mid 90's to early mellinium, I used AOL's browser, I've used Firefox, Opera, IE, Netscape, Safari, and a few small ones in the late 90s.

I have programmed Linux systems, not just Ubuntu, but Red Hat, and Slackware.

My favorite brwser currently is IE.

And it is my choice, sorry to say.


----------



## rebkell (Sep 9, 2006)

Zellio said:


> I can see that the crowd here likes emotions rather then logics and data, if that was well said.
> 
> Nice to see guys saying that the 56% of people or so using IE are like this. You of course have no proof, just an emotional hatred of Microsoft.
> 
> ...


No, I can't explain that. I got tired of all the security leaks that IE had constantly over the years, I pretty well switched to Firefox for about 95% of my browsing. I still use IE on occasion, mainly because so many sites were too lazy to make sure their sites were compliant and only IE would work correctly.

MSFT pretty well had a monopoly and the clout to force certain things on the manufacturers and used their dominant OS position to do whatever they pleased. They've done a lot of good things, but they have never played by any rules other than their own, standards were established and they just created their own and since they owned the operating system they pretty well created their own and used their position to force others to conform to their ways.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

SayWhat? said:


> The vast majority of computer users have no idea what FTP even means, let alone how to use it.


WooHoo, I'm in the majority.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Zellio said:


> I can see that the crowd here likes emotions rather then logics and data, if that was well said.
> 
> Nice to see guys saying that the 56% of people or so using IE are like this. You of course have no proof, just an emotional hatred of Microsoft.
> 
> ...


And there are others like you that prefer IE, but I challenge you to walk around a group of developers, poll them, and see what their choice is. From my experience, IE is not even top 3. And you don't need to take my word for it.. Go to WC3's website and look at their states. You will see that FF is almost 50% of their traffic. Why such a high number. It is because the type people that go to this site.

Another piece of data... I have not looked at the OS market numbers but late use the number of say 80% of desktops run on Windows while their share is much less? If it was such a great browser why would people even think of others given it is right there with 0% effort to use it.

Also, another piece of data is when did IE become dominant. Was it before or after it was bundled. Well short answer is after.. Before it did not do well.

As to the making the market free. Yes it did do that it also froze the market for almost 5 years (look when IE6 was released and when IE7 was released). Once it took a huge dominant position that it obtained via pre-loads and bundling it made no sense for any company to build a browser. What changed this was the explosion of open source software.

Another piece of data, In terms of moving the browser market experience, IE has done little in this area. Safari, FireFox and other browsers have all contributed, IE has simple duplicate the features. FF, Safari, and Chrome have all push the level of JS engines allowing RIA applications to be richer. IE has moved towards more standard based compliance which is good but compared to the other offering it still is playing catch up. In terms of unique features, once again the others have lead the way while IE mainly has followed the path. Is there even one feature in the last 2 years that IE has pioneered.

Browsers are a personal choice and I expect people to choose the one they like the best and I am not going to try to persuade people from choosing mine. It is my opinion that IE reached it position because pre-loading and bundling based on the above. Sure some people use IE because it is their browser of choice, but these people are in the minority in my opinion. Most use IE because it is there and one click away. If that icon was changed to FireFox, Opera, Chrome or some other browser the browser that was a click away would be in the position IE is in today.

This is not stereotyping, this is my opinion based on living and working during the browser wars and I believe the data above supports my opinion.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

RobertE said:


> While it probably never happen, it would be kinda funny if MS told the EU to piss off, no more windows for you. :lol:


I like this idea. The quicker we can get rid of Windows, the better.

The world needs an OS that isn't a hodgepodge of partial backwards compatibility and proprietary monkeybusiness. What the world doesn't really need is another company to sue.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

MS should include Mosaic in the list of choices, and Lynx!


----------



## kfcrosby (Dec 17, 2006)

bobnielsen said:


> MS should include Mosaic in the list of choices, and Lynx!












I still have a copy of it around here somewhere......


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

The thing is that this doesn't really change anything. Most people either buy a new computer or at most do an inplace upgrade. IE will still be there in those situations.

If we go with Opera's recommendations we'd also have to make sure that the list is randomly created so that the first option isn't always the same. 

IE is not the invulnerable browser in terms of marketshare. Firefox has proven this. Opera is just mad that they still are a very low minority. At least you can install another browser. Good luck installing one on the iPhone. They allow a few browsers, but all based on Safari.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

LarryFlowers said:


> OK Folks, once again this thread has been highjacked.
> 
> My point here was that the EU is out of control.


So it's more of a political statement, and the relevance to MS and computing is only offered as an example of your overall disgust with the way the EU does things?

Then perhaps the entire topic belongs in the OT section.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

LarryFlowers said:


> Someone provide me with a valid reason why Microsoft should have to promote their competitors applications? Why should they do Opera's job for them when Opera has so obviously failed to do what FireFox so successfully achieved in competing for browser share?
> 
> Importantly, is the EU unfairly promoting a European product?


To avoid rat-holing the discussion into browser security(lots of opinions and data supporting whose more vulnerable), I will suppress my comments regarding that topic and stick to the one at hand being the "why MS should promote competitors applications".

Well I thought my previous posts made the point but I will try again.. I believe there is two points here. One is Opera wanting this and the other is the real issue of leveraging a dominant position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another.

I don't think this issue is about promotiing other people's applications. It is about addressing the issues of a vendor holding a 80+ OS market share in one market and using that advantage in another key marketspace (Browser market) to gain an unfair advantage. I believe the EU is trying to address that issue and Opera is obviously being the most vocal about it.

To me.. that is a valid reason for requesting an option during the install or on initial bootup and it has nothing to do with Opera. MS is in a unique position of being both the dominant platform delivery vendor and also competing in the browser market. They need to be careful in terms of bundling and this is one area where providing user choice during install makes sense and should have happened 5 years ago.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

If they want them to ship it without a browser then they should treat it like every other program.. Just leave it out and make the coustomer get their own..

Next they'll have to ship with ads/links to corel,norton,mcaffe,.............


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

What's the big deal about browsers. Everybody gives them away.

I agree that declaring the browser to be an essential part of the operating system was just Bravo Sierra. What did that Microsoft really gain from doing this? Was it just a move to fortify their corporate ego? Was it a move to crush Netscape before they became too big to challenge Microsoft on other fronts?

Those other non integrated browsers all run just fine as stand alone alone applications with Windows OS; it's not like Microsoft absolutely forces you to use IE. So is the EU moving to deflate Microsoft ego or are all of those fines and sanctions a Euro-Shakedown? 

Anyway, it's not rocket science to write a small automated FTP application that fetches your browser of choice, provided 'as is', by those publishers who want participate in program. Call that a cost of doing business.

Just to be 'clean and green' I'd put IE at the end of the choice list. 

--- CHAS


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Ron Barry said:


> To avoid rat-holing the discussion into browser security(lots of opinions and data supporting whose more vulnerable), I will suppress my comments regarding that topic and stick to the one at hand being the "why MS should promote competitors applications".
> 
> Well I thought my previous posts made the point but I will try again.. I believe there is two points here. One is Opera wanting this and the other is the real issue of leveraging a dominant position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another.
> 
> ...


And what 'unfair advantage' does Microsoft have? Why can't any of have a decent answer?

If people don't know what these alternative browsers are, then why would they pick them if they were on the OS?

This goes beyond monopolies. You hippies want to punish a company for the simple fact that people use them more.

You haven't given any reason how IE is being used as unfair competition, all you hippies say is that more people download it, and if Opera or Firefox wanted to compete, they can easily make their browser better.

This again takes away from a free market. There is consumer choice, it's called downloading the program.

I'm sorry but this is ludicrious. You guys sound like the same wackos who would walk into Mcdonalds and demand that they carry Burger King products simply because people are eating more McDonalds burgers at McDonalds.

This is all it boils down to. You guys are mad because people who buy Microsoft's product use their utilities more then anyone else. I don't see any whining about how a majority of Apple buyers use Apple utitlies, of course I would if Apple had a majority of sales...

It Is Microsoft's product. If you want other competition download it.

Again, answer how people who you guys say wouldn't know to download other browsers would suddenly know the difference if it was included on a OS?


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Here is also something people haven't thought about:

The complaining here is about browsers. But what about other programs?

If we go by the logic here, is it fair that Microsoft includes free paint programs? What about calculators? What about free games?

Should it be fair that Windows comes with 50 terabytes of crapware/freeware all because some people *can't take it* when others want to use what comes with *the OS they bought*?

If you guys are so concerned about what free programs Microsoft gives people and such, maybe you should just use this:


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Zellio said:


> And what 'unfair advantage' does Microsoft have? Why can't any of have a decent answer?
> 
> If people don't know what these alternative browsers are, then why would they pick them if they were on the OS?
> 
> ...


First off.. putting my moderator hat on.. Stop with the name calling. It is against the rules and you did it at least twice here. Make your points and let others make theirs. Don't tell me why I am mad.. I am actually not mad, just providing my point of view and obviously one you disagree with and I am cool with that but stop calling people wackos etc..

I suggest doing a little reading up on the history of how MS got where they were including pre-loading, the lawsuits they were involved in, etc and perhaps your opinion might change.

As for given reasons.. Why? reasons from some have been given and ignored.. If you don't understand the difference in terms of cost of entry between clicking on a option box on install and having to download and install the application then there is no reason to discuss further. There is an obvious difference and that difference is why IE has the market-share it does in my opinion.

I also hold the opinion that any adjustment at this point most likely will not have a big impact as people have become use to clicking the IE icon and most likely will choose it as the option, but the choice in my opinion should still be there.

As for competing and making a better browser arguments... As the Op requested to stay on topic I will. Browsers are not utilities, they are very significant applications and choice should be offered by All OS vendors and especially the one that has 80% of the market and also competes in this space.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Ron Barry said:


> I suggest doing a little reading up on the history of how MS got where they were including pre-loading, the lawsuits they were involved in, etc and perhaps your opinion might change.


I don't need to read up on history. I was on AOL in the mid 90's, on a 486 dx laptop. I had a 386 and a 486 desktop. I USED the first version of IE, and thought it was crap.

My friends all used Netscape. Netscape Navigator 3.0 was one of the best browsers ever. Then Netscape made Navigator 4.0 and it was crap.

Me and my friends, esp. the ones on sites I visited about technology, turned to IE.

I know the history. I was there when Netscape was dominant, and when people turned. The history of IE's dominance was based on choice, and Netscape 4.0 being crap.

Where were you?

You know, seriously, you guys may wanna ask the people who turned from Netscape why they turned to IE. There is a reason it's been long called 'NutScrape', and that isn't because IE was made into a monopoly.

WE made IE a monopoly because we choose. Maybe you guys should stop stereotyping and judging and read history yourselves.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

And lets let something be known: I didn't even touch IE beyond a few seconds before version 4.0. I didn't use IE extensively until the Nutscrape 4.0 debacle, and I switched to IE 5.0.

All of my friends were the same way.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

I haven't used IE since FF came out.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

And lets make one final thing clear: At the day of IE 6, Firefox rose due to choice as well. Rose quickly too.

My friends and I all turned to Firefox.

At the height of Firefox popularity, website data showed nearly half the people used it.

This was before IE7, and IE 8, which I prefer for many reasons.

If another browser comes along and blows me away I'll switch again.

It's quite simple people. Choice has dictated the browser market. Anybody who has LIVED thru the history of the browser market can tell you that.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Zellio said:


> I don't need to read up on history. I was on AOL in the mid 90's, on a 486 dx laptop. I had a 386 and a 486 desktop. I USED the first version of IE, and thought it was crap.
> 
> My friends all used Netscape. Netscape Navigator 3.0 was one of the best browsers ever. Then Netscape made Navigator 4.0 and it was crap.
> 
> ...


Well then you should remember the pre-loading strong arming that MS used during those days. How MS required hardware manufactures to pay for a version of the OS even if they did not load it on the hardware. How IE then bundled IE into the OS to gain that dominance. Guess we are going to have to disagree, but if you ask people why they use IE most will say because it is right there on my desktop and it does the job. That is way I feel the browser companies have an argument and a good one at that.

Yes I was there then when Netscape had issues. IE was not a walk in the park either and it was during those days that IE was breaking standards left and right so that web sites would only work on IE and the Internet and corporations are littered with IE only web sites causing companies not to be able to move to more standards based web browsers.

Graduated in 87 as a software engineer and have been using PC, browsers, etc since then. I lived in corporate during those times and I heard and saw why people used this browser vs that one. I also have developed web apps long enough in the corporate world to have enough experience to know why corporations are stuck where they are in terms of browsers installs and the cost that IE6 and brought on the community because of these so called enhancements.

These and many more reasons are why I am perfectly fine with MS being pushed to offer choice. They should and personally I think they made the right decision. IT is good for their customers and good PR...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Zellio said:


> I was on AOL in the mid 90's, on a 486 dx laptop.


Ah, AOL. The service handed down by the Almighty himself. Clearly you and Al Gore invented the Internet.

Are you sure you were using IE or maybe you were using the AOL perversion?

IE has gone through many periods of suckage and IE4 was among the worst (actually, all even numbered versions pretty much sucked and blew). I use IE6 now because they (webmasters frustrated by having to support each browser version separately) have pretty much cut out IE5.5 and I need the drag and drop FTP capability.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

harsh said:


> Ah, AOL. The service handed down by the Almighty himself. Clearly you and Al Gore invented the Internet.
> 
> Are you sure you were using IE or maybe you were using the AOL perversion?
> 
> IE has gone through many periods of suckage and IE4 was among the worst (actually, all even numbered versions pretty much sucked and blew). I use IE6 now because they (webmasters frustrated by having to support each browser version separately) have pretty much cut out IE5.5 and I need the drag and drop FTP capability.


In the mid 90's I did. I know AOL had a method of accessing the internet, by the time Netscape came I out I used that.

And yes, I did use IE itself. I mentioned AOL in the mid 90's because when browsers matured I was using the browser themselves.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Ron Barry said:


> Well then you should remember the pre-loading strong arming that MS used during those days. How MS required hardware manufactures to pay for a version of the OS even if they did not load it on the hardware. How IE then bundled IE into the OS to gain that dominance. Guess we are going to have to disagree, but if you ask people why they use IE most will say because it is right there on my desktop and it does the job. That is way I feel the browser companies have an argument and a good one at that.
> 
> Yes I was there then when Netscape had issues. IE was not a walk in the park either and it was during those days that IE was breaking standards left and right so that web sites would only work on IE and the Internet and corporations are littered with IE only web sites causing companies not to be able to move to more standards based web browsers.
> 
> ...


Yeah I do. Microsoft was pretty bad then. They would go as far as to colaborate on projects with other companies and steal their ideas!

And yes, integrating IE with Windows hurt Netscape, but what killed Netscape, and made most of us disgruntled Nutscrape 'fans', was Navigator 4.0.

We left for IE not because it was good, but because Navigator 4 sucked. I can't say Microsoft was good, but I disagree that IE became a monopoly because of Microsoft.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> and it was during those days that IE was breaking standards left and right so that web sites would only work on IE and the Internet and corporations are littered with IE only web sites causing companies not to be able to move to more standards based web browsers.


As far as I'm concerned, I don't need a website like that. Many retail websites have lost my business for that reason.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

SayWhat? said:


> As far as I'm concerned, I don't need a website like that. Many retail websites have lost my business for that reason.


Oh, this is something I more then agree with you. Microsoft should've never done that.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Zellio said:


> ...I disagree that IE became a monopoly because of Microsoft.


This is obviously were we disagree, but so I am clear and this is why I hold the position I do... I never said IE got its dominant position because of MS.

In my opinion (Pre-FireFox) IE got it dominant position because of two things.

1) MS bundled it with the OS producing a no hassle free way to browse the net. 
2) At the time Netscape was based on a purchase model, without revenue it could not continue developing and faded. It tried but a the same time if I recall skipped a beat and could not recover. The 64K question is could this of happened if MS never bundled IE. I think the answer would be no.

MS then slowed down the browser development as the main competitor could not compete as it had no way of getting revenue based on the current software industry landscape.

This to me is how MS got up to 85% market share... What has changed since is opensource software exploded as an alternative and it has allowed companies to produce competitive products like FireFox.

In the end... A number of years back when this came up during the lawsuits, I believe MS should have been forced to go this route but was not. Today like I said I think it is too late but I guess better late than never. 

You obviously see it differently and nothing wrong with that.. Guess we should agree to disagree and watch to see if this change as any effect. My guess is it won't and it this is not because people love IE, it would in my opinion be because people are now just use to using it and like I have heard 1000 times when I asked why they use IE over the alternatives and 99% of the time the answer is along the lines.... "It does the job and it right there on my desktop."


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Zellio said:


> And lets make one final thing clear: At the day of IE 6, Firefox rose due to choice as well. Rose quickly too.
> 
> My friends and I all turned to Firefox.
> 
> ...


You're seeing the entire market through the narrow view that is your own unique experience.
The fact remains that there is an overwhelming majority of users who have no clue as to what the alternative browser choices are, or how easily they can be obtained and implemented. There was a knowledge bubble up until about 1999-2000 wherein computers were still curious novelties to enough people that many of us were hungry to know all we could about how they worked and how to make them work better for us.
At that time, yes, users knew enough to make changes and give decent market share to non-IE browsers.
That's simply not true anymore.
Computers are becoming more and more like appliances. Since the next generation is having access to them from birth, there is no real curiosity about how they work. Reliability improvements in operating systems have served to reinforce the appliance perception. 
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Look back through industrial history and you can draw parallels with other devices we have developed and perfected over time.
Because of less reliable components and a lack of disposable income, I used to do most of my own automobile service work. Therefore, I now know a great deal more than my children do about how cars work and how to fix them when they break down.
My '71 Cutlass, '76 pickup, and my '86 pickup kept me under the hood and knowledgeable for quite some time.
My newer vehicles have gone 150,000 miles with no more effort from me than driving them through the Jiffy Lube.
I could change the oil myself, but it's only because I've been there and done that.
The next generation hasn't a clue.

The same thing applies to computers.
The masses are being dumbed down by system reliability and improvements. I'm not using the term in a derogatory fashion. I'm simply pointing out the realities of today's computing public.

Given your statement regarding switching if another browser blows you away, I would even go so far as to say that your views have become more restricted over time, and that you yourself are slipping back into the blissful ignorance which dominates the IE user base.

Anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, who has used IE7/8 alongside Firefox 3.x with Adblock Plus, and who still cannot see the Firefox advantages, cannot be saved. :nono:


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> That's simply not true anymore.
> Computers are becoming more and more like appliances. Since the next generation is having access to them from birth, there is no real curiosity about how they work.


Disturbingly, PCs are becoming not much more than portals to various gaming sites, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, et al.

::sigh::


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

+1 on Marlin Guy's post... This is one of the main reason why I believe that even if something is done now in terms of an attempt to level the playing field that it won't make a big difference in the mix. There has been too much time to create a mindset given that most people of today see PCs as appliances and in a lot of cases they are. Don't get me wrong, I still think the industry should move in this direction but I am sorry to say I feel it is about 5 years too late.

Anyone that thinks that Browser's are not significant should look at where MS is going with Word. What Google is doing. Biggest buzz technology is Cloud computing. All these things feed into Browser as your OS philosophy. 

For this generation to blossom a level playing field needs to be provided where Browser manufactures can compete on providing the best standardized solutions in both allowing full featured RIA applications along side cool Web sites that deliver a rich user experience no matter what browser you are using. 

There will be a day where IE6 finally dies and all will rejoice. Hopefully then all browser manufactures will be competing in a level playing field and over time the one that delivers the most reliable and feature rich experience will win. 

Just as a Data point, my company has moved to developing Flex apps and one of the main reasons is a rich desktop experience in browser agnostic environment. 5 years ago, it was acceptable to be IE only. Today it is no and customers are requesting both Firefox and Apply support. To me this is good signs that the key here is portability, the EU goals that i see here also drives to this goal though my guess is there motives might be for other reasons.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

In the desktop arena, an OS without some basic utilities is dead on arrival. Paint, wordpad, notebook, file explorer, and calculator are some of the basics an OS just gotta have.

And many people sold more advanced tools: Lotus, Visicalc, Excel, Word, Wordstar, etc., etc., etc.

When it became clear MS would use their application knowledge to help their OS and more importanly their OS knowledge to help their applications have an unfair advantage, Microsoft was required to completely separate the teams. All publications of info to the Application teams had to be truly public to all application vendors simultaneously.

So Gopher came about. That didn't last long. 

And along came Mosaic, Netscape, and IE. Microsoft quickly realized the power of the Web (just as they had realized the power of the Windowing environment invented by Xerox PARC). 

So Microsoft tried to claim the browser was "The UI", hence a required part of the OS. In reality, it isn't nearly as all inclusive as Microsoft claimed it was (or at least they didn't make it so.)

So is it a "basic OS" utility or advanced application? Now, if Microsoft had two versions, like IE and IEpad, or IE works and IE, the incarnations would be clear. But they don't. 

At this point in time, I guess I'm satisfied that Microsoft has been granted a gray area. Browsing is a basic utility, but the market also needs opportunities for other advanced applications to compete.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> In the desktop arena, an OS without some basic utilities is dead on arrival. Paint, wordpad, notebook, file explorer, and calculator are some of the basics an OS just gotta have.


Hogwash!

The O/S doesn't need to have all these bells and whistles. It only stifles innovation. If Microsoft didn't include them, there would be dozens of options and many, if not all of them would be superior.

Leave the "essentials" to the system builders. Microsoft hasn't demonstrated a particularly good stewardship in this area.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

harsh said:


> Hogwash!
> 
> The O/S doesn't need to have all these bells and whistles. It only stifles innovation. If Microsoft didn't include them, there would be dozens of options and many, if not all of them would be superior.
> 
> Leave the "essentials" to the system builders. Microsoft hasn't demonstrated a particularly good stewardship in this area.


Yes, things like Dos certainly 'helped innovation' when companies and people spent more time finding programs and hacking configuration files then doing anything....

And if you want to talk about leaving essentials to system builders (Which I guess means ignore anyone who builds their own pc, or buys a new OS), you mean make it more difficult for them to put the same programs back on? Because it would esp. cost businesses and such more money to teach people different programs.

Nobody has given a valid reason why OS's shouldn't have these beyond making things more difficult for people who buy OS's and whining because Microsoft has extras.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

For everybody in the topic who argues that OS's shouldn't have bells and whistles:

Stop listening to mp3s on your pc. You have a radio to do that. If not get one, it's a bell and whistle right?

Stop using word processing software and go use a typewriter.

Stop printing things digitally and write it out.

The point is, there are alot of things today that aren't exactly NEEDED, but are helpful to have. And this entire argument that computer programs don't need bells and whistles is *completely idiotic and goes against the complete foundation that computers have had when they replaced radios, type writers, etc.*

Computer systems have LONG been about bells and whistles. Computer systems have been meant to replace a large number of things. Computer systems are supposed to do the widest amount of things possible, and computer software goes by that same premises.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Hell, in all honesty, your computer isn't a requirement for your survival, neither is any of this electrical stuff, so why not go live in a cave and use a stick to get food?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Zellio said:


> For everybody in the topic who argues that OS's shouldn't have bells and whistles:
> 
> Stop listening to mp3s on your pc. You have a radio to do that. If not get one, it's a bell and whistle right?
> 
> ...


The point is that those things don't need to be included in the OS. An OS doesn't need to be any more that just that, an OS, a basic program to make the machine run other programs. All the other stuff is fluff, bloatware.

There are dozens of free calculators, music players, video players, readers, browsers, word processors, games and other programs and utilities. Let ME choose what I want.

Remember the KISS philosophy ...... Keep It Simple, Stupid.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

SayWhat? said:


> The point is that those things don't need to be included in the OS. An OS doesn't need to be any more that just that, an OS, a basic program to make the machine run other programs. All the other stuff is fluff, bloatware.
> 
> There are dozens of free calculators, music players, video players, readers, browsers, word processors, games and other programs and utilities. Let ME choose what I want.
> 
> Remember the KISS philosophy ...... Keep It Simple, Stupid.


Considering you use your pc for everything from communicating to people at any one moment, to watching movies, playing games, downloading stuff, word processing, animation, buying stuff, nutrition, weight measurement, so on and so forth... The KISS philosophy doesn't belong in the computer realm.

Again, you guys may want to go live in a cave. That is keep it simple, stupid. That is KISS in a nutshell.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

You know, in all honesty, in the days of dos only us real geeks were into computers. Sometimes people laughed at us, at our geekdom.

The only reason more people use it is due to computers being what they should be. And sorry to say, computers were never meant to be black and green with everything typed on a keyboard, they were meant to replace everything you do.

The reason computers are so popular today is because they do anything you want, and that includes the OS. It's helpful. There are a few programs I would rather download then use, but sorry to say, I'd rather have a majority of the stuff that is on Windows on it.

If some of you guys were decision makers, 99% of you guys wouldn't be on this forum. It would be back to only those who knew what they were doing did it, and as a person who has been thru that time as a child, I'm glad it's over.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

And lets be clear here:

Maybe MS paint is a cheap as hell program (Which actually, the windows 7 version isn't bad). Unless I need a good image editing program, if all I am doing is adding text or shrinking pics to a different resolution, do I NEED another program?

Calculator... The Win 7 and Vista versions are decent, but it still pales to a graphing calculator. And guess what? Still gets the job done unless you are doing high level math.

Notepad? Wordpad? More or less 'office 2007 lite'. And guess what? Unless I need office 2007 (Which I do), why should I not have the program?

You guys are talking an OS, but this is a program you buy. And this is the first program that is installed on your pc. Saying it should simply run other program is a ludicrous argument, because taking away stuff preinstalled simply hurt others.

Whats most hilarious of all is that people are basically suggesting that Microsoft include other competitors products while saying an OS shouldn't have bells and whistles. Should it come with Norton as well guys?

*Perhaps you guys would rather have all of the Microsoft stuff included with Windows replaced by adware, trialware, and crapware that is usually found in any pre-built machine?*

I think the point of all of this guys, is that you are busy telling consumers what their best interests should be, when really, these programs are helpful. Guess what? Calculator and paint programs are a dime a dozen, why would I need to download something else to have the same type of thing because you guys hate Microsoft?

You guys are ignoring what consumers who use the OS (Like me) say and still try to argue that you care about consumers. The reality is all you guys want to do is hate Microsoft, and the people have spoken, rather you like it or not.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

In all honesty, why does it even matter to you if I use MS Paint, or MS calculator? I mean I could find any free program and have the exact same thing, so why does it matter so much? It's my choice.

Why would you guys want to force everyone to download another program when these programs work perfectly fine unless you need something else? Are you guys so desperate to stop seeing the Windows label on all software apps?

Your ideas aren't adding to choices. Your ideas are Microsoft bashes without actually looking at what customers want. Your ideas TAKE AWAY CHOICE.

And again, I see nobody whining when people who buy an Apple pc use what Apple adds to their OS.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

The point of an operating system is to facilitate the operation of useful software, not to include marginal examples of same.

If developing good software for the operating system is so difficult that simple tools are prohibitively difficult to create, maybe there is a place for quick and dirty tools to accomplish basic needs. Apple is guilty of this in a big way as well.

In the grand scheme, an operating system should probably include a minimal screen oriented plaintext editor and something that will view (and possibly convert) text files from other platforms. To provide much more is to step on the toes of people writing real applications.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

I'll take improved versions of Paint, NotePad, WordPad, and the Calculator. I use these regularly. They don't bog down or bloat the actual operating system; they are not part of the kernel.

So why all the hullabaloo? They are just nice extras that obviously are not meant to compete with full fledged industrial strength applications. Use them if you want or delete them if they are wasting too much space on your terabyte hard drive.

--- CHAS


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Moderator Note.... 

In respect for the Op post, this thread is not utilities delivered on Windows and their value.. It is about the EU wanting Windows to provide browser choice with their OS delivery. 

Lets try and keep to the subject as much as possible.


----------



## Sackchamp56 (Nov 10, 2006)

I thinks this whole issue is absurd. Windows does not block users from downloading and using whatever browser they want. It comes with IE because it is a Microsoft pproduct. If you want to use Safari go download it. I cant believe they are wasting their time worrying about this.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

It's obvious MS and the EU don't like eachother. They've been fighting for years and MS decided it wasn't worth the PR battle.

To the other comments well it's history but I remember when compuserve and AOL were bundled with Netscape not IE and they were the largest ISP's in America at the time. Millions of people used Netscape and went away from it.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

We obviously wondered off-topic here. I have created a thread to discuss why the Browser market died for a while. If you want to discuss that, please use the thread below.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=162477

If you want to discuss the topic in this thread... MS wimping out to the EU, please do but stay away from how IE obtained its dominance unless it is related to the EU topic.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Ron Barry said:


> If you want to discuss the topic in this thread... MS wimping out to the EU, please do but stay away from how IE obtained its dominance unless it is related to the EU topic.


I'm not sure how the two can be separated. The subject of how IE rose to dominance would surely be the spotlight element of the penalty phase if Microsoft chose to fight the ruling.

That Microsoft negotiated an alternative is fact and not really a topic of discussion. Their options were to cave now or cave in later after another gargantuan fine was levied. The European Commission sees itself as being on a pretty righteous roll and I don't think Microsoft has any illusions that they are going to be convinced otherwise.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Well the posts I took out basically went down the road of did IE obtain its dominance because of bundling or did this result because Netscape dropped the ball in terms of providing the best browser experience at the time. To me, though related, was enough of a topic on its own to warrant a thread since the discussion that was occurring was not around the impact of the EU regarding this issue but was more centered around what really caused the drop in NS dominance and the raise of IE's dominance.

Hope that clarifies where I felt the line should be drawn and hopefully people will post to the right thread.


----------

